S. HRG. 115–207 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS 

TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 10 and 11, 2017 

Serial No. J–115–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS 

TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–637 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–207 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS 

TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 10 and 11, 2017 

Serial No. J–115–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California,

Ranking Member 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

KOLAN L. DAVIS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JENNIFER DUCK, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 10, 2017, 9:30 A.M., and JANUARY 11, 2017, 9:35 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California: 

January 10, 2017, opening statement ............................................................. 5 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa: 

January 10, 2017, opening statement ............................................................. 2 

January 10, 2017, prepared statement ........................................................... 370 

January 11, 2017, opening statement ............................................................. 153 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont: 

January 10, 2017, opening statement ............................................................. 1 

January 10, 2017, prepared statement ........................................................... 374 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island: 

January 11, 2017, opening statement ............................................................. 154 

PRESENTERS 

Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine presenting 

Hon. Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama and Nominee 

to be Attorney General of the United States ..................................................... 9 

Shelby, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama presenting 

Hon. Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama and Nominee 

to be Attorney General of the United States ..................................................... 8 

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 219 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama and Nominee 

to be Attorney General of the United States ..................................................... 10 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 261 

questionnaire and biographical information .................................................. 221 

attachment I ..................................................................................................... 254 

attachment II .................................................................................................... 256 

attachment III ................................................................................................... 258 

STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ................. 207 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 334 

Brooks, Cornell William, President and Chief Executive Officer, National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Baltimore, Maryland .... 165 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 290 

Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of 

Police, Washington, DC ....................................................................................... 167 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 309 

Cole, David, National Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 169 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 316 

Huntley, Willie J., Jr., former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District 

of Alabama, Mobile, Alabama ............................................................................. 209 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 337 
Page

IV 

Kirsanow, Peter, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Cleveland, 

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 160

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 278 

Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 210 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 342 

Mukasey, Hon. Michael B., former Attorney General, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 157 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 268 

Richmond, Hon. Cedric L., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Louisiana, and Chair, Congressional Black Caucus ..................................... 213 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 349 

Sepich, Jayann, Co-Founder, DNA Saves, Carlsbad, New Mexico ...................... 163 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 284 

Seroyer, Hon. Jesse, Jr., former U.S. Marshal, Middle District of Alabama, 

Montgomery, Alabama ......................................................................................... 212 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 347 

Smith, William, former Chief Counsel, Administrative Oversight and the 

Courts Subcommittee, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 216 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 365 

Swadhin, Amita, Founder, Mirror Memoirs, Los Angeles, California ................. 161 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 281 

Thompson, Hon. Larry, former Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................................................. 170 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 331 

Vazquez, Oscar, former DREAMer, U.S. Army veteran, Fort Worth, Texas ...... 158 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 273 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Hon. Jeff Sessions by: 

Senator Blumenthal ......................................................................................... 375 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Blumenthal ............................... 385 

Senator Coons ................................................................................................... 388 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Coons ......................................... 394 

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 399 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 417 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Feinstein ................................... 440 

Additional follow-up questions submitted by Senator Feinstein .................. 447 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 451 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 452 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Franken ..................................... 473 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 487 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 488 

Senator Hirono .................................................................................................. 494 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Hirono ........................................ 496 

Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 498 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 501 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Leahy ......................................... 522 

Senator Tillis .................................................................................................... 605 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 606 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Hon. Jeff Sessions to questions submitted by: 

Senator Blumenthal ......................................................................................... 615 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Blumenthal ............................... 637 

Senator Coons ................................................................................................... 641 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Coons ......................................... 652 

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 659 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 688 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Feinstein ................................... 725 

Additional follow-up questions submitted by Senator Feinstein .................. 738 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 743 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 744 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Franken ..................................... 760 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 779 
Page

V 

Responses of Hon. Jeff Sessions to questions submitted by—Continued 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 780 

Senator Hirono .................................................................................................. 789 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Hirono ........................................ 792 

Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 796 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 801 

Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Leahy ......................................... 839 

Senator Tillis .................................................................................................... 851 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 852 

LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF 

SESSIONS TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Access Now et al., January 9, 2017 ........................................................................ 1243 

Acosta, Hon. R. Alexander, former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, et al., December 12, 2016 .................... 999 

Acosta, Hon. R. Alexander, former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 

U.S. Department of Justice, et al., December 16, 2016 .................................... 1017 

Adams, Christian, President, Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), Plainfield, Indiana, January 5, 2017 ........................................................................... 867 

Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, January 13, 2017 ................................... 872 

Affinity Bar Associations, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ............................. 877 

African American Ministers In Action (AAMIA), Washington, DC, January 9, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 880

Alliance for Justice, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ....................................... 886 

Alliance for Justice et al., January 9, 2017 ........................................................... 1240 

Amazon Watch et al., January 9, 2017 .................................................................. 1060 

American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED), Washington, 

DC, January 9, 2017 ............................................................................................ 889 

American Association of People with Disabilities, Washington, DC, et al., 

January 10, 2017 .................................................................................................. 970 

American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Washington, DC, December 19, 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 893

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations 

(AFL–CIO), Washington, DC, January 13, 2017 ............................................... 879 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO 

(AFSCME), Washington, DC, January 13, 2017 ............................................... 884 

American Gaming Association (AGA), Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ......... 895 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, 

January 9, 2017, letter ........................................................................................ 897 

Anderson, Kimberly K., former Legislative Counsel to Hon. Jeff Sessions, 

a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, U.S. Senate Committee on 

the Judiciary, et al., January 6, 2017 ................................................................. 1006 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), New York, New York, January 9, 2017 .......... 900 

Armenian Assembly of America, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 .................. 915 

Ashcroft, Hon. John D., former Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

et al., December 5, 2016 ...................................................................................... 1002 

Association of Federal Narcotics Agents (AFNA), Ashburn, Virginia, January 

16, 2017 ................................................................................................................. 917 

Bader, Cheryl, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Fordham University 

School of Law, New York, New York, et al., January 9, 2017 ......................... 1104 

Bennett, Hon. William J., former Director, National Drug Control Policy, 

et al., December 5, 2016 ...................................................................................... 1004 

Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation, 

Washington, DC, January 9, 2016 ...................................................................... 918 

Bouchard, Michael J., Sheriff, Oakland County, Pontiac, MI, and Vice President, Major County Sheriffs’ Association (MCSA), November 18, 2016 .......... 923 

Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Washington, DC, January 6, 2017 ................ 924 

Bus Federation, The, Portland, Oregon, January 9, 2017 .................................... 1220 

California Down Syndrome Advocacy Coalition (CDAC), January 2, 2017 ........ 925 

California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), Sacramento, California, December 20, 2016 .......................................................................................................... 927 

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM), Carmichael, California, 

December 9, 2016 ................................................................................................. 928 

City of Seattle, Washington, Hon. Edward B. Murray, Mayor, et al., January 10, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1116 
Page

VI 

City of West Hollywood, California, Hon. Lauren Meister, Mayor, January 9, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 929

Coalition on Human Needs, Washington, DC, January 10, 2017 ........................ 936 

Cobb, Hon. Sue Bell, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Pike 

Road, Alabama ..................................................................................................... 1045 

Communications Workers of America (CWA), Washington, DC, January 9, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 939

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), Alexandria, Virginia, 

December 21, 2016 ............................................................................................... 941 

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Penny Young 

Nance, Chief Executive Officer and President, et al., January 5, 2017 .......... 931 

Congressional Tri-Caucus: the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional 

Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; 

Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ...................................................................... 942 

Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, January 6, 2017 ......... 947 

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), Washington, DC, 

January 9, 2017 .................................................................................................... 959 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), Towson, Maryland, 

January 5, 2017 .................................................................................................... 960 

Demos, Newton Center, Massachusetts, January 9, 2017 ................................... 963 

Drug Policy Alliance, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ..................................... 973 

Edington, Pat, Mobile, Alabama, January 6, 2017 ............................................... 975 

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Washington, DC, January 9, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 976

Family Research Council (FRC), Washington, DC, January 10, 2017 ................ 981 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), Washington, DC, 

November 28, 2016 .............................................................................................. 982 

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Washington, DC, January 5, 2017 ............................................................................................................ 983 

Feminist Majority Foundation, Beverly Hills, California, and Arlington, 

Virginia, January 6, 2017 .................................................................................... 985 

Fishback, Ian, Major, U.S. Army, Retired, January 10, 2017, statement regarding September 2005 letter ........................................................................... 993 

FORCE 100 and Memory of Victims Everywhere (MOVE), San Juan 

Capistrano, California, December 9, 2016 ......................................................... 997 

Freeh, Hon. Louis J., former Judge and former Director, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, December 20, 2016 ..................................................... 1043 

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), Washington, DC, January 6, 2017 ............................................................................................................ 1027 

Fuentes, Jose ́ A., former Attorney General, Government of Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, January 10, 2017 ............................................................................. 1031 

Gillers, Stephen, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, 

New York, New York, January 6, 2017 .............................................................. 1033 

Guinier, Lani, Author and Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, January 11, 2017 ....................................................................... 1036 

Horowitz, Michael, McLean, Virginia .................................................................... 1047 

Houston, J. Gorman, Jr., Birmingham, Alabama, December 13, 2016 ............... 1064 

Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ............................ 1051 

Hutchinson, Darlene, Montgomery, Alabama, January 8, 2017 .......................... 1054 

Innocence Project, Inc., New York, New York, January 17, 2017 ....................... 1056 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Alexandria, Virginia, 

December 29, 2016 ............................................................................................... 1058 

International Union of Police Associations, AFL–CIO, Sarasota, Florida, November 21, 2016 ................................................................................................... 1063 

Kephart, Janice L., former Counsel, 9/11 Commission, former Special Counsel 

to Hon. Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and former Counsel to Hon. Jon 

Kyl, a former U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, November 20, 2016 ..................................................... 1067 

Khan, Khizr M., Charlottesville, Virginia, January 9, 2017 ................................ 1069 

Know Your IX and National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Washington, 

DC, January 6, 2016 ............................................................................................ 1071 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, John Nonna, Co-Chair, 

and James P. Joseph, Co-Chair, et al., January 9, 2017 .................................. 1077 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Kristen M. Clarke, President and Executive Director, et al., January 9, 2017 ....................................... 1087 

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), January 9, 2017 .................................... 1083 
Page

VII 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Washington, DC, 

December 1, 2016 ................................................................................................. 1094 

Legal Aid At Work, San Francisco, California, January 5, 2017 ......................... 1102 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., a former U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, January 6, 2017 .................................................................................... 1041 

Liebman, James S., Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, New York, 

New York, January 9, 2017 ................................................................................. 1110 

Major Cities Chiefs Association, J. Thomas Manger, President, and Chief 

of Police, Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland, November 22, 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 1114 

Major County Sheriffs’ Association (MCSA), Pontiac, Michigan, January 6, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1115 

Marquez, Denisse Rojas, New York, New York, January 9, 2017 ....................... 968 

Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, Terrence L. Jungel, Chief Executive Officer 

and Executive Director, Lansing, Michigan, December 20, 2016 ..................... 1118 

Minor, Hon. Richard J., District Attorney, Thirtieth Judicial Circuit, Pell 

City, Alabama, December 10, 2016 ..................................................................... 1120 

Nadler, Hon. Jerrold ‘‘Jerry,’’ a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, January 6, 2017 ............................................................................ 944 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), New York, New York, and Washington, 

DC, January 9, 2017 ............................................................................................ 1122 

National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA), Woodbridge, 

Virginia, January 9, 2017 .................................................................................... 1124 

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) and 

NALEO Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California, January 11, 2017 ......... 1125 

National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), Alexandria, Virginia, 

December 22, 2016 ............................................................................................... 1129 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), Alexandria, Virginia, January 9, 2017 ....................................................................... 1130 

National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), Chicago, Illinois, January 10, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1131 

National Bar Association (NBA), Washington, DC, January 10, 2017 ............... 1132 

National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), New York, New York, 

January 9, 2016 .................................................................................................... 1137 

National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Washington, DC, January 17, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1139 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), Alexandria, 

Virginia, December 15, 2016, letter to Hon. Jeff Sessions ............................... 1143 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), Alexandria, 

Virginia, December 22, 2016 ............................................................................... 1144 

National Center for Transgender Equality, Washington, DC, January 9, 2016 1145 

National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL), Washington, DC, January 16, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1147 

National Education Association (NEA), Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ....... 1150 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ...................... 1152 

National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition (NNOAC), Washington, DC, 

letter to President-elect Donald J. Trump, November 20, 2016 ....................... 1153 

National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 ..... 1155 

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Newtown, Connecticut, January 9, 2017 ............................................................................................................ 1156 

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), Seattle, 

Washington ........................................................................................................... 1157 

National Urban League, New York, New York, January 9, 2017 ....................... 1163 

National Women’s Law Center, Washington, DC, January 9, 2017 .................... 1166 

New York City Bar Association, New York, New York, January 6, 2017 ........... 1171 

Olson, Theodore B., Washington, DC, January 4, 2017 ....................................... 1176 

Pai, Ajit V., Washington, DC, January 11, 2017 ................................................... 1178 

Patrick, Deval L., Boston, Massachusetts, January 3, 2017 ................................ 1179 

People For the American Way (PFAW), Washington, DC, January 5, 2017 ...... 1182 

Reynolds, Gerald A., Louisville, Kentucky, November 28, 2016 .......................... 1191 

Ricci, Frank, Wallingford, Connecticut, January 7, 2017 .................................... 1192 

Rice, Hon. Condoleezza, former U.S. Secretary of State, Stanford, California, 

January 9, 2017 .................................................................................................... 1038 

Rotunda, Ronald D., and W. William Hodes, Esq., Orange, California, January 6, 2017 ............................................................................................................ 1194 
Page

VIII 

Saltzburg, Stephen A., Attorney at Law, Washington, DC, et al., January 7, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1199 

Sanders, Hon. Hank, Alabama State Senate, Montgomery, Alabama, January 6, 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 1204 

Saxon, John D., P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, January 9, 2017 .......................... 1207 

Searcy, Steve M., Pike Road, Alabama, January 8, 2017 .................................... 1213 

Sergeants Benevolent Association of the New York City Police Department, 

New York, New York, January 5, 2017 .............................................................. 1214 

Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 32BJ, January 6, 2017 . 991 

Sikh Coalition, New York, New York, January 9, 2017 ....................................... 1215 

Strange, Hon. Luther, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Montgomery, 

Alabama, et al., December 16, 2016 ................................................................... 1217 

30 for 30 Campaign, National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS 

(NBLCA), New York, New York, et al., January 6, 2017 ................................. 1186 

Thompson and Horton, LLP, Founding Members, Houston, Texas, December 2, 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 1222 

Toure, Faya Rose, Civil Rights Attorney, Selma, Alabama, January 6, 2017 .... 1229 

Turner, Evelyn Hatch, Marion, Alabama, January 4, 2017 ................................. 1234 

Turner, Hon. Albert F., Perry County Commissioner, Marion, Alabama ........... 1232 

UltraViolet, Nita Chaudhary and Shaunna Thomas, Co-Directors ..................... 1236 

Valukas, Anton R., Chicago, Illinois, December 12, 2016 .................................... 1238 

Victims and Friends United, Phoenix, Arizona, December 8, 2016 ..................... 1249 

Victims of Crime and Leniency of Alabama (VOCAL), Montgomery, Alabama, 

December 5, 2016 ................................................................................................. 1251 

Wainstein, Kenneth L., January 9, 2017 ............................................................... 1253 

Wolf, Hon. Frank R., a former Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, January 9, 2017 ................................................................................ 1040 

Wyatt, Verna, Tennessee Voices for Victims, December 2, 2016 ......................... 1255 

Young Women’s Christian Association of the United States of America (YWCA 

USA), Washington, DC, January 10, 2017 ......................................................... 1256 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alabama Ethics Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, July 10, 1996, meeting 

minutes ................................................................................................................. 1258 

Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, February 16, 2000, final determination ................................................................... 1261 

Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Commission, Robert E. Lusk, Jr., Assistant 

General Counsel, letter to Hon. Jeff Sessions, Montgomery, Alabama, April 

16, 1998 ................................................................................................................. 1340 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1277 

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 1272

Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Washington, DC, statement ..................... 1282 

Brazilian Worker Center, Inc., Allston, Massachusetts, statement .................... 1286 

Brimmer, Esther, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 1300 

Brnovich, Mark, ‘‘Sessions a distinguished public servant who will uphold 

the law,’’ The Hill, January 9, 2017, article ...................................................... 1287 

Burkhart, Julie A., Trust Women Foundation, Wichita, Kansas, statement ..... 1289 

Cason, Mike, ‘‘Democratic leader in Alabama Senate praises Jeff Sessions,’’ 

AL.com, December 7, 2016, article ..................................................................... 1293 

Cassell, Paul G., and Steven J. Twist, ‘‘Why Jeff Sessions, a conservative 

attorney general, would be best for crime victims,’’ FoxNews.com, December 14, 2016, article .............................................................................................. 1295 

Church World Service (CWS), New York, New York, statement ......................... 1296 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), Towson, Maryland, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1297 

Ford, Hon. Craig, Alabama State House of Representatives, statement ............ 1303 

Haynes, Rev. Dr. Frederick Douglass, III, statement ........................................... 1360 

Hebert, J. Gerald, Joseph D. Rich, and William Yeomans, ‘‘Jeff Sessions 

says he handled these civil rights cases. He barely touched them.’’ The 

Washington Post, January 3, 2017, op-ed article .............................................. 1304 

Hebert, J. Gerald, Washington, DC, supplemental statement ............................ 1310 

King, Coretta Scott, Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social 

Change, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 1986, letter .................................... 1313 
Page

IX 

Krauss, Michael I., ‘‘The Law Professors’ Scandalous Statement Against Jeff 

Sessions,’’ Forbes, January 5, 2017, article ........................................................ 1323 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement 1328 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1306 

Major Cities Chiefs Association, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 1345 

Nance, Penny, ‘‘Sessions will fight for women: Column,’’ USA Today, December 28, 2016, article ............................................................................................. 1351 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Federal Legislative Civil Rights Report Card, Washington, DC, January 17, 

2017, addendum ................................................................................................... 1346 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), New York, New York, and Washington, 

DC, January 10, 2017, supplement .................................................................... 1349 

National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA), Woodbridge, 

Virginia, statement .............................................................................................. 1353 

National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), New York, New York, statement ...................................................................................................................... 1354

National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, statement ....................... 1356 

Parker, Willie, M.D., Board Chair, Physicians for Reproductive Health, New 

York, New York, January 10, 2017, statement ................................................. 1357 

Rich, Joseph D., Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 1363 

Ross, Hon. Quinton T., Jr., Alabama State Senate Minority Leader, statement ...................................................................................................................... 1366

Saporta, Vicki, National Abortion Federation, Washington, DC, statement ...... 1367 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York, February 12, 2009, letter ........................................................................................... 1372 

Severino, Carrie, ‘‘ ‘Unreliable and Misleading’ Charges against Sessions,’’ 

National Review online, December 22, 2016, article ......................................... 1373 

Shelton, Cleophus, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee ballot ............................................................................................................... 1376 

Shelton, Eddie, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1377 

Shelton, Fannie, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1378 

Shelton, Loretta, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1379 

Shelton, Mary, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1380 

Shelton, Mattie, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1381 

Shelton, Mims, Perry County, Alabama, September 4, 1984, official absentee 

ballot ..................................................................................................................... 1382 

Shepard, Judy, Matthew Shepard Foundation, statement .................................. 1383 

Sierra Club, Michael Brune, Executive Director, et al., statement ..................... 1337 

Thompson, Larry, ‘‘Jeff Sessions deserves to be the next U.S. attorney general,’’ The Washington Post, January 9, 2017, op-ed article ............................. 1387 

We Belong Together, online campaign, statement ................................................ 1390 

Woodson, Robert L., Sr., Woodson Center, Washington, DC, statement ............ 1392 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government, or other criteria 

determined by the Committee, list ..................................................................... 1395 

Aaron, Marjorie Corman, Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law, 

et al., 1,424 faculty members from 180 law schools in 49 states, January 9, 

2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017.01.09%20Law% 

20Professor%20Statement%20re%20Sessions%20Nomination.pdf ............ 1395 

Butler, Jennifer, Reverend, Faith in Public Life, Washington, DC, et al., 

more than 2,500 faith leaders, statement: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/01/10/2017/faith-leadersopposition-to-trump-cabinet .......................................................................... 1395 
Page

X 

Duncan, A. Cameron, University of Virginia School of Law, et al., open 

letter from 1,060 Law Students to President-elect Donald J. Trump, December 22, 2016: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/open-letter-from-1060- 

law-students ................................................................................................... 1395 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys, United States Attorney’s Office, 

Southern District of Alabama, January 27–31, 1992, final evaluation report: 

www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Executive%20Office%20of%20 

U.S.%20Attorneys%20final%20report,%20Sessions.pdf .............................. 1395 

Gershman, Bennett L., Professor of Law, Pace University, White Plains, 

New York, January 6, 2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/01.09.17%20Prof%20 

Ben%20Gershman1.pdf ................................................................................. 1395 

Guinier, Lani, Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New 

Vision of Social Justice, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998, chap. 7, 

‘‘Selma, Alabama, June 1985: Building Bridges from the Bottom Up,’’ pages 

183–219, excerpt: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LaniGuinierLiftEvery 

VoiceCh7.pdf .................................................................................................. 1395 

Hebert, J. Gerald, former Acting Chief, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, January 9, 2016, statement: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/J.%20Gerald%20 

Hebert%20-%20Statement%20-%20Opposition.pdf ..................................... 1395 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Washington, DC, 

December 1, 2016, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sessions%20 

Nomination%2012%201%2016.pdf .............................................................. 1395 

Liebman, James S., Associate Professor of Law, Columbia University School 

of Law, appendix to January 9, 2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Appendix 

%201%20to%20Liebman%20Letter%20re%20Sessions%20 

Nomination%20010917.pdf .......................................................................... 1395 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 

‘‘NAACP Federal Legislative Report Card, 113th Congress, January 3, 

2013, through December 16, 2014,’’ Washington, DC, report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/naacpl-report-on-sessions .. 1395 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), ‘‘Report in Opposition to the Nomination 

of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to be Attorney General of the United 

States,’’ New York, New York, and Washington, DC, January 9, 2017, 

report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-01-09%20 

NAACP%20LDF%20Report%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Sessions.pdf . 1395 

Patrick, Deval L., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, ‘‘Notice of Findings from Investigation of Easterling 

Correctional Facility,’’ March 27, 1995, letter and report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hitching%20Post%20 

Report%20-%20Easterling1.pdf .................................................................... 1396 

Patrick, Deval L., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, ‘‘Notice of Findings from Investigation of Julia 

Tutwiler Prison for Women,’’ March 27, 1995, letter and report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/01/10/2017/hitching-postreportl-tutwiler ............................................................................................ 1396 

UltraViolet, Nita Chaudhary and Shaunna Thomas, Co-Founders, petition: 

https://act.weareultraviolet.org/constituents/?tcid=767.tc7597.HKXtdS ... 1396 

United States Steel LLC v. TIECO Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh 

Circuit, August 17, 2001, decision: 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1481550.html ......................... 1396 
(1) 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS 

TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

SR–325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Grassley, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Grassley, Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, 

Flake, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Coons, Blumenthal, and Hirono. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before we actually start the hearing, I am 

going to give a point of personal privilege to former Chairman and 

my friend, Senator Leahy, to speak for a few seconds that he asked 

to do, and I think it is very appropriate that you do what you said 

you were going to do. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

the courtesy. The Senate Judiciary Committee convenes for the 

first time in the 115th Congress, a historic moment in the Committee’s 200-year history. Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein was 

named the Committee’s Ranking Member, the first time in American history when a woman has served in this capacity. And having 

been either Chairman or Ranking Member for the past 20 years, 

I cannot think of anybody better. 

It is striking that 352 Members have served on the Committee, 

and only six of those, who happen to be Democrats, have been 

women. Three of those six women are proudly serving on this important Committee today: Senator Feinstein, Senator Klobuchar, 

and Senator Hirono. 

So after these 20 years, I welcome Senator Feinstein. When we 

grapple with some of the most pressing issues facing our country, 

we Americans can be proud that she is here, and I applaud you for 

this. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 
2 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Good morning. I welcome everyone to this very important hearing to consider the nomination of our colleague Senator Sessions to 

serve as the 84th Attorney General of the United States. 

First, I want to set out a couple of ground rules. I want to handle 

this hearing the same way that I handled the hearing for Attorney 

General Lynch’s nomination. And it is also the same way that 

Chairman Leahy handled previous hearings. I want everyone to be 

able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up 

and block the views of those behind them or speak out of turn, it 

is simply not fair, it is simply not considerate to others, so officers 

will immediately remove those individuals. 

Now, before my opening statement, let me explain how we will 

proceed. 

Senator Feinstein and I will give our opening remarks. Then 

Senators Shelby and Collins will introduce the nominee. Following 

Senator Sessions’ opening remarks, we will begin our first round of 

questions. Each Senator will have an initial 10-minute round for 

questions. After the first round, we are going to do 8-minute 

rounds of questions. I want everyone to know that I am prepared 

to stay here as long as Members have questions that they would 

like to ask. Again, that is the way I handled Attorney General 

Lynch’s nomination. I think that is the most fair way to proceed 

for both Members as well as our distinguished nominee. 

I welcome our new Members to this Committee. I look forward 

to working with all of the new Members as well as the ones that 

are repeating serving on this Committee. I would also like to recognize and welcome a number of important audience members: 

former Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey, and also our former 

colleague Senator Kyl, a former Member of this Committee; and I 

see the Attorney General for Ohio is here as well, a former colleague of ours. 

Finally, before my opening remarks, I congratulate Senator Feinstein on your appointment and the decision to take over the Ranking Membership. We have always had a good working relationship 

through several things we have done, both legislatively and as 

leaders of the Drug Caucus, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to work with you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. With that I will now start my 

opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Our hearing today hardly introduces Senator Sessions to the 

Committee. No; we are here today to review the character and the 

qualifications of a colleague who has served alongside us in the 

Senate for 20 years. That includes his time as a Ranking Member 

of this Committee. We know him well. We know the policy positions he has taken as a legislator. I have been on both sides of debates with the distinguished Senator Sessions. Having served with 

him for so long, we pretty well know whether he supports your policy positions or opposes them. He tells us so with his usual 

thoughtfulness, humility, and, more importantly, respect. As a 
3 

former Chairman of this Committee has put it, Senator Sessions is 

‘‘wonderful to work with.’’ We know him to be, as another senior 

Democrat on this Committee described him, ‘‘a man of his word.’’ 

As a third senior colleague put it, a Democrat as well: ‘‘He is always a gentleman. He is straightforward and fair.’’ 

Most of all, the Members of this Committee know him to be a 

leader who has served the people of Alabama—and all Americans— 

with integrity, with dedication, and with courage. That describes 

how I know the nominee for the 20 years that I have served with 

him. 

As former Chairman Leahy observed the last time a new President took office, it is ‘‘important that the Justice Department have 

a senior leadership in place without delay . . . . We need the Justice 

Department to be at its best.’’ 

Perhaps my good friend Senator Schumer said it best when he 

observed that we should ‘‘move to a vote, hopefully sooner rather 

than later.’’ And when we do, as he said, we ‘‘won’t be voting for 

or against the President’s policies.’’ In summary, Senator Schumer 

said we will be voting for a colleague with a first-rate legal mind 

whose record proves his commitment to just law enforcement and 

eminently qualified to lead the Department of Justice. 

I have been encouraged by the initial support many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed for Senator Sessions’ nomination. So I look forward to hearing from Senator Sessions and moving to his appointment without delay. 

Senator Sessions’ record is a life of public service. And so we 

know his story. He was raised in the small town of Hybart, Alabama, where his father owned and ran a small country store. He 

then studied at Huntingdon College and the University of Alabama 

before practicing law in Russellville and Mobile. Senator Sessions 

has always been an active member of his community. He taught 

school before attending law school and taught Sunday School at 

Ashland Place United Methodist Church. He served our Nation in 

the Army Reserve, attaining the rank of Captain. 

After his time in private practice, Senator Sessions served as an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama. He 

then headed that office after the Senate confirmed him as U.S. Attorney, a post he held for a dozen years. So all told, this Senator, 

colleague of ours, has served 15 years as a Federal prosecutor in 

the Department that he will soon head. 

It was during that time that he oversaw the investigation of 

Klansman Francis Hays for the brutal abduction and murder of a 

Black teenager, Michael Donald. He made sure that case was 

brought to State court where the defendant was eligible for and received the punishment that he justly deserved—the death penalty. 

His office then successfully prosecuted that murderer’s accomplice 

in Federal court. 

Based on his prosecutorial record, the people of Alabama elected 

him their Attorney General and then their Senator. He has served 

with us since 1997. And as our former Chairman observed, this 

Committee has relied on him for his prosecutorial experience during the course of his Senate service. 

Throughout his public service, both within the Department and 

outside of the Department, he has raised his hand and served 
4 

when called upon. He has done his duty, enforced the law fairly, 

and let the chips fall where they may. 

Reflecting on this record of service, it is no surprise then that 

Senator Sessions was also an Eagle Scout. Other Members of this 

Committee know, as I do, that the Scouts’ motto, ‘‘Be Prepared,’’ 

sits on his desk in his Senate office. 

Senator Sessions’ entire life of dedicated public service has prepared him for this day. If he is confirmed—and I expect that he 

will be—Senator Sessions will shed his role as a legislator who 

writes law and he will take on the task of enforcing the laws Congress has written. He has made this transition before, when the 

people of Alabama elected him their Senator based on his record 

of service as U.S. Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. 

As one Member of this Committee observed about a lawyer’s 

transition into the role of a judge: ‘‘There are turning points in a 

person’s life when they put away things of the past and move into 

new responsibilities.’’ Serving as our Nation’s Attorney General will 

mark another such turning point in Senator Sessions’ distinguished 

career. And every Member of this Committee knows from experience that, in his new role, Senator Sessions will be a leader for law 

and order administered without regard to person. 

Leadership to that end is exactly what the Department now 

needs. It should go without saying that the Department is tasked 

with the responsibility of enforcing our laws—all of our laws—in a 

dispassionate and evenhanded way. 

We write the laws. The Executive enforces them, faithfully. This 

is a simple but very foundational principle. 

Unfortunately, for the last several years, the Department has 

simply declined to enforce some laws the executive branch found 

obnoxious. The Department’s failure to enforce the law has run the 

gamut of issues from criminal law to our Nation’s duly enacted immigration laws. 

It is true that each branch of Government has an independent 

duty to assess the constitutionality of the laws it writes, it administers, and it adjudicates. But it is equally true that the Executive 

has a constitutional responsibility to, as we all know, ‘‘take care 

that the laws be faithfully executed.’’ I know our colleague, this 

Senator Sessions, respects the legislative process and the prerogative of Congress to write the law. As he explained during the confirmation hearing that we held for John Ashcroft’s nomination to 

serve as Attorney General, ‘‘The Attorney General is a law enforcer. There is a big difference between a politician and a Senator 

where we vote on policy and executing that policy.’’ 

I look forward to hearing from Senator Sessions on how he will 

transition from voting on policy matters to enforcing the laws he 

has labored so long to improve and to sustain. 

Just as he respects Congress’ duly enacted laws, Senator Sessions knows and respects the importance of an independent Attorney General at the Department’s helm. When he has questioned 

other candidates for the Office of Attorney General, he has made 

plain the priorities of an Attorney General’s independence. He 

sought assurances on this account during the confirmation hearing 

for Attorney General Eric Holder—a nominee that, it happens, Senator Sessions and I both supported despite policy disagreements 
5 

with Eric Holder. Senator Sessions asked at that time: ‘‘You are 

not threatening and not guaranteeing you are going to prosecute 

people until you fairly evaluate all the facts and the evidence and 

the law they thought they were dealing with at the time?’’ 

During this Committee’s hearing on the confirmation of another 

Attorney General, Senator Sessions reflected on the obligations of 

the people as he knew them from his service in Alabama: ‘‘You 

speak for the legal interests of the State.’’ As a result, he said, 

‘‘there are times when the Attorney General represents the State, 

he has an obligation and a duty regardless of what the parties to 

a litigation may say’’—including when one of those parties is the 

Government—‘‘to ensure that it is fair for all the people of the 

State.’’ 

This firm grasp on the separation of powers equips Senator Sessions to provide the Department with independent leadership of 

the highest priority. He knows the Department’s obligations well— 

not only because he knows the Department but because he has 

seen those obligations observed in the breach from his seat beside 

us in the Senate. 

To this legislator, the Department’s failure in the just enforcement of our laws is not just a policy disappointment on a particular 

issue. It is an affront to the very separation of powers that defines 

our role and the voice of the people that warrants our votes. I 

imagine Senator Sessions may have thoughts on that question as 

well, and I hope to hear those points. 

On this Committee, we do not always agree on the right way to 

handle the complex policy issues we consider. And when you have 

served in the Senate as long as Senator Sessions and I have, you 

are bound to find at least a few points of disagreement with even 

the most like-minded colleagues. 

But Senator Sessions’ two decades of service beside me testify 

without question to this: He is a man of honor and integrity, dedicated to the faithful and fair enforcement of the law, who knows 

well and deeply respects the Department of Justice and its constitutional role. I look forward to hearing from him about this vision and plans for the Department. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

And now it is Senator Feinstein’s turn for her words. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would like to thank Senator Leahy also for his words. 

If I may, I would like to begin by just quickly introducing some 

Californians in the audience: Congresswoman Maxine Waters from 

Los Angeles, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from the Bay Area, also 

Denise Rojas, who is a DREAMer who has been enormously successful, I had the privilege of writing an article about her, and also 

the Reverend Dr. Amos Brown, whom I have known for 40 years, 

and the Reverend Dr. Frederick Haynes. They are part of the ministerial delegation here today. 

The Senator before us this morning is someone that many of us 

on this Committee have worked with for some 20 years, and that 
6 

makes this very difficult for me. I committed to Senator Sessions 

in our private meeting, and I will say it again here: The process 

is going to be fair and thorough. 

But, today, we are not being asked to evaluate him as a Senator. 

We are being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney General of the 

United States, the chief law enforcement for the largest and best 

democracy in the world. 

As Attorney General, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs; rather, the job of the Attorney General is to enforce Federal 

law, even if he voted against the law, even if he spoke against it 

before it passed, even if he disagrees with the precedent saying 

that the law is constitutional. Most importantly, his job will be to 

enforce Federal law equally—equally—for all Americans. And this 

job requires service to the people and the law, not to the President. 

The President-elect said to his opponent during a debate, ‘‘If I 

win, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special 

prosecutor to look at your situation.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, that is not what an Attorney General does. An 

Attorney General does not investigate or prosecute at the direction 

of the President. Nor do Attorneys General wear two hats—one as 

the President’s lawyer and one as the people’s lawyer. That model 

has failed. Rather, the Attorney General must put aside loyalty to 

the President. He must ensure that the law and the Constitution 

come first and foremost, period. 

President Lincoln’s Attorney General, Edward Bates, I think said 

it best when he said this: ‘‘The office I hold is not properly political, 

but strictly legal; and it is my duty, above all other ministers of 

state, to uphold the law and to resist all encroachments, from 

whatever quarter.’’ That is the job of the Attorney General. 

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will be the top official charged 

with faithfully and impartially enforcing all Federal law and protecting our fundamental right to vote from all incursions, whether 

they be foreign or domestic. His duty will be to enforce and protect 

our civil rights and constitutional freedoms, including a woman’s 

right to choose. He will run the Department that ensures those 

who commit hate crimes are held accountable. And he will be 

charged with protecting consumers and taxpayers from fraud and 

making sure that corrupt public officials are held accountable. He 

will prosecute polluters based on Federal law. And it is the Attorney General who must ensure that this Government follows the 

law, does not ever torture again. This is an awesome responsibility 

and an enormous job. 

What we must do now in these hearings is determine what type 

of Attorney General Senator Sessions will be, if confirmed. And let 

me express a deep concern. There is so much fear in this country. 

I see it, I hear it, particularly in the African-American community, 

from preachers, from politicians, from everyday Americans. 

As Mrs. Evelyn Turner of the Marion Three said in her passionate letter to this Committee: ‘‘I am very troubled by his stance 

against civil rights in the more recent past. As a U.S. Senator, he 

supported no laws or causes which suggest that he has changed.’’ 

Throughout his Senate career, Senator Sessions has advocated 

an extremely conservative agenda. For example, he voted ‘‘no’’ and 

spoke for nearly 30 minutes in this Committee against a Leahy 
7 

amendment 2 years ago that expressed the sense of the Senate that 

the United States would not bar people from entering this country 

based on their religion. He voted against each of three bipartisan 

comprehensive immigration bills—in 2006, 2007, and 2013. 

Twice he voted against the DREAM Act, the bill for undocumented youth, known as ‘‘DREAMers,’’ who were brought here as 

children through no choice of their own, calling it a ‘‘reckless proposal for mass amnesty.’’ 

He voted against efforts to prohibit the use of waterboarding and 

other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, calling them 

lawful and praising Attorney General Mukasey in 2008 for refusing 

to rule out the use of waterboarding in the future. These interrogation techniques are, and were at the time, illegal. And thanks to 

a provision Senator McCain placed in the Defense Authorization 

Bill this past year, they are now prohibited from use. 

In addition, Senator Sessions voted against the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which, 

among other things, expanded the hate crimes law to cover sexual 

orientation and gender identity. Arguing against the hate crimes 

law in 2009, he said this: ‘‘Today I am not sure women or people 

with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. 

I just do not see it.’’ 

Well, this Senator, regretfully, sees it. Hate crimes are happening. The Department of Justice must see it, must investigate it, 

and prosecute it appropriately. Those are votes that are deeply concerning. They are recent, they are important, and they clearly show 

this Senator’s point of view. 

Now, for all these reasons, this hearing must determine clearly 

whether this Senator will enforce laws he voted against. We, the 

American people, want to know how he intends to use this awesome power of the Attorney General if he is confirmed. Will he use 

it fairly? Will he use it in a way that respects law and the Constitution? Will he use it in a way that eases tensions among our 

communities and our law enforcement officers? Will he be independent of the White House? Will he tell the President ‘‘no’’ when 

necessary, and faithfully enforce ethics laws and constitutional restrictions? 

So we will ask questions, and we will press for answers. Ultimately, we must determine whether Senator Sessions can be the 

Attorney General for all of our people. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude with one final point. We 

cannot ignore that there are deep concerns and anxieties throughout America. There is a deep fear about what a Trump administration will bring in many places, and this is the context in which we 

must consider Senator Sessions’ record and nomination to become 

the chief law enforcement officer of America. Communities across 

this country are concerned about whether they will be able to rely 

on the Department of Justice to protect their rights and freedoms. 

These freedoms are so cherished. They are what make us unique 

among nations. 

There have been sit-ins, protests, and write-ins, and the Committee has received letters of opposition from 400 different civil 

rights organizations, 1,400 law professors, 1,000 law students, a 

broad task force of organizations that oppose domestic violence, 70 
8 

reproductive health organizations, and many, many others. All 

these letters express deep anxiety about the direction of this country and whether this nominee will enforce the law fairly, evenly, 

without personal bias. 

So I hope today’s questions are probing and the answers are fulsome. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the only way we have to know 

whether this man can detach himself from the President and from 

his record and vote in full accordance with the laws of the United 

States of America. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Before I turn to Senators Shelby and Collins for their opening 

statement, I would note that the Committee received a letter from 

former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicating that she had 

hoped to join our colleagues in introducing Senator Sessions. She 

strongly supports his nomination. It is a powerful letter, and I hope 

my colleagues will take time to read it, and I would like to have 

it entered in the record at this point. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Now to Senator Shelby and Senator Collins, in that order. Proceed. 

PRESENTATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND NOMINEE TO BE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY 

HON. RICHARD SHELBY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF ALABAMA 

Senator SHELBY. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, thank you for allowing me to be a part of this historic hearing today. 

Although my friend and colleague Jeff Sessions is well known to 

the Members of this Committee, it is my distinct privilege to introduce him as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as 

our next United States Attorney General. 

Before joining the Senate, Jeff Sessions began his distinguished 

career as a practicing attorney and then served as the United 

States Attorney for Alabama’s Southern District before ultimately 

becoming the Attorney General of the State of Alabama. 

During the past 20 years here in the U.S. Senate that I have 

served with Jeff Sessions, I have had the opportunity to know him 

well, not just as a skilled attorney with an accomplished record as 

a prosecutor and as a legislator, but as a man of extraordinary 

character. I have the highest regard not only for his intellect but 

for his integrity. 

Unfortunately, since the announcement of his nomination, Jeff’s 

political opponents have attacked his character with baseless and 

tired allegations. But, in reality, Jeff Sessions’ extensive record of 

treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well documented. 

Throughout his decades of public service, including his impressive tenure on this Committee, Jeff’s commitment to upholding the 

rule of law I believe is unparalleled. The integrity, humility, and 

gravity with which Jeff Sessions will approach the office of Attorney General of the United States is unquestionable. 
9 

I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that he will apply the law with 

the impartiality that is required of the job. I am also confident that 

this Committee will report favorably and expeditiously Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United 

States. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

Now, Senator Collins. 

PRESENTATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND NOMINEE TO BE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY 

HON. SUSAN COLLINS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF MAINE 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, Members of this distinguished 

Committee, I am pleased to join Senator Shelby in presenting my 

friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions, and to offer my support 

for his nomination to be our next Attorney General. 

[Outburst in audience.] 

Senator COLLINS. Jeff Sessions and I were first sworn in to the 

United States Senate on the very same day. In the 20 years since, 

we have worked closely on some issues and on opposite sides on 

others. In fact, it would be fair to say that we have had our share 

of vigorous debates and policy disagreements. 

Through these experiences, I have come to know Senator Sessions professionally as a trusted colleague and personally as a good 

friend. I can vouch confidently for the fact that Jeff Sessions is a 

person of integrity, a principled leader, and a dedicated public servant. 

As a Senator, Jeff Sessions has worked across the aisle to lead 

important legislative reforms. He has worked with Senator Dick 

Durbin to pass the Fair Sentencing Act, a law that addressed the 

unfair racial disparity in crack cocaine sentencing. He worked with 

Senator Ted Kennedy to pass the Prison Rape Elimination Act and 

with Senator Chris Coons on the reauthorization of the Victims of 

Child Abuse Act. 

An area where Senator Sessions and I have worked together is 

in opposing unfair trade agreements and practices that hurt American workers. 

What I want this Committee and the American people to know 

is that Jeff Sessions is the same genuine, fair-minded person in unguarded private moments as he is in the halls of the Senate. 

We first came to know each other during dinners with other 

Members of our Senate class where we discussed everything from 

our politics to our families. I have never witnessed anything to suggest that Senator Sessions is anyone other than a dedicated public 

servant and a decent man. 

In 1980, long before he ran for the Senate, or even dreamed of 

being Attorney General, Jeff Sessions sponsored the first AfricanAmerican member of the Mobile Lions Club. As U.S. Attorney, he 

provided leadership in the successful convictions of two Klan members who had murdered an African-American teenager. As Ranking 

Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, he appointed 

the first African American to serve as Chief Counsel to the Repub-
10 

lican Members. My friends, these are not the actions of an individual who is motivated by racial animus. 

In spite of this strong record, Senator Sessions’ nomination has 

generated controversy. He has had to withstand some very painful 

attacks on his character, both years ago and again today, with little 

or no acknowledgment of his accomplishments and actions or the 

responses he has made to the accusations levied against him. 

As this Committee debates this nomination, I would draw your 

attention to an important epilogue to Jeff Sessions’ nomination 31 

years ago to be a Federal judge. The late Senator Arlen Specter of 

Pennsylvania was a Member of the Judiciary Committee when the 

Sessions nomination was considered in 1986. Senator Specter, then 

a Republican, voted against Jeff Sessions. Years later, in 2009, 

Senator Specter had switched parties. He was asked by a reporter 

if he regretted any of the more than 10,000 votes he had cast. Out 

of all of those votes, then-Democratic Senator Specter cited just 

one. It was his vote against confirming Jeff Sessions as a Federal 

judge. 

When asked why, Senator Specter replied, ‘‘Because I have since 

found that Senator Sessions is egalitarian.’’ In other words, once 

Senator Specter served with Jeff Sessions and had the opportunity 

to get to know him, he changed his mind. 

I hope that you will keep Arlen Specter’s reflections in mind as 

this Committee evaluates Senator Sessions’ public service, his character, and his fidelity to the rule of law. The Members of this Committee have an advantage that Senator Specter did not. The vast 

majority of you have already served with Senator Sessions, and you 

know him well. If this Committee places its trust in him, I have 

every confidence that Jeff Sessions will execute the office of Attorney General honestly, faithfully, and fully in the pursuit of justice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Feinstein and Members of this Committee. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And I thank both of our colleagues for your 

powerful statements. I appreciate it very much. And you are free 

to go, and we will call the nominee at this point. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Sessions, before you are seated, I 

would like to administer the oath. Would you raise your hand, 

please, and answer this question? Do you swear that the testimony 

you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, and please be seated. 

Senator Sessions, it is our normal process, if you desire, to introduce people that are with you, including your family I am sure you 

are very proud of. You are free to do that, and then go immediately 

to your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND NOMINEE TO BE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we have 

been joined by my grandchildren. It is an honor for me to be here 

and to have my family with me. 
11 

First, my wife, Mary, my best friend, of 47 years. Without her 

love and support, none of this would have been possible for me. 

And we are so proud of our three children who are here today. 

Mary Abigail Reinhardt, our oldest, is married to a naval officer, 

Commander Paul Reinhardt of the USS Alabama. They are now 

stationed in the Pacific Coast. They have two children, Jane Ritchie 

and Jim Beau, and they wish me well this morning. 

My daughter Ruth Walk—Ruth, would you stand up?—and her 

husband, John Walk. John is an attorney with the Department of 

Homeland Security, and they have four children, as you see before 

you today: Gracie and Hannah, and Joanna and Phoebe. Phoebe 

and Joanna are twins, and we are so proud of them. 

My son, Sam, is a graduate of Auburn and Alabama Law School. 

Sorry, Sam, about the game last night. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Lindsey, congratulations, wherever he is. 

Sam is an attorney in Birmingham, and he is married to Angela 

Stratas. They have four children: Alexa, Sophia, Lewis, and Nicholas. 

Ten grandchildren, the oldest is 9, and you can imagine the week 

we had at the beach this summer in Alabama. 

Finally, I want to express how humbled I am to have received 

such overwhelming support and encouragement from our Nation’s 

law enforcement community. Many are here today. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to ask those 

present please to stand and be recognized, the law enforcement 

members that are here today. Would you please stand? Every 

major law enforcement organization in America has endorsed my 

candidacy. I feel the weight of the confidence they have placed in 

me, and, gentlemen and ladies, I will do my best to be worthy of 

that. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, yesterday was Law Enforcement 

Officer Appreciation Day. Sadly, on that day we lost two of our 

brave officers. 

Orlando Police Department Master Sergeant Debra Clayton, one 

of the first officers to respond to the Orlando night club shooting 

in June, was shot and killed while confronting a subject wanted for 

murder. Sergeant Clayton, a 17-year veteran of the force, was married with two children. 

While assisting in the search for that assailant, Orange County 

Deputy First Class Sheriff Norman Lewis was killed in a traffic accident on his motorcycle. He was an 11-year veteran of the sheriff’s 

office. These honorable individuals have dedicated their lives to 

keeping their communities safe, and we should remember their 

service and keep them and their families in our prayers. 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, distinguished 

Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today. I thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions 

as you discharge your duty in the appointment process as prescribed by our Constitution. 

[Outburst in audience.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to thank my 

dear friends and colleagues, Senator Richard Shelby and Senator 

Susan Collins, for their kind and generous introductions. It was 
12 

very touching. It is hard to believe, really, that the three of us have 

served together in this body for almost 20 years. 

When I arrived in the Senate in 1997, I probably would not have 

anticipated becoming so close with a colleague from Maine—two 

people from the northern-most and southern-most parts of our 

country. 

[Outburst in audience.] 

Senator SESSIONS. It took us a while to understand each other’s 

accents, but once we did, we became fast friends. Of course, Richard Shelby and I never had that problem. He has been a steadfast 

friend, and I think we have been a pretty good team representing 

the interests of Alabama and the United States. 

I want to thank President-elect Donald Trump for the confidence 

and trust he has shown in me by nominating me to serve as the 

Attorney General of the United States. I feel the weight of an 

honor greater than I have aspired to. If I am confirmed, I will commit to you and to the American people to be worthy of the office 

and the special trust that comes with it. 

So I come before you today as a colleague who has worked with 

you for years and some of you 20 years. You know who I am. You 

know what I believe in. You know that I am a man of my word 

and can be trusted to do what I say I will do. You know that I revere the Constitution, that I am committed to the rule of law; and 

you know that I believe in fairness and impartiality and equal justice under law. 

Over the years, you have heard me say many times that I love 

the Department of Justice. The Office of Attorney General of the 

United States is not a normal political office, and anyone who holds 

it must have total fidelity to the laws and the Constitution of the 

United States. He or she must be committed to following the law. 

He or she must be willing to tell the President or other top official 

‘‘no’’ if he or she overreaches. He or she cannot be a mere 

rubberstamp. He or she must set the example for the employees of 

the Department to do the right thing and ensure that, when they 

do the right thing, they know the Attorney General will back them 

up, no matter what politician might call or what powerful special 

interest, influential contributor, or friend might try to intervene. 

The message must be clear: Everyone is expected to do their duty. 

That is the way I was expected to perform as an Assistant 

United States Attorney working for Attorney General Meese in 

part of my career. And that is the way I trained my assistants 

when I became United States Attorney. And, if confirmed, that is 

the way I will lead the Department of Justice. 

In my over 14 years in the Department of Justice, I tried cases 

personally of every kind: drug trafficking, very large international 

smuggling cases, many firearms cases, other violent crimes, a series of public corruption cases of great significance, financial 

wrongdoing, and environmental violations. Our office supported 

historic civil rights cases and major civil cases. Protecting the people of this country from crime, and especially from violent crime, 

is a high calling of the men and women of the Department of Justice. Today, I am afraid, it has become more important than ever. 

Since the early 1980s, good policing and prosecutions over a period of years have been a strong force in reducing crime, making 
13 

our communities safer. Drug use and murders are half what they 

were in 1980 when I became a United States Attorney. I am very 

concerned that the recent jump in the violent crime and murder 

rates are not anomalies, but the beginning of a dangerous trend 

that could reverse those hard-won gains that have made America 

a safer and more prosperous place. The latest FBI statistics show 

that all crime increased nearly 4 percent from 2014 to 2015—the 

largest increase since 1991—with murders increasing nearly 11 

percent—the single largest increase since 1971. 

In 2016, there were 4,368 shooting victims in Chicago. In Baltimore, homicides reached the second highest per capita rate ever. 

The country is also in the throes of a heroin epidemic, with overdose deaths more than tripling between 2010 and 2014. Tripling. 

Nearly 50,000 people a year die from drug overdose. Meanwhile, illegal drugs flood across our southern border and into every city and 

town in the country, bringing violence, addiction, and misery. 

We must not lose perspective when discussing these statistics. 

We must always remember that these crimes are being committed 

against real people, real victims. It is important that they are kept 

in the forefront of our minds in these conversations and to ensure 

that their rights are protected. 

These trends cannot continue. It is a fundamental civil right to 

be safe in your home and your community. If I am confirmed, we 

will systematically prosecute criminals who use guns in committing 

crimes. As United States Attorney, my office was a national leader 

in gun prosecutions nearly every year. We will partner with State 

and local law enforcement to take down these major drug-trafficking cartels and dismantle criminal gangs. We will prosecute 

those who repeatedly violate our borders. It will be my priority to 

confront these crimes vigorously, effectively, and immediately. 

Approximately 90 percent of all law enforcement officers are not 

Federal, but they are State and local. They are the ones on the 

front lines. They are better educated, trained, and equipped than 

ever before. They are the ones who we rely on to keep our neighborhoods and playgrounds and schools safe. But in the last several 

years, law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and 

blamed for the unacceptable actions of a few of their bad actors. 

They believe the political leadership in the country has abandoned 

them. They felt they had become targets. Morale has suffered. And 

last year, while under intense public criticism, the number of police 

officers killed in the line of duty increased by 10 percent over 2015; 

and firearms deaths of police officers are up 68 percent. So this is 

a wake-up call, colleagues. It cannot continue. 

If we are to be more effective in dealing with rising crime, we 

will have to rely on and work more effectively with local law enforcement, asking them to lead the way. To do that, they must 

know they are supported. And if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed as Attorney General, they can be assured they will have my 

support in their lawful duties. 

As I discussed with many of you in our meetings prior to this 

hearing, the Federal Government has an important role to play in 

this area also. We must use the research and the expertise and the 

training that has been developed by the Department of Justice to 

help these agencies in developing the most effective and lawful law 
14 

enforcement methods to reduce crime. We must re-establish and 

strengthen the partnership between Federal and local officers to 

enhance a common and unified effort to reverse the rising crime 

trends. I did this as United States Attorney. I worked directly and 

continuously with local and State law enforcement officials. If confirmed, this will be one of my priority objectives. 

There are also many things the Department can do to assist the 

State and local officers to strengthen relationships with their own 

communities where policies like community-based policing have absolutely been proven to work. I am committed to this effort and to 

ensuring that the Department of Justice is a unifying force for improving relations between the police in this country and the communities they serve. This is particularly important in our minority 

communities. Make no mistake, positive relations and great communication between the people and their police are essential for 

any good police department. And when police fail in their duties, 

they must be held accountable. I have done these things as United 

States Attorney. I have worked to advance these kind of policies. 

In recent years, our law enforcement officers have been called 

upon to protect our country from the rising threat of terrorism that 

has reached our shores. If I am confirmed, protecting the American 

people from the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism will continue 

to be a top priority. We will work diligently to respond to threats, 

using all lawful means to keep my country safe. Partnerships will 

also be vital to achieving much more effective enforcement against 

cyber threats, and the Department of Justice clearly has a lead role 

to play in that essential effort. 

We must honestly assess our vulnerabilities and have a clear 

plan for defense, as well as offense, when it comes to cybersecurity. 

The Department of Justice must never falter in its obligation to 

protect the civil rights of every American, particularly those who 

are most vulnerable. 

A special priority for me in this regard will be aggressive enforcement of our laws to ensure access to the ballot for every eligible 

voter, without hindrance or discrimination, and to ensure the integrity of the electoral process, which has been a great heritage of the 

Department of Justice. 

Further, this Government must improve its ability to protect the 

United States Treasury from fraud, waste, and abuse. This is a 

Federal responsibility. We cannot afford to lose a single dollar to 

corruption and you can be sure, if I am confirmed, I will make it 

a high priority of the Department of Justice to root out and prosecute fraud in Federal programs and to recover moneys lost due to 

fraud and false claims, as well as contracting fraud and issues of 

that kind. 

The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the Constitution’s promise that our Government is one of laws, and not of 

men. It will be my unyielding commitment to you, if confirmed, to 

see that the laws are enforced faithfully, effectively, and impartially. The Attorney General must hold everyone, no matter how 

powerful, accountable. No one is above the law, and no American 

will be beneath its protection. No powerful special interest will 

cower this Department. 
15 

I want to address personally the fabulous men and women that 

work in the Department of Justice. That includes personnel in 

Main Justice, here in Washington, but also the much larger number that faithfully fulfill their responsibilities every day throughout 

the Nation. As a United States Attorney, I worked with them constantly. I know them and the culture of their agencies. The Federal 

investigative agencies represent the finest collection of law officers 

in the world. I know their integrity and professionalism and I 

pledge to them a unity of effort that is unmatched. Together we 

can and will reach the highest standards and the highest results. 

It would be the greatest honor for me to lead these fine public servants. 

To my colleagues, I appreciate the time that each of you have 

taken to meet me one-on-one. As Senators, we do not always have 

enough opportunity to sit down and discuss matters face-to-face. I 

had some great visits. I understand and respect the conviction that 

you bring to your duties. Even though we may not always be in 

agreement, you have always been understanding and respectful of 

my positions, and I of yours. 

In our meetings over the past weeks you have had the opportunity to share with me, and relating to the Department, from 

unprosecuted crimes on Tribal lands, a matter that is greater than 

I had understood: to the scourge of human trafficking and child exploitation, to concerns about cuts in grant programs, to the protection of American civil liberties, and the surge of heroin overdose 

deaths, to just name a few things. 

I learned a lot during those meetings, and particularly in my 

meeting with Senator Whitehouse, where we discussed cyber security. He has a great deal of knowledge there. I am glad, Senator 

Whitehouse, that you and Senator Graham have taken a lead on 

this important issue, and I think we can work together and make 

some progress. 

Senator Graham, congratulations on your football victory last 

night. 

Senator GRAHAM. How about that last one? 

Senator SESSIONS. So I want to assure all of my colleagues that 

I have given your concerns earnest reflection and will bear them 

in mind as I move forward. I will sincerely endeavor to keep these 

lines of communications open and hope that we can continue our 

collegiality and friendships. 

In that regard, if I am confirmed, I commit to all of you that the 

Department of Justice will be responsive, Mr. Chairman, to Congress, and will work with you on your priorities, all of you, and provide you with guidance and views where appropriate. The Department will respect your constitutional duties, your oversight role, 

and the critically important separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. 

Let me address another issue straight on. I was accused in 1986 

of failing to protect the voting rights of African Americans by presenting the Perry County case, the voter-fraud case. And of condemning civil rights advocates and organizations and even harboring, amazingly, sympathies for the KKK. These are damnably 

false charges. 
16 

The voter-fraud case my office prosecuted was in response from 

pleas from African-American incumbent elected officials who 

claimed that the absentee ballot process involved a situation in 

which ballots cast for them were stolen, altered, and cast for their 

opponents. The prosecution sought to protect the integrity of the 

ballot, not to block voting. It was a voting rights case. 

As to the KKK, I invited Civil Rights attorneys from Washington, 

DC, to help us solve a very difficult investigation into the unconscionable, horrendous death of a young African-American man, Michael Donald, coming home from the 7-Eleven store at night, simply because he was Black. We actively backed the attorneys 

throughout the case and they broke that case. That effort led to a 

guilty plea and a life sentence in court for one defendant and his 

testimony against the other defendant. There was no Federal death 

penalty at the time. I felt the death penalty was appropriate in this 

case and I pushed to have it tried in State court, which was done. 

That defendant was indeed convicted and sentenced to death and 

10 years later, ironically as Alabama’s Attorney General, my staff 

participated in the defense of that verdict and sentence and a few 

months after I became a United States Senator, that murdering 

Klansman was indeed executed. 

I abhor the Klan and what it represents and its hateful ideology. 

I assisted Morris Dees, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in his 

lawsuit that led to the successful collapse of the Klan, at least in 

Alabama, and the seizure of their building at least for that period 

of time. 

As Civil Rights Division attorneys have testified before the Committee, I supported fully the historic cases that the Justice Department filed to advance civil rights—including cases to desegregate 

schools, abolish at-large elections for cities, county commissions, 

and school boards. These at-large elections were a mechanism used 

to block African-American candidates from being able to be elected 

to boards and commissions. It was a deliberate part of a systemic 

plan to reduce the ability of African Americans to have influence 

in the election and governing process. 

I never declared the NAACP was un-American or that a Civil 

Rights attorney was a disgrace to his race. 

There is nothing I am more proud of than my 14 years of service 

in the Department of Justice. I love and venerate that great institution. I hold dear its highest ideals. As God gives me the ability, 

I will work every day to be worthy of the demands of this august 

office. 

You can be absolutely sure that I understand the immense responsibility I would have. I am not naive. I know the threat that 

our rising crime and addiction rates pose to the health and safety 

of our country. I know the threat of terrorism. I deeply understand 

the history of civil rights in our country, and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of 

voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it. We must continue to move forward and 

never back. 

I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by our 

LGBT community. I will ensure that the statutes protecting their 

civil rights and their safety are fully enforced. 
17 

I understand the lifelong scars born by women who are victims 

of assault and abuse. And if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed 

as your Attorney General, you can know that I understand the absolute necessity that all my actions must fall within the bounds of 

the Constitution and the laws of the United States. 

While all humans must recognize the limits of their abilities, and 

I certainly do, I am ready for this job. We will do it right. Your 

input will be valued. Local law enforcement will be our partners. 

Many friends in Federal Government that I have had in law enforcement will be respected. 

I have always loved the law. It is the very foundation of this 

country. It is the exceptional foundation of America. I have an 

abiding commitment to pursuing and achieving justice, and a 

record of doing that. If confirmed, I will give all my efforts to this 

goal. I only ask that you do your duty as God gives you the ability 

to see that duty as you are charged by the Constitution. 

Thank you for your courtesies. I look forward to the hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I ask questions, I want to thank 

you, Senator Sessions, for your service in the Senate but more importantly, for taking on this responsibility you have been nominated for and to thank you for your opening statement. I am glad 

that you were able to mention the names of a lot of your family 

that are with you and there are a lot of other people that we may 

not have their names and I would ask the staff to put in the record 

the names of all the other people who are accompanying you today 

as well, if they are willing to give us that name. And it is a proud 

day for you, your wife, son, and daughters, and their families. I 

welcome all of you very much. 

Now to the questioning. I will take 10 minutes and Senator Feinstein, we will go back and forth as we usually do. 

The Attorney General of the United States is, of course, the Nation’s chief law enforcement officer. He or she is not the President’s 

lawyer, nor is he the President’s wingman as Attorney General 

Holder described himself. Rather, he or she has an independent obligation to the Constitution and to the American people. Now I 

know you care deeply about this foundational principle. So I am 

going to ask you a question I have heard you ask other nominees 

for Attorney General. 

Occasionally you will be called upon to offer an opinion to the 

President who appointed you. You will have to tell him ‘‘yes’’ or 

‘‘no.’’ And sometimes Presidents do not like to be told ‘‘no.’’ So I 

would like to know, will you be able to stand up and say ‘‘no’’ to 

the President of the United States if in your judgment the law and 

your duty demands it? And the reason I ask that is because I know 

you worked very hard for the President-elect. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance 

of your question, I understand the responsibility of the Attorney 

General and I will do so. You simply have to help the President do 

things that he might desire in a lawful way and have to be able 

to say ‘‘no’’ both for the country, for the legal system, and for the 

President to avoid situations that are not acceptable. I understand 

that duty, I have observed it through my years here, and I will fulfill that responsibility. 
18 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Just so my colleagues do not think I am 

taking advantage of time, somebody did not start the clock. Well, 

the light is not working, I am sorry. I can read it now. 

So, I heard what you said, but just to emphasize, let me follow 

up. 

Well if you disagree with the President’s chosen course of action 

and you told him so and he intends to pursue that course of action 

anyway, what are your options at that point? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I think an Attorney General 

should first work with the President, hopefully that Attorney General would have the confidence of the President, and avoid a situation that would be unacceptable. I do believe that if an Attorney 

General is asked to do something that is plainly unlawful, he cannot participate in that. He or she would have to resign, ultimately, 

before agreeing to execute a policy that the Attorney General believes would be unlawful or unconstitutional. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there are areas that are clear 

and right, there are areas that may be gray, and there are areas 

that are unacceptable. And a good Attorney General needs to know 

where those lines are to help the President, where possible, and to 

resist improper, unacceptable actions. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You served in this Department for 14 or 15 

years, you served as your State’s Attorney General, and, of course, 

you have served on this Committee for a long time. And we have 

oversight over the Department that you might head. And you have 

done that all for 20 years. 

I have had my share of disagreements with the Department’s 

leadership over the last few years. Some of those were purely policy 

disagreements, but some issues were especially troubling to me in 

that the Department failed to perform fundamental functions to enforce the law. 

As Attorney General day in and day out, you will be faced with 

difficult and sometimes thorny legal problems. What will your approach be to ensuring that the Department enforces the law and, 

more broadly, what is your vision for the Department? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, the ultimate responsibility of 

the Attorney General in the Department of Justice is to execute the 

laws passed by this Congress and to follow the Constitution in that 

process and carry its principles out. So you can be sure I understand that. We may have had disagreements here about whether 

a law should be passed, but once passed I will do my dead level 

best to ensure it is properly and fairly enforced. 

I do believe that we have a crime problem. I will not perhaps go 

into now, unless you want me to, what we can do to address that. 

And there are other challenges this country faces. I would be 

pleased to recognize the influence of the legislative branch and to 

welcome the insights that you might have. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Since that is a very important issue with 

me and I suppose every colleague here, let me emphasize by saying, is it fair to say then that regardless of what your position may 

have been as a legislator, your approach as Attorney General will 

be to enforce the law regardless of policy differences? 

Senator SESSIONS. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any 

hesitation or any lack of ability to separate the roles that I have 
19 

had. To go from the legislative branch to the executive branch is 

a transfer, not only of position, but of the way you approach issues. 

I would serve an executive function, an enforcement function of the 

laws this great legislative body might pass. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. During the course of the Presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of 

former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton relating to her handling 

of sensitive emails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton 

Foundation. You were not alone in that criticism. I was certainly 

critical in the same way as were millions of Americans on those 

matters. But now you have been nominated to serve as Attorney 

General. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concern about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious 

campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues 

in that campaign. With regard to Secretary Clinton and some of 

the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question. I have given that thought. I believe the proper 

thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions 

involving those kinds of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or could be otherwise connected to it. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Let me emphasize then with a follow-up question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself 

from both the Clinton email investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation if there are any? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Let me follow up again because it is important. When you say you will recuse, you mean that you will actually recuse and the decision will therefore fall to, I assume, a Deputy Attorney General? 

I ask because after Attorney General Lynch met with President 

Clinton in Phoenix, she said she would ‘‘defer’’ to the FBI, but she 

never officially recused. 

Senator SESSIONS. No, she did not officially recuse. And there is 

a procedure for that which I would follow. And I believe that would 

be the best approach for the country because we can never have a 

political dispute turn into a criminal dispute. This cannot be handled in any way that would suggest anything other than absolute 

objectivity. This country does not punish its political enemies, but 

this country ensures that no one is above the law. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You touched on something that is very dear 

to me and that is working with having executive branch people 

work with Members of the Congress. And you also mentioned working with us on oversight. But since that is very important to me, 

let me say that the executive branch has always been one of my 

top priorities regardless of who occupies the White House. I have 

often said I am an equal opportunity overseer. 

Now, over the years, I have asked quite a few executive nominees, but Republican and Democrat, to make commitments to respond to oversight. You said you would, but in my experience nominees are usually pretty receptive to oversight requests during these 
20 

type of hearings, but after they have been confirmed, oversight 

does not seem to be a high priority for them. 

As I told you when we met privately in my office, sometimes I 

think nominees should go ahead and be a little more straightforward during their hearings. And instead of saying yes to everything we ask about oversight, it would be more honest to say 

‘‘maybe’’ when asked if they would respond to our questions. 

Now, because you have served on this Committee and understand the importance of oversight, I am hoping you will be different 

than your predecessors in response to oversight questions. 

And so I have with me, that I will give to one of your staff, a 

whole bunch of letters that have not been answered yet, one of 

them even you have signed with me to the Department of Justice. 

And I hope that you would go to great lengths to see that these 

get answered so that next May or June if I am contacting you that 

they have not been answered then, you know, the Trump administration might be blamed for it and these are all a result of not getting answers from the last administration. So I hope you will help 

me get answers to these, at least the one you helped me to write. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you are correct that this Committee has oversight, but it goes beyond that. This Committee and 

the Congress funds the various departments of the executive 

branch, and you have every right before you fund our agencies and 

departments to get responsive answers to questions that are proper. Sometimes Congress has asked for answers on issues that 

maybe there is legitimate reason to object to. But they should object and state why. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be responsive to your requests and I understand your history, perhaps more than anyone in this Congress, to 

advance the idea that the executive branch needs to be held accountable. And I salute you for it. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And if Senator Feinstein contacts you, do 

not use this excuse, as so many people use, that if you are not 

Chairman of a Committee you do not have to answer the question. 

I want her questions answered just like you would answer mine. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That was above and beyond the 

call. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to begin with the second-largest criminal industry 

in this country, which is now, believe it or not, by revenues produced, human sex trafficking. 

And trafficking victims are among the most vulnerable in our society. The average age is 12 to 14. They are beaten, raped, abused, 

at times handcuffed at night so they cannot escape, and often 

moved from place to place, forced to have sex with multiple men 

each night. 

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, signed into law in 

2015, created a Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund for victim services, to be administered by the Department of Justice. Part of that 
21 

fund contains up to $30 million for health care or medical items or 

services to trafficking victims. 

These funds are subject to the Hyde amendment which says no 

appropriated funding can be used to pay for abortion. However, the 

Hyde amendment does not apply in cases of rape. 

On the Senate floor, Senator Cornyn discussed the Hyde language and said, ‘‘Everyone knows the Hyde amendment language 

contains an exception for rape and health of the mother. So under 

this act, these limitations on spending would not have anything to 

do with the services available to help those victims of human trafficking.’’ In short, Senator Cornyn asserted that the Hyde amendment, which contains an exception for rape, would not affect the 

availability of services for these victims. 

The Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund will be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Here is the question: Will you 

ensure that these grant funds are not denied to service providers 

who will assist victims of human trafficking in obtaining comprehensive services they need, including abortion, if that is what 

is required for a young girl impregnated during this horrific abuse? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, I appreciate that question. 

And I do appreciate the fact that our country has been talking and, 

I believe, taking action for a number of years to deal with sex trafficking more effectively. I do not know that we have reached the 

level of actual effectiveness we need to, but Congress and you and 

others have been very, very outspoken about this. And there are all 

kinds of great citizens groups that have focused on it. It is a very 

important issue. 

I was not aware of how the language for this grant program has 

been established. I do appreciate your concerns on it. It is a matter 

that I have not thought through. But, ultimately, it is a matter for 

this U.S. Congress, not so much a matter for the Attorney General. 

We need to put our money out to assist in this activity according 

to the rules established by the Congress. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I am delighted that Senator Cornyn is 

here. I quoted him directly from the floor that the Hyde amendment would not prevent the distribution of these funds. And so I 

hope you would agree to that. And that is certainly most important 

to me because Congress has spoken and the bill is law. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. And we would follow the 

law. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. As you know, the Constitution also 

protects a woman’s right to have access to health care and determine whether to terminate her pregnancy in consultation with her 

family and her doctor. 

I am old enough to remember what it was like before, when I 

was a student at Stanford and thereafter. In the early 1960s, I actually sentenced women in California, convicted of felony abortion, 

to State prison for maximum sentences of up to 10 years, and they 

still went back to it because the need was so great—so was the 

morbidity and so was the mortality. 

This right, passed now by the Constitution, as recognized in Roe, 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt—in fact, the Court re-
22 

cently struck down onerous regulations imposed by Texas on women’s health clinics. 

You have referred to Roe v. Wade as ‘‘one of the worst colossally 

erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.’’ Is that still your 

view? 

Senator SESSIONS. It is. I believe it violated the Constitution and 

really attempted to set policy and not follow law. It is the law of 

the land. It has been so established and settled for quite a long 

time and it deserves respect. And I would respect it and follow it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. On November 14th, 2016, appearing on the 

TV show, ‘‘60 Minutes,’’ the President-elect said that the issue of 

same-sex marriage was ‘‘already settled, it’s law, it was settled in 

the Supreme Court, it’s done and I am fine with that.’’ 

Do you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is settled law? 

Senator SESSIONS. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. The 

dissenters dissented vigorously, but it was 5–4 and five justices on 

the Supreme Court, a majority of the court, has established the 

definition of marriage for the entire United States of America and 

I will follow that decision. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Here is another question: If you believe 

same-sex marriage is settled law, but a woman’s right to choose is 

not, what is the difference? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I have not said that the woman’s right 

to choose or that Roe v. Wade and its progeny is not the law of the 

land or not clear today, so I would follow that law. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I would like to ask one question 

based on the letter that we received from 1,400 law professors. 

They are from 49 States, only Alaska is left out. I inquired why 

and they said because Alaska does not have a law school. So it is 

a pretty comprehensive list representing law professors in every 

State that has a law school. 

What they said, and this is what I want you to respond to, is, 

‘‘Nothing in Senator Sessions’ public life since 1986 has convinced 

us that he is a different man than the 39-year-old attorney who 

was deemed too racially insensitive to be a Federal district court 

judge. . . . All of us believe it is unacceptable for someone with Senator Sessions’ record to lead the Department of Justice.’’ 

So I want your response to this and answer to the question, how 

do you intend to put behind you what are strongly felt personal 

views, take off the political hat, and be an Attorney General who 

fairly enforces the law and the Constitution for all? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Senator Feinstein, I would direct their 

attention to, first, to the remarks of Senator Specter who, in his entire career, said he made one vote that he would regret and that 

was the vote against me. He indicated he thought that I was an 

egalitarian, a person who treated people equally and respected people equally. 

This caricature of me in 1986 was not correct. I have become a 

United States Attorney. I supported, as the Civil Rights attorney 

said, major civil rights cases in my district that integrated schools, 

that prosecuted the Klan, that ended single-member districts that 

denied African Americans the right to hold office. I did everything 

I was required to do. 
23 

And the complaints about the voter fraud case and the complaints about the Klan case that I vigorously prosecuted and supported are false. And I do hope this hearing today will show that 

I conducted myself honorably and properly at that time and that 

I am the same person, perhaps wiser and maybe a little better, I 

hope so, today than I was then. But I did not harbor the kind of 

animosities and race-based discrimination ideals that I was accused of. I did not. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Senator Hatch and then Senator 

Leahy. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before your time starts, I would like to 

mention that the Committee received a letter in support of Senator 

Sessions’ nomination from Attorneys General Ashcroft, Barr, 

Gonzales, Meese, and Mukasey, as well as a number of former Deputy Attorneys General. 

They wrote, in part, as follows, a sentence from that letter, 

‘‘Based on our collective and extensive experience, we also know 

him to be a person of unwavering dedication to the mission of the 

department to assure that our country is governed by a fair and 

evenhanded rule of law.’’ 

I ask consent to put that letter in the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to 

thank you for your fair approach to this, our first hearing of the 

115th Congress. You have scheduled and you have structured this 

hearing in line with this Committee’s precedence. In fact, you are 

including more witnesses in this hearing than the past average for 

Attorney General nominees. 

Senator Sessions has provided this Committee with more than 

150,000 pages of material relevant to his nomination. That is 100 

times what Attorney General Lynch produced and almost 30 times 

what Attorney General Holder provided. 

This material comes from someone we know, someone many of 

us have served with in the Senate and on this very Committee, yet 

some on the far left will stop at nothing to defeat this nomination. 

They oppose this nomination precisely because Senator Sessions 

will not politicize the Justice Department or use its resources to 

further a political agenda. They make up one thing after another 

to create a caricature that bears no resemblance to the nominee, 

who is actually before us here today. 

Now, I have been on this Committee for a long time and I have 

seen these dirty tactics used before. And they are not going to work 

this time. 

Senator Sessions, it sounds a little strange to say this, but welcome to the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. The Senate Judiciary Committee. I am sure 

there will be some need to address false claims and fabricated 

charges during this hearing. Believe it or not, however, I actually 
24 

have some questions about issues and policies that you will be addressing when you become Attorney General. 

The first is one I have raised with every incoming Attorney General nominee for nearly 25 years and it concerns enforcement of 

Federal laws prohibiting obscenity. 

In the 108th Congress, you introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United 

States. It pleased the Senate, or excuse me, it passed the Senate 

unanimously; it pleased it, too. In fact, it is the only resolution on 

this subject ever passed by either the Senate or the House. 

Now, Senator Sessions, with your permission, I want to share 

with you that resolution adopted last year by the Utah legislature 

outlining why pornography should be viewed as a public health 

problem, as well as some of the latest research into the harms of 

obscenity. 

Is it still your view that Federal laws prohibiting adult obscenity 

should be vigorously enhanced? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, those laws are clear and they 

are being prosecuted today and should continue to be effectively 

and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate. 

Senator HATCH. In making this a priority for the Justice Department, would you consider re-establishing a specific unit dedicated 

to prosecuting this category of crime? 

Senator SESSIONS. So that unit has been disbanded? I am not 

sure I knew that, but it was a part of the Department of Justice 

for a long time, and I would consider that. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. For several years now, Senator Chris 

Coons and Representatives Tom Marino and Suzan DelBene, and 

I, have raised the importance of safeguarding data privacy on an 

international scale from unauthorized Government access. So that 

is why we continue to push forward the International Communications Privacy Act, which establishes a legal standard for accessing 

extraterritorial communications. 

The need for a legislative solution was reinforced in July when 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held in Microsoft v. 

United States that current law does not authorize U.S. law enforcement officials to access electronic communications stored outside 

the United States. 

If confirmed, will you and your staff work with us to strike the 

needed balance to strengthen privacy and promote trust in the 

United States technologies worldwide while enabling law enforcement to fulfill its important public safety mission? 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be a high responsibility, Senator. 

I know you have worked hard on that for a number of years, as 

have others, Members of this Committee, Senator Coons, and others. So working that out, understanding the new technology, but 

the great principles of the right to privacy, the ability of individuals to protect data that they believe is private and should be protected, all of those are great issues in this new technological world 

we are in. And I would be pleased to work with you on that. And 

I do not have firm and fast opinions on the subject. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much. And I would like to 

turn now to rapid DNA technology that will allow law enforcement 
25 

officials to speedily process DNA samples in 90 minutes or less. 

FBI Director Comey told this Committee that rapid DNA would 

help law enforcement ‘‘change the world in a very, very exciting 

way.’’ Legislation authorizing law enforcement to use this technology, which you cosponsored, passed the Senate last year. I was 

disappointed, however, that it got tied up with criminal justice reform efforts in the House. 

And I have two questions. First, do you agree with FBI Director 

Comey and with law enforcement leaders across the country that 

rapid DNA legislation is important and will help law enforcement 

to do their jobs better and faster? 

And second, do you agree with me that we should work to pass 

this legislation sooner rather than later and should avoid tying it 

to efforts on other legislative issues whose path forward is unclear? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, rapid DNA analysis is a 

hugely important issue for the whole American criminal justice system. It presents tremendous opportunities to solve crimes in an effective way and can produce justice because it is the kind of thing 

that you cannot fake or mislead. So I am very strongly in favor of 

that. 

In my personal view, after many years in the law enforcement 

community, is that one of the biggest bottlenecks, colleagues, of all 

of our laws involving prosecutions of criminal activity is the bottleneck of the scientific analysis, is the forensic sciences, where we 

fail sometimes to get DNA back, fail to get back fingerprint analysis, fail to get back drug analysis, chemical analysis. And all of 

this slows down and stops cases that should long since have been 

brought forward and disposed of. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. Now, I have read that some Democratic 

Senators accuse you of opposing the Violence Against Women Act. 

That caught my attention because, like I did, you actually voted to 

reauthorize it. 

As I recall, in 2013 there were not one, but two bills to reauthorize VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. One had controversial 

provisions that had never been received in a hearing, the other did 

not. 

Am I right that you supported reauthorizing the Violence 

Against Women Act? 

Senator SESSIONS. Absolutely. I supported it in 2000 when it 

passed. I supported it in 2005 when both of those bills I supported 

became law. And then in this cycle, Senator Grassley had a bill 

that I thought was preferable. And I supported his bill that actually had tougher penalties than the other bill. 

And it is kind of frustrating to be accused of opposing VAWA, the 

Violence Against Women Act, when I have voted for it in the past. 

There was some specific add-on revision in the bill that caused my 

concern and I think other people’s concern. 

Senator HATCH. And Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to place in the 

record an op-ed published in USA Today on this subject by Penny 

Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, the Nation’s 

largest public policy and women’s organization, if you can. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The op-ed article appears as a submission for the record.] 
26 

Senator HATCH. Now, I have a question about the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The division enforces the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which protects 

the right of prison inmates to worship, and protects churches and 

religious institutions from burdensome zoning and other restrictions. 

So I introduced this legislation in 2000. It passed without objection in both the Senate and the House. I would note for the record 

that next Monday, January 16th, is Religious Freedom Day. I hope 

that you will make the religious freedom of all Americans a priority 

under your leadership. 

The Civil Rights Division also has a unit dedicated to combating 

human trafficking. It was created in 2007, and one of my former 

Judiciary Committee counsels, Grace Chung Becker, was its first 

head. 

Perhaps you could comment on the significance of issues such as 

religious freedom and human trafficking and why it is important 

to include them within the civil rights agenda of the Department. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, religious freedom is our great 

heritage in America. We respect people’s religion. We encourage 

them to express themselves and to develop their relationships with 

the higher power, as they choose. We respect that. It is mandated 

in the Constitution. 

But there are situations in which I believe we can reach accommodations that would allow the religious beliefs of persons to be 

honored in some fashion as opposed to just dictating everything 

under a single provision or policy. 

So I believe you are correct. We should recognize religious freedom. It would be a very high priority of mine. 

Senator HATCH. Well, that means a lot to me. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me close by asking consent to place in 

the record letters from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. They attest to Senator Sessions’ work on behalf of the vulnerable children 

and young people. 

And I also ask consent to place in the record a letter supporting 

this nomination from nearly two dozen men and women who have 

served as Assistant Attorneys General in 10 different offices and 

divisions that says that, as both U.S. Senator and U.S. Attorney, 

‘‘Senator Sessions has demonstrated a commitment to the rule of 

law and to the evenhanded administration of justice.’’ I cannot 

agree more. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, those will be included. 

[The letters appear as submissions for the record.] 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Senator Sessions and Mrs. Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me just follow up. You were just asked about 

the Violence Against Women Act and your support. Let us deal 

with the facts. Let us deal with what was actually voted on. Let 
27 

us deal with the Violence Against Women Act that you voted 

against. 

You strongly opposed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, spoke against it; you voted against it. That law 

expanded protections for some of the most vulnerable groups of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors—students, immigrants, LGBTQ victims, and those on Tribal lands. 

Now, the Justice Department, by all accounts, has done an excellent job implementing and enforcing it over the last three years. 

I believe—we are both prosecutors. I went to a lot of domestic violence scenes, crime scenes, as a young prosecutor. I believe that 

all victims of domestic and sexual violence deserve protection. 

Why did you vote against expanding protections for LGBT victims, students, immigrants and Tribal victims of domestic violence 

and sexual assault? Why did you vote ‘‘no’’? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I did indeed support the bill 

in 2000 and in—— 

Senator LEAHY. I am talking about the bill that is the law today. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand what you are saying. 

Senator LEAHY. The law today, that was passed in 2013 by an 

overwhelming margin in the Senate and by an overwhelming margin in the Republican-controlled House, signed into law by President Obama. I am asking about that. Why did you oppose it? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, a number of people opposed 

some of the provisions in that bill, not the entire bill. 

Senator LEAHY. I am just asking about you. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am trying to answer. 

Senator LEAHY. Go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. So when we voted in the Committee, eight of 

the nine Republicans voted against the bill. One of the more concerning provisions was one that gave Tribal courts jurisdiction to 

try persons who were not Tribal members—I believe, the only time 

that has ever happened. That was the big concern that I raised, I 

believe, primarily, on the legislation. 

So I voted with the Chairman and the legislation he had, that 

I thought did the job for protecting women, to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act but at the same time did not have other 

things attached to it that I thought were concerning. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, on the Tribal courts, those have now been 

prosecuted very carefully. Defendants receive due process rights; 

they have to. None of the non-Indian defendants that have been 

prosecuted have appealed to Federal courts. 

Many feel it has made victims on Tribal lands safer. Do you 

agree with that? Do you agree with the way the Justice Department has handled such cases? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the law has 

been passed by Congress. I am interested to see how it plays out 

in the real world, and I will do my best to make my judgment 

about how to enforce that as Attorney General. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, we—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Certainly, the law itself has many powerful 

provisions that I am glad were passed and that are in law, and 

that provide protections to women victims of violence. 
28 

Senator LEAHY. On the Tribal lands, it has been used and prosecuted for 3 years. Do you feel it has been handled correctly? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have no understanding of 

that, but I am interested in the results of it so far. First time I 

have heard it commented on. 

Let me say this to you directly. In meeting with Senators prior 

to this hearing, quite a number of you raised this issue and I 

learned a lot about it. I learned a lot about the fact that non-Indians have been going onto Tribal lands and committing crimes, including rape, yet have not been effectively prosecuted. 

Now, under current law and historically, they would be prosecuted in the Federal Government by the United States Attorneys, 

and that has not been happening sufficiently, I am now convinced. 

So I do think the FBI, particularly maybe the Bureau of Indian Affairs investigators, should be beefed up, and the U.S. Attorneys 

need to do probably a better job of prosecuting cases that need to 

be prosecuted in Federal court. 

Senator LEAHY. Those were facts that came out pretty clearly in 

the hearings before you voted against that provision. That is why 

Senator Crapo and I and others included it in the bill. 

There have not been any tests of that. Nobody has appealed this; 

nobody has objected to it. If somebody does, would you be able to 

defend it in court? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would defend the statute, if it is reasonably 

defensible, yes. It is passed by Congress; it would be the duty of 

the Attorney General, whether they voted for it or support it, to defend it. 

Senator LEAHY. Now—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Did I call you ‘‘Mr. Chairman’’ a while ago? 

I think I did. You have been my Chairman many years now. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, that is okay. It has been 20 years back and 

forth, and I am delighted to turn it over to Senator Feinstein and 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you will be handling all the money of 

the United States, I understand, in your new position. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. In 2009, I offered the Matthew Shepard and 

James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to 

the Defense bill. It extended hate crimes protections to LGBT individuals, women, and individuals with disabilities. It passed the 

Senate overwhelmingly. You opposed it. You stated at a hearing 

that you are not sure women or people of different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. And then you said, ‘‘I just 

do not see it.’’ 

Do you still believe that women and LGBT individuals do not 

face the kind of discrimination that the hate crimes legislation was 

passed to prevent? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Leahy, having discussed that issue at 

some length, that does not sound like something I said or intended 

to say. What I did intend—— 

Senator LEAHY. Well, you did say it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I understand, but I have seen things 

taken out of context and not give an accurate picture. My concern 

is and was that it appeared these cases were being prosecuted ef-
29 

fectively in State courts, where they would normally be expected to 

be prosecuted. 

I asked Attorney General Holder to list cases that he had that 

indicated they were not being properly prosecuted. I noted that Mr. 

Byrd’s assailant was given the death penalty in Texas for his offense, and Mr. Shepard’s had two life sentences imposed as a result 

of the situation in his State. 

So the question simply was, do we have a problem that requires 

an expansion of Federal law into an area that the Federal Government has not been historically involved? Senator Hatch had a proposal that we do a study to see the extent of the problem, and that 

we should have evidence that indicates a shortage of prosecutions 

and a lack of willingness to prosecute before adding this law. 

Senator LEAHY. As far as the study, last year the FBI said that 

LGBT individuals were more likely to be targeted for hate crimes 

than any other minority group in the country. I mean, we can 

study this forever, but that is a pretty strong fact. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will tell you, Senator—— 

Senator LEAHY. And in 2010, you stated that expanding hate 

crime protections to LGBT individuals was unwarranted, possibly 

unconstitutional. You said the bill has been said to cheapen the 

civil rights movement. 

Especially considering what the FBI has found, do you still feel 

that way? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, the law has been passed. The 

Congress has spoken. You can be sure I will enforce it. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

I do not want to go as much over time as Senator Hatch did, but 

I will ask you one question. 

The President-elect has repeatedly asserted his intention to institute a ban on Muslim immigrants to the United States. 

In December 2015, you voted against a resolution that I offered 

in this Committee that expressed the sense of the Senate that the 

United States must not bar individuals from entering into the 

United States based on their religion. All Democrats and most Republicans, including the Chairman, were in support of my resolution. Do you agree with the President-elect that the United States 

can or should deny entry to members of a particular religion? 

Based on their religion? We do background checks for terrorism, 

but based on their religion, do you agree with the President-elect 

that the United States can or should deny entry to all members of 

a particular religion? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Leahy, I believe the President-elect 

has, subsequent to that statement, made clear that he believes the 

focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have a 

history of terrorism, and he has also indicated that his policy and 

what he suggests is strong vetting of people from those countries 

before they are admitted to the United States. 

Senator LEAHY. Then why did you vote against the resolution? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr.—I almost called you Mr. Chairman again. 

Senator Leahy, my view and concern was that the resolution was 

suggesting that you could not seriously consider a person’s religious 

views. Sometimes, though not in the majority of cases, people do 
30 

have religious views that are inimical to the public safety of the 

United States. 

I did not want to have a resolution that suggested that that 

could not be a factor in the vetting process before someone is admitted. But I have no belief and do not support the idea that Muslims as a religious group should be denied admission to the United 

States. We have great Muslim citizens who have contributed in so 

many different ways in America—as I said in my remarks at the 

occasion that we discussed it in Committee. I am a great believer 

in religious freedom and the right of people to exercise their religious beliefs. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I turn to—— 

Senator LEAHY. May I ask consent to put some items in the 

record? 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Yes. So without objection, your inserts will 

be included. 

[The information referred to appears as submissions for the 

record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I have a letter from Solicitor General Ted 

Olson in support of Senator Sessions, quoting in part, with respect 

to civil rights, he says, ‘‘As a lawyer who has devoted years of effort 

to litigating and vindicating the civil rights of our fellow gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens, I recognize that people of good faith 

can disagree on legal issues. Such honest disagreement should not 

disqualify them from holding public office. In particular, I have no 

reservations about Senator Sessions’ ability to handle these issues 

fairly, in accordance with law and to protect the civil rights of 

these and all of our citizens.’’ 

I would like to include that in the record, without objection. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are about to get 

an answer to the age-old question: Can you be confirmed Attorney 

General of the United States over the objection of 1,400 law professors? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. I do not know what the betting line in Vegas 

is, but I like your chances. 

Speaking of football—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. I want to congratulate the University of Alabama for one heck of a streak. One of the most dominant 

football teams in the history of college football. And I want to acknowledge the Clemson Tigers, where I live five miles from the stadium, that that was the finest college football game I think I have 

ever seen. 

Dabo Swinney and the Tigers represent everything good about 

college athletics. And while we were on different teams early this 

morning, I want to let the good people of Alabama know that in 

terms of their Senator, Jeff Sessions, he is a fine man, an outstanding fellow who I often disagree with, I have traveled the 

world with. I have gotten to know him and his family, and I will 

enthusiastically support you for the next Attorney General of the 

United States. 
31 

Now, let us talk about issues. Some people believe that the only 

way you can get justice in this world is for the Federal Government 

to administer it. Have you heard such thoughts? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I have. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think I know what you are talking about. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, I think I do too. I think the whole point 

is, for the Federal Government to take over an area of the law, 

there should be a good reason. Do you agree with that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. If a State is not prosecuting crimes against 

people based on their sex, their race, whatever reason, then it is 

proper for the Federal Government to come in and provide justice. 

Do you agree with that? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do. 

Senator GRAHAM. When the State is doing its job, the Federal 

Government should let the States do their job. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. That is the general principle 

and there is not a general Federal crime, Federal statute, that federalizes all crime in America. There has never been one. 

Senator GRAHAM. Because people are listening. That is just the 

way we think. You may not agree with that, but we think that 

way. And I think we have really got a good reason to think that 

way. I think that is the way they set up the whole system. 

Muslims. As you know, me and the President-elect have had our 

differences about religious tests. Would you support a law that says 

you cannot come to America because you are a Muslim? 

Senator SESSIONS. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you support a law that says that if you 

are a Muslim, and you say you are a Muslim, and when we ask 

you what does that mean to you, well, that means I have got to 

kill everybody that is different from me, it is okay to say they cannot come? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that would be a prudent decision. 

Senator GRAHAM. I hope we can keep people out of the country 

who want to kill everybody because of their religion. I hope we are 

smart enough to know that is not what most people in the Muslim 

faith believe. So—— 

Senator SESSIONS. It can be the religion of that person. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is right. That is the point we are trying 

to make here. 

About the Wire Act, what is your view of the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act to allow online video poker, or 

poker gambling? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Graham, I was shocked at the enforcement memorandum that the Department of Justice issued 

with regard to the Wire Act, and I criticized it. Apparently, there 

is some justification or argument that can be made to support the 

Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened and it seemed to me to be an unusual—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you revisit it? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would revisit it and I would make a decision 

about it based on careful study. At this time, I have not reviewed 

it so far as to give you an opinion today. 
32 

Senator GRAHAM. Immigration. You have said that the Executive 

order of President Obama you believe is unconstitutional, the 

DACA law. Do you still have that position? 

Senator SESSIONS. I did, for a number of reasons. 

Senator GRAHAM. But I am not—I mean, I agree with you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Right. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now we have got 800,000 people have come out 

of the shadows, that have been signed up. Will you advise the next 

President, President Trump, to repeal that Executive order? 

Senator SESSIONS. That will be a decision that needs to be studied and that he would need to agree to. But it is an Executive 

order—really, a memorandum of the Department of Homeland Security. 

It would certainly be constitutional, I believe, to end that order, 

and our Department of Justice, I think, could have no objection to 

a decision to abandon that order. Because it is very questionable, 

in my opinion, constitutionally. 

Senator GRAHAM. Once we repeal it—and I agree that I believe 

it is an overreach—what do we do with the 800,000 kids who have 

come out of the shadows? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Graham, fundamentally we need to 

fix this immigration system. Colleagues, it has not been working 

right. We have more and more millions of people entering illegally 

into the country. Each one of them produces some sort of humanitarian concern, but it is particularly true for children. 

So we have been placed in a bad situation. I really would urge 

us all to work together. I would try to be supportive to end the illegality and put us in a position where we can wrestle with how to 

handle these difficult, compassionate decisions. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. And the best way to do it is for Congress 

and the administration to work together and pass a law, not an Executive order. 

Senator SESSIONS. Exactly. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. When it comes to the law of war, do you 

believe that people who join al-Qaeda or affiliated groups are subject to being captured or killed under the law of war? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do, Senator. I just do not see how we could 

see it otherwise. And it is the responsibility of the military to protect the United States from people who attack us. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you believe the threats to the homeland are 

growing or lessening? 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe they are growing and we are seeing 

that now in Europe and we are also seeing it right here in America. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you support the continuation of Gitmo as 

a confinement facility for foreign terrorists? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Graham, I think it is designed for 

that purpose. It fits that purpose marvelously well. It is a safe 

place to keep prisoners. We have invested a lot of money in that, 

and I believe it should be utilized in that fashion so I have opposed 

the closing of it. 

But as Attorney General—— 

[Protestors interrupting.] 
33 

Senator GRAHAM. I just wanted to see if they were still listening. 

I think they are on the fence about Gitmo, but I am not sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Let me tell you. I support this administration’s 

effort to make sure we prosecute terrorism as a military action, not 

a law enforcement action. They are not trying to steal our cars or 

rob your bank account. They are trying to destroy our way of life, 

and I hope you will go after them without apology, apply the law. 

And the law is the law of war, not domestic criminal law. And you 

will have a friend in Senator Graham if you intend to do that. 

Cyber attacks. Do you think the Russians were behind hacking 

into our election? 

Senator SESSIONS. I have done no research into that. I know just 

what the media says about it. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you think you could get briefed anytime 

soon? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will need to. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I think you do, too. 

You like the FBI? 

Senator SESSIONS. Do I like them? 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Some of my best friends are FBI. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you generally trust them? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Are you aware of the fact that the FBI has concluded that it was the Russian intelligence services who hacked 

into the DNC and Podesta’s emails? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do understand that. 

Senator GRAHAM. From your point of—— 

Senator SESSIONS. At least that is what has been reported, and 

I have not been briefed by them on the subject. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. From your point of view, there is no reason for us to be suspicious of them? 

Senator SESSIONS. Of their decision? 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure it was honorably reached. 

Senator GRAHAM. How do you feel about a foreign entity trying 

to interfere in our election? I am not saying they changed the outcome, but it is pretty clear to me they did. How do you feel about 

it and what should we do? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Graham, I think it is a significant 

event. We had penetration, apparently, throughout our Government by foreign entities. We know the Chinese have revealed background information on millions of people in the United States, and 

I suppose this is ultimately part of international big-power politics. 

But when a nation uses their improperly gained or intelligencegained information to take policy positions that impact another nation’s democracy or their approach to any issue, then that raises 

real serious matters. 

It really, I suppose, goes in many ways to the State Department, 

the Defense Department, and how we as a Nation have to react to 

that, which would include developing some protocols where when 

people breach our systems, that a price is paid even if we cannot 

prove the exact person who did it. 
34 

Senator GRAHAM. I agree. I have got 20 seconds left. 

I have known you for, I guess, 15 years now, and we have had 

a lot of contests on the floor and sometimes we agree, sometimes 

we do not. 

I am from South Carolina, so I know what it is like sometimes 

to be accused of being a conservative from the South. That means 

something other than you are a conservative from the South, in 

your case. People have fairly promptly tried to label you as a racist 

or a bigot or whatever you want to say. 

How does that make you feel? And this is your chance to say 

something to those people. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that does not feel good. 

[Protestor interruption.] 

Senator GRAHAM. If nothing else, I am clearing the room for you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. And I would suggest that the freedom of 

speech also has some courtesy to listen. 

So what is your answer? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Graham, I appreciate the question. 

When you have a Southern name, you come from South Alabama, 

that sounds worse to some people. South Alabama. And when I 

came up as a United States Attorney, I had no real support group. 

I did not prepare myself well in 1986, and there was an organized 

effort to caricature me as something that was not true. It was very 

painful. I did not know how to respond and did not respond very 

well. 

I hope my tenure in this body has shown you that the caricature 

that was created of me was not accurate. It was not accurate then 

and it is not accurate now. And I just want you to know that as 

a Southerner who actually saw discrimination and have no doubt 

it existed in a systematic and powerful and negative way to the 

people, great millions of people in the South, particularly, of our 

country, I know that was wrong. And I know we need to do better. 

We can never go back. I am totally committed to maintaining the 

freedom and equality that this country has to provide to every citizen, and I assure you that that is how I will approach it. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, let me first say it is—I am glad that you 

brought your family with you today. It is a beautiful family, with 

your wife and your son and daughters and those four beautiful little granddaughters. You have kept as quiet as you could for as long 

as you could, so thank you so much for being here today. I am sure 

it was great moral support and part of your effort here today. 

When you came by my office last week, I talked to you about a 

man named Alton Mills. And with the permission of the chair, I 

would like to—he is my guest today—ask Mr. Mills if he would 

please stand up. Alton, thank you for being here today. 

I would like to tell you a story so you can understand my question a little better. 

When Alton Mills was 22 years old, unemployed, he made a bad 

decision. He started selling crack cocaine on the streets of Chicago. 

He was arrested twice for possession of small amounts of crack cocaine. 
35 

The third time that he was arrested, the kingpins who had employed him turned on him and, as a consequence, he ended up 

being prosecuted under the three-strikes-and-you’re-out law. At the 

age of 24, he was sentenced to life without parole. 

He had never been in prison before and, as I mentioned, there 

were no allegations made against him other than possession and 

sale. No violence, no guns, nothing of that nature. 

Alton Mills ended up—despite the sentencing judge’s admonition 

that he believed this was fundamentally unfair and his hands were 

tied, Alton Mills ended up spending 22 years in Federal prison, 

until December 2015 when President Obama commuted his sentence. He was finally able to go home to his family. 

Senator Sessions, 7 years ago you and I co-sponsored a bill 

known as the Fair Sentencing Act, which Senator Collins referenced earlier, and that reduced the brutal sentencing disparity 

for crack cocaine crimes over powder cocaine. 

It was originally 100–to–1. We agreed—in the Senate gym, I 

might add—to bring that down to 18–to–1. Inmates, overwhelmingly African-American, were spared thousands of prison years because of our joint effort in this injustice. 

Yet when I asked you to join me in appealing to the Sentencing 

Commission to follow our law, and when I asked you to join Senator Grassley and me in permitting the almost 5,000 still serving 

under this unfair 100–to–1 standard to petition individually for leniency, you refused. 

And you said of President Obama’s pardoning of people like 

Alton Mills, ‘‘President Obama continues to abuse Executive power 

in an unprecedented, reckless manner to systematically release 

high-level drug traffickers and firearms felons.’’ ‘‘So-called lowlevel, non-violent offenders simply do not exist in the Federal system,’’ you said. 

Senator Sessions, Alton Mills and many more just like him do 

exist. So if you refuse to even acknowledge the fundamental injustice of many of our sentencing laws, why should you be entrusted 

with the most important criminal prosecution office in America? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Durbin, I think that is rather unfair, 

based on our relationship and how we work together. In 2001, I introduced legislation very similar to the bill that you and I successfully made law. It would have reduced it to 20–to–1. Our bill went 

to 18–to–1, a little better, but fundamentally that. 

I was criticized by the Bush Department of Justice. My legislation was opposed by them. It was 7 years later or so or longer before our bill ever passed. So I stepped out against my own Republican administration and said openly on the floor of the Senate that 

I believed these crack cocaine laws were too harsh and particularly 

it was disadvantageous to the African-American community, where 

most of the punishments were falling. And it was not fair and we 

ought to fix it. 

I just want to say I took a strong stand on that. You and I did 

not agree on the retroactivity because a lot of these were plea-bargain cases and may not have been totally driven by the mandatory 

minimums. So I thought the Court had basically now agreed that 

it is retroactive. I do not know what group is not being covered by 
36 

it, but a large group was covered by a Court decision. We sort of 

left it open, as I remember it. 

Senator DURBIN. We did. 

Senator SESSIONS. You and I discussed it. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me say on the issue of fairness, I will acknowledge you stepped out on this issue. And you and I both recognized the brutal injustice of a 100–to–1, and we agreed on 18–to– 

1. That is how laws are made. And now we have 5,000 prisoners 

sitting in Federal prison, still there under this brutal, unjust 100– 

to–1. And all I have asked and all Senator Grassley has asked, 

allow them as individuals to petition to the judge, to the prosecutor, to the Department of Justice so that their sentences could 

be considered. That is something you have opposed. 

So in fairness, tell me why you still oppose that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, first, I will tell you with absolute certainty that it is a decision of this body. It is not the Attorney General’s decision about when and where a mandatory minimum is imposed and whether it can be retroactively altered. 

I will follow any law that you pass, number one. Number two, 

I understood the sincere belief you had on that issue, and it was 

a difficult call, and that is why we really never worked it out. 

So I understand what you are saying, but I did believe that you 

are upsetting finality in the justice system, that you are suggesting 

that these kind of factors were not considered when the plea bargaining went down. So it is an honorable debate to have, and I respect your position on it. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator, you have been outspoken on another 

issue, and I would like to address it, if I could. I have invited here 

today Sergeant Oscar Vazquez, if he would be kind enough to stand 

up and be recognized. Sergeant, thank you for being here. 

I will tell you his incredible story in a short form. Brought to the 

United States as a child, in high school he and three other 

DREAMers started a Robotics Club and won a college-level robotics 

competition. They made a movie out of this story. He graduated 

from Arizona State University with an engineering degree. The 

Obama administration granted him a waiver and allowed him to 

become a citizen and enlist in the United States Army, where he 

served in combat in Afghanistan. 

Senator Sessions, since joining the Senate in 1997, you have 

voted against every immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for the undocumented. You described the DREAM Act, 

which I introduced 15 years ago to spare children who are undocumented through no fault of their own, as ‘‘a reckless proposal for 

mass amnesty.’’ You opposed the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill which passed the Senate 4 years ago. You have 

objected to immigrants’ volunteering to serve in our armed forces, 

saying, ‘‘In terms of who is going most likely to be a spy: somebody 

from Cullman, Alabama, or somebody from Kenya?’’ 

When I asked what you would do to address the almost 800,000 

DREAMers, like Oscar Vazquez, who would be subject to deportation if President Obama’s Executive order was repealed, you said, 

‘‘I believe in following the law. There is too much focus on people 

who are here illegally and not enough on the law.’’ 
37 

Senator Sessions, there is not a spot of evidence in your public 

career to suggest that as Attorney General you would use the authority of that office to resolve the challenges of our broken immigration system in a fair and humane manner. Tell me I am wrong. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you are wrong, Senator Durbin. I am 

going to follow the laws passed by Congress. As a matter of policy, 

we disagreed on some of those issues. I do believe that if you continually go through a cycle of amnesty that you undermine the respect for the law and encourage more illegal immigration into 

America. I believe the American people spoke clearly in this election. I believe they agreed with my basic view. And I think it is 

a good view, a decent view, a solid legal view for the United States 

of America that we create a lawful system of immigration that allows people to apply to this country, and if they are accepted, they 

get in; if they are not accepted, they do not get in. And I believe 

that is right and just, and the American people are right to ask for 

it. We have not delivered that for them. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Graham asked this question, and I listened to your answer when he asked you what would happen to 

those 800,000 currently protected by President Obama’s Executive 

order known as DACA, who cannot be deported for 2 years—it is 

renewable—and can work for 2 years, and you said, ‘‘Let Congress 

pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.’’ 

You opposed the only bipartisan effort that we have had on the 

Senate floor in modern memory. And what is going to happen to 

those 800,000 if you revoke that order and they are subject to deportation tomorrow? What is going to happen to them? What is the 

humane legal answer to that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the first thing I would say is that my 

response to Senator Graham dealt with whose responsibility this is. 

I had a responsibility as a Member of this body to express my view 

and vote as I believed was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. That is not the Attorney General’s role. The Attorney General’s role is to enforce the law. And as you know, Senator Durbin, 

we are not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody that is in the country illegally. 

President Trump has indicated that criminal aliens, like President Obama indicated, certainly are the top group of people and so 

I would think that the best thing for us to do—and I would urge 

my colleagues to understand this. Let us fix this system. And then 

we can work together after this lawlessness has been ended, and 

then we can ask the American people and enter into a dialogue 

about how to compassionately treat people who have been here a 

long time. 

Senator DURBIN. That does not answer the question about the 

800,000 who would be left in the lurch, whose lives would be ruined while you are waiting on Congress for a bill that you opposed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I thought it did answer it pretty closely, 

what you asked, and I understand your concerns. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Sessions, congratulations to you and 

your family on this once-in-a-lifetime honor to serve as the head of 

the Department of Justice. 
38 

You know, sitting here listening to the questions and some of the 

comments that have been made, both by the protesters and others, 

it strikes me that many people have been surprised to learn more 

about your record, your outstanding record as a prosecutor, as 

somebody who treated that responsibility to uphold and enforce the 

law and the Constitution without fear or favor. I think some people 

here listening today have been somewhat surprised by your record 

in complete context. 

Those of us who have served with you in this Senate, some as 

many as 20 years, like Senator Shelby and Senator Collins, testified to your character. But I like to think that those of us who 

served with you most closely in the Senate, particularly here on the 

Judiciary Committee, know more about you than just your record 

and your character. We know your heart. We know what kind of 

person you are. You are a good and decent and honorable man. You 

have got an outstanding record that you should be proud of, and 

I know you are. And you should be. 

For example, when somebody says that you unfairly prosecuted 

some African Americans for voter fraud in Alabama, it strikes me 

as ‘‘incomplete,’’ is the most charitable thing I can say, when they 

leave out the fact that the very complainants in that case were also 

African Americans. In other words, the people you prosecuted were 

African Americans, but the people whose voting rights you were 

trying to vindicate were African Americans. Is that not correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. Does that strike you as a fair characterization 

of your approach toward enforcing the law that people would leave 

that important factor out? 

Senator SESSIONS. It is not, Senator Cornyn, and it has been out 

there for a long time. If you ask people who casually follow the 

news, they probably saw it otherwise. These were good people who 

asked me to get involved in this case. In 1983, a majority AfricanAmerican grand jury with an African-American foreman asked the 

Federal Government to investigate the 1982 election. I declined. I 

hoped that that investigation would have stopped the problem. But 

2 years later, the same thing was happening again. We had African-American incumbent officials pleading with us to take some action. We approached the Department of Justice in Washington, the 

Public Integrity Voting Section. They approved an investigation, 

and it developed into a legitimate case involving charges of vote 

fraud, taking absentee ballots from voters, opening them up, and 

changing their vote and casting them for somebody they did not intend the vote to be cast for. It was a voting rights case, and I just 

feel like we tried to conduct ourselves in the right way. I never got 

in the argument of race or other matters. I just tried to defend myself as best I could. 

I would note, colleagues, that just in the last few days, the son 

of Albert Turner has written a letter and said I was just doing my 

job, and he understood the reason and the justification for the prosecution and that I would be a good Attorney General. So that was 

gratifying to me, and that is the real truth of the matter. 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Sessions, I know the nature of these 

confirmation hearings is that people pick out issues that they are 

concerned about or where there may be some good faith disagree-
39 

ment on policy, and that is what they focus on. But let me just ask 

you—maybe it is not a great analogy, but let me try anyway. You 

have been married to your wife, Mary, almost 50 years, right? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it has not gotten to 50 yet. Forty-seven, 

soon to be 48. 

Senator CORNYN. Forty-seven, okay. Well, that is a good run. Let 

me just ask you, are there—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Let it continue. I have been blessed. 

Senator CORNYN. Are there occasions when you and your wife 

disagree? 

Senator SESSIONS. No, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You are under oath. 

Senator SESSIONS. Wait a minute. I am under oath. On occasion 

we do, yes. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you think it would be fair to characterize 

the nature of your relationship with your wife based upon those 

handful of disagreements that you have had with her over time? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a good point. Thank you for making 

it. No, I do not. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, and to your original point, your wife is always right. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. You are under oath. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. Well, so this is the nature of these confirmation 

hearings. People are identifying specific issues where there are policy differences, but my point is that does not characterize your entire record of 20 years in the United States Senate or how you have 

conducted yourself as a prosecutor representing the United States 

Government in our Article III courts. 

Let me get to a specific issue, to a couple, in the time I have remaining. I was really pleased to hear you say in your opening 

statement that many in law enforcement feel that our political 

leaders have on occasion abandoned them. You said police ought to 

be held accountable. But do you believe that it is ever under any 

circumstances appropriate for somebody to assault a police officer, 

for example? 

Senator SESSIONS. There is virtually no defense for that kind of 

action, and I do believe that we are failing to appreciate police officers who place their lives at risk. This sergeant, who was just 

killed yesterday, was trying to deal with a violent criminal and vindicate the law when she was killed. That is the kind of thing that 

too often happens. We need to be sure that when we criticize law 

officers, it is narrowly focused on the right basis for criticism. And 

to smear whole departments places those officers at greater risk, 

and we are seeing an increase in murder of police officers. It was 

up 10 percent last year. 

I could feel in my bones how it was going to play out in the real 

world when we had what I thought oftentimes was legitimate criticism of perhaps wrongdoing by an officer, but spilling over to a condemnation of our entire police force. And morale has been affected, 

and it has impacted the crime rates in Baltimore and crime rates 

in Chicago. I do not think there is any doubt about it. I regret that 
40 

is happening. I think it can be restored, but we need to understand 

the requirement that the police work with the community and be 

respectful of their community, but we as a Nation need to respect 

our law officers, too. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I for one appreciate your comments, because we ought to hold our police and law enforcement officers up 

in the high regard to which they deserve based on their service to 

the communities. And your comments remind me to some extent of 

Chief David Brown’s comments, the Dallas police chief, following 

the tragic killing of five Dallas police officers recently, where he 

said that police ought to be held accountable, but under no circumstances could any assault against a police officer be justified 

based on what somebody else did somewhere at some time. So I for 

one appreciate that very much. 

You mentioned Baltimore and Chicago, and we have seen an incredible number of people, frequently in minority communities, who 

have been killed as results of crimes related to felons who perhaps 

are in possession of guns that they have no legal right to be in possession of. Earlier, you talked about prosecuting gun crimes, and 

I am glad to hear you say that. Project Exile, which originated I 

think in Richmond, Virginia, which targeted felons and other people who cannot legally own or possess firearms, was enormously effective. And when I look at the record of the last 5 and 10 years 

at the Justice Department, prosecution of those kinds of crimes 

down 15.5 percent in the last 5 years, down 34.8 percent in the last 

10 years. 

Can you assure us that you will make prosecuting those people 

who cannot legally possess or use firearms a priority again in the 

Department of Justice and help break the back of this crime wave 

that is affecting so many people in our local communities like Chicago or Baltimore, and particularly minority communities? 

Senator SESSIONS. I can, Senator Cornyn. I am familiar with how 

that plays out in the real world. My best judgment, colleagues, is 

that, properly enforced, the Federal gun laws can reduce crime and 

violence in our cities and communities. It was highlighted in Richmond in Project Exile. But I have to tell you, I have always believed that. When I was United States Attorney in the 1980s and 

into the early 1990s, we produced a newsletter that went out to all 

local law enforcement called ‘‘Project Triggerlock,’’ with the Federal 

law enforcement, too, and it highlighted the progress that was 

being made by prosecuting criminals who use guns to carry out 

their crimes. 

Drug-dealing criminals are most likely the kind of people who 

will shoot somebody when they go about their business. And if 

those people are not carrying guns because they believe they might 

go to Federal court, be sent to a Federal jail for 5 years, perhaps, 

they will stop carrying those guns during their drug dealing and 

their other activities that are criminal. Fewer people will get killed. 

So I truly believe that we need to step that up. It is a compassionate thing. If one of these individuals carrying a gun shoots 

somebody, not only is there a victim; they end up with hammering 

and a sentence in jail for interminable periods. The culture, the 

communities are safer with fewer guns in the hands of criminals. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 
41 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before we go to Senator Whitehouse, Members have asked me about our break, and if it is okay with Senator 

Sessions, it would work out about 1 o’clock if we have three on this 

side and three on this side for 1 hour, because it is noon right now. 

Is that okay with you, Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I am at your disposal. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. This will give my colleagues an opportunity, if they want, to go to the respective political party caucuses. 

And we would take a recess of about 30 to 40 minutes. 

Senator LEAHY. That is very fair. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Sessions, hello. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When we met, I told you that I was going 

to ask you a particular question, so I am going to lead off with that 

particular question. 

Following the Gonzales scandals at the Department of Justice, 

the Department adopted procedures governing communications between the White House and the Department of Justice consistent 

with constraints that were outlined years ago in correspondence between Senator Hatch and the Reno Justice Department limiting 

contacts between a very small number of officials at the White 

House and a very small number of officials at the Department of 

Justice. Will you honor and maintain those procedures at the Department of Justice? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will, Senator Whitehouse. 

You as an honorable and effective United States Attorney yourself know how that works and why it is important. Attorney General Mukasey issued a firm and—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And very clear about supporting that policy, yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Maybe still pending, and I would say to you— 

well, that is the appropriate way to do it. After you and I talked, 

I read the Reno memorandum, the Gorelick memorandum, and I 

think I would maintain those rules. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On the subject of honorable prosecutions, 

when is it appropriate for a prosecutor to disclose derogatory investigative information about a subject who was not charged? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a very dangerous thing, and it is a 

pretty broad question, as you ask it. But you need to be very careful about that, and there are certain rules, like grand jury rules, 

that are very significant. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And is it not also true that it is customary 

practice because of the concern about the improper release of derogatory investigative information that the Department customarily limits its factual assertions even after an individual has been 

charged to the facts that were charged in the information or the 

indictment? 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe that is correct, yes. That is a standard operating policy in most offices. There may be some exceptions, 

but I think that is standard operating procedure in the United 

States Attorneys’ Offices like you and I had. 
42 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As a question of law, does waterboarding 

constitute torture? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, there was a dispute about that when we 

had the torture definition in our law. The Department of Justice 

memorandum concluded it did not necessarily prohibit that. But 

Congress has taken an action now that makes it absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United States by our military and by all our other departments and agencies. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Consistent with the wishes of the United 

States military. 

Senator SESSIONS. They have been supportive of that. And, in 

fact, I would just take a moment to defend the military. The military—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You do not need to defend them from me. 

I am all for our military. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know. But I just—so many people, I truly believe, think that the military conducted waterboarding. They never 

conducted any waterboarding. That was by intelligence agencies. 

And their rules were maintained. I used to teach the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of Warfare as an Army Reservist to my personnel, and the military did not do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And General Petraeus sent a militarywide letter disavowing the value of torture, as we both know. 

Another question, another question as a matter of law: Is fraudulent speech protected by the First Amendment? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, fraudulent speech, if it amounts to an 

attempt to obtain a thing of value for the person the fraudulent 

speech is directed—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Which is an element of fraud. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Is absolutely fraud and can be 

prosecuted, and I think we see too much of that. We see these 

phone calls at night to elderly people. We see mailings go out that 

seem to me to be awfully far from truth and seducing people to 

probably make unwise decisions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So fraudulent corporate speech would also 

not be protected by the First Amendment. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct, and it is subject to civil and/ 

or criminal complaint. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And speaking of civil complaints, was the 

Department of Justice wrong when it brought and won the civil 

RICO action against the tobacco industry? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Senator, they won those cases. They 

took them to court and eventually won a monumental victory. That 

is correct. And it is part of the law and firmly established. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Hard to say they were wrong if they won, 

right? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As you know, the United States has retaliated against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. In 

Europe, Baltic States, Germany, and Italy have raised concerns of 

Russia meddling in their countries’ elections. I know this has been 

touched on before, but I want to make sure it is clear. Will the Department of Justice and the FBI under your administration be al-
43 

lowed to continue to investigate the Russian connection even if it 

leads to the Trump campaign and Trump interests and associates? 

And can you assure us that in any conflict between the political interests of the President and the interests of justice, you will follow 

the interests of justice even if your duties require the investigation 

and even prosecution of the President, his family, and associates? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Senator, if there are laws violated and 

they can be prosecuted, then, of course, you will have to handle 

that in an appropriate way. I would say that the problem may turn 

out to be, as in the Chinese hacking of hundreds of thousands, 

maybe millions of records, it has to be handled at a political level. 

And I do think it is appropriate for a nation who feels that they 

have been hacked and that information has been improperly used 

to retaliate against those actions. It is just—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I know we share a common interest 

in advancing the cybersecurity of this Nation, and I look forward 

to continuing to work with you on that. 

Let me ask you a factual question. During the course of this boisterous political campaign, did you ever chant, ‘‘Lock her up’’? 

Senator SESSIONS. No, I did not. I do not think. I heard it in rallies and so forth, sometimes I think humorously done. But it was 

a matter on which I have said a few things. A special prosecutor, 

I favored that. I think that probably is one of the reasons I believe 

that I should not make any decision about any such case. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you understand that the good guy 

lawman in the movies is the one who sits on the jailhouse porch 

and does not let the mob in. 

Senator SESSIONS. Exactly. Exactly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So I am from Rhode Island, as you know, 

Senator. We have NAACP and ACLU members who have heard 

you call their organizations—who have heard that you called their 

organizations ‘‘un-American.’’ We have a vibrant Dominican community who look at ‘‘Big Papi,’’ David Ortiz, swinging his bat for 

the Red Sox, and wonder why you said, ‘‘Almost no one coming 

from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming here 

because they have a provable skill that would benefit us.’’ I represent a lot of Latinos who worry about modern-day Palmer raids 

breaking up parents from their kids and Muslims who worry about 

so-called patrols of Muslim homes and neighborhoods. And I have 

heard from police chiefs who worry that you as Attorney General 

will disrupt law enforcement priorities that they have set out and 

disrupt the community relations that they have worked hard over 

years of community engagement to achieve. 

Time is short, but I noticed that in your prepared remarks these 

are no unforeseeable concerns, and your prepared remarks did very 

little to allay the concerns of those people. Is there anything you 

would like to add now in our closing minute? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. My comment about the 

NAACP arose from a discussion that I had where I expressed concern about their statements that were favoring, as I saw it, Sandinista efforts and Communist guerrilla efforts in Central America. 

And so I said they could be perceived as un-American and weaken 

their moral authority to achieve the great things they had been accomplishing in integration and moving forward for reconciliation 
44 

throughout the country. And I believe that, clearly, and I never 

said—and accused them of that. 

Number two, with regard—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So what would you tell the representative 

of the NAACP in Rhode Island right now? He is the head of the 

NAACP—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would say please look at what I have 

said about that and how that came about, and it was not in that 

context. It was not correct. I said in 1986 that NAACP represents 

one of the greatest forces for reconciliation and racial advancement 

of any entity in the country, probably number one. That is what 

I said then. I believed it, and I believe it now. And it is an organization that has done tremendous good for us. 

With regard to the Dominican Republic, I had gone on a codel 

with Senator Specter. We came through the Dominican Republic. 

We visited public service housing projects that seemed to be working and did other things of that nature, and I went and spent some 

time with the consular official there, just asking about things. And 

what I learned was that there is a good bit of fraud in it, and he 

was somewhat discouraged in his ability, he felt, to do his job. And 

we also understood and discussed that the immigration flow is not 

on a basis of skills. The immigration flow from almost all of our 

countries, frankly, is based on family connection and other visas 

rather than a skill-based program more like Canada has today. 

And that is all I intended to be saying there. 

Tell anybody who heard that statement, please do not see that 

as a diminishment or a criticism of the people of the Dominican Republic. It was designed to just discuss in my remarks the reality 

of our immigration system today. I would like to see it more skillbased, and I think that would be helpful. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Thank you for your patience. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Before I go to Senator Lee, there is an evaluation of the work of 

Senator Sessions during his time as U.S. Attorney that I think 

speaks to his outstanding record. I am made aware of this because 

Senator Feinstein requested an evaluation of Senator Sessions’ office from the Department of Justice, and I would note just a few 

points from their evaluation back in 1992, a couple of short sentences: ‘‘All members of the judiciary praise the U.S. Attorney for 

his advocacy skills, integrity, leadership of the office, and accessibility.’’ 

And the second quote: ‘‘The USAO for the Southern District of 

Alabama is an excellent office with outstanding leadership, personnel, and morale. The district is representing the United States 

in a most capable and professional manner.’’ 

Without objection, I will put that in the record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Yes? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. While we are putting things into the 

record, could I join? 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Yes, please do that. 
45 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In a unanimous consent that a December 

5, 2016, letter from leaders of the U.S. environmental movement 

and a January 5, 2017, letter from the National Task Force to End 

Sexual Violence and Domestic Violence Against Women be added 

to the record? 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Yes, and those will be included, without objection. 

[The letters appear as submissions for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Hello, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Hello. 

Senator LEE. I have enjoyed working with you over the last 6 

years and always found you to be someone who treats colleagues, 

regardless of differing viewpoints, with dignity and respect. You 

have taught me a great deal in the 6 years I have been here, and 

I have appreciated the opportunity to work with you. 

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that we are both lawyers, although being a lawyer around here, certainly having a law 

degree is not unusual. One of the things that sets you apart and 

makes you different, I get the sense from you that you think of 

yourself not so much as a Senator who used to be a lawyer, but 

as a lawyer who is currently serving as a Senator. And I think that 

is an important thing, especially for someone who has been named 

to be the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Even though you and I have never had the opportunity to discuss 

the intricacies of the Rule Against Perpetuities or the difference between the Doctrine of Worthier Title and the Rule in Shelley’s 

Case, I get the sense that you would eagerly engage in such banter 

when occasion arises. So maybe in a subsequent round, we will 

have the opportunity to do that. 

But this does raise a discussion that I would like to have with 

you about the role of the lawyer. As you know, a lawyer understands who his or her client is. Anytime you are acting as a lawyer, 

you have got a client. This is a simple thing if you are representing 

an individual because in almost every instance, unless the client is 

incapacitated, you know who the client is. The client has one 

mouthpiece, one voice, and you know what the interests of that client are, and you can evaluate those based on the interests expressed by the client. 

It gets a little more complicated when you are representing a corporate entity. Typically, you will interact either with a general 

counsel or the chief executive, of course. The bigger an entity gets, 

the more complex it gets. There might be some ripples in this relationship between the lawyer and the client. 

In the case of the U.S. Government and the Attorney General’s 

representation of that client, this is a particularly big and powerful 

client, and that client has many interests. In a sense, the client is, 

of course, the United States of America, but at the same time, the 

Attorney General is there put in place by the President of the 

United States and serves at the pleasure of the President of the 

United States. And so in that respect, the Attorney General has 

several interests to balance and must at once regard him- or herself as a member of the President’s Cabinet, remembering how the 

Attorney General got there and can be removed at any moment by 
46 

the President; and at the same time the Attorney General has the 

obligation to be independent, to provide an independent source of 

analysis for the President and for the President’s team and Cabinet. 

How do you understand these things as a former U.S. Attorney, 

as a former line prosecutor, and as a Senator who served on the 

Judiciary Committee? You have had a lot of opportunities to observe this process. How do you see the proper balancing between 

all these interests from the standpoint of the Attorney General? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a very insightful or probing question, 

and it touches on a lot of the important issues that I, as Attorney 

General, would need to deal with. There are even some times that 

these Government agencies act like foreign countries, they negotiate memorandums of understanding that are akin to a treaty, actually. They cannot seem to work together oftentimes in an effective way and so the Attorney General is required to provide opinions on that. The Attorney General ultimately owes his loyalty to 

the integrity of the American people and to the fidelity to the Constitution and the legitimate laws of the country. That is what he 

is ultimately required to do. However, every Attorney General has 

been appointed by a President, or they would not become Attorney 

General, and they have been confirmed by the Senate or they 

would not have been made Attorney General. They do understand, 

I think, that if a President wants to accomplish a goal that he or 

she believes in deeply, then you should help them do it in a lawful 

way, but make clear and object if it is an unlawful action. 

That helps the President avoid difficulty. It is the ultimate loyalty to him, and you hope that a President, and I hope Presidentelect Trump has confidence in me so that if I give him advice that 

something can be done, or cannot be done, that he would respect 

that. That is an important relationship, too, but ultimately you are 

bound by the laws of the country. 

Senator LEE. Some of that, I assume, could come into play when 

you are dealing with a politically sensitive case—with a case that 

is politically sensitive because it relates to a member of the administration, or to the interplay between the executive branch and the 

legislative branch, for example. 

In some of those instances there could be calls for a special prosecutor. On the one hand this is a way of taking the Attorney General out of the equation so that it could be handled in a manner 

that reflects a degree of separation between the administration and 

the case. On the other hand, there are Constitutional questions 

that are sometimes raised, and sometimes people argue that this 

poses too much of a presumption that the special prosecutor will 

seek an indictment in order to justify the expense and the time put 

into appointing a special prosecutor. 

For reasons that relate to the complexity of these considerations, 

there are, of course, guidelines in place that can help guide the determination to be made by the Attorney General as to when, 

whether, how, to put in place a special prosecutor. But even within 

these guidelines, there is a lot of flexibility, a lot of discretion in 

the hands of the Attorney General in deciding how to do that. Do 

you have anything that you would follow? What can you tell us 
47 

about what considerations you would consider in deciding whether 

or not to appoint a special prosecutor? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is not a little matter. It is a matter 

that has created controversy over the years. I do not think it is appropriate for the Attorney General just to willy-nilly create special 

prosecutors. History has not shown that has always been a smart 

thing to do. But there are times when objectivity is required and 

the absolute appearance of objectivity is required. And now perhaps 

a special prosecutor is appropriate. Attorney General Lynch, for example, did not appoint a special prosecutor on the Clinton matter. 

I did criticize that. I was a politician, we had a campaign on. I did 

not research the law in depth, just the reaction as a Senator of a 

concern. But great care should be taken in deciding how to make 

the appointment or if an appointment of a special prosecutor is required. 

At the Department of Justice you are not required to be a judge 

to be a prosecutor. One judge said, ‘‘There’s nothing wrong with a 

prosecutor who likes his work and doesn’t think laws should be violated.’’ Is that a bias? I do not think so. I think that is a strength. 

So I just would say that is the best I could give you at this point, 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, that is helpful. Another challenging 

issue that relates to this duty of independence that Attorneys General have relates to the Office of Legal Counsel. You know, it is, 

of course, the job of the Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, as it is 

sometimes known, to issue opinions, within the executive branch 

on a wide array of subjects. Some are subjects that a lot of people 

would find interesting; others are subjects that only a lawyer could 

love. And sometimes only a lawyer specializing in something esoteric or specific. 

There is one recent OLC opinion entitled, ‘‘Competitive Bidding 

Requirements Under the Federal Highway Aid Program.’’ There 

are not, perhaps, that many people who would find that interesting, but there are a lot of others that would capture immediately 

the public’s interest. 

What is significant about all of these, though, no matter how 

broad or narrow the topic, no matter how politically sexy or dull 

the topic might be, they, in many instances, almost conclusively resolve a legal question within the executive branch of Government. 

And in many instances they are doing so on the basis of constitutional determinations that may or may not ever be litigated, such 

that the broaching of a constitutional topic might be opened, studied, and resolved entirely within the executive branch, largely as 

a result of how the lawyers within the Office of Legal Counsel decide to do their jobs. 

What can you tell me about what you would do, if confirmed, to 

ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel maintains a degree of professionalism and independence, requisite for this task? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Lee, that office is important. It does 

adjudicate, or actually opine, on important issues related to conflicts or disputes within the great executive branch of the American 

Government. Like you said, what kind of competition is required 

before you get a highway grant? There may be a disagreement 

about that and OLC is asked to review it and stay to one position, 
48 

that the Government of the United States is one. It is not a multiple government. These departments are not independent agencies 

and so that office is so exceedingly important as you indicate, because many times those opinions hold. And they set policy and they 

affect things. 

Sometimes it also has the power, and I am sure you would be 

sensitive to, to expand or constrict the bureaucracies in their ability to execute under statutes. In other words, is this within their 

power, or is it not within their power? So there are some of the 

things like that that could impact the American people over time 

in a significant way. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you, Senator Sessions. You and I have worked together on a number of bills, including leading the International 

Adoption Simplification Act, which I believe made a big difference 

to a lot of families in keeping their siblings together when they 

were adopted. Senator Cornyn and I led the Sex Trafficking Bill, 

that passed last year, and you had some important provisions in 

that. And then we worked together on law enforcement issues and 

I appreciate your respect and the support that you have from that 

community and I also thank you for your work on drug courts, 

something we both share as former prosecutors and I believe in the 

purpose of those courts. 

I wanted to lead first with another part of the Justice Department’s jobs, and that is protecting civil rights and the right to vote. 

My State had the highest voter turnout in the last election, of any 

State. We are pretty proud of that. And as county attorney for 8 

years for Minnesota’s biggest county, I played a major role in making sure that the election laws were enforced and that people who 

were able to vote could vote and that people who should not vote, 

did not vote. 

Since the Voting Rights Act became law more than 50 years ago, 

we have made progress, but I have been very concerned about some 

of the movements by States to restrict access to voting. In recent 

years we have not been able to pass the Bipartisan Voting Rights 

Advancement Act forward last Congress. I just think it is an area 

that is going to be ripe for a lot of work going forward. 

You and I talked about how at one point you previously called 

the Voting Rights Act an ‘‘intrusive piece of legislation’’ and I wondered if you could explain that, as well as talk about how you will 

actively enforce the remaining pieces of the Act; that would be Section 2 which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race; and this Section 3 bail-in provision, 

through which more States can be subject to preclearance. And you 

do not have to go into great detail on those two sections, you could 

do it later, but if you could just explain your views of the Voting 

Rights Act moving forward and what would happen in terms of enforcement if you were Attorney General. 

Senator SESSIONS. The Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 was one 

of the most important Acts to deal with—— 

[Audience interruption.] 
49 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Racial difficulties that we face. 

And it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the 

South. There was a clear finding that there were discriminatory activities—— 

[Audience interruption.] 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. In the South, that a number of 

States were—— 

[Audience interruption.] 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Were systematically denying individuals the right to vote. And if you go back into the history you 

can see it plainly, actions and rules and procedures were adopted 

in a number of States with the specific purpose of blocking African 

Americans from voting. And it was just wrong. And the Voting 

Rights Act confronted that, and it, in effect, targeted certain States 

and required even the most minor changes in voting procedure—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Like moving a precinct across 

the—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So how would you approach this going forward? For instance, the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the Texas 

voter ID law discriminates against minority voters that was written by a Bush appointee. Do you agree with that decision? How 

would you handle this moving forward? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well I have not studied that. There is going 

to be a debate about it, courts are ruling on it now—that is, voter 

ID and whether or not it is an improper restriction on voting that 

adversely impacts disproportionately minority citizens. So that is a 

matter that has got to be decided. On the surface of it, it does not 

appear to me to be that. I have publicly said I think voter ID laws 

properly drafted are okay, but as Attorney General it will be my 

duty to study the facts in more depth, to analyze the law. But fundamentally that can be decided by Congress and the courts as they 

interpret the existing law. 

I did vote to extend this Voting Rights Act several years ago. It 

included Section 5, but later Section 5 was eliminated by the Supreme Court, on the basis that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And how about the commit—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Progress had been made and on 

an intrusive question, let me answer that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is intrusive, the Supreme Court on more 

than one occasion has described it legally as an intrusive act, because it only focused on a certain number of States, and normally 

when Congress passes a law, it applies to the whole country. So it 

is a very unusual thing for a law to be passed that targets only a 

few States. But they had a factual basis. They were able to show 

that it was justified in this fashion. So that is the foundation for 

it and that is why I supported it, its renewal. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I think you will understand as you 

look at this issue that there are many voters, people who are trying 

to vote that some of these rules that are put in place are intrusive 

for them, because it makes it harder for them to vote and I think 

that is the balance that you are going to need. 

Senator SESSIONS. I hear—— 
50 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I just hope, coming from a State that 

has such high voter turnout, that has same-day registration, a very 

good turnout in Iowa as well, right below us, States that have put 

in place some really expansive voter laws and it does not mean 

Democrats always get elected. We have had Republican governors 

in Minnesota, they have a Republican governor in Iowa, and I just 

point out that I think the more we could do to encourage people 

to vote, the better democracy we have. 

And I want to turn to another quick question on a democratic 

issue, as in a democracy issue that was raised by Senator Graham 

and Senator Whitehouse. I just returned with Senators McCain 

and Graham from a trip to Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, and learned 

there about how these intrusive cyber attacks are not just unique 

to our country, not just unique to one party, not just unique to one 

election, and they have seen that movie before in those countries. 

And do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the conclusion 

reached by our 17 intelligence agencies that, in fact, Russia used 

cyber attacks to attempt to influence this last election? I am not 

asking if you believe that it influenced it, just if you believe the report of our intelligence agencies. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have no reason to doubt that and have no 

evidence that would indicate otherwise. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Violence Against Women Act. 

Senator Leahy asked some of those questions really important to 

me. You and I discussed it. I just have one question there. If confirmed, will you continue to support the life-saving work being done 

by the Office on Violence Against Women? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. Immigration. You and I 

have some different views on this, and I often focus on the economic benefits of immigration—the fact that we have 70 of our Fortune 500 companies headed by immigrants. At one point 200 of our 

Fortune 500 companies were either formed by immigrants or kids 

of immigrants. Roughly 25 percent of all U.S. Nobel laureates were 

foreign-born. And just to understand in a State like mine where we 

have entry-level workers in dairies who are immigrants, major doctors at the Mayo Clinic, police officers who are Somali, if you see 

that economic benefit of immigrants in our society? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, immigration has been a high priority for 

the United States. We have been the leading country in the world 

in accepting immigration. I do not think American people want to 

end immigration. I do think that if you bring in a larger flow of 

labor than we have jobs for, it does impact adversely the wage 

prospects and the job prospects of American citizens. I think as a 

nation we should evaluate immigration on whether or not it serves 

and advances the national interest, not the corporate interest. It 

has to be the people’s interest first, and I do think too often Congress has been complacent in supporting legislation that might 

make businesses happy, but it also may have had the impact of 

pulling wages down. 

Doctor Borjas at Harvard has written about that. I think he is 

the world’s, perhaps most effective and knowledgeable scholar, and 

he says that does happen. Wages can be diminished, and one of the 

big cultural problems we have today is middle and lower economic 
51 

classes of Americans have not had the wage increases that we 

would like to see them have. In fact, wages are still down from 

what they were in 2000. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. I just see that we can do a mix of making sure that we have jobs for people here and then understanding 

that we are a country of immigrants. 

Senator SESSIONS. On that subject, for me with Canada—— 

[Audience interruption.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have another 

30 seconds here, I had one last question. 

Senator SESSIONS. It may be 45 seconds, Mr. Chair. I would just 

say that you are close to the Canadian system. And I think it may 

be some of those policies ought to be considered by the United 

States. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. My last question, Mr. Chairman, is on the 

reporters issue. Free press, I believe, is essential to our democracy. 

And I have always fought to ensure that those rights are not compromised. My dad was a reporter, a newspaper reporter for years. 

And I am especially sensitive to the role of the press as a watchdog. 

You have raised concerns in the past about protecting journalists 

from revealing their sources. You did not support the Free Flow of 

Information Act. 

In 2015, the Attorney General revised the Justice Department 

rules for when Federal prosecutors can subpoena journalists or 

their records. And he also committed to releasing an annual report 

on any subpoenas issued or charges made against journalists and 

committed not to put reporters in jail for doing their job. 

If confirmed, will you commit to following the standards already 

in place at the Justice Department? And will you make that commitment not to put reporters in jail for doing their jobs? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Klobuchar, I am not sure, I have not 

studied those regulations. I would note that when I was a United 

States Attorney, we knew, everybody knew that you could not subpoena a witness or push them to be interviewed if they were a 

member of the media without approval at high levels of the Department of Justice. That was in the 1980s. 

And so I do believe the Department of Justice does have sensitivity to this issue. There have been a few examples of where the 

press and the Department of Justice have not agreed on these 

issues. But for the most part, there is a broadly recognized and 

proper deference to the news media. 

But you could have a situation in which a member of the media 

is really not part of the unbiased media we see today. And they 

could be a mechanism through which unlawful intelligence is obtained. There are other dangers that could happen with regard to 

the Federal Government that normally does not happen to the 

media covering murder cases in the States. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Well, thank you. And I will follow 

up with that in a written question when you have a chance to look 

at that. 

Senator SESSIONS. If you would, I would be—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you. 
52 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I call for the first time on a new Member 

of the Committee, Senator Sasse from Nebraska. 

Senator SASSE. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for having me. 

Before I get started, I would like to enter into the record a letter 

of support from 25 current State Attorneys General, including 

Doug Peterson, the Attorney General from my State of Nebraska. 

The letter reads in part, ‘‘No one is more qualified to fill this role 

than Senator Sessions.’’ This is obviously important testimony from 

the top law enforcement officers of 25 States. 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to include this in the 

record. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Proceed, Senator Sasse. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. Senator Sessions, when you were introducing your grandkids, and I am amazed that they stayed 

around as long as they did, mine would have been more disruptive 

earlier, I was thinking about all the time I spend in schools. 

We have a crisis in this country of civic ignorance. Our kids do 

not know basic civics. And we have a crisis of public trust in this 

country in that many Americans presume that people in this city 

are overwhelmingly motivated by partisan perspectives rather than 

the public good. 

Tragically, our current President multiple times over the last 3 

or 4 years has exacerbated this political polarization by saying that 

he did not have legal authority to do things and then subsequently 

doing exactly those things, quite apart from people’s policy perspectives on these matters. 

This is a crisis when kids do not understand the distinction between the legislative and the executive branches and when American voters do not think that people who serve in these offices take 

their oaths seriously. So it is not always as simple as ‘‘Schoolhouse 

Rock’’ jingles on Saturday morning. 

But could you at least start by telling us what you think the 

place for Executive orders and Executive actions are? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a good question and a good premise 

that we should think about. People are taught ‘‘Schoolhouse Rock’’ 

is not a bad basic lesson in how the Government is supposed to 

work. Legislators pass laws, the President executes laws, as does 

the entire administration, as passed by Congress, or it follows the 

Constitution, and the judicial branch decides disputes as a neutral 

umpire, an unbiased participant, any sides of the controversy and 

does it objectively, so I think every day that we get away from that 

is really dangerous. 

It is true that if a President says, ‘‘I do not have this authority,’’ 

and other people say the President does not have certain authority 

and then it is done by the President, it confuses people. 

I think, colleagues, we too little appreciate something that is corrosive happening out in our country. There is a feeling that judges 

just vote when they get a big case before them on what their political agenda is and not what the Constitution actually requires. The 

judges can redefine the meaning of words to advance an agenda 
53 

that they have that may not be the agenda of the American people. 

And that inevitably is corrosive to respect the law. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. But take it one step further, because 

there are going to be many cases, there will be many instances 

where the administration in which you are likely going to end up 

serving will want to do things and they will want to know what 

the limits of their Executive discretion is. Some pieces of legislation 

that have been passed around here in recent years sometimes are, 

you know, well over a thousand pages with all sorts of clauses ‘‘the 

Secretary shall—dot, dot, dot’’ fill in the law. So this Congress has 

regularly underreached and invited executive overreach. This Congress has regularly failed to finish writing laws and then invited 

the executive branch to do it. 

What are some of the markers that you would use to help understand the limits where the executive branch cannot go? 

Senator SESSIONS. We really need to re-establish that. Professor 

Turley, Jonathan Turley, has written about this. It is just powerful. 

He is certainly an objective voice in American jurisprudence. And 

he says that Congress has just fallen down on its job. 

Now, of course, there are two ways. One of them is that it writes 

laws that are too broad. And I would urge all of you to be sure that 

when we pass a law or you pass a law, if I am confirmed, that that 

law is clear and sets limits. When it does not set limits, then you 

can have the secretary of this agency or that agency claiming they 

have certain authorities and we end up with a very muddled litigation maybe resulting from it. So re-establishing the proper separation of powers and fidelity to law and to limits is an important 

issue. And I think, hopefully, I think that is what you are suggesting. 

Senator SASSE. Could you tell me under what circumstances, if 

any, you think the Department of Justice can fail to enforce a law? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it can fail to enforce it by setting prosecutorial policies with regard to declining to prosecute whole 

chunks of cases and, in effect, eliminate a statute. If a new tax is 

passed and the Department of Justice says it cannot be collected, 

then the law is not followed. 

You also have circumstances that can redefine the statute or 

alter it. If we are talking about improper actions, it could expand 

the meaning of the words of the statute far beyond what Congress 

ever intended. And that is abuse, too. 

Senator SASSE. And not to interrupt you too soon, the improper, 

but also, what is proper? Because this administration has made the 

case regularly that they need to exercise prosecutorial discretion 

because of limited resources. And obviously, there are not infinite 

resources in the world, so what are some proper instances, in your 

view, when an administration might not enforce a law? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, critics of the immigration enforcement, 

the DAPA and the DACA laws, said that the prosecutorial discretion argument went too far. It basically just eliminated the laws 

from the books. 

Second with regard to that, the President’s—well, the order came 

from Homeland Security, not from the Department of Justice, but 

Homeland Security’s order not only said we are not going to enforce 

the law with regard to certain large classifications of people, but 
54 

those people who had not been given legal status under the laws 

of the United States were given photo IDs, work authorization and 

Social Security numbers and the right to participate in these Government programs; that would appear to be contrary to existing 

law. So that would, to me, suggest an overreach. 

Senator SASSE. And in parallel before the courts, what instances 

would it be legitimate, if any, for the Solicitor General to not defend a law in court? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a very good question, and sometimes 

it becomes a real matter. In general, the Solicitor General, as part 

of the Department of Justice and the executive branch, states the 

position of the Department of Justice. And it has a duty, the Department of Justice does, to defend the laws passed by this body, 

by Congress. And they should be defended vigorously whether or 

not the Solicitor General agrees with them or not, unless it cannot 

be reasonably defended. 

Sometimes you reach a disagreement about whether it is reasonably defensible or not, but that is the fundamental question. And 

the Department of Justice should defend laws that Congress 

passed unless they are unable to do so in a reasonable way. 

Senator SASSE. What is the place of independent agencies in a 

unified executive branch? And do you envision that you will be 

making any recommendations to the President to reign in independent agencies in an effort to preserve the constitutional distinction between the powers of the Congress and the administrative responsibilities of an executive branch? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator, that is a good question, kind of a historic question at this point in time because it does appear to me 

that agencies oftentimes see themselves as independent fiefdoms. 

And sometimes you even hear the President complain about things 

clearly under his control. 

I remember President Clinton complaining about the death penalty processes of the department of the Federal Government when 

he appointed the Attorney General who had just appointed a committee to make sure the death penalty was properly carried out. So 

whose responsibility is this? You are in charge, you can remove the 

Attorney General if you are not happy. Those kind of things do continue out there that we need to be careful about. And I thank you 

for raising it. 

Senator SASSE. I have less than a minute left, so last question. 

But going back to something that Senator Lee was asking about, 

could you just give a topline summary of what you view the responsibilities of the OLC to be and what the relationship would be between the OLC, the Office of the Attorney General, and the White 

House? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, OLC has statutory duties to make opinions. The OLC team reports to the Attorney General who could reverse, I suppose, or remove the OLC head, the Deputy Attorney 

General, if he thought that department was not following the law. 

But essentially, they are given the power. As Attorney General, I 

had an opinions section in Alabama and they rendered opinions on 

a whole host of matters when called upon from school boards and 

highway departments and that sort of thing. 
55 

This OLC does represent a key position in the Department of 

Justice. They must have extraordinary legal skill. They have to be 

terrific lawyers. They have to understand the constitutional order 

of which we are a part. And they should render objective decisions 

day after day, week after week. It is ultimately the responsibility 

of the President and the Attorney General to ensure that we have 

that kind of quality at OLC. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator, congratulations on your nomination. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. In 2009 when you became the Ranking Republican on this Committee, you were interviewed about how you 

would approach the Committee’s work and nominations specifically. You said that Democrats should expect you to be fair because 

you had been through this process yourself back in 1986 and you 

felt that back then the Committee had distorted your record. You 

said that moving forward, ‘‘We are not going to misrepresent any 

nominee’s record and we’re not going to lie about it.’’ And we certainly do not want to do that to our colleague. 

But I also think it is fair to expect that sitting before us today 

that you are not going to misrepresent your own record. That is 

fair to say, right? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is fair. 

Senator FRANKEN. Good. Now, in that same interview, you said, 

‘‘I filed 20 or 30 civil rights cases to desegregate schools and political organizations and county commissions when I was United 

States Attorney.’’ So 20 or 30 desegregation cases. Did I misread 

that quote? 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe that is what I have been quoted as 

saying, and I suspect I said that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Okay, now that was 2009. But in November of this year, your office said, ‘‘When Senator Sessions was 

U.S. Attorney, he filed a number of desegregation lawsuits in Alabama’’; not 20 or 30 this time, but ‘‘a number.’’ 

So tell me, did you file 20 or 30 desegregation cases or is it some 

other number? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you, Senator Franken. It is important for us to be accurate. The records do not show that there were 

20 or 30 cases actually filed. Some of the cases involved multiple 

defendants and multiple parties, like to a school board and a county commission being sued for racial discrimination, things of that 

nature. But the number would be less than that as we have looked 

at. So I—— 

Senator FRANKEN. What do you think would have caused you to 

say that you filed 20 or 30 desegregation cases? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not know. I thought—well, we had cases 

going throughout my district, and some of them were started before 

I came and continued after I left. Some of them were brought and 

then settled promptly. And so it was extraordinarily difficult and 

actually I was surprised to get a record by checking the docket 

sheets to find out exactly how many cases were involved. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 
56 

Senator SESSIONS. I heard one lawyer from the Department of 

Justice, I believe, with that large number. 

Senator FRANKEN. Let me move on. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. But I do not—the record does not justify it. 

Senator FRANKEN. The questionnaire you have submitted for 

today asks you to list and describe the ‘‘10 most significant litigated matters you personally handled.’’ Personally handled. And 

among the cases that you listed that you personally handled are 

three voting rights cases and a desegregation case. 

Last week, I should note, three attorneys who worked at DOJ 

and who actually brought three of the four cases wrote an op-ed 

piece in which they say, ‘‘We can state categorically that Sessions 

had no substantive involvement in any of them.’’ Now, you originally said that you personally handled three of these cases, but 

these lawyers say that you had no substantive involvement. 

Chairman Grassley, I would ask that that op-ed from last Tuesday’s Washington Post be entered into the record. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, it will be entered. 

[The op-ed article appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Are they distorting your record here? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. In fact, one of the writers there, Mr. 

Hebert, spent a good bit of time in my office. He said I supported 

him in all the cases he brought, that I was more supportive than 

almost any other U.S. Attorney and that I provided office space, I 

signed the complaints that he brought. And as you may know, Senator Franken, when a lawyer signs a complaint, he is required to 

affirm that he believes in that complaint and supports that complaint and supports that legal action, which I did. 

We sued—— 

Senator FRANKEN. So that is your personal involvement was that 

your name was on it? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, look, you can dispute the impact or the 

import of the questionnaire. Another attorney, Paul Hancock, who 

brought cases in our district said, well, Attorney General claims 

credit for the cases in the Department of Justice, he saw nothing 

wrong with my claiming that this was a case that I had handled. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Two of the—— 

Senator SESSIONS. So you can disagree with that, but those 

cases—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. I want to get through this and I do not 

want any—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Those cases have my signature on the docket 

sheet. 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to get through this. 

Senator SESSIONS. My name is listed number one as the attorney 

for the case. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, look, I am not a lawyer. I am one of the 

few Members of this Committee who did not go to law school, and 

usually I get by just fine. But it seems to me that a lawyer, if a 

lawyer has his name added to a document here or filing there, that 

lawyer would be misrepresenting his record if he said he had personally handled these cases. 

Two of the lawyers who wrote the op-ed have also submitted testimony for today’s hearing, Mr. Gerry Hebert and Mr. Joe Rich. 
57 

Mr. Hebert says he ‘‘litigated personally two of the four cases’’ you 

listed. He said, ‘‘I can state with absolute certainty that Mr. Sessions did not participate personally in either.’’ Mr. Rich worked on 

one of the four cases you listed. He said, ‘‘I never met him at that 

time nor any other time and he had no input to the case.’’ These 

represent three of the four cases that you claimed that were among 

the top 10 cases that you personally handled. 

Now, in your 1986 questionnaire, you used phrases like, ‘‘I prepared and tried the case as sole counsel’’ and ‘‘I was the lead prosecutor on this case’’ assisted by so-and-so. Why did you not use the 

same level of detail in your 2016 questionnaire? 

Senator SESSIONS. In looking at this questionnaire, we decided 

that that was an appropriate response since these were major historic cases in my office. Let me just reply, Senator Franken, in this 

fashion. Mr. Hebert in 1986, when he testified at my hearing, said, 

‘‘We have had difficulty with several U.S. Attorneys in cases we 

have wanted to bring. We have not experienced that difficulty in 

the cases I have handled with Mr. Sessions. In fact, quite the contrary.’’ He goes on to say, ‘‘I have had occasion numerous times to 

ask for his assistance and guidance. I have been able to go to him 

and he has had an open-door policy and I have taken advantage 

of that and found him cooperative.’’ And that is an accurate statement. 

I do not know Mr. Rich. Perhaps he handled a case that I never 

worked with. He goes on to say, ‘‘The’’—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, one of the cases—— 

Senator SESSIONS. No, I want to—you raised this question, Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. One of the cases that you listed was a case 

that Mr. Rich handled. So if you do not know him, it is hard for 

me to believe that you personally handled it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, when I found these cases, I had been 

supportive of them. 

Senator FRANKEN. You filed them. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure I was—Mr. Hebert says, ‘‘And yet, 

I have needed Mr. Sessions’ help in those cases and he has provided that help every step of the way. In fact, I would say that my 

experience with Mr. Sessions has led me to believe that I have received more cooperation from him, more active involvement from 

him because I have called upon him.’’ Quote, ‘‘I have worked side 

by side with him on some cases in the sense that I have had to go 

to him for some advice.’’ 

Senator FRANKEN. In some cases, not necessarily the ones you 

listed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, look, this is 30 years ago. And my memory was of this nature and my memory was my support for those 

cases. 

Senator FRANKEN. Your memory. Okay. Look, I am not—I am 

one of the few Members of this Committee who is not a lawyer. The 

Chairman, the Ranking are not. But when I hear ‘‘I filed a case,’’ 

you know, I do not know some of the parlance, if it might have a 

special meaning in legal parlance. But to me as a layman, it 

sounds to me like ‘‘filed’’ means ‘‘I led the case’’ or ‘‘I supervised 

the case.’’ It does not mean that my name was on it. 
58 

And it seems to me, look, I will close, Mr. Chairman, setting 

aside any political or ideological differences that you or I may have, 

DOJ is facing real challenges, whether it is protecting civil rights 

or defending national security, and our country needs an Attorney 

General who does not misrepresent or inflate their level of involvement on any given issue. 

Senator SESSIONS. I hear you. 

Senator FRANKEN. So I consider this serious stuff as I know that 

you would if you were in my position. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you are correct, Senator Franken. We 

need to be accurate in what we say. When this issue was raised, 

I did do a supplemental that I ‘‘provided assistance and guidance 

to Civil Rights Division attorneys, had an open-door policy with 

them, and cooperated with them on these cases.’’ 

I signed them, I supported cases and attempted to be as effective 

as I could be in helping them be successful in these historic cases. 

I did feel that they were the kind of cases that were national in 

scope and deserved to be listed on the form. If I am in error, I 

apologize to you. I do not think I was. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, you could not find 20 or 30 desegregation cases that you stated you had participated in and it does not 

sound like you personally handled cases that you said you personally handled. 

Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I was on a radio interview without any 

records and that was my memory at the time. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I think you answered the question. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Flake. Now, it is 12:59, so at 1:09 

we will adjourn for lunch. I will be back here then at 1:39 and whoever is present will start then. But I hope everybody can be back 

here at least by 1:45. Go ahead, Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. It is always nice to be the last 

one standing between lunch. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Let us have order for Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Hey, I just want to say at the outset how much 

I have enjoyed working with you and being your colleague. I appreciate having you as a friend. 

It is no secret we have had our difference of opinion on immigration legislation that we put forward. You have had different ideas. 

But I have no doubt that as Attorney General you will faithfully 

execute the office. And I appreciate the answers that you have 

given today. 

Let me ask unanimous consent to submit a column written by 

our own Attorney General in Arizona, Mark Brnovich, for The Hill 

newspaper this week, supporting your nomination. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The newspaper column appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FLAKE. Let me talk to you about an aspect of immigration that is important in Arizona. As you know, we have a large 

border with Mexico. We have a program called Operation Streamline that has, over the years, been tremendously effective in cutting 

down recidivism in terms of border crossers. What it is, basically, 
59 

it is intended to reduce border crossing by expeditiously prosecuting those who enter the country illegally under a no-tolerance 

or zero-tolerance policy. It is credited with being instrumental in 

achieving better border security, specifically in the Yuma Sector 

along the western side of Arizona’s border with Mexico. 

Nevertheless, in recent years, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

District of Arizona adopted a policy that ended prosecutions for 

those who cross but for—well, without a criminal history other 

than simply crossing the border. I have asked Attorney General 

Holder and Attorney General Lynch as well as Secretary Johnson 

at Homeland Security on what is being done here and I have not 

gotten a straight answer, no matter how many times I ask the 

question. So I am looking forward to a little more candor here. 

As Attorney General, if you are confirmed, what steps will you 

take to restore Operation Streamline to a zero-tolerance approach 

that has been so successful in Arizona, in a portion of Arizona’s 

border? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Flake. I have enjoyed 

working with you. And I know the integrity with which you bring 

your views on the immigration system. Like you, I believe that 

Streamline was very effective. And it was really a surprise that it 

has been undermined significantly. 

The reports I got initially, some years ago, maybe a decade or 

more ago, was that it was dramatically effective, and so I would absolutely review that. And my inclination would be, at least at this 

stage, to think it should be restored and even refined and made 

sure it is lawful and effective. But I think it has great positive potential to improve legality at the border. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. Well, thank you. It has been effective 

in Yuma, and I can tell you there is concern there among the Sheriff’s Office, Sherriff Wilmot and others, concerned that we are seeing an increase in border crossings simply because the cartels understand very well where there is a zero-tolerance policy and where 

there is not. Word spreads. And we could quickly get to a situation 

where we have a problem in the Yuma Sector, like we do in the 

Tucson Sector. 

Is there any reason why we have not expanded this program to 

the Tucson Sector if it has been successful elsewhere? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not know what reason that might be. It 

seems to me that we should examine the successes and if they cannot be replicated throughout the border. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. Well, thank you. I look forward to 

working with you on that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I appreciate that opportunity to work with you 

on that because I have long felt it is the right direction for us to 

go. 

Senator FLAKE. All right, thank you. When we have a successful 

program, it is difficult to see it scrapped and to see the progress 

that has been made in certain parts of the border done away with. 

Let me get to another subject here: victims’ rights. This is an 

area of the law that you have shown particular interest in over 

your time as a Senator. I have with me letters of support for your 

nomination from various victims’ groups and advocates, the Victims 

of Crime and Leniency, Verna Wyatt, Victims and Friends United, 
60 

op-ed by Professors Paul Cassell and Steve Twist, all in support of 

your nomination. I would ask that these documents be placed as 

part of the record. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, they will be placed in 

the record. 

[The letters appear as submissions for the record.] 

Senator FLAKE. As Attorney General, what steps will you take to 

ensure that victims’ rights are protected? 

Senator SESSIONS. We cannot forget victims’ rights. We have victim witness legislation that creates within each United States Attorney’s Office a victim-witness coordinator. And the job of that 

person is to make sure the concerns of the victims are heard. If 

they have to come to court, to help them get there, to make sure 

that they do not feel threatened and are protected. That is a direct 

responsibility of the Department of Justice and the criminal justice 

system as directed by Congress. So I really think that is one step 

and that is the fundamental mechanism. 

I think Senator Kyl was a strong advocate for that. And it helped 

really improve the treatment of victims in Federal criminal cases. 

There is just no doubt about it. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. I was going to note the presence 

of former Senator Kyl, my predecessor in this office, who did so 

much work in this area, partnering with you. So thank you for that 

answer. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am honored that he is giving of his time to 

assist me in this effort, honored very greatly. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Let us talk about the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act. It was mentioned previously, I think, by Senator 

Collins. As Attorney General, you will lead not only the department 

of prosecutors and law enforcement officials, but also the Bureau 

of Prisons. You will be responsible for 190,000 Federal inmates currently in custody. This is an often overlooked part of the Attorney 

General’s role, but it is an important part of the position that you 

are being nominated for. 

I believe one of the highlights in your record in the Senate is 

your leadership in passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

2003, or PREA, which passed both Chambers without objection and 

was signed into law by George W. Bush. This was a bipartisan bill. 

You worked across the aisle with the late Senator Kennedy as well 

as with Republican Representative Frank Wolf, Democrat Representative Bobby Scott in the House, and I have letters of support 

from anti-prison-rape activists that I would also like to put as part 

of the record, without objection, if I could. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection. 

[The letters appear as submissions for the record.] 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. With the law approaching its 15th 

anniversary, 11 States have certified that they are in compliance 

with the national standards, another 41 States and territories have 

provided assurances that they are working toward compliance. 

Only four States and territories have chosen not to participate. 

Is PREA meeting the expectations you had for it when you introduced the bill in 2003? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not think there is any doubt that it has 

improved the situation. As to whether it has reached its full poten-
61 

tial, I do not think I am able to tell you with certainty, but I certainly think it has made a positive difference. 

You know, it was a special time for me. Senator Kennedy was 

a strong critic of me in 1986. And he said, you know, as we were 

working on this, he said I have wanted to work with you on legislation like this. And I think it was sort of a reconciliation moment. 

We also worked on another major piece of legislation for several 

years. It would have been rather historic, but it was private savings accounts for lower-wage workers in America that I guess the 

financial crisis of ’07 or some things happened that ended that 

prospect. 

But I believe that it is important for the American people to 

know that when an individual is sentenced to prison they are not 

subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment under the Constitution 

at a minimum. 

And the idea that was so widely spread that there is routine sexual abuse and assaults in prisons and other kind of unacceptable 

activities was widespread in our media and widespread among the 

American people. One of our goals was to establish just how big it 

was, to require reporting, and to create circumstances that helped 

ensure that a person who should be prosecuted for violence in the 

prison actually does get prosecuted—that was a real step forward. 

We do not need to subject prisoners to any more punishment than 

the law requires. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. And in just the remaining seconds I 

have, let me just say there is another area that we have worked 

on and hopefully we can continue to work on and that is the area 

of duplicative DOJ grants. As you know, the department awarded 

approximately $17 billion in grants over the years. OIG reports, 

GAO reports have all shown that there is duplication and waste, 

sometimes fraud and abuse. 

Will you continue to commit to work to root out this kind of duplicative action there? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I know you have had a history of being 

a staunch defender of the Treasury against those who would abuse 

it. And I believe the same way, it is the taxpayers’ money. Every 

dollar that is extracted from an American citizen that goes into the 

Government needs to get to productive, valuable activities. And any 

of it that is delivered for political and insufficient reasons is a 

cause of great concern. 

I will make it a priority of mine to make sure that the dollars 

we have are actually getting to the purposes they are supposed to 

go for. It is one thing to say I did a great thing, I got more money 

for this good purpose. But did it really efficiently and effectively go 

there? Did it really make a positive difference? So I think the Department of Justice can utilize those grant programs to help valuable activities, and it needs to guard against improper activities. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. We will break for about 30 minutes. We 

will reconvene at 1:40, and Senator Coons would be next up, and 

he has indicated he will be here on time. So recess for now. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the Committee reconvened.] 
62 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I call on Senator Coons, I want to 

explain why one of the Members on my side of the aisle cannot be 

here. Senator Tillis is unable to attend Senator Sessions’ confirmation hearing today because his brother is being sworn in to the 

Tennessee General Assembly. 

He also—Senator Sessions, he also wants me to know that he 

will submit questions for you to answer in writing. 

Senator Coons, as we announced before, will be the first one this 

afternoon. Proceed. And Senator Sessions, if there is any—I will 

not know unless you tell me—if there is any sort of 15-minute 

break or anything you need, let me know. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. We will do that at the end of some person 

asking questions. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. 

Welcome, Senator Sessions. Congratulations to you and Mary 

and your whole family on your nomination. 

The position of Attorney General of the United States is one of 

the most important positions on which this Committee will ever 

hold hearings. And the next Attorney General of the United States 

will assume leadership of the Justice Department, on the heels of 

an election in which there were many issues thrown about in the 

course of the campaign, some of which have been asked about previously—calls for a Muslim ban or patrols, issues of a potential 

Russian cyberattack affecting our democracy, calls for mass deportations and chants at some rallies to ‘‘lock her up’’ for one of the 

candidates. And given the divisiveness of this election, I think it is 

critical that the next Attorney General be well suited for this position and this time. And as such, I think a successful nominee has 

to be able to persuade this Committee that he will act fairly and 

impartially administer justice, and advance justice for all Americans. 

Senator Sessions, we have served on this Committee together for 

6 years, and we have worked well together on a few issues—on 

State and local law enforcement issues, on the reauthorization of 

the Victims of Child Abuse Act and on the restoration of funding 

for Federal public defenders. And I appreciate that partnership. 

But there has also been many issues on which we disagreed. Issues 

from immigration to civil liberties to civil rights to criminal justice, 

voting rights, and torture. And I am concerned about your views 

on a number of these issues, as we discussed when we met last 

week. So I am grateful to the Chairman and to you that we are 

going to have a full and fair hearing on all of these issues today. 

Let me start with some questions about your time when you 

were Alabama Attorney General and how you understood some direction you received from the U.S. Department of Justice. At that 

point, Alabama was the only State in the country that handcuffed 

prisoners to hitching posts. And we talked about this when we met 

before, and I said I would ask you about this in this hearing. 

A hitching post was used as a punishment for prisoners perceived as being unwilling to work or participate in the daily lives 

of prison, whether serving on a chain gang or participating in 

work, and they would be cuffed by both wrists to a pole at chest 
63 

height, sometimes for 7, 8, or 9 hours, unprotected from sun, heat, 

or rain, without access, in some cases, to water or even a bathroom. 

And as the Attorney General, you and the Governor received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice telling you that Alabama’s use of the hitching post in both men and women’s prisons 

was unconstitutional and unjustified. But as I understand it, the 

use of the hitching post continued throughout your term, and you 

did not act to stop it. 

During this same period, the State of Alabama was sued not just 

about hitching posts, but also about chain gangs. Prison policies in 

Alabama said a man could be put on a chain gang if he failed to 

shave or keep his bed clean, if he disrespected a member of the 

staff, and would end up doing hard labor breaking rocks while 

being chained together in groups of five, shackled with eight feet 

of chain between men. And these practices, the case that was 

brought demonstrated, were disproportionately affecting African 

Americans. 

In later litigation, the practice of using the hitching post was 

called by an Alabama judge the most painful and torturous punishment in Alabama, short of electrocution. And in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court said using the hitching post was clearly unconstitutional when it was used in Alabama. 

Can you please, Senator, tell me your view today of the use of 

the hitching post and chain gang in Alabama corrections, and what 

your view is of what action you would take today if these practices 

were restored? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Senator. That was an 

issue by the Governor, who campaigned and promised that prisoners should work and he was determined to make that happen. 

I believe the litigation occurred after my time as Attorney General, 

according to my records, but we could be wrong. I will supplement 

the records for you. Certainly the decision by the Supreme Court 

and the Federal courts were after I left office, I believe. So, working 

of prisoners is an issue that we have dealt with in the Congress 

of the United States and by State legislatures. I think a good employment of a prisoner is a healthy thing. 

I do not favor personally this kind of work. I think it should be 

more productive work, work to kind of help the individual develop 

a discipline that they could use when they go on to private life 

after they leave prison. After the Supreme Court ruling, I think it 

is crystal clear what the law is. That was disapproved and disallowed and found to be unconstitutional, and I would absolutely 

follow that as Attorney General. 

Senator COONS. In your view, did it take a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify that this constituted torture, that it was not 

just bad corrections policy; it was actually substantively torture of 

prisoners? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Coons, I do not recall ever personally 

being engaged in the studying of the constitutional issues at stake. 

It is perfectly legitimate for prisoners to work, but in decent conditions, and I think it should be the kind of work that is productive 

and could actually lead to developing good habits. I have heard 

some evidence on that subject. 
64 

So I do not have a legal opinion about the case, have not studied 

the details of it. 

Senator COONS. Just to be clear, what I was pressing you on 

there was the use of the hitching post, which is a disciplinary 

measure that had been abandoned by all States but Alabama. It is 

really reminiscent more of the stocks, the stockade that was used 

centuries ago and, to me, somewhat troubling that it continued 

without challenge. 

Let me ask you more broadly, as you know, both Republicans 

and Democrats on this Committee have worked together to address 

ways in which our criminal justice system is broken and to address 

the disparate racial impact of over-incarceration that has resulted 

the last 30 years. 

Senator Tillis and I just yesterday published an op-ed that we 

wrote jointly about the importance of responsible, balanced criminal justice reform. And Senators Grassley and Cornyn, Lee and 

Graham, and Flake—all your fellow Republicans—have supported 

meaningful reforms to address excessive mandatory sentences and 

incarceration. And in my experience here, in 6 years with you, you 

have steadfastly opposed all of these efforts at bipartisan sentencing reform. 

Help me understand why you have blocked efforts at reducing 

mandatory minimum sentences, at creating opportunities for the 

revisitation of sentences that may have been overly harsh when 

initially imposed, and help me understand whether you think it is 

ever proper for a prosecutor to charge anything less than the most 

serious offense available and carrying the longest sentence. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that was a lot of questions there, Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. So the Sentencing Act has one foundational 

requirement now, and that is the minimum mandatories. The 

guidelines have been either made voluntary by the Sentencing 

Commission and the courts and the policies of the Attorney General. So the thing that does stand in place are the minimum 

mandatories. The minimum that can be sentenced for a certain offense. 

I offered legislation in 2001—it was opposed by the Bush Justice 

Department—that would have reduced the sentencing guidelines. 

And in fact, what passed a number of years later, unfortunately, 

essentially could have been done in 2001. I made a speech in favor 

of it saying what you are saying, that it was disproportionately impacting our African-American community and we needed to fix it, 

and eventually that was passed. So I have a record of doing that, 

number one. 

Number two, so these other things happened in the meantime. 

The guidelines were reduced; the Justice Department has reduced 

its requirements. The Justice Department now allows a prosecutor 

to present a case to the judge that does not fully reflect the evidence that they have in their files about a case. That is a problematic thing. I think it is problematic and difficult to justify a prosecutor charging five kilos of heroin when the actual amount was 

10, to get a lower sentence. Now, there may be circumstances when 
65 

somehow proof and other issues could justify that, but I just would 

say, as a principle, you have got to be careful about it. 

Finally, colleagues, sentencing guidelines are within the breadth 

of the Congress. They are mandated by law. I was concerned about 

what we are beginning to see—a rise in crime—and, at the same 

time, a decline in sentences. Sentences are down 19 percent already, as based on the Sessions–Durbin legislation and guidelines 

changes. So that is a matter of interest. And I felt we should slow 

down a bit before we go further and make sure we are not making 

a mistake, Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. It is my hope that if you are confirmed and we 

do make progress on bipartisan criminal justice reform, that as Attorney General you will carry out whatever legislative decisions 

that might be made by this body. 

Last, let me just say that in my 6 years here, in addition to not 

working with us on a number of bipartisan proposals on criminal 

justice reform, that you have been one of the few Senators to repeatedly and steadfastly vote against congressional attempts to 

prohibit torture in the military context, or in the interrogation context, and to repeatedly defend enhanced interrogation practices. 

Are you clear now that our statutes prohibit torture, and if the 

President were to attempt to override that clear legal authority, 

what actions would you take? 

Senator SESSIONS. On your previous question, I would note that 

the Federal prison population has already dropped 10 or more percent and will drop another 10,000 this year. So what is happening 

now is reducing the Federal population. This law only dealt with 

the Federal prison population, and that represents the most serious 

offenders. Our Federal DEA and U.S. Attorneys are prosecuting 

more serious cases. 

With regard to the torture issues, I watched them for some time, 

and have been concerned about what we should do about it. This 

bill that passed last time was a major step. I thought it was really 

not the right step. Senator Graham, I know, has been a steadfast 

opponent of torture and supported a lot of different things opposed 

to it. It basically took what I was teaching the young soldiers at 

the Army Reserve Unit as a lecturer, as a teacher, the Army Field 

Manual, and it made that the law for the entire Government, including the intelligence agencies and other departments. 

I thought that was an unwise step, to take something that directs even the lowest private to do, to make that the rule for higher-ups. 

Senator COONS. Well, Senator—— 

Senator SESSIONS. But it is the law. It is the law, and it needs 

to be enforced. Absolutely. 

Senator COONS. As we both know, there was a bipartisan effort 

to review our experience with enhanced interrogation that concluded it was not effective. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, there was. And of course Senator 

Graham was a JAG officer, as I was, for a little bit. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, congratulations on your nomination. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 
66 

Senator CRUZ. You are a friend; you are a man of integrity. You 

and I have worked closely together on this Committee, on the 

Armed Services Committee, and I have every confidence you are 

going to make a superb Attorney General. 

You know, this has been an interesting day at this hearing, listening to Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator give speeches in praise of the rule of law. And I am heartened by that. I am 

encouraged by that, because for 8 years it has been absent. For 8 

years, we have seen a Department of Justice consistently disregarding the rule of law. 

When Eric Holder’s Department of Justice allowed illegal gun 

transactions, illegally sold guns to Mexican gun traffickers as part 

of ‘‘Fast and Furious,’’ guns that were later used to murder Border 

Patrol agent Brian Terry, the Democratic Members of this Committee were silent. 

When Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with Congress’ investigation into ‘‘Fast and Furious,’’ once again the Democratic Members of this Committee were 

silent. 

When the IRS illegally targeted United States citizens for exercising the First Amendment views—for exercising their roles in the 

political process, Democratic Members of this Committee were silent. When the Department of Justice refused to fairly investigate 

the IRS targeting citizens and indeed assigned the investigation to 

a liberal partisan Democrat who had given over $6,000 to President 

Obama and Democrats, Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When numerous Members of this Committee called on the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to ensure that justice 

was done in the IRS case, Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When the Justice Department began using Operation Choke 

Point to target law-abiding citizens that they disagreed with politically—— 

[Audience interruption.] 

Senator CRUZ. You know, free speech is a wonderful thing. 

When the Department of Justice used Operation Choke Point to 

target legal businesses because they disagreed politically with 

those businesses, the Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When the Obama Justice Department sent millions of dollars of 

taxpayer moneys to sanctuary cities that were defying Federal immigration law, the Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When the Obama administration refused to enforce Federal immigration laws and unilaterally rewrote those laws, the Democrats 

on this Committee were silent. 

When the Obama administration released tens of thousands of 

criminal illegal aliens, including rapists and murderers, into the 

general population, Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When the Department of Justice signed off on the Obama administration paying a nearly $2 billion ransom to Iran, contrary to 

Federal law, the Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

When the Obama administration ignored and rewrote provision 

after provision of Obamacare, contrary to the text of the law, the 

Democrats on this Committee were silent. 
67 

When the Obama administration signed off on illegal recess appointments that the Supreme Court had to strike down unanimously, the Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

And when the Obama administration released five Guantanamo 

terrorists without the required notification to Congress, the Democrats on this Committee were silent. 

That pattern has been dismaying for 8 years, but I take today 

as a moment of celebration. If once again this Committee has a bipartisan commitment to rule of law, to following the law, that is 

a wonderful thing and it is consistent with the tradition of this 

Committee going back centuries. 

Now, if we were to play a game of tit for tat, if what was good 

for the goose were good for the gander, then a Republican Attorney 

General should be equally partisan, should disregard the law, 

should advance political preferences favored by the Republican 

Party. 

Senator Sessions, do you believe that would be appropriate for an 

Attorney General to do? 

Senator SESSIONS. No, I do not. I think we do have to be aware 

that when something like this is done, and some of the things I am 

familiar with enough to agree with you that I thought were improper, I do believe it has a corrosive effect on public confidence 

and the constitutional republic of which we are sworn to uphold. 

Senator CRUZ. I think you are exactly right. You and I are both 

alumni of the Department of Justice, and it has a long bipartisan 

tradition of staying outside of partisan politics, of simply and fairly 

enforcing the law. 

I will say right now, if I believed that you would implement policies, even policies I agreed with contrary to law, I would vote 

against your confirmation. And the reason I am so enthusiastically 

supporting your confirmation is I have every degree of confidence 

you will follow the law faithfully and honestly. And that is the first 

and most important obligation of the Attorney General. 

Now, earlier in this hearing, Senator Franken engaged you in a 

discussion that I think was intended to try to undermine your 

character and integrity, and in particular, Senator Franken suggested that you had somehow misrepresented your record. 

It is unfortunate to see Members of this body impugn the integrity of a fellow Senator with whom we have served for years. It is 

particularly unfortunate when that attack is not backed up by the 

facts. Senator Franken based his attack primarily on an op-ed written by an attorney, Gerald Hebert. There is an irony in relying on 

Mr. Hebert, because as you well know, in 1986 during your confirmation hearing, Mr. Hebert testified then and attacked you then, 

making false charges against you. And indeed, I would note, in the 

1986 hearing, 2 days later, Mr. Hebert was forced to recant his testimony, to say that he had given false testimony to this Committee 

and indeed to say, ‘‘I apologize for any inconvenience caused Mr. 

Sessions or this Committee by my prior testimony.’’ So an individual who has testified falsely once before this Committee, his oped is now the basis for Senator Franken’s attack on you. And indeed, the basis of Senator Franken’s attack is he claims you were 

uninvolved in several civil rights cases that were listed on your 

questionnaire. 
68 

In 1986, Mr. Hebert testified—this is a quote from him—‘‘I have 

needed Mr. Sessions’ help in those cases and he has provided that 

help every step of the way.’’ Is that correct, that that is what Mr. 

Hebert testified? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator CRUZ. Now, in the four cases Senator Franken referred 

to, you reported all four of them in your supplement to the Judiciary Committee, is that right? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Franken did not mention that, and let me 

point out, here is how you describe your involvement in your written submission to this Committee: ‘‘For the cases described in two, 

four, eight, and nine, my role, like most U.S. Attorneys in the Nation and with non-criminal civil rights cases, was to provide support for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s attorneys. 

‘‘I reviewed, supported, and co-signed complaints, motions, and 

other pleadings and briefs that were filed during my tenure as U.S. 

Attorney. I provided assistance and guidance to the Civil Rights attorneys, had an open-door policy with them, and cooperated with 

them on these cases. For the cases described in six, I supervised 

litigation and signed the pleadings.’’ 

Now, that is consistent with the 1986 testimony that you provided help every step of the way, is that correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think so, yes. 

Senator CRUZ. There is no question you have been forthright 

with this Committee, and I would note that Members of this Committee do not have to search far and wide to know who Jeff Sessions is. We have known every day, sitting at this bench alongside 

you. 

I want to shift to a different topic, and it is the topic I opened 

with, which is the politicization of the Department of Justice. The 

Office of Legal Counsel has a critical role of providing sound legal 

and constitutional advice, both to the Attorney General and the 

President. And in the last 8 years, we have seen a highly politicized OLC, an OLC that has given politically convenient rulings, 

whether on recess appointments, whether on Executive amnesty, 

and early on, perhaps that was started by 2009 Attorney General 

Holder overruling OLC concerning legislation trying to grant the 

District of Columbia representation in Congress. And it may well 

be that that sent a message to OLC that its opinions were to be 

political and not legal in nature. 

Tell me, Senator Sessions. What will you do as Attorney General 

to restore professionalism and fidelity to law to the Office of Legal 

Counsel? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Cruz, I think any short-term political 

agenda gains that come from the abuse of the lawmaking processes 

and requirements of the Department of Justice just do not make 

sense. It will always, in the long run, be more damaging, the shortterm gain that one might have. 

The Office of Legal Counsel, all of us who served in the Department know, is a big-time position. You need a mature, smart, experienced person who understands this Government, who understands the laws and is principled and consistent in their application of the laws. That will help the President, it will help the Con-
69 

gress, and it will help the American people. I do believe we need 

to work hard to have that, and I will do my best to ensure we do 

have it. 

Senator CRUZ. One final question. In the last eight years, the Department of Justice’s Solicitor General’s Office has also, I believe, 

been unfortunately politicized. And it has sustained an unprecedented number of unanimous losses before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. 

Indeed, President Obama’s Justice Department won less than 

half of its total cases before the Supreme Court, which is the lowest 

Presidential win rate since Harry Truman. The average historically 

for the last 50 years has been about 70 percent. Numerous of those 

cases were unanimous with, indeed, both Obama’s Supreme Court 

appointees voting against the lawless positions of this Justice Department, including their assertion that the Government has the 

authority to supervise and direct the appointment, the hiring, and 

firing of clergy in the church. 

What will you do as Attorney General to ensure the integrity of 

the Office of Solicitor General, that it is faithful to the law and not 

advancing extreme political positions like the Obama Justice Department did that have been rejected over and over again by the 

Supreme Court? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think the problem there is a desire to 

achieve a result sometimes that overrides their commitment to the 

law. In the long run, this country will be stronger if we adhere to 

the law, even though somebody might be frustrated in the short 

term of not achieving an agenda. 

The Solicitor General should not advocate to alter the meaning 

of words to advance an agenda. That is an abuse of office, and I 

would try to seek to have a Solicitor General who is faithful to the 

Constitution, serves under the Constitution, does not feel it has the 

power to rise above it and make it say what it wants it to say. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Blumenthal goes—I think we have 

votes still scheduled for 2:45. It is my idea that we would continue 

this, going—like I will go at the end of the first vote and then vote 

and come back, and I hope other people will preside and keep asking questions while the two votes are going on so we can finish at 

a reasonable time today. 

[Exchange aside.] Oh, that is right. Did we get a decision? You 

can stay here during that voting. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

conducting this hearing in such a fair-minded and deliberate way. 

And I want to join you in thanking Senator Sessions for his public 

service over so many years, and his family, who have shared in the 

sacrifices that you have made. 

I am sure that my colleagues and I appreciate your service and 

your friendship. This experience for us is a difficult one, not only 

because you are a colleague, but I consider you to be a friend and 

someone who is well liked and respected in this body, understandably. And I know if you were sitting here, you would be pretty 

tough on me, maybe tougher than I am going to be on you. But it 
70 

is not personal, as you understand, because we have an obligation 

to advise and consent, to ask those kinds of tough questions. 

You and I have shared some experiences; both of us have been 

United States Attorneys and Attorneys General of our State. And 

I want to thank you as well for thanking our law enforcement community, which is so important to this Nation. And it makes sacrifices, and those sacrifices often are not only in time and forgone 

income, but also in lives. And I join you in respecting the law enforcement officers who were victims most recently of gun violence. 

I want to begin just by asking you a question which I asked in 

a letter. Will you recuse yourself from voting on your own nomination and the nominations of other Cabinet secretaries? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not have plans to vote on my nomination. 

I have not thoroughly examined all the issues, but if I think there 

could be a conflict of interest or a violation of the ethics rule, then 

I would comply with the rules. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I believe it would be a conflict of interest 

for you to vote on other Cabinet secretaries, as they are nominated 

by the President, who is also your boss. And I think that—I hope 

you will consider recusing yourself from those votes as well, because I think it will set a tone for what you will do in cases of conflicts of interest. 

I want to talk a little bit about conflicts of interest, because I 

think that the Attorney General of the United States has a unique 

and special role, especially at this point in our history. He should 

be a champion, a zealous advocate of rights and liberties that are 

increasingly under threat in this country, and he is not just another Government lawyer or another Cabinet secretary. He is the 

Nation’s lawyer. And so any appearance of conflict of interest or 

compromising positions because of political involvement I think is 

a real danger to the rule of law and respect and credibility of the 

rule of law. 

I would hope that you would consider appointing special counsel 

in cases where there may be a conflict of interest involving the 

President. And one of those cases involves Deutsche Bank. The 

President of the United States owes Deutsche Bank several hundreds of millions of dollars. It is currently under ongoing investigation. Will you appoint an independent counsel to continue the investigation of Deutsche Bank? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Senator Blumenthal, I am not aware of 

that case. I have not researched it or even read some of the public’s 

articles about it. So I am totally uninformed about the merits, or 

lack of it, of the case. I do not know that the President is implicated simply because he has borrowed from a bank. But I would 

say that, as I think Senator Lee raised in his questioning, you do 

not want to be in a position where every time an issue comes up, 

the Attorney General recuses himself. But at the same time, when 

serious questions arise, the Attorney General should recuse himself 

under the appropriate circumstances. And I guess that goes with 

the appointment of a special counsel, which is a somewhat different 

issue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you—— 

Senator SESSIONS. There are a lot of criticisms of that, but I 

think it is a useful tool in the appropriate circumstances. 
71 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you agree with me that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President of the United States? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the Emoluments Clause applies. I guess 

the dispute is and the discussion is to what extent does it apply 

and how does it apply in concrete situations—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If there is evidence—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Which I have not studied. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If there is evidence that the President of 

the United States has violated or may be violating the Emoluments 

Clause, will you appoint a special counsel? 

Senator SESSIONS. We would have to examine that. I would not 

commit, at this time, to appointing a special counsel when I am not 

aware of a precise factual situation that would be in play. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If there is a violation by the President’s 

family of the STOCK Act, which prohibits the use of private or insider information for personal gain, will you apply special counsel? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we will have to evaluate that if such a 

circumstance occurs, and I would do my duty as I believe I should 

do it at the time. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would suggest that in those cases an 

independent counsel is not only advisable but required to avoid a 

conflict of interest, and I would hope that you would be sensitive 

to those concerns. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, there are reasonable arguments to be 

made for that. I suggested that Attorney General Lynch should appoint a special counsel in the Clinton matter. I do not know whether you supported that or not. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. One reason I am asking the question is 

that you have advocated a special counsel in other instances where, 

in fact, the argument for it was weaker than it would be in these 

cases, and I think it would be appropriate. Let me—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will suggest that during the campaign 

sometimes we get excited, but as Attorney General, you have to follow the law, you have to be consistent, and you have to be honorable in your decisionmaking. And I respect the question you are 

raising. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you about another group. I 

welcome your condemnation of the Ku Klux Klan. You may be familiar with a group called ‘‘Operation Rescue,’’ and Operation Rescue endorsed you. In fact, Troy Newman, the head of Operation 

Rescue, said, ‘‘We could not be happier about the selection of Senator Jeff Sessions as the next Attorney General.’’ 

Operation Rescue has, in fact, advocated ‘‘execution’’ of abortion 

providers, and as an example of its work, this poster was circulated 

widely in the 1990s and early 2000s about a doctor, George Tiller, 

who subsequently was murdered. After his murder, Operation Rescue said that his alleged murderer should be treated as a political 

prisoner. Dr. Tiller was murdered in 2009, and I am sure you are 

familiar with this case. Will you disavow their endorsement of you? 

Senator SESSIONS. I disavow any activity like that, absolutely, 

and a group that would even suggest that is unacceptable. And I 

will enforce the laws that make clear that a person who wants to 

receive a lawful abortion cannot be blocked by protesters and disruption of a doctor’s practice. I might not favor that. I am pro-life, 
72 

as you know, but we have settled on some laws that are clearly in 

effect, and as Attorney General, you can be sure I would follow 

them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You would use the FACE statute, the 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, to empower and mobilize the FBI, the Federal Marshals Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to protect clinics if there were harassment or intimidation? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would use the appropriate Federal agencies, 

and I do believe it is in violation of the law to excessively or improperly hinder even the access to an abortion clinic. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Will you rigorously enforce statutes that 

prohibit purchase of guns by felons or domestic abusers or drug addicts and use the statutes that exist right now on the books to ban 

those individuals from purchasing guns? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Congress has passed those laws. They 

remain the bread-and-butter enforcement mechanisms throughout 

our country today to enforce gun laws. The first and foremost goal, 

I think, of law enforcement would be to identify persons who are 

dangerous, who have a tendency or have been proven to be 

lawbreakers and been convicted and those who are caught carrying 

guns during the commission of a crime. Both of those require mandatory sentences. As United States Attorney in Alabama, it was a 

high priority of mine. I calculated a number of years we were one 

of the top—even though a small office—on a percentage basis we 

were one of the top prosecutors of those cases. I think it saves lives, 

Senator Blumenthal. My judgment, at least, tells me it can help 

create a more peaceful community. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Will you support laws necessary to effectively apply those laws, including universal background checks that 

are necessary to know whether the purchaser is a felon or a drug 

addict or a domestic abuser? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I believe in background check laws, and 

many of them are appropriate. But in every instance—there are 

some instances when it is not practical, like, say, for example, 

somebody inherited a gun from their grandfather. Those transactions I am not sure should require that kind of universal background check. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. For the first time I call on a new Member 

of this Committee, Senator Crapo. Welcome to the Committee, and 

you may proceed. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to 

thank you for the way you are handling this hearing, and I appreciate your service here in the Committee. 

Senator Sessions, I also want to join those who have congratulated you on your nomination to be the Attorney General of the 

United States. I am one of those who has had the opportunity to 

work with you for years and know you very well. I consider you 

well qualified and look forward to your service as Attorney General 

of the United States if you are confirmed, and I expect you will be. 

I know you to be a man of your word. I know that you are committed to the Constitution of the United States of America, and you 

are committed to enforcing the law of this country, as you have 
73 

said multiple times here in this Committee. So I thank you for 

that. 

I want to go in my questions into just a couple of other areas beyond just the notion of the enforcement of the law but the manner 

in which the Department of Justice enforces the law. Three basic 

areas: one, the abuse of the power or discriminatory enforcement 

of the law; two, regulatory overreach that we are seeing across this 

country and what role the Department of Justice plays in trying to 

deal with that; and then, finally, cooperation with the States. We 

live in a Union of 50 States, and under our Constitution there are 

appropriate roles for the Federal Government and the States, and 

the Department of Justice has a very powerful influence on that. 

So if I could get into those three areas. 

The first one I am just going to use as an example of the kind 

of abusive use of power that I hope you will help stop and prevent 

from continuing to happen. This example is one that was already 

referenced by Senator Cruz, Operation Choke Point. Operation 

Choke Point, for those that are not familiar with it, the only appropriate thing about it, in my opinion, is its name. It was a program 

designed by the Department of Justice to help choke financing 

away from businesses and industries that were politically unacceptable or, for whatever reason, unacceptable to the administration. 

The Justice Department, working with, and I think perhaps even 

pressuring, some of our financial regulatory agencies, created this 

program to give additional scrutiny—indeed such aggressive scrutiny that it pressured them out of their access to financing—to certain industries. I do not know how these industries got on the list, 

but I will just read you several that are on the list: ammunition 

sales, coin dealers, firearms sales, installment loans, tobacco sales. 

This list is a list of 30 that was put out by the FDIC. When they 

actually realized they should not have put the list out, they quickly 

took it back. And the FDIC says that they are not pursuing this 

program anymore. But when we tried to de-fund it earlier, the administration fought aggressively to make sure we did not get the 

votes to de-fund it. 

This program is one where the justification is, well, the businesses who operate in these industries have not done anything 

wrong. But these are industries that might do things wrong more 

than other industries, and, therefore, we are going to pressure people out of these industries. It reminds me of a 2002 movie called 

‘‘Minority Report.’’ It was a Tom Cruise movie, and that was one 

about an advanced police force in the future that had determined 

or developed the ability to know if you were going to commit a 

crime before you commit the crime. And then their job was to go 

arrest you. It was really good at stopping crime because they arrest 

you before you even commit it. And then one of them came up on 

the list, and that is the story of that movie. 

My point is we cannot really tell for sure whether Operation 

Choke Point is still operating, although we still have people in 

these industries who cannot get financing. If that kind of thing is 

going on in the Department of Justice, will you assure that it ends? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will. At least as you have framed this issue 

and as I understand the issue, from what little I know about it, 
74 

but, fundamentally, a lawful business should not be attacked by 

having other lawful businesses pressured not to do business with 

the first business. That to me would be hard to justify. I guess 

maybe they have got some arguments that would be worth listening to, but, fundamentally, that seems to me—Senator Crapo, you 

are a great lawyer, but it seems to me that goes beyond what 

would be legitimate in a great economy like ours. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I would hope the Department of Justice 

would not be a partner with any of our Federal agencies in this 

kind of conduct. 

Another one which I will throw out as an example is the National Instant Criminal Background Checklist, which is now being 

utilized by the Veterans Administration and by the Social Security 

Administration to put people’s names on the list so that they can 

be denied access to owning or purchasing a firearm. And the way 

they put their name on the list is to say that they are mentally deficient. If they need a little help on their Social Security benefits, 

if they are a veteran who put their life on the line for us and goes 

to war and receives a head injury and so they need a little bit of 

assistance, then they get their name often put on the list. 

I know that these are not the agencies that you supervise, but 

I know the Department of Justice supervises the NICS list. And I 

would just encourage your help, whether it is here or anywhere 

else in our Government. As we see agencies using their power to 

achieve political purposes or some other discriminatory purpose of 

the administration, I would hope you would stand solidly against 

it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you, Senator Crapo. I know you 

have worked on that issue. So I would be sympathetic and be willing to receive any information that I know you have gathered to 

form your views about it. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. I appreciate that. 

Let me move on to the question of regulatory overreach. I will 

just use one example there. I am one who believes that today we 

have gone—we talked a lot in this hearing today about the rule of 

law. In America, statutes are passed by Congress and signed into 

law by a willing President. But now we have multiple agencies that 

are doing rulemakings that, in my opinion, are going far beyond 

the legal authority of the laws under which they operate. I will use 

one example: the Waters of the United States rule that has been 

implemented or is seeking to be implemented by the EPA and the 

Army Corps of Engineers. In my opinion, that is totally unfounded 

in law, and often the Department of Justice is partnered up with 

these agencies as they try to defend their activities in court. And 

I am not sure I actually know the proper role there. 

Does the Department of Justice simply have to litigate on behalf 

of these agencies? Or does it have the ability to advise these agencies that they are pursuing activities beyond the bounds of the law? 

Senator SESSIONS. It can be that an agency would ask an opinion 

of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, as to 

whether their interpretation is sound or not. That opinion, until reversed at some point, stands for the entire Government. But, basically, these agencies oftentimes just set about their own agendas 

without asking for an opinion, and often they are narrow-minded 
75 

or they are focused only on what they feel are the goals of their 

agency and do not give sufficient respect to the rule of law and the 

propriety of what they are doing. In particular, did the Congress 

really intend this? Did this law really cover this? Or is it just something you want to accomplish and you are twisting the law to justify your actions? Those are the kinds of things that we do need 

to guard against. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope that under 

your leadership we will have a Justice Department that will give 

strong advice where it can and have strong influence where it can 

across the United States system, across our agencies in this country, to help encourage and advise that they stay within the bounds 

of the law. 

The last thing, and I will just finish with this—and you can give 

a quick answer, I am running out of time here—and that is, cooperation with the States. As I said earlier, our system of Government is comprised of 50 States in a Union under a Constitution 

that establishes a Federal Government. And you and I both know 

well that the Tenth Amendment says that those rights and powers 

that are not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the 

Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people, respectively. 

Many of our States feel that that proper respect for their sovereignty is being abused, again, by Federal agencies, not just the 

Department of Justice, but the Justice Department often gets involved in this through providing the legal services that it does to 

our agencies. And, you know, I could go through a ton of more examples and lists of litigation that is ongoing right now with my 

State and other States around the country where, if we simply had 

a better level of respect for the role of States in this Union and 

under our Constitution, we could work out a lot more of these 

issues rather than having the heavy hand of the Federal litigation 

system come to play into forcing compliance by States. 

I will not go into any specific details, but would just ask your 

feelings about that importance of respecting the role of States in 

this country. 

Senator SESSIONS. There is no general Federal crime. So, many 

things like larceny and even murder, when there is no civil rights 

connection, have traditionally been totally the responsibility of the 

States. As a young prosecutor in the 1970s, I remember almost all 

the cases had an interstate commerce nexus. It was not the theft 

of an automobile that you prosecuted. It was interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. So a lot of that is just—now we have forgotten that distinction, that limitation on Federal power. 

Senator CRAPO. We have. And a lot of what I am talking about 

happens in the Environment and Natural Resource Division or in 

others. There is a lot of litigation out there. I would just encourage 

you—I see I am out of time. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Let me make a suggestion before I introduce Senator Hirono, and she is welcomed back to the Committee. 

She has been off 2 years. To make efficient use of our time, when 

she is done, it would be Senator Kennedy’s turn. But you probably 

have to go vote, so if there is somebody back here that can start 
76 

the second round, do it, and then we will call on Senator Kennedy 

to finish the first round. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back 

on this Committee. And aloha to you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Aloha. 

Senator HIRONO. I will do my best to be nice to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that will not be hard for you. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much. I know that the Attorney 

General has broad prosecutorial discretion. You noted in some of 

your responses to questions from Senator Durbin around the issue 

of what would happen to the 800,000 DACA-registered people if the 

President-elect rescinds that program, and you indicated that I 

think at that point the AG’s office has only so many resources and 

that may not be a high priority for you. But you indicated that is 

why we needed immigration reform. 

So my series of questions will center around how you would exercise your prosecutorial discretion, which I think you would acknowledge is wide as Attorney General, would you not? 

Senator SESSIONS. In many cases, you do—the Federal prosecutors set discretionary limits, but you have to be careful that it does 

not exceed a reasonable judgment about what a discretion should 

be. 

Senator HIRONO. I agree. It is not totally unfettered, but wide 

prosecutorial discretion, so my questions will center around how 

you would exercise prosecutorial discretion with regard to some 

specific issues. You probably know, Senator Sessions, that I am an 

immigrant, and you indicated in one response that you would want 

immigration reform to center around skills-based immigration reform. And if that were the case, my mother who brought me to this 

country to escape an abusive marriage would not have been able 

to come to this country, and she acquired her skills later. But I just 

want to let you know that this is one of the reasons that issues relating to immigration are very important not just to me but to millions of people in this country. And I have heard from them. I have 

heard from immigrants in this country, LGBT Americans, women, 

and religious minorities who are terrified that they will have no 

place in President-elect Trump’s vision of America. And based on 

what I have heard, since the election, I am deeply concerned that 

their fears are well founded. I am hoping that you can address 

some of these concerns today. 

I mentioned the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. When you 

came to see me, we did talk about whether or not you would support a ban on Muslims coming to this country based on the fact 

that they were Muslims, and you said you would not support that. 

But you also indicated that you would support basically what 

would be considered enhanced vetting of people with extreme 

views. What would characterize an extreme view to you? And how 

would you go about ferreting out people with extreme views? And 

there are millions of people legally coming into our country. 

And also a related question: The fact that you would consider 

vetting of people with extreme views to be a proper use of our governmental authority, there must be a connection in your mind that 
77 

people with extreme views, which I hope you will describe what 

you mean by, will do something that would compromise the safety 

of Americans? Could you respond to my series of questions relating 

to extreme views? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do think, first of all, the vetting process is in the hands of the State department, the consular offices, 

and those offices that are meeting people abroad and evaluating 

them for admission to the United States. So the Department of 

Justice really does not dictate that, as long as it is within constitutional order. 

I think the approach that is preferable is the approach that 

would be based on areas where we have an unusually high risk of 

terrorists coming in, people that could be clearly violent criminals, 

and those certainly justify higher intensity of vetting. I think that 

maybe responds to your question. But, again, the ultimate decision 

about that would be done through the State Department and by 

the President. 

Senator HIRONO. I am sure they would ask for the Attorney General’s opinion as to the limits of the Constitution in requiring these 

kinds of questions to be asked of people who come to our country. 

You did indicate that one’s religious views would be a factor in determining whether somebody has extreme views. 

Let me turn to—— 

Senator SESSIONS. If their religious views—— 

Senator HIRONO. Not in and of itself. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Encompass extremism, if their interpretation of their religious views encompasses dangerous doctrines and terrorist attacks, I think they should certainly deserve 

more careful scrutiny than someone whose religious views are less 

problematic. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes, Senator Sessions, you did say that one’s religious views would be a factor in determining whether one has extreme views that would not enable them to come to our country. 

Let me turn to the question of abortion. On Roe v. Wade, you did 

say, ‘‘I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time,’’ and it was an ‘‘activist decision.’’ My question is: 

Do you still hold that view? I believe you answered yes to someone 

who asked you that question previously, that you believe that Roe 

v. Wade was a bad decision. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I—— 

Senator HIRONO. Do you still believe that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I guess I have said that before. I am a 

pro-life—— 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Advocate. But, fundamentally, 

the problem as I see it with Roe v. Wade is that it denies the people 

the right to make laws that they might feel appropriate. Did the 

Supreme Court have that power? I concluded they did not because 

the Constitution did not answer that question, but—— 

Senator HIRONO. Senator Sessions, I—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. I respect people—— 

Senator HIRONO. I hate to interrupt you, but I have less than 2 

minutes, so I do not want to get into the substance of Roe v. Wade. 
78 

I realize you still believe that that was a bad decision, although it 

was based on constitutional privacy protections. So we can expect 

the makeup of the Supreme Court to change, and we can very well 

end up with a Supreme Court that will be very open to overturning 

Roe v. Wade. And should you be the Attorney General, would you 

direct or advise your Solicitor General to weigh in before that Supreme Court which has an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade? 

And would your Solicitor General go in and weigh in to repeal— 

or to overturn, I should say, Roe v. Wade? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Roe v. Wade is firmly ensconced as the 

law of the land, and I do not know if we would see a change in 

that. You are asking a hypothetical question. Those cases seldom 

come up on such a clear issue. They come up at the margins. I just 

would not be able to predict what well-researched, thoughtful response would be to matters that could happen in the future. 

Senator HIRONO. I think most of us know that the next opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether or not to 

change Roe v. Wade would be a very close decision and likely possibly a 5–4 decision, and that it is not just a hypothetical but it 

is a real concern to a lot of people. 

Let me turn to the Voting Rights Act. While the Supreme Court 

did eliminate parts of the Voting Rights Act, it still retains Section 

2, which prohibits States from enacting laws that would have a discriminatory impact. The Attorney General’s office was a party to 

challenging two States’ laws—I believe it was Texas and there was 

another State—that the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the 

Attorney General’s position that these laws violated the Voting 

Rights Act Section 2. Would you, should you become the Attorney 

General, just as vigorously prosecute those kinds of State laws that 

have a discriminatory voting impact? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, this administration’s Attorney General 

has intervened when it felt it was appropriate and not intervened 

when it did not feel it was appropriate. So I think my responsibility 

would be to ensure that there are no discriminatory problems regarding the Voting Rights Act in a State. If there is, if it violates 

the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution, I think the Attorney 

General may well have a responsibility and a duty to intervene. 

You cannot allow improper erosion of the right of Americans to 

vote. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, we know that since the Supreme Court’s 

decision that did away with major parts of the Voting Rights Act 

that numerous States, perhaps 13 States, have already enacted 

laws that could be deemed contrary to the Voting Rights Act. So 

I would hope that as Attorney General you would vigorously review 

those kinds of laws and to prosecute and to seek to overturn those 

State laws, just as your predecessors have done. 

I want to turn to VAWA. I know that you voted against the most 

recent iteration of VAWA because you had concerns about how nonIndians would be prosecuted under Tribal law. And you indicated 

that, yes, you do acknowledge that non-Indians do go on Tribal 

lands, commit crimes, and that these kinds of crimes should be 

prosecuted at the Federal level. And I would expect that should you 

become Attorney General that you will do that. 
79 

But at the same time, my question is: Would you then seek to 

overturn that part of VAWA that allows the Tribal courts to proceed? 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be a strictly legal decision. We 

should give respect to the laws of Congress that have been passed. 

As a Member of Congress, I was uneasy with it, did not think it 

was a good approach, and I believe eight out of nine Republicans 

on the Committee shared that concern and did vote against it. 

As I noted earlier, I voted for the Violence Against Women Act 

in 2000, 2010, and I voted for the Grassley version of the Violence 

Against Women Act this past time, even though I did vote against 

the version that became law. 

Senator HIRONO. So as Attorney General, you would not do anything to challenge that part of VAWA that allows for Tribal courts 

to proceed, right? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would have to make a legal decision 

on that. I am not able to do so today. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEE [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions, as you are aware, in many instances, Congress, 

when enacting a law, will choose to issue a broad sort of mandate, 

a broad aspirational statement, leaving the details of the actual 

lawmaking process to a regulatory system that then has to follow 

certain procedures in turn to effectively make laws. We call those 

regulations, typically, and sometimes an executive branch agency 

will go a step further and, outside the process that has to be followed when promulgating a new regulation, they will just issue a 

guidance document—a guidance document outlining what the agency feels is the status of the law in this area. Guidance documents 

have received a lot of criticism from members of the public who 

point out that they are bereft of any kind of safeguard and that 

they have not gone through a legislative process; they have not 

even gone through any type of review process that would normally 

accompany the regulatory rulemaking cycle. 

As a matter of policymaking, will the Department of Justice, 

under your leadership, assuming you are confirmed, use guidance 

documents as a matter of course in promulgating legal interpretations? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Lee, a guidance document that is 

clearly within the intent of Congress and the law’s plain words can 

be beneficial. I think they are normally issued by the agency or department that administers it, like, for example, the Department of 

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Department of 

Commerce. Sometimes, they ask the Office of Legal Counsel for 

their opinion about what the proper interpretation of a statute is. 

But I do think you raise a valid concern. A guidance document cannot amount to an amendment of a law. Bureaucrats do not have— 

that is a pejorative term, but department and agency attorneys and 

members do not have the ability to rewrite the law to make it say 

what they would like it to say. 

If we get away from that principle, we erode the respect for law 

and the whole constitutional structure where Congress makes the 

laws, not the executive branch. 
80 

Senator LEE. What about in the context of litigation, where you 

are litigating a case involving one of these guidance documents, 

and you are representing the Federal agency in question? Will the 

Department, under your leadership, assuming you are confirmed to 

this position, ask courts to defer to nonbinding guidance documents 

in the same way that courts are routinely asked to defer to regulations? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is a good question from a good lawyer, I have to say. In other words, the question you are suggesting 

is, established law of the land or the courts is that they give certain deference to well-established, properly established regulations 

issued pursuant to statute. But what if a Secretary just issues a 

guidance document? Is the court entitled to give full deference to 

that? First of all, I do not know. I have not researched it, but I do 

think that that would be a pretty bold step to go that far, and 

would be dubious about it. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. As you know, from time to time, the 

Department of Justice receives subpoenas, or one of the entities 

being represented by the Department of Justice might receive requests from Members of Congress, from Committees in Congress, 

including some Committees that have the power to issue subpoenas, in other instances, just letters or other types of requests 

from Congress for documents. 

I suspect that there may be a number of outstanding requests of 

this nature that are left pending at the end of this Administration, 

requests that were issued during the 114th Congress, the Congress 

previous to this one, but that will still need to be handled within 

the Department after you are confirmed, assuming you are confirmed. 

Will you commit to reviewing any of those that remain pending, 

and doing so in a manner that is timely and showing the respect 

for a coordinate branch of Government? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Lee, if you would, repeat for me what 

kind of request? 

Senator LEE. Pending requests for documents that might be left 

over from the previous Congress. 

Senator SESSIONS. Requests for documents in what kind of proceeding? 

Senator LEE. Requests for documents either from the Department, itself, or in matters where the Department is involved representing an entity within the Federal Government. I just want to 

make sure that those do not get left behind, that they do not get 

ignored simply because they have not been dealt with by the previous administration. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do think they are entitled to be evaluated and proper requests, I would assume, would continue to be 

valid. We would try to follow whatever the law requires in that regard. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I want to talk about the attorney-client privilege by members of 

the executive branch, by executive branch officials. In a 1998 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reached a conclusion that executive branch officials do not enjoy the same com-
81 

mon law attorney-client privilege as ordinary lawyers—lawyers 

who are not executive branch officials. 

Justice Scalia, while he was serving as the Assistant Attorney 

General over the Office of Legal Counsel, authored a legal opinion 

stating that executive branch officials do not enjoy the privilege unless they are dispensing with personal legal advice. Instead, in that 

view, executive branch officials need to assert the executive privilege, rather than the traditional common law attorney-client privilege. 

And yet, executive branch agencies routinely can be observed asserting the attorney-client privilege, instead of the—in much the 

same way they would in the traditional context, rather than just 

invoking the executive privilege. Would you agree with that? That 

that might raise some questions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Lee, I have not studied that opinion 

of Justice Scalia. I would be reluctant to comment, except I would 

say that it is probably good for the American Republic that Department and Agency officials seek legal advice before they act. In the 

long run, that is probably better. 

I think having some expectation that they can have a candid 

comment with their attorney is of value. I had not thought about, 

and never given study to, the question of whether it should be 

under executive privilege or attorney-client. Although, I can imagine the difficulties. 

Senator LEE. Yes. I appreciate your candor on that point. It gives 

me some comfort knowing that you are aware of the situation and 

you will look at those. 

I would like to talk about some antitrust issues in the moments 

I have remaining, and then perhaps we will get back to these during a subsequent round. 

Antitrust regulators, when they are reviewing potentially competitive harms that might arise as a result of a merger, will sometimes impose conditions on the merger moving forward, saying unless you do A, B, and C, this merger cannot go forward. But if you 

do A, B, and C in order to address whatever concerns we, the antitrust regulators have, then the merger can be consummated. 

It is my view that there is a temptation for antitrust regulators 

sometimes to impose conditions that do not involve anticompetitive 

concerns, and that that raises some red flags because the role of 

the antitrust regulator is to look out for anticompetitive concerns 

arising out of the merger. That is where their inquiry ought to be 

focused, and that is where their conditions ought to be focused. Do 

you disagree with that? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would agree with that. As you formulated, 

I believe it would be wrong to further some other separate, discrete 

agenda that is not reasonably connected to the merger itself. So I 

think we should ensure that we have the highest integrity in antitrust adjudications because they can have great impact. The law is 

not crystal clear about what is lawful, and what is not lawful, and 

what the Antitrust Division is required to do. It leaves dangers, if 

not politicization of it—it remains—dangers of policy agendas getting embroiled in it. So it is an important division. It requires great 

integrity, and ability, I believe, in the leadership at the Antitrust 

Division. 
82 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I listened to Senator Lee asking these questions. It occurred to 

me that you are one of a very, very, very small minority of Members who opposed the USA Freedom Act that I drafted with Senator Lee. It passed with a super-majority in both the House and 

the Senate. 

Even though you voted against it—and this, of course, stopped 

the bulk collection by NSA that both Senator Lee and I opposed— 

do you agree the executive branch has to follow the law, that they 

cannot reinstate the bulk collection of America’s phone records 

without amending Federal statutes? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Leahy, that appears to be so, and I 

cannot swear that that is absolutely, totally always true, but it appears to be so. 

Senator LEAHY. Wait a minute. We either passed the law or we 

did not pass the law. A super-majority voted for the Lee–Leahy 

law. The President signed it into law. You voted against it. Will 

you uphold the law? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will follow the law, yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. And will you commit that you are not going to 

allow the NSA to engage in bulk collection of Americans’ records 

in violation of the USA Freedom Act based on a theory that somehow whoever is President has the power to disregard the statute? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not believe that the statute can be disregarded, and it should be followed. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

We had a dust-up in the press, as you recall, when Mr. Trump 

bragged about how he had grabbed women and so on, shortly after 

the tape came out, and I realize an explanation here—you said, ‘‘I 

do not characterize that as sexual assault.’’ But then you said later, 

‘‘The Weekly Standard’s characterization of comments I made following Sunday’s presidential debate is completely inaccurate. My 

hesitation was based solely on confusion of the content of the 2005 

tape. A hypothetical proposed by the reporter which was asked in 

a chaotic post-debate environment. Of course, it is crystal-clear 

that assault is unacceptable. I would never intentionally suggest 

otherwise.’’ 

Especially what you said—after the confusion on your first comment. Is that correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe that is correct. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Is grabbing a woman by her genitals without consent—is that 

sexual assault? 

Senator SESSIONS. Clearly, it would be. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

If a sitting President or any other high Federal official was accused of committing what the President-elect described in a context 

in which it could be federally prosecuted, would you be able to 

prosecute and investigate? 

Senator SESSIONS. The President is subject to certain lawful restrictions, and they would be required to be applied by the appropriate law enforcement official when appropriate, yes. 
83 

Senator LEAHY. And the conduct described, based on the description, would be sexual assault? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the confusion about the question was a 

hypothetical question, and it related to what was said on the tape. 

I did not remember at the time whether this was suggested to be 

an unaccepted, unwanted—— 

Senator LEAHY. Let us—— 

Senator SESSIONS. That would certainly meet the definition. If 

that is what the tape said, then that would be—— 

Senator LEAHY. My question is very simple: Is grabbing a woman 

by her genitals without consent, is that sexual assault? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Now you were asked earlier about having called the NAACP and 

ACLU un-American. You said that was before you were a Senator. 

But as a Senator you have continued to be hostile to them. You 

have criticized nominees for having what you call ‘‘ACLU DNA.’’ 

Now, I remember when Republicans led the Justice Department, 

its Inspector General found the Bush administration engaged in 

unlawful politicized hiring practices. That is the Republican administration’s own Inspector General. It said the Ashcroft Justice Department used a litmus test whether applicants would be sufficiently conservative. If they were ever in the ACLU, they could not 

have a job. 

You said in a radio interview, ‘‘Justice has to be saved from secular, progressive liberals.’’ 

All right. Let me ask you a couple simple questions. Are an individual’s religious beliefs relevant to their employment at the Justice Department? 

Senator SESSIONS. Not unless it is such that they cannot perform 

their duties in an honorable way, consistent with the law. 

Senator LEAHY. What would be an example of that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, if an individual so strongly believed that 

abortion should be unlawful that they used their position to block 

constitutionally approved abortions, I think that would make them 

not subject to being employed in the Department of Justice. 

Senator LEAHY. Are you going to have a litmus test at the Department of Justice for people who worked at civil rights organizations? 

Senator SESSIONS. No. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Graham mentioned you have long been 

a champion of State’s rights. Certainly you and I have had enough 

discussions on that, and I realize those are deeply held beliefs. But 

States have also voted on the issue of marijuana and regulation. 

I believe your own State of Alabama permits the use of a derivative 

of marijuana known as CBD oil, legal in Alabama, illegal under 

Federal law. 

If you are confirmed as the Nation’s chief law enforcement official, and you know that we have very, very limited Federal resources—in fact, we spend about a third of our budget now just to 

keep the prisons open because of mandatory minimums and whatnot. 
84 

Would you use our Federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who are using marijuana in accordance with their 

State laws, but might violate Federal law? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will not commit to never enforcing 

Federal law, Senator Leahy, but absolutely, it is a problem of resources for the Federal Government. 

The Department of Justice under Lynch and Holder set forth 

some policies that they thought were appropriate to define what 

cases should be prosecuted in States that have legalized, at least 

in some fashion, some parts of marijuana—— 

Senator LEAHY. Do you agree with those guidelines? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think some of them are truly valuable in 

evaluating cases, but fundamentally, the criticism I think that was 

legitimate is that they may not have been followed. Using good 

judgment about how to handle these cases will be a responsibility 

of mine. I know it will not be an easy decision, but I will try to 

do my duty in a fair and just way. 

Senator LEAHY. The only reason I mention it, you have some 

very strong views. You even mandated the death penalty for anyone convicted of a second drug trafficking offense, including marijuana, even though mandatory death penalties are, of course, unconstitutional. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am not sure under what circumstances 

I said that, but I do not think that sounds like something I would 

normally say. I will be glad to look at it, but—— 

Senator LEAHY. Would you say that is not your view today? 

Senator SESSIONS. It is not my view today. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator LEE. I perked up when he started talking about federalism. Of course, everything Senator Leahy said was interesting, 

but the federalism stuff is particularly interesting. 

Senator LEAHY. I am praising your legislation. 

Senator LEE. Yes, exactly. I appreciated that, too. That was 

great. 

Federalism is an issue that is near and dear to many of us, and 

I know it is important to you. The notion that our Federal Government possesses powers that James Madison described as few and 

defined, and those reserved to the States are numerous and indefinite. 

We were supposed to be a different legislative body. Our Federal 

Government was always intended as a limited-purpose national 

government, not a general-purpose national government, one possessing complete police powers. We have seen a slow but steady 

drift over the last 80 years away from this principle of federalism, 

such that powers exercised at the Federal level today could no 

longer be described as few and defined, but more appropriately described as numerous and indefinite. 

In light of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, any powers 

we do exercise through the Federal Government are, by definition, 

replaced from the States. In other words, when our action conflicts 

with State action, it is our action that prevails in light of the Supremacy Clause. It is one of the reasons why federalism needs to 

be looked out for so carefully. One of the reasons why a view that 

I think both you and I share is that U.S. Government officials in 
85 

all three branches of government, whether they wear a black robe 

or not, are expected when they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, to look out for basic structural protections in the Constitution like federalism so that we do not have an excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. 

The Founding Fathers set up this system in which we have these 

structural protections. We have the vertical protection we call federalism, which we just described, and the horizontal protection we 

call separation of powers. It says, within the Federal Government 

in order to protect us against the risks associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of few, we are going to 

have one branch that makes the laws, another branch that enforces 

the laws, and a third branch that interprets the laws. 

As long as we keep each branch within the same lane, the people 

are protected from what happens when one person, or a group of 

people, gets too powerful. But over the last 80 years, just as we 

have seen a deterioration of federalism, we have also seen a deterioration of separation of powers. 

You have an interesting set of circumstances with our laws, our 

controlled substances laws concerning marijuana, in that for the 

first time in a very long time, you have seen some attention paid 

to federalism, but in the limited area associated with marijuana. In 

other words, there are Federal laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, the sale of marijuana, the production of marijuana that 

apply, regardless of whether a State has independently criminalized that drug as every State, until recently, had. 

Then you had some States coming along and decriminalizing it, 

sometimes in the medical context, other times in a broader context. 

The response by the Department of Justice during the Obama administration has been interesting, and it has been different than it 

has in other areas. They have been slow to recognize principles of 

federalism elsewhere. They chose to recognize it here. 

My question to you is, did the way they responded to that federalism concern run afoul of separation of powers? Did the Department’s approach to this issue that they identified as a federalism 

issue contravene the understanding that we are the lawmaking 

body, the executive branch is the law-enforcing body? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am not sure I fully understand the 

point of your question, but—you are talking about separation of 

powers within the Federal Government? 

Senator LEE. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. The three branches of Federal Government. 

Senator LEE. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And how does that implicate the marijuana 

laws? 

Senator LEE. Yes. Are there separation of powers concerns arising out of the Department of Justice’s current approach to State 

marijuana laws? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think one obvious concern is that the 

United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana in 

every State and distribution of it an illegal act. If that is something 

that is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to 

change the rule. It is not so much the Attorney General’s job to de-
86 

cide what laws to enforce. We should do our job and enforce laws 

effectively as we are able. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. I would like to get back to antitrust 

issues for a moment. In 2010, you cosponsored some legislation 

that extended the Antitrust Division’s leniency program and extended it all the way out to 2020. So it was a 10-year extension 

at the time, you helped move that through. The legislation provided 

that members of a cartel could receive reduced penalties if they reported cartel activity to the Department and cooperated with any 

investigation the Department had in connection with that antitrust 

cartel. 

Now the Antitrust Division within the Department of Justice 

considers this tool ‘‘its most important investigative tool for detecting cartel activity,’’ because it creates an incentive for cartel members to self-report, to come forward, and to identify things that the 

Antitrust Division needs to be aware of. So I applaud your leadership in this area because it has been very helpful to the enforcement of our antitrust laws of the Department. 

I have two questions related to this program looking forward: 

First, given its importance, do you think the program should be 

made permanent; and second, are you open to any other ideas that 

might strengthen the program? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Lee, I would not commit to you that 

I have formed an opinion on that. These are very complex areas of 

the law. I am not a Member of the Antitrust Subcommittee as a 

number of Members of our Committee are and have achieved levels 

of expertise, like Senator Klobuchar, and you, and others. 

I would just have to commit to you that I am open to hearing 

the views of this Congress and that Subcommittee, and would try 

to work with you, but I do understand that antitrust policy is an 

important issue for America, and we need to get it right, and that 

would be my goal. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. One important question sometimes 

arises in the antitrust context. It relates to what role the Department of Justice should play in communicating with foreign authorities, authorities in other countries that deal with competition laws, 

deal with things analogous to our antitrust laws in this country. 

The Department of Justice has typically played a leading role, but 

in recent years it has also allowed the Federal Trade Commission, 

the FTC, to become heavily involved. 

To my mind, this raises some potential concerns because the FTC 

is an independent agency as compared to the Department of Justice, of course, which is headed by a presidential appointee who, 

with Senate confirmation, serves at the pleasure of the President. 

Do you have any opinion on this point, that the Department of 

Justice, which is more accountable to the President, and therefore, 

has some connection to the people, should be more actively involved 

in communicating with foreign antitrust or competition authorities? 

Senator SESSIONS. I really would not attempt to comment today 

on that. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on it. I think it can 

be problematic if U.S. officials encouraged foreign officials to join 

with them to—against an action of a private company. They put— 

could put so much excessive pressure on them that they are not 

able to resist, when they may have a lawful basis to resist. But— 
87 

so these are big issues and you have to be sensitive to the power 

that the Department of Justice has, the Antitrust Division has, and 

make sure that there is a principled policy and lawful basis for 

what is done. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I see our Chairman 

is back. Oh, he is not back. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding that Senator Durbin 

has not yet had his second round, and so I would like to defer to 

him. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator—oh, I am sorry. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am going to defer to Senator Durbin because he somehow got missed. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. I want to thank the 

Chairman and my friend Senator Feinstein. 

This morning, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director 

Comey of the FBI was testifying on the question of investigating 

the Russian involvement in this last election and he was asked if 

there was any ongoing investigation about contacts between Moscow, the Russians, and any Presidential campaigns, and he refused 

to answer, said he was not going to discuss any ongoing investigations publicly. 

I would like to ask you a question related to recusal. You stated 

earlier today that you had made the decision—and you have not 

given us a real background on it—but made the decision that you 

would recuse yourself from any prosecutions involving Hillary Clinton or the Clinton campaign and emails. 

Then I understand—I was not present—but Senator Blumenthal 

asked you for some other hypotheticals as to whether you would 

recuse yourself on an emolument question or some other things, 

and you said you would take it on a case-by-case basis. 

What if, hypothetical, same as Hillary Clinton, we are dealing 

with an investigation that involves the Trump campaign, or anyone 

in the Trump campaign. Would you recuse yourself as Attorney 

General from that prosecution? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my response to the—to my recusal issue 

was because I had made public comments about it that could be 

construed as having an opinion on the final judgment that would 

have to be rendered. I do not think I made any comments on this 

issue that go to that, but I would review it and try to do the right 

thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of 

the Attorney General or not. 

Senator DURBIN. It would strike me that this is an obvious case 

for a special prosecutor if it involves a campaign leading to a candidate who selected you as the Attorney General. Would not an 

abundance of caution suggest that you would not want any questions raised about your integrity in that type of prosecution? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Durbin, I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who is holding the office of Attorney General 

at that time to carefully think his way through that to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor 

standards, and so I would intend to do that, but I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of those issues, to my knowledge. 
88 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Sessions, there has been a lot of controversy about refugees. The United States had a dubious record on 

refugees during World War II, refusing to accept Jewish refugees 

who were then, in some cases, returned to Europe and the Holocaust, and perished. After World War II, a new policy emerged in 

the United States, bipartisan policy, and the United States became 

more open—in some cases generous—to accepting refugees. 

The numbers—I have heard various numbers, but 650,000 Cuban 

refugees who came to the United States during the ascendancy of 

the Castro regime; 125,000 or more Soviet Jews accepted in the 

United States, spared from persecution in the Soviet Union; 

400,000 from Eastern Europe after World War II; 400,000 from 

Vietnam; 150,000 from the former Yugoslavia. 

In the audience today is Omar al-Muqdad. I do not know—if he 

could please stand here. Mr. al-Muqdad is a Syrian refugee. His 

story is a story of a journalist who, for more than a decade, publicized human rights abuses by the Assad regime, arrested seven 

times, imprisoned for 2 years. When he refused to stop writing 

after that, the prison guards broke his hands. 

After his release from prison, he continued to write about the 

abuses of the Syrian security forces. When he was again pursued 

by the regime, he fled to Turkey. He was resettled in the United 

States by Catholic Charities after receiving refugee status. 

There have been some strong words spoken about Syrian refugees. In fact, during the course of the campaign there were some 

who said we should accept none, and many have questioned whether we should accept any refugees from anywhere. Despite the 

lengthy vetting process and background checks, some have said no 

refugees, we are finished with that business. 

One of your responsibilities as Attorney General will be the involvement of prosecutorial discretion, decisions that have to be 

made about the fate of men like Alton Mills, I introduced earlier, 

who had served 22 years of a life sentence for the possession of 

crack cocaine; the case of Oscar Vasquez, a man who was a 

DREAMer and wanted to serve the United States in uniform; and 

this case involving Omar al-Muqdad. 

The American Bar Association standards say the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. It is an important 

function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. 

When it comes to cases like these, in your role as the leading 

prosecutor in the United States of America, what is your feeling 

about your discretion to make the decision as to whether or not to 

spare individuals like those I have described? 

Senator SESSIONS. I have been made aware in the last several 

years how this process works. It is really the Secretary of State, 

usually through consultation with the President, that decides how 

many refugees should be admitted to the country. There is little 

Congress can do, other than getting into a funding argument with 

the President, about that. 

So Secretary Kerry met with Members of the Judiciary Committee to announce what he planned to do on refugees. That would 

be how it would be decided, and legally the President appears to 
89 

have that power. But it would be my responsibility, I think, to 

make sure that it was exercised within the bounds of law. 

Senator DURBIN. But you have a responsibility, too. You oversee 

the Office of the Pardon Attorney, who recommends that sentences 

like those of Alton Mills be commuted. You oversee the immigration courts, which are responsible for interpreting how our Nation’s 

immigration laws apply to DREAMers and refugees like Mr. alMuqdad. 

So this is not another agency, it is the Department of Justice, 

and you will be the leader of that department. You will have the 

authority and prosecutorial discretion. You cannot point to Congress and you cannot point to the State Department; there is a responsibility within your own department. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, a refugee is admitted or not admitted to 

the United States on the approval or disapproval by the Secretary 

of State and its consular officials. It is not a trial or not a litigation, 

so that is how that would be determined. 

The gentleman from Syria that you mentioned should have—be 

able to make a strong case for his acceptance as a refugee because 

he has been damaged and injured and attacked and at risk for his 

writings, so that would give him a more—proving that should give 

them—put him at a higher level of potential acceptance. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, you and I can disagree on this one point 

and your authority over immigration courts as Attorney General, 

but I hope that we both agree that there are compelling cases of 

people who are victims around the world, of terrorism and war, discrimination and maltreatment, men and women, and many of them 

look to the United States as the last possible place for them to find 

safety and security. 

I hope, after the heated language of this last election campaign, 

that we can come back to some of the standards that have guided 

this Nation since World War II. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we will not end the refugee program. I 

would not favor that. But we do have a responsibility to be careful 

and make sure that those who are admitted have been properly 

vetted and are not a danger. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I—this is what I would like to do. 

The vote has kind of made this a convoluted rounds that we are 

in here. One person has had a third round, we have got one person 

with no round. So this—or not—without his first round. And then 

Senator Sessions would like to take a break. 

So here is what I would like to do, Senator Sessions, if it is okay 

with you. I want to go with Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein for 

their second rounds, and then Senator Kennedy for his first round, 

and give you a short break at that point. Is that okay? 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be good. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And for the benefit of the rest of you, I 

kind of got lost out of this, but I have got to be here for the rest 

of the meeting, where maybe some of you do not have to be. So I 

will wait and do my second, third, and fourth round when everybody else is gone. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, is that nice! 

Senator SESSIONS. How many? 
90 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. So now it is Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Senator Sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I have known you all your 20 years. I have watched you 

work diligently on the Judiciary Committee and on your other 

Committees as well. You are an honest, decent man and you have 

tremendous abilities in law enforcement, and you have proven it 

here today and you are showing it here today. It is hard for me to 

understand why anybody would be against you. 

Let me ask just a couple of questions. I want to emphasize that 

you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement, including the National Sheriff’s Association, National District Attorney’s Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 

National Narcotic Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Associations of 

Major County Sheriffs and Major City Chiefs of Police. I am not 

sure I have seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support 

for this position. 

Now, I draw attention to this for an important reason. This 

agreement about political—or policy positions are one thing, but accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that 

you are not sensitive to race is another. 

Would these law enforcement organizations enthusiastically support someone who was biased? We know they would not. Of course 

not. Would they endorse someone who would fail to be impartial? 

Of course not. 

Such accusations, especially without any evidence to support 

them whatsoever, are not simply attacks on Senator Sessions, they 

are also smears against organizations like these which have similarly examined the record and found Senator Sessions worthy of 

support. So I am grateful to you for your willingness to take this 

on, knowing that you might be sneered by certain organizations. It 

takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts and we 

all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that 

you have a tremendous integrity, we all know that you have a tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I 

have disagreed on some issues that are important to both of us, you 

have always acted with distinction, and with fairness and decency, 

and I would expect you to do the same thing as Attorney General 

of the United States. One thing I know: you would be giving it everything you have, and that is a lot. You have a lot to give. 

Let me just say that this morning one of my Democratic colleagues said that the standards for evaluating your nomination is 

whether you will ‘‘enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal 

bias.’’ Now, do you agree that the Attorney General has a duty to 

do that? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is the core responsibility of the Attorney 

General, absolutely. 

Senator HATCH. I have no doubt, knowing you, that you will live 

up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to 

agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that 

you will fulfill that responsibility, and most of the questions this 
91 

morning were about statements you made, positions you took, or 

votes you cast as a Senator on legislative issues. Some of these 

questions suggested that you could not enforce a law you had not 

voted for or that you would not enforce a law or policy that you 

might have questioned or personally disagreed with. 

Now, I would personally categorically reject that, and you have, 

too. Am I right? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator HATCH. You are darned right it is. 

Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal 

could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do, too, Senator Hatch. Some people—I do 

not think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce 

laws that I did not vote for. I just do not think that is going to be 

a—I think I can separate my personal votes, maybe years ago, from 

what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can 

believe that. 

Senator HATCH. Well, the answer to the question whether you 

can, as Attorney General, enforce the laws fairly evenly and without personal bias, it is a resounding yes, you can, and anybody who 

disagrees with that has not been listening, has not observed you 

over the last 20 years, or anytime over the last 20 years. There is 

not a shred of evidence from your entire record to undermine that 

conclusion. 

Now, does the fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality? It seems to me 

it does. Am I right? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. Yes, I do believe that I have 

conducted myself according to principles that I think are valid and 

try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly 

disagree on them. 

Senator HATCH. Well, anybody who knows you knows that that 

is true. 

Now, the Justice Department has a duty to defend, in court, the 

laws enacted by Congress. As a Member of this Committee for 20 

years, you have heard Attorney General nominees profess their 

commitment to fulfill that duty, regardless of politics. 

Now, in my opinion, the Justice Department, under the outgoing 

administration, reneged on its duty to do so in a number of respects. In some key instances, they made decisions on political 

rather than legal grounds. 

How important is it for the Justice Department to defend Congress’ statutes, and will you commit to do so even when, as a legislator, you would have opposed those statutes? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Hatch, you have been through these 

issues for many years and I certainly respect your judgment, but 

I do believe that the lawyer for Congress, the lawyer for the United 

States that represents the U.S. Government in court, should be the 

lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in Congress whenever 

a reasonable defense can be found, and I commit to you I will do 

that. 
92 

Senator HATCH. Well, I believe you and I know that is true, and 

I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws 

or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you 

for being willing to go through this, for your willingness to be able 

to do this, and for your integrity that you have shown, and exhibited, and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine, really good person you are. 

And we have differed on some pretty important issues from time 

to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you 

believe, however wrong you may have been. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I heard my wife laugh at that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope 

that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can 

get you confirmed as soon as possible, because I know you will do 

a terrific job and I am very proud of you for being willing to accept 

this. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am honored to have your support, Senator 

Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. You have it. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all 

statements and written testimony sent to the Committee concerning Senator Sessions be made part of the record, and I have 

some testimonies and letters. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to appears as submissions for the 

record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions, when I was a small child it was during World 

War II, and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called Tanforan. It had become a detention camp for Japanese 

American citizens. During the length of World War II—well, thousands of families were held in this compound. We checked with 

CRS who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any 

sabotage against the United States during that period of time. 

Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and I have tried, together, to enact 

a bill to assure that no American citizen or lawful permanent resident detained in the United States can be held indefinitely without 

charge or trial, pursuant to authorization of military force. 

So here is the question: Do you believe that the Government can, 

pursuant to a general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States without charge or 

trial? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, that is an important question. Classically, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a 

German soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was 

done, I am sure, at the Civil War and most wars since. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am talking about Americans. 

Senator SESSIONS. I hear you. So then the question is, we are in 

a war like we have now that has gone on multiple years and I 
93 

would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid. 

But as reality dawns on us, and wars might be even longer, you 

know, it is important to discuss those issues. So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general 

I do believe—and Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many 

years—that we are in a war and when members who—unlike the 

Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military 

regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have 

to be proven to be connected to an enemy, a designated enemy of 

the United States. I probably explained more than I should, but 

that is basically the argument and the issue we are facing. I respect your concerns and I am sure they will continue to be debated 

in the future. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just say a few things about that. 

I have served on the Intelligence Committee for 15 years. I read 

all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what is happening in the United States and this is not—these are Americans 

that we are talking about that can be picked up and detained and 

held without benefit—— 

Senator SESSIONS. You are talking about American citizens? 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Of trial, indefinitely, and that 

should not be the case. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I understand your point. A citizen of the 

United States has certain important rights. They cannot be abrogated. It is absolutely so, they cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the Government surely has to prove 

that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action 

against the United States or they could not be detained. And if—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I appreciate that. 

Let me go on to another subject. You were one of nine Senators 

to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It prohibited 

the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. personnel. 

You also voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator 

McCain in the 2016 Defense Authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the Army Field Manual, which 

does not include waterboarding. 

Do you agree that the CIA’s former enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are prohibited by this provision of 

law, as now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd? 

Senator SESSIONS. It does appear to be clear that the last Act, 

the McCain Amendment, would prohibit waterboarding. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you would enforce that? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would enforce the law, yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Now, my third question is—and this was in The Washington 

Post, a report last night—that you failed to disclose to this Committee and to the Office of Government Ethics subsurface rights to 

oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home State, 

some of which, I gather, are adjacent to a Federal wildlife preserve. 

Apparently, ‘‘Alabama records show that the Senator leased undivided mineral interests to Chief Capital, a Texas firm, in 2015.’’ 

Do you in fact own these interests? 
94 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, I believe that is so. And 

the way it happened was that many years ago, at least 50 or more 

years ago, my family ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later, there was a dam built on the river and a desire 

to take land that was going to be flooded and to add additional 

land for a duck preserve, and they negotiated and the family sold 

land to the Government and retained the mineral rights, per the 

agreement. At least, that is my understanding. So by an odd series 

of events, the properties fell to me. I have never reviewed the 

deeds, I have never known how much land is out there that I own 

mineral rights on, although oil companies are pretty good about 

making sure they contact real owners before they drill a well. So 

you are correct that we reported the income on my return as—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I saw that, $4,000. I saw that. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. As coming from the property that 

I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that 

report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said 

‘‘royalties.’’ So I would just say this to you, this is something I have 

taken no action on. I have one of the simplest, clearest, fairest, financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife’s assets are almost entirely Vanguard Funds and municipal bonds. I own no individual stocks because I want to be sure that I do not have conflicts 

of interest. I want to adhere to high standards. We are going to 

find out what we did or did not do and correct it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I welcome brand-new Senator Kennedy, not 

only to this Committee but to the Senate as well. 

Senator Kennedy, you are allowed 10 minutes now. 

Senator KENNEDY. Good afternoon, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator KENNEDY. My name is John Kennedy. That is really my 

name. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KENNEDY. Just so you will know, I used to have a law 

partner named Jose Canseco. It caused a lot of confusion when we 

would go to meetings together. 

Senator SESSIONS. I guess. 

Senator KENNEDY. I have been impressed, in preparing for the 

hearings, with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. 

In fact, one of my sheriffs from Louisiana—I do not know if Greg 

is still here—Sheriff Greg Champagne, who also happens to be a 

lawyer, came all the way up from Louisiana to lobby other Senators on your behalf. And I have noticed that a lot of the organizations that are supporting you are organizations that have not always agreed with your positions on the issues, and that impressed 

me. 

I just wanted to read you one quick excerpt. This is from a statement by the Sergeants Benevolence Association from the NYPD, 

New York, about as far away from Mobile as you can get. This is 

what the letter said: ‘‘As a union representing law enforcement officers, over the years the SBA’’—that is the Sergeants Benevolence 

Association—‘‘has worked as both an ally and a respectful opponent 

of Senator Sessions. This experience has shown us that Senator 

Sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity, devoted to the rule 
95 

of law and the best interests of our Nation. It is for these reasons 

and many others that we believe Senator Sessions is the absolute 

right choice to serve as America’s chief law enforcement officer.’’ 

Now, that impressed me. I would like to know what you intend, 

as Attorney General, to do to further partner with State and local 

law enforcement? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is so important. The U.S. Attorneys 

throughout the country, as in Louisiana and Alabama, are key 

players in this. All U.S. Attorneys, colleagues, are funded to have 

law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. 

We had regular meetings. In the early ’80s, this is when it started. 

This is the first time. 

Instead of having a law enforcement plan produced in Washington, DC, the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the Federal 

agencies and all the State and local agencies to sit down and identify what their main threats are and to direct their resources to 

deal with these real threats in that district, and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that that 

has been eroded somewhat, so we need to go back to a lot of that. 

The Department of Justice has great resources for identifying 

tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to 

always help the State and local police officers have the best data 

on what works and how to create safer and better communities. 

The Federal Government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would 

be a disaster. They would not accept it, number one, and any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners. 

The Federal Government, through its power internationally and 

nationally, can help a local investigative agency solve a complex 

criminal case that they do not have the subpoena power, or they 

do not have—a Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff does not have 

power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver. So 

these are the things that are all important. And I truly believe 

from a matter of public policy, we need to see the big picture, and 

we are all in it together. Ninety percent of the law officers in America are State and local, and they are the ones that are the eyes and 

ears of law enforcement. So I really think, Senator Kennedy, you 

are correct that we need to do this. I think there is a feeling among 

law enforcement that that has not been happening sufficiently, and 

the fact that I think I understand that explains why I have had 

as much strong and enthusiastic support as I have had. 

Senator KENNEDY. You know, when a radical Islamist terrorist 

drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we are told 

that we should not judge all Muslims by the act of a few. Now, I 

agree with that. Do you not think the same rule ought to apply 

when one or two law enforcement officers make a mistake, do you 

not think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9 percent law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day 

and go to work and try to protect us? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I really do, and I think those of us in 

high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole 

departments and whole groups of people because within those— 

most any department you can find in America, surely most of the 

people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the 

right thing. 
96 

So when we say these things, we can increase risks for them. We 

can make it harder for them to have relationships with constituents where they are serving, and actually result in an increase in 

crime and ineffectiveness in law enforcement. So, we cannot miss 

these issues. We cannot make big mistakes like we may be making 

now. So I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the 

kind of unity and comprehensive effort, State, local, Federal, that 

will be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our community safer. 

Senator KENNEDY. In Louisiana, Senator, we believe that love is 

the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the 

Constitution to own a gun just in case. 

Could you share with me your thoughts on the Second Amendment? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do believe the Second Amendment is 

a personal right. It is a historic right of the American people and 

the Constitution protects it, and explicitly states it. It is just as 

much a part of the Constitution as any of the other great rights 

and liberties that we value. So my record is pretty clear on that. 

However, people can forfeit their right to have a gun, and it can 

be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry 

a gun, for example, during the commission of a crime. That can add 

penalty and convictions to you. I think that is a legitimate and responsible restraint on the Second Amendment right to keep and 

bear arms. 

Senator KENNEDY. I think they believe this in Alabama too, but 

in Louisiana we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist 

temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I would like to know your thoughts on the Freedom of Information Act. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the Freedom of Information Act is law. 

I would see it is carried out. The policies of the country need to be 

followed. 

Senator KENNEDY. I have got one final question. I read the Inspector General’s report about the Department of Justice. I think 

it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. The Inspector 

General talked about problems with the Department’s massive 

grant programs. The Inspector General said that approximately 

$100 million over the last 5 years went for ‘‘questionable expenditures’’ or funds that ‘‘could have been put to better use.’’ Now, this 

is taxpayer money. It did not just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people’s pockets. 

I would like to know your thoughts about the IG report if you 

are familiar with it and what you plan to do once you are confirmed, and I believe you will be confirmed to help our friends at 

the Justice Department prioritize their spending a little bit. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. That report 

raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official 

should recognize that when their own Inspector General says that 

their department is not performing according to high standards, 

they should listen to that report and take action and review what 

is happening and make sure it does not continue. The American 

people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their 

money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot 
97 

more with the money that we have—having been Ranking Member 

of the Budget Committee, I know how difficult it is—but one way 

to get extra money, free money, is to use the money you have got 

wisely for things that are valuable. 

Senator KENNEDY. Senator, I do not know you well, but I followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years, 

and I just want to tell you that. You will be a great Attorney General. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Sessions, you asked for a short 

break. I hope, maybe, 15 minutes will be adequate. 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be adequate. Absolutely. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Committee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Committee reconvened.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. We will resume with Senator Whitehouse, 

but I was wondering if the staff or Members could give my staff 

some indication of how many people still want to ask questions, 

and it does not matter how many it is, I am going to stay here as 

long as people want to ask questions, because I have not had my 

second round yet, and if I could ascertain that, I would appreciate 

it. I know we have at least one or two Republicans that want to. 

Senator Whitehouse, you go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As you know, the Department of Justice 

has at its heart the career, prosecutor, and attorney core that staffs 

it. On social media, conservative bloggers are already circulating 

names of career attorneys in the Department who they say should 

be demoted or reassigned, because of positions they argued under 

Attorneys General Holder and Lynch. 

One commentator for the Heritage Foundation has made the 

comparison to ‘‘filth’’ within the Department of Justice and suggested that like the Augean Stables, you need to run rivers through 

the Department and wash out the agency from top to bottom. And 

you yourself have criticized Department attorneys for being secular. Now that was as recently as November. Now, in Rhode Island, we have a long tradition back to Roger Williams, of separating church and state and as an Attorney General and as a U.S. 

Attorney, we also have a tradition of allowing career attorneys to 

follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding 

the career people responsible for that. 

I am wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? Will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from these right-wing organizations, seeking to, ‘‘wash them 

out like filth,’’ to paraphrase the Heritage Foundation? 

Senator SESSIONS. The Department of Justice is composed primarily of career professionals, as you know, Senator Whitehouse. 

You served there ably as United States Attorney, and I give them 

the highest respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards 

and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from 

their superiors, even if they might have a different philosophy. I 

do think that they are often put into non-career spots and can then 

go back to career spots, but I do not know how exactly that works. 

I am sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department, they put career people in positions that 
98 

they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the 

causes they believed in, and that is sort of within the rules of the 

game. But to target people, and to any way demean them, if they 

were fine public servants and they were following the law, and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors, would be wrong 

and I think we should respect them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Does a secular—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. And I would do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Attorney have anything to 

fear from an Attorney General Sessions in the Department of Justice? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, no. And I use that word at the 90,000- 

foot level. I am a little concerned that we as a Nation, I believe, 

are reaching a level at which truth is not sufficiently respected; 

that the very ideal, the idea of truth, is not believed to be real and 

that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. But we 

are not a theocracy, nobody should be required to believe anything. 

I shared Thomas Jefferson’s words on the Memorial over here, ‘‘I 

have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every 

form of tyranny over the mind of man,’’ and I think we should respect people’s views and not demand any kind of religious test for 

holding office. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And a secular person has just as good a 

claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am not sure. In what method? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the method—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Objectively committed to—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. It is that an attorney would 

bring to bear it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me just say we are going to treat 

anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal 

of truth in trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American jurisprudential system and, actually, our 

legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true? Let us act 

on it and do the right thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On the subject of what is truth, you 

may—— 

Senator SESSIONS. It is an age-old question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. You may be in a position as 

Attorney General to either enforce laws, or bring actions that relate 

to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes that are taking 

place, both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and 

oceans, as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we have 

had. It is the political position of the Republican party in the Senate as I have seen it that this is not a problem, that we do not need 

to do anything about it, that the facts are not real and that we 

should all do nothing whatsoever. That is the Senate. 

You, as Attorney General of the United States, may be asked to 

make decisions for our Nation that require a factual predicate that 

you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a 

decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? 

Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches 
99 

agree that climate change is a serious problem of real import for 

them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the 

same? Will you trust our national science agencies? By the way, 

NASA is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. 

So their scientists, I think, are pretty good. I do not think there 

is a single scientific society, I do not think there is a single credited 

university, I do not think there is a single nation that denies this 

basic set of facts. And so, if that situation is presented to you and 

you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us 

any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts 

and real science? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a good and fair question and honesty 

and integrity in that process is required and if the facts justify a 

position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to utilize 

those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I do not deny that 

we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me 

as plausible and it is just a question of how much is happening and 

what the reaction would be to it. So that is what I would hope we 

could see occur. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Indeed, I will bet you dollars against those 

lovely Krispy Kreme doughnuts that we have out back that if you 

went down to the University of Alabama and if you talked to the 

people who fish out of Mobile, they would already see the changes 

in the ocean and they would be able to measure the pH changes, 

and they would know that acidification is happening and that there 

is no actual dispute about that, except in the politics of Washington, DC. 

Senator SESSIONS. I recognize the great interest in time that you 

have committed to the issue and I value your opinion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do come from an ocean State, and we do 

measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of 

Narragansett Bay, and we measure the change in pH. It is serious 

for us, Senator. 

Thank you, my time is expired. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Now it looks like it will be the Senator 

from Texas, and Senator from Texas, I am going to step out for a 

minute and when your 8 minutes are up, would you call on Senator 

Klobuchar? 

Senator CRUZ [presiding]. Sure. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, I want to congratulate you in making it 

through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I 

think your performance today has reassured this Committee and 

even more importantly, has given comfort to the American people 

that you will be an Attorney General who will faithfully apply the 

law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to 

the Constitution and the laws of the United States. 

I also want to do something I do not do very often, which is, I 

want to commend the Democrats on this Committee, for, I think, 

showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing I had 

concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that do not belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the Democratic side 

of the aisle have largely restrained from going down that road. I 
100 

think that was the right decision to make, but I commend them for 

that. 

You know, I would note that in the recesses of the internet, and 

in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination, and 

indeed in the view of some of the protestors who have made their 

voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised, and indeed some of the protestors have chanted ‘‘KKK.’’ And you and I 

have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the 

easiest charges for someone to make when they do not have an argument on the merits, when they do not have the facts behind 

them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone, particularly when it is countered by the facts. 

What I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a 

little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is 

your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hays, a member of 

the Ku Klux Klan. Because I suspect it is something that very few 

people watching this hearing have ever heard of. And it is striking 

and, I think, highly revealing, so I would like to just walk through 

some of the facts. I know you are very familiar with them, but I 

suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not 

be. 

In 1981, in Mobile, Alabama, the Ku Klux Klan ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael Donald. KKK 

members Henry Hays and James ‘‘Tiger’’ Knowles abducted 19- 

year-old African-American Michael Donald. They beat him, they 

strangled him, they cut his throat, and they hung him from a tree. 

Absolutely shameful and disgraceful. 

You were a U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office, along with the 

FBI, along with the local District Attorney, investigated the murder. The Department of Justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Bert 

Glenn worked on the case. When asked about your work on this 

case, Mr. Glenn testified that, ‘‘During the entire course of the investigations, he’’—meaning Sessions—‘‘has provided unqualified 

support and cooperation to us, and independently as an individual 

who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted.’’ Is 

that accurate, Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think it is, yes. That is exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became a United States 

Attorney. A wrong group of people had been indicted in State court 

that complicated matters. The case was not making the kind of 

progress it needed to make and so we had a discussion. And we invited Civil Rights Division attorneys, Bert Glenn and Barry 

Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with Assistant Thomas Figures in my office, they broke that case. And I 

thought they deserved a great deal of credit. But I was with them, 

I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their 

convenience, whenever they wanted to come to the State. I actually 

used and empaneled a special grand jury so they could be called 

when they desired it. It had already been called for another special 

purpose, but we added that to their purpose. And so they had the 

flexibility and it was, I thought, a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. 

Senator CRUZ. Now, Bobby Eddy was the chief investigator for 

the Mobile County District Attorney’s office. He testified, ‘‘Without 
101 

his’’—meaning Sessions’—‘‘cooperation, the State could not have 

proceeded against Henry Hays on the capital murder charge.’’ 

Chris Galanos, who was the Mobile County District Attorney in 

1981, stated, ‘‘We needed some horsepower, which the Feds, 

through Jeff Sessions, provided. Specifically we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the Federal grand jury. 

I reached out to him’’—Sessions—‘‘and he responded, ‘Tell me what 

you need and you’ll have it.’ ’’ And indeed, your office prosecuted 

Hays’ accomplice in Federal court, where he pleaded guilty. And 

Mr. Eddy testified that Tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty 

on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest 

sentence he could receive under Federal law, in Federal prison. 

And he continued to say Henry Hays was tried in State court by 

Mr. Galanos’ office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the 

electric chair. And this made Hays the first White man executed 

in Alabama for murdering a Black person since 1913. 

When you were the Attorney General of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hays’ death penalty. And in 1997, five months after 

you joined this party as a Senator, Hays died in Alabama’s electric 

chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in 

the prosecution of the face of evil, a Ku Klux Klan murderer who 

saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted 

Hays’ father, KKK Grand Titan Bennie Jack Hays, who ordered his 

son to kill an African American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to 

pay for his son’s legal defense. Is that correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CRUZ. And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris Dees in the Southern Poverty Law Center to bring a civil suit 

against the KKK, and Mr. Galanos explained, ‘‘After the criminal 

cases were over, the Southern Poverty Law Center took the evidence we had developed and gave to them and they sued civilly, 

and got a 7-million-dollar verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the 

7-million-dollar civil judgment against the KKK in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the State.’’ Is that correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is essentially correct, yes. In fact, they 

sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. 

Senator CRUZ. Well I would say, Senator Sessions, it is easy for 

people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised, 

and passions get hot. And I know the protestors who stand up and 

chant ‘‘KKK’’ they, in all likelihood, believe what they are saying, 

because they are reading and being encouraged on the internet. 

But I have not seen any appointee to the Cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting Klansmen, 

putting them on death row, bankrupting them, and putting them 

out of business, and doing so as you had. I will tell you, I admire 

your doing so, and I will issue a challenge to our friends in the 

news media. I noticed every time a protestor jumped up all the 

photographers took pictures of the protestors. I suspect we are 

going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news 

media, cover this story. Tell the story on the six o’clock news about 

Jeff Sessions helping prosecute a Klansman who had murdered an 

innocent African-American man, and putting him on death row, 

and bankrupting—helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. That is 
102 

a story that needs to be told. And Senator Sessions, I thank you 

for your record, I thank you for your service. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Cruz, and I would say it 

has been very disappointing and painful to have it suggested that 

I thought the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to 

destroy and defeat and prosecute the Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked 

very hard on it. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Sessions, just this week backpage.com announced that it was 

taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator 

Cornyn and I led the bill on the Judiciary Committee, you contributed to it, which we appreciate. And then we also had work by Senator Portman and Senators McCaskill and Heitkamp and others on 

this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns of New Ulm and 

Mankato, Minnesota, alone, where Backpage was part of the operation and so this was a good result. They took the Fifth today in 

front of Homeland Security while you were testifying. 

But I wanted to know what your plans would be. The Justice Department finally came out with the national strategy on sex trafficking, which was part of our bill. And so it will be in your hands 

if you are confirmed as Attorney General to implement it. And 

could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well I am glad that the entire Nation seems 

to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real 

focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So I think it would be a firm and important part of the Department of Justice’s priorities and I would 

look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other 

things that are happening to see if we can make a real impact 

against this abominable practice. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I will say, Attorney General Lynch and the 

Deputy Attorney General Yates as former prosecutors like yourself, 

they have worked really hard in this area, so it would be worth 

talking to them about the work they have done as well. 

Antitrust. Senator Lee and I have long chaired that Committee. 

We rotate, depending on who is in charge of the Senate, as Ranking Member. I care a lot about this. We are in the midst of a merger wave. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported 

to the Government increased over 50 percent, from 716 to 1,801, 

and over the last 18 months we have seen substantial mergers in 

pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. Recently, 

across the political spectrum there has been a lot of concern about 

concentration, because, you know, you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish. And that means that 

is better for consumers, if you have strong competition. 

Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority? Kind of a sideline to that, there is some concern, based on 

some of the statements from the President-elect that maybe certain 

companies or industries could be targeted, depending on if they are 

in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. 
103 

Could you comment about independence of the Attorney General 

when it comes to considering these cases? 

Senator SESSIONS. The antitrust policies of the United States 

have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that 

is not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with 

confidence that you and Senator Lee, as leaders on the Antitrust 

Subcommittee, have been more attuned to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the Department of 

Justice. So we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to 

enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation, if the finding justifies 

it, to say that certain mergers should not occur, and there will not 

be political influence in that process. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. I am going to put a series of 

some other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We 

are working hard. Senator Grassley and I have long worked on this 

issue with Senator Feinstein and Senator Graham, and we have a 

new bill that we are working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs, and maybe on the record we could get your comments 

on that. 

Drug courts. Again, one of my top priorities. I think that they 

have worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing 

themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. 

And then, a very Minnesota-focused issue. Minnesota was just— 

got a designation called HIDTA, for High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. A lot of it is based on heroin and some of the opioid 

addictions that we have seen, and somehow it was set up so the 

money came through Wisconsin. If you know anything about the 

Vikings-Packers rivalry, this makes our sheriffs very concerned. I 

thought I would maybe just on the record—again, I am not going 

to get into detail—discuss this with you on the record and ask you 

some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding 

for Minnesota. 

But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee 

issue. We have the biggest Somali population in the country. Our 

U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department have done an excellent 

job in taking on some ISIS cases, as well as al-Shabaab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted, and I know 

that work will continue—I want that work to continue. 

We also have—the vast majority of them are law-abiding, an important part of our community. And as you know, there has been 

a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric out there. We had—I heard the story 

in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They had lived in 

our town forever. They had two little kids. They go out to eat and 

this guy walks by and looks at them and says, ‘‘You four, you go 

home. You go home to where you came from.’’ And the little girl 

looks up at her mom and she says, ‘‘Mom, I don’t want to go home. 

You said we could eat out tonight.’’ 

You think of the words of that innocent child. She only knows 

one home, and that is my State. She only knows one home, and 

that is America. So a big part of the job of the Attorney General, 

to me, is not just enforcing those laws, as we have in our State, 

against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocents 

among us. 
104 

So I wondered if you could close your questions from me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our Nation’s laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked 

about, but actually bullying and those kinds of things, because I 

just think it has no place in our country. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. That is an important principle 

that you have touched on, which is the principle that in America 

you are free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit, as 

long as it does not violate established law. So we have that provided for in the Constitution. We cannot establish a religion and 

we cannot prohibit free exercise, and I believe Americans value 

that principle and support it and we should always hold it high 

and we should not back away from it, and that includes Muslim 

friends and neighbors, as well as any other religion. 

You are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors, and we should 

not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. 

When people apply to come to the country it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them—from countries that may have had a history of 

violence, to be careful about who we admit because basically the 

admission process is a process that should serve the national interest. So that is sort of my view about it. I believe it is an acceptable 

and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision 

about admitting and not admitting is really not the Attorney General’s decision at all. It is the policy of the President and the State 

Department. And so we would just simply make sure, if it is done, 

it is done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration 

in response to some of the first exchanges that Senator Sessions 

and I had about what Minnesota—the business/economic value of 

immigrants in our community. I will just put that on the record 

later. So, thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, thanks to Senator Grassley and Senator 

McConnell I now find myself as a Member not only of this Committee, but also the Intelligence Committee, for which I am grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another 

Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to get on the Intelligence Committee is because while the Intelligence Committee 

conducts a lot of the oversight, it is the Judiciary Committee that 

confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. 

My hope is that during this process, where we are coming off of 

a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will 

join us in making sure that the new President has his National Security Cabinet members, at least, confirmed on an expedited basis. 

And of course, I would include the office of Attorney General as one 

of those. As you know, the Attorney General and the Department’s 

National Security Division work with members of the intelligence 

community and help oversee the collection of foreign intelligence 

information. 
105 

I know earlier Senator Leahy and perhaps Senator Lee asked 

you a little bit about the USA Freedom Act and the National Security Agency, but I want to highlight something you are well aware 

of, and that is the sunsetting of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. According to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress appropriately appointed to 

oversee the activities of the intelligence community, Section 702, 

which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for 

disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New 

York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United 

States. As I said, if we do not act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. I think we are fortunate on the Judiciary Committee to also have, in addition to our other colleagues, Senator 

Feinstein, who has until recently served as the Ranking Member 

on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and now of course she is 

Ranking here. I hope she, along with Chairman Grassley, will 

make sure that all of the Committee Members are thoroughly 

briefed and comfortable with the reauthorization of Section 702, 

and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. 

In addition to Section 702, as you know, there are other legal 

and policy challenges that you are going to face as the next Attorney General. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges, like growing encryption of communications, 

whether it is hardware or in the—or software. 

We saw that being relevant to what happened in San 

Bernardino, where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial 

amount of money to get at the communications contained in the 

telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks, or in Garland, in my home State of Texas, where the last time the FBI Director came before this Committee said there were still a multitude 

of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland 

that they still had not been able to get access to. So the FBI Director said this is a part of the tradecraft now of terrorists, and he 

referred to it as ‘‘going dark.’’ Thankfully, Chairman Grassley held 

a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, things 

like the Electronic Communications—the so called ECTR fix, which 

would allow the use of national security letters to get IP addresses—not content without a warrant, but IP addresses, or 

metadata—which is important to these national security investigations. 

I think I know the answer to this, but as Attorney General I just 

would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what 

you have always done, and that is, put the safety and security of 

the American people first, and you will continue to work with us, 

in a cooperative fashion, to make sure that all the needs of all the 

stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women 

who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will, Senator Cornyn, and thank you for your 

hard work and leadership on these important issues. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask you about the Freedom of Information Act. I do not know whether Senator Grassley had a chance to 
106 

ask you about this or not. As you may know, Senator Grassley and 

I are—excuse me—Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on Freedom of Information Act reforms. As a conservative, I have always 

felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. You do not have to pass another law or another regulation 

where people change their behavior because they know people are 

watching. And Senator Leahy and I have worked closely together 

to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of 

which I know you have supported or consulted with us on. It is not 

a blank slate. Sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing 

information that ought not to be public information, or is law enforcement sensitive, or classified, or the like. 

But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us, 

and I am confident you will, but I would just like to get your verbal 

commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the 

public’s right to know is protected. I am not suggesting that the 

public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I have 

said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be 

protected for important policy reasons. But will you continue to 

work with us to make sure that we protect the public’s right to 

know to the extent feasible? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will, Senator Cornyn, and I would value your 

judgment and insight on this important issue. I appreciate your 

work. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on 

to my questions, I would like to respond very briefly to what Senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the Members of this Committee get clarity with regard to the nominee’s 

record. That is our job and it is important. 

Now, let us be clear: Senator Sessions said in his questionnaire 

that he ‘‘personally handled four civil rights cases.’’ Some of the 

lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization, 

and Senator Sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt 

the need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely 

provided ‘‘assistance and guidance’’ to Civil Rights Division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that is a distinction without a difference, I am not sure why Senator Sessions felt the need to clarify. 

But I want to move on. 

Senator Sessions, in late November, President-elect Trump 

tweeted, ‘‘In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, 

I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who 

voted illegally.’’ Now, let us be clear: President-elect Trump lost the 

popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, so what he is saying 

here is that more than 2.8 million fraudulent votes were cast. Do 

you agree with President Trump that millions of fraudulent votes 

were cast in the Presidential election? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Franken, I do not know what the 

President-elect meant when he made that comment, or what facts 

he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that 

every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure 
107 

that there is integrity in it, and I do believe we regularly have 

fraudulent activities occur during election cycles. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, the Department of Justice is tasked with 

protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud, so if millions upon 

millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the 

next Attorney General would be quite concerned about that. 

Did the President-elect tell you anything about what caused him 

to come to this conclusion? 

Senator SESSIONS. I have not talked to him about that in any 

depth, particularly since the election. 

Senator FRANKEN. Uh-huh. So he did not share any evidence of 

voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine, as the man who 

wants—that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at 

the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all 

the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote. So 

he did not do that, evidently. 

Before I move on, I should note for the record that State election 

and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid-December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million 

votes that were cast, and no States reported indications of any 

widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are 

these bogus claims of voter fraud. They are routinely used to justify 

voter suppression. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s disastrously decided Shelby County decision which gutted the Voting Rights Act, 

it is easier than ever before for States to make it harder for people 

to vote. 

Now, Senator Sessions, you have a complicated history with the 

Voting Rights Act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, everyone did. It passed 98 to nothing. But you have also called the Voting Rights Act ‘‘an intrusive piece of legislation.’’ You have complained that the Act’s preclearance requirement unfairly targeted 

certain States, and you said that there is ‘‘little present-day evidence that State and local officials restrict access to the franchise.’’ 

You said that the Voting Rights Act has ‘‘eliminated that discrimination.’’ 

Well, Senator, after the Shelby County decision, which you celebrated, States began testing the limits of what they could do, in 

many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification 

for their actions. Now, that is what happened in North Carolina, 

for example. Just a few months after Shelby County, the State enacted one of the Nation’s strictest voter ID laws and enacted other 

restrictions without any evidence. The State described these 

changes as necessary to prevent fraud. 

Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina’s restrictions were 

challenged, and in July, the Fourth Circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions was not to fight fraud, but to make it harder for Black people to vote. Here is what the court said: ‘‘The new 

provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. 

They constitute inept remedies for the problems, assertively justifying them, and in fact impose cures for problems that did not 

exist.’’ 

Senator, do you still believe that there is little present-day evidence of States restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, 
108 

what do you think the Fourth Circuit got wrong when it found that 

North Carolina targeted Black voters ‘‘with almost surgical precision’’? Do you accept that North Carolina was targeting AfricanAmerican voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote, and so if the Fourth 

Circuit found that, and there is a factual basis to support it, then 

any law that is passed would be subject to being either eliminated 

or altered. So I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot 

be used for that purpose. 

I do believe, not long ago, that the Supreme Court did uphold 

voter ID laws, but there are ways to do it and ways you probably 

cannot do it. I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law, but you are correct, any finding that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting would render 

that unsustainable. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, North Carolina is one of the States who 

would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? 

Senator SESSIONS. North Carolina would be. Of course—— 

Senator FRANKEN. It would have been. So now we are—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just suggest that Section 2 allows all 

the remedies, and that is what I suppose they filed the action 

under in this case. It is just not a preclearance question. That 

preclearance policy is intrusive, as the Supreme Court has said, 

and I did not mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you 

believe it is intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive, but the 

Voting Rights—I said this in 1986—but the Voting Rights Act was 

absolutely essential to reverse the problem that we had in the 

South of systemic voter suppression. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to that, please. Okay. Here is the thing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Because we had this debate after Shelby. Chairman Leahy tried to introduce something, a substitute, so 

that we could have preclearance again, which was fought by you. 

The whole point is the section—Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 

you are right. But how many years after North Carolina did that? 

So how many times, how many elections were conducted in North 

Carolina where African-American votes were suppressed? That is 

why you need preclearance. And as soon as Shelby came down, you 

saw Texas, you saw North Carolina go, ‘‘Oh, good, now we can suppress votes.’’ That is the reason you have preclearance and that is 

the reason that you cannot rely on the District Court or the Circuit 

Courts to rule. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago to extend the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. It included preclearance 

in it. We all knew at that time that the Supreme Court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the 

question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary 

remedy of requiring only a few States in the country to first have 

permission, even with ministerial acts like moving a voting precinct, by the Department of Justice. 
109 

The Supreme Court found that that could no longer be justified. 

The Supreme Court decided that we did not have to have 

preclearance. But Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act allows these 

kind of challenges that Senator Franken is talking about. That is 

what was brought in North Carolina, that is what is being litigated 

today, and the court there did in fact find that the voter ID law 

was improper, as I understand it. So I believe we have proceeded 

in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good 

feeling that the Supreme Court had concluded that there had been 

substantial improvement in our area of the country as to voting 

rights, sufficiently so that Section 5 could no longer be justified. 

But I voted for it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As Justice Ginsberg said, an umbrella means you do not get 

wet when it is raining and you do not take the umbrella away. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I will put in the record a letter that I just 

today received in support of Senator Sessions’ nomination from the 

National Shooting Sports Foundation. Senator Sasse. Without objection, I should say. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SASSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, I would like to talk a little bit about the Sarah 

Root case. I know that you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sarah Root was a woman who was killed a year ago this 

month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college, and she 

was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believed 

that this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in 

the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed 

her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. 

They ultimately notified the Department of Homeland Security this 

guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond 

and he disappeared. The Department of Homeland Security did 

nothing to detain the guy, despite the fact that the Douglas County 

sheriff and the Omaha Police Department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it was not an 

enforcement priority. 

I do not want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I 

want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk 

generally about the coordination between State and local enforcement on illegal immigration activities, and particularly in cases 

where serious crimes have been committed. 

But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter 

the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious attention to responding with some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the Federal Government? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Sasse. I certainly will. It 

does represent unjustifiable failures that we are seeing too often in 

our system today. 

Senator SASSE. Do you have any top-line thoughts on the way 

local and State officials interact with Federal officials on immigration cases? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the Federal Government. But it is also clear that a State official has the 
110 

right to arrest somebody for their offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the 

country illegally or repeatedly entered the country illegally for any 

kind of offense, including that of illegal reentry. The cooperative 

system should work in a way whereby the Federal Government 

then evaluates whether or not it wants to put a hold on in order 

not to release that person until they can take them and see them 

be deported. 

It is failing in a whole number of ways. You have got the sanctuary cities that refuse to tell Homeland Security they have got 

somebody that has committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side, we have 

got Homeland Security too often having standards or failing to follow up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So in 

both aspects, I think, Senator Sasse, we can do much better. This 

country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, 

who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they 

should indeed be promptly deported. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. We will follow up with a letter, because this guy, Edwin Mejia, who killed Sarah Root, it was obvious 

to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed, that this guy was a flight risk and 

everyone was screaming to the Feds, please do not let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He is now on the Top Ten Most 

Wanted list, and nobody thinks he is ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country. 

This kind of case is not an isolated case, it is a kind of handoff between Federal and local law enforcement that could happen 

repeatedly if you do not have a Federal Government that has any 

clear policy. So we would like to—so I would like to send you a letter, right after your confirmation, asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. 

Senator SESSIONS. And Senator Sasse, I would note that fundamentally that would be a Homeland Security issue initially, and 

they need to set the standards of what they should and should not 

do. And I would think that General Kelly would be quite willing 

to also talk with you about it, as will I. 

Senator SASSE. I will likely be addressing the letter to both you 

and General Kelly, so thank you. 

A completely different line of questioning. This morning, you 

were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of a chief law enforcement officer for the Federal Government. When you have—if there are cases where there might be a 

conflict between your oath of office to the Constitution of limited 

government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration, you said in the course of that answer that there could 

ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because 

they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their 

oath. 

I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about, you 

know, the Justice Department’s responsibilities and Attorneys General—Attorneys General past—over the past few decades. Can you 

name instances where a resignation might be in order and what 
111 

kinds of lines would you envision being crossed, and ways that you 

as the Attorney General might push back on an administration if 

asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath 

to the Constitution? 

Senator SESSIONS. It would be difficult to speculate on that. We 

saw what you are alluding to during the Nixon administration. But 

there could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an Attorney General would not be an effective 

member of a President’s administration. Maybe the Chief Executive 

could even be correct and the Attorney General could be wrong. 

But the Attorney General’s duty is to give the best judgment that 

the Attorney General can give, and, therefore, if it is rejected on 

a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in 

another area of less importance, you could afford to disagree. But 

I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened 

very often in the history of this country. Actually, I only know of 

one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the Chief Executive—and I would expect with President Trump—that when confronted—or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, he 

would accept that advice. I am confident that he would. But you 

raise a hypothetical, and I have at least given you my thoughts 

about it. 

Senator SASSE. Just to conclude, because I am inside my last 

minute, but going back to the connection between this question and 

the OLC line of questioning that Senator Lee posed this morning, 

if a head of OLC, if the Assistant Attorney General from OLC was 

coming to you and saying, ‘‘I have been asked to try to justify a 

certain position, I have been asked to write a memo to support this 

position, and I do not think we can get there, I do not think that 

the Department of Justice’s considered wisdom and insight into the 

law is that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize 

certain actions,’’ how do you as the Attorney General envision that 

conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an OLC, an Attorney General’s office, and the White House? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Attorney General Mukasey, who I think 

is still here—yes, and I am honored to have him here today. He 

issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out, and it restricted communications from the political officials to the Justice Department in a way that guaranteed 

integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, if it goes 

through the proper chain of command that a request for an OLC 

opinion on a certain subject—there is nothing wrong with the 

White House asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You do not 

want the White House acting unadvised. You want it to seek legal 

advice. And, generally, historically things get sort of worked out. 

If the OLC comes back and says, ‘‘Mr. President, you can do this, 

but you cannot do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, 

maybe it will not give you everything you want, but that is safe, 

that is legal, that is within the realm of action that the President 

can take, this we believe is not.’’ And, usually, an Attorney General 

has the confidence of the President, and the President knows that 

he or she is giving him the best advice, advising him of what he 

can and cannot do. And you need the best lawyers, and you need 

to be very careful because these things set precedents. They also 
112 

can result in lawsuits and all kinds of controversy that should not 

happen as a result of a bad OLC opinion. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of 

that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. To return to an issue a number of Senators 

asked about before, but I just want to get clarity about a particular 

concern I had. The intelligence community has issued a unanimous 

opinion with high confidence that at the highest levels, the Russian 

Government engaged in an organized cyber attack that was designed to influence the American elections, and it is, as you have 

mentioned before, emblematic of the kinds of threats that the 

United States faces, whether it is China stealing our intellectual 

property or hacks into our Federal database that affects a lot of 

Federal workers or in this case a direct attack on democracy. And 

you mentioned in response to a previous question you have not 

been fully briefed on this. But there is a bipartisan bill that has 

been introduced to strengthen and sustain sanctions against Russia 

for this attack on our democracy. Is that something you would support? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is something that is appropriate for Congress and the Chief Executive to consider. In other words, how do 

you respond to what is believed to be a cyber attack from a major 

nation? It is difficult just to say, well, we are going to prosecute 

the head of the KGB or some group that has participated in it— 

no longer the KGB, of course. So in many ways, the political response, the international foreign policy response, may be the only 

recourse. And it would help in that regard that more clarity be established, which, Senator Coons, you probably understand more 

than I the discussions about having the world know that if you do 

X to us, you can expect we are going to do Y to you. 

Senator COONS. Well, I think this bipartisan bill is designed to 

be a forceful response to provide predictable preemption of other 

countries that might believe that they could engage in a successful 

cyber attack to influence future elections, whether at the Federal 

or local level. So I urge you to get briefed up on it, as all Senators 

can now, and to have a clear public stance on it. 

Let me move to immigration, if I might. Alabama had a State 

statute that enforced its schools to check students’ immigration status before allowing them to enroll in school. Are you concerned at 

all that that statute might target innocent children and discourage 

school attendance for juveniles? 

Senator SESSIONS. First, I had no involvement in that statute. 

Second, I believe the Court struck that statute down. I am not 

sure. 

Senator COONS. I believe that is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Some of the act was declared improper, and 

some not. What was your question exactly? 

Senator COONS. Well, I will follow up, if I could. There was a 

statute in Alabama that was designed to require teachers, school 
113 

administrators to check the immigration status of students before 

enrolling them. And I believe at that point 5 years ago, you made 

a public statement that we have allowed a sad situation for decades where large numbers of people are in this country illegally, 

and it is going to have unpleasant and unfortunate consequences. 

Some took that to mean that you felt that it was an unfortunate 

consequence but appropriate that children who were brought here 

illegally by their parents could be denied access to education. 

Senator SESSIONS. But they cannot be denied access to education. 

The courts have decided that, as I understand it. The question is: 

Could you even ask if you are lawfully in the country or not? And 

I do not know what the law is on that subject. 

But what I was getting at was that this is a continual problem 

and will continue to be a problem if we do not end the lawlessness. 

I mean, you would rather have children of immigrants here that 

came lawfully rather than unlawfully. It creates a problem that we 

do not need to have, and I believe it is within our grasp to fix, and 

I believe people of good will will support that. And we need to get 

that done. A lot of problems in our country will be fixed and a lot 

of our ability to create a more harmonious system in the future 

could become possible once this illegal system is fixed. 

Senator COONS. Well, as you know, Senator, on this Committee 

together, many of us worked, put great effort into crafting a bill 

that ultimately passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan margin, 

would have invested heavily in securing the border, and addressed 

a lot of unresolved issues in immigration. But my recollection was 

you did not support that bill. It is my hope that we can find a bill, 

as you say, that you could support. 

Let me move to another point. We worked together to restore 

funding to the Federal Public Defenders Service when it was cut 

by sequestration, and I think that is because we both agree that 

outcomes are more fair when there is effective representation on 

both sides. One of the amendments I offered to that immigration 

bill would have provided counsel to children who were applying for 

refugee status because they were fleeing violence in their home 

countries in U.S. immigration proceedings. Is that something you 

would support? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Coons, as I understand it, that is the 

law, that you cannot provide lawyers to illegal entrants into the 

country, and I do not believe it distinguishes between minors and 

adults. But I may be wrong about that. I presume that is why you 

have offered legislation to that effect, to change established law. 

But, in general, I do not believe we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lawyers for everybody that enters the country 

unlawfully. I think that would be a massive undertaking. 

So you are talking about children specifically. I understand that. 

I think that is a matter—— 

Senator COONS. Specifically, those who are applying for asylum. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. That Congress would need to decide what to do about it. 

Senator COONS. Let me ask you another question, if I might. 

There was a lot of discussion in the course of the campaign—it was 

a very vigorous campaign—about the role of immigrants and, in 

particular, Muslims in this country. And I just want to make sure 
114 

I have understood this. You believe it is improper for the Government to discriminate based solely on a person’s religion, correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is incorrect. I believe that religion, as 

practiced by and understood by an individual, could make that individual subject to being denied admission if that individual’s practice of their religion would present a threat to the country. So we 

have no requirement to admit somebody who claims to be religious 

who would present a threat to the United States, and I strongly 

think we have every right to inquire into those kind of radical and 

dangerous ideas that some might—— 

Senator COONS. So there are about 3 million Muslims in the 

United States today. There have been Muslims in America since its 

founding. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Koran. Would you 

support a national registry of Muslims? And what sort of surveillance of mosques do you think would be appropriate within the constraints of civil liberties and respect for free exercise? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would not favor a registry of Muslims in the 

United States. No, I would not. And I think we should avoid surveillance of religious institutions unless there is a basis to believe 

that dangerous or threatening illegal activity could be carried on 

there. I am not aware that there is a legal prohibition on that 

under current law. 

Senator COONS. Let me ask a last question, if I might. As Alabama’s Attorney General—this is back in 1996—there was a conference planned at the University of Alabama, and this was for 

LGBT students, a conference to talk about a wide range of issues, 

from health to status in society, for the LGBT community. And 

based on a State law, you sought to prevent that conference from 

happening. And a Federal district court held that the existing State 

statute, Alabama State statute, that prevented ‘‘gatherings in public buildings for the advocacy of sodomy and sexual misconduct’’— 

I am quoting—the district court held that that clearly violated the 

First Amendment, the free speech rights of students to gather and 

talk about their lives. And you publicly announced that you intended to do everything you could to stop that conference and I believe sought an injunction, which was later denied, and the Eleventh Circuit later held that this law was unconstitutional on its 

face. 

Would you think, looking back on this now, given your statement 

earlier that you understand the needs for justice of the LGBTQ 

community, that it was a poor use of State resources to defend a 

law that was so facially unconstitutional? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Coons, that litigation started in another university before I became Attorney General. It was going on 

for about a year, and I believe the litigation arose from the group 

filing a declaratory judgment against the law, and as Attorney 

General, I felt I should attempt to defend the law. And the court 

ruled against it. It would have been better if we had not passed a 

law. It would have been better if the controversy had not occurred. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I go to Senator Crapo, I have a letter here from a former colleague, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, and in that letter he makes an important point. There are 

two sentences I would like to repeat: ‘‘Do I agree with everything 
115 

he’’—meaning Senator Sessions—‘‘has ever said or done? Of course 

not. But I do not agree with everything anyone I know has ever 

said and done, including myself. If I were in the Senate today, I 

would vote aye on his nomination.’’ 

I ask consent to put that in the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, one issue that has been gone over a lot today 

which I am going to return to is the question of the rule of law and 

whether you would honor it. Many times an administration will not 

agree with a particular statute, even though the language and intent of Congress are crystal clear. And, in addition, many times the 

individual who has been appointed to enforce the laws does not 

personally agree with a law that is on the books. Yet, as Attorney 

General, it will be your job, as you have already indicated, to enforce and defend the laws as written by the legislative branch, regardless of your own personal philosophical views. And I know that 

you have done this. Let me talk about a few examples. 

Even though you support the death penalty, you agreed to drop 

the death sentence of a defendant when you determined that the 

aggravating circumstances standard in the statute for applying the 

death penalty did not apply to their particular convicted double 

murder. 

Even though you had supported a Republican Governor when 

you were Alabama’s Attorney General, when this Governor violated 

the ethics laws, you agreed and argued to uphold his conviction. 

Again, when you were the Alabama Attorney General, you declined to prosecute a former Alabama insurance commissioner who 

was a Democrat, even though you received criticism for this. You 

did not prosecute because you believed there was actually a criminal—there was not actually a criminal violation. 

You also prosecuted the Alabama Republican Party Vice Chairman even though you are from the same party. So it seems to me 

that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment 

calls and do what the job demands. 

I already know the answer to this question because I have seen 

it in your record and because I have known and worked with you 

for a number of years, but I ask anyway, again: If you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the 

Constitution of the United States, regardless of your personal and 

philosophical views on the matter? 

Senator SESSIONS. I will, Senator Crapo. And I would note on the 

death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave a little briefing of 

the cases that were coming up, and they said, ‘‘We will be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose.’’ I said, ‘‘Why 

are we going to lose?’’ And they said, ‘‘It did not have the aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty.’’ And I said, 

‘‘We cannot go before the Supreme Court and argue for a death 

penalty if it does not meet the standard for a death penalty.’’ To 

which the lawyers said, ‘‘Well, the local people are really fired up 

about it, and we usually just do what they want and let the Court 

decide.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, no, we should not do that.’’ 
116 

Well, that turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. 

But when I was running for the United States Senate, maybe a 

year later, it became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on 

me that I had failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in 

this county. But you just have to do the right thing, and some of 

these others cases reflect the same thing. 

Indeed, that case was taken by the Governor’s team to the State 

D.A. who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeals found that he did not commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So these are 

tough calls. Sometimes I have not always made them right. But I 

do believe you have to put the law first, Senator Crapo, and I have 

tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are 

perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you, Jeff. And I knew that answer, 

as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other Senators 

here today said that it is important to get your record out, and I 

think it is important to get your record correctly understood, and 

I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting 

about your record. 

Another instance in that context: As you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act that we passed 

recently here in the U.S. Senate and the Congress. You have been 

criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a 

chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If 

I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the 

reauthorization of that act at least twice, and that your objection 

to the act that did pass this last time, the reauthorization, was not 

at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. 

It was instead based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on 

Tribal lands and other related matters. 

Could you again restate your position on the issue? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you, Senator Crapo. And, you 

know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly, 

and consider what some might consider legal technicalities but I 

think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-Tribal 

member could be tried in a Tribal court, which apparently, I think 

it is fair to say, is not constructed in a way that is consistent with 

the Constitution, and in a way that we have never done before. 

And so eight of the nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee 

concluded that this was not appropriate. So by voting against that 

version of the Violence Against Women Act, if it had failed, we 

would not then, I am confident, have had a bill. We would have 

been able to pass a Violence Against Women Act that did not have 

that provision in it. So that is sort of where we were in the political 

process, and one of the bad things about modern American politics 

is if you take that position, you are not portrayed as being wrong 

on the Tribal issue; you are portrayed as being against a bill that 

would protect women from violence. And I think that is unfair, and 

thank you for giving me the chance to respond. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you, and I appreciate that, and I can 

again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of 

that bill, and that description you have given is exactly one of just 
117 

a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, 

here, which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took 

that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You 

had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help 

resolve one specific issue on the bill. And so I just wanted to clarify 

that with you and, again, get the record straight about where you 

stand on the issue. 

I see my time is pretty much gone, Mr. Chairman. I will not go 

to my next question. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I call on Senator Blumenthal, out of 

consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left 

here. And if you need a break, tell me. 

We have got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second 

round besides the Chairman, but I am going to wait until later to 

do my second round. We have got two Democrats, I have been told, 

at least, who want a third round. And so what I would like to do 

is, first of all, if you need a break, we will take a break whenever 

you say so now. And in the meantime, I would like to have my colleagues take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions, and I am not 

going to take up anybody’s time until everybody else is done. And 

then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time 

to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I have not 

asked yet. So what is your desire? 

Senator SESSIONS. I am ready to go. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Senator—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I may need a break at some point. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Well, you just say when you want to take 

a break. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce Operation Rescue in response to my last questions. I want to ask about a couple 

of other groups and individuals. 

In 2003, at an event called ‘‘Restoration Weekend,’’ you gave a 

speech praising a man named David Horowitz as ‘‘a man I admire.’’ 

David Horowitz has said, among other things, that ‘‘all the major 

Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim 

Brotherhood,’’ and ‘‘80 percent of the mosques are filled with hate 

against Jews and Americans.’’ He has also made a number of statements about African Americans, as in, ‘‘Too many Blacks are in 

prison because too many Blacks commit crimes.’’ You praised him 

as ‘‘a man I admire.’’ 

That statement was omitted from your response to the Committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? 

Senator SESSIONS. No, and I did not know David Horowitz had 

made those comments. I read his brilliant book—what is the name 

of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was about his transformation, having grown up in, as he described it, a ‘‘communist 

family.’’ He was editor of Ramparts magazine, the radical magazine, and I believe ‘‘Radical Son’’ was the name of his book. And 
118 

it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from 

the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional 

American person. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I find it—— 

Senator SESSIONS. He has written a number of other books and 

I have read, I think, one of them. But he is a most brilliant individual and has a remarkable story. I am not aware of everything 

he has ever said or not. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, these statements have been reported 

publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him 

in 2003. In fact, you received an award from the David Horowitz 

Freedom Center in 2014. You are unaware of any of the apparently 

racist comments that he made over—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I am not aware of those comments, and I do 

not believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person that would treat 

anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge. And he did give 

me—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me just—— 

Senator SESSIONS. The award he gave me was the Annie something Johnson Award, and that was the lady that went over Niagara Falls in a barrel. That is the award that I received. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you about another group 

which also you left out of your questionnaire, a group that the 

Southern Poverty Law Center, cited earlier by Senator Cruz, listed 

as a hate group. And you received from the Federation for Fair Immigration Reform an award known as the Franklin Society Award. 

The founder of that group has said, ‘‘I have come to the point of 

view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.’’ He 

said also, ‘‘Too much diversity leads to divisiveness and conflict.’’ 

The founder, John Tanton, also through his political action committee, contributed twice to your campaigns in 2008 and 2014, 

$1,000 in each donation. 

Will you denounce those statements and disavow that award and 

that support from that organization? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not accept that statement. I believe the 

United States should have an immigration policy that is fair and 

objective and gives people from all over the world the right to 

apply. And that we should give preference to people who have the 

ability to be prosperous and succeed in America and can improve 

their lives and improve the United States of America. And that is 

sort of my view of it. I do not accept that kind of language—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Will you return the award—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. It would be contrary to my understanding of the American vision of life. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Will you return the award? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do not know that I have to. I do not 

know whether he had any involvement in choosing the award or 

not. Presumably, the recipient of the award is chosen based on 

some contribution or criteria, but I was not involved in that decision. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. This award similarly was left out of your 

response to the questionnaire, and I guess the question, Senator 
119 

Sessions, is: How can Americans have confidence that you are 

going to enforce anti-discrimination laws if you have accepted 

awards from these kinds of groups and associated with these kinds 

of individuals and you will not return the awards? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, first of all, I do not know that I defer 

to the Southern Poverty Law Center as the final authority on who 

is a radical group. So I would first challenge that. They acknowledged publicly, and have in the last few weeks, that I was a strong 

assister to them in prosecuting the Klan, but they said they oppose 

me because of their views on immigration. Well, I believe my views 

on immigration are correct, just, decent, and right. Somebody else 

can disagree, but that is what I think. I do not—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you also disavow support from 

Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy, who gave you an 

award in August 2015, similarly having made statements about 

Muslims and supporting your candidacy for Attorney General? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, they chose to give me the award. They 

did not tell me what they gave it to me for. And I do not adopt everything that that center would support, I do not suppose. I am 

pretty independent about those things. I would acknowledge—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But you can understand—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. That Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman also have received that award from that institution. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, he has not been nominated to be Attorney General. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, he has not. But he ran for Vice President on your party’s ticket. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the people of the United States might 

be forgiving for including that the kinds of attitudes and the zealousness—or lack of it—that you bring to enforcement of anti-discrimination laws might be reflected in your acceptance of awards 

from these organizations, your association with these kinds of individuals. So, I am giving you the opportunity to completely repudiate and return those awards. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Blumenthal, I just feel like the reason 

I was pushing back is because I do not feel like it is right to judge 

me and require that I give back an award if I do not agree with 

every policy of an organization that gave the award. I was honored 

to be given awards. 

A lot of prominent people, I am sure, have received awards from 

either one of these groups. And David Horowitz is a brilliant writer 

and I think has contributed to the policy debate. Do I agree with 

everything he said? I am sure I do not. Some of the language that 

you indicated he has used, I am not comfortable with. It is all right 

to ask that question. But I do not believe it would be proper for 

you to insist that I am somehow disqualified for Attorney General 

because I accepted an award from that group. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Given that you did not disclose a number 

of those awards, are there any other awards from groups that have 

similar kinds of ideological, negative views of immigrants or of African Americans, or Muslims, or others, including awards that you 

may have received from the Ku Klux Klan? 
120 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would not receive it from Henry Hayes, 

I will tell you that. He no longer exists. So no, I would not take 

an award from the Klan. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to give you the opportunity—— 

Senator SESSIONS. So I would just say that I received hundreds 

of awards. I do not think—I probably somehow should have made 

sure that the—Annie Johnson jumping off the Niagara Falls, I 

should have reported that. But I would just say to you, I have no 

motive in denying that I received those awards. It was probably 

publicly published when it happened. I have received hundreds— 

multiple hundreds of awards over my career, as I am sure you 

have. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I 

apologize, and I will return on the third round. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I do not find any fault with the questions 

you are asking, except for this business that somebody that is in 

the United States Senate ought to remember what awards we get. 

I do not know about you, but I will bet every other week somebody’s coming into my office to give me some award, and you take 

these plaques, or whatever they give you, and you do not even have 

a place to hang them. You store them someplace. I do not know 

whether, even if I went down to that storage place, I could tell you 

all the awards I got. I do not need any more awards. It is kind of 

a problem that they give you the awards. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And obviously I will bet Senator Sessions 

feels that way right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I do not differ with you. Mr. Chairman, I 

do not differ with you that, sitting here, none of us on this side of 

the table could probably recall every single award we have ever received. But the questionnaire from this Committee asked for the information as to all awards, and I think it is fair to observe that 

a number of these awards were omitted from the responses. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Well, if somebody asked me to fill 

out that same questionnaire, it would never be complete, and I do 

not know how you ever could make it complete. 

Before I go to you, I have a statement here from the Alabama 

State Senate, Quinton Ross, a Democrat, Minority Leader. He says, 

‘‘I know him,’’ meaning Senator Sessions, ‘‘personally and all of my 

encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama. 

We have spoken about everything from civil rights to race relations, and we agree that as Christian men, our hearts and minds 

are focused on doing right by all people.’’ 

I do not think we should forget that Senator Sessions got reelected to the United States Senate without a primary opponent or 

a general election opponent. Ye gods, you know, would we not all 

like to do that? 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. I have been unable to do that. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. For the record, without objection. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. I had six primary opponents. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I can understand why. 
121 

Senator GRAHAM. There you go. I will probably have 10. I will 

probably have 10 next time. But here is what I want them to know: 

I, too, received the Annie Taylor Award. 

Senator SESSIONS. The Annie Taylor Award. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, there it is. I was there. I got it, too. I do 

not get enough awards; you can speak for yourself, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, I got the award. I went to the dinner, and 

Chris Matthews interviewed me. So I do not know what that 

means, other than I will do almost anything for a free dinner. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. You know, I like Senator Blumenthal, but you 

know, we did this for Alito, this whole guilt by association stuff. 

You have been around 15 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. Twenty. 

Senator GRAHAM. Twenty. Well, 15 with me. I am pretty sure 

you are not a closet bigot. And I got the same award you did. That 

other award—who got it, Joe Lieberman? 

Senator SESSIONS. He got the award at the Gaffney. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, anyway, all I can tell you is that 

this whole idea that if you receive recognition from some group, 

you own everything they have ever done or said, is probably not 

fair to any of us. We can go through all of our records about donations. The bottom line is, Senator Sessions, there is no doubt in my 

mind that you are one of the most fair, decent, honest men I have 

ever met. And you know what I like most about you? If you are the 

only person in the room who believes it, you will stand up and say 

so. I have seen you speak out when you were the only guy that believed what you believed, and I admire the heck out of that. So if 

I get nominated by Trump, which I think will come when hell 

freezes over—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. I am here to tell you I got the 

Annie Taylor award, too. 

So let us talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by 

Senator Feinstein about indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This is Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote: ‘‘There’s no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.’’ That 

case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and 

was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? 

Senator SESSIONS. Generally, yes. Not as familiar as you because 

I know you have studied it in great depth. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, being a military lawyer, this was sort of 

part of what I did. 

Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the Nation’s shores or do they follow you wherever you go? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. 

Senator GRAHAM. So if you go to Paris, you do not give up your 

Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could 

the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and basically search 

your room without a warrant? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not believe—— 

Senator GRAHAM. No, they cannot. Your constitutional rights attach to you. So to the people who say, well, he was in Afghanistan, 
122 

that does not matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. 

In re: Quirin, that case involved German saboteurs who landed in 

Long Island. Are you familiar with this? 

Senator SESSIONS. I am very familiar with that case. I have read 

it. 

Senator GRAHAM. They were German saboteurs and had American citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by 

the FBI and tried by the military. So what I would tell Senator 

Feinstein and my other colleagues, the law is well settled here, 

that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy 

combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the 

enemy. 

Under the current law, if you are suspected of being an enemy 

combatant within a certain period of time—60 days, I think—the 

Government has to present you to a Federal judge and prove, by 

a preponderance of the evidence, that you are a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with 

that, your habeas rights? 

Senator SESSIONS. Correct. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. So as to how long an enemy combatant can be 

held, traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the 

battlefield until the war is over or they are no longer a danger. 

Does that make sense to you? 

Senator SESSIONS. It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of war. 

Senator GRAHAM. And the law of war is designed to, like, win the 

war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield, you can kill or capture 

them, and there is no requirement like domestic criminal law that 

at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial because the goal of the law of war is to protect the Nation and make 

sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who has 

been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept, 

in military law or the law of war, that you have to release them 

on an arbitrary date, because that would make no sense. 

All I am saying is that I think you are on solid ground, and this 

idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of 

the history of the law of war. And I am very willing to work with 

my colleagues to make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably 

applied and that we can find due process rights that do not exist 

in the traditional law of war, because this is a war without end. 

When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we will 

know when it is over? 

Senator SESSIONS. I have asked a number of witnesses in Armed 

Services about that, and it is pretty clear we are talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs, and will continue for some 

time. 

Senator GRAHAM. So let me—— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is most likely what would happen. 

Senator GRAHAM. You are about to embark on a very important 

job in an important time, and here is what my suggestion would 

be: That we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime 
123 

that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important 

activity in the law against radical Islam. The goal is to find out 

what they know. Do you agree with that? 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a critical goal. 

Senator GRAHAM. And I have found that under military law and 

military intelligence gathering, no manual I have ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I have been involved in this business 

for 33 years, and if a commander came to me as a JAG and said 

we just captured somebody on the battlefield—you name the battlefield—they want their rights read to them, I would tell them, they 

are not entitled to Miranda rights. They are entitled to Geneva 

Convention treatment, they are entitled to humane treatment, they 

are entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention 

because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to 

Geneva Convention protections. 

I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we are 

at war. I am encouraged to hear that the new Attorney General 

recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a 

war, and that the next time we capture bin Laden’s son-in-law, if 

he has got any more, I hope we do not read him his Miranda rights 

in 2 weeks. I hope we keep him, humanely, as long as necessary 

to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does 

that make sense to you? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it does. We did not give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured, and it has 

never been part of the—and so they are being detained and they 

are subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully anytime, 

any day, and they are not entitled to a lawyer, and so forth. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. And Miranda and all did not exist back 

in World War II but it does now, but the law, the Hamdi case 

says—this is very important—that you do not have to read an 

enemy combatant their Miranda rights. They do have a right to 

counsel in a habeas proceeding—— 

Senator SESSIONS. In a habeas court. You are correct. 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. To see if the Government got it 

right. You can hold them as long as is necessary for intelligence 

gathering, and you can try them in Article III courts, you can try 

them in military commissions. As Attorney General of the United 

States, would you accept that military commissions could be the 

proper venue, under certain circumstances, for a terrorist? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Hirono, then Senator Kennedy, 

then you should take a break, because I want one. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Proceed. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions, in 1944, the Supreme Court handed down what 

is considered one of the worst rulings in the history of our country, 

and that case is Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans in internment camps. 
124 

Despite the near-universal condemnation today of the court’s ruling, this past November, Carl Higby, a spokesman for a pro-Trump 

Super PAC and a surrogate for President-elect Trump, cited 

Korematsu as precedent for a program which would require Muslims in the United States to register with the Government. 

Here are my questions: First, would you support such a registry 

for Muslim Americans? In other words, U.S. citizens? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not believe we need a registration program for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslim. Is that the question? 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. My question is whether you would support 

such a registry for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslims. 

Senator SESSIONS. No. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

So since the President may go in that direction, what kind of constitutional problems would there be for U.S. citizens who happen 

to be Muslims to be required to register? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my understanding is, as I recall, the 

later comments by President-elect Trump do not advocate for that 

registration, but he will have to speak for himself on his policies. 

But I do not think that is accurate at this point, as his last stated 

position on it. 

Senator HIRONO. Since you do not support such a registry for 

U.S. citizen Muslims, is that because you think that there are some 

constitutional issues involved with such a requirement for U.S. citizen Muslims? 

Senator SESSIONS. It would raise serious constitutional problems 

because the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to free exercise of religion. I believe Americans overwhelmingly honor that 

and should continue to honor it, and it would include Muslims for 

sure. I do not believe they should be treated differently, fundamentally. They should not be treated differently. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

And in addition to the freedom of religion provisions, perhaps 

there would be some equal protection constitutional problems, possibly some procedural due process constitutional problems with 

that kind of registry requirement. 

Turning to consent decrees, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. America’s police officers 

are the best in the world, and that is due in large part to their 

bravery, skill, and integrity in what they do. Our Constitution ensures that the Government is responsible to its citizens, and that 

certain rights should not be violated by the Government. But that 

does not mean that things always work perfectly, as you noted in 

one of your responses, in the real world. 

So while the vast majority of police officers do exemplary work 

and build strong relationships with their communities to keep the 

public safe, there have been specific use-of-force deadly incidents 

that have sparked nationwide outrage. 

Some of these incidents have led the Attorney General’s Civil 

Rights Division to do investigations into whether individual police 

departments have a ‘‘pattern of practice’’ of unconstitutional policing and to make sure our police departments are compliant with 

the law. 
125 

When these investigations find that police departments are engaged in unconstitutional policing, they are frequently resolved 

through consent decrees with the Department of Justice, which requires police departments to undertake certain important reforms 

that are overseen by independent monitors to ensure that necessary changes are being made in these departments. 

Senator Sessions, you once wrote that ‘‘consent decrees have a 

profound effect on our legal system, as they constitute an end run 

around the democratic processes.’’ Currently, more than 20 police 

departments around the country are engaged in consent decrees 

with the Justice Department. In Maryland, Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said Monday she expects her city to finalize a consent 

decree with the Justice Department this week, as noted in the Baltimore Sun. 

My question is, will you commit to maintaining and enforcing the 

consent decrees that the Justice Department has negotiated during 

this administration? 

Senator SESSIONS. Those decrees remain in force if and until and 

if they are changed. And they would be enforced. The consent decree itself is not necessarily a bad thing, could be a legitimate decision. There can be circumstances in which police departments are 

subject to a lawsuit, which is what starts this process, ultimately 

ending in a consent decree. 

But I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just 

have individuals within the department who have done wrong and 

those individuals need to be prosecuted. 

These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their 

work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to 

be careful before we do that, is what I would say to you, because 

filing a lawsuit against a police department has ramifications, 

sometimes beyond what a lot of people think. It can impact morale 

of the officers, it can impact and affect the view of citizens to their 

police department. I just think that caution is always required in 

these cases. 

Senator HIRONO. Senator Sessions—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I would not pre-judge a specific case. 

Senator HIRONO. I understand that, but showing a pattern of 

practice needs to be shown, so these are not just a rogue police officer doing something that would be deemed unconstitutional. 

So are you saying that with regard to negotiated consent decrees 

that you will revisit these consent decrees and perhaps give police 

departments a second bite at the apple so that they can undo some 

of the requirements on them? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, presumably the Department of Justice, 

under the Holder-Lynch leadership, would be expecting to end 

these decrees at some point, so I just would not commit that there 

would never be any changes in them. If departments have complied 

or reached other developments that could justify the withdrawal or 

modification of the consent decree, of course I would do that. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, usually consent decrees require when 

they end it is because they have complied with the provisions of the 
126 

consent decree. So I am just trying to get a simple answer. And I 

hope that you would—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will give you a simple answer. 

It is a difficult thing for a city to be sued by the Department of 

Justice and to be told that your police department is systematically 

failing to serve the people of the State or the city. So that is an 

august responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department 

of Justice. 

Senator HIRONO. So—— 

Senator SESSIONS. So they often feel forced to agree to a consent 

decree just to remove that stigma, and sometimes there are difficulties there. So I just think we need to be careful and respectful 

of the departments. 

Senator HIRONO. I understand that. But as to the consent decrees that were negotiated with both parties in full faith to do what 

is appropriate, that you would leave those intact unless there are 

some exigent or some extraordinary circumstances. 

Of course, going forward as Attorney General you can enter into 

whatever consent decrees you deem appropriate. So my question 

really is the existing consent decrees, which took a lot to negotiate, 

by the way. And it is not the vast majority of police departments 

in this country, it is 20. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You can answer that if you want to, and 

then we will move on. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand what you are saying. One of the 

impacts of a consent decree is it does require judicial approval of 

any alteration in it, and that raises pros and cons. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator, could you tell the Committee a little bit more about 

what it was like to be a U.S. Attorney? What was your management style? Did you enjoy it? How was it compared to serving in 

the State government as a State Attorney General? 

Senator SESSIONS. I loved being a U.S. Attorney. Almost everybody that has held the job says it is the greatest job if you like law 

enforcement and trying to protect citizens and prosecuting criminals. It was just a fabulous job, and we had great assistants. I 

loved it, and our team did. Those were Camelot days for me. So I 

did feel that. I only had 2 years as Attorney General. We had this 

monumental deficit when I got elected and we had to lay off a third 

of the office because we did not have money to pay the electric bill, 

and it was just one thing after another. Then I was running for the 

Senate, so I did not get to enjoy that job. 

But the United States Attorney’s job was a really fabulous experience, and I believe in the course of it I worked with FBI, DEA, 

U.S. Customs, Marshals Service, all the Federal agencies, ATF, 

IRS, Postal Service and their inspectors, and you get to know their 

cultures and their crimes that they investigate, the officers and 

what motivates them, and how a little praise and affirmation is so 

important for them. They get the same salary, you know. If they 

are not being appreciated, they feel demeaned, their morale can decline. So that kind of experience was wonderful, and I do think it 

would help me be a better Attorney General. 
127 

Senator KENNEDY. I have made up my mind. I yield back my 

time. I hope you will be a raging voice of common sense at the Department of Justice, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before you take a break, I hope that all the 

people that still want to do a third round will come back in about 

maybe 15 minutes, or a little less. Is that okay? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. We stand in recess for 15 minutes or 

so. 

[Whereupon, at 6 p.m. the Committee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 6:26 p.m., the Committee reconvened.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. For third round, I call on Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. 

Senator, last Friday, the Director of National Intelligence—we 

have covered this a little—representing 16 agencies, released a declassified intelligence report stating, ‘‘we assess Russian President 

Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at 

the U.S. Presidential election,’’ and yet despite the consensus 

among our intelligence agencies, President-elect Trump has remained persistently skeptical. 

During the first Presidential debate, he wondered aloud whether 

the responsible party could be China or ‘‘somebody sitting on their 

bed that weighs 400 pounds.’’ Last month, he called reports of Russian hacking ‘‘ridiculous’’ and ‘‘another excuse for the Democrat 

loss.’’ He said, ‘‘It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace 

again. I mean, they have no idea.’’ 

And even after the release of the declassified report, the President has really yet to acknowledge Russia’s role in the hacking. 

You said earlier that you accept the FBI’s conclusion. To my mind, 

it is absolutely extraordinary to see a President-elect so publicly refuting, and without evidence so far as I can tell, the assessment of 

our intelligence agencies. 

Why do you think President-elect Trump has been so unwilling 

to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking? 

Senator SESSIONS. I did mean to indicate I respect the FBI and 

I respect the fact that if they give a conclusion, they believe it is 

accurate. I am not able to comment on the President-elect’s comments about it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

CNN has just published a story—and I am telling you about a 

news story that has just been published, so I am not expecting you 

to know whether it is true or not—but CNN just published a story 

alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the 

President-elect last week that included information that ‘‘Russian 

operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’’ 

These documents also allegedly stated, ‘‘There was a continuing 

exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’’ Now 

again, I am telling you this as it is coming out, so, you know—but 

if it is true, it is obviously extremely serious. If there is any evidence that any one affiliated with the Trump campaign commu-
128 

nicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Franken, I am 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, and I am unable to comment on it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Very well. 

Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this 

or know what compromising personal and financial information the 

Russians claimed to have? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Franken, allegations get made about 

candidates all the time, and they have been made about Presidentelect Trump lots of times. Most of them—virtually all of them— 

have been proven to be exaggerated or untrue. I would just say to 

you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been 

in on the classified briefings and am not a Member of the Intelligence Committee, and so I am just not able to give you any comment on it at this time. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Totally fair. 

Last week, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, claimed 

that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked 

emails WikiLeaks published during the campaign. Now, Assange 

did not identify his source, nor did he say whether his source 

worked with or received information from the Russians. But again, 

American intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government directed the hacking operation. Nonetheless, immediately following that interview, President-elect tweeted, ‘‘Julian Assange 

said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta. Why was DNC so 

careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!’’ 

Senator Sessions, does it concern you that our future Commander-in-Chief is so much more willing to accept what Julian 

Assange says instead of the conclusions of our intelligence agencies, 

and why do you think President Trump finds Assange trustworthy? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Franken, I am not able to answer 

that. I have not talked to the President-elect about any of these 

issues. It is often inaccurate, what gets printed in the papers. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, back in 2010, back when WikiLeaks was 

publishing stolen American diplomatic cables and military secrets, 

you voiced concern about the Obama administration’s response. 

You said that WikiLeaks publishing sensitive documents should be 

‘‘pursued with the greatest intensity.’’ You said, ‘‘The President 

from on down should be crystal clear on this, and I haven’t seen 

that. I mean, he comes out of the left, the anti-war left. They’ve always glorified people who leak sensitive documents. Now he’s the 

Commander-in-Chief, so he’s got a challenge.’’ 

President-elect Trump, by contrast, said, ‘‘WikiLeaks, I love 

WikiLeaks.’’ Do you believe that by holding up Julian Assange, who 

traffics in leaked and stolen documents, often classified documents, 

as a legitimate source of information that President-elect Trump is 

glorifying people who leak sensitive documents? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would say this, that if Assange participated in violating the American law, then he is a person subject 

to prosecution and condemnation. 
129 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, we know that in regard to what he did 

in 2010, and yet the President-elect said, ‘‘WikiLeaks, I love 

WikiLeaks.’’ Does it not seem like perhaps if you were not sitting 

before us today as an Attorney General nominee, and if President 

Obama was publicly embracing Julian Assange, that perhaps you 

might take a more critical view? 

Senator SESSIONS. As a Member of the Senate, as you, and I remain for, hopefully, not too much longer—depends on you and your 

colleagues—but I feel it is a lot easier to be vigorous and outspoken. But it is different as you begin to think about the awesome 

responsibility of serving as an Attorney General, with the possibility of having to handle certain cases. You need to be more cautious about what you say. So I think it is just not appropriate for 

me to be the person for you to seek political responses from. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. I am out of time. I will try to stick 

around for one more quick round. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sessions, thank you for your endurance today. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. Let us turn to a different topic, one that has been 

addressed some in this hearing but one that I know is a particular 

passion of yours and one on which you have built a remarkable 

record, and that is immigration. I want to focus in particular on 

the problem of criminal aliens in the United States and this administration’s non-enforcement of the laws, and take a moment just to 

review some of the numbers, which you know very well but I think 

it is helpful to review for those watching this hearing. 

We have had an administration that consistently refuses to enforce our immigration laws, so in October 2015, I submitted that 

there were 929,684 aliens present in the United States who had 

been ordered to leave the country but who had not done so. Of 

those over 929,000 aliens with removal orders, 179,027 had criminal convictions. In addition to the 179,027 criminal aliens with 

final orders of removal, there were at least 194,791 known criminal 

aliens who were at the time in removal proceedings. We also know 

that 121 criminal aliens released by ICE between fiscal year 2010 

and 2014 went on to commit homicides, and between Fiscal Year 

2009 and Fiscal Year 2015, ICE released 6,151 aliens with sexual 

offense convictions from its custody. 

My question for you, Senator Sessions, is can you commit to this 

Committee and to the American people that as Attorney General 

you will enforce the laws, including the Federal immigration laws, 

and you will not be releasing criminal illegal aliens into the public, 

especially those with violent convictions, such as homicide or sexual assault convictions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Cruz, you and I have talked about 

this and you know that I believe we have failed in dealing with 

criminal aliens. President Obama set that as a priority, but I do 

not think they have been as effective as needed. I believe that 

should be increased and stepped up. The actual policies, as you 

know, are Homeland Security policies. The Secretary of Homeland 

Security will determine those policies. There are ways in which the 
130 

Department of Justice can fulfill a role in it, but the overall policies 

and priorities would be set by Homeland Security. 

I just believe that as we go forward and reduce the flow of illegal 

immigrants into America, then there are fewer people illegally per 

investigative officer and you get a better handle—you are in a virtuous cycle instead of this dangerous cycle that we are in today 

where things tend to get worse. So I believe we can turn that 

around. This is one of the policies that has to be given priority. 

Donald Trump has also said that he believes criminal aliens obviously should be the top priority, and I believe this Government will 

work effectively to deal with it. I would do my part. 

Senator CRUZ. You know, there are few issues that frustrate 

Americans more than the refusal to enforce our immigration laws. 

Not too long ago, I was down on the border in Texas visiting with 

Border Patrol officials, visiting with law enforcement, local sheriffs. 

I will tell you, it was after the election and there was a palpable 

sense of relief, that finally we would have an administration that 

did not view the laws as obstacles to be circumvented, but rather 

an administration that would be willing to enforce the laws on the 

books and stop releasing criminal aliens in communities where the 

citizens are at risk. 

One of the most tragic instances that we are all familiar with is 

Kate Steinle, beautiful young woman in California who lost her 

life, who was murdered, by a criminal illegal alien who had seven 

prior felonies, and yet over and over and over again the system 

failed and young Kate Steinle lost her life in her father’s arms, saying, ‘‘Daddy, please save me.’’ You and I are both the fathers of 

daughters and I cannot think of a more horrific experience than 

having to hold your daughter at that moment of agony. 

Can you share—this has been an issue you have been leading for 

so long. Can you share your perspective as to the responsibility of 

the Federal Government to keep the American people safe and not 

to subject the American people to murderers and other repeat felons who are here illegally, not to release them to the public? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Cruz, you touched on the right issue 

here. First and foremost, the immigration policy of the United 

States should serve the national interest, the people’s interest. 

That is what an immigration system should do. 

Number two, under the laws and world agreements, when a citizen from a foreign country is admitted by visa to the United 

States and commits a deportable act or otherwise needs to be removed, that country has to take them back. When they cease to do 

that, then you have a serious breach of collegial relations between 

the two countries. No country, particularly the United States, 

should ever allow in so many individuals who committed crimes 

here, often when they entered illegally, and not even coming on a 

lawful visa. They need to be deported promptly. The reluctance of 

carrying this out is baffling to me. It should have total bipartisan 

support. It is said that it does, but somehow it is never accomplished. So it is very, very frustrating. The basic summary of that 

is, it is perfectly proper, decent, and correct that this Nation not 

allow people who come here on a visa or illegally to remain here 

after they have committed crimes. 
131 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you, Senator Sessions. As you know, 

I have introduced legislation in the Senate, Kate’s Law, which 

would provide, for those who illegally re-enter with a violent criminal conviction, a mandatory 5-year prison sentence. This past Senate that failed to pass. It is my hope that Congress will pass that 

legislation and give additional tools to the administration to keep 

the American people safe. 

Let me turn to one additional aspect of illegal immigration, 

which is the national security component of it. Since August 2015, 

you and I have joined together to send three separate letters to the 

Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State, as well as 

a letter to the President, seeking information on the immigration 

histories of individuals who have been convicted or implicated in a 

terrorist attack in the United States, and over and over again the 

current administration has stonewalled our efforts as Senators to 

get basic facts that I think the American people are entitled to. 

You and I were able to piece together from the public record that 

at least 40 people who were initially admitted to the United States 

as refugees were subsequently convicted or implicated in terrorism, 

and more broadly, of a list of 580 individuals who were convicted 

of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between 2001 and 2014, 

at least 380 were born in foreign countries, many from terror spots 

in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Of the 198 U.S. citizens you and I were able to find on that list, at least 100 were born 

abroad and subsequently naturalized. 

As I mentioned, the administration has stonewalled us. Will you 

commit to work with this Committee to provide the data that we 

have been seeking, that I think the American people are entitled 

to know, of those who are committing terror plots against us, how 

many are coming in through a broken immigration system, through 

a broken refugee system, and to working with this Committee to 

prevent that from happening in the future to keep the people safe? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would do that. I do believe that is a Homeland Security’s primary responsibility, but it was a bit frustrating 

because what those numbers tend to indicate is that it is not true 

that refugees do not commit terrorist acts. There is a danger, even 

in the refugee population, and good vetting is critical in that process. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, if I might, I would like to take us to an area 

I do not think has been explored much today, but of grave concern 

to me, which is disability rights, another area where, if confirmed 

as Attorney General, you would be charged with protecting among 

the most vulnerable Americans and those whose rights have only 

recently been fully recognized and enforced. 

You have previously said that the IDEA, which provides for access to education for those with intellectual disabilities, creates 

‘‘lawsuit after lawsuit, special treatment for certain children, and 

is a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility in classrooms 

all over America.’’ In a different setting, you were critical of the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 which held 

that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the 
132 

Eighth Amendment. In a floor speech 6 days later after that ruling 

you said that you were ‘‘very troubled’’ by the Court telling States 

‘‘they could not execute people who were retarded.’’ If a State was 

scheduled to execute someone with intellectual disabilities, would 

you insist on the Justice Department now taking vigorous action to 

stop it? And given your previous comments about the IDEA, do you 

still believe it unfairly benefits some children and hurts others? 

Senator SESSIONS. We made real reform in IDEA. I led that effort. We ended up having the vote of Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin, Senator Durbin. We worked on it very hard and I was very 

pleased with the way it worked out. It was true that the IDEA 

community pushed back against the reforms I was proposing, but 

in the end I think it worked out fine. 

The reason was that the burden was on the school systems. I was 

in a Blue Ribbon, great little school in Alabama on the first day 

of school and the principal told me, it is now 3; at 5, I will go to 

a meeting with lawyers and parents about a child on whether or 

not they will be in the classroom all day or half a day, and the 

child had serious disabilities. So he said, I am trying to get this 

school up and running and I am having to spend this extraordinary 

amount of time on this. So we created a legal system that made 

it better and the schools got a little more deference in being able 

to monitor it, and it was a big issue. It was a disruptive force in 

big-city schools in New York and Chicago and other places like 

that. 

So on the question of intellectual disabilities, I suppose we can 

disagree, as a matter of policy. Perhaps I was questioning the legal 

mandate. But a person with intellectual disabilities, that should be 

considered as a factor in the sentencing jury or the judge’s opinion 

before they go forward. But obviously if a person knows the difference in right and wrong, historically they would be held to the 

same standard, even though their intellectual ability would be less. 

Senator COONS. Let me revisit a question about consent decrees 

that Senator Hirono was asking about previously, because consent 

decrees have been used in this area, in disability rights, to make 

sure that folks with intellectual disabilities have access to services 

and education, but also in policing. 

Police chiefs and elected officials, as we have spoken about, in 

communities across the country have in some cases invited DOJ to 

open civil rights investigations of their police departments and 

have invited them to enter into consent decrees in order to implement reforms to law enforcement in order to make sure that they 

improve the quality of police-community relations and respect for 

civil rights. 

Do you plan to continue to assist cities with these investigations 

when asked, if Attorney General, and under what circumstances 

would you commence a civil rights investigation of a law enforcement agency that may have violated Federal law? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, those are difficult questions for me to 

answer explicitly today, but I would note on the consent decrees or 

the language Senator Hirono quoted, that my statements were simply part of the foreword to a booklet. 

Consent decrees have been criticized in a number of areas. I am 

not familiar with how they have worked out in the disabilities 
133 

arena, but with regard to police departments, I think it is a good 

thing that a police department might call on Federal investigators 

and a team to work with their police department to identify any 

problems and to help select remedies that the community might 

feel were more valid because the Department of Justice validated 

them and agreed to them. So, as I think you and I talked, it really 

is important that the people trust the police departments and the 

police departments have respect from the communities. When you 

do not have that, people’s safety is at risk. 

Senator COONS. Well, I hope we can find ways to continue to 

work together to combat violent crime and to improve police-community relations. 

Let me just briefly ask you about trade secret theft and intellectual property, something we have also talked about. There is a significant problem for American inventions, companies, entrepreneurs, of having their innovations stolen, sometimes by cyber 

hack, by intrusions, sometimes physically through industrial espionage. The Obama administration has made real progress in increasing enforcement and in going after those who would steal 

America’s inventions. 

Is that something that you would intend, to continue vigorous enforcement to protect American inventions? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do. I think a lot of that may be through the 

U.S. Trade Representative, it could be done through the Commerce 

Department and other departments, and the Department of Justice 

may have a role—— 

Senator COONS. It does. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. In criminal activities or civil enforcement. I would not say for certain what that role would be at 

this point, but my view, as you and I have talked, is that you are 

correct about this. When we enter into a trade agreement with a 

foreign nation, we have to understand that it is just a simple contract and we will comply, we will deal with you on this basis, and 

if a party to that contract is not acting honorably, then you have 

every right to push back. 

And if it ultimately means you have to pull out of the agreement, 

then you pull out of the agreement if it is serious enough. I do not 

think we have been as aggressive as we should have been in those 

agreements. 

Senator COONS. Let me ask one last question, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman. I just wanted to reflect on something you said in your 

opening, and something we have talked about. You were born in 

Selma, roughly 70 years ago. I have been to Selma several times 

with Congressman Lewis and a number of others, and last year 

many of us joined Congressman Lewis for the 50th anniversary of 

that famous march across the Edmund Pettus bridge when he 

faced violence and the response—the conscience of the Nation was 

stirred by this horrible event, and it spurred Congress to pass the 

bipartisan Voting Rights Act. 

There has been a lot of questioning back and forth about your 

comments about whether the Voting Rights Act was intrusive in 

the Shelby County decision, and I just wanted to make sure I came 

back to an important point, which was that Senator Leahy and I, 

and a number of others, tried hard to find Republican partners to 
134 

advance the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would have replaced the now 50-years-old, roughly, preclearance formula with a 

new one that would be national in scope, would not disadvantage 

any region, and would be simply based on enforcement actions. 

Previous questioning by, I think, Senator Franken and others focused on recent enforcement actions, the Fourth Circuit finding 

that North Carolina’s post-Shelby voter ID law violated the law because it targeted African Americans. You said in your opening 

statement that you witnessed the civil rights movement as it happened near you, that you witnessed the depredations of segregation. In a ceremony last year during the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, you said, ‘‘I feel I should have stepped forward more.’’ 

What more do you think you perhaps could have done, or should 

have done, in recent years as a Senator to take more active action 

so that folks from around the country could have confidence in your 

commitment to continuing the journey of civil rights in this country? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do not think we have to agree on everything. Just because you think this was a necessary thing, you 

may be right, and if I do not think so I do not know that I am necessarily wrong. I would say that I did sponsor the Congressional 

Gold Medal Act that gave the Gold Medal to the Selma and Montgomery marchers with Senator Cory Booker. We were the two lead 

sponsors on it. 

I was at that event and have a wonderful picture I cherish with 

John Lewis and other people on the bridge, celebrating that event. 

It changed the whole South. African Americans were being discriminated against systematically in voting. They were being flatly 

denied, through all kinds of mechanisms, and only a very few in 

many instances were allowed to vote, if any. So this was an unacceptable thing. As I said at the hearing in 1986, I was asked about 

it being intrusive. Please, Senator Coons, do not suggest in any 

way that that word means that I was hostile to the act. I said then 

and I say now, it was necessary that the act be intrusive because 

it had to force change, and it would not have happened without the 

power of the Federal Government. That is a plain fact. 

Senator COONS. Senator, what I am suggesting is an alternative 

path forward for the Voting Rights Act that would not have been 

singling out one region or one State or one history, but that would 

have allowed the Voting Rights Act to continue to be effective in 

the face of the recent record showing ongoing discrimination, ongoing denial of the right to vote in different States across the country, 

now no longer isolated to the South. When presented with an opportunity to continue and strengthen the Voting Rights Act postShelby, you did not take that step. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Sessions, if you need to answer 

that, go ahead and answer it. 

Senator SESSIONS. I will be short. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I want to go to Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator SESSIONS. As I said, I supported the reauthorization of 

the Voting Rights Act with Section 5 in it. When the Supreme 

Court said it was no longer necessary that Section 5 be in it, I did 
135 

not support the language that you and Senator Leahy offered that 

would basically put it back in. So I do not apologize for that. I 

think that was a legitimate decision. 

With regard to the question of voter ID, I am not sure it has 

been conclusively settled one way or the other whether a properly 

conducted voter ID system is improper and discriminatory. Indeed, 

the Supreme Court has held that voter ID is legitimate, at least 

under certain circumstances. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. Before Senator Blumenthal, I have 

another thing that has come to our attention, so I would put this 

in the record without objection, a letter that we received from some 

lawyers about the IDEA issue. These lawyers litigate cases on this 

issue. They say certain stories about the issue took Senator Sessions’ comments out of context, and then they go on to note that 

Senator Kennedy and others later reached an agreement with Senator Sessions on the issue. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, I want to pursue this conversation about voting 

rights. In October 2015, there was a report, widely reported, that 

the State of Alabama intended to close a number of DMV offices. 

Congresswoman Terry Sewell wrote to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, urging an investigation, stating, I am quoting, ‘‘This decision will leave 8 out of 10 counties with the highest percentage of 

non-White registered voters without a Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV, to issue an Alabama driver’s license.’’ She noted that, 

‘‘an estimated 250,000 Alabamians who do not have an acceptable 

form of photo identification to cast a ballot.’’ 

As you know, subsequently the Department of Transportation 

initiated an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 

and that year-long investigation found that Alabama’s conduct 

caused ‘‘a disparate and adverse impact on the basis of race.’’ Did 

you believe, or do you believe now, that it was a problem that 

250,000 estimated citizens of your State did not have the requisite 

ID to vote? 

Senator SESSIONS. There is a system, I understand, that makes 

those IDs available. The driver’s license offices were part of a budget-cutting process within the State, which I had absolutely nothing 

to do with, and did not know about until it was done. And they 

claim that they were simply identifying the areas with the lowest 

population and trying to do some consolidation and trying to make 

the system more efficient and productive. 

It was later that these objections arose, and they have reversed 

that, I believe. So that is the way that went. I hope there was no 

intent at the time to be racially insensitive, but indeed many of the 

closures were in counties with large African-American populations. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you believe then that there was a 

problem in denying 250,000 people an access to photo identification 

they needed to vote? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it did not deny 250,000 people the right 

to vote. That would be utterly wrong and should be stopped immediately. But in this instance, it might have required people to go 

to the closest driver’s license office in the next county which might 
136 

be closer for you to go to than the one that was closed. But it was, 

in general, perceived as detrimental to African Americans, and included within that detriment was the possibility of an ID for voting. So you are correct. It was controversial, and it was fixed. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you agree with the Department of Investigation finding that it had an adverse and disparate impact on 

people on the basis of race? 

Senator SESSIONS. Oh, I have never expressed an opinion upon 

it and I never studied that issue in depth. But apparently somebody must have agreed, because it was changed. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you agree with that conclusion? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, yes; I was happy that that solution was 

reached, yes. Very much. You know, we should remember those 

things as we move forward, setting policy, what kind of ramifications it could have. I do not think they had voting on their minds 

at all, but it could impact voting to some degree, for sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But you took no action at the time? You 

expressed no conclusion at the time, despite what was found to be 

a disparate and adverse impact on voting rights of 250,000 members of the citizens of your State? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, they did not ask my opinion before they 

did it, and it was purely a State matter. And I did not actively intervene, you are correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to ask you about the DACA young 

people, the DREAMers, who have submitted information to the 

Federal Government about their whereabouts, their identities, a lot 

of personal details. And I know that your response, I think to a 

question about it, was that Congress must act. 

But would it not violate fundamental fairness, whether due process or some standard of constitutional due process, to use that information, in fact, against them? Obviously, we are not talking 

about a criminal proceeding, so there is no double jeopardy. But I 

guess I am asking for your commitment, as a prospective Attorney 

General, your respect for the Constitution, to make a commitment 

that those young people will not be deported, that you will continue 

that policy that has been initiated. 

Senator SESSIONS. Certainly you are correct that that cohort of 

individuals should not be targeted and given priority anything like 

that which should be given to criminals and people who have had 

other difficulties in the United States—those who have been ordered deported and had final orders of deportation. I understand 

what you are saying there. I think, until I have had a chance to 

think it through and examine the law and so forth, I would not 

opine on it myself. 

Number two, importantly, this is a policy of Homeland Security. 

They have got to wrestle with the priorities of their agents, how 

they should spend their time, and try to do that in the most effective way. So General Kelly will have to think that through. Simply, 

if some matter were litigated, we would try to be supportive of the 

litigating position, if possible. But it is really a Homeland Security 

question. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I understand that Homeland Security may 

be involved, but ultimately, orders to deport are the responsibility 

of the Department of Justice to enforce. You are the nominee to be 
137 

the Nation’s chief law enforcement officer. And more importantly, 

in some sense you are a source of the Nation’s conscience, legal 

conscience. And so I am asking you, as a prospective United States 

Attorney General, whether your conscience would be violated by 

using information submitted in good faith, by countless young people who have been in this country since infancy, many of them, and 

who trusted the Government of the United States of America to 

give them the benefit of that policy articulated by the President of 

the United States. 

You may have disagreed with that policy, but the submission of 

that information in good faith on the basis of representations by 

the United States of America, it seems to me, involve a prospective 

commitment on your part in representing the United States of 

America. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you make a good point, and that is a 

valid concern. I know of no policy that would suggest that something like that would be done, and I would not push for it. But ultimately the decision would be made by the Homeland Security Department. They decide their priorities for enforcement. I would not 

want to be in a position to say they would never be used, and I 

cannot make that commitment today. I have not thought it through 

as to what laws might be implicated. But if somebody were a terrorist or had other criminal gang connections, could you never use 

that information? I do not know. I am just not prepared to answer 

that today. It may not be possible to use it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I recognize, Mr. Chairman, my time 

is up. But I will pursue this line of questioning again, because I 

feel I am midway through a number of questions. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I call on the Senator from Hawaii, 

I would like to note that Pat Edington, former vice chair of the Alabama Democratic Party, wrote to our Committee in support of this 

nomination. Mr. Edington says, ‘‘I truly hope our party will not 

make this vote on party lines, but instead vote on the man.’’ Quote 

again, ‘‘I have known him for approximately 40 years, and while 

we have had our policy differences, I know his instincts are fundamentally humane and just.’’ I will, without objection, enter that 

in the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

The Senator from Hawaii. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our Muslim-American community is gravely concerned about 

what a Trump presidency would mean for them. So can the Muslim 

Americans count on you, as Attorney General, to protect their constitutional and civil rights? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. Very reassuring. 

[Laughter.] 

I had asked you earlier about consent decrees, to relate to police 

departments. I have a question along those lines, but it involves 

another part of civil rights. In 2015, a Federal district court in Alabama, your State, approved a consent decree order filed by the Department of Justice in the Huntsville City Schools case. And this 

was a school desegregation case. 
138 

A number of other school districts throughout the country are 

under desegregation orders. Would you commit to maintaining and 

enforcing those decrees? 

Senator SESSIONS. Those decrees still remain in effect in a number of districts. Huntsville is a very strong, healthy, and well-managed school system. I believe they have good leadership. But a consent decree remains in effect until it is altered by the Court. 

Senator HIRONO. So your answer is—— 

Senator SESSIONS. They would be enforced until there is an alteration of it, yes. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. I have a question about violence 

and the increasing number of threats against providers of health 

care services and abortion services to women. 

Since the November election, the number of threats online, many 

of them online, against the providers have more than tripled. Given 

the increasing numbers of violence targeting abortion providers, 

how high of a priority will it be for you to prosecute violence targeting abortion providers under the Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act? 

Senator SESSIONS. They deserve the same protection that any entity—business or otherwise—is entitled to, when people violate the 

law and carry out improper threats or blockades of their business. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, where there is—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Even more so, because we have a specific law 

about abortion clinics, I believe. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. So there is a specific law that Congress 

passed that protects access to these clinics and where there is evidence of increasing number of threats of violence, I hope that that 

gets on your radar screen as a priorty for enforcement. 

Senator SESSIONS. As the law is to be applied, yes. I do not know 

exactly how the threats are worded, but if it is improperly done, 

they can be subject to criminal prosecutions and they would be 

evaluated properly, in my administration. 

Senator HIRONO. And certainly where Congress cared enough 

about this particular area of access, that I hope that you would 

have a commitment to making sure that that law is being enforced 

in the way that we intended. 

Regarding birthright citizenship, people born in this country are 

U.S. citizens, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. 

And there are those who argue that that is not enough to confer 

citizenship. 

Do you believe that there should be more required to become 

U.S. citizens? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, under the current state of the law, it is 

accepted that they do obtain their citizenship. There are two obstacles to changing that. One would be congressional enactment, I believe, to change it, and even that congressional action could be construed as violative of the Constitution and not be a constitutional 

act. I have not reviewed the details of that. I do know there is some 

dispute about whether or not the Congress could change that status. 

Senator HIRONO. But it is certainly not anything that, in the 

order of priorities, that you would pursue as Attorney General to 
139 

ask Congress to change the law to require more than being born 

in this country to confer U.S. citizenship? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would be focusing my attention on enforcing 

the laws that exist, and I guess it would be Congress’ duty to wrestle with whether to change it or not. 

Senator HIRONO. On turning to a change in the law that came 

about after the Lilly Ledbetter case, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and 

I know you are familiar with the factual circumstance in which 

Lilly Ledbetter did not know that she had been given disparate 

pay—that was illegal. She did not find out about it, and the Supreme Court said you only have 180 days in order to find this out, 

in order to have your day in court. 

So Congress had a bill which you voted against, and I am wondering why you voted against that bill. Because in making that decision, the Court basically abrogated years and years of legal precedent. It was a surprise to a lot of us that suddenly they were imposing 180-day, you-must-know kind of a requirement. 

But you voted against that bill. Can you tell us briefly why? 

Senator SESSIONS. We had a hearing on it in the Judiciary Committee. A number of witnesses testified, and the testimony, as I understood it, was that she did in fact have notice, that the Court 

found that she had notice, and that is why they held that the statute of limitations was enforced. 

You need a statute of limitations of some kind, and if they do not 

know, then you can allow it to continue indefinitely. But as I understood it, that was the ruling. So it was less problematic for future cases than was discussed, but my recollection is not perfectly 

clear on that issue. That was one of the factors I remember being 

involved in my decision. 

Senator HIRONO. My recollection of the holding in that case is 

different from yours, because often in these pay discrimination 

cases, unlawful pay discrimination, the victim is not aware and has 

no way of finding out that such discrimination is occurring. And 

that is why the law made it very clear that every instance of a disparate paycheck would constitute a new violation, and that is all 

this bill did. Otherwise, the Lilly Ledbetters of the world would 

really be—would be foreclosed from their day in court. 

So you obviously have a different understanding of the holding 

of the case. 

Senator SESSIONS. My memory is not that good. But if you have 

explicit notice, hypothetically, should every paycheck for the next 

20 years restart the statute of limitations? So that was the legal 

question. However, my recollection is not perfect. 

Senator HIRONO. I was very concerned about that case, and so 

I would say that perhaps my recollection of the holding is more accurate than yours. 

Let me turn to corporate wrongdoing. When I just met with you, 

you indicated that nobody is above the law. And there is, I think, 

an ongoing investigation on the part of the Department of Justice 

what Wells Fargo did in basically defrauding millions of their customers. 

So would you continue to pursue this kind of investigation, and 

would you also hold accountable individual corporate officeholders 

should there be found to have been a violation of law? 
140 

Senator SESSIONS. Corporations are subject as an entity to fines 

and punishment for violating the law, and so are the corporate officers. And sometimes it seems to me, Senator Hirono, that the corporate officers who caused the problem should be subjected to more 

severe punishment than the stockholders of the company who did 

not know anything about it. 

Senator HIRONO. That could not agree with me more. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Franken, you said you had one 

more question you wanted to ask? 

Senator FRANKEN. Could I ask two? 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Go ahead. 

Senator FRANKEN. By the way, Chairman, I must compliment 

you. You have deferred your time to us all, and I thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I have not given it up. I have just—— 

Senator FRANKEN. No, you deferred it. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Please proceed. You are taking time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Senator, I would like to briefly return to something you said earlier about your opposition to VAWA and our courtesy visit. The second item of substance that we discussed was violence against Native women. I told you how important the issue is to me and to 

Tribes all over the country, and they have highlighted that for me 

time and time again. And when I provided you with a statistic 

demonstrating just how prevalent violence against Native women 

is and at the hands of non-Indians, you expressed shock and said 

that you did not realize the extent of the problem. 

Over 84 percent of Native women experience domestic or sexual 

violence, and over 97 percent of them are victimized by non-Indians. That is a recent stat. But in 2012, all you had to do was talk 

to one Tribe, and you would have learned that women in Indian 

Country are regularly abused by non-Indians, who go unprosecuted 

and unpunished. 

If you take the issue of domestic and sexual violence seriously, 

I think it is incumbent upon you to visit at least one Tribe. I think 

Alabama has nine Tribes that are recognized in the State, is that 

correct? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I believe, only one Tribal group that has 

properties on Tribal lands. 

Senator FRANKEN. The Poarch? 

Senator SESSIONS. Poarch Creek. Used to be in my district; I 

have had good relations with them. Been on that small Tribe’s 

lands a number of times and visited their clinics. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, good. Well, I would—if you are Attorney 

General—and even if you are not, but certainly if you are Attorney 

General, when you are back home you might take some time to 

talk with them about this issue. Earlier, you told Senator Hirono 

that you cannot commit to not challenging VAWA on these 

grounds. But you have also admitted that you did not understand 

the gravity of the problem of violence against Native women when 

you voted on it in 2013, or the extent of non-Indian violence. 

Would you just commit to me to spending a little bit of time with 

the Poarch Tribe? Thank you. That would be good. 
141 

Senator SESSIONS. They have been supportive of me. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I want to talk about one last thing. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You have got one more question. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The day before the election, Candidate Trump came to my State 

for his only rally during the campaign. And let me tell you what 

he said. He was standing before a large crowd, and he accused 

Democrats of planning to ‘‘import generations of terrorism, extremism, and radicalism into your schools and throughout your communities. Here in Minnesota,’’ he said, ‘‘you have seen firsthand 

the problems caused with faulty refugee vetting and large numbers 

of Somali refugees coming into your State without your knowledge, 

without your support or approval, and with some of them joining 

ISIS and spreading their extremist views all over our country and 

all over the world.’’ 

I cannot begin to tell you how angry those comments made me, 

to see Candidate Trump hold his only rally in Minnesota at an airport where about a thousand Somalis, immigrants, work—Somali 

Minnesota immigrants—work and earn—well, refugees, really. And 

to stoke that kind of fear and hatred was an insult, I believe, to 

every Minnesotan. It was offensive, it was irresponsible, but it was 

not really surprising. Candidate Trump made scapegoating immigrants and refugees and banning Muslims from entering our country a centerpiece of his campaign. Now, some of his advisers tried 

to spin or walk back his comments on the so-called Muslim ban, 

but you, Senator, no, you said that the idea was ‘‘appropriate to 

discuss.’’ 

In June you said, ‘‘We must face the uncomfortable reality that 

not only are immigrants from Muslim-majority countries coming to 

the United States, radicalizing, attempting to engage in acts of terrorism, but also their first-generation American children are susceptible to the toxic radicalization of terrorist organizations.’’ 

You said that our Nation has an ‘‘unprecedented assimilation 

problem.’’ You know, Senator, part of what makes that assimilation 

challenging is when people seeking to lead this country exploit fear 

and anxiety and redirect that fear toward our immigrant and refugee communities. 

Right after the election, my office got a call from a middle school 

teacher in St. Paul. Her school has a very sizable population of Somali-Americans, Somali-Minnesotan kids. Now, they are smart 

kids, so they have been paying attention to the election, and they 

were terrified. The teacher called my office and said, please, please 

have Senator Franken come to the school and give them some assurance. These kids did not know what to make of a country, their 

country, electing a leader who describes them and their families as 

worthy of hatred and suspicion. So I did my best to alleviate their 

fears that day. I told them, ‘‘You are Americans.’’ I said, ‘‘You kids, 

you are Americans. Do not be afraid.’’ 

A couple of weeks later, I talked to the French Ambassador to 

the United States. I said to him, ‘‘Who is defined as a Frenchman 

in France?’’ And he said, ‘‘Somebody who can trace back a couple 

of centuries to their family in a French village.’’ Well, these kids 

are Americans, and we consider them American. And what we saw 
142 

in Paris and what we saw, which was caused by Belgians, is because they take that attitude in Europe. We do not take this attitude, and it is dangerous to take it. 

One of the most beautiful events I have been to was the graduation—high school graduation, Wilmer, Minnesota, in June. I invited 

myself there because one of our pages, our Senate pages, was from 

Wilmer and she is Somali. A Somali Minnesota girl. When I saw 

her on Election Day, I was at the University of Minnesota; she 

graduated and went to the University of Minnesota. She told me 

her sister, her younger sister, was named the Wilmer Homecoming 

Queen. In Europe, they do not assimilate people. Here in the 

United States, we vote them Homecoming Queen. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Tillis. 

Senator SESSIONS. They are Americans. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Sessions, if you want to respond, 

go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think Senator Franken makes some 

important points, and I appreciate his comments. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Tillis. 

Senator SESSIONS. Although I do believe my comment was unrelated to the event in your State. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Tillis, you are entitled to 10 minutes—first round, but you do not have to use it all. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TILLIS. I have learned nothing else except to understand 

what the Chairman means when he says that. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I want to do my second and third round. 

Senator TILLIS. No, Mr. Chair, I am not going to take long. And 

Mr. Chair, you know, and Senator Sessions, I think that you know 

that I was in Tennessee today for the proud moment of seeing my 

brother sworn in to the legislature. However, I got up and watched 

the opening comments, your opening comment. You did an extraordinary job. And to be honest with you, I think you have demonstrated more stamina today than the Crimson Tide did last night 

against a worthy adversary. 

But Senator Sessions, I am not going to ask a lot of questions. 

I am going to tell you I thank you for your leadership. I think you 

and I have talked about this before, but I want to thank you again 

publicly about your leadership as a balanced chair and I think, as 

the late Arlen Specter said, an egalitarian. 

I have seen you sit on the Immigration Subcommittee, and you 

have seen me come to every one of those meetings and you know 

you and I have a difference of opinion on that matter. What is remarkable about you is you bring balanced panels to discuss the 

issue so that both sides can be heard, and you never, ever hesitated 

to let me speak as long as I want to, which I am sure was a lot 

longer than you wanted me to. And I really appreciate your leadership, because that is what is missing oftentimes up here in the 

Senate. And we are going to miss you, and I am going to look forward to voting for you and for your confirmation. 

I asked the same question of the Attorney General that was before this Committee two years ago, and I want to ask you because 
143 

it is very important to me. I think the Department of Justice has 

issues. I think that the Inspector General’s report is a good example, back in 2014, when I simply said, an Inspector General’s report 

that says that they need to increase accountability in the Department of Justice—and I will get to a specific question in a minute— 

that we should act on it. I got a non-answer to that question. In 

fact, I got a better answer to a deputy who came back in, which 

is why I supported the deputy and I did not support the AG nominee. 

Could you tell me if you have had an opportunity to take a look 

at those recommendations and to what extent those recommendations would be instructive to you, now that you have become the— 

when you become the Chief Executive of that agency? 

Senator SESSIONS. I am glad you raised it and I hope you will 

stay on the Department of Justice to respond to it. I have not studied it. Some time ago, I believe, I had a briefing on the nature of 

it, but it does appear to me to raise fundamental questions about 

the good management of the people’s money. That money needs to 

be managed effectively—every single dollar—to get positive results, 

not wasted. And I will be glad to hear any suggestions you have 

and it will be a priority of mine. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. In fact, you are the third person that has 

raised it, and so I think what we need to do, and I will do, is an 

immediate analysis of it if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, because we will be following up on 

it. This is something that I think is very important to me. And 

really a specific question in that regard, I hope you will look at it, 

and when you get confirmed, make it a priority to look into. 

As a part of the report, I believe it was said that some DOJ employees engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and perjured themselves in court. If you find that to be substantiated, what would 

you do with the people in the DOJ who were guilty of such actions? 

Senator SESSIONS. The Department of Justice is a great institution. Most of the people are people of the highest character and 

ability. 

Senator TILLIS. Without a doubt. 

Senator SESSIONS. However, we have had a series of problems 

over time that seem to me to be worthy of concern, broadly. And 

I think it would be important for the next Attorney General to try 

to revitalize and re-emphasize the absolute commitment that a 

Federal prosecutor must have to do justice and not just win a case. 

And also, it is hard for lawyers in Washington who get sent out 

to the field to try a big, important, high-profile case; they do not 

know the community very well. Maybe they have not tried as many 

cases as a United States Attorney in the field that does that every 

day. Things can go wrong. We need to do better. 

Senator TILLIS. Well, I thank you for that. Also, just by way of 

comment, the Chair lifted a stack of letters that remained unanswered by the current Attorney General and the DOJ. He did cite 

that he expects you to respond, at least to the one that you signed, 

but I hope you will actually respond to all of them. To the Chair’s 

credit, not only from the Chair, but from the Ranking Member and 
144 

Members of this body who are trying to make the DOJ the best it 

can possibly be. 

Finally, I will just yield back the rest of my time after saying 

that I watched—I probably watched a good 3 hours of the proceedings today. I was struck at one point when some were casting 

doubt about you in terms of your view of ethnicity and a number 

of other backgrounds. What struck me the most about that picture 

on TV was your wife’s eyes welling up because she and your son 

know you well. Many of us know you well. And I think all of us 

know that you are going to make a great Attorney General. You 

are a fair-minded man, and you are going to obey the law. You will 

no longer be a lawmaker, which I know from time to time is probably going to frustrate you. But I have no doubt in my mind you 

will be one of the best Attorney Generals; you will faithfully execute the law, you will enforce the law, and you will do it in a fair 

and impartial manner. And I cannot wait to see you in action. 

Thank you, Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before we start the fourth round, I do not 

think you have had your third round, Senator Sasse, so proceed. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You have got 8 minutes. You do not have 

to use it all. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you for the counsel for a rookie. I also did 

not think I could talk about college football, but Senator Tillis already broke that bubble. Senator, Nebraska 1995 remains the best 

team in the history of college football. I think we can all agree after 

last night. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SASSE. I would like to ask you a question about sue and 

settlement. I have heard from Nebraskans how regulations are 

gamed by activists to try to change Federal policy through lawsuits 

and settlements rather than through the making of law in the Congress. Federal agencies and activist groups are often assumed to 

have been sort of colluding to do this to circumvent the Congress, 

and I am curious as to what you think when plaintiffs and the Government enter into a settlement to try to change policy. 

What is the appropriate role of the Department of Justice to 

make sure that that agreement does not circumvent the law and 

the Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act? 

Senator SESSIONS. The Department of Justice has final settlement authority in any case against the United States, although 

they can listen to and see their role as being supportive of the 

agency. So if Homeland Security or the Department of Education 

or EPA is being sued, they have the power to make the final judgment, and their responsibility is to protect the public interest, the 

national interest, and to make sure the law is followed. 

There has been in State court, and sometimes in Federal court 

this sue and settlement, this consent decree that we have been 

talking about. I pointed out that it is, at times, controversial. So 

if the officials at the Environmental Protection Agency believe that 

a law should be expanded and they are sued by a group that wants 

to expand the law in the same way, and if the Department of Justice goes along with the agency and agrees to a settlement and gets 
145 

a court to order this to occur, then the Government is bound by 

their settlement agreement. The democratic process is eroded because a decision is being made by unelected people and not the legislature. 

So you understand, and I think that was a fundamental part of 

your question, I do believe a good Department of Justice needs to 

be alert to that and should not feel obligated to settle a case on the 

terms that any agency might think, but make sure the settlement 

is legal and justified and in the national interest. 

Senator SASSE. And there have been occasions, there have been 

reports that it has been the practice of DOJ at times to force violators to make certain payments to approved third parties as a condition of settlement. As a hypothetical, there have been discussions 

about whether or not a bank that was, again hypothetically, fined 

by the DOJ might see its penalties reduced if it made payments to 

a designated not-for-profit. 

When, if ever, is it appropriate for the Department of Justice to 

require payments to any third party as a part of a settlement? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is a very dubious practice. I 

would be cautious about it, and we would have to make sure it is 

justified. And normally that is not the best way to settle a case, 

in my opinion. 

Senator SASSE. And, finally, the Judgment Fund that the Department of Justice administers is a general fund that is available to 

compensate those who sue the Government and win. Unfortunately, how this money ultimately gets used is not fully known by 

the Congress. 

Will you commit to making public the use of these funds? 

Senator SESSIONS. The funds that are not paid out or funds that 

are paid out as part of a litigation? 

Senator SASSE. In the Judgment Fund, the Department has the 

discretion to determine how to settle these cases and what payments to make. But the Congress and the public often do not know 

where this money goes. 

Would you commit, as Attorney General, to being transparent 

with where the funds go out of the Judgment Fund? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would be surprised if it is not public, and it 

should be available to the public. They should know how a lawsuit 

is settled and where the money went, absolutely. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before Senator Blumenthal follows up on 

some things he wanted to, we received a letter in support of Senator Sessions’ nomination from 108 former U.S. Attorneys who 

served under every President since President Nixon. They say, ‘‘We 

have no doubt that Senator Sessions can do the job well, bringing 

to this critically important office his own unique and extraordinary 

strengths of courage, humility, experience, and an inviolable promise to treat all people equally under the law.’’ 

Without objection, I will insert that in the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Sessions, in response to one of Senator Tillis’ questions, 

you said that the job of the Attorney General is to do justice, not 
146 

necessarily to win a case. And I think that is almost an exact quote 

from Justice Jackson when he was United States Attorney General. 

It is one of my favorite quotes. I think he said the role of the 

United States Attorney or a Government lawyer is to do justice, not 

necessarily win a conviction. And that is why I feel that the role 

of Attorney General ought to be the legal conscience for the Nation, 

as I was remarking earlier. 

So I hope that you will reconsider what you have said about the 

DACA policies and assert an independent view based on the Nation’s conscience, or what it should be, about what has happened 

to those young people. Likewise, on issues like Deutsche Bank, 

which you and I have discussed privately, and where I think there 

ought to be an investigation focusing on individual culpability, and 

perhaps in some of these other investigations as well, where an 

independent counsel may be necessary; and, similarly, your response on recusal from votes on your prospective colleagues appointed by the President-elect where you have not yet responded to 

the letter that I wrote. 

I am not going to take more time this afternoon or tonight, but 

I think that I remain unsatisfied on those questions. And, in general, I think that the role that you would have as United States 

Attorney General ought to be not just another Government lawyer, 

but as a champion of civil rights and liberties and the Nation’s 

legal conscience. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this 

opportunity. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and I respect 

your history as a prosecutor and United States Attorney and time 

in the Department of Justice. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Sessions, you have been a vocal champion for American 

workers, especially as we have heard so much about how American 

workers are being laid off and replaced by cheaper foreign labor 

imported through some of our visa programs. You have been a cosponsor of a bill sponsored by me and Senator Durbin that would 

reform H–1B visa programs by ensuring that qualified American 

workers are considered for high-skilled job opportunities before 

those jobs can be offered to foreign nationals. It also would prohibit 

companies from hiring H–1B employees if they employ more than 

50 people and more than 50 percent of their employees are H–1B 

or L–1 visa holders. 

This provision would crack down on outsourcing companies that 

import a large number of H–1B and L–1 workers for short training 

periods and then send these workers back to their home countries 

to do the work of U.S. workers. 

In 2013, you and I seemed to be the lone Senators on this Committee who fought for U.S. workers. We argued that the Gang of 

Eight bill that would have increased the number of foreign workers 

who came in on H–1B visas and actually hurt Americans who were 

qualified and willing to do those jobs, we said that the bill failed 

to adequately protect U.S. workers and neglected to hold employers 

accountable for misusing the H–1B and L–1 visa programs. 

We tried to provide more protection for U.S. workers. We tried 

to ensure that no business imported foreign workers before making 
147 

a good faith effort to hire people at home. We tried to expand the 

ability for Government to audit employers. We offered amendments 

that were supported by the AFL–CIO. In April 2015, you helped 

lead eight other Senators in a letter to then-Attorney General 

Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, and Secretary of 

Labor Perez on this issue. Some of those who signed that letter sat 

on this panel today, for instance, Senator Durbin and Senator 

Blumenthal. That letter requested that the Obama administration 

investigate abuse of H–1B visa programs by companies, including 

Southern California Edison, Disney, and IBM, that have been laying off American workers and replacing them with H–1B workers, 

in some cases reportedly making the American workers train their 

own replacements. 

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair 

Employment Practices is an office within your Department that 

you will head. That enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. While the office is designed 

to protect foreign nationals with employment visas from discrimination, it is also charged with ensuring that American workers are 

not discriminated against in the workplace. 

Many U.S. worker advocates believe, for example, that the layoff 

of American workers and the replacement by cheaper, foreign H– 

1B workers constitutes de facto nationality-based discrimination 

against American workers. The Obama administration has failed to 

protect American workers here. 

This is my question: Will you be more aggressive in investigating 

the abuses of these visa programs? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe this has 

been abused, and I have been pleased to support your legislation, 

and some others’ too, that I believe could be helpful. It needs to be 

addressed. It is simply wrong to think that we are in a totally open 

world and that any American with a job can be replaced if somebody in the world is willing to take the job for less pay. We have 

borders. We have a commitment to our citizens. And you have been 

a champion of that. I have been honored to work with you on it. 

Thank you for your leadership. I would use such abilities that I 

have to help address that. 

I think it also does require legislation like you have offered—you 

and Senator Durbin. I believe legislation may be necessary to have 

the kind of reforms that we need. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I appreciate your answer. We will continue 

to push for the legislation. We have been very difficult moving that 

legislation along because of business oppositions within our country. So whatever you can do in regard to being more aggressive, investigating the abuses of our visa programs, will help solve some 

of the problems if we do not get legislation passed. But we still intend to pursue that. 

Now on another point, as you know, relationships between law 

enforcement and the communities they serve have been strained. 

You have already spoken to that in your opening comments. In 

many instances, police have been specifically targeted. 

Now tomorrow, it is my understanding, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police will testify about this issue. But I would also 

like to hear from you on this point. We obviously need to figure out 
148 

a way to fix these relationships and restore mutual trust and respect for law enforcement. 

What role can you play as Attorney General in this, and what 

role can the Department play more broadly? 

Senator SESSIONS. It is essential that this Nation support those 

that we send out to provide public safety and affirm their good 

deeds. If they make mistakes and commit crimes, then they have 

to be prosecuted like anyone else would who commits a crime and 

violates the law, but fundamentally, the overwhelming majority of 

our law officers are dedicated, faithful individuals, serving their 

country and their community with discipline and integrity and 

courage. 

So I think this is an important matter. We need to guard against 

the kind of public statements that have troubled me in recent 

months and years in which we seem to dismiss and take sides 

against the entire law enforcement community, where we suggest 

that the law enforcement community is not a positive factor, and 

that all officers are not performing at a high level. So, I believe 

that. I will do my duty to correctly distinguish between wrongdoing 

by individuals and the entire law enforcement community. 

Deaths of law enforcement officers are up 10 percent over the 

last year. The number of policemen and law officers who have been 

killed with a firearm is up, I think, 58 percent. Some stunning 

numbers, and part of this is a corrosion of respect between the 

communities and law officers. I think it is a dangerous trend we 

must reverse and reverse soon. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. My next question deals with agricultural 

antitrust. I do not believe that there should be political decisions 

involved in antitrust decisions in your Department. But there are 

several high-level agricultural mergers going on right now, one before DOJ, one before the FTC, and then there is another one I do 

not think has been assigned yet. I come from the standpoint of 

being in agriculture with a general—just a very, I guess ideological 

belief that when you have less companies, you have less competition, you have higher prices for inputs. That is in agriculture, but 

that would be true of any segment of the economy. 

I also—before I ask this question—want to make a point that I 

do not think there are enough people in the Department of Justice 

that know much about farming. And one time, maybe 10, 15 years 

ago, I got some administration—I do not know if it was a Clinton 

one or the Bush one—to say they were going to have somebody in 

the Antitrust Department that knew something about agriculture, 

and I think they did put somebody there. I do not know whether 

that person is still there or not. 

So this is my question: I am concerned about increased consolidation and possible anticompetitive business practices in the agricultural industry. Currently, the Antitrust Division is reviewing several significant mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector. 

Do I have your commitment that the Justice Department will 

pay close attention to agribusiness, competition matters, and carefully scrutinize proposed agriculture mergers and acquisitions, and 

can you assure me that the agricultural antitrust issues will be a 

priority for the Justice Department if you are confirmed as U.S. Attorney General? 
149 

Senator SESSIONS. There has been controversy on a number of 

those issues over the years that I am, generally, aware of. Without 

committing and commenting on any particular case, I will, Senator 

Grassley, be pleased to honor your request. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. In 1986, 10 years before you came to the 

United States Senate, I got the False Claims Act passed. It has 

brought 53 billion dollars back into the Federal Treasury since 

then. 

If you are confirmed, will you pledge to vigorously enforce the 

False Claims Act and devote adequate resources to investigating 

and prosecuting False Claims Act cases? 

Senator SESSIONS. Qui tam provisions are a valid and effective 

method of rooting out fraud and abuse. I even filed one myself one 

time as a private lawyer. So these are important issues that you 

have been a leader on. It has saved this country lots of money and 

probably has caused companies to be more cautious because they 

could have a whistleblower that would blow the whistle on them 

if they try to do something that is improper. So I think it has been 

a very healthy thing. You are to be congratulated for that, and I 

do support that act. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You took care of my second question I was 

going to ask you on qui tam. And you said that whistleblowers are 

very important. I am glad to hear you say that. I do not know 

whether they get enough support. I hope you give priority to that, 

because a great number of the qui tam places come from the outside, not from the inside. 

Will you provide Congress with regular—this is the last point on 

this one. Will you provide Congress with regular timely updates on 

the status of FCT, False Claims Act cases, including statistics as 

to how many are under seal and the average length of seal time? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would do that. My experience has been that 

they take an awfully long time. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. That is exactly why I am asking the question. And updates from time to time, I think, will keep people within your Department more responsive and responsible. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. I do not know if a report 

is required now, but I do not see why it would be particularly difficult to provide that to you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. I have a long lead-in to another 

question. I am just going to ask you if you would tell us, for the 

record, your reasons for opposing the 2013 Immigration Bill. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, I believe that 

it would not end the lawlessness, and it would grant amnesty. That 

is the position that fundamentally caused you concern, because in 

1986, there was an amnesty given and a promise of enforcement 

in the future. And it did not happen. 

So, instead of 3 million people, the estimates are that we now 

have 11 million people here unlawfully. This is not the kind of policy a great nation must have. We need to have a lawful system that 

we can be proud of, that the world knows works, that people stop 

coming illegally because they do not think they will be successful 

in the attempt, and we could see a dramatic reduction in illegality 

and we could all be pleased to see that result occur. We will have 

to call on Congress to help some. 
150 

You understand the issue, and you have been supportive, but we 

may have to pass some legislation. Not a lot can be done with current law, but I would love to be part of an effort with this Committee to restore the immigration system to the high level at which 

it ought to be. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I want to return to the issue of Violence 

Against Women Act. I know that for me, that bill did not do 

enough to fight fraud and abuse. That is why I introduced a substitute amendment that would have given more money to victims 

by fighting fraud and abuse that was discovered in the program. 

It would have ensured that no money under the program was used 

to lobby Congress. It also would have had limited the amount of 

funding in the program that could be used for administrative fees 

and salaries. 

In addition, my substitute amendment developed harsher penalties for Federal conviction of forcible rape, which the bill that 

passed weakened. It also addressed child pornography, and aggravated sexual assault, neither of which were addressed in the bill 

that is now law. Finally, my substitute amendment combatted 

fraud in the award of U visas to ensure true victims were protected. 

My question, as you mentioned, you voted for my substitute 

amendment that was stronger in many respects than the bill that 

was passed: Will you enforce the law that was passed? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. That is probably the tenth time you answered that today, but thank you for being with me. 

I want to speak about the Board of Immigration Appeals. It is 

the highest administrative body for interpreting immigration laws, 

hearing appeals rendered by immigration judges. This Board, 

which is under the Attorney General’s purview, has published some 

very problematic precedent decisions the past several years. The 

Board of Immigration Appeals decisions are binding on all immigration officers, including Homeland Security Officers and Immigration Judges unless overturned by the position you are seeking 

or a Federal court. 

Will you, or someone on your team, commit to taking a hard look 

at all precedent decisions made by this Board? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, that does appear to be a power 

or an ability of the Attorney General which I have not thoroughly 

studied. Any changes would need to be carefully done, and thought 

out in a principled and honorable way. I would do that, and if 

changes need to occur, and I have the ability to do it, I will try to 

conduct myself properly in making those changes. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Two more points. Oversight by Congress is 

important. You have already said that. I am glad you know the necessity of that. But Congress cannot do all the oversight needed on 

its own. We need to rely on strong Inspectors General to provide 

another independent assessment on the operations within the executive branch. That is why that position was set up in 1979, I believe. 

Do you agree that independence is the hallmark of an Inspector 

General’s integrity and effectiveness and if you do, please elaborate. The reason I ask the question is, probably it happens in more 
151 

departments, but I pay a lot of attention to DOJ, and I think there 

has been some problems within DOJ of recognizing and cooperating 

with the independence of the Inspector General. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, that independence should be respected 

and should be had. I am familiar with some cases in which the 

independence of the Inspector General is less than that, in general, 

throughout the Congress, and I have been willing and interested in 

strengthening their independence. 

It is a challenge. The Inspector General is appointed by the agencies for the most part, I believe. But if they are not seen as independent, then they cannot be the effective body that we would like 

them to be. They have staffs. They have the ability to contribute 

to saving money. I believe in the Inspector General’s process. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Before I ask the last question, whatever 

reputation I have for investigation and oversight, probably, maybe 

even 90 percent of the leads we get come from whistleblowers. And 

whistleblowers within an agency are generally treated like skunks 

at a picnic. I hope that—I do not know how many thousands or 

tens of thousands of employees you are going to be administering 

over. You cannot possibly know what goes on with all those employees. I hope you will give encouragement to whistleblowing, and 

that you will listen to them. 

Once in a while you have a crank, but for the most part, these 

are just patriotic people that want the Government to do what the 

Government is supposed to do, or spend money the way the Government is supposed to spend it. And then when they do not get 

anything going up the chain of command, that is when they become 

whistleblowers and they come to us. And by that time, even if they 

are protected under law, they still ruin themselves professionally. 

So I hope that you see them as a source, so you can administer a 

better Department and do what the Government is supposed to do. 

In regard to that, I would appreciate it if you would provide Congress with accurate and timely information regarding any action 

taken, administrative or criminal, against individuals who retaliate 

against whistleblowers because it is against the law to retaliate. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are correct about that. And it is not acceptable to retaliate against a whistleblower. Some have been 

known to be cranks, as you indicated, but you cannot effectively 

manage this Government without good citizens and good employees 

speaking up when they see wrongdoing. You have established a 

reputation as someone willing to receive that information and act 

on it and then defend the individual who had the courage to come 

forward. We need more of that in this Government. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I thank you very much. I would like to 

have you and other people listen to a couple of points I want to 

make at the tail end. 

I want people to know that we will keep the record open until 

Monday for questions, and you know what to do with those when 

you get them. 

I want to thank everybody who participated, including those in 

the audience, but most importantly, thank you for your testimony 

today, and for answering our questions, and doing it very thoughtfully and very thoroughly. You performed, I think, admirably, and 

showed this entire country what we all know from serving with 
152 

you. You are eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General, and 

I have every confidence that you are going to do a superb job. 

Senator Sessions, you are excused. We will reconvene tomorrow 

morning at 9:30 for Panel II. 

[Whereupon, at 8:02 p.m., the Committee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 11, 2017.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1 follows 

Day 2 of the hearing.] 
(153) 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS 

TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 

SR–325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Grassley, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Grassley, Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, 

Flake, Tillis, Sasse, Crapo, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, and Hirono. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Good morning, everybody. I welcome everyone back for our second day of the hearing on Senator Sessions’ 

nomination for Attorney General. As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the views of others behind them, or if they 

speak out of turn, it is not fair or considerate to others, so officers 

will remove individuals, as they have previously. 

Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I want 

to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how we are 

going to proceed today. 

Senator Whitehouse will be acting as Ranking Member today, 

and I will give an opening statement, and he can if he wants to 

as well. I welcome that. Then we will turn to our witnesses for 

their opening statements. Following their statements, we will begin 

with the first round of questions in which each Senator will have 

7 minutes. After we finish asking questions of the first panel, we 

will turn to the final panel for their testimony. And in regard to 

the timing of that, it will kind of depend upon when this panel is 

completed. But if we get this panel completed, let us say, around 

lunch or 12:30 or 1 o’clock, we may adjourn for an hour or so at 

that time. But I will not be able to make that determination until 

we finish here with this panel. 

Yesterday, we met here from 9:30 until about 8 p.m. so that 

every Senator, both Democrat and Republican, could ask Senator 

Sessions as many questions as they wanted to. We had great co-
154 

operation yesterday, and I should thank everybody for that cooperation, and we will press ahead today. 

We heard from Senators Shelby and Collins who gave their 

strong endorsement of Senator Sessions. Their introductions described Senator Sessions’ extensive experience, outstanding qualifications, and character. 

I also want to note that yesterday Senator Feinstein participated 

in her first nomination hearing as the new Ranking Member. I am 

looking forward to working with her in her new capacity, as I said 

yesterday. 

In her opening statement yesterday, Senator Feinstein correctly 

observed, and I would like to quote, a fairly long quote: ‘‘Today we 

are not being asked to evaluate him’’—meaning Senator Sessions— 

‘‘as a Senator. We are being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney 

General of the United States—the chief law enforcement for the 

largest and best democracy in America.’’ She continued, ‘‘As Attorney General, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs. Rather, 

the job of Attorney General is to enforce Federal law, even if he 

voted against a law, even if he spoke against it before it passed, 

even if he disagrees with the precedent saying that the law is constitutional.’’ Then she concluded, ‘‘This hearing must determine 

whether this Senator will enforce the laws that he voted against.’’ 

And yesterday, through 101⁄2 hours of testimony, we got a clear 

and unequivocal answer to this threshold question. He was asked 

repeatedly if he would enforce the law, even if he disagreed with 

that law as a matter of policy. 

Time and again, Senator Sessions reaffirmed his commitment to 

this fundamental principle. As Attorney General of the United 

States, his solemn duties, as we all know and expect, are to the 

Constitution and to enforce the laws duly enacted. His fundamental 

commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central theme of our 

discussion yesterday. And as I made clear in my opening statement, that is what I believe the Department desperately needs. 

Yesterday’s testimony further convinced me that Senator Sessions is the right choice to serve as our Nation’s chief law enforcement officer at this critical time. We know that he is very well 

qualified for the position, having served for 15 years as a prosecutor and now 20 years as a Senator, so that is three decades of 

public service. 

We all know Senator Sessions will be up front with you. When 

he says that he is going to do something, he will do it. Senator Sessions will be an independent Attorney General, as he has been 

asked so many times yesterday and about his enforcement of the 

law. That is the bottom line. 

I now turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. Let me 

just make some very brief remarks. 

First, I cannot help but note, as a general proposition, hearing 

after hearing, the effort to push nominees into confirmation hearings before their FBI background checks are complete, before their 

ethics and financial disclosure filings are concluded, and I would 
155 

like to put into the record of this hearing the letter that Senator 

Schumer, Minority Leader Schumer, wrote to Majority Leader 

McConnell in which he took a letter that Majority Leader McConnell had written to—Minority Leader McConnell had written to 

Majority Leader Reid and simply changed the names. He wrote 

‘‘Dear Mitch’’ in place of ‘‘Dear Harry,’’ and he signed his own name 

at the bottom. And it was, thus, a verbatim letter, and what we 

have been asking for is exactly what Republicans have asked for 

over and over again, what has long been the tradition of the Senate. 

It is not the Senate’s fault that the Trump administration was 

not prepared and that it did not have its nominees vetted in place. 

I know that Senator Sessions has been one of the nominees who 

has been prepared, but I cannot help but point out that across the 

board, the ramming of unvetted nominees, the stacking of hearings 

on top of hearings, and the jamming of all of this up against an 

unprecedented vote-a-rama for a no-hearing budget creates, I 

think, an unfortunate new precedent in the Senate. 

The point that I will make about the Department of Justice, as 

somebody who has served in the Department of Justice, like many 

of my colleagues or a number of my colleagues, is that I think there 

is legitimate concern based on the hectoring in the right-wing 

groups for a general housecleaning of career staff and for a particular targeting of named career staff. As I mentioned in my questioning yesterday, one of the Heritage Foundation spokespeople 

made the comparison to the Augean stables and ‘‘filth’’ as having 

to be washed out of the Augean stables. I do not think it is fair 

to characterize the career employees of the United States Department of Justice as ‘‘filth,’’ nor do I think it is proper to assert that 

this should not be secular. And I think it is a matter of concern 

when an Attorney General thinks that a secular attorney may have 

a lesser or a different appreciation of truth than a religious attorney. Particularly coming from Rhode Island, where freedom of conscience has been such a principle of core value since the days of 

Roger Williams when Providence was a tiny settlement in the wilderness where people who thought freely were able to get away 

from the theocracy of Massachusetts, we have a long history of concern about that kind of evaluation of career department professionals. 

Finally, I would say that after a very divisive campaign that left 

a lot of Americans and a lot of communities feeling very wounded 

and very vulnerable and very set upon, and after a promise that 

he would be President for all Americans over and over and over 

and over again, we are seeing an array of Cabinet nominees who 

run far to the right and, frankly, in many cases come out of the 

swamp that the President-elect promised to drain. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the, I think, thoughtful and 

fair way in which you have run this hearing. I thought that Senator Sessions handled himself very well by staying until all the 

questions were answered. I appreciate the procedure that you have 

gone through, but I did want to make a record of those concerns 

from our side about the larger process in which these nominations 

hearings are taking place. 

And with that, I yield back to you, sir. 
156 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Before we swear witnesses and I introduce them, I promised Senator Coons a point of personal privilege on one of the nominations. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had asked for the 

opportunity to introduce my friend and colleague from law school, 

Cornell Brooks, but I am perfectly happy to wait to do so until 

there are other introductions afoot or to do it right now. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I would rather have you do it now, if you 

would, please. 

Senator COONS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce Dr. Cornell Brooks, the president and 

CEO of the NAACP as one of our many witnesses on this distinguished panel here today. Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that Americans truly enjoy the promise of equal 

protection of the law. 

Before assuming leadership of the NAACP in 2014, he was head 

of the Newark, New Jersey-based Institute for Social Justice, and 

fittingly for a hearing on the nominee to lead the Department of 

Justice, his early experience was being a part of the Department 

of Justice as a trial attorney, where he secured the then-largest 

Government settlement for victims of housing discrimination and 

filed the Government’s first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. 

He was also executive director of the Fair Housing Council of 

Greater Washington, a trial attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee 

for Civil Rights Under Law, and a law clerk to the Honorable Samuel J. Ervin, III, on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

He is a fellow alum of Yale Law School, holds a Master of Divinity 

degree from Boston University School of Theology. He is not just 

a lawyer and social advocate but a fourth-generation ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a husband, and 

father of two sons. 

Mr. Brooks, thank you for your leadership in the work of justice 

around our Nation, and I look forward to your testimony here 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. You bet. 

I am going to ask you to stand and swear you in before I introduce you. Would you raise your right hand? Do you affirm that the 

testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I do. 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. I do. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I do. 

Ms. SWADHIN. I do. 

Ms. SEPICH. I do. 

Mr. BROOKS. I do. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I do. 

Mr. COLE. I do. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Okay. I notice that all of you have affirmed 

that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. 

The 81st Attorney General of the United States was the Honorable Michael Mukasey. Mr. Mukasey has also served as a U.S. At-
157 

torney and a district court judge in the Southern District of New 

York. We thank him for coming. 

Our second witness is Oscar Vazquez. He became a citizen of the 

United States in 2011 and served honorably in Afghanistan with 

the U.S. Army. We welcome you and thank you, obviously, for your 

military service. 

Our next witness, Peter Kirsanow, is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is very familiar with this Committee, 

and we are familiar with you. Thank you for coming. 

Next is Amita Swadhin. She is a sexual assault survivor and cofounder of Mirror Memoirs. I hope I am right on that. Welcome to 

you. 

Then we have Jayann Sepich, the mother of Katie Sepich. She 

is the founder of Surviving Parents Coalition. 

Our next witness, Cornell Brooks, you have heard introduced, 

but let me further say that he is president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and he is well known 

to us as well. Thank you for being here today. 

Chuck Canterbury is the national president of the Fraternal 

Order of Police. He is familiar to a lot of us as well, so we welcome 

you. 

Next we will hear from David Cole, national legal director of the 

American Civil Liberties Union. He is also a professor at the 

Georgetown Law Center. We welcome you. 

And, finally, we will hear from Larry Thompson. He served as 

Deputy Attorney General under President Bush, as a well-known 

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and welcome 

back to the Committee, Mr. Thompson. 

So I think we will start with Mr. Mukasey, and we are going to 

hear testimony from all of you, and then we will have questions, 

as I indicated, 7-minute rounds. So proceed, will you, General 

Mukasey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. MUKASEY. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member 

Whitehouse, Members of the Committee. This is one of those occasions that is both an honor and a pleasure: an honor to appear before this Committee and a pleasure to speak to the qualifications 

of Senator Sessions to serve as Attorney General. 

I have submitted a statement to the Committee, and I am happy 

to answer any questions relating to it or to any other subject that 

the Committee thinks is relevant to passing on the qualifications 

of Senator Sessions. But, of course, I am here for the convenience 

of the Committee, not simply to orate. And after watching yesterday’s hearing and Senator Sessions’ responses to the Committee’s 

questions, I think the only thing I have to add to what I have already submitted at this point is to say that the person you saw and 

heard yesterday is very much the person I came to know beginning 

in 2007 when I first appeared before this Committee: principled, intelligent, knowledgeable, thorough, modest, and thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and to the mission of the Department, 

which is to enforce the law and to preserve our freedoms. 
158 

So I thank you very much for hearing me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mukasey appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Does that complete your testimony? 

Mr. MUKASEY. It does. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Now, Sergeant Vazquez, thank you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, 

U.S. ARMY VETERAN, FORT WORTH, TEXAS 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member 

Whitehouse, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

Committee. My name is Oscar Vazquez, and I am proud to be an 

American. 

I was born in a small town in Mexico. I was 12 years old when 

my mother and I boarded a bus for the border. Although I did not 

make the choice to come to America, this country quickly became 

my home. As soon as we were settled in America, my parents made 

sure that I was enrolled in school because they wanted me to understand the value of education. It was at this point that I started 

to develop a passion for math and science since the formulas and 

equations transcended the language barrier. 

In high school, I joined the JROTC program where my two instructors were Vietnam veterans. They taught us the value of selfless service, whether you were able to provide it in the military or 

not. They wanted us to be better Americans. I loved the order and 

discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC Officer of the 

Year. During my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the ‘‘Band 

of Brothers’’ miniseries, and I knew then I wanted to join the 

Army. But when I met with a recruiter, I was told that I could not 

enlist because I was undocumented. I left that meeting not knowing what to do or what was next. I was devastated. 

I knew I had to figure out what else I could do with my life. At 

the beginning of my senior year, I joined the robotics club. Our 

team of undocumented students entered a NASA-sponsored national competition, and we designed an underwater robot, which we 

named ‘‘Stinky.’’ Beyond our wildest dreams, my high school team 

won the grand prize for the competition against some of the country’s top technical universities. 

Winning the competition was proof that we as DREAMers had 

something to offer to the country we always considered our home. 

Although I could not contribute to my country by joining the military, I enrolled at Arizona State University and decided I could 

contribute by becoming an engineer. 

In 2005, I married my wife, Karla, a U.S. citizen. She started the 

process of petitioning for my legal status, but as is the case with 

many DREAMers, there were enormous legal obstacles and substantial risks. 

While I was a student at Arizona State, the Arizona Legislature 

passed a law prohibiting undocumented students from receiving inState financial aid and paying in-State tuition. Even though Arizona had been my home for many years and I was married to a 

U.S. citizen, I was treated like an outsider. The law tripled my tuition, but through private scholarships and by working construction, 
159 

I scraped the money together to pay for college and support my 

family. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in mechanical engineering. 

This was 3 years before the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established, so even though I had a STEM degree and 

there were jobs available, no one would hire me in this field because I did not have legal status. 

In 2010, after completing a legal process that involved substantial hardship to my family, I was able to get a green card. Having 

legal resident status changed my life. I was able to get a driver’s 

license, travel freely within the United States, and pursue my career in engineering. The biggest change that I noticed was the fear. 

I was no longer afraid of being deported or being forcibly separated 

from my family. I could also pursue my dream of joining the military and become a paratrooper. I enlisted in the United States 

Army and started basic training in February 2011. I wanted to 

fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country was 

not enough. I wanted to let my actions speak for themselves. 

Shortly before I finished basic training, I became a U.S. citizen. 

A couple of weeks later, I found myself jumping out of a C–130 flying over Fort Benning, Georgia. And a couple of months after that, 

I was deployed to Afghanistan. I looked forward to combat because 

I wanted to protect the United States. Serving in the Army allowed 

me to contribute more fully to this country and make it safer. I was 

following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have 

proudly served the United States. In Afghanistan, I fought side by 

side with my Army brothers. We wore the same uniform with the 

U.S. flag on the same shoulder. It mattered more that we were 

willing to die for each other and for our country than where we 

came from. 

To this day, I remember how I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put my life on the line for my brothers and for 

my country, and I felt really proud to be an American. I felt then 

for the first time that no one could again question whether I am 

an American. It has been a great honor to serve my country. 

My son, Oskar Maximus, is 4 years old and in preschool. My 

daughter, Samantha, is 8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of Fort Worth, Texas, where I volunteer at two different high 

schools in their respective robotics programs. I feel that my family 

is living the American dream. But I want to continue serving my 

country, and I will soon join the Army Reserve. 

I think now about all the doors that were unlocked for me when 

I gained lawful permanent residence—the ability to get the job of 

my dreams, provide for my family, and live without fear. I cannot 

imagine what it would be like to have that taken away from me 

today. I also cannot imagine what it is like today for my former 

teammates and the nearly hundred thousand DACA recipients who 

do not have a legal status and who are afraid of what could happen 

to them in a matter of days. Of course, DACA is only a temporary 

solution, and now even that is at risk. 

I hope that you will not view my story as that of someone exceptional; rather, I am where I am today because of the many great 

people that have believed in me and have given me a chance. 
160 

I also want to acknowledge that most DREAMers and most undocumented immigrants do not have a path to legal status right 

now. I wanted to come here today because our country’s top law enforcement officer must be someone who understands that immigrants make our country stronger. Most Americans agree that it is 

not right to deport someone who was brought here as a child and 

deport them to a country they might not even remember. We need 

an Attorney General who will protect the American people from 

those who would do us harm, but who will also show mercy to 

those who deserve it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Sergeant Vazquez appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Sergeant. 

Now, Mr. Kirsanow. Have you pushed the red button or whatever 

color the button is? 

STATEMENT OF PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, CLEVELAND, OHIO 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Members of the Committee. I am Peter 

Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and 

a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of 

Benesch, Friedlander. I am here in my personal capacity. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established pursuant 

to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to, among other things, act as the national clearinghouse for matters pertaining to denials of equal protection, discrimination, and voting rights, and in furtherance of 

that clearinghouse function, my assistant and I reviewed the bills 

sponsored and cosponsored by Senator Sessions in his tenure in the 

Senate, as well as his public activities and actions that are at least 

arguably related to civil rights. 

Our examination found that Senator Sessions’ approach to civil 

rights matters both in terms of his legislative record and his other 

actions is consistent with mainstream textual interpretation of relevant statutory and constitutional authority, as well as governing 

precedent. 

Our exam also reveals that Senator Sessions’ approach to civil 

rights is consistent, is legally sound, intellectually honest, and has 

an appreciation and understanding of the historical bases for civil 

rights laws. And our examination found that several aspects of 

Senator Sessions’ record, unfortunately, have been mischaracterized and distorted to portray him as somehow being indifferent if 

not hostile to civil rights. 

The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things—and 

this is probably least consequential—Senator Sessions has sponsored or cosponsored a plethora of bills honoring significant civil 

rights leaders, events, icons, such as Reverend Martin Luther King, 

Jr., Coretta Scott King, Reverend Shuttlesworth’s fight against segregation, three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks, a Senate apology to the descendants of victims of lynching, a bill to honor participants in the Selma Voting Rights March, a bill to honor the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, and on and on 
161 

and on. But Senator Sessions’ commitment to civil rights transcends simple resolutions in support of civil rights. He has authored, cosponsored, or sponsored a number of bills to protect and 

enhance voting rights, such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 

2001, the Voter Fraud Protection Act of 2009, a number of bills to 

protect and enhance the voting rights of servicemembers, particularly those serving overseas. 

He is a strong proponent of religious liberty, having sponsored or 

cosponsored several bills to prevent discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent the Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of a person’s religious beliefs. But 

in our estimation, his most profound and important impact is on 

preserving and protecting the rights of American workers, particularly Black workers. 

The employment and wage levels of Black workers in America 

have been abysmal for several decades. The labor force participation rate for Black males is 61.8 percent and falling. The unemployment rate for Black males is nearly double that of White males. 

Evidence adduced before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

shows that 40 percent of the 18-point decline in Black employment 

levels is attributable to Government failure or refusal to enforce existing immigration laws, and this has a cascade effect by increasing 

the competition within the unskilled and low-skilled marketplace, 

driving out Black workers, slashing wages, particularly among 

Black males. And this has resulted in hundreds of thousands if not 

slightly over a million Blacks having lost their jobs directly due to 

this phenomenon. And it has broader sociological implications as 

well related to incarceration and family formation rates. 

No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Jeff 

Sessions in protecting and enhancing the prospects of Black workers in America. But for his indefatigable efforts in this regard, the 

plight of Black workers now and in the immediate future, in the 

foreseeable future would be demonstrably worse. His leadership on 

this matter and his leadership on the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest has been key to forestalling an even 

deeper downward trajectory for Black workers in this country. 

I will conclude, Mr. Chair, by simply respectfully offering that 

his record on civil rights legislation, his actions as a U.S. Attorney 

and State Attorney demonstrate an unwavering commitment to 

equal protection under the law and a genuine fidelity to the rule 

of law that should make him an outstanding Attorney General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirsanow appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Swadhin. 

STATEMENT OF AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, 

MIRROR MEMOIRS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SWADHIN. Good morning. My name is Amita Swadhin. I am 

a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in Ohio to two immigrants from India and raised in New Jersey. And I am grateful to 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Members of 

the Committee for the opportunity to be here today. 
162 

In October, hot mic tapes were released of President-elect Trump 

describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the genitals. In the wake of these comments becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating he does not characterize that behavior as 

sexual assault. 

Millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered in the wake 

of these events. I was one of those survivors. My father raped me 

at least once a week from age 4 to age 12. I endured psychological, 

verbal, and physical abuse from him for years. I also grew up 

watching my father abuse my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape. 

When I disclosed the sexual abuse to my mother at age 13, she 

called a therapist, engaging mandated reporting. The prosecutor 

threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit. They told 

me I would be harshly cross-examined by the defense attorney and 

did not connect me to any victim support services. I was too afraid 

to tell them my story. My father received 5 years’ probation and 

no jail time, and his violence continued for 2 years until my mother 

finally found the support to leave him. 

I am here today on behalf of rape and sexual assault survivors 

to urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as Attorney General. 

As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people have 

downplayed the impact of this violence on my present-day life. I 

live with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and struggle every 

day to be well. It directly and negatively impacts me when people 

minimize sexual assault. So to hear Senator Sessions initially say 

President-elect Trump’s comments do not constitute sexual assault 

and then to consider him leading the Department of Justice has 

been incredibly worrisome. 

I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. More than 

320,000 Americans over age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted 

every year. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually 

abused before age 18. These are public health issues occurring in 

the private sphere. In 80 percent of adult sexual assaults and 90 

percent of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust our 

perpetrators. For this reason, most victims of violent crime never 

seek healing or accountability from the State. Most violent crimes 

remain unreported. 

Thankfully, we have improved the response of the criminal justice system with the creation of the Violence Against Women Act 

in 1994. The STOP Formula Grants under VAWA provide training 

to judges, prosecutors, police officers, and other law enforcement 

personnel to better support survivors. In 1991, the police did not 

contact victim services for me, but today, thanks to VAWA, law enforcement is encouraged to provide victims an advocate to support 

them in breaking their silence. 

Yet despite this progress, rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence still happen at epidemic rates, and survivors at the intersections of oppression are especially vulnerable. LGBT people and particularly transgender women of color are disproportionately victimized. One in two transgender people will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 

Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims are 

transgender women. In fact, only 11 days into the new year, two 
163 

transgender women of color have already been murdered: Mesha 

Caldwell, an African-American transgender woman from Mississippi; and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow, a two-spirit Oglala 

Lakota woman from South Dakota. 

We need an Attorney General who is committed to improving 

and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of 

crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing. Time and again, Senator Sessions’ voting record has shown us 

he is not the man for the job. Despite his claim to be a champion 

for victims of violent crime, he has not been a friend to vulnerable 

survivors. While Senator Sessions voted in favor of the Violence 

Against Women Act in the bill’s early years, when VAWA was expanded in 2013 to ensure LGBT, immigrant, and Tribal populations of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are protected and have access to services, Senator Sessions voted against 

the bill. 

We must trust the Attorney General to enforce and apply our 

laws fairly per our Constitution’s provisions on equal protection. 

We must trust the Attorney General to respect the humanity of all 

Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for 

our most vulnerable victims of crime. Given his voting record on 

VAWA and on LGBT rights, we have no reason to put our faith or 

our trust in Senator Sessions as Attorney General. 

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that members of the National 

Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including, but 

not limited to, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 

the YWCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, UGEMA, the 

National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National 

Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, and Jewish 

Women International oppose Senator Sessions’ nomination because 

of the issues I am raising today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Swadhin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. 

And now we will go to Ms. Sepich. 

STATEMENT OF JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, 

DNA SAVES, CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO 

Ms. SEPICH. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Members of the Committee. My name is 

Jayann Sepich, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. 

In 2003, my daughter Katie, a vivacious 22-year-old graduate 

student, was brutally raped, murdered, and set on fire. It is never 

easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror of losing our daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. 

No suspects emerged in Katie’s case, but Katie fought for her 

life, and underneath her fingernails were found the blood and skin 

of her attacker, and a DNA profile was extracted and uploaded into 

the national forensic DNA database called ‘‘CODIS.’’ I made the 

comment to investigators that the man who had killed Katie was 
164 

such a monster that surely he would be arrested for another crime, 

his cheek would be swabbed, and we would soon know his identity, 

and he would not be able to harm another young woman. That is 

when I learned it was not legal in New Mexico, my home State, or 

in most States to take DNA at the time of a felony arrest. It could 

only be taken after conviction. 

I was stunned. We do not use DNA to accurately identify persons 

arrested for serious crimes? We release them from law enforcement 

custody without a check of the DNA database for a possible match 

to other unsolved crimes? We collect fingerprints, mug shots, and 

check what other crimes a person may have been involved in, but 

we do not collect DNA? 

After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the 

collection of DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the nonprofit association DNA Saves. We know we cannot bring Katie 

back, but we absolutely believe that we may be able to prevent new 

crimes—prevent this horrible pain from being visited on other families—by advocating for laws that allow for the collection of DNA 

from persons arrested for serious crimes. 

To date, 30 State legislatures and the U.S. Congress have enacted laws requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these 

laws, ruling that taking DNA at the time of booking for a felony 

arrest is ‘‘a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable 

under the Fourth Amendment.’’ Senator Sessions helped craft the 

legislative language that became the DNA Fingerprint Act to provide Federal authorities with the authorization to collect DNA from 

arrestees. 

In 2008, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as an 

original cosponsor, introduced the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA 

Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. This Federal law provides additional funding, through the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 

Elimination Act, to those States that have enacted laws to expand 

their databases. Once again, as the Judiciary Committee’s Ranking 

Member during that time in which this legislation was pending, 

Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping us to craft a 

bill that would gain bipartisan support and eventually passed Congress unanimously. 

As a result of stronger State and Federal DNA database laws, we 

have seen many heinous criminals identified through arrestee DNA 

testing. My home State of New Mexico has seen over 1,200 cases 

matched. California is seeing ten cases matched every day on their 

DNA database. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one of the most successful programs in the country, and they 

credit Senator Sessions for much of the success largely due to the 

support he has provided from the outset of the State’s forensic 

DNA program during his term as Alabama Attorney General. Alabama has utilized the DNA database to solve over 6,500 previously 

unsolved cases. 

In Katie’s case, after more than 3 long years, DNA finally identified Gabriel Avila as Katie’s killer. But he would have been identified after only 3 months if law enforcement had been permitted to 

collect DNA at arrest. 
165 

Over the past 11 years, our family has worked to change DNA 

laws across the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of 

both parties. We have also seen opposition from both Republicans 

and Democrats. Forensic DNA is a very complex issue, and it is vitally important that policymakers take the time to fully understand 

these complexities in a truly nonpartisan manner. 

Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he 

has stood in strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He knows that when a 

DNA match is made on CODIS, it is completely blind to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. DNA is truth. It is science. 

Senator Sessions said in a 2002 floor speech, ‘‘We are spending 

only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an 

honest and effective way. As a result, justice is being delayed, and 

justice delayed is justice denied.’’ 

I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to the philosophy 

that it is the core responsibility of our Government to protect public safety. He cares about victims. He has been a leader on 

forensics policy for years and consistently has supported vital funding for DNA. 

In conclusion, our lives were shattered when our daughter was 

brutally murdered. We know intimately the pain that violent crime 

brings to families. Senator Sessions has shown he understands the 

pain of victims and has put that understanding into action to help 

make changes that will make a difference. Senator Sessions will 

provide strong leadership to the United States Department of Justice, and I hope you will support his nomination for Attorney General. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sepich appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Ms. Sepich. 

Now, Mr. Brooks. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, BALTIMORE, 

MARYLAND 

Mr. BROOKS. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and esteemed Senators of this Committee. My 

name is Cornell William Brooks. I serve as president and CEO of 

the NAACP. I greatly appreciate the invitation to testify before you 

today and to express the deep concerns of the NAACP regarding 

the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to be U.S. Attorney 

General. 

As you well know, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Particularly for such a time as 

this, with racial divisions deepening, hate crimes rising from sanctuaries to schoolyards, with State-imposed, racially motivated voter 

suppression spreading in State legislatures, as well as being struck 

down in Federal courts, with police-involved shootings reduced to 

hashtag #homicides and viralized videos, it is critical that this 

Committee closely examine Senator Sessions’ entire record as a 
166 

prosecutor and as a legislator to determine whether he is fit to 

serve as the chief enforcer of our Nation’s civil rights laws. 

Based upon a review of the record, the NAACP firmly believes 

that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as Attorney General. Accordingly, representing multiple civil rights and human rights coalitions, we urge this Committee not to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. As our written testimony details, Senator 

Sessions’ record reveals a consistent disregard for civil and human 

rights of vulnerable populations, including African Americans, 

Latinos, women, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBT 

community, and others. Further, his Senate voting record reflects 

a fundamental disregard for many of the Department of Justice’s 

programs which are vital for the protection of Americans. 

Senator Sessions’ votes against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act 

of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009 and the Violence Against 

Women Act in 2012 and 2013 demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern regarding violent crimes: rape, assault, murder committed 

against minorities, and an American majority—women. These 

crimes in particular make victims of individuals as well as the 

groups to which they belong and the American values we cling to. 

His opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act indicates a 

hostility to the claims of employment discrimination and more specifically to allowing legal redress for pay discrimination against 

women. 

His consistent opposition to any meaningful gun controls shows 

an unwillingness to stand up to the firearms lobby and a lack of 

concern regarding the destructive impact of gun violence on our 

children and communities. 

His failure to condemn the President-elect’s call for an unconscionable and unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants as well 

as his opposition to a Senate resolution condemning a Governmentimposed litmus test on a global religion evidences an unwillingness 

to protect the rights of the vulnerable and the unpopular, which is 

something an Attorney General must do. 

His call for the re-evaluation of a basic constitutional principle, 

that persons born in this country are citizens of this country, reflects a form of an unconstitutional xenophobia that is fundamentally inconsistent with the duty of the Attorney General to protect 

the rights of all Americans. 

His calling into question the legitimacy of consent decrees causes 

us to question whether he will use this powerful tool to hold accountable police departments such as Ferguson that engaged in 

predatory policing and a pattern and practice of discrimination. 

With his consistent support for mandatory minimums as a prosecutor and a legislator, he stands in opposition to bipartisan efforts 

to bring to an end this ugly era of mass incarceration, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, with overpopulated prisons and jails, 

and depopulated families and communities. 

It is Senator Sessions’ record on voting rights, however, that is 

perhaps the most troubling. As this Committee is well aware, the 

infamous Marion Three case in which civil rights activists were 

prosecuted by then-U.S. Attorney Sessions for voter fraud, all of 

whom were acquitted by a jury in less than 4 hours on 29 counts. 

This chilling prosecution against innocent civil rights workers who 
167 

were later given Gold Medals by Congress painfully reverberates in 

the hearts of Black voters in Alabama and the history of this country. 

Senator Sessions’ record of prosecuting so-called voter fraud and 

both intimidating and suppressing voters then is now reflected in 

a legislative record of supporting voter ID requirements that suppress votes based on the myth of voter fraud today. His record of 

vote suppression prosecution is connected to a record of vote suppression legislation today. Rather than condemn, he has commended voter ID laws like that in his own State of Alabama affecting a half million voters, similar to laws struck down in Texas and 

North Carolina in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits. 

If we can imagine Senator Sessions leading a Department of Justice in Michael Brown’s Ferguson, Freddie Gray’s Baltimore, towns 

with rising hate crime, communities of vulnerable populations, and 

a democracy divided by voter suppression in this Twitter-age civil 

rights movement—we can imagine that. Imagining that, we must 

face the reality that Senator Sessions should not be our Attorney 

General. 

With that said, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. Canterbury. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitehouse, distinguished Members of the Committee, and, of 

course, my own Senator, Lindsey Graham. 

My name is Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the 

330,000 rank-and-file police officer organization. I am very pleased 

to have the opportunity to be here today to testify before this Committee. I have testified before on Cabinet nominations, agency head 

nominations, and even a nominee for the Supreme Court of the 

United States. I can say without reservation that I have never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm than I do today for Senator Jeff Sessions. We wholeheartedly support his position and 

nomination as Attorney General of the United States. 

Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap 

Senator Sessions, we immediately issued a statement to the press 

indicating our strong support for his nomination. He has been a 

true partner to law enforcement in his time as a U.S. Attorney, Attorney General for the State of Alabama, and throughout his tenure in the United States Senate. 

Senator Sessions has demonstrated commitment not just to socalled law-and-order issues, but also to an issue very important to 

my members: officer safety. He was the leading cosponsor of the 

FOP’s efforts to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 

which was authored by our friend and former Chairman of this 

Committee, Senator Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions was the Republican lead cosponsor of S. 1132, the Law Enforcement Officers 
168 

Safety Act Improvements, which made important and needed 

changes to the original law. He has provided true leadership in this 

successful and bipartisan effort. 

More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage of S. 2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating COPS Expansion Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the legislation, 

which passed the Senate and then the House before being signed 

into law by the President. That law gives the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services the authority to award grants to State, 

local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to get active shooter response training for their officers. The need for this training has obviously been identified by numerous law enforcement leaders and 

by the FOP. 

Senator Sessions played a key role in the efforts to pass the Fallen Heroes Flag Act, the bill which provides a flag flown over this 

Capitol to surviving members of public officers killed in the line of 

duty. 

Now, this may not sound like much to you, but in a time when 

officers are being assassinated at the highest rate since the 1970s 

and officers are being assaulted at record rates, officers in the field 

want to know: Who has my back? Who will protect me while I protect my community? Bills like this, which acknowledge and respect 

the sacrifices made by the rank and file truly resonate with my 

members and with the public safety community. 

Members of the Committee may remember the years that were 

spent trying to do away with the disparity between the sentencing 

on possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. There was a 

considerable gulf between the position of the FOP and many Members of this Committee. But in 2001, Senator Sessions introduced 

a bill to address this issue, and he worked tirelessly to bring it together. He made sure the voice of law enforcement was heard and 

also asserted his belief that the disparity as existed in the current 

law was unjust. In 2010, as the Ranking Member of this Committee, he brokered the compromise that led to the passage, with 

our support, of the Fair Sentencing Act. We accepted that compromise because it was fair, it was just, and it reflected the perspective of law enforcement in the law enforcement community. 

The importance of his direct role in this issue cannot be overstated. 

Without Jeff Sessions, I believe we might be here today still trying 

to remain unsolved. 

That said, I understand that there is a certain amount of partisanship, and it is expected in these nomination hearings. But I 

ask all the Members of this Committee to recollect that Senator 

Sessions has worked in a bipartisan manner on many issues, officer 

safety issues, with the FOP and Members of the left. More than 

many times that I have been here has Senator Sessions been one 

of the sole Members to stand up for law enforcement, especially 

when it came to the issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership and support, the equitable sharing program may have been 

dismantled. For us, that demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man 

who can reach across the aisle to get things done for the rank-andfile officer and to protect the citizens of this country. 

Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly and faithfully for the majority of his adult life. He is above all a man who reveres the law 
169 

and reveres justice. I believe he will be an exemplary Attorney 

General, and we urge you to move this nomination forward to the 

Senate for passage. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury. 

Now, Mr. Cole. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID COLE, NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. COLE. Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization with a longstanding 

policy of neither endorsing nor opposing nominees for Federal office. We rarely testify in confirmation hearings as a result. We do 

so today because we believe Senator Sessions’ record raises serious 

questions about the fitness of Senator Sessions to be an Attorney 

General for all the American people. 

We take no position on how you should ultimately vote, but we 

urge you to painstakingly probe the many serious questions that 

his actions, words, and deeds raise about his commitment to civil 

rights and civil liberties. 

Our concerns arise from his conduct as a prosecutor and from his 

record as a Senator. As a prosecutor, when he exercised the power 

to prosecute, the most serious power that any Government official 

in the United States exercises, he abused that power. Cornell 

Brooks has already talked about his prosecution, ultimately baseless, of civil rights heroes for seeking to increase the Black vote in 

Alabama. He did not investigate those who sought to help White 

voters in Alabama, but he did investigate and prosecute those who 

sought to aid Black voters. Many of the charges in that case were 

dismissed before they even went to the jury because they were 

baseless. The jury then acquitted them of all of the charges. 

In a second case, the TIECO case, Senator Sessions collaborated 

with campaign contributors to his senatorial campaign to use the 

office of the criminal prosecutor to intervene in a private business 

dispute on behalf of his campaign contributors. He filed a 222- 

count indictment against TIECO, an engineering supply corporation. All charges in the case were dismissed. Many were dismissed 

because, again, they were baseless. There was no evidence whatsoever to support them. The others were dismissed on grounds of 

prosecutorial misconduct, and the judge who dismissed them said 

this was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in 

his career on the bench. Mr. Sessions’ successor, Mr. Pryor, did not 

even appeal that decision. So those actions raise serious questions 

about his fitness to become the most powerful prosecutor in the 

land. 

Second, his record as a Senator. Here he has shown blindness or 

outright hostility to the concerns of the people whose rights he will 

be responsible to protect. On voting rights, he supported felon disenfranchisement laws and voter ID laws that suppress the Black 

vote. When the Supreme Court gutted the single most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act, the most important statute in get-
170 

ting African Americans the right to vote in this country, Senator 

Sessions called that ‘‘a good day for the South.’’ 

On religious tolerance, he called Islam a ‘‘toxic ideology.’’ It is, in 

fact, a religion practiced by millions of Americans. Imagine if he 

called Christianity a ‘‘toxic ideology.’’ Now he says he opposes a 

Muslim ban on entrance to the United States, but when Donald 

Trump proposed that, he stood up and opposed a resolution introduced here in the Senate to keep religion out of immigration decisions. 

On women’s rights, now he says that grabbing women’s genitals 

is sexual assault. But when Donald Trump’s tape recording bragging about his doing precisely that was made public, Senator Sessions said, and I quote, ‘‘I don’t characterize that as a sexual assault. That is a stretch.’’ 

When he voted against extending the hate crimes law to crimes 

motivated by gender and sexual orientation, he said, and I quote: 

‘‘I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations 

face that kind of discrimination. I just don’t see it.’’ Well, if you do 

not see discrimination, you cannot very well enforce the laws 

against discrimination. 

On torture, he now says that waterboarding is illegal, but he 

praised Michael Mukasey for not ruling out waterboarding. And he 

opposed Senator McCain’s amendment which was designed to make 

it clear that waterboarding was illegal. 

On criminal justice, he is an outlier, departing even with many 

of his Republican colleagues who seek to make the criminal justice 

system more fair and less harsh. 

If someone applying to intern for one of your offices had as many 

questions in his record as Senator Sessions has, racist comments, 

unethical conduct, padding of his resume, you would not hire him 

absent the most thorough investigation and inquiry, if then. 

Senator Sessions is not seeking to be an intern. He is nominated 

to be the most powerful law enforcement officer in the Nation. The 

Senate and, more importantly, the American people deserve satisfactory answers to these questions before Senator Sessions is confirmed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cole appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Now, Mr. Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member 

Whitehouse, and other Members of this distinguished Committee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today in support 

of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General 

of the United States. 

I want to add this morning a bit of a personal perspective on 

Senator Sessions. I have known Senator Sessions for over 30 years, 

and I am honored to consider him a good friend. Over the years, 
171 

we have talked frequently, had dinners together, and enjoyed each 

other’s counsel and support. 

When I first met Senator Sessions, he was the United States Attorney in Mobile and I was the United States Attorney in Atlanta. 

In order to stretch our limited Government per diems on travel to 

Department of Justice conferences, we sometimes shared a room together. We were simply two young prosecutors trying to save 

money. 

In 1982, when I was asked by Attorney General William French 

Smith to head the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force simply because of the strategic location in Atlanta, where my office was, a delicate situation was presented. The 

task force consisted of 11 other United States Attorneys’ Offices, 

but any potential problem was avoided because my friend, Senator 

Sessions, rallied the other United States Attorneys around our 

common cause and my leadership. Senator Sessions had a lot to do 

with the success of the task force under my leadership. 

Senator Sessions was highly thought of by his colleagues and 

served on the prestigious Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. 

Membership to this committee is by invitation only. I have thought 

about this a lot and can identify for you without any equivocation 

whatsoever three themes by which the Senator will lead the Department of Justice. 

First, Senator Sessions will vigorously but impartially enforce 

our laws. Senator Sessions has a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment on criminal justice matters. He also understands the importance of what former Attorney General Robert Jackson said 

about what constitutes a good prosecutor, that being one who displays a sensitivity to fair play and who appreciates his or her task 

with humility. 

Next, Senator Sessions will continue to make certain that the 

traditional role of Federal law enforcement is carried out with 

vigor, effectiveness, and independence. The Department of Justice 

under his leadership will tackle such critical crime problems as 

complicated fraud schemes by individuals and organizations, civil 

rights violations, serious environmental violations, terrorism, and 

espionage. 

Finally, Senator Sessions will seriously look at the role of Federal law enforcement to help our citizens achieve a greater sense 

of personal safety in their homes and neighborhoods. This will be 

especially important for some of our minority and low-income citizens against whom violent crime has a disproportionate impact. Of 

all our important civil rights, the right to be safe and secure in 

one’s home and neighborhood is perhaps the most important. 

We all know that Senator Sessions has strongly but honestly 

held political and policy views, but the Senator also has a record 

of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice issues. We talked yesterday, a great deal was presented to the 

Committee, on Senator Sessions’ effort under the Fair Sentencing 

Act of 2010 and his work with Senator Durbin on that important 

legislation. It is interesting that, as the Deputy Attorney General 

of the United States in the Bush administration, I opposed this legislation. Senator Sessions was right and I was wrong. 
172 

A son of the South who has had up-close experiences with our 

great civil rights movement, Senator Sessions is not oblivious to 

the fact that we have more to do in the area of racial equality. He 

noted in a speech praising the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement that, ‘‘More needs to be done. We need to join closer hands.’’ 

So as a lawyer myself who has spent a fair amount of time during my 43-year legal career supporting diversity in our great profession and equal rights, this statement touched me greatly because it reflects the man I have known for over 30 years and who 

I am proud to call my friend. Senator Sessions deserves confirmation as our next Attorney General. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

We will have 7-minute rounds now and I am going to start with 

General Mukasey. Senator Sessions himself has noted the Attorney 

General is not the President’s lawyer. In your opinion, would Senator Sessions have the independence, and of course the ability, to 

say ‘‘no’’ to the President, if they disagreed? 

General MUKASEY. Absolutely. And I think he made that both 

clear and explicit yesterday, saying that if necessary, the alternative was to resign. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Also, we heard Senator Sessions testify 

about the appropriate scope of communication between the White 

House and the Department of Justice. He said he thought that 

there was merit in your December 2007 memo on that topic, so 

could you tell us what you believe the merits of your approach to 

be, which would be your explaining in further detail what Senator 

Sessions said yesterday? 

General MUKASEY. Okay. What is in the memo is that contact between the White House and the Justice Department is limited to 

the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, with a 

couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are, pending legislation, 

which is the subject of communication between lower level people 

in the White House and people in the Office of Legal Policy and 

other routine budget matters. Other than that, there is to be no 

contact between anyone at the Justice Department and anyone in 

the White House and if anybody gets such a call, they are instructed that the polite response is, ‘‘Thank you very much, I will 

refer you to the person who can respond to you.’’ 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Mr. Thompson, you have known Senator 

Sessions for 35 years and in that time you worked very closely with 

him, so you have already said something about your service together, but could you tell us about that service and might be more 

detailed than you did in your opening statement? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, Senator Grassley. I have known, as I have 

said, Senator Sessions for a number of years. He has a great deal 

of respect for the Department of Justice. He had been an Assistant 

United States Attorney when I had met him. He had already been 

promoted to become the United States Attorney. He is a fine lawyer, was a very effective prosecutor, and has great fidelity to the 

principles of fair prosecution and the traditions of the Department 

of Justice. 
173 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And would you, knowing him as you do, 

would you say that he is going to be that independent head that 

we expect of the Department of Justice? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. I would expect Senator Sessions to 

understand and appreciate and to practice the traditional independent role of the Department of Justice and he would be an Attorney General, I think, that all the Senators on this Committee 

would be proud of. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Further, since you know him, how do you 

think he would fare standing up to a strong-willed President who 

wants to take certain actions as Senator Sessions, in his capacity 

as Attorney General, would feel would be inappropriate? 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is a good question. As I said, Senator Sessions is not only an experienced prosecutor, but he is a mighty fine 

lawyer. He would understand his role to counsel the President and 

to bring the President around to what position is appropriate, but 

he, at the end of the day, would be independent if the President 

insisted upon doing something that was inappropriate. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Mr. Canterbury, of course you are no 

stranger to these sort of Attorney General hearings. You testified 

in support of Attorney General Eric Holder 8 years ago. Reflecting 

on the last 8 years of leadership, the Department of Justice from 

the perspective of arguably the largest law enforcement advocacy 

group, how did DOJ fare, and how might it be different if the person you are supporting today were Attorney General? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Senator, it is our position that we have to 

work with whoever is in that office, and we have historically 

worked with every Attorney General. Personally I have worked 

with every Attorney General since Janet Reno. And we believe that 

with Senator Sessions, the communications, the lines of communications will be more direct than they have been. We have had 

good success with career employees at DOJ. They are very professional. We believe it is an outstanding organization, but we also believe with Senator Sessions, information and the knowledge that he 

has had from serving on this Committee, he will be able to serve 

us well in the area of criminal justice, with reform efforts and with 

training and equitable sharing and those type of things. We feel 

the communications will be excellent with Senator Sessions. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Another question for you. The sheriff’s association at the national level recently noted that in the past year 

this country has seen the highest number of law enforcement fatalities in 5 years, including 21 officers who were ambushed, shot 

and killed. If confirmed for the position of Attorney General, what 

steps do you think that Senator Sessions could take to reverse the 

trend? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. First and foremost, we believe that Senator 

Sessions, as Attorney General, will not speak out on incidents that 

arise before a thorough and full investigation. And we believe that 

the anti-police rhetoric comes from people that make comments 

without knowledge of the situation prior to the facts being released 

to the media. And so we believe that there will be a much more 

positive tone about reconciliation. Nobody in this country wants our 

communities and police to reconcile more than my members, Senator. 
174 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Mr. Kirsanow, Senator Sessions has received some criticism for his enforcement of voting rights while he 

was a Federal prosecutor and Alabama Attorney General. Would 

you evaluate Senator Sessions’ record on voting rights? This will 

probably have to be my last question. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I would be happy to. I 

have heard testimony and I have heard media reports with respect 

to cases related to voting rights that Senator Sessions was prosecuting and if he had failed to prosecute the Perry County case, 

that would have been an extraordinary dereliction of duty. I would 

advise everybody who is interested in facts, as opposed to optics, 

to read the indictment, to read all the available pleadings, read all 

of the contemporaneous reporting and you will have wasted about 

2 days doing so, as I did. The multi-count indictment, if you go 

through it, details in excruciating detail all of the violations here. 

If you look at the facts of the case, what happened is, you had 

two separate factions of Black Democrats in Perry County, who 

were vying for seats. One faction went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

and said, ‘‘Wait a minute here, we believe there is rampant voter 

fraud going on here.’’ And in fact, if you look at the FBI’s affidavit 

related to this, they found 75 forged signatures on absentee ballots. 

There were multiple counts where individuals who were part of— 

who were candidates who were taking absentee ballots, changing 

them, altering them, or filling them out on behalf of individuals 

and then giving them to the elections board. 

One family had a candidate, for whom they voted, who was their 

cousin. All six members testified that their ballot, nonetheless, was 

checked for the other person. And they said it was false. There was 

copious evidence that in fact there was voter fraud, in fact that it 

occurred. 

Now, it is true, these people were acquitted, but we have seen 

this circumstance before. The person who literally wrote the book 

on voter fraud prosecutions, Craig Donsanto, who is the legendary 

former head of the Public Integrity Section of DOJ was the man 

who told Senator Sessions, ‘‘Go forward with this.’’ He surmised, as 

did many other contemporary witnesses, that this was a classic 

case of voter nullification. I think as he testified, or he indicated, 

that this is a matter in which there was no way in the world a jury 

was going to convict these individuals who were, in fact, civil rights 

advocates. The facts of the case established that had a prosecutor 

not taken this and pursued this, there would have been some serious questions about his integrity. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Canterbury, I was my State’s Attorney General, and Rhode 

Island is one of the States where the Attorney General has full 

prosecutive authority, there are only three. So I worked very closely with my police department. I was also my State’s United States 

Attorney and in that capacity I worked very, very closely with police chiefs. My experience was that a police chief in Providence, 

which is an urban good-sized city, and a police chief in small coastal Narragansett, Rhode Island, would have very different law enforcement priorities. And that it, in my view, is appropriate for a 
175 

police chief to be able to pursue their own law enforcement priorities within their communities. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, sir, Senator, the same thing with sheriffs, 

the Constitution-elected officers, they are going to police their communities as they think they need to be policed and set priorities 

that way. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And an important part of that, for a police 

chief, is to maintain the kind of community relations between the 

department and the community that support effective pursuit of 

those law enforcement priorities. Is that not the case also? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I do not think it is any different in a city with 

five police officers than it is in Providence. Wherever you are—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Community relations—— 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Community relations is the key to successfully 

performing our job. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it is going to be different in different 

communities. The method is going to be different of effective community relations in different communities. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. It can be, yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And so, would you agree that for the Department of Justice to try to dictate what local law enforcement 

priorities should be, or how a police department should choose to 

deal with its community, could be a stretch too far? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. In matters of law, no, but in matters of policy 

and procedure, yes, sir, I would agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And prioritization, as well, correct? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. The reason I ask that is that one of 

the concerns that I have heard from Rhode Island police chiefs has 

been that a relentless or unthinking pursuit of very low-level immigration violations could disrupt everything from orderly community 

relations with a Latino community to even ongoing significant gang 

investigation in which cooperators might lose their willingness to 

cooperate if somebody came in and decided to try to deport their 

mother. My point is not that one is right or the other is wrong. My 

point is that the decision at the community level as to priorities 

and to maintaining community relations is an important one, correct? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, sir, it would be. But to cut more to the 

core of what I think you are asking, Sanctuary City decisions are 

usually made by politicians and not police chiefs. And very rarely—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. ‘‘Sanctuary City,’’ in fact, is not even a 

legal term, is it? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. And very rarely should law enforcement officers make those decisions. As you know, Senator, politicians pass 

the laws and we are charged with enforcing them, we do not necessarily have to agree—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And in doing so—— 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Or disagree with them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. And in doing so, you do establish law enforcement priorities. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, sir, we would. 
176 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You do not put people out on the street to 

do jaywalking, you go after murders first, you go after robberies 

first. That is standard law enforcement practice, correct? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Emergency protocol requires the highest level 

of crime first and down from there. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Down from there. 

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Canterbury said earlier something that I 

agree very much with, which was to applaud the career employees 

of the Department of Justice and to say that right now the Department of Justice was an outstanding organization. You and I and 

others have served as United States Attorneys. What do you think 

about the career attorney core of the Department of Justice? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well the career attorneys at the Department of 

Justice, through my years of experience, Senator, like yours, these 

are very good lawyers. They are dedicated to law enforcement, they 

are dedicated to the work of the Department of Justice. I have had 

nothing but positive experiences in my years at the Department of 

Justice, and in dealing with the Department of Justice as a defense 

lawyer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Should a career attorney in a new administration be punished for following properly the policy direction of 

a previous administration? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not actually think a career attorney should 

be punished for anything other than not doing his or her work. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Clearly a career attorney should not be 

judged on whether they are secular or religious in their lives, correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely not. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Brooks, the Sessions candidacy has 

achieved expressions of support from people like David Duke and 

from what has been described as a White supremacist neo-Nazi 

news site called The Daily Stormer, whose site founder wrote that 

the Sessions appointment was, ‘‘like Christmas. Basically we’re 

looking at a Daily Stormer Dream Team in the Trump Administration.’’ Now you cannot fault a nominee for the people who choose 

to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. This is not obviously Senator Sessions’ fault. But do you believe that he has distinguished 

himself away from whatever the causes are for that support so that 

you feel comfortable going forward that he has addressed that? 

Mr. BROOKS. Based on the record, I do not believe that the Senator has sufficiently described a Department of Justice fully committed to enforcing the Nation’s civil rights laws. Where we have 

hate crime rising, most of which is perpetuated not in bars, not in 

streets, but in K through 12 schools. Speaking out against hate 

crimes, making it clear that you are going to prosecute hate crimes, 

making it clear that you are going to enforce the Nation’s civil 

rights laws, the Voting Rights Act to the full measure in a fullthroated way, I do not believe we have heard that. So, he is not 

responsible for who endorses him, but he is in fact responsible for 

what he endorses and his vision for the Department of Justice. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, my time has expired. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Now Senator Hatch. 
177 

Senator HATCH. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Mukasey, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. 

You became Attorney General after nearly two decades as a Federal District Court Judge. The current Attorney General had nearly 

two decades of experience as a Federal prosecutor. Jeff Sessions 

will become Attorney General after two decades as a U.S. Senator. 

No matter where an Attorney General comes from, he or she has 

the duty described yesterday by one of my Democratic colleagues 

as enforcing the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias. You 

were here yesterday and heard, as I did, the repeated suggestion 

that Senator Sessions would not be able to enforce the law that he 

personally disagrees with. Do you agree that someone’s political 

party, general ideological perspective, or personal opinions do not 

by themselves mean that he or she cannot be impartial and fair? 

General MUKASEY. I certainly agree that a person’s political 

background does not disqualify that person from enforcing the law 

and does not disable that person from enforcing the law. And I 

think Senator Sessions made it entirely clear that he understood 

the difference between advocating a position on the one hand as a 

legislator and the oath that he takes to enforce the law on the 

other. He was very clear, very precise about that. And I think everybody who passes from one status to another, be it from a judge 

to Attorney General, be it from a lawyer to a judge, understands 

that they are changing their responsibilities. And he is not alone 

in that but he certainly is very much alive to it. 

Senator HATCH. How comfortable are you that Senator Sessions, 

a conservative Republican Senator, would enforce the law fairly, 

evenly and without personal bias? 

General MUKASEY. Well, I think his statements yesterday make 

it entirely clear that he understands his responsibility to do that 

and I see no reason why he will not do it. 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Kirsanow, in his written testimony, Mr. 

Brooks argued that Senator Sessions lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as Attorney General. Even more, he questioned 

whether Senator Sessions would actually prosecute hate crimes. I 

would welcome your response to that. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I have not known Senator Sessions as long as 

Mr. Thompson has, but I have known him for more than 10 years. 

And what I can tell you is that I have worked with several Senators here who have been very concerned about issues related to 

civil rights, particularly with respect to one issue that is within my 

wheelhouse as a labor attorney, and that is the interests of Black 

and other workers and their employment prospects. 

We had hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, several hearings at the Civil Rights Commission about a lot of deleterious policies to the prospects of Black employment. And these were rectifiable policies, but they had pronounced effects, negative effects on 

Black employment. We even had a hearing where every single witness that spanned the ideological spectrum from left to right 

agreed, for example, that massive illegal immigration has a decidedly negative impact on wage and employment levels. 

I provided these reports to a number of Senators and other Congressmen. Many of the Senators here were alarmed by it and questioned me about it and we had interactions and other members of 
178 

the Civil Rights Commission. I also provided it to Members of Congress, including Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The 

one Senator who reached out, being very alarmed and pursuing 

this case with ultimate vigor was Senator Sessions. He was very 

concerned about this. In a number of private conversations we 

talked about a number of the steps that could be taken aside from 

reforming immigration law, which we all know here is something 

that is a significant challenge. But what could we do to improve 

employment prospects of Black Americans? He was the only Senator to act in that fashion. I heard nothing whatsoever from the 

Congressional Black Caucus, despite copious detail about the negative impact of this. 

I am ultimately convinced that Senator Sessions would take the 

appropriate actions to enforce the law as written, because that is 

what we were talking about, existing immigration law, and he was 

adamant in doing that. Without fear or favor and without bias. 

Senator HATCH. Knowing him as well as I do, I agree with you. 

Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you so much for what you and 

thousands of officers who represent us each and every day have 

said here for Senator Sessions. 

The Pew Research Center, today, released one of the largest polls 

of police officers ever conducted involving some 8,000 officers in departments across the country. As a result of the high-profile fatal 

encounters between officers and Blacks, three-quarters of officers 

are more reluctant to use force when it is appropriate, and 72 percent have become less willing to stop and question people who seem 

suspicious. 

Now I believe this effect stems from what has become almost a 

presumption that police have done something wrong when such encounters occur. That is a pernicious and dangerous shift in the general attitude toward our police and it is totally without foundation. 

Now it seems to me that this change in attitude cannot only negatively affect officers and actually put police safety at risk, but also 

make much more difficult important efforts at community policing. 

Do you agree with me on that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely agree with you. I think the case in 

Chicago of the young female officer that decided to take a beating 

rather than deploy a taser because she said it was not worth what 

she would put herself through to deploy a taser is a microcosm of 

what is happening in law enforcement where it is not worth what 

you may have to put yourself through. 

Senator HATCH. Well that same poll found that 93 percent of officers had become more concerned about their own safety in this 

country. Yesterday, the Chairman noted that the number of police 

killed in the line of duty has significantly increased. You have 

made that point. Also yesterday, Senator Sessions noted that most 

police are local rather than Federal. The Fraternal Order of Police 

and other national law enforcement groups support his nomination. 

How do you think that a change in leadership of the Justice Department can concretely affect and improve things at the local 

level? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Well, first of all, the Byrne JAG Grant Program, the COPS program, the community-oriented policing teams, 

consent decrees, pattern-of-practice investigations, when you have 
179 

open lines of communication, where rank-and-file management as 

well as citizen and activist groups can discuss those cases, I think 

you can get to a place where the communities will feel safer and 

the police officers will feel safer. And we have got to reduce the violence in this country. You know, Senator Hatch, we have been saying for a long time, systemic poverty is an issue that law enforcement is not charged with, nor has the ability to fix. But we are 

willing to be good partners and we believe, with Jeff Sessions as 

Attorney General, we will be able to work in all of those sections 

of the Justice Department, to try to improve. 

Senator HATCH. We are pleased that you are here today and we 

are pleased that you are willing to testify for and on his behalf. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of the members of the panel who are here 

today, and especially Oscar Vazquez, who came as my invitee, for 

telling his inspiring life story. Thank you. You have given a face 

to an issue which is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of 

millions of Americans, and thank you for serving our country. 

General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing I sensed that 

there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement 

of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes. And now, I think, 

there is a growing concern of a question that you have addressed 

yourself to him and I asked you to speak to again about his role 

if he becomes Attorney General, vis-a-vis the White House, the 

President. 

We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity related to the President-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed. 

And Director Comey of the FBI saying that at this point he would 

not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative 

to Russia’s role in the election. 

So can you give me some clarity? And I think you have addressed 

this, and forgive me if I am asking you to repeat. Could you give 

me some clarity: When you served as Attorney General, if you received a call from on high, from the White House, from any person 

in the White House, relative to an investigation, an ongoing investigation, or a prosecution, what do you believe was the appropriate 

response in that situation? 

Mr. MUKASEY. The appropriate response is that, whatever investigation it is, is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, which 

is to say where the facts and the law lead. And I am glad that the 

question was in the hypothetical because I, in fact, did not get such 

a call, although I have gotten to get calls with respect to other matters. And my response was generally that the department would 

pursue its agenda as already set. 

Senator DURBIN. Is it your position the Attorney General is independent in this decisionmaking when it comes to other members of 

the executive branch? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Correct. The Attorney General is, obviously, is a 

member of an administration and pursues priorities that are set by 

an administration. But when you are talking about particular investigations and particular cases, that is something altogether dif-
180 

ferent. And I think Senator Sessions made it clear he understood 

it was altogether different. 

Senator DURBIN. May I ask you another question related to that? 

Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

What authority does the Attorney General have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well, the Attorney General theoretically is—the 

FBI director reports to the Attorney General. I say ‘‘theoretically’’ 

because occasionally one gets the idea that the FBI director is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you a story, but it will 

have to wait until an informal meeting. 

The FBI director works for the Attorney General. 

Senator DURBIN. So I guess my question, repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for Attorneys General to recuse themselves rather 

than participate in investigations with political ramifications. Most 

recently, he called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special 

counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 

5th of last year. 

I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether 

he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the 

President-elect, once he becomes President, or other people involved in the Trump campaign. And he basically answered me that 

he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis. 

If—he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at 

the FBI, is that what you are telling me? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. So if there is an investigation underway, he 

could stop it if he wished. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. And when it comes to the appointment of a special counsel involving the conduct of the President, is it your feeling that the Attorney General should, as a general rule, consider 

special counsel? 

Mr. MUKASEY. No. It would depend on the case. A special counsel 

is to be appointed when there is a good reason why the department 

headed by the Attorney General cannot pursue that case. And I 

think what Senator Sessions had—I am not familiar with the oped that you mentioned, so I am speculating, but I think it sounds 

like what he had in mind was not simply the position of the Attorney General, but rather the tarmac conversation with President 

Clinton that put her in a difficult situation. I do not think that simply had to do with the fact that she was Attorney General appointed by the President. 

Senator DURBIN. I see, thank you. 

Mr. Brooks, since the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights 

Act is in a perilous situation. And I commended to my colleagues 

and I commend to you a book entitled ‘‘White Rage’’ by Carol Anderson, teaches at Emory. And she talks about the evolution of the 

issue of race since the Civil War. 

It strikes me now that we are in dangerous territory about the 

future of the Voting Rights Act. If preclearance is not required and 

the Department of Justice is reacting after the fact, there could be 

some delay in justice here in an intervening election or no action 

taken. 
181 

I asked my staff to give me a listing of the cases initiated by the 

Department of Justice relative to the Voting Rights Act for the last 

several years, and it goes on for pages. Can you address this issue 

about your belief of the commitment of Senator Sessions to enforce 

the Voting Rights Act in principle, post-Shelby County? 

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly. So as you well know, Senator, the Voting 

Rights Act is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights statutes. 

And Section 5 was regarded as the most effective provision of the 

most effective civil rights statute. 

And so in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme 

Court decision, which debilitated Section 5 via Section 4(b), we 

have seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other. 

And so that means that the Department of Justice has taken on 

more responsibility and civil rights organizations have taken on 

more responsibility with fewer tools. It has meant the debilitation, 

literally, of our democracy where we have citizens who have to wait 

for the violation to occur, as we saw in North Carolina where the 

Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 

held that the State legislature engaged in intentional racial discrimination with respect to voter suppression, carried out with surgical precision. 

It took an army of lawyers, an army of experts in order to vindicate the rights of the people, and a mass movement by the North 

Carolina State conference of the NAACP with so many others and 

so many other legal groups. 

The point being here is the Department of Justice, not only is our 

democracy in a perilous place, but the Department of Justice is in 

a perilous place. It needs strong leadership. It needs resources. And 

we need a Voting Rights Advancement Act to fix the Voting Rights 

Act. 

Senator DURBIN. And post-Shelby County, if the Attorney General is not timely and aggressive in enforcing the Voting Rights 

Act, the damage will be done. 

Mr. BROOKS. The damage is absolutely done. And when we think 

about all of the many Members of this body that went to Selma, 

that commemorated the foot soldiers of the movement on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, all that they died for, all that they sacrificed 

for is hanging in the balance. So we need strong leadership there 

because literally, literally we can squander the fruit of their efforts 

and the civic sacrament of our democracy, namely the right to vote. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a lot to cover in 7 minutes, so let me try to be somewhat 

selective. 

First of all, thanks to all of you for being here. I cannot help but 

believe that in spite of the fact that we have had a national election that the election is still ongoing, the campaign is still ongoing. 

I respect each one of your rights to express your point of view, but 

at the same time it is amazing to me that with the Senator having 

cast 6,000 votes in the United States Senate we are focused on a 
182 

handful of policy differences and somehow people are saying that 

those are dispositive of the qualification of this person who we have 

served alongside of for 15 years, in my case, and 20 years in the 

case of others. 

So I guess our job is sort of like the jury in a regular lawsuit. 

We have to give weight to the testimony and we have to figure out 

whose testimony is entitled to greater weight because, frankly, the 

descriptions we have heard today are so wildly disparate that I 

would imagine for people who did not know Senator Sessions and 

know his record as I do and those of us who have served with him, 

it would be hard to reconcile. 

But I want to ask General Mukasey, Senator Hatch alluded to 

this, but this is really important to me and I just want to reiterate 

this. 

You have had the distinction of serving in two branches of our 

three branches of government, as a Federal district judge with 

great distinction, then as Attorney General in the executive branch. 

I, at a much lower level, have had the chance to serve now in three 

branches myself as a State court judge and as an Attorney General 

of my State and now as a legislator here at the Federal level. 

Each of those roles are different, are they not? And indeed, I 

think that is the point that Senator Sessions made eloquently yesterday. Even though he may have some policy differences or had 

cast a vote against a bill in the Senate, he would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Is that not what you understood? 

Mr. MUKASEY. That is precisely what I understood. And he recognized the difference in the different roles that he plays as a legislator from what he would play as Attorney General. 

Senator CORNYN. And I thought yesterday he did a magnificent 

job responding to the questions and acknowledging that policy differences do exist. That is just the way it is. 

Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you a little bit about the role of the 

Federal Government and the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Justice in supporting local and State law enforcement. 

I believe the figure is roughly $2 billion a year that the Federal 

Government hands out or distributes in terms of grants to local 

and State law enforcement. I think in your testimony, you mentioned the active shooter training that we have tried to enhance 

through the Police Act which passed this Congress and was signed 

by President Obama, making sure that more officers got that training, which is even more relevant, sadly, today than perhaps even 

in the past. 

I would just add to that the work that we did recently on mental 

health and its intersection with the criminal justice system. The 

Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that was part of the 21st 

Century Cures bill, again, recognizing that our jails and our streets 

and our emergency rooms have become the treatment centers by 

default for people with mental illness. 

We need to do more to try to get people who need help the help 

they need, but not treat mental illness as a crime, per se. 

We also need to make sure that we train our law enforcement 

officials because we know how dangerous, at least from the stories 

and the statistics that we see, how dangerous it can be when a po-
183 

lice officer encounters a person with mental illness and they do not 

have the training they need in order to de-escalate the scene. 

But could you talk a little bit about your experience and your organization’s experience as law enforcement officials dealing with 

people with mental illness? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Well, I would say in the last 10 or 15 years 

the number of mentally ill individuals that law enforcement comes 

in contact with has exponentially gone up as mental health services 

at the State and local level have gone down. 

And I have explained this recently to Vice President Biden when 

he asked about that same question, and my response was, in many 

of these situations, regardless of whether a police officer or a law 

enforcement professional realizes that there is a mental illness, the 

circumstances are dictated by the actions. 

And so whether or not we can recognize the particular mental illness is not as important as recognizing that there is an issue. The 

problem is that there is very little assistance at that level anymore 

for street-level mental illness. And making sure that they are not 

a danger to themselves or others should not, cannot be the responsibility of a first-responding officer. We just will never have the 

training to be able to do it to that extent. So it is a huge issue for 

local and State officers. And I do not know what we are going to 

do to fix that. But the biggest thing is that the community-based 

mental health facilities are just not there anymore. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I think you will find a friend in Senator 

Sessions as Attorney General in recognizing the priorities for local 

and State law enforcement and making sure that the Mental 

Health and Safe Communities Act, which will provide priority for 

that kind of training and assistance for local and State law enforcement, is there. 

Ms. Sepich, thank you for your outstanding work and arising out 

of a terrible tragedy you and your family experienced in your lives. 

But I know you are committed to making sure not only that that 

does not happen to other families, but also that through your work 

on DNA Saves that we are able to bring people responsible to justice. There has been so much work that we have done here, and 

Senator Sessions has been front and center, as you have noticed. 

Things like Senator Hatch’s Rapid DNA legislation act, the Paul 

Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act, which was 

just renewed in the Justice for All Act that Senator Leahy and I 

cosponsored and was signed by President Obama. 

But it is so important to make sure that we do provide all of 

these essential tools and good science to make sure that we do convict the guilty, but we also exonerate people who are innocent of 

crimes. 

And would you—I just want to say thank you. I know the Chairman has got his gavel in his hand, he is getting ready to gavel me 

out of order here. But I just want to express my gratitude to you 

for your leadership on that issue. 

But you are right, Senator Sessions has been front and center at 

all of those efforts to not only convict the guilty, but also exonerate 

the innocent. 

Ms. SEPICH. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
184 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And now Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. I was not going to interrupt Senator 

Cornyn as long as you are praising the legislation you and I wrote 

together. I mention it only because, contrary to what people believe, Republicans and Democrats do work together on a lot of 

things here in the Congress. 

Mr. Thompson, you and I have worked together on things, as you 

know. 

And I just want to say something to Sergeant Vazquez. I watched 

some of your testimony earlier. It is so moving. And my wife did, 

too, and we both are so proud of you and thank you for what you 

have done in your service for the country. And as parents of one 

who served in the military, we, like all parents everywhere, you 

worry about those who serve and you worry about what they do, 

but you thank everybody, the fact that we have people who are 

willing to serve our country. 

Are you concerned about what might happen under the new administration for young people registered under DACA? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. Definitely, Mr. Senator. There is a huge concern for those roughly 800,000 people that raised their hand and 

said they were undocumented, right? I think that the biggest point 

that that makes is that when there was a path, there was a way 

for us to come out of the shadows, right? Eight hundred thousand 

people raised their hand and said they were undocumented. Now, 

the fact of the matter is that there was no other way, right? Congress, the Senate has not passed any meaningful laws that could 

guarantee them a path to citizenship, to—to whatever you want to 

call it. 

But unless there is a path, unless there is a way they can find 

a permanent solution, we are definitely concerned that the next administration is going to stop the DACA and that those students are 

going to have to go back into the shadows. 

Senator Sessions stated yesterday that there is not enough financial support to deport 800,000 people, and at the same time he opposed every single legislation that would have given them a way 

to become legal. So what are the students to do? What are the 

young adults to do when they are faced with that position? So it 

is definitely concerning. 

Senator LEAHY. You must know an awful lot of people who are 

here under DACA. Is there a sense of concern about the rhetoric 

that we are hearing with the new administration? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. There is definitely a sense of concern. There 

is a lot of fear most of all. I know students, one of the other—my 

teammates that won the competition so many years ago, he is a father to two U.S. citizen children now and he will be facing—he is 

facing the unknown, given the next administration. 

I mean, there has been statements saying that DACA is going to 

be repealed, maybe there is not, so we are not sure what is going 

to happen in that scenario. There is a lot of fear out there. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Swadhin, I raised—nobody had, I thought I should raise the 

question yesterday at our hearing about comments that the President-elect had made regarding sexual assault and gave Mr. Sessions a chance to explain. His first response is that he seemed to 
185 

be basically minimizing it and approving of what the Presidentelect had said. He expanded what he meant yesterday. And yesterday he was under oath. I will accept that. 

But I think of my own daughter. I think of my three beautiful 

granddaughters. And I think about somebody in a Hollywood video 

when the President-elect jokes about what is sexual assault. 

Mr. Sessions, now when he is asked further about it, admits that 

what President-elect Trump bragged about doing is sexual assault. 

You have dedicated your life to helping others heal after sexual 

assault. You are a survivor yourself. So I have a two-part question: 

What kind of a message does it send when somebody, especially 

somebody in power, trivializes sexual assault, even jokes about it? 

I was a prosecutor, I prosecuted sexual assault cases. What does 

it do for a victim’s willingness to come forth if they see people in 

power trivialize something that might be a lifelong trauma for 

them? And I yield to you. 

Ms. SWADHIN. Thank you for the question, Senator Leahy. You 

know, it is highly relevant on several levels that the impact that 

it has on survivors watching people in power, and in this case 

someone who, you know, has been elected to be the President of the 

United States, make these kind of jokes and brag about this kind 

of so-called ‘‘locker room behavior’’ about sexually assaulting 

women. I think it is important to go back to the point I made in 

my testimony that the majority of victims of violent crime are assailed by people who they know intimately. In cases of adult rape 

and sexual assault, it is 80 percent of survivors know their assailant. And in 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, the person 

sexually abusing a child is known and trusted and often loved by 

the person who is perpetrating the violence. 

So it is already so hard for survivors to come forward because it 

means that we have to testify against the people that we put our 

trust in. My case, it was my father and that is not an uncommon 

story. It is someone very close to you. That is how these crimes 

happen. And so to be able to trust the State more than we fear our 

intimately known perpetrators, we have to see people in control of 

the State who take a hardline stance against sexual assault and 

who, you know, say publicly that they would support and believe 

survivors. 

And unfortunately in this political climate, we are looking at an 

administration led by a man who not only does not seem to 

prioritize helping sexual assault survivors heal and come forward 

and be able to trust the State, but, you know, may have actually 

engaged in sexual assault himself, the things that he was bragging 

about, so it is incredibly concerning. 

Add to that the fact that the violence that we live through has 

very traumatizing impacts. I, myself, live with complex PTSD, so 

your mental health on a day-to-day basis is already negatively impacted. So to be able to stay grounded enough to come forward and 

put your trust in a stranger, a social worker, a prosecutor, a police 

officer, in order to get the services, the healing, and the accountability that you deserve, it is incredibly difficult. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, because I remember on these sexual 

assault cases with detectives in my office, the assistant prosecu-
186 

tors, and myself having to tell people you can trust us, we actually 

care about what you say, we do believe it is a crime. 

And frankly, those who trivialize it and say it is not a crime are 

ignoring too many people in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Now Senator 

Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the 

members of this distinguished panel for being here today. And I 

want to take a special moment to thank Larry Thompson who was 

my boss at the Department of Justice, although I would note that 

you should not hold Larry accountable for my many missteps in the 

years that followed. 

I want to start, Mr. Cole, by addressing your testimony. And I 

would note that the ACLU—I have worked alongside the ACLU on 

any number of issues here in the Senate, including we have worked 

alongside each other on issues of indefinite detention, we have 

worked on the same side concerning the USA Patriot Act, we have 

worked on the same side working to stop the efforts of Senate 

Democrats to amend the Constitution and to amend the free speech 

protections of the First Amendment. And so I am grateful for many 

of the good things the ACLU does. You are a professor at Georgetown. I would like to ask you, as a professor, how would you react 

to a student who submitted an exam with a one-sided and biased 

account of the facts that included only the facts supporting the student’s views and omitting everything else? 

Mr. COLE. Well, first of all, Senator Cruz, thank you for where 

you have worked with us and we hope to work with you in the future where our interests align. You know, what we did here with 

respect to Mr. Sessions was to—— 

Senator CRUZ. I will get into the facts for a moment. 

Mr. COLE. Yes, so I think—— 

Senator CRUZ. If you will indulge me and answer the question. 

Mr. COLE. Right. So I think it would depend. If the question were 

to the student, is grabbing a woman by the genitals sexual assault 

or not and they responded, yes, it is, I would say that is a correct 

answer. If they responded by saying, actually—— 

[Interruption from the audience.] 

Mr. COLE. If they responded by saying, no, I would not characterize grabbing a woman by her genitals as sexual assault, I think 

that is a stretch, as Mr. Sessions did— 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Cole, I—— 

Mr. COLE. Then I would say that is not a good answer. So it depends on the question. 

Senator CRUZ. We will get into the facts and substance in a moment. 

I think I am on firm ground observing that if you had a student 

who presented a one-sided and biased answer you would grade 

them very poorly. I would also note you and I are both Supreme 

Court litigators. And any court would not look kindly at a litigant 

who omitted any facts or law that were to the contrary. 

Would you agree with that? That if you file a Supreme Court 

brief or do an oral argument and the case law that is against you, 

the facts that are against you, you just stick your head in the sand 
187 

and ignore, that does not tend to be looked on too kindly by the 

Supreme Court or by any court? 

Mr. COLE. No, I think you have to address the questions that are 

presented by the case, as I think we did with respect to Senator 

Sessions. 

Senator CRUZ. Okay, good. Well, then let us get into the facts. 

You blasted—and I will note that your testimony—I have to say, 

your testimony both written and oral is disappointing to me. You 

characterized it as ‘‘strictly nonpartisan,’’ and yet you blasted Senator Sessions for prosecuting African-American civil rights leaders 

as a U.S. Attorney in the 1980s, insinuating that doing so somehow 

made him a racist. 

And yet, you did not mention in your written or oral testimony 

the fact that the complaints asking him to do so were brought by 

African-American citizens who felt that their votes were being 

abused and stolen. And indeed, I would like to read a quote from 

LaVon Phillips, who is an African-American investigator for the 

Perry County District Attorney’s Office, who said, ‘‘There was an 

ongoing, Black-on-Black power struggle in Perry County. In 1982, 

the office received numerous complaints from incumbent Black candidates and Black voters that absentee ballot applications were 

being mailed to citizens’ homes without their request. People were 

going to the polls trying to vote. They were told that they had already voted absentee when they did not. A grand jury, a majority 

of which was African American, asked in its official report for a 

Federal investigation of voter fraud in Perry County because it was 

becoming very abusive and the Black incumbent candidates at the 

time were rather terrified.’’ That is the case Senator Sessions 

brought as U.S. Attorney. 

And my question to you, Mr. Cole, is, in your written and oral 

testimony, why did you omit the fact that the complaint came from 

African-American citizens, from elected African-American incumbent politicians, and the indictment came from a grand jury that 

was a majority African-American? Why did you omit those facts? 

Mr. COLE. Well, I do not think I intentionally omitted those facts, 

Senator Cruz. What I did was to express our concerns about several aspects of that case, namely that Senator Sessions, as the U.S. 

Attorney, investigated only counties, not just Perry County, but 

only counties where Black votes had gone up, not where White 

votes had gone up, but only where Black votes had gone up, number one. 

Number two, that he had conducted the investigation in an extremely intrusive way, addressing Black voters at their homes, asking them how they voted, why they voted, et cetera. 

Number three, that he took the position, the legal position that 

advising somebody on how to vote, on who to vote for, was a crime. 

Now, you, Senator Cruz, when you were running for President, 

advised people on how to vote for yourself. That was not a crime. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, you also omitted the fact that the evidence 

in the case showed absentee ballots had been tampered with. And 

indeed, the defendant in the case admitted that he had changed absentee ballots. He argued it was with the voters’ consent, but he 

admitted he had changed absentee ballots. 

Mr. COLE. And if you are—— 
188 

Senator CRUZ. And my point is simple, Mr. Cole. This Committee 

can assess what occurred there. But any law student or any litigant who presented such a one-sided picture of the fact, conveniently omitting every single fact that is to the contrary, would not 

be treated as a credible witness and would not be treated, as you 

describe your testimony, as strictly nonpartisan. 

Let me turn briefly to a second issue you brought up, which was 

the TIECO case. You said the TIECO case undermines Sessions’ 

fitness for the job as Attorney General. And likewise, there are a 

number of facts that you just omitted from your discussion. 

Number one, the basis of your complaints was submitted to the 

Alabama Ethics Commission. And on July 10th, 1996, the Ethics 

Commission unanimously dismissed the charges against Sessions 

for insufficient facts. Now, you briefly mention that in your written 

testimony, but you omitted it from your oral testimony. 

Fact number two, the Alabama State Bar—one of TIECO’s lawyers filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar, based on the 

trial court’s order that you quoted, alleging over 20 ethical violations. The Alabama State Bar adjudicated that matter and on February 16th, 2000, the State bar unanimously dismissed the complaint. Again, you omitted that fact from both your written and 

your oral testimony. That is nowhere to be found. 

But third, most strikingly, the language you rely on as the basis 

for your testimony, the Federal Court of Appeals, the Eleventh Circuit, concluded that that precise language concerning prosecutorial 

misconduct was ‘‘particularly unreliable and misleading.’’ It reversed a civil verdict based on it. And the Eleventh Circuit concluded there was ‘‘no evidence in the record to support a finding 

that TIECO’s Federal constitutional rights were violated,’’ and concluded that ‘‘probable cause existed to prosecute TIECO.’’ You omitted that fact that the Federal Court of Appeals profoundly repudiated that State court ruling you are relying on. And that, again, 

is not credible or impartial testimony. 

Now, I would ask the Chairman for consent to introduce into the 

record the Federal court opinion, the ethics complaint dismissal, 

the State bar complaint dismissal, and related materials. And I 

would also like to introduce a memo from Professors Ronald Rotunda and William Hodes concluding that, ‘‘The mere nonspecific 

allegations of a party uncritically adopted by a State court judge 

and rejected by the State agencies with jurisdiction over ethics 

complaints cannot possibly have any bearing on Senator Sessions’ 

ethical standing today.’’ 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to appears as submissions for the 

record.] 

Mr. COLE. Can I respond? No? Can I respond. Just briefly, and 

thank you. 

First of all, I did not omit that the Ethics Commission concluded 

there was not an ethics violation, but that was a year before the 

case was dismissed for rampant prosecutorial misconduct. 

Second, I did not omit the fact that the Eleventh Circuit reversed 

a lower court decision for introducing that trial court opinion. I addressed it and I explained that that Eleventh Circuit decision in no 

way questioned the factual validity of the trial court’s findings that 
189 

Senator Sessions’ office engaged in the worst misconduct that he 

had ever witnessed. 

What the court held was that, because it was hearsay, because 

it was hearsay and, therefore, the defendants were not able to 

cross-examine the information and because it was very prejudicial, 

it was improperly introduced. But the court did not have before it 

any facts that would allow it to assess whether the judge’s findings 

based on the judge’s record in the State trial court were right or 

wrong. And in fact—— 

Senator CRUZ. So you say the Federal court did not question the 

reliability. The quote from the Eleventh Circuit is that the State 

court’s opinion was, ‘‘particularly unreliable and misleading.’’ 

Mr. COLE. And what it meant was—but if you read the opinion, 

which I did, and, Senator Cruz, you are now presenting misleading 

information, because if you read the opinion, the opinion makes it 

very clear that the decision is based on a rule of hearsay and its 

relation to prejudice. In the abstract it is a legal ruling, it is not 

a factual determination in any way, shape, or form. 

And so you present one side, I present another side. I urge the 

Committee to look at the facts of this case where Senator Sessions 

worked on behalf, closely collaborated with people who were making campaign contributions to him, filed a 222-count indictment, 

every count was thrown out. 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Cole, my time is expired, but I would simply 

note the Federal Court of Appeals said, and I quote, ‘‘The statement of facts was intended to exculpate TIECO and, thus, it was 

self-serving and unreliable.’’ That is a verbatim quote from the 

Federal Court of Appeals and it is contrary to what you have just 

told this Committee. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Before my time starts, can I just note that 

Senator Cruz’s time went over 4 minutes. And I want to respond 

to something Senator Cruz said. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. [Off microphone.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I know, but can I maybe have a couple of 

extra minutes because I want to respond to something that Senator 

Cruz said about omitting facts. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. [Off microphone.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, you are the Chairman. Yesterday I developed this line of questioning with Senator Sessions where he 

mischaracterized civil rights cases that he had been involved in. 

He said that he had personally handled—among the 10 most important cases he personally handled, four of them were civil rights 

cases. And I put into evidence testimony from an op-ed article coauthored by Gerry Hebert. 

Mr. Cruz, in following me, said that Mr. Hebert’s testimony in 

’86 was discredited, that he recanted it and it was discredited. He 

did not recant his whole testimony. He recanted a small piece of 

his testimony. It was actually in the recanting of it—was Senator 

Sessions’ favor. And he did it before—he did it in time so it was 

before the vote. 

It was one little piece where he had misidentified. He said that 

Sessions had stopped him from pursuing, or not given him approval 

to do a civil rights case, and he had looked back at his records and 
190 

got that wrong. Every other part of his testimony he did not recant, 

and he was not discredited. 

So if the Senator is going after a witness for not being balanced, 

I would suggest that the Senator look at his own methods of making arguments. 

Now, I want to know, does anybody here, anybody on this panel, 

have any evidence at all, any reason to believe that there were 3 

million fraudulent votes cast in this election? 

[Voice off microphone.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 

Okay. Now, voting rights is a big deal. It is a really big deal. And 

so when we are going to be—we are talking about the Attorney 

General here, it is important that the Attorney General care about 

voting rights, because that is a part of his job. 

Now, Mr. Brooks, North Carolina. When was that—that was 

thrown out by the Fourth Circuit. When was that enacted—was 

thrown out by the Fourth Circuit? 

Mr. BROOKS. I think 2 years ago. 

Senator FRANKEN. How many? 

Mr. BROOKS. I think 2 years ago, I am not sure. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, 2 years ago, right? So in the intervening 

time, there have been elections, right? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. And what did the Fourth Circuit say about 

how this was targeted? 

Mr. BROOKS. The Court held that the voter suppression was intentional, racially intentional, and that it was carried out with surgical precision with respect to African-American voters. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. So in other words, the North Carolina 

State Legislature, with surgical precision, went after African-American voters to prevent them from being able to vote. 

And because we did not have preclearance, there were elections 

allowed to happen in which votes were suppressed, right? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. Is that how our democracy is supposed to 

work? 

Mr. BROOKS. No, Senator. As you well know, that when the 

preclearance provision was in effect, for years and years on end, 

these kinds of changes were regularly rejected by the Department 

of Justice—at least 20 or so a year. And so in the wake of the Shelby decision, what we have now is a political landscape in which the 

violation has to occur, and then ordinary citizens have to find lawyers, have to find experts, they have to find organizers, have to 

reach out to the NAACP to right a wrong in their democracy, 

where resources that they do not have in communities often under 

siege, civically speaking, and this is expensive. And it imposes a 

cost not only on the litigants, one of whom I walked with from 

Selma to DC last year, at 90-some-odd years of age. So this is not 

merely a matter of legal costs, but also costs on our fellow citizens. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, because we had Shelby, we did not have 

preclearance, and because of that, elections were held in which 

Black votes were suppressed. That we know. That we know is a 

fact. 
191 

Now, if we do not have preclearance, we have—and Senator Sessions said that this was targeted at the States—of course it was 

targeted at States like North Carolina and States that have a history of doing this. That is for a reason. And we can get a new formula, as Senator Coons has tried to get passed through here. 

But in the meantime—and does anyone—can anyone guess why 

I asked about the evidence on 3 million suppressed votes, or supposedly fraudulent votes? I think you know why I brought it up. 

Because when you are saying that there are 3 million fraudulent 

votes, that is your excuse to suppress votes. There was no—none 

of the States, nobody came forth with evidence of any widespread 

fraud. Zero fraud mainly is what we heard. 

And so what I want is—and I will just finish up with this sentence—I want an Attorney General who is going to protect people’s 

right to vote. And I do not think, with Senator Sessions, we are 

going to have that. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you very much. 

Does anybody on the Committee doubt that there are cases of 

voter fraud in America? They all said they do not doubt it. 

Do you doubt it? If you do, now is the time to speak up. 

Mr. BROOKS. Senator, various studies have indicated that when 

you compare the number of ballots cast in the hundreds of millions, 

the number of instances where voters are impersonating voters for 

the purpose of casting a ballot are a literal handful. 

So if you look at the research of Ari Berman, any number of 

scholars will indicate that it is virtually zero. It is a relative handful, to hundreds of millions of ballots cast. 

Senator GRAHAM. So you are saying there really is no evidence 

of voter fraud. What happens if a county has more votes than there 

are people in the county? 

That does not seem right to me. But anyway, the bottom line is 

I think you want to do two things, at least I do—make sure people 

can vote, and nobody votes illegally. Indiana has an approach; 

North Carolina has an approach. We will keep working on it. 

Mr. Brooks, do you give a scorecard to Members of Congress? 

Mr. BROOKS. The NAACP does, indeed. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Do you know what score was given to 

Senator Sessions in the 113th Congress? 

Mr. BROOKS. The Senator has received a low grade, as in a failing grade, for years on end. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. He got 11 percent. What did I get? 

Mr. BROOKS. Senator, I will have to consult the scorecard for you. 

Senator GRAHAM. I got 25 percent. Hatch got 25 percent. Grassley got 11 percent. Lee got 11 percent. Cruz got 11 percent. Sasse 

is yet to be determined. Flake, 29 percent. Crapo, 14 percent. Tillis, 

not rated. Kennedy, not rated. 

What did the Democrats get on this Committee? Feinstein got 

100 percent. Leahy got 100 percent. Durbin got 100 percent. 

Whitehouse got 100 percent. Klobuchar got 100 percent. Franken 

got 100 percent. Coons got 96. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Blumenthal got 100 percent and Hirono got 

100 percent. 
192 

Why do—would you say that there seems to be a difference in 

terms of the parties and how well they do with NAACP’s legislative 

agenda? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes. The new questions—the report cards are based 

on legislation, not party affiliation. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, is it not kind of odd that one party gets 

100 percent and nobody else does very well on our side? 

Mr. BROOKS. Senator, I do not think it is odd. It simply reflects 

the—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I think it is really odd. I think it—well, it 

speaks for itself. Name one—it means that you are picking things 

that conservative Republicans do not agree with you on and liberal 

Democrats do. I hope that does not make us all racist and all of 

them perfect on the issue. 

Can you name one person you think would be a good Attorney 

General on the Republican side? 

Mr. BROOKS. Senator, my purpose here, as you well know, as a 

witness, is to speak to the nominee’s fitness to serve as Attorney 

General. And I might note, with respect to our report card, we have 

done that for the better part of a century, not based on—— 

Senator GRAHAM. If I may, I think that the report card says volumes about how you view Republican conservatives, and all of us 

are in Jeff Sessions’ boat when it comes to your organization. 

Maybe we are all wrong and maybe you are all right. I doubt if it 

is that way. 

Mr. Mukasey, you have been Attorney General. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. You know the job pretty well. 

Mr. MUKASEY. As well as you can learn it in the time that I was 

there. 

Senator GRAHAM. So what makes you believe that Jeff is capable 

of doing the job? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think he has all the qualities of passing issues 

of competence and knowledge. He has all the qualities of mind and 

character that it takes to do the job, plus he has tremendous skill 

as a lawyer. He has also got an advantage that I did not have, 

which is to say he had 20 years in this body, so he understands 

relationships with Congress. It does not have to be a learned skill 

for him, and has the dedication to the rule of law that is required 

to do the job properly. 

I have no hesitation in supporting him. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Canterbury, you are—do you work with Democrats and Republicans at the FOP? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely, Senator. Many good friends on 

both sides of the aisles. 

Senator GRAHAM. Have you found Jeff Sessions willing to work 

with the other side when he finds common ground? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. And we have disagreed with Senator Sessions on issues, but always willing to listen to us. 

Senator GRAHAM. Have you found him—he will fight like a tiger 

for what he believes in? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. How do you say your name, Peter—— 
193 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Kirsanow. 

Senator GRAHAM. You have been a big supporter of Senator Sessions’ immigration position, is that fair to say? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. That is correct. 

Senator GRAHAM. And I have been a big opponent of that. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. That is correct. 

Senator GRAHAM. Your observations about the man I agree with, 

substantively, on the issue, I disagree, but I appreciate you coming 

forward and speaking. 

Mr. Vazquez—is that right? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. If I have my way, then we will find a way to 

replace the Executive orders with legislation to protect the 800,000 

people who have come out of the shadows. Look forward to working 

with you on that. Do you support deporting people who have committed felonies? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. I believe that the real spirit of immigration 

when coming to this country is to come here to pursue a better life. 

I can speak for the people I know, my parents, right? We came here 

to work. We came here to pursue a better life, and—— 

Senator GRAHAM. My question is, do you support deporting people who have committed felonies? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. If you are going to come here to work and you 

are here to do other issues, then perhaps you are not representing 

us, and you should not be given the same opportunities. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you all. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank the witnesses of this panel today for their moving testimony 

and for sharing with us their experiences and their struggles, their 

work for public safety, for justice, for civil liberties, and civil rights. 

The role of an Attorney General is not to be a bystander or a 

mere witness to the passing of time. Fundamentally, the top law 

enforcement officer of our country has an obligation to enforce the 

law. But that is too simplistic a framing. In a world of limited resources and competing demands, not every violation of law is enforced equally at all times in every situation. 

The Attorney General of the United States has enormous power 

to shape the strategy of the Justice Department and deploy its resources of $27 billion and 100,000 employees. And at times we 

heard yesterday a more moderate, more reflective Senator Sessions, who gave encouraging answers to a number of pointed questions. But I am very concerned that Senator Sessions’ 30-year 

record reflects many extreme positions far out of the mainstream, 

not just of our legislative work here, but out of the Republican 

Party. 

More than that, I am concerned that Senator Sessions’ record 

demonstrates that when there was an opportunity to stand up for 

the vulnerable, to promote civil rights or advance justice, he did 

not take action, or even actively opposed bipartisan work that 

would advance justice. So I have just a few quick questions. 

First, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to introduce into the record 

a letter from Coretta Scott King that was sent to the Chairman 

and Ranking—at that point, Senator Biden—back in 1986 that was 
194 

apparently omitted from the record, that I think ought to be made 

a part of the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator COONS. And I would like to first ask, if I might, Dr. 

Brooks about Senator Sessions’ record. He has been criticized for 

actions he took ranging from the 1980s to the current day. And 

based on his record, many have expressed concern that, as Attorney General, he might not fully enforce a variety of civil rights 

laws and help advance them. 

And after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County striking 

down preclearance—the most important piece, I would argue of the 

Voting Rights Act—a Voting Rights Act that was really forged in 

the crucible of the march in Selma. 

A number of us worked to try and find a fix that addressed his 

concerns about the formula being outdated, that the formula was 

based on things that had happened decades ago. And despite diligent, disciplined work to try and find a bipartisan solution, we did 

not find a partnership with him. 

Tell me, do you believe that Senator Sessions as Attorney General would not just be a witness to actions, but would act to advance justice? 

Mr. BROOKS. Based upon the record, we do not believe that. And 

the reason being here is that the Voting Rights Act has been debilitated in the wake of Shelby. We have seen these voter ID laws affecting at least 21 million Americans. We have seen these voter ID 

laws based upon the false predicate of voter fraud. We saw that in 

Alabama. We have not heard the Senator speak out on the voter 

suppression in his own State. 

A voter ID law in that State, or similar to the one in Alabama, 

has been invalidated both in the Fourth Circuit and in the Fifth 

Circuit, North Carolina and Texas. The Senator has referred to the 

Voting Rights Act as—or I should say, the debilitation of it—as 

good for the South. He has referred to the Voting Rights Act as intrusive. He has not spoken in any way commendable, has not done 

anything to strengthen the Act in the wake of Shelby, has not recognized the voter suppression in his own State, has not spoken out 

in any way significantly in terms of the voter suppression that has 

occurred in the wake of Shelby. So we have no reason to be confident that as a chief law enforcement officer of the country, that 

he would do all that is necessary to protect the rights of Americans. 

In other words, being a prosecutor is not merely a binary matter; 

you do it or you do not. There is a matter of discretion, there is 

a matter of judgment, there is a matter of allocation of resources, 

and a matter of using the resources of the Department of Justice 

to bring about justice. We have no reason to be confident that he 

will do that. 

Senator COONS. And to make it clear, Dr. Brooks, Senator 

Franken was just asking about this. The allegation that there were 

3 million fraudulent votes in this last election was made by the 

President-elect, without any foundation. We have had hearings in 

this Committee. There have been hearings in other places and in 

other legislatures. There is no evidence of widespread fraud to justify the voter ID statutes that have been enacted. And subsequent 

reviews, not just in North Carolina but in other places, have found 
195 

them to be unconstitutional, yet the nominee for Attorney General 

has been silent about those issues and concerns. Is that your case? 

Mr. BROOKS. That is in fact the case. And let us note this. Let 

us just be very clear about this. Empirically speaking, one is as 

likely to see the tooth fairy standing next to Santa Claus at the 

ballot box as to encounter an actual instance of voter impersonation, voter fraud. Those are simply the facts. So for this kind of 

voter fraud to be a predicate for voter suppression is a shame in 

our democracy. There is no such case of voter fraud on the magnitude that has been described by the President-elect. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Dr. Brooks. 

Mr. Cole, the ACLU has published a report outlining a number 

of concerns about Senator Sessions’ nomination, ranging from voting rights to criminal justice to LGBT rights to torture to religious 

freedom. 

I would like to note that in the audience today, I have marked, 

Mr. Khizr Khan is here with us. He has spoken passionately about 

his son’s sacrifice for our Nation in combat in Iraq and has submitted a letter that I think is worth review by all Members. I 

would like to submit it for the record, if I might. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

But Mr. Chairman, Mr. Khan, in his letter, spoke about his Muslim faith, about what it means to be an American and what it 

means to have real concerns about the Attorney General nominee 

and his commitment to the enforcement of religious liberty and 

protection of civil liberties. 

Out of all the issues raised by the ACLU, what concerns you 

most? 

Mr. COLE. Well, I think it is the pattern, the pattern of abuse 

when he exercised prosecutorial power, and the pattern while he 

was Senator of not just an ideological difference as some have put 

it, but of blindness at best and hostility at worst toward the interests and the rights that the Attorney General of the United States 

is—has a responsibility to protect. 

So when you say—you can vote against the Hate Crimes Act, but 

when you say the reason I am voting against the Hate Crimes Act 

is because I do not think gays and lesbians and women are victims 

of discrimination, that is a blindness. When you say that Islam is 

a toxic ideology, that is hostility. 

When you defend the President when he proposed—the President-elect, when he proposes a blatantly unconstitutional action 

using religion as a test for immigration, and you in the Senate are 

one of four people who defend that position and oppose a resolution 

that does no more than underscore what the Establishment Clause 

requires, which is that Government officials be neutral vis-a-vis religion, that gives us great pause. 

So I think it is the entire record here. It is not an individual disagreement, it is about a failure to recognize discrimination and a 

hostility to some of the very rights that the Justice Department is 

designed to protect. 

Senator COONS. Thank you both for your testimony. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I want to put in the record the fact that 

there has been a lot of discussion of the Perry County case. It is 
196 

worth noting that the Turner’s son, Albert F. Turner, Jr., thinks 

Senator Sessions handled their case fairly. He said this in the letter, ‘‘My family and I have literally been on the front line of the 

fight for civil rights my whole life, and while I respect the deeply 

held positions of other civil rights advocates who oppose Senator 

Sessions, I believe it’s important for me to speak out with regard 

to Senator Sessions personally’’—I appreciate Mr. Turner’s attitude—‘‘he was a Federal prosecutor at the Federal level with a job 

to do.’’ So without objection, I will put the statement in the record 

and turn to Senator Blumenthal. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Oh. Well, did you show up before I called 

on him? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would be happy to yield, if the Chairman 

so wishes. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Tillis, go ahead. I am sorry. I did 

not see you come in when I called him. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Actually, I have 

got to preside before too long, so this will be my last opportunity. 

So, thank you very much for the courtesy. 

Mr. Vazquez, I want to thank you for your service and I want 

to thank you for coming up and speaking on behalf of folks, where 

I for one happen to be on the spectrum where I think some sort 

of immigration reform policy is something I hope we accomplish 

over the next couple of years. I look forward to working with other 

colleagues on this issue. 

But now I want to go to Mr. Kirsanow. Am I pronouncing your 

name right, Mr.—— 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Close enough. 

Senator TILLIS. Okay. Kirsanow. You sat on a panel that I referred to in general yesterday. I do not know if you recall the panel 

where it was primarily Senator Sessions and myself in a kind of 

a debate club in the Immigration Subcommittee, but I pointed to 

that as an example of his sense of fairness, because we came to 

that Committee with very different views about the immigration 

issue. 

I do share many of the concerns—I am going to ask you a question in a moment about it—that you expressed. But what I was 

most struck by were the multiple rounds of discussions that we had 

and how quick he was to give me another round when he knew full 

well that what I was going to talk about was at odds with what 

he, as the Chair of that Committee, really wanted to have the discussion be about. So that, to me, is just another testament of the 

fair nature of Senator Sessions and I look forward to supporting his 

nomination. 

Mr. Kirsanow, I actually hope—and this relates to a question 

that Senator or Chairman Grassley asked yesterday. I actually 

hope, and do you believe, that an Attorney General Sessions would 

likely prosecute examples of where visa programs are being abused 

and calling out the people who are abusing the work visa programs 

that we have today? Do you think he is going to do that? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I am fairly certain he will, based on his public 

actions and the discussions we have had. He is concerned about enforcing the law as it exists, fairly, impartially. I think one of the 
197 

frustrations that he has expressed, as many people have expressed, 

is that existing immigration laws and other laws simply are not 

being enforced. As General Mukasey has indicated, it is his job to 

enforce the law as an Attorney General as opposed to a legislator 

who makes the law. 

Senator TILLIS. And Mr. Vazquez, the reason why I like the answer to that question is that there are those of us who want to 

make progress on immigration reform need to get to the facts 

around where the abuses are occurring and how we eliminate 

them, because once we eliminate the abuses, then we can have the 

legitimate discussion about labor shortages and demographic 

trends that are probably going to get—have to get us to the right 

place on allowing legal immigration to occur. 

But until we have a top law enforcement official who is willing 

to actually make sure that the law is followed today so that I can 

come back and say that there is a need for migrant workers, there 

may be a need for highly skilled workers, and we have an Attorney 

General who is actually enforcing the law to get rid of the abuses 

that take us further away from that result? 

I think, interestingly enough, that an Attorney General Sessions 

may get us closer to a solution on immigration reform that both 

you and Mr. Kirsanow may find acceptable over time. Maybe idealistic, I have only been in this job for a couple of years, but having 

somebody who will get to the facts and who will actually get us to 

a point to where we can discuss the facts in this meeting about the 

reality of immigration reform and demographic trends is something 

I think that Mr. Sessions is going to help us do. 

Mr. Thompson, you have spent a fair amount of personal time— 

if you roomed with Senator Sessions, then that means you spent 

a lot of personal time with him. Tell me a little bit about his experience as U.S. Attorney that you think make him highly qualified 

for the role of Attorney General, and also your personal observations with him when he was in the role as U.S. Attorney? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So my response to your question, Senator, really 

will go to some of the questions that have been asked about Senator Sessions’ ability and willingness to enforce the laws. Over the 

years, I have known, you know, some bad prosecutors and over the 

years I have known some good prosecutors. 

I can assure you that Senator Sessions will be aggressive with 

respect to potential violations of the law. He will strike hard blows, 

he will not strike foul blows. And I do not think anyone here 

should have any concern about his willingness to enforce our laws 

fairly, impartially. He is a professional. He will be a complete professional in this job. 

Senator TILLIS. Mr. Canterbury, I thank you and all the men and 

women who serve in our communities keeping us safe. There is another element to, I think, an Attorney General Sessions that I believe will help us get through the variations that we have in illegal 

seizures. I know that the Chair has had some concerns with forfeitures and seizures. 

I think a part of that has to do with the past execution of the 

current Department of Justice, and maybe the leadership in the 

past. I firmly believe that this is another issue to where maybe we 

can have a discussion about a proper execution of seizures and for-
198 

feitures that will make people in this Committee who are concerned with abuses less concerned with that. Would you agree with 

that statement? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. I mean, we stand ready to work 

with the Committee as well to find a solution to the issues on the 

less-than-credible seizures. But the vast majority of the seizures, as 

Senator Sessions has commented many times, are crooks paying for 

law enforcement. 

Senator TILLIS. And I tend to agree with that. Because my time 

is limited and I want to stay under, particularly in deference to 

Senator Blumenthal, I just want to thank General Mukasey. I actually had a question for you, but I am not going to ask it so I will 

not go over, except to thank you because you may be the first attorney who has come before a panel in this Judiciary Committee who 

answers yes/no questions with either yes or no. So, thank you very 

much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. This is a very distinguished panel and each of you 

brings a perspective that is very valuable to our Committee. 

Let me begin with Mr. Thompson, who has a wealth of experience, both as a private practitioner and as Deputy Attorney General. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And you used to be my Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That is correct. And we welcome you here. 

I am very concerned, as Senator Coons articulated so well, about 

a number of Senator Sessions’ views on issues which seem to be 

out of the mainstream and hostile to basic civil rights and liberties, 

his views on immigration, his statements about Muslims, and his 

views on voting rights. 

You served as Deputy Attorney General. You were responsible 

for enforcing the Voting Rights Act. I assume that you feel that it 

served a valid purpose. Do you agree that the Shelby County v. 

Holder decision was ‘‘good news,’’ which is what Senator Sessions 

called it? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am not that familiar with that case, Senator, 

but let me respond this way, please. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me just tell you, you may not be 

familiar in depth with it but essentially it gutted the act’s most important enforcement provisions and it lifted the obligation, which 

you were responsible for enforcing as Deputy Attorney General, on 

many States with a history of voting discrimination to clear voting 

changes with the Department of Justice. 

Mr. THOMPSON. As I understand the decision and as I understand the voting rights laws, the decision did leave in place provisions that allowed the Department of Justice to deal with important areas of voting rights. I now live in the South and one of the 

things about the way we have administered and implemented voting rights is that—I can tell you, I have lived in your home State 

and I have lived in the South, and I can tell you there are problems 

in both States. 

So for a lot of people who live in the South, the idea to be—the 

idea in this day and age to be subject to provisions that Con-
199 

necticut, for example, is not subject to, or other northern States are 

not subject to, is something that is hard to swallow for a number 

of people. 

Now, let me respond about Senator Sessions, what we are talking about in terms of his ability and willingness to—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me just—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Enforce the law. I—we all go about choosing our 

friends in different ways. I have friends with all kinds of different 

political philosophies, all kinds of different beliefs, liberal friends, 

conservative friends. But when you go to the character of Senator 

Sessions, as someone who is going to be the Attorney General of 

the United States and his willingness to enforce all laws in an aggressive and fair and impartial manner, I have no problem with 

him. 

I do not—I think he will be a very good Attorney General. You 

may not believe in that in terms of my own background, but I have 

practiced law for 43 years. I have spent a lot of time being concerned about diversity in our profession. I have spent a lot of time 

being concerned about equal rights. Jeff Sessions will be a very 

good Attorney General and I have no problem with his character 

as it relates to his willingness to enforce our laws. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you not agree that there is a continued need for enforcement of voting rights laws in the South, and 

other areas of the country? I am not singling out the South. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And would you not urge Senator Sessions 

that a decision that essentially guts one of the essential features 

of that law is not really good news for the South or the country? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I have never been a legislator, but that really 

will not be his concern as Attorney General. That will be the concern of this Committee in terms of dealing with legislation that 

might change and improve the voting rights laws. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Vazquez, have you submitted information to the Federal 

Government in connection with your status, and do you know of 

others who have as well who could be subject to enforcement actions as a result of information that they provided the Federal Government? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. I have—obviously I am now a U.S. citizen, 

but before—before this was the case I did submit a lot of information and I would have been subject to deportation before then. I 

know friends that have been—they have submitted all their information, there are beneficiaries on their DACA that are currently 

in that situation that could be—possibly be affected by a cessation 

of DACA. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yesterday, I questioned Senator Sessions 

about the status of those individuals who have submitted information and they find that information, in effect, used against them, 

which I think would be drastically unfair. 

And I asked him, as the Nation’s legal conscience—not just the 

President’s counsel, but he is the Nation’s lawyer—to exercise some 

moral and legal oversight to assure that there is no unfairness 

against those individuals. They have, in fact, trusted the Government. They have entrusted the Government with that information. 
200 

It is not a criminal double jeopardy issue, but my feeling is that 

many of them may be in a sense victims of their own honesty, coming forward to provide that information. 

Have you found among your friends a feeling of uncertainty, apprehension, fear that that information could be used against them? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. The biggest sense that I get from my friends, 

it is the sense of fear, mostly due to the fact that we are not sure 

if DACA is going to continue. The fact that their names are out 

there, they raised their hands saying they are undocumented in the 

United States, and the fact that the top law enforcement of the 

country has voted against them every single time he has gotten a 

chance—their biggest issue is that he mentioned that he is not 

going to be able to deport 800,000 people, and the fact that that 

means that we are going to remain in the country. Then how is 

that going to give us confidence to report crimes against us and feel 

that that is going to be processed in a judge manner? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, both of you, for your very helpful answers. Thank you. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I listened to your testimony this morning and it is clear to me 

you all are very, very smart people. If I struggle with your name, 

it is because I cannot see your name over here in my little corner, 

but I am going to try to be brief. 

How many of you—you can just give me a show of hands—how 

many of you support Senator Sessions? 

[A showing of hands} 

Senator KENNEDY. And how many of you oppose? 

[A showing of hands] 

Senator KENNEDY. Does anybody know how many lawyers there 

are in the United States? Do you know, Professor? Any idea? 

Mr. COLE. Some would say too many. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. I knew you were going to say that. 

Mr. COLE. I do not know the precise number. 

Senator KENNEDY. Okay. A couple hundred thousand, at least. I 

am a lawyer. 

Mr. COLE. That is in DC alone. 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes, really. I do not know how many Democrats and how many Republicans there are, but is there anybody 

on this panel who doubts that if the President-elect had nominated 

an attorney to be Attorney General who happens to be a Republican, that the Democrat party could not produce witnesses to say 

that he would be a bad Attorney General? Does anybody doubt that 

in this environment? 

[No response]. 

Senator KENNEDY. Is there anybody here who doubts that if the 

President-elect had nominated a Democrat, an attorney who happens to be a Democrat, to be Attorney General of the United 

States, that the Republican Party could not or would not produce 

witnesses to say that he would be a bad Attorney General? Does 

anybody doubt that? 

[No response]. 
201 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Hirono. Maybe I should say what 

our plans are. I believe that we have all the questioning done on 

our side, so when these two are done, it would be my idea to adjourn, and then at 1 o’clock, bring back the panel that is scheduled 

for the next one after this panel. So we have informed people that 

regardless of when we quit here, we will be back at 1 o’clock. 

Go ahead, Senator from Hawaii. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of the 

panelists this morning. Dr. Brooks, I have some questions for you. 

Post-Shelby, the burden of going forward to show that a voter requirement law is discriminatory now rests with organizations, individuals such as the NAACP, correct? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HIRONO. And prior to Shelby, the preclearance really put 

the burden on States to show that whatever laws they were contemplating in this area, they have to show that this was not a discriminatory act on their part. 

Mr. BROOKS. States with a history of—— 

Senator HIRONO. Yes, I realize. 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. So in this area of voting rights, there is no 

question in my mind that who bears the burden to go forward to 

prove something has a very high burden. At this point, that burden 

is really up to organizations like yours unless the Attorney General 

comes in, as they did in the North Carolina and Texas voting cases, 

to come in and weigh in and be a party. 

So I asked Senator Sessions yesterday whether he would be just 

as vigorous in paying attention to these kinds of laws that have 

been enacted, by the way, by States, some 13 or 14 States now 

post-Shelby. So my question to you is, recognizing that the Attorney General has very broad prosecutorial discretion, the Attorney 

General cannot prosecute every violation of law. That is—even he 

admitted yesterday that that would be pretty hard, given the resources, so the Attorney General has to make some priority decisions. 

So in your view, how high a priority was the enforcement of voting rights, such as the remaining Section 2 of the VRA, and civil 

rights laws under Jeff Sessions as Attorney General? How high a 

priority would those kinds of enforcement actions be? 

Mr. BROOKS. Senator, based upon the record, we have no reason 

to believe it would be a high priority. Where—in the two States 

that you noted, North Carolina and Texas, our State conferences of 

the NAACP, with our lawyers, went to court. We are, in fact, in 

many ways partners with the Department of Justice. 

That partnership presupposes that the Department of Justice, 

the leadership, the prosecutors are willing to see voter suppression. 

When I began my career at the Department of Justice in the Civil 

Rights Division, one of the things that I was advised by my supervisors, by my management, was the first thing you do when you 

conduct an investigation is reach out to the local branch of the 

NAACP. So we bear a heavy burden, but it is a burden that we 

would like to shoulder with a Department of Justice that is willing 

to see what we see. 
202 

Senator HIRONO. Ms. Swadhin, would you have some concerns 

about how high a priority prosecution of hate crimes, crimes 

against the LGBT community would be under Jeff Sessions as Attorney General? 

Ms. SWADHIN. Absolutely, Senator Hirono. I think it is worth 

saying that the Violence Against Women Act is one of the pieces 

of legislation in this country that has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In fact, Senator Leahy was the sponsor of the 2013 

version. But Senator Crapo on the Republican side co-authored the 

bill, and there were only 22 Senators who voted against it. 

Senator Sessions was one of those, so he broke with the majority 

of the Republican Party to vote against that 2013 version. He argued yesterday that the reason he voted against that 2013 Violence 

Against Women Act was because he had concerns about fiscal mismanagement and wanted harsher penalties, but the fact is that the 

bill that passed did include provisions to include fiscal and reporting accounting to address the rape kit backlog, to strengthen the 

prosecution of sex crimes. The big difference between the bill that 

passed and the so-called alternative bill that he was trying to 

argue was, you know, the thing that he voted for, was the non-discrimination clause for LGBT survivors. 

That—those discrimination—non-discrimination provisions were 

put into the bill that Senators Leahy and Crapo co-authored because national networks of victims’ service advocates were hearing 

from people on the ground, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis 

centers, counselors, that LGBT survivors were being discriminated 

against. 

So for Senator Sessions to go out on a limb, break with the majority of the Republican Party and vote against that legislation, to 

me, shows he has a strong bias against the LGBT community, 

which is also shown in his voting record against the Federal Hate 

Crimes Act that did also pass with a lot of bipartisan support, the 

Shepard-Byrd bill, and he of course also voted for a constitutional 

ban on same-sex marriage. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Vazquez, thank you for coming and testifying. As an immigrant myself, I certainly share your concerns about what would 

happen to the 800,000 DREAMers who have come out of the shadows if DACA is rescinded. 

Now, the Department of Defense has a program whereby they 

will accept DREAMers, if they have come out to participate in 

DACA, to enlist. And, clearly, if DACA is rescinded, then the Department of Defense program will also end. So as someone who is 

serving in the military, what do you say to people who question 

DREAMers who want to put on a uniform, serve our country, defend our country? 

Sergeant VAZQUEZ. Thank you, Senator Hirono. I would say that 

having deployed and having seen combat, I care more than the person that was right next to me was willing to commit the same sacrifices that I was. And to question the reason why a lot of—why 

I would join the military, being that this country raised me since 

I was a young child, I would—I would say that they definitely need 

to get to know one of us because that is not necessarily a fair statement, as to the reasons why we join the military. And I think that 
203 

the mere fact that students are—young people that are benefited 

by DACA are willing to put their lives on the line to make that 

statement is something powerful to—to show. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. I am running out of time, but I had 

a very short question for, again, Dr. Brooks regarding consent decrees with police departments. How important are these consent 

decrees, that they remain in place? 

Mr. BROOKS. Critically important, when you cross the—crisscross the country from Baltimore, to Ferguson, to Cleveland. The 

consent decrees provide a kind of bridge of accountability between 

police departments and the community that are enforceable. And 

bear in mind, this is not something that is imposed, but the parties 

agree to. And so they have legitimacy; they are an effective tool for 

the Department of Justice, and in a moment in which we have 

2,100 Americans who lose their lives at the hands of the police over 

the course of the last 2 years, when a young Black man is 21 times 

more likely to lose his life at the hands of the police, and where 

you have predatory policing and these viralized videos of police-involved killings, consent decrees offer a measure of reassurance that 

someone is paying attention, a department is being held accountable, and that the community has a role to play that will be recognized by the courts. So, they are critically important. 

Senator HIRONO. And I want to note that the vast majority of police departments, 18,000 or so, they are doing the right thing. 

There are about 20 consent decrees that we are talking about. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thought I would start with a kind of a different topic with you, 

Mr. Cole. It is about the Freedom of the Press. My dad is—was a 

long-time reporter with a Minneapolis paper, and it has been something that has been important to me my entire life. I actually 

asked Senator Sessions about this because he did not support the 

Free Flow of Information Act that we considered in this Committee. 

And then I specifically asked about how, in 2015, the Attorney 

General had revised the Justice Department rules for when Federal prosecutors can subpoena journalists or their records, and also 

Attorney General Holder had committed to releasing an annual report on any subpoena issued or charges made against journalists 

and committed to not to put reporters in jail for doing their jobs. 

I was not really able to get a straight answer. Senator Sessions 

said he would look back at the rules, and I will ask him on the 

record about it, so I do not have a concrete answer. But I just wondered if you could comment on the importance of the Freedom of 

the Press and some of these issues I raised in trying to keep these 

rules in place. 

Mr. COLE. Well, thank you, Senator Klobuchar. The Freedom of 

the Press is one of the critical aspects of our constitutional order. 

It is—it serves a critically important checking function on government overreach and it performs that function, especially critically, 

in times when one party controls all the branches of the Federal 

Government. 
204 

So the Freedom of the Press is absolutely critical. You look back 

and you look at the role that the press played in Watergate, and 

you look forward and you imagine what kinds of investigations 

might need to be undertaken in light of some of the allegations we 

have heard recently about Russia and the Trump campaign. I think 

it becomes very clear that our country’s democracy depends upon 

protection of the Freedom of the Press. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Canterbury, thank you for being here. You have a number 

of members in our State and I enjoy working with them. I know 

we have worked together on a number of things. 

I was not able to ask Senator Sessions yesterday, with our time 

limits, about the COPS program. As you know, in the House it has 

tended to be more bipartisan. I lead the bill in the Senate and I 

did get Senator Murkowski, the Republican of Alaska, who is doing 

it with me. But could you comment on the importance of that program, and maybe you will work with me in working with the Attorney General to get his support for this program. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. It is a very important program. I think that 

with the sharp decrease in the staffing levels around the United 

States, that that bill is very important, especially in the major cities that have a rising crime rate. We will be glad to work with the 

Attorney General, and obviously with this Committee, to do anything to help move that program forward. We have a real problem 

with recruitment and retention of police officers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I know that is an issue and we 

want to recruit police officers, get more diversity into our police, 

more women, and just in general, recruit more police officers. So, 

I appreciate that, as well as work on training issues. That is something I hope we will focus on in this Committee. So, thank you. 

Mr. Brooks, I asked yesterday—my lead questions were about 

the Voting Rights Act. I know a lot of my colleagues have focused 

on those issues as well today, but I just wanted to go back—I came 

in—I had another hearing in the Commerce Committee for Elaine 

Chao. I heard Senator Graham, my friend who I just traveled with 

for a week in Ukraine and other places, talking about the voter 

fraud issues. 

I used to prosecute these cases because I was the prosecutor for 

our biggest county in Minnesota, over a million people, and I know 

we would studiously, with an investigator, go through every report. 

In almost everything that was reported as a potential fraud, it was 

a father and son with the same name and it was not fraud at all. 

I think we had one guy that said to our investigator on the phone, 

over 5 years, that yes, he had voted twice because he felt he could 

not get his views expressed, and then of course we charged him 

with a crime. 

Then we had another person—and this is over 8 years in the office—a husband and wife, where a school district line had split 

down the middle of their house and they decided that should allow 

them to vote twice. But these were the cases of fraud that we encountered. In fact, this is backed up by the numbers. 

One study found just 31 cases of voter fraud out of 1 billion votes 

cast. I just think it is really important for people to understand 

how rare this is. And I know you know this, and why it is so impor-
205 

tant to look at the other side of the ledger, which is doing everything to make it easy for people to vote. 

My State had the highest voter turnout in the Nation in the last 

election. Iowa was close. It does not necessarily mean you have a 

Democrat or Republican in office, as we know from our two States. 

Wisconsin is another State with high voter turnout. I just think it 

should be such a priority to get more people out to vote, and if you 

could talk about that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly. The NAACP as an organization, we believe that the right to vote is a civic sacrament. We honor it. We 

literally have members of our organization who have laid down 

their lives for the franchise. We dedicate tremendous resources to 

ensure that people vote. 

In 2012, we led the Nation in terms of voter mobilization. These 

are grassroots volunteers. But when we talk about voter fraud, it 

suggests somehow that there are so many people who want to vote, 

they are willing to commit a crime to vote. That is not the case. 

We need more people to vote. The NAACP has focused on removing 

the barriers from voting, the obstacles to vote. We do so in a bipartisan—or I should say, excuse me, in a nonpartisan way—all across 

the country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you so much, Mr. Brooks. I appreciate that. 

I had one last question of you, Mr. Mukasey. We worked well together when you were the Attorney General, and I know that another Senator had asked you about the importance of an independent Attorney General, but I wanted to just ask you a question 

about the U.S. Attorneys. I know when you came in, you made 

some changes across the country with some of the U.S. Attorneys 

and you came in, in part, because there were issues of political influence with regard to some of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across 

the country. We certainly do not want to go back to that again. So 

could you talk about the importance of independent U.S. Attorneys 

and that they are insulated from politics? 

Mr. MUKASEY. The fact is that U.S. Attorneys, as you know, are 

political appointees. They are appointed by the President. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. Yes. 

Mr. MUKASEY. That said, once they are appointed, their charge 

is then to do essentially what the Attorney General’s charge is to 

do, which is to enforce the law. And they have to recognize, and 

do recognize, that as soon as they take the oath, that is their 

charge. And they have to be supported in that by the Department, 

which is to say, the Department has to back them up when they 

are conducting investigations that have merit and not yield to political pressure, if there is any. It is a rarity, too, that you find 

somebody trying to lean on an investigation, but there has to be 

resistance to that and it has to be backed up by the Department. 

I think if there is that kind of relationship between the Department and the U.S. Attorneys, then there will be justified public 

faith in law enforcement. If there is not, there will not, and that 

is very damaging. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Thank you all. 
206 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I thank all of you for your testimony. It has 

been very beneficial for both those opposed to and those in favor 

of Senator Sessions for Attorney General. 

The hearing will stand in recess until 1 o’clock. 

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m. the Committee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Committee reconvened.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Welcome to this panel. I have just got three 

or four sentences I want to read and then I will introduce the 

panel. 

We have come back this afternoon for our third and final panel. 

We have done this—we have not done this when we have held 

hearings for the past several Attorneys General, but Ranking Member Feinstein called me last week and made a special request for 

this panel and I am doing my best to conduct this proceeding fairly. 

We will hear from each witness for 5 minutes. We have agreed 

that we will not ask any questions of the witness, and we will adjourn when we have heard the last witness. 

Now I would like to introduce the witnesses. 

Mr. LEAHY. I have about a 30-second—— 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Go ahead right now then. 

Mr. LEAHY. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we know that the Attorney 

General is responsible for protecting the civil and human rights of 

Americans, and that is why many are worried, as you see in these 

hearings. 

Senator Booker, Congressman Lewis, and Congressman Richmond bring to the discussion an important perspective about the 

basic rights enshrined in the Constitution that we try to form a 

more perfect union. That continues with every generation. Congressman Lewis has been a friend of mine for decades, we served 

together, and he nearly gave his life for that effort. 

I invited Congressman Lewis to this Committee before for important conversations about marriage equality and voting rights, and 

the stakes are just as high. I am sorry we have broken with Committee tradition and made these Members in Congress wait till the 

very end of the hearing to speak. That is not the way I, as Chairman, would do, and other Chairmen have. But it is what we have. 

But I commend Senator Booker and Representative Lewis and 

Representative Richmond for their courage. I am proud to serve 

with them. I thank them for being here. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

My colleague, Senator Booker, is from New Jersey. I know him 

well. We all know him and we appreciate your coming over to testify. 

We will hear from Mr. Willie Huntley. Mr. Huntley is a former 

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama who 

worked under Senator Sessions when he served as U.S. Attorney 

there, and he has known Senator Sessions for nearly 30 years. 

Then we will hear from a well-known civil rights leader, Representative John Lewis, who represents Georgia’s 5th District. Welcome back to the Committee, Congressman Lewis. It is always good 

to have you here. 

After Representative Lewis, we will hear from the Honorable 

Jesse Seroyer, who served as U.S. Marshal for the Middle District 

of Alabama 2002 to 2011. He first got to know Senator Sessions in 
207 

1995 when he worked for him in the Alabama Attorney General’s 

Office. 

Next, we will hear from Representative Cedric Richmond, who 

serves the people of Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District, and is 

Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Welcome to the Committee, Congressman Richmond. 

Finally, we will hear from Mr. William Smith. Mr. Smith worked 

for Senator Sessions as the first African-American General Counsel 

on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has known Senator Sessions for 20 years, and we know him because of that service as a 

staff person here as well. 

Welcome to all of you. We will start with Senator Booker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I want to 

thank Senator Leahy as well, as well as the distinguished Members 

of this Committee. I know it is exceptional for a Senator to testify 

against another Senator nominated for a Cabinet position, and I 

appreciate the opportunity you have given me today. 

I work closely with many of you on this panel on both sides of 

the dais on matters related to criminal justice reform, and you 

know just how deeply motivated I am by the many issues our next 

Attorney General will heavily influence, especially the crisis of 

mass incarceration. 

I know that some of my many colleagues are unhappy that I am 

breaking with Senate tradition to testify on the nomination of one 

of my colleagues, but I believe, like perhaps all of my colleagues 

in the Senate, that in the choice between standing with Senate 

norms or standing up for what my conscience tells me is best for 

our country, I will always choose conscience and country. 

While Senator Sessions and I have consistently disagreed on the 

issues, he and I have always exercised a collegiality and a mutual 

respect between us. Perhaps the best example of this is the legislation we co-sponsored to award the Congressional Gold Medal to 

those foot soldiers who marched at Selma. One of the foot soldiers 

is sitting next to me now. 

This was a blessing and an honor to me because in 2015, a retired judge, who was White, told me that it was those brave marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge who inspired him as a young 

lawyer in the 1960s to seek justice for all in New Jersey and begin 

representing Black families looking to integrate in White neighborhoods, Black families who were turned away and denied housing. 

One of those families was mine. I am literally sitting here because of people, marchers in Alabama and volunteer lawyers in 

New Jersey, who saw it as their affirmative duty to pursue justice, 

to fight discrimination, to stand up for those who are marginalized. 

But the march for justice in our country still continues, it is still 

urgent. 

I know also, though, of the urgency for law and order. I imagine 

that no sitting Senator has lived in the last 20 years in higher 

crime neighborhoods than I have. I have seen unimaginable violence on American streets. I know the tremendous courage of law 
208 

enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every single 

day to fight crime in America. 

I want an Attorney General who is committed to supporting law 

enforcement and securing law and order, but that is not enough. 

America was founded, heralding not law and order, but justice for 

all. Critical to that is equal justice under the law. Law and order 

without justice is unobtainable. They are inextricably tied together. 

If there is no justice, there is no peace. The Alabama State troopers 

on the Edmund Pettus Bridge were seeking law and order. The 

marchers were seeking justice, and ultimately a greater peace. 

One of the victories of the modern civil rights movement was the 

1957 Civil Rights Act, which in effect made the Attorney General 

not only the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, but 

also vested in that office the responsibility to pursue civil rights 

and equal protection for all of America. 

Senator Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional 

mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens. In fact, at numerous times in his career he has demonstrated 

a hostility toward these convictions and has worked to frustrate attempts to advance these ideals. 

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will be required to pursue justice 

for women, but his record indicates that he will not. He will be expected to defend the equal rights of gay and lesbian and 

transgender Americans, but his record indicates that he will not. 

He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates 

that he will not. He will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants and affirm their human dignity, but the record indicates 

that he will not. 

His record indicates that as Attorney General he would object to 

the growing national bipartisan movement toward criminal justice 

reform. His record indicates that we cannot count on him to support State and national efforts toward bringing justice to the justice system, and people on both sides of the aisle who readily admit 

that the justice system as it stands now is biased against the poor, 

against drug addicted, against mentally ill, and against people of 

color. 

His record indicates that at a time that even the FBI director is 

speaking out against implicit racial bias and policing and the urgent need to address it, at a time when the last two Attorney Generals have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system, at 

a time when the Justice Department he would lead has uncovered 

systemic abuses in police departments all over the United States, 

including Ferguson, including Newark, Senator Sessions would not 

continue to lead this urgently needed change. 

The next Attorney General must bring hope and healing to the 

country, and this demands a more courageous empathy than Senator Sessions’ record demonstrates. It demands an understanding 

that patriotism is love of country, and love of country demands that 

we love all of our citizens, even the most marginalized, the most 

disadvantaged, the most degraded, and the most unfortunate. 

Challenges of race in America cannot be addressed if we refuse 

to confront them. Persistent biases cannot be defended unless we 
209 

combat them. The arc of the moral universe does not just naturally 

curve toward justice, we must bend it. 

If one is to be Attorney General, they must be willing to continue 

the hallowed tradition in our country of fighting for justice for all, 

for equal justice, for civil rights. America needs an Attorney General who is resolute and determined to bend the arc. Senator Sessions’ record does not speak to that desire, intention, or will. With 

all that is at stake in our Nation now, with the urgent need for 

healing and for love, I pray that my colleagues will join me in opposing his nomination. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is over. I would like to submit the rest 

of my testimony to the record. I would like to again thank you for 

your opportunity to testify. Finally, I would like to acknowledge, 

which was not done, that sitting behind me are proud Members of 

the U.S. Congress and the Congressional Black Caucus. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Booker appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. And you should not have had to recognize 

them, I should have done that. I am sorry. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Because I knew they were here. 

Mr. Huntley. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIE J. HUNTLEY, JR., FORMER ASSISTANT 

U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, MOBILE, 

ALABAMA 

Mr. HUNTLEY. Good afternoon. My name is Willie Huntley, and 

I am an attorney located in Mobile, Alabama. I am a solo practitioner and I have been practicing law for over 30 years. 

I am a graduate of Auburn University, where I attended college 

on a football scholarship. I graduated from Auburn in 1980 and I 

attended Cumberland Law School after that. I finished Cumberland Law School in 1984. After I finished law school, I started 

a Federal clerkship with a Federal judge in Montgomery, Alabama. 

After I completed that process, I began a tour with the—as an 

Assistant District Attorney in Macon County, Alabama. I was there 

from 1985 to 1987. Then my life changed. I got a phone call one 

day, and my secretary comes in the office and she says Jeff Sessions is on the phone. And I am sitting there wondering, why is 

Jeff Sessions calling me? I was well aware of the allegations that 

had happened in his bid to become a Federal judge, which made 

me wonder why he was calling me. I answered the phone and then 

I find out that Jeff Sessions wants me to become an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama. 

This presented an ideal situation, so I decided to take advantage 

of that. The first time I actually met him was at a dinner in Montgomery. That dinner was supposed to last probably an hour, hour 

and a half. We ended up meeting for about 3 hours. During that 

time period, we discussed a number of topics: football, religion, politics, family. We talked about all those things. 

During the course of that meeting with him, I got the feeling 

more and more and more that the allegations that had been spread 

through the press were not true. I also was contemplating whether 
210 

I should make this move because I thought, if I go to Mobile, I do 

not know anybody there, I have no family there, and what if this 

man turns out to be exactly how he has been portrayed? 

Fortunately, it did not turn out like that. I was at the U.S. Attorney’s Office from 1987 to 1991. He assigned me the general criminal trial cases. He also assigned me to civil rights cases, and I 

would supervise all the civil rights cases that came through the office. During this time period, I can recall where we successfully 

prosecuted a police officer that was charged with excessive use of 

force. 

Unfortunately, I made a decision to leave the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1991. That decision was not based on anything that had 

happened to me during my time period in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. During that time period, Jeff gave me advice, counsel. He provided a great deal of support in everything that I did. One thing 

in particular that he did, was my second child was born and there 

was a knock on the door that morning, and through the door walks 

Jeff Sessions. 

After I left the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jeff became the Attorney 

General of Alabama. He asked me to join his staff at that time, but 

I declined to join his staff. However, he made me a Special Assistant Attorney General and he put me in charge of handling defense 

cases for the State of Alabama. 

Also during this time period, Jeff became charged with violating 

the State of Alabama Ethics Act. It involved a company by the 

name of TIECO. Jeff Sessions could have hired any lawyer he 

wanted to to represent him in that matter. Jeff decided to hire me 

in that particular case. We had that case and during the course of 

it, it was probably the longest hearing that had ever been held before the State Ethics Commission. At that point, Jeff was fully exonerated of all the charges involving the State Ethics Act. 

One of the things that I can say about Jeff, is that he has always 

been the same person that I have known. He has always been 

available for me and always been there when I needed him. At no 

point in the time that I have known Jeff has he demonstrated any 

racial insensitivity. I see my time is rapidly winding down. 

I would just like to say that in my opinion, Jeff Sessions will enforce and follow the laws of the United States evenhandedly, equally, and with justice for all. Jeff Sessions will adhere to the Justice 

Department motto, ‘‘qui pro domina justitia sequitur.’’ It means, 

‘‘for the Lady Justice.’’ Jeff will protect and defend the rights of all 

people. 

Thank you so much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huntley appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Now we will hear from Congressman John Lewis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Representative LEWIS. Chairman Grassley, Senator Leahy, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 
211 

Millions of Americans are encouraged by our country’s efforts to 

create a more inclusive democracy, during the last 50 years of what 

some of us call the beloved community, a community at peace with 

itself. They are not a minority. A clear majority of Americans say 

they want this to be a fair, just, and open Nation. 

They are afraid that this country is headed in the wrong direction. They are concerned that some leaders reject decades of 

progress and want to return to the dark past when the power of 

law was used to deny the freedoms protected by the Constitution. 

The Bill of Rights and its Amendments—these are the voices I represent today. 

We can pretend that the law is blind. We can pretend that it is 

evenhanded. But if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we 

are called upon daily by the people we represent to help them deal 

with unfairness in how the law is written and enforced. 

Those who are committed to equal justice in our society wonder 

whether Senator Sessions calls for law and order, if it means today 

what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back then. The 

rule of law was used to violate the human and civil rights of the 

poor, the dispossessed, people of color. I was born in rural Alabama, not very far from where Senator Sessions was raised. 

There was no way to escape or deny the chokehold of discrimination and racial hate that surrounded us. I saw the signs that said 

‘‘White Waiting,’’ ‘‘Colored Waiting.’’ I saw the signs that said 

‘‘White Men,’’ ‘‘Colored Men,’’ ‘‘White Women,’’ ‘‘Colored Women.’’ I 

tasted the bitter fruits—the bitter fruits of segregation and racial 

discrimination. 

Segregation was the law of the land, the order of society in the 

deep South. Any Black person who did not cross the street when 

a White person was walking down the same sidewalk, who did not 

move to the back of the bus, who drank from a ‘‘White’’ water fountain, who looked a White person directly in their eyes, could be arrested and taken to jail. 

The forces of law and order in Alabama were so strong, that to 

take a stand against this injustice we had to be willing to sacrifice 

our lives for our cause. Often, the only way we could demonstrate 

that a law on the books violated a higher law was by challenging 

that law, by putting our bodies on the line and showing the world 

the unholy price we had to pay for dignity and respect. 

It took massive, well-organized, non-violent dissent for the Voting Rights Act to become law. It required criticism of this great Nation and its laws to move toward a greater sense of equality in 

America. We had to sit in, we had to stand in, we had to march. 

That is why, more than 50 years ago, a group of unarmed citizens, Black and White, gathered on March 7, 1965, in an orderly, 

peaceful, non-violent fashion to walk from Selma to Montgomery, 

Alabama, to dramatize to the Nation and to the world that we 

wanted to register to vote, wanted to become participants in a 

democratic process. 

We were beaten, tear-gassed, left bloody, some of us unconscious, 

some of us had concussions, some of us almost died on that bridge. 

But the Congress responded. President Lyndon Johnson responded 

and the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and it was signed 

into law on August 6, 1965. We have come a distance, we have 
212 

made progress, but we are not there yet. There are forces that 

want to take us back to another place. We do not want to go back, 

we want to go forward. 

As the late A. Philip Randolph, the dean of the March on Washington in 1963, often said, ‘‘Maybe our forefathers and our 

foremothers all came to this great land in different ships, but we’re 

all in the same boat now.’’ It does not matter how Senator Sessions 

may smile, how friendly he may be, how he may speak to you. 

But we need someone who can stand up, speak up, and speak out 

for the people that need help, for people who have been discriminated against. It does not matter whether they are Black or White, 

Latino, Asian American, or Native American, whether they are 

straight or gay, Muslim, Christian, Jews; we all live in the same 

house, the American house. We need someone as Attorney General 

who is going to look out for all of us and not just for some of us. 

I ran out of time. Thank you for giving me a chance to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Lewis appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Congressman Lewis. 

Now I go to Mr. Seroyer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JESSE SEROYER, JR., FORMER U.S. 

MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, MONTGOMERY, 

ALABAMA 

Mr. SEROYER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it 

is an honor for me to be here and I thank you for your time. 

My name is Jesse Seroyer, Jr. I have been in law enforcement 

since 1976 to 2016. I have served in local police departments for 

11 years, served in the United States Marshal Service for 81⁄2

years, served in the Attorney General’s Office for 201⁄2 years. I first 

met Jeff Sessions when he was U.S. Attorney in the Middle District 

of Alabama—in the Southern District, I am sorry. 

Jeff was prosecuting at that time a Klansman by the name of 

Henry Hayes. Jeff prosecuted that person for the abduction and 

murder of a Black teenager. Following Jeff’s election as Attorney 

General, I had the privilege to serve with him in his administration 

as his chief investigator. 

The beginning of Jeff’s tenure as Attorney General presented 

Senator Sessions with challenges that included a budget crisis and 

a one-third reduction of staff. The things that Jeff did when we 

came to the budget crisis and the reduction of staff—there were 

several people in the office that had to seek other jobs elsewhere. 

There was a Black investigator in the office that came and had less 

than a year left before he was eligible to retire. Jeff Sessions allowed that to take place. He did not have to do that. He did not 

have to do that at all because of the situation that we were in. 

Jeff Sessions retained me. He did not have to do that, but he did. 

Following the election, you know, we were charged with the responsibilities of a lot of crimes, and the expectations of the Attorney 

General was charged with the responsibilities of working various 

cases, which included white-collar crimes, public corruption, voter 

fraud, and criminal investigations. 

As I reflect on our work, there was never a time when any of 

these cases was investigated with any political agenda or motive. 
213 

The utmost respect and integrity was exercised for all individuals 

involved. Jeff Sessions’ service and decisions as Attorney General 

earned him a reputation and respect among his colleagues in appreciation for his willingness to do what was right. 

When Jeff Sessions got to the U.S. Senate, as Attorney General 

he had argued to uphold a conviction and sentence of Klansman 

Henry Hayes for the murder of Michael Donald. When Jeff Sessions became a U.S. Senator, he helped me be appointed for the 

U.S. State Marshal for the Middle District of Alabama. He did not 

have to do that, but he did. 

I have known Jeff Sessions for 20 years. He is a good and decent 

man. He believes in law and order for all the people—all the people 

in Alabama, because of his colleagues and all that surrounded him, 

the things that he has done for the law enforcement community 

and the citizens of Alabama, it is great. It is without any question 

as to whether or not he would be fit to serve this country as the 

U.S. Attorney General. 

Now, I did not learn these things from a political press conference, any website where I read about him. I know Jeff Sessions 

as the man. The man that I know is a decent and honest and respectful man that will put all of his life into public service. He has 

done that. 

When we talk about the criminal justice system, we enforce the 

laws and we do it because we have a love for the laws. Jeff Sessions loved the people that do the enforcement side of it. He respects the citizens, who deserve a good and honest person that is 

going to give all he has to make sure that everyone is treated 

equally and fairly under the law. 

But his decency as a man and his honesty as a man speak for 

itself. He is the type of individual that I support for the United 

States Attorney General’s Office because of my reputation and his 

history with me as a person and the things that I have seen over 

the years in Jeff Sessions. It is hard being a public servant. 

I was in law—been in law enforcement for 40 years. It is a tough 

job. We do not violate the laws, we do not get out there and do 

things that would cause ourselves to be brought into the system. 

And I am not saying everybody is the same, but I believe that he 

will take hold of the justice system, the Justice Department, and 

he will be fair, he will be honest, and he will do the same thing 

for every person, with honesty and respect for all of us. 

My time is up. Thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seroyer appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Seroyer. 

Now, Congressman Richmond. 

[Disruption in the audience.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Wait just a minute, Congressman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND 

CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS 

Representative RICHMOND. Let me thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Member for allowing me to testify. 

[Disruption in the audience.] 
214 

Chairman GRASSLEY. I would ask you to hold. You will not lose 

any time. 

Proceed, Congressman. 

Representative RICHMOND. Let me thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Member for allowing me to testify. The Senate’s duty to 

provide advice and consent to Presidential nominees is a fundamental component of American democracy. I know that you do not 

take this responsibility lightly. 

Before I jump into my substantive testimony, I want to address 

two timely issues. First, I want to express my concerns about being 

made to testify at the very end of the witness panels. To have a 

Senator, a House Member, and a living civil rights legend testify 

at the end of all of this is the equivalent of being made to go to 

the back of the bus. It is a petty strategy and the record should 

reflect my consternation at the unprecedented process that brought 

us here. 

My record on equality speaks for itself, and I do not mind being 

last. But to have a living legend like John Lewis handled in such 

a fashion is beyond the pale, and the message sent by this process 

is duly noted by me and the 49 Members of the Congressional 

Black Caucus and the 78 million Americans we represent, and the 

over 17 million African Americans that we represent. 

Further, on the issue of Senator Sessions’ record of prosecuting 

the Marion Three, stemming from a complaint filed by African 

Americans, I say the following: History is replete with efforts by 

those in power to legitimize their acts of suppression and intimidation of Black voters by recruiting other Blacks to assist in bringing 

trumped up charges against law-abiding citizens who are engaged 

in perfectly legitimate voter education and empowerment activities. 

Those tactics were effectively used against former Congressman 

Robert Smalls and hundreds, if not thousands, of Black office holders and land holders in our post-Reconstruction era. They were 

used several years ago against Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Turner, who 

were discussed by this Committee yesterday. 

The Declaration of Independence set forth the idea of universal 

equality that rests at the heart of our democracy, but it is the 14th 

Amendment to our Constitution and its Equal Protection Clause 

that has helped bring us closer to fulfilling that foundational principle and bringing us closer to a more perfect union. 

All Cabinet officials have a responsibility to protect the interests 

of all of the American people, but there is no office for which the 

duty to apply the law equally is greater than that of the Attorney 

General. In my capacity as Chairman of the Congressional Black 

Caucus, I urge you to reject Senator Sessions’ nomination. 

Throughout our Nation’s history, Attorney Generals have used 

the resources of the Federal Government to vindicate the right of 

the most vulnerable in society. After the Civil War, the first Attorney General to lead the DOJ, Amos Akerman, prosecuted the KKK 

for its widespread use of violence aimed at suppressing the Black 

vote. This facilitated massive Black voting turnout in 1872. For the 

first time in our Nation’s history, former slaves were afforded the 

opportunity to participate in the democratic process. 

Simply put, Senator Sessions has advanced an agenda that will 

do great harm to African-American citizens and communities. For 
215 

this reason, the CBC believes Senator Sessions should be disqualified. He has demonstrated a total disregard for the equal application of justice and protection of the law as it applies to African 

Americans, and falls short on so many issues. 

Jeff Sessions supports a system of mass incarceration that has 

disproportionately targeted African-American citizens and devastated African-American communities. He opposed common-sense, 

bipartisan criminal justice reform, and Jeff Sessions cannot be relied upon to enforce the Voting Rights Act. In his decades-long career and public life, Senator Sessions has proven himself unfit to 

serve in the role as Attorney General. 

I would not have the opportunity to testify today were it not for 

men like John Lewis, who was beaten within an inch of his life in 

his pursuit for the right to vote for African Americans. It is a 

shame that he must sit here and re-litigate this 50 years later. 

We sit here as the progeny of men and women who were bought, 

sold, enslaved, raped, tortured, beaten, and lynched. Black people 

were bought as chattel and considered three-fifths of a human 

being. However, we have been able to endure and largely overcome 

that history, thanks in part to brave men and women, both Democrat and Republican, who sat where you sit and cast often difficult 

votes for freedom and equality. These Senators fought public opinion and even their own party to do what was right. I come before 

you today asking you to do the same. 

Now, you all must face a choice: Be courageous or be complicit. 

If you vote to confirm Senator Sessions, you take ownership of everything he may do or not do in office. He has no track record of 

fighting for justice for minorities, despite the characterizations that 

you have heard from others today. 

He and his supporters have told you that he is a champion for 

civil rights and equality. Characterization and revisionist histories 

are not the same things as facts. He is on the record on numerous 

issues; I have provided just a few examples today. 

Let us think about this logically. If he were in fact the champion 

for civil rights, would not the civil rights community support his 

nomination instead of speaking with one voice in near-unanimous 

opposition? 

In closing, each and every Senator who casts a vote to confirm 

Senator Sessions will be permanently marked as a co-conspirator 

in an effort to move this country backward, toward a darker period 

in our shared history. 

So I ask you all, where do you stand? It is clear from Senator 

Sessions’ record where he stands. Will you stand with him and 

allow history to judge you for doing so? I implore you all to weigh 

these questions properly as you prepare to cast what will be one 

of the most consequential votes in your time as a United States 

Senator. ‘‘Res ipsa loquitur’’ is a legal term which means, ‘‘the 

thing speaks for itself.’’ Senator Sessions’ record speaks for itself, 

and I would urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to go over. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Richmond appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you, Congressman Richmond. 
216 

Now I call on Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, 

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Grassley, Members of the Committee, I 

ask that my written statement be made a part of the record. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. It will be. And that is true of Senator Booker and anybody else that did not get their entire statement put in 

the record. It will be in the record, yes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Mr. SMITH. It is an honor for me to be here today to support Senator Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States 

of America. He will do an outstanding job. The American people 

had an opportunity to witness yesterday, through his testimony, a 

brilliant legal mind, a man of the highest character and great integrity. 

Let me briefly address this legal mind. As a staffer, your job is 

to always be more prepared than the Member. Senator Sessions 

made this difficult. I remember one hearing where I was passing 

Senator Sessions note after note to make sure he was prepared. 

When he did not speak on the topic I handed him, I would hand 

him another note on another topic. Finally, he decided to speak. He 

did—as he did in his testimony yesterday, he crushed it. 

Senator Sessions was not ignoring my notes, he was systematically thinking about how to put all the notes together in one 

speech. A number of my colleagues were amazed by his speech. 

They asked me afterwards, what did you say to him in those notes? 

I told them, I handed Senator Sessions a blank sheet of paper and 

told him to make me look good, and that is what he did. 

Senator Sessions spent yesterday proving to the American people 

that he understands the law, will disperse it equally, and he made 

a bunch of staffers look good. 

A lot has been said about Senator Sessions’ character. We have 

seen people who have never met Senator Sessions claim to know 

him, know his heart. We have seen Members of this body and 

Members of the House of Representatives just now who have 

worked with Senator Sessions and praised him for his work, and 

now turn to attack him. This should not be. 

The reason we did not see a lot of this yesterday during the hearing is because the Members of this Committee know Senator Sessions. You know he is a strong conservative, but you also know he 

is fair and honest. If you disagree with Senator Sessions because 

of his political views, let us have a conversation about that but let 

us do it on the facts, not on 30 years of old innuendos and allegations that have been disproven. 

There is something very consistent about praising Senator Sessions for aiding African-American communities and working on 

crack and powder cocaine legislation, and then criticizing him because he takes a different political view on another matter like immigration. 

Enforcing immigration laws is not out of the mainstream. 
217 

On the panel that testified before this one, there were personal 

attack, after personal attack, after personal attack. I doubt any one 

of those individuals attacking Senator Sessions, outside of yesterday, has spent 30 minutes in the same room with him. That is 30 

minutes in the same room, not 30 minutes talking to him. I doubt 

any of them have spent 30 minutes, or 10 minutes, talking to Senator Sessions. 

This process should not be about—this process should be about 

facts, not about political aspirations. Every allegation and witness 

from 30 years ago has been discredited. Members and the media 

should move on. Senator Sessions testified yesterday that he would 

enforce the laws whether he agreed with them or not. 

That is the role of the Attorney General, not to embrace every 

point of view in the shifting political winds. If you come before Jeff 

Sessions you will get equal justice and you will respect the outcome, even if you lose. 

How do I know this? I know it because I know Jeff Sessions. I 

am not testifying as someone who just met him yesterday. I know 

his family, I have dined at his house. We have eaten Johnny Rockets burgers together. I have traveled across the State of Alabama 

with Jeff Sessions. I have watched him order a Heath Blizzard at 

Dairy Queen, quote, ‘‘heavy on the Heath.’’ 

I have watched him prepare for hearings. I have debated him on 

legislative matters. I have written speeches for him. I have made 

speeches on his behalf. I have been in every political situation with 

him. Senator Sessions is unquestionably qualified for the job for 

which he has been nominated. He is a good Christian man and a 

good family man. 

He is a man who has dedicated his life to public service, and in 

the course of that he has actually fought for the disenfranchised. 

He fought for citizen reform, and not only did he fight for it, he accomplished it. He fought for civil rights. He prosecuted members of 

the Ku Klux Klan and, most importantly, he has fought for the liberty of all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin or their 

personal beliefs. This is the way it should be. After 20 years of 

knowing Senator Sessions, I have not seen the slightest evidence 

of racism because it does not exist. I know a racist when I see one, 

and I have seen more than one, but Jeff Sessions is not one. 

Senator Sessions has served with distinction throughout his career as a U.S. Attorney, as Attorney General for Alabama, and as 

a Member of this body. The legal profession is better for his service, this body is better for his service, and this country, at the end 

of his term, will be better for his service. 

In every season, Jeff Sessions has been measured, courteous, and 

kind. He has treated me and everyone respectfully and fairly, not 

showing favoritism at any point. This is the kind of Attorney General that our Nation needs. I applaud his selection. I look forward 

to his swift confirmation. Thank you and War Eagle. 

Chairman GRASSLEY. The record will stay open until Tuesday. I 

thank all of you for your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1 and for 

Day 2 follows.] 

(219) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
220 

Mr. Cornell Brooks 

President and CEO 

NAACP 

Baltimore, MD 

Mr. Chuck Canterbury 

National President 

Fraternal Order of Police 

Washington, DC 

Mr. David Cole 

Legal Director 

ACLU 

Washington, DC 

The Honorable Larry Thompson 

Former Deputy Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Panel III 

The Honorable Cory Booker 

United States Senator 

State of New Jersey 

Mr. Willie Huntley 

Former Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

Mobile,AL 

The Honorable John Lewis 

United States Representative 

5th District of Georgia 

The Honorable Jesse Seroyer 

Former United States Marshal 

Middle District of Alabama 

Montgomery, AL 

The Honorable Cedric Richmond 

United States Representative 

2nd District of Louisiana 

Chair 

Congressional Black Caucus 

Mr. William Smith 

Former Chief Counsel 

Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Washington, DC 
221 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-.JlJDICIAL NOMINEES 

PUBLIC 

1. ~: State full name (include any former names used). 

JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III 

2. ~: State the position for which you have been nominated. 

Attorney General of the United States 

3. Address: List current office address. If city and state of residence differs from your 

place of employment, please list the city and state where you currently reside. 

United States Senate 

326 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0104 

Currently a permanent resident of Mobile, Alabama, with a residence also in 

Washington, D.C. 

4. Birthplace: State date and place of birth. 

December 24, 1946 

Selma, Alabama 

5. Education: List in reverse chronological order each college, law school, or any other 

institution of higher education attended and indicate for each the dates of attendance, 

whether a degree was received, and the date each degree was received. 

University of Alabama Law School, obtained JD, 6/1973 

Huntingdon College, obtained BA in history, 6/1969 
222 

6. Employment Record: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, 

business or professional corporations, companies, finns, or other enterprises, 

partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you have 

been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation 

from college, whether or not you received payment for your services. Include the name 

and address of the employer and job title or description. 

1969-1970 

Goode Street Elementary School, 

Montgomery, AL 

School no longer exists 

Teacher 

Paid 

1973-1975 

Guin, Bouldin & Porch 

Attorneys at Law 

Russellville, AL 

Firm no longer exists 

Attorney 

Paid 

1975-1977 

Assistant United States Attomey for Southern District of AL 

Federal Courthouse 

Mobile, AL 36601 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Paid 

1977-1981 

Stockman & Bedsole 

PO Box 8367 

Mobile, AL 36608 

Associate; Partner 

Paid 

1981-1993 

US Attorney for Southern District of Alabama 

Federal Courthouse 

Mobile, AL 36601 

United States Attorney 

Paid 

2 
223 

1993-1995 

Stockman & Bedsole 

PO Box 8367 

Mobile, AL 36608 

Partner 

Paid 

1995-1997 

Attorney General of Alabama 

PO Box 300152 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Attorney General 

Paid 

1997 ·Present 

United States Senator 

326 Russell Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator 

Paid 

7. Military Service and Draft Status: Identify any service in the U.S. Military, including 

dates of service, branch of service, rank or rate, serial number (if different from social 

security number) and type of discharge received, and whether you have registered for 

selective service. 

I joined Army ROTC at the University of Alabama in 1970 during law school. I then 

completed Basic Training at Ft. Knox, KY in 1971. 1bis was in lieu of first two years of 

ROTC. (Huntingdon College did not offer ROTC.) I completed Advanced ROTC in the 

summer of 1972 at Ft. Bragg, NC. I completed Quartermaster School at Ft. Lee, VA in 

1974 and moved to Control Group until joining US Army Reserve in Mobile in !975. 

I was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1973 upon graduation at the University of 

Alabama. After moving to Mobile, I served in the 1184th Transportation Tennin<~l 

Unit, US Army Reserve in Mobile, Alabama, 1975-1985, as a transportation officer 

and held a JAG slot for several years. While in that unit in Mobile, l was promoted to 

first lieutenant, then Captain in 198 1, which was my rank on discharge. I received an 

honorable discharge. 

3 
224 

8. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic or 

professional honors, honorary society memberships, militn.ry awards, and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

Alabama Academy of Honor- 2014 

Reserve Officers Association Minuteman of the Year- 2000 

Distinguished Eagle Scout Award- 2008 

National Narcotics Officers Coalition- Outstanding Member of the United State Senate 

for 2014-2015 

Eagle Forum's Inaugural Phyllis Schlafly Award for Exce!lence in Leadership- 2015 

Navy's Distinguished Public Service A ward presented by Secretary Ray Mabus- 2013 

Mobile Area Jewish Federation, Yedid L'Yisrael Award- 2015 

Association of the United States Army Outstanding Legislator Award- 2009 

Woodrow Wilson Institute Award-2009 

Volunteers of America National Award- 2007 

National Minority Quality Forum, Health Promotion & Disease Prevention Award for 

work to modernize Ryan Wbite Law- 2007 

Business Council of Alabama's Chainnan's Award- 2013 

Mobile Bay Area Veteran's Day Patriot of the Year- 2006 

University of South Alabama Commencement, Honorary Doctorate- 2011 

University of Alabama Huntsville Commencement, Honorary Doctorate- 2016 

University ofMobile Commencement, Honorary Degree- 2013 

Thomas Goode Jones School of Law at Faulkner University, Honorary Doctor of Laws 

Degree-2015 

Other awards: 

Campaign to Fix the Debt Award, 2016 Fiscal Hero 2016 

Citizens Against Government Waste, 2014 Taxpayer Super Hero Award- 2015 

Coalition for a Prosperous America, From America's Manufacturers, Fanners, Ranchers 

and Workers in support of America's Economic Growth, Balanced Trade and 

Sovereignty-2015 

Paul Weyrich Legislator of the Year- 2015 

National Association ofManufacturers Award, 113'hCongress, NAM Manufacturing 

Legislative Excellence Award- 2015 

Center for Security Policy, "Keeper of the Flame" Award- 2015 

National Religious Broadcasters Faith and Freedom Award- 2010 

National Federation of Independent Business Guardian A ward for 113 th Congress - 2014 

American Conservative Union Award for Conservative Excellence- 2014-2015 

CEI "Champion of the Worker Award"- 2014 

Tea Party.Net Paul Revere Patriot Award- 2014 

HVAC Industry's Public Policy Award presented by Rheem and CEO of AHRI- 2014 

Annie Taylor Award, Restoration Weekend- 2014 

Reserve Officers Association Department of Alabama Minuteman Award - 20 11 

Soldiers Angels, A ward for Supporting our Military Personnel- 20 II 

NAM 2010 Manufacturing Legislative Excellence A ward- 20 I 1 

American Ambulance Association Legislative Recognition Award- 2010 

4 
225 

Republican National Lawyers Association Award - 2010 

National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers' Friend Award- 2010, 2006, 2000 

Humane Society, Legislative Leader Award - 2010 

Alabama Law Foundation Fellow - 20 I 0 

US Chamber of Commerce 2009 Federal Legislative Achievement- 2009 

Mobile Boy Scouts Golden Eagle Award - 2009 

SECNA V Award presented by Admiral Miller- 2009 

Numbers USA A ward - 2008 

National911 40m armiversary of the first· call from Haleyville - 2008 

American Legion, Depart.oient of AL, Award for Immigration Stance- 2008 

Nat.ional Minority Health Month Foundation, 2007 Health Promotions Award - 2007 

NAM Legislative Excellence Award - 2007 

Associated Builders and Contractors "Champion of the Merit Shop Award" (II Oth-1 13th 

Congress)- 2007 

Americans for Tax Reform, Hero of the Taxpayer Award - 2006, 2000 

NFIB Guardian of Small Business Award - 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000 

Club for Growth Defender of Economic Freedom Award- 2006 

US Chamber of Commerce Spirit of Enterprise Award- 2005, 2003, 2002,2000 

Forest Landowners Association Award - 2005 

Thomas Jefferson Award, Food Marketing lnstitute/Internationl!.l Foodservice 

Distributors Association- 2004 

Bill of Rights Institute Award- 2004 

American Conservative Union, Best and Brightest Award- 2004 

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Award - 2005 

National Roofmg Contractors Association- 2003 

Southern Economic Development Council Honor Roll Award - 2003 

Electric Cities of Alabama Distinguished Service Award - 2002 

Alabama Rural Electric Imminent Service A ward- 2002 

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' Benjamin Franklin Public Policy 

Award-2002 

U.S. Senate Deputy Whip - 2001-2002 

American Foundry Society, SuppOrt for Metalcasting Award- 2001 

NAM Legislative Excellence Award, Presented by Elmer Harris- 2001 

Coalition of Alabama Waterways, Outstanding Support and Guardianship of our 

Waterways - 2001 

Local 1945 AFGE, Eagle award for dedication to their Depot- 2000 

Watchdog of the Treasury Award - 2000 

Bl.inded American Vets "Buck Gillespie Cong,:essional Award"- 2000 

Regionallnfonnation Sharing Systems Appreciation Award- 2000 

60-Plus Association Award- 2000 

Peanut Producers Association and March of Dimes A ward- 2000 

Alabama Farmers Federation Service to Agriculture A ward - 1999 

I 06th Congress Golden Gavel A ward, Presiding over the Senate for I 00 hours 

I 05th Congress Golden Gavel Award, Presiding over the Senate for I 00 hours 

105tb Congress Citizens for a Sound Economy, The Jefferson Award 

I 05th Congress Watchdog of the Treasury 

5 
226 

United States Space Academy, Space Wings- 1998 

9. Bar Assodations: List all bar associations or legal or judicial-related committees, 

selection panels or conferences of which you are or have been a member, and give the 

titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups. 

Mobile County Bar Association (former member of Publicity, Criminal Law, and Federal 

Courts Committees, Pro Bono Program) 

Alabama Bar Association (former member of Special Committee on Meeting Criticism of 

Bench and Courts) 

American Bar Association (Criminal Justice Section) 

Alabama Law Foundation Honorary Fellow (inducted 20 I 0) 

Governor's Criminal Justice Advisory Commission, Chairman, 1995-96 

10. Bar and Court Admission: 

a. List the date(s) you were admitted to the bar of any state and any lapses in 

membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse in membership. 

Alabama Bar: 1973-present (placed on inactive for late payment of dues 

118/99-1/11/99 and 115/05-1/19/05) 

Supreme Court of the United States (1980) 

Supreme Court of Alabama ( 1973) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (1981) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (1977) 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (1974) 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama (1977) 

Circuit Court, Franklin County, Alabama (1975) 

Circuit Court, Mobile County, Alabama (1977) 

b. List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice, including dates of 

admission and any lapses in membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse 

in membership. Give the same information for administrative bodies that require 

special admission to practice. 

All Alabama Courts per Alabama Bar: 1973-present (placed on inactive 

for late payment of dues 1/8/99-1/11/99 and 115/05-1/19/05) 

Supreme Court of the United States (1980) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11111 Circuit (198!) 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (1977) 

6 
227 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (1974) 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama (1977) 

II. Memberships: 

a. List all professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other 

organizations, other than those listed in response to Questions 9 or 10 to which 

you belong, or to which you have belonged, since graduation from law school. 

Provide dates of membership or participation, and indicate any office you held. 

Include clubs, working groups, advisory or editorial boards, panels, committees, 

conferences, or publications. 

Mobile Lions Club, joined in late 1970s and active until the early 1990s, currently 

inactive 

Mobile United Methodist Inner City Mission, active in 1980s and early I 990s~ 

And served as Vice Chairman of Board in I 994 

Mobile Metro Ministry, Member I 980s 

Coalition for a Drug Free Mobile County, Board Member, 1980s and early 1990s 

Huntingdon College Alumni Association, active in 1980s, served as Chairman of 

Alumni Association 

Alabama Law Foundation Honorary Fellow (inducted 201 0) 

Alabama Academy of Honor (inducted 2014) 

Reagan Alumni Association, 1998 to present 

Ashland Place United Methodist Church, 1975 to present 

Chairman Administrative Board 

Church Lay Leader 

Delegate to United Methodist Annual Conference 

Delegate to the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference of the United 

Methodist Church 

Delegate to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church 

Huntingdon College Board of Trustees, 1998-2012 

Samford University Board of Overseers, 2006 to present 

College Republicans, Alabama State President, 1971-73 

Alabama Young Republican Federation, Alabama State Chairman, 1973-75 

Mobile County Republican Executive Committee, 1978-81 

Federalist Society, 1985 to present (with some gaps) 

b. Indicate whether any of these organizations listed in response to I I a above 

currently discriminate or formerly discriminate on the basis ofrace, sex, religion 

or national origin either through fonnal membership requirements or the practical 

implementation of membership policies. If so, describe any action you have taken 

to change these policies and practices. 

While the Mobile Lions Club had no policy to exclude members based on race, 

it did not have any African-American members when I joined. I sponsored the 

7 
228 

first African-American member who joined in the 1980s. 

12. Published Writings and Public Statements: 

a. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, 

editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited, including 

material published only on the Internet. Supply four (4) copies of all published 

material to the Committee. 

I have done my best to identify all published material I have contributed to, 

including through a review of my personal files and searches of publicly available 

electronic databases. Despite my efforts, there may be other materials that I have 

been unable to identify, locate, or remember. I have attached a list of the 

responsive items, including news releases, a forl!word, academic articles, and 

opinion pieces, as Appendix 12(a), and have also included copies of each item. 

b. Supply four ( 4) copies of any reports, memoranda or policy statements you 

prepared or contributed in the preparation of on behalf of any bar association, 

committee, conference, or organization of which you were or are a member. If 

you do not have a copy of a report, memorandum or policy statement, give the 

name and address of the organization that issued it, the date of the document, and 

a summary of its subject matter. 

I have done my best to identify and locate all materials responsive to this 

question, including through a review of my personal files and searches of 

publicly available electronic databases. Despite my efforts, there may be other 

materials that I have been unable to identify, locate, or remember. I have attached 

all responsive materials that I was able to identify. 

c. Supply four ( 4) copies of any testimony, official statements or other 

communications relating, in whole or in part, to matters of public policy or legal 

interpretation, that you have issued or provided or that others presented on your 

behalf to public bodies or public officials. 

I have done my best to identify and locate all materials responsive to this 

question, including through a review of my personal ftles and searches of publicly 

available electronic databases. Despite my eff<lrts, there may be other materials 

that I have been unable to identify, locate, or remember. I have attached copies of 

all responsive documents that I was able to identifY, including testimony before 

committees of Congress, legal opinions issued by my office when I was the 

Attorney General of the State of Alabama, and memoranda and letters I have 

written to colleagues in Congress and to other public officials and bodies. 

8 
229 

d. Supply four (4) copies, transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered 

by you, including commencement speeches, remarks, lectures, panel discussions, 

conferences, political speeches, and question-and-answer sessions. Include the 

date and place where they were delivered, and readily available press reports 

about the speech or talk. If you do not have a copy of the speech or a transcript or 

recording of your remarks, give the name and address oftbe group before whom 

the speech was given, the date of the speech, and a summary of its subject matter. 

If you did not speak from a prepared text, furnish a copy of any outline or notes 

from which you spoke. 

I have done my best to identify and locate all materials responsive to this 

question, including through a review of my personal files, searches of publicly 

available electronic databases, and consultation with the Senate Library, the 

Congressional Research Service, and relevant committee libraries and historical 

offices. Despite my efforts, there may be other materials that I have been unable 

to identify, locate, or remember. I have located responsive materials in the 

following categories: 

Remarks on the Senate Floor 

Remarks and questions during Senate committee hearings 

Remarks and questions during Senate committee business meetings or 

markups 

Speeches and remarks outside of the Senate 

Various political speeches 

In addition to supplying copies or recordings of my remarks where they are 

available, I have also provided in Appendix 12( d) a list of speeches and remarks [ 

have delivered but where, to my knowledge, no transcripts or copies exist. For 

these, I have included summaries of the subject matter for speeches where I was 

able to locate such information during my search, and have attached outlines or 

notes where they exist, as well as contemporaneous press reports that I was able 

to locate. 

Finally, during my service as a United States Senator, I have regularly attended 

markups and executive business meetings for Senate committees of which I am a 

member, and I frequently make remarks during those meetings. I have attached 

responsive transcripts from such meetings where they are available. However, for 

three committees of which I am or have been a member (the Judiciary Committee, 

the Armed Services Committee, and the Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee), committee policies or government classification requirements govern 

access to and the release of these transcripts, and I am therefore unable to provide 

copies .. Of course, the Judiciary Committee has access to its o\\>n transcripts via 

the Conunittee Library. However, in an effort to be as responsive as possible, I 

have consulted my own files and the files of the relevant committee libraries, and 

have provided in Appendix 12( d) a list of the dates of pertinent markups and/or 

executive business meetings for each of those three committees. 

9 
230 

e. List all interview-s you have given to newspapers, magazines or other 

publications, or radio or television stations, providing the dates of these 

interviews and four (4) copies of the clips or transcripts of these interviews where 

they are available to you. 

I have done my best to identify all interviews I have given, including through a 

review of my personal files and searches of publicly available electronic 

databases. However, throughout my career in public service I have frequently 

made remarks to reporters in informal settings, including many hundreds, if not 

thousands, of comments to reporters in the halls of Congress. No records exist for 

the vast majority of these informal interviews. Therefore, despite my efforts, there 

may be other materials that I have been unable to identify, locate, or remember. I 

have attached a list of the responsive items as Appendix 12(e), and have also 

included copies of transcripts or videos of interviews where they were available. 

13. Public Office, Political Activities and Mfiliations: 

a. List chronologically any public offices you have held, other than judicial offices, 

including the terms of service and whether such positions were elected or 

appointed. If appointed, please include the name of the individual who appointed 

you. Also, state chronologically any w1successful candidacies you have bad for 

elective office or unsuccessful nominations for appointed office. 

Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of Alabama, 1975-1977. 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Alabama, 19&1-1993. Appointed by 

President Ronald Reagan. 

Attorney General of Ala barna, Elected 1994. Served until January 1997. 

United States Senator. Elected in 1996, took office in January !997. Re-elected 

in 2002,2008 and 2014. 

b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered, whether 

compensated or not, to any political party or election committee. If you have ever 

held a position or played a role in a political campaign, identify the particulars of 

the campaign, including the candidate, dates of the campaign, your title and 

responsibilities. 

I have been active in the Republican Party since college. I have generally 

endorsed Alabama Republicans running for the House of Representatives and 

Senate in the general elections. I have endorsed many Republicans running for 

10 
231 

election and re-election to the United Stat~s Senate, House and other offices. l 

was Alabama Chairman for Richard Nixon in 1972; I was college chairman for 

Perry Hooper, Sr. for US Senate (AL) in 1968. 

I served as Alabama Presidential Elector for Richard Nixon in 1972 and Donald 

Trump in 2016. I had my own campaigns- Jeff Sessions for Attorney General 

and Friends of Sessions Senate Committee -for my Attorney General and US 

Senate Campaign>. 

14. Legal Career: Answer each part separately. 

a. Describe chronologically your law practice and legal experi~nce after graduation 

from law school including: 

i. Vihether you served as clerk to a judge, and if so, the name of the judge, 

the court and the dates of the period you were a clerk; 

I did not serve as a clerk to any judge. 

ii. Whether you practiced alone, and if so, the addresses and dates; 

I never practiced law alone. 

iii. The dates, names and addresses of law firms or offices, companies or 

governmental agencies with which you have been affiliated, and the nature 

of your affiliation with each. 

1973-1975 

Guin, Bouldin & Porch 

Attorneys at Law 

Russellville, AL 

Attorney 

Finn no long~r exists. 

1975-1977 

Office of the United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

Federal Courthouse 

63 South Royal Street 

Mobile, AL 36602 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1977-1981 and 1993-1995 

Stockman & Bedsole 

PO Box 8367 

11 
232 

Mobile, A.L 36608 

Associate; Partner 

1981-1993 

Office of the United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

Federal Courthouse 

63 South Royal Street 

Mobile, AL 36602 

United States Attorney 

1995-1997 

State of Alabama 

PO Box 300152 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Attorney General 

1996-Present 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

United States Senator 

iv. Whether you served as a mediator or arbitrator in alternative dispute 

resolution proceedings and, if so, a description of the 10 most significant 

matters with which you were involved in that capacity. 

I have not served as mediator or arbitrator. 

b. Describe: 

i. The general character of your law practice and indicate by date when its 

character has changed over the years. 

At Guin, Bouldin & Porch (1973-1975) my practice involved a variety of 

areas including probate, domestic relations, insurance defense, criminal 

defense, real estate matters, wills and civil litigation. 

As an Assistant United States Attorney (1975-1977), I handled a variety of 

matters at the trial level, including cases involving wrongful death, fTaud, 

federal habeas corpus, gun violations, forgeries, embezzlement, bank 

robberies, drugs, and the collection of criminal penalties for pollution. I 

also handled appeals. 

As an Associate and then Partner at Stockman & Bedsole (1977-1981 and 

1993-1995), I handled primarily civil litigation and some criminal defense 

12 
233 

work and real estate matters. 

As United States Attorney (1981-1993), [represented federal agencies in 

Legal controversies, prosecuted criminal cases, collected debts owed to the 

government, and defended civil rights. Our office was also engaged in a 

series of high profile public corruption cases. I provided leadership for 

various law enforcement and community activities. 

As Attorney General of Alabama (1995-! 997), I represented the state in 

civil and criminal cases. 

ii. Your typical clients and the areas at each period of your legal career, if 

any, in which you have specialized. 

At Guin, Bouldin & Porch, I had a wide variety of clients including 

individuals and corporations such as banks and insurance companies. 

As both Assistant United States Attorney and United States Attorney, my 

sole client was the United States. 

At Stockman & Bedsole, I had a wide variety of clients including 

government officials and individuals, including representing clients in 

wrongful death matters, asbestosis cases, criminal cases, real estate 

matters, and clients who were flood victims. 

As Attorney General of Alabama, my sole client "vas the State of 

Alabama. 

c. Describe the percentage of your practice that has been in litigation and whether 

you appeared in court frequently, occasionally, or not at alL If the frequency of 

your appearances in court varied, describe such variance, providing dates. 

i. Indicate the percentage of your practice in: 

1. federal courts: 80% 

2. state courts of record: 15% 

3. other courts: 0% 

4. administrative agencies: 5% 

ii. Indicate the percentage of your practice in: 

1. civil proceedings: 35% 

2. criminal proceedings: 65% 

d. State the number of cases in courts of record, including cases before 

administrative law judges, you tried to verdict, judgment or final decision (rather 

13 
234 

than settled), indicating whether you were sole counsel, chief counsel, or associate 

counsel. 

i. What percentage of these trials were: 

1. jury: 80% 

2. non-jury: 20% 

1975-1977 (AUSA) 12- all sole counsel 

1977-1981 (Private Practice)- 3 sole counsel 

1981-1993 (USA)- 17 cases, most sole counsel and almost all 

as lead counsel 

e. Describe your practice, if any, before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Supply four (4) copies of any briefs, amicus or otherwise, and, if applicable, any 

oral argument transcripts before the Supreme Court in connection with your 

practice. 

As a United States Senator, I have joined colleagues in filing seven amicus briefS 

before the United States Supreme Court on various issues. Those briefs are 

attached. Further, during my service as the Attorney General of the State of 

Alabama, one of my responsibilities was to oversee Alabama's legal 

representation and litigation, including matters before the Supreme Court. In 

December 1996, my office filed an amicus brief before the Coun on behalf of the 

State of Alabama. That brief is also attached. Finally, I have been able to locate 

14 other instances during my tenure as Attorney General of the State of Alabama 

wherein Alabama joined other states in filing amicus briefs with the Court. While 

my practice as Attorney General was primarily managerial and supervisory in 

nature, my name also appears on those briefs as counsel of record for Alabama. 

Those briefs are also attached. I have done my best to identify all materials 

responsive to this question, including through a review of my own files and 

searches of publicly available electronic databases. Despite my searches, there 

may be other relevant materials from my career that I have been unable to 

identify, locate, or recall. 

15. Litigation: Describe the ten (J 0) most significant litigated matters which you personally 

handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record. Give the citations, if the cases 

were reported, and the docket number and date if unreported. Give a capsule summary of 

the substance of each case. Identify the party or parties whom you represented; describe 

in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final disposition of the 

case. Also state as to each case: 

a. the date of representation; 

b. the name of the court and the name of the judge or judges before whom the case 

was litigated; and 

14 
235 

c. the individual name, addresses, and telephone numbers of co-counsel and of 

principal counsel for each of the other parties. 

1. United States v. William Broadus, Circuit Judge Elwood L. Hogan, District Judge James 

D. Sullivan, Willis H. Holloway, Jamt!l· Dodson Fail, Durwoad L Elliott, and T/wmas 

Withers, et aL, CR 83-79 (S.D. Ala.) 

The indictment charged that the defendants participated in a corrupt organization to "fix" 

criminal court cases in the District Court and the Circuit Court of Mobile County. Because 

Broadus was severed for medical reasons, the case involved two full jury trials. The first case 

lasted seven weeks, with the Broadus case lasting approximately two weeks. 

The case, I believe, is the most significant corruption case involving the criminal justice system 

in the Southern District of Alabama and perhaps in the State of Alabama. The government 

proved the payment of some 15 bribes to influence criminal cases. Each fact situation was 

vigorously contested by capable defense attorneys. 

The case was brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 

(RICO). Every defendant was charged with a RICO violation and conspiracy to commit RICO. 

Some defendants were charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, extortion and interstate travel in aid 

of racketeering. The jury returned a guilty verdict against each defendant on each count in which 

they were named. The Broadus jury likewise returned guilty verdicts on all counts. James 

Dodson Fail entered a plea of guilty before trial and testified for the government, all others were 

convicted by a jury. 

My participation in the case was as lead trial counsel. I fully handled the Grand Jury presentation 

and the trial preparation; however, as trial neared, I called upon Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas 

Figures to assist me. He ably assisted in the presentation of certain important parts of the case. I 

made the opening statement and closing arguments. The case presented a host of legal and 

evidentiary questions. Experienced defense counsel were very aggressive on behalf of their 

clients. 

Judges: 

Co-Counsel: 

Defense Counsel: 

Hon. Emmett R. Cox 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Hon. W.B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southem District of Alabama 

Thomas Figures (deceased) 

Assistant United States Attomey 

Southem District of Alabama 

E.E. Ball (deceased) (Hogan) 

!5 
236 

Barry Hess (deceased) (Sullivan) 

Ralph Kannamer (deceased) (Broadus) 

2. United States v. Conecull County, CV 83-1201-H (S.D. Ala. June 12, 1984) 

It is my understanding that United States v. Conecuh County was the first voter suppression 

lawsuit ever instituted by the United States Department of Justice. I am honored to have been a 

part of it. In 1983, the United States brought this suit based on allegations that only white poll 

workers were hired, racial epithets were heard at polling places, comments were heard that 

turned away African-American voters, allegations that white voters cast ballots when their names 

were not on the voter roll, allegations oflimitations on the number of African-American voters 

who had access to a polling place, allegations oflimitations on the amount of time African· 

American voters were permitted to spend in the voting booth, and illegal assistance to voters. In 

June 1984, a consent decree was entered betvveen the United States and the County. The consent 

decree ensured that election officials would not engage in racially discriminatory conduct 

designed to harass or intimidate voters, or discrimination in the selection of election officials at 

polling places. Political parties recruiting poll workers were required to encourage nomination of 

African-American poll workers. African-American citizens who would have volunteered in the 

past to serve as poll workers must be considered on a good-faith basis for future service. The 

election board was required to train election officials to perform their duties in a racially 

nondiscriminatory manner, and to monitor elections for compliance. The board was also required 

to file reports with the Department of Justice describing its compliance. The consent deere~ was 

agreed to be enforced through !990, subject to an extension for good cause. 

Judge: 

Co-Counsel: 

Han. W. B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of 

Justice: 

Gerald W. Jones (unable to locate current address) 

Steven H. Rosenbaum 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division 

950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Special Litigation Section 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

202·514-4713 

John K. Tanner 

P.O. Box 380832 

Birmingham, AL 35238-0832 

205-403-9905 

16 
237 

Defense Counsel: Robert G. Kendall (deceased)(Conecuh County, Alabama, Conccuh 

County and Conecuh County Democratic 

Executive Committee) 

J.B. Nix, Jr. 

Nix&Nix 

P.O. Box 167 

Evergreen, AL 36401 

251-578-1544 

Edward S. Allen 

Balch & Bingham LLP 

P.O. Box 306 

Birmingham, AL 35201 

205-226-3413 

(Conecuh County Republican Executive 

Committee) 

3. United States v. Weldon Rushing Payne, Lloyd Earl Taylor, and Robert 1. Gulledge, CR 

82-87 (S.D. Ala.) 

I prepared and tried this case as sole counsel,· and the case was ably defended by defense counsel. 

Essentially, the charges alleged fraud in the operation of the Federal Land Bank Association of 

Robertsdale by Weldon Payne, its President, Lloyd E. Taylor, its attorney, and Robert I. 

Gulledge, a borrower and Alabama State Senator. To prove the case required proving some 15 

large real estate transactions and loan closings. The loan documents and financial records were 

voluminous. The scheme involved Payne identifying certain farmers or farm connected 

individuals who he knew to be desiro\15 of obtaining farm land. Generally, they were poor credit 

risks. Taylor would obtain an option to purchase land .from a land seller in the area and Payne 

would promise the farmer an FLBA loan and refinancing if there was a problem with making 

payments. Gulledge, it was alleged, was involved as a partner with Payne in two transactions. 

Both of these transactions involved an unrecorded document that indicated that Payne in one 

case and Taylor in another were secret partners with Gulledge in the land transactions which 

were financed with FLBA loans. Gulledge, by this procedure, obtained I 00% fmancing and was 

charged with making a false financial statement and conspiracy with the two others to defraud 

the FLBA. The loans totaled over two million dollars and several of the borrowers were bankrupt 

or insolvent. There was a hung jury as to Gulledge and the charges against him were dismissed. 

In an effort to shorten the trial (which lasted five weeks) I made a decision not to utilize land 

appraisals to support the counts charging that Payne and Taylor misapplied FLBA funds. I 

believed that sufficient evidence had already been introduced to support a fmding of 

misapplication. The jury and trial court agreed, but the Eleventh Circuit did not, reversing the 

misapplication counts, but affirming the convictions on all other counts. 

The FLBA was the largest lender for farm real estate purchases in the South Alabama area. This 

prosecution ended fraud in its operation. Legally, it firmly established that an attorney for an 

FBLA is a "person associated in any capacity with" the Association such that he is subject to 

criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 657. The prosecution attracted national FLBA attention. 

17 
238 

Because the prosecution was hampered at key points by poor record keeping by the FLBA, new 

rules have been instituted. I later addressed the Federal Land Bank of New Orleans regional 

meeting in Jackson, Mississippi, as part of their stepped up program to prevent fraud and abuse. 

Judge: 

Defense Counsel: 

Hon. Emmett R. Cox 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Fred G. Helmsing (deceased) (Payne) 

Barry Hess (deceased) (Taylor) 

Thomas M. Haas (deceased) (Gulledge) 

4. Davis v. Board of School CommissionerY of Mobile County, CV 3003-63-H (S.D. Ala.) 

After nearly a decade oflitigation, a group of students, their parents, and the Board of School 

Commissioners of Mobile County entered into a consent decree that integrated many schools in 

the county but also left untouched several single-race schools. More than a decade after the 

district court approved the consent decree, on behalf of the United States and with the support of 

the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, papers were filed with the court contesting the legally binding 

effect of the consent decree and alleging that the school district had yet to fully integrate. While 

the district court rejected the govermnent's contention regarding the consent decree, it agreed 

that the school district was not yet fully integrated, and it ordered the school district to take 

certain corrective steps in order to achieve full integration. See Davis v. Board of Sch. Comm 'rs 

of Mobile Cnty., 1986 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 27519, at *2-3 (S.D. Ala., Mar. 27, 1986). 

Judge: 

Co·ColUlsel: 

Hon. W. B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Educational Opportunities Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, 

United States Department of Justice: 

Joseph D. Rich 

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 

1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202-662-83 31 

Angela G. Schmidt 

United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 

555 4th St. NW 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

202-514-7273 

James U. Blacksher 

P.O. Box636 

18 
239 

Defense Counsel: 

Birmingham, AL 35201-0636 

205-591-7238 

Theodore Shaw 

UNC School of Law 

Van Hecke-Wettach Hall 

160 Ridge Road, CB #3380 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 

919-843-4356 

C. Christopher Clanton (deceased) 

Robert C. Campbell, III 

Campbell Duke & Campbell 

851 E. 165 Service Rd S. Ste. 700 

Mobile, AL 36606-3117 

5. United States v. Dan G. Alexander, Hiram Bosarge, and Norman Grider, CR 86-76 (S.D. 

Ala.) 

An eleven-count indictment was returned against Mobile County School Board members 

Alexander and Grider charging them with extortion, racketeering, and mail fraud, and charging 

School Board member Bosarge with one count of conspiracy to commit extortion. The 

indictment charged that Alexander had, on three separate occasions, used his position on the 

Mobile County School Board to advocate for and award contracts to businesses that agreed to 

pay him kickbacks, and that Grider, on two separate occasions, had similarly agreed to use his 

official connections to advocate that the school board award contracts to businesses that agreed 

to pay him a percentage of the contract. Both were convicted by a jury on all counts. Bosarge 

was acquitted. I personally tried this case in a multi-week jury trial. 

Judge: 

Defense Counsel: 

Hon. Emmett R. Cox 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Robert B. French, Jr. (Alexander) 

Robert B. French, Jr., P.C. 

308 Alabama Ave. S.W. 

Ft. Payne, AL 35967-1844 

256-845-2250 

John Furman (Bosarge) 

Furman & Furman Attorneys, LLP 

P.O. Box 610 

Loxley, AL 36551-0610 

251-228-1744 

19 
240 

James Atchison (Grider) 

The Atchison Firm, P.C. 

3030 Knollwood Dr. 

Mobile, AL 36693-7002 

251-665-7200 

William B. Jackson, II 

Stokes & Clinton, P.C. 

P.O. Box 991801 

Mobile, AL 36691-8801 

251-460-2400 

6. United States v. Gary A. Greenoug/1, CR. No. 84-97 (S.D. Ala.) 

A grand jury returned an indictment against Gary Greenough, one ofthree Board of 

Commissioners that governed the City of Mobile, charging that he conspired to commit offenses 

to defraud the United States, that he engaged in mail fraud, that he engaged in wire fraud, and 

that he interfered with commerce by threats or violence, all in collilection with efforts to divert 

money from the operation of the city auditorium to himself and his associates. After a multiweek trial, Greenough was convicted of 14 counts. 

Judge: 

Co-Counsel: 

Defense Counsel: 

Hon. W. B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

William R. Favre, Jr. (deceased) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

E.E. Ball (deceased) 

7. United States v. Albert Turner, Spencer Hogue, Jr., and Evelyn Turner, CR 85-14 (S.D. 

Ala.) 

About the time of the 1982 elections in Perry County, my office received information from the 

Perry County District Attorney that voter fraud was occurring in Perry County to a large degree. 

District Attorney Roy Johnson communicated with me, the FBI, and my staff on the matter. I 

believe he also communicated with the Civil Rights Division ofthe United States Department of 

Justice. He requested that the federal government conduct an investigation and he requested, I 

have come to understand, that the Civil Rights Division send in federal observers and federal 

Marshals, because the situation was far beyond his control. The Civil Rights Division declined to 

send in observers. 

After the election, District Attorney Johnson conducted an investigation of the voting practices 

and actually sought an indictment against Albert Turner, but the grand jury declined to return an 

indictment against Turner for voter fraud. After that investigation, lhe grand jury, in a report 

20 
241 

dated April 1983, requested that my office commence a federal investigation. We had been 

informed that a handwriting expert determined that Turner, who was a \vrite-in candidate in that 

election, had 'vritten his name on absentee ballots in violation of state Law and that AfricanAmerican voters who had come to the polls to vote became angered to find that someone had 

already voted in thcir nan1es by absentee ballot. 

The Perry County grand jury, the majority of which was African-American and was led by an 

African-American foreperson, called for a federal investigation. The grand jury had, in a mitten 

report of their investigation of the 1982 election, stated that they had "extensively and 

exhaustively investigated the voting situation in Perry County." The report further stated that 

they were convinced that a fair election "is being denied the citizens of Perry County, both black 

and white." The grand jury report also stated: "We encourage vigorous prosecution of all 

violations of voting laws and especially would request the presence and assistance of an outside 

agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and ensure fairness and impartiality for all." 

Despite this request of the grand jury and the District Attorney, my office, after discussion with 

the FBI, concluded that we would not conduct another investigation. We expected that the local 

investigation would have caused all campaigners to re-evaluate their activities and conform to the 

law. Accordingly, sometime after having preliminarily reviewed the situation, we informed 

District Attorney Johnson that we would not investigate the 1982 elections. I believe we told 

District Attorney Johnson that if he had further evidence of voter fraud in subsequent elections, 

we would reevaluate the situation to determine whether a federal investigation was justified. 

In the 1984 Democratic primary election, there were a number of hotly contested local races for 

County Commission, Tax Assessor and other offices. (All of the serious contenders for local 

races for each office, except one, were African-American). On approximately Wednesday or 

Thursday prior to the Tuesday election, District Attorney Johnson called my office and said that 

he and an African-American candidate (the incumbent County Commissioner in Perry County) 

were convinced that fraud was occurring in the election. He stated that extremely large numbers 

of absentee ballots were being collected, in excess often percent of the total vote, and that these 

ballots were being maintained by Turner and others. He further said that they were being taken to 

a central headquarters where the ballots were altered to ensure that they were marked for 

candidates endorsed by Turner. District Attorney Johnson said that the African-American 

candidates were extremely concerned about the election and believed it was being stolen from 

them. He requested that my office consider obtaining a search warrant to search the central 

headquarters and seize these ballots. I told him that I doubted that there was enough evidence to 

conduct a search warrant and, further, that this would be an interference in the election process, 

which was against Department policy. 

District Attorney Johnson went on to state that the African-American candidates had information 

that Turner and his colleagues in previous years had been mailing the ballots they had collected 

at the Marion Post Office the night before the election. I told him that I found it difficult to 

believe since it appeared to me to be risky to trust the mails under those circumstances. He 

assured me that they were confident that this information was reliable. Accordingly, 1 contacted a 

Special Agent of the FBI in Selma and requested that he observe the Marion Post Office that 

night. I further requested that the Postal Service conduct a mail cover and make a list of the 

21 
242 

absentee ballots as they were deposited; that is, to list the names and return addresses on the 

outside of the mailing envelopes. The Postal Service was specifically instructed not to open any 

ballots but to deliver them to the federal courthouse the next day as they normally would for 

counting. The FBI observed defendants Albert and Evelyn Turner deposit over 300 ballots in the 

Post Office the night before the election and observed defendant Spencer Hogue, Jr., deposit (to 

my recollection) 170 ballots the same night. Those two mailings totaled 504 ballots out of 729 

absentee ballots. 

Sometime before the election was complete, it was suggested to me that some five candidates 

planned to file a contest ofthe election and seek to have the absentee ballots and affidavit 

envelopes numbered. I was told that this had been done in previous elections. I informed District 

Attorney Johnson that ifit could be done under state law, it would be helpful to any investigation 

that might take place. 

After the ballots were opened and counted, District Attorney Johnson issued a subpoena for them 

and my office issued a subpoena for the records, which were subsequently turned over to the 

FBI. The FBI determined that 75 of the 729 ballots contained alterations and erasures. Each 

voter, with suspected changes on their ballot, was shown their ballot and asked if they had made 

or authorized the changes. Approximately 25 individuals said they had not authorized changes 

and that they had given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing. 

Turner, his wife, and Hogue were charged by the grand jury with 29 criminal counts, including 

conspiracy to execute a scheme to defraud, fraud by mail, and violation of election laws. At trial, 

Turner admitted he collected these ballots, but said it was a legal practice. He said he talked with 

voters and they would often agree to change ballots for him. He further testified that six members 

of the Shelton family had met in one house and all agreed to make ballot changes. However, all 

six members of the Shelton family flatly denied this allegation. Allegations that wimesses were 

intimidated and suffered ill effects of travel rendering them unable to testify were refuted by key 

witnesses, including African-American county officials who were present. Ultimately, the jury 

acquitted the three defendants. 

Judge: 

Co-Counsel: 

Hon. Emmett R. Cox 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Southern District of Alabama: 

E.T. Rolison (retired) 

5769 Chester Court 

Mobile, AL 36609 

251-342-0342 

Gloria Bedwell 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

63 S. Royal St., Ste. 600 

22 
243 

Defense Counsel: 

Mobile, AL 36602-3233 

25 I -441-5845 

J. L. Chestnut (deceased) 

Henry Sanders 

Chestnut Sanders & Sanders, LLC 

P.O. Box 1290 

Selma, AL 36702-1290 

334-875-7779 

Howard Moore, Jr. 

Moore & Moore 

1563 Solano Ave #204 

Berkeley, CA 94707 

510-542-7172 

Robert Turner 

Turner, Turner & Bryant, P.C. 

P.O. Box 929 

Marion, AL 36756-0929 

334-683-4111 

Margaret Carey (unabfe to locate current address) 

Morton Stavis (deceased) 

Hon. John H. England, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Tuscaloosa County Courthouse 

714 Greensboro Avenue 

Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 

205-464-8255 

Hon. Deval L. Patrick 

Bain Capital 

200 Clarendon St. 

Boston, MA 02116 

617-516-2000 

C. Lani Guin.ier 

Harvard Law School 

1563 Massachusetts Avenue 

Cambri g~ MA 02138 

617-496-1913 

James Liebman 

23 
244 

Columbia Law School 

Jerome Greene Hall, Room 906 

435 West !16th Street 

NewYork,.NY 10027 

212-854-3423 

Dennis N. Balske 

Law Office of Dennis Balske 

621 SW Morrison St. 

Suite 1025 

Portland, OR 97205 

503-222-9830 

8. United States v. Dallas County Commission, CV 78-578-H (S.D. Ala.) 

Historically, members of the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of 

Education were elected on an at-large basis. Under this regime, no African-American candidates 

had been elected to county offices since 1966. In 1978, the Voting Rights Section of the Civil 

Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice initiated an action against Dallas 

County under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging minority vote dilution. Along with the 

ACLU, my office continued to support the extensive litigation and appeals, culminating in a set 

of decisions from the Eleventh Circuit, 850 F.2d 1430 (lith Cir. 1988) and 850 F.2d 1433 (II th 

Cir. 1988). which ruled for the United States and created five single-member districts for both 

the Commission and the Board. Three of these single-member district~ contained a majority 

African-American voter population, increasing opportunities for African-American voters to 

elect office-holders of their choice. 

District Judge: 

Circuit Judges: 

Co-Counsel: 

Hon. W. B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Hon. James C. Hill, Hon. Joseph W. Hatchett, and Hon. Floyd R. Gibson 

(Senior Circuit Judge from the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation) 

(deceased), Eleventh Circuit 

Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice: 

J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 

1411 K StreetNW, 14th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202-736-2200 

Marie Klimesz McElderry (unable to locate current address) 

Jessica Dunsay Silver (unable to locate current address) 

24 
245 

Defense Counsel: 

William Bradford Reynolds 

Baker Botts LLP 

1299 Pellllsylvania Avenue NW 

The Warner Building 

Washington D.C. 20004 

202-639-780 l 

Neil Brad!ey 

American Civil Liberties Union 

230 Peachtree Street, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

404-523-2721 

Larry T. Menefee 

3620 Thomas Ave. 

Montgomery, AL 36111-2014 

334-265-6002 

James U. Blacksher 

P.O. Box 636 

Birrningham, AL 35201-0636 

205-591-7238 

Laughlin McDonald 

American Civil Liberties Union 

230 Peachtree Street, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

404-523-2721 

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr. (Dallas County Commission, et al.) 

Blackwell & Keith 

P.O. Box 592 

Selma, AL 36702-0592 

334-872-6272 

J. Garrison Thompson 

Pitts, Pitts & Thompson 

P.O. Box 862 

Selma, AL 36702-0862 

334-877-9986 

John E. Pilcher 

Pilcher & Pilcher, P.C. 

P.O. Box 1250 

Selma, AL 36702-1250 

334-872-6211 

25 

(Dallas County Board of Education, et al.) 
246 

9. United States v. Marengo County Commission, CV 78-474-H (S.D. Ala.) 

After the district court found that the at-large system for electing members of the Marengo 

County Commission and Marengo County Board of Education diluted the voting rights of 

African-Americans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, my office worked with the 

Civil Rights Division and private plaintiffs to craft a districting plan to ensure that AfricanAmericans had equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Although, at the time of the 

lawsuit, no African-American had ever been elected to either the board of education or the 

county commission, see United States v. Marengo Cnty. Comm 'n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1572 (11th 

Cir. 1984), this action secured a districting plan where three of the five members for each body 

were elected from districts comprised of a majority of African-American voters, see United 

Stales. v. Marengo Cnly. Comm 'n, 643 F. Supp. 232, 233-34 (S.D. Ala. 1986). On appeal, the 

Eleventh Circuit upheld the districting plan. Clark v. A·farengo Cnty., 811 F .2d 610 (11th Cir. 

1987) (table). The district court subsequently awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, finding 

that the United States' involvement "was indispensable to the plaintiffs' success." United States 

v. Marengo Cnty. Comm 'n. 667 F.Supp. 786, 799 (S.D. Ala. 1987). 

District Judge: Hon. W. B. Hand (deceased) 

United States District Judge 

Southern District of Alabama 

Circuit Judges ( 1984): Hon. Gerald B. Tjoflat, Hon. Peter T. Fay, and Hon. John M. Wisdom 

(Senior Circuit Judge from the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation) 

(deceased), Eleventh Circuit 

Co-Counsel (1984): Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice: 

Defense Counsel: 

Joan A. Magagna (unable to locate current address) 

Thomas H. Figures (deceased) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Alabama 

Hugh A. Lloyd (deceased) (Marengo County Board of Education) 

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr. (Marengo County, eta!.) 

P.O. Box592 

Selma, AL 36702-0592 

334-872-6272 

Co-Counsel (1986); Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of 

Justice: 

J. Gerald I-Iebert 

26 
247 

Defense Counsel: 

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 

1411 K Street NW, 14th Floor 

Washington D.C. 20005 

202-736-2200 

W.A. Kimbrough, Jr. (unable to locate current address) 

United States Attorney (former) 

Southern District of Alabama 

James U. Blacksher (James Clark, Jr. ct al.) 

P.O. Box 636 

Birmingham, AL 35201-0636 

205-591-7238 

Larry T. Menefee 

3620 Thomas Ave. 

Montgomery, AL 36111-2014 

334-265-6002 

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr. (Marengo County Commission, et al.) 

P.O. Box 592 

Selma, AL 36702-0592 

334-872-6272 

Hugh A. Lloyd (deceased) (Marengo County Board of Education) 

W.W. Dinning (Joseph C. Camp) 

Lloyd & Dinning, LLC 

P.O. Box 740 

Demopolis, AL 36732-0740 

334-289-0556 

Co-Counsel (1987): Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of 

Justice: 

J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 

1411 KStrcctNW, 14thfloor 

Washington D.C. 20005 

202-736-2200 

James U. Blacksher (James Clark, Jr., et al.) 

P.O. Box 636 

Birmingham, AL 35201-0636 

205-591-7238 

27 
248 

Defense Counsel: 

Larry T. Menefee 

3620 Thomas Ave. 

Montgomery, AL 36111-2014 

334-265-6002 

J.L. Chestnut, Jr. (deceased) 

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr. (Marengo County Commission, et al.) 

P.O. Box 592 

Selma, AL 36702-0592 

334-872-6272 

Hugh A. Lloyd (deceased) (Marengo County Board of Education) 

10. He11ry F. Hays v. State of Alabama, et al., 85 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 117 

S.Ct. 1262 (1997) 

In early 1981, Ku Klux Klan member Henry Hays (the son of the local Klan chieftain) and two 

other Klansmen discussed a pending trial in Mobile involving an African-American man charged 

with having killed a Caucasian police officer. The three considered how the public would react to 

the retaliatory hanging of an African-American man. Hays' father coldly contemplated such an 

act would hurt the value of his real estate holdings and asked the two younger men to delay their 

plans until he could sell some of them. Once sold, Hays and his friend took a length of rope, tied 

it into a hangman's noose, and set about finding an African-American to execute. 

As Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American teenager, was walking back from a 7-

Eleven convenience store near his home, Hays and his accomplice pulled alongside Donald and 

asked him for directions. While talking, the two men forced Donald into the car at gunpoint and 

drove him to an empty field. After Donald fought back, the two subdued him, put his neck into 

the noose, and dragged him while beating him with a tree limb. The two men then slashed 

Donald's throat and hung him from a tree until his body was found the following day. 

When I became U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, I, along with Assistant U.S. 

Attorney Thomas Figures and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, worked to 

solve the murder. Because the federal government did not have an enforceable death penalty at 

the time, I insisted that Hays be prosecuted by the local district attorney, Chris Galanos. Hays 

was convicted of murder in Alabama state court, and the jury recommended life without parole. 

The trial judge overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Hays to death by 

electrocution. Hays appealed that decision through the Alabama state court system and into the 

federal courts. 

Later, while I was Attorney General of the State of Alabama, my office defended the verdict and 

sentence against Hays's habeas corpus proceeding in the Eleventh Circuit The Eleventh Circuit 

rejected Hays's petition. In part, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial judge gave due 

consideration to the jury's recommendation, but that the sentence imposed was permissible 

because the judge acknowledged consideration of the jury's recommendation and gave explicit 

28 
249 

reasons for pronouncing the death sentence over that r~commendation. These reasons included 

the moral depravity of the crime, the shocking nature of the crime, and the jury's inability to 

explain the life without parole recommendation. As such, the Eleventh Circuit found no due 

process violation and upheld the sentence. Hays was subsequently executed. 

In the midst of Hays' post-conviction proceedings, Michael Donald's family filed a civil lawsuit 

against the Klan, winning a $7 million judgment. In 1997, the New York Times published an 

article stating that this lawsuit "bankrupted the KKK" and noting that Hays' execution was 

"Alabama's first execution for a white-on-black crime since 1913."1 

Judges: 

Co-Counsel: 

Defense Counsel: 

Bon. Phyllis A. Kravitch, Hon . .I.L. Edmondson, and Hon. Stanley F. 

Birch, Jr., Eleventh Circuit 

Joseph G.L. Marston, III 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

P. 0. Box 5254 

Montgomery, AL 36103-5254 

334-832-4570 

Richard M. Kerger 

Kerger & Hartman, LLC 

33 S. Michigan, Suite 100 

Toledo, OH 43604 

419-255-5990 

Dominick J. Graziano 

Bush Graziano Rice & Platter, P.A. 

P.O. Box 3423 

Tampa, FL 33601-3423 

813-204-2847 

16. Legal Activities: Describe the most significant legal activities you have pursued, 

including significant litigation which did not progress to trial or legal matters that did not 

involve litigation. Describe fully the nature of your participation in these activities. List 

any client(s) or organization(s) for whom you performed lobbying activities and describe 

the lobbying activities you performed on behalf of such client(s) or organizations(s). 

(Note: As to any facts requested in this question, please omit any information protected 

by the attorney-client privilege.) 

I have never acted as a lobbyist. 

' Klan Member Put/u Death In Race Death, 

(June 6, !997). 

29 
250 

As United States Attorney, I led a very successful Weed and Seed initiative that was a 

major factor in restoring the health of the historic Martin Luther King neighborhood. As 

United States Attorney, I was an active leader and supporter of anti-illegal drug 

organizations including: Coalition for a Drug Free Mobile; Drug Policy Counsel. I 

helped start the Mobile County Drug Court in the 1980s, one of the first in the County. 

!led a year-long program of prominent citizens, doctors, public officials and law 

enforcement officials - state, local and federal- to deal with specific drug and criminal 

issues. As United States Attorney, I initiated the first Law Enforcement Coordinating 

Committee and led the Department of Justice initiative for the entire time I was United 

States Attorney. 

17. Teaching: What courses have you taught? For each course, state the title, the institution 

at which you taught the course, the years in which you taught the course, and describe 

briefly the subject matter of the course and the major topics taught. If you have a 

syllabus of each course, provide four (4) copies to the committee. 

I taught Elementary School at Goode Street Elementary School for one year ( 1969-l 970) 

between college and law school. 

18. Deferred Income/ Future Benefits: List the sources, atnonnts and dates of all 

anticipated receipts ftcim deferred income arrangements, stock, options, uncompleted 

contracts and other future benefits which you expect to derive from previous business 

relationships, professional services, fum memberships, former employers, clients or 

customers. Describe the arrangements you have made to be compensated in the future 

for any financial or business interest. 

None. 

19. Outside Commitmeuts During Service: Do you have any plans, commitments, or 

agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your 

service? If so, explain. 

No. 

20. Sources of Income: List sources and amounts of all income received during the calendar 

year preceding your nomination and for the current calendar year, including all salaries, 

fees, dividends, interest, gifts, rents, royalties, licensing fees, honoraria, and other items 

exceeding $500 or more (if you prefer to do so, copies of the financial disclosure report, 

required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, may be substituted here). 

30 
251 

Senate Financial Disclosure report for 2015 attached. 

Statement of income for 2016 attached. 

The current 278-E will be delivered directly to the Committee by the Office of 

Government Ethics (OGE). 

21. Statement of Net Worth: Please complete the attached financial net worth statement in 

detail (add schedules as called for). 

Financial Statement attached. 

22. Potential Conflicts of Interest: 

a. IdentifY the family members or other perrons, parties, affiliations, pending and 

categories of litigation, financial arrangements or other factors that are likely to 

present potential conflicts-of-interest when you first assume the position to which 

you have been nominated. Explain how you would address any such conflict if it 

were to arise. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Justice's designated agency ethics 

official to identify potential conflicts of interest and will follow their guidance if 

confronted with a conflict of interest. 

b. Explain how you will rerolve any potential conflict of interest, including the 

procedure you will fol!ow in determining these areas of concem. 

I will seek and follow the advice of the Department of Justice's designated agency 

ethics official if confronted with a conflict of interest in the performance of my 

duties. 

23. Pro Bono Work: An ethical consideration under Canon 2 of the American Bar 

Association's Code of Professional Responsibility calls for "every lawyer, regardless of 

professional prominence or professional work load, to find some time to participate in 

serving the disadvantaged." Describe what you have done to fulfill these responsibilities, 

listing specific instances and the amount of time devoted to each. If you are not an 

attorney, please use this opportunity to report significant charitable and volunteer work 

you may have done. 

As a private attorney, I would talk to persons who came to my office seeking legal help 

and advice, often spending considerable time with those in need when it was clear that 

the legal work would produce little or no compensation. 

I believe attorneys should be willing to do their part to ensure ail in need have access to 

legal representation. After I left as U.S. Attorney, I joined the Mobile Bar Association 

31 
252 

Pro Bono Program and took the cases they referred to me. 

For well over a decade I actively participated in the Mobile Metro Ministry and its 

partner, the Mobile United Methodist Inner City Mission. This program provided meals 

for those in need, valuable assistance to those with health, financial, housing and family 

concerns. The Mission also operated a swimming pool and summer recreation programs 

for youth. I was serving as vice chainnan when I was elected as Attorney General in 

1994. 

I gave hundreds ofhouts of time to drug prevention programs in the South Alabama area. 

I was an active and continuous member of the board of the Coalition for a Drug-Free 

Mobile County during the time I was U.S. Attorney. This Coalition, along with partners 

it coordinated with, laboriously and successfully reduced drug use in the Mobile area. 

Thousands of untold numbers of persons avoided addiction, marriage dysfunction, jail 

and personal as well as economic destruction as a result of the dedicated work of 

wonderful volunteers and the support of local and federal officials. 

For one full year, I led a weekly well attended meeting of community leaders and persons 

with expertise in law enforcement, drug addiction and prevention, mental health, 

homelessness, public: housing, prescription drug abuse, domestic violence and other 

factors that damaged the lives of so many, especially the poor. This was a truly insightful 

time and led to many improvements in policy in the area. 

I brought the first expert on "Drug Courts" to Mobile in the early 1980's. That 

presentation led to the establishment of the local Mobile County Drug Court that 

continues to operate today. 

32 
253 

AFFIDAVIT 

I, Jefferson B. Sessions, Ill, do swear that the information provided in this statement is, 

to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate. 

Date) 

Notary Public 
254 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FOR JEFF SESSIONS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE 

PUBLIC 

8. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic or 

professional honors, honorary society memberships, military awards, and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

This supplements the honors and awards identified in my initial response to Question 8: 

Attorney General's Flag A ward given by Attorney General Barr ( 1991-1992) f(Jr 

significant achievements in the war on drugs 

12. Published Writings and Public Statements: 

a. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, 

editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited, including 

material published only on the Internet. Supply four (4) copies of all published 

material to the Committee. 

The following response supplements my initial response to Question 12a: 

Alabama Attorney General, Out of the Darkness: A Manual for the Prevention of 

Childhood Abuse and Neglect ( 1996-1997) (attached) 

d. Supply four (4) copies, transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered 

by you, including commencement speeches, remarks, lectures, panel discussions, 

conferences, political speeches, and question-and-answer sessions. Include the 

date and place where they were delivered, and readily available press reports 

about the speech or talk. If you do not have a copy of the speech or a transcript or 

recording of your remarks, give the name and address of the group before whom 

the speech was given, the date of the speech, and a summary of its subject matter. 

If you did not speak from a prepared text, furnish a copy of any outline or notes 

from which you spoke. 

The following response supplements my initial response to Question l2d: 

While I had no record of these remarks in my files, after it was brought to my 

attention, an internet search resulted in the discovery of the attached document, 

entitled "Restoration Weekend: The Progress We've Made," which appears to be 

a transcript of the remarks. I cannot speak to the accuracy of the transcript 

because I do not have notes of my own related to these remarks. I am nonetheless 
255 

including it in this supplement in an effort to be as responsive as possible. 

13. Public Office, Political Activities and Affiliations: 

a. List chronologically any public offices you have held, other than judicial offices, 

including the terms of service and whether such positions were elected or 

appointed. If appointed, please include the name of the individual who appointed 

you. Also, state chronologically any unsuccessful candidacies you have had for 

elective office or unsuccessful nominations for appointed office. 

The following response supplements my initial response to Question 13a: 

Nomination, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 1986, withdrawn. 

See also Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions III, to be U.S. District Judge for the 

Southern District of Alabama, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (March 18-20 and May 6, 

1986), attached to original questionnaire submitted on December 9, 2016 in 

response to Question 12c. 

15. Litigation: Describe the ten (1 0) most significant litigated matters which you personally 

handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record. Give the citations, if the cases 

were reported, and the docket number and date if unreported. Give a capsule summary of 

the substance of each case. Identify the party or parties whom you represented; describe 

in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final disposition of the 

case. Also state as to each case: 

a. the date of representation; 

b. the name of the court and the name ofthe judge or judges before whom the case 

was litigated; and 

c. the individual name, addresses, and telephone numbers of co-counsel and of 

principal counsel for each of the other parties. 

The following response supplements my initial response to Question 15: 

For the cases described in 2, 4, 8 and 9, my role, like most U.S. Attorneys in the 

nation with non-criminal civil rights cases, was to provide support for the 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, attorneys. I reviewed, supported 

and co-signed complaints, motions, and other pleadings and briefs that were filed 

during my tenure as U.S. Attorney. I provided assistance and guidance to the 

Civil Rights Division attorneys, had an open-door policy with them, and 

cooperated with them on these cases. For the case described in 6, I supervised the 

litigation and signed the pleadings. 

2 
256 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE .JUDICIARY 

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FOR JEFF SESSIONS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE 

PUBLIC 

8. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic or 

professional honors, honorary society memberships, military awards, and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

The following response supplements my previous response to Question 8: 

Federation for American Immigration Reform, Franklin Society Award- 2007 

12. Published Writings and Public Statements: 

a. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, 

editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited, including 

material published only on the lntemet. Supply four ( 4) copies of all published 

material to the Committee. 

The following response supplements my previous response to Question 12a: 

Since filing my original response to the questionnaire, l have located, recalled, or 

been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as well as additional 

information regarding previously-listed items, that are responsive to this question. 

I have listed those additional responses in Supplemental Appendix 12a, and have 

attached the relevant materials. 

d. Supply four ( 4) copies, transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered 

by you, including commencement speeches, remarks, lectures, panel discussions, 

conferences, political speeches, and question-and-answer sessions. Include the 

date and place where they were delivered, and readily available press reports 

about the speech or talk. If you do not have a copy ofthe speech or a transcript or 

recording of your remarks, give the name and address of the group before whom 

the speech was given, the date of the speech, and a summary of its subject matter. 

If you did not speak from a prepared text, furnish a copy of any outline or notes 

from which you spoke. 

The following response supplements my previous response to Question l2d: 

Since filing my original response to the questionnaire, l have located, recalled, or 

been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as well as additional 

information regarding previously-listed items, that are responsive to this question. 
257 

I have listed those additional responses in Supplemental Appendix l2d, and have 

attached the relevant materials. 

e. List all interviews you have given to newspapers, magazines or other 

publications, or radio or television stations, providing the dates of these 

interviews and four (4) copies of the clips or transcripts of these interviews where 

they are available to you. 

The following response supplements my previous response to Question 12e: 

Since filing my original response to the questionnaire, I have located, recalled, or 

been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as well as additional 

information regarding previously-listed items, that are responsive to this question. 

I have listed those additional responses in Supplemental Appendix 12e, and have 

attached the relevant materials. 

2 
258 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FOR JEFF SESSIONS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE 

PUBLIC 

12. Published Writings and Public Statements: 

a. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, 

editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited, including 

material published only on the Internet. Supply four ( 4) copies of all published 

material to the Committee. 

The following response supplements my previous responses to Question 12a: 

Since filing my original and supplemental responses to the questionnaire, I have 

located, recalled, or been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as 

well as additional information regarding previously-listed items, that are 

responsive to this question. I have listed those additional responses in 

Supplemental Appendix 12a, and have attached the relevant materials. 

Additionally, I have identified the following two items and attached related 

information, although I do not have sufficient information to know whether they 

are responsive to this or another question. 

Potentially responsive items to Questions 12(a), 12(d) or 12(e) (unknow11 which, 

if any) 

Press conference, speech. written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Withdrawal of Judicial Nomination 

July 10, 1986 

Mobile, AL 

Press conference, speech, written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Alabama Voting Fraud Case 

September 12, 1985 

Location unknown 

c. Supply four ( 4) copies of any testimony, official statements or other 

communications relating, in whole or in part, to matters of public policy or legal 

interpretation, that you have issued or provided or that others presented on your 

behalf to public bodies or public officials. 
259 

The toll owing response supplements my previous responses to Question J2c: 

At some point during my tenure as United States Attorney for the Southern 

District of Alabama, I created a newsletter and sent it to members of the Law 

Enforcement Coordination Committee for the Southern District of Alabama, 

which included Federal, state, and local law enforcement leaders. While I do not 

have copies of this ne\vsletter or the dates that they were created or sent, I do 

believe that the newsletter made the suggestion to law enforcement leaders that in 

cases involving suspects who had violated Federal gun laws, my office would be 

willing to take and prosecute those cases if the case justified Federal prosecution. 

The goal was to reduce gun violence by using Federal capabilities. 

d. Supply four (4) copies, transcripts or recordings of all speeches or talks delivered 

by you, including commencement speeches, remarks, lectures, panel discussions, 

conferences, political speeches, and question-and-answer sessions. Include the 

date and place where they were delivered, and readily available press reports 

about the speech or talk. If you do not have a copy of the speech or a transcript or 

recording of your remarks, give the name and address of the group before whom 

the speech was given, the date of the speech, and a summary of its subject matter. 

If you did not speak from a prepared text, furnish a copy of any outline or notes 

from which you spoke. 

The following response supplements my previous responses to Question 12d: 

Since filing my original and supplemental responses to the questionnaire, I have 

located, recalled, or been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as 

well as additional information regarding previously-listed items, that are 

responsive to this question. I have listed those additional responses in 

Supplemental Appendix 12d, and have attached the relevant materials. 

Additionally, I have identified the following two items and attached related 

information, although [ do not have sufficient information to know whether they 

are responsive to this or another question. 

Potentially responsive items to Questions 12(a), 12(d) or 12(e) (unknown which, 

if any) 

Press conference, speech. written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Withdrawal o.fJudicial Nomination 

July 10, 1986 

Mobile,AL 

Press conference, speech, written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Alabama Voting Fraud Case 

September 12, 1985 

2 
260 

Location unknown 

e. List all interviews you have given to newspapers, magazines or other 

publications, or radio or television stations, providing the dates of these 

interviews and four ( 4) copies of the clips or transcripts of these interviews where 

they are available to you. 

The following response supplements my previous responses to Question 12e: 

Since filing my original and supplemental responses to the questionnaire, I have 

located, recalled, or been made aware of additional, previously-unlisted items, as 

well as additional information regarding previously-listed items, that are 

responsive to this question. I have listed those additional responses in 

Supplemental Appendix 12e, and have attached the relevant materials. 

Additionally, I have identified the following two items and attached related 

information, although I do not have sufficient information to know whether they 

are responsive to this or another question. 

Potentially responsive items to Questions 12(a), l2(d) or 12(e) (unknown which, 

if any) 

Press conference, speech, written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Withdrawal of Judicial Nomination 

July 10, 1986 

Mobile, AL 

Press conference, speech, written statement, interview, or informal comment 

(unknown) 

Alabama Voting Fraud Case 

September 12, 1985 

Location unknown 

3 
261 

Opening Statement of Attorney General-Designate Jeff Sessions 

U.S. Senate Confirmation Hearing 

Tuesday, January 10,2017 

Washington, D.C. 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, distinguished members of the 

Committee, I am honored to appear before you today. I thank you for the opportunity to respond 

to your questions as you discharge your duty in the appointment process prescribed by our 

Constitution. 

I also want to thank my dear friends, Senator Richard Shelby and Senator Susan Collins 

for their kind introductions. It is hard to believe, really, that the three of us have served together 

in this body for nearly 20 years. 

I want to thank President-elect Trump for the confidence and trust that he has shown by 

nominating me to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I feel the weight of an 

honor greater than I have aspired to. If! am confirmed, I commit to you and to the American 

people to be worthy ofthat office and the special trust that comes with it. 

I come before you today as a colleague who has worked with you for years, and with 

some of you for 20 years. You know who I am. You know what I believe in. You know that I 

am a man of my word and can be trusted to do what I say I will do. You know that I revere our 

Constitution and am committed to the rule of law. And you know that I believe in fairness, 

impartiality, and equal justice under the law. 

Over the years, you have heard me say many times that I love the Department of Justice. 

The Office of the Attorney General of the United States is not a political position, and anyone 

who holds it must have total fidelity to the laws and the Constitution of the United States. He or 

she must be committed to following the law. He or she must be willing to tell the President "no'' 

if he overreaches. He or she cannot be a mere rubberstamp. He or she also must set the example 
262 

for the employees in the Department to do the right thing and ensure that, when they do the right 

thing, they know the Attorney General will back them up, no matter what politician might call, 

or what powerful special interest, influential contributor, or friend might try to intervene. The 

message must be clear: Everyone is expected to do their duty. 

That is the way I was expected to perform as an Assistant United States Attorney. That is 

the way I trained my assistants when I became United States Attorney. And if confirmed, that is 

the way I will run the Department of Justice. 

In my over 14 years in the Department of Justice, I tried cases of nearly every kind--drug 

trafficking and very large international drug smuggling cases, firearms cases, other violent 

crimes, a series of major public corruption cases, financial wrongdoing, and environmental 

violations. Our office supported historic civil rights cases and major civil cases. Protecting the 

people of this country from crime, and especially from violent crime, is a high calling of the men 

and women of the Department of Justice. Today, I am afraid, that has become more important 

than ever. 

Since the early 1980s, good policing and prosecutions have been a strong force in 

reducing crime. Drug use and murders are half what they were in 1980. I am very concerned, 

however, that the recent jump in the violent crime and murder rates arc not anomalies, but the 

beginning of a dangerous trend that could reverse the hard won gains that have made America a 

safer and more prosperous place. The latest official FBI statistics show that all crime increased 

nearly 4 percent from 2014 to 2015-the largest increase since 1991-with murders increasing 

nearly II percent-the largest single year increase since 1971. 

In 2016, there were 4,368 shooting victims in Chicago. In Baltimore, homicides reached 

the second highest per-capita rate ever. 

2 
263 

The country is also in the throes of a heroin epidemic, with overdose deaths more than 

tripling between 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile, illegal drugs flood across our southern border and 

into every city and town in the country, bringing violence, addiction, and misery. 

We must not lose perspective when discussing these statistics. We must always 

remember that these crimes are being committed against real people, real victims. It is important 

that they arc kept in the forefront of our minds in these conversations, and to ensure that their 

rights arc always protected. 

These trends cannot continue. It is a fundamental civil right to be safe in your home and 

your community. If I am confinned, we will systematically prosecute criminals who use guns in 

committing crimes. As United States Attorney, my office was a national leader in gun 

prosecutions every year. We will partner with state and local law enforcement to take down drug 

trafficking cartels and dismantle gangs. We will prosecute those who repeatedly violate our 

borders. It will be my priority to confront these crises vigorously, effectively, and immediately. 

Approximately 90 percent of all law enforcement officers are not federal, but local and 

state. They are the ones on the front lines. They are better educated, trained and equipped than 

ever before. They are the ones who we rely on to keep our neighborhoods, and playgrounds, and 

schools safe. But in the last several years, law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly 

maligned and blamed for the unacceptable actions of a few bad actors. They believe the political 

leadership of this country abandoned them. They felt they had become targets. Morale has 

suffered. And last year, while under intense public criticism, the number of police officers killed 

in the line of duty increased ten percent over 2015; and tirearms deaths are up 68 percent. This 

is a wake up call. This must not continue. 

3 
264 

If we are to be more effective in dealing with rising crime, we will have to rely heavily 

on local law enforcement to lead the way. To do that, they must know that they are supported. 

If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed as Attorney General, they can be assured that they will 

have my support. 

As I discussed with many of you in our meetings prior to this hearing, the federal 

government has an important role to play in this area. We must use the research and expertise of 

the Department of Justice to help them in developing the most effective and lawful enforcement 

methods to reduce crime. We must re-establish and strengthen the partnership between federal 

and local officers to enhance a common and unified effort to reverse the current rising crime 

trends. I did this as United States Attorney. I worked directly and continuously with state and 

local law enforcement ofticials. If confirmed, it will be one of my primary objectives. 

There are also many things the Department can do to assist state and local law 

enforcement to strengthen relationships with their own communities where policies like 

community-based policing have been proven to work. I am committed to this effort and to 

ensuring that the Department of Justice is a unifying force for improving relations between the 

police in this country and the communities they serve. This is particularly important in our 

minority communities. Make no mistake, positive relations and great communication between 

the people and police are essential for any good police department. And when police fail in their 

duties, they must be held accountable. 

In recent years, our law enforcement officers also have been called upon to protect our 

country from the rising threat ofterrorism that has reached our shores. If I am confirmed, 

protecting the American people from the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism will continue to be 

a top priority ofthe Department of Justice. We will work diligently to respond to threats, using 

4 
265 

all lawful means to keep the American people safe from our nation's enemies. Partnerships will 

also be vital to achieving much more effective enforcement against cyber threats, and the 

Department of Justice clearly has a lead role to play in that essential effort. We must honestly 

assess our vulnerabilities and have a clear plan for defense, as well as offense, when it comes to 

America's cybersecurity. 

The Department of Justice must never falter in its obligation to protect the civil rights of 

every American, particularly those who are most vulnerable. A special priority for me in this 

regard will be aggressive enforcement of our laws to ensure access to the ballot for every eligible 

American voter, without hindrance or discrimination, and to ensure the integrity of the electoral 

process. 

Further, this government must improve its ability to protect the United States Treasury 

from waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a federal responsibility. W c cannot afford to lose a single 

dollar to corruption and you can be sure that if I am confirmed, I will make it a high priority of 

the Department to root out and prosecute fraud in federal programs and to recover any monies 

lost due to fraud or false claims. 

The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the Constitution's promise that our 

government is one of laws, not of men. It will be my unyielding commitment, if I am confirmed, 

to see that the laws are enforced faithfully, effectively, and impartially. The Attorney General 

must hold everyone, no matter how powerful, accountable. No one is above the law, and no 

American will be beneath its protection. No powerful special interest will cower this 

Department. 

I want to address personally the fabulous men and women in the Department of Justice. 

That includes personnel in Main Justice but also the much larger number that faithfully fulfill 
266 

their responsibility every day throughout this nation. As United States Attorney, I worked with 

them constantly. The federal investigative agencies represent the finest collection of law officers 

in the world. I know their integrity and professionalism. I pledge to them a unity of effort that is 

unmatched. Together we can and will reach for the highest standards and the highest results. It 

would be the greatest honor to lead these fine public servants. 

To my colleagues, I appreciate the time that each of you have taken to meet with me oneon-one. As Senators, we don't always have the opportunity to sit down and discuss matters face 

to face and so, for me, this was very helpful. I understand and respect the conviction that you 

bring to your duties. Even though we are not always in agreement, you have always been 

understanding and respectful of my positions. 

In that regard, ifl am so fortunate as to be confirmed, I commit to all of you that the 

Department of Justice will be responsive to the Congress and will work with you on your 

priorities, and provide you with guidance and views where appropriate. The Department will 

respect your constitutional oversight role, and particularly the critically important separation of 

powers between the branches. 

There is nothing I am more proud ofthan my 14 years ofserviee in the Department of 

Justice. I love and venerate that great institution. I hold dear its highest ideals. As God gives 

me the ability, I will work every day to be worthy of this august office. 

You can be absolutely sure that I understand the immense responsibility 1 would have. 

am not nai've. I know the threat that our rising crime and addiction rates pose to the health and 

safety of our country. I know the threat of terrorism. I deeply understand the history of civil 

rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of 

voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it. I 

6 
267 

understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community. I will ensure 

that the statutes protecting their rights and their safety are fully enforced. I understand the 

lifelong scars born by women who are victims of assault and abuse. 

And, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed as your Attorney General, you can know that 

I understand the absolute necessity that all of my actions must fall within the bounds of the 

Constitution and the laws that Congress passes. 

While all humans must recognize the limits oftheir abilities-and I do-l am ready for 

this job. We will do it right. Your input will be valued. Local law enforcement will be our 

partners. My many friends in federal law enforcement will be respected. 

I have always loved the law. It is the very foundation of our great country. I have an 

abiding commitment to pursuing and achieving justice and a record of doing just that. If 

confirmed, I will give all my efforts to this goal. 

I ask only that you do your duty, as you are charged by the Constitution to do it, and by 

the light that God has given you to do it. 

Thank you. 

7 
268 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. MUKASEY 1110117 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, members of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee- It is both a pleasure and an honor to appear before this committee to speak 

in favor of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General. 

I first came to know Senator Sessions when I served as Attorney General from 

2007 to 2009 and he was a member of this Committee. In particular, I recall working 

with him on reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008, and 

hearing his views on the importance of this legislation and strategies for convincing 

legislators in both the Senate and the House to pass it. He showed a concern for this 

nation's security and an understanding of how FlSA helped protect it that I thought was 

uncommon even among engaged legislators. 

I had occasion also to be on the opposing side of his views when it came to 

proposals to change the sentencing guidelines with respect to crack cocaine as distinct 

from powdered cocaine. As you may recall, there was then roughly a 100 to 1 ratio 

between the crack and powdered cocaine guidelines, with crack treated I 00 times more 

harshly than powdered cocaine. I thought at the time that that disparity was warranted 

because of the powerful addictive effects of crack as compared to powdered cocaine, and 

the violence that accompanied its distribution. Senator Sessions thought that some 

disparity was warranted, but was concerned about the impact these sentencing guidelines 

had on minority defendants, who were more likely than others to be involved in crack 
269 

distribution and use. He said he thought the severe effects on African-American and 

Hispanic defendants and their families justified a change to more lenient guidelines for 

crack to see whether something could be done to alleviate the damaging effect of long 

drug sentences without losing the benefit of getting drug dealers off the streets and 

deterring would-be dealers. 

As I indicated, we differed at the time on the wisdom of doing that, but I found 

him to be engaged and informed even when we differed. More recently, I have favored 

certain sentencing proposals that tended to lower sentences proposals that he opposed. 

Once again, even as we differed, it is clear that his concern is with the welfare of the 

community at large and the impact that such legislation could have on public safety .. 

Based on my interaction with Senator Sessions over the years, I have come to 

believe that he will serve with distinction as Attorney General. Broadly, I believe he 

understands that the principal role of the Justice Department is to help protect the safety 

of the American people from any international or domestic threat that would interfere 

with their ability to enjoy the freedoms our Constitution guarantees. To that end, I 

believe he will focus the Department's energies on priorities that will include 

strengthening our ability to combat Islamist terrorism, both at home and overseas. 

believe he will also focus on partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to 

combat drug gangs, both domestic and international, that are a source of much of the 

violence that afflicts our cities. 

2 
270 

I think he will seek to curtail the questionable practice of having the federal 

government impose rigid supervision over state and local law enforcement agencies that 

has had the effect of simultaneously lowering police morale and raising crime rates in 

such places as Seattle and Baltimore. More broadly, I think he will try to improve 

relationships between federal law enforcement agencies on the one hand, and state and 

local law enforcement agencies on the other, that will improve also the effectiveness of 

all such agencies. 

I believe he will also enforce the standards in a 2007 memorandum I put in place 

that restrict~ White House contact with the Justice Department to the Attorney General 

and the Deputy Attorney General, with the exception of discussions relating to pending 

matters of budget, policy or legislative concern that may go on at a lower level. 

I have spoken thus far of my impression of Senator Sessions' views on significant 

law enforcement issues, and have not reviewed his substantial background and the kinds 

of qualifications and achievements that appear on his resume. He certainly has a rich 

supply of such qualifications and achievements. He served with distinction for 12 years 

as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, and for two years as 

that state's Attorney General. In addition, he has served for 20 years as a member of this 

very committee- the Senate Judiciary Committee- overseeing the operations of the 

Department of Justice. His concern for all people affected by the criminal justice system 

has extended not only to correcting what he regarded as unwarranted disparities in 

sentencing guidelines, but also to protecting those in prison from sexual assault. 

3 
271 

However, my observation from both the inside and the outside of the Justice 

Department has been that although such qualifications are necessary and useful, and such 

achievements help predict performance in office, they are not entirely sufficient to 

guarantee success. Also necessary are qualities of mind and character that Senator 

Sessions has in rich supply. He is careful, thoughtful, and dedicated to the neutral and 

dispassionate enforcement of our laws so as to assure that the guarantees written into our 

Constitution are a reality for our citizens. He combines a dedication to vigorous law 

enforcement with a scrupulous regard for the limits of federal jurisdiction inherent in the 

federal system the Constitution creates. Those are the qualities, together with the skills 

and experience reflected in his record, that I believe will make him an outstanding 

Attorney General. 

I had hoped to confine these remarks to discussing the positive traits that qualify 

Senator Sessions to be our next Attorney General. However, I have been saddened to see 

the scurrilous attacks on Senator Sessions' character that have been unleashed since his 

nomination was proposed and cannot let them pass without comment. For example, he 

has been falsely accused of saying that the NAACP is an un-American organization; 

what he actually said was that when the NAACP supported a murderous communist 

regime in Nicaragua, the Sandinistas, it was taking an un-American position and 

compromising its moral authority. Of all the insidious practices that have crept into our 

politics in recent times, I know of none more insidious than casual and unjustified 

accusations of racism, smears that once leveled are difficult to wipe clean. What I 

4 
272 

offered was only one example, but it will do as the occasion for expressing my hope that 

all the Members of this important Committee, both Republicans and Democrats who 

know and have worked with Senator Sessions, regardless of how you intend to vote on 

his nomination, will unite to reject this squalid practice. 

As is apparent from what I have said, I strongly support his candidacy and urge 

that the Committee act favorably on his nomination. 

5 
273 

Statement of former DREAMER and U.S. Army Veteran 

Oscar Vazquez 

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

On 

"Attorney General Nomination" 

Tuesday, January 10 and Wednesday, January 11, 2017 

Russell Senate Office Building, Room 325 

9:30a.m. 
274 

Chairman Grass ley, Ranking Member Feinstein thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before the Committee. My name is Oscar Vazquez and I am proud to be an American. 

I was born in a small town in the State of Chihuahua in Mexico. I was 12 years old when 

my mother and I boarded a bus from our town to the U.S.-Mexico border. Although I was not old 

enough to make the choice to come to the United States, it was a decision my parents made to 

pursue a better future and this country quickly became my home. 

As soon as we were settled in the United States my parents made sure that I was enrolled 

in school because they wanted me to understand the value of education. Those first days of 

school were a shock as I did not know enough English to understand what my teachers were 

telling me. It was at this point that I started to develop a passion for math and science since the 

formulas and equations transcended the language barrier. I was able to excel in those courses. 

Before I knew it, it was time for me to attend high school and soon I found myself in 

wonder at the many opportunities that I was able to choose from. At Carl Hayden High School I 

joined the JROTC program where my two instructors were Vietnam Veterans. They always 

made it a point of teaching us the value of selfless service, whether you were able to provide that 

in the military or not. They truly wanted us to be better Americans. 

I loved the order and discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC Officer of the 

Year. During my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the "'Band of Brothers" miniseries. and I 

knew then I wanted to join the Army. But when I met with a recruiter, I was told that I couldn't 

enlist because I was undocumented. !left that meeting not knowing what to do or what was next. 

I was devastated. 

I knew I had to figure out what else I could do with my life. At the beginning of my 

senior year I joined the robotics club, which opened new doors for me. Working with three of my 

fellow classmates and under the supervision of two dedicated teachers, we entered the Marine 

Advanced Technology Education Center's Remotely Operated Vehicle Competition. Even 

though we were high school students, we decided to enter the college level competition because 

if we lost, at least it would be against universities and not against other high schools. 

I spent my senior year working with my team to design and build our underwater robot, 

which we named Stinky. That summer, we traveled to Santa Barbara, California for the 

competition. It was incredible to see other underwater robots and teams from some of the best 

universities in the world, including MIT. Beyond our wildest dreams, four undocumented kids 

from Arizona won the awards for Design Elegance, Technical Report, and the grand prize for 

Overall Winner of the competition. 

Winning the underwater robotics competition was proof that we as Dreamers had 

something to offer the country we always considered to be our home. Although I could not 

contribute to my country by joining the military, I decided I could contribute by becoming an 
275 

engineer. I fell in love with Arizona State University during a middle school field trip, but 

attending ASU came with its own challenges. In 2006-when I was already enrolled at ASUthe Arizona Legislature passed a law prohibiting undocumented students from receiving in-state 

financial aid. Even though Arizona had been my home for many years, I also wasn't allowed to 

pay in-state tuition. When this new law came into effect my tuition tripled. Through private 

scholarships and working construction, I scraped the money together to pay for college and 

support my family. Despite how difficult it was, I never gave up on the idea of getting a degree, 

and at graduation it paid oft: 

In 2009, I was one ofthree students introduced as an outstanding graduate during 

graduation, sitting only a few feet away from President Obama. But afterwards, I didn't know 

what the future held. This was three years before President Obama established the Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. So even though I had a degree in mechanical 

engineering, no one would hire me in this field without legal status. I didn't want to be stuck in a 

low-end job and not be able to apply my degree to its full potential to contribute to my country 

and support my family. 

By then, I had met and married my wife. Karla. In the end, she and I decided that I 

should go back to Mexico a country I left as a child -and apply to re-enter the United States 

legally. Even though Karla and our daughter, Samantha, are U.S. citizens, the law said that once 

I left I would be barred from coming back to the United States for ten years unless I qualified for 

a waiver under the law. My wife and I knew it wouldn't be easy to be apart, but we wanted to do 

this while my daughter was still young. 

lt was frustrating to be away from my family and not be able to see my daughter grow up. 

Every few weeks, when my wife had a few days off, Karla would bring Samantha and make the 

three-hour drive to visit me. When they first started visiting, my daughter didn't recognize me 

after not seeing me for so long. It is heartbreaking as a parent for your child not know who you 

are or recognize your face. 

I applied for a waiver of the ten-year bar so I could come back home, but the government 

initially denied the request. They said that we hadn't documented enough extreme hardship for 

my wife due to my absence. The thought of being separated from my family for I 0 years was too 

much to bear. l asked the Department of Homeland Security to reconsider my application and 

this time my waiver was granted. Three-hundred and sixty one days after I left the United States, 

I was able to return as legal resident. 

Having legal resident status changed my life. I was now able to get a driver's license, 

travel freely within the United States, and pursue my career in Engineering. The biggest change I 

noticed was the fear- I was no longer afraid of being deported and being forcibly separated from 

my family. 

2 
276 

Soon after I came back to the United States it dawned on me that I could now pursue my 

dream of joining the military and become a paratrooper like the soldiers I saw on "Band of 

Brothers". I decided to enlist in the United States Army. I started basic training in February 

20I I. I wanted to fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country wasn't enough, I 

would let my actions speak for themselves. In May, shortly before I finished basic training, I 

became a U.S. citizen. A couple of weeks later, I found myself staring out the door of a C-130 

flying over Fort Benning, GA, and I got to jump out of military airplanes like I had dreamed 

since high school. A few months later I was deployed to Afghanistan. 

I looked forward to going to Afghanistan because I wanted to go into combat and protect 

the United States. Serving in the Army allowed me to contribute more fully to this country and 

make it safer. I was following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have proudly 

served in the U.S. Armed Forces since the American Revolution. In Afghanistan, I fought side 

by side with my Anny brothers. We wore the same uniform with the U.S. flag on the same 

shoulder. It mattered more that were willing to die for each other and for our country than where 

we came from. 

To this day I remember the feelings I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put 

my life on the line for my brothers, for my country and I felt really proud to be an American. I 

personally felt then for the first time that no one could again question whether I am American. I 

sometimes wonder why I, as an immigrant, felt like I had to go to that extreme in order to get 

that feeling. It bas been a great honor to serve my country. 

Today, our son, Oskar Maxim us, is four years old and is in pre-school. Samantha is now 

8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of fort Worth, Texas, where I volunteer at two 

different high schools in their respective robotics programs. I can say now that we are living the 

American dream. I still want to continue serving my country and I want to join the Army reserve 

soon. 

My three other team members from the robotics competition many years ago have also 

continued to pursue their dreams and thanks to DACA, two of them have started their own 

catering business and one is currently pursuing a computer science degree in Michigan. I think 

now about all of the doors that were unlocked for me when I gained lawful permanent residence 

-the ability to get the job of my dreams, provide for my family, and live without fear. I can't 

imagine what it would be like to have that taken away from me today and I can't imagine what it 

is like today for my three former teammates and for hundreds of thousands of other DACA 

recipients who arc afraid that could happen to them in a matter of days. Like me, DACA 

recipients grew up pledging allegiance to the American flag every day, and they have so much to 

contribute to the country they love. Of course, DACA is only a temporary solution, and now 

even that is at risk. Many DACA recipients do not have a path to legal status or a way to become 

U.S. citizens. DACA is all that's available to them at this time. 

3 
277 

Over the years I have met many great Americans, my parents, my teachers, my JROTC 

instructors, my wife, my Army brothers all of whom have seen potential in me. Whenever I talk 

to the students I mentor I always tell them that I have made it this far not because I am 

exceptional or because I am special. Rather I am where I am today because of the many great 

people that have believed in me and have given me a chance. That includes the people who 

reviewed my waiver application, and allowed me to return to the country and rejoin my family. 

Since becoming a permanent resident, I have worked hard to make the most of that opportunity 

every day. 

I wanted to come here today because we need our country's top law enforcement officer 

to understand that immigrants make our country stronger and that it's not right to deport 

someone who was brought here as a child to a country where they may not know the language 

and may not even remember. It's not right to separate hard-working families. We need an 

Attorney General who will protect the American people from those who would do us hann, but 

who also will show mercy to those who deserve it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

4 
278 

DRAFT 

TESTIMONY OF PETER KIRSANOW BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY 

COMMITTEE ON THE NOMINATION OF 

JEFF SESSIONS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Chairman Grassley, ranking member Leahy, Members of the Committee, I am Peter 

Kirsanow, a Member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and 

Employment Practice Group of the law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff. I am 

appearing in my personal capacity. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to, 

among other things, serve as the national clearinghouse for information related to discrimination 

and denials of equal protection. In furtherance of the clearinghouse function, my assistant and I 

have reviewed the bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Sessions during his tenure in the 

Senate, as well as his public actions on matters arguably pertaining to civil rights and the rule of 

law. 

Our examination reveals Senator Sessions' approach to civil rights issues is consistent with 

mainstream textual interpretation of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as 

governing precedent. His legislative record is legally sound, intellectually honest, and exhibits an 

understanding and appreciation of the historical bases for civil rights laws. 

Our examination also underscores that some aspects of Senator Sessions' record on civil 

rights have been mischaracterized, portraying him incongruously as somehow hostile to civil 

rights. 

The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things Senator Sessions has 

sponsored numerous bills honoring significant civil rights events, icons, and leaders, including, 

but not limited to, bills to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.; Caretta Scott King; and 
279 

Rev. Shuttlesworth's fight against segregation; three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks; a Senate 

apology to the descendants of lynching victims; a bill to honor participants in the Selma Voting 

Rights March; and a bill honoring the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. 1 

Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights, however, transcends resolutions in support 

of civil rights. He has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous substantive bills ensuring and 

protecting voting rights, such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 200 !, the Voter Fraud 

Protection Act of 2009, as well as a number of bills protecting the voting rights of military 

personnel.2 

He has been a strong proponent of religious liberty, co-sponsoring several bills to prevent 

discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent government from substantially 

burdening a person's free exercise ofreligion. 3 

But in our estimation his most important impact has been on protecting the interests of 

American workers, particularly black workers. Black employment levels and wage rates have 

been abysmal for at least a decade. The labor force participation rate for black males is an appalling 

61.8%. Evidence adduced by the Civil Rights Commission shows that 40% of the 18 point decline 

in black employment rates over the last several years is due to government refusal or inability to 

enforce immigration laws--causing black workers, particularly black males, to lose jobs or have 

their wages reduced. That's hundreds of thousands of blacks without jobs. This also has broader 

sociological implications related to family formation and incarceration rates. 

No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Sessions in protecting and 

promoting the interests of black workers in America. But for Senator Sessions' indefatigable 

t SeeS. 527 (I 14th Cong. 2015); S. Res. 460 (108th Cong. 2004). See also S. Res. 289 (!12th Cong. 2012); S. 1368 

( 1 08th Con g. 2004 ). 2 SeeS. 3073 (I lOth Cong. 2009); S. 28 (107th Cong. 2002); S. 1103 (I 11th Cong. 2010). 3 SeeS. 415 (l!Oth Cong. 2008); S. 1204 (!13th Cong. 2004); S. 2148 (105th Cong. 1998). 

2 
280 

efforts, the plight of black workers now and in the future would be worse, His leadership on this 

matter as well as his leadership as Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National 

Interest has been key to forestalling an even deeper downward trajectory for black workers. 

Senator Sessions' record on matters pertaining to civil rights demonstrates an unwavering 

commitment to equal protection under the law and a fidelity to the rule oflaw in general that would 

make him an outstanding Attorney General. 

Thank you Mr. Chainnan. 

3 
281 

Good morning, my name is Amita Swadhin, I am a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in 

Ohio to two immigrants from India, and raised in New Jersey. And I am grateful to Chairman 

Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to be 

here today. 

In October, millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered when hot mic tapes were released 

of President-elect Trump describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the 

genitals. 

I was one ofthose survivors. I am a victim of violent crime, in the form of eight years of rape 

and over a decade of psychological, verbal and physical abuse by my father, beginning when I 

was four years old. In addition to direct violence from my father, I grew up watching him abuse 

my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape, until she finally found the 

courage and support to leave him when I was IS years old. 

I am here on behalf of survivors of rape and sexual assault to urge you not to confirm Senator 

Sessions as Attorney General. In the wake of President-elect Trump's comments about grabbing 

women by the genitals becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating he doesn't 

characterize that behavior as sexual assault. Let me be clear- Senator Sessions stated he does not 

characterize non-consensual genital grabbing as sexual assault. Furthermore, in reference to 

President-elect Trump's comments, Senator Sessions told Fox News "This thing is overblown. 

Everybody knows that Trump likes women." While he criticized President-elect Trump's 

inappropriate language, at no point did Senator Sessions condemn the behavior President-elect 

Trump had admitted to engaging in. 

As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people, mainly in my father's family and 

community of friends and colleagues, have dismissed my story as a private family matter or have 

diminished the impact of this violence on my present-day life. I live with Complex Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder, and struggle every day to be well. It directly and negatively impacts 

me when people disbelieve or attempt to discredit me or other survivors. So, to watch our 

President-elect admit to forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals, and to hear 

Senator Sessions say this behavior does not constitute sexual assault, and then to consider him 

leading the Department of Justice has been incredibly triggering. 

I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. We live in a country in which the crimes of 

rape, sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence are happening at epidemic rates, behind 

closed doors. These are public health issues occurring in the private sphere. According to the US 

Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey, more than 320,000 Americans over 

age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, I 

in 4 girls and I in 6 boys will be sexually abused before age 18. In 80% of adult sexual assaults 

and 90% of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust their perpetrators. When 

survivors attempt to come forward, we are often shamed and disbelieved in the media. For this 

reason, most victims of violent crime never seek healing or accountability from the state. Most 

violent crimes remain unreported. 
282 

We need a justice department that can be a partner to families and communities. Our Attorney 

General must be able to demonstrate leadership to victims of violent crime that helps us feel we 

can trust the state, the courts, and victim service agencies more than we fear our perpetrators. For 

most survivors of violent crime, this means trusting the state more than you fear the family 

member, friend or community member who you trusted and who raped or abused you. 

My own story demonstrates how difficult this is to achieve. I disclosed my father's abuse to my 

mother when I was 13 years old. As in many tight-knit immigrant communities, my mother felt 

pressured to not get divorced, and lacked support from her peers to leave my father, despite him 

having hit her at community events more than once over the years. So, when I disclosed, she 

called a therapist for support, which led to state intervention due to mandated reporting. The 

female police officer who questioned me sat me across from a double mirror, watched me break 

down in tears during questioning, and stoically told me l clearly needed therapy but that wasn't 

her job - she was just there to get the facts about what had happened. The two male prosecutors 

threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit in my abuse, without knowing any details 

from me. They also told me l would be harshly cross examined by the defense attorney. They 

did not connect me to any victim advocates or support services. Because of these reasons, l did 

not feel comfortable disclosing the extent of the violence I had survived, and my father was 

given five years probation and no jail time. He was allowed to continue living in my home for a 

year and a half after state intervention. Even after my mother finally found the strength to leave 

him when I was 15. my father was allowed to have unsupervised visits with me and my sisterhe convinced social workers that my mother could serve as the visitation supervisor, subjecting 

all three of us to another year of verbal and physical violence. These events occurred from 1991 

to 1994, just before the Violence Against Women Act was created. 

Thankfully, we have improved the response of the criminal justice system to victims of intimate 

violent crime in the past 23 years. VA WA requires the criminal justice system to work with the 

victim services system. The STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence 

Against Women Formula Grants under YAW A provide training and resources to judges, 

prosecutors, police officers and other court personnel to support survivors. In 1991, the police 

did not contact victim advocates tor me. Today, thanks to VA W A, the law enforcement system is 

encouraged to provide victims an advocate to support them in breaking their silence and sharing 

their truth. 

Yet despite this progress, most victims of violent crime still do not come forward, particularly 

survivors living at the intersections of multiple oppressions- survivors of color, disabled 

survivors, immigrant survivors, and LGBT survivors. We need an Attorney General who will 

continue the progress we have made since the initial passage of VA W A, someone committed to 

improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come 

forward to seek accountability and to access healing. 

Time and again, Senator Sessions' voting record has shown he is not the man for the job. While 

he voted in favor ofthe Violence Against Women Act in the bill's early years, when VA WA was 

expanded in 2013 to ensure LGBT survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault were being 

served, Senator Sessions voted against the bill. This is not the first time he demonstrated his bias 

against the LGBT community. In 2006, Senator Sessions voted in favor of a constitutional ban 
283 

on same-sex marriage. In 2009, he voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act, which extends federal hate crime protections to people victimized 

because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. 

By voting against VA W A specifically when services and protections were strengthened for 

LGBT survivors, Senator Sessions has shown his personal bias against LGBT Americans is so 

strong, he is willing to throw all survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault under the bus, 

stripping away the services and trainings we have created to better support survivors over the 

past two decades. 

As a bisexual woman with a transgender romantic partner, and as an advocate working to support 

sexual assault survivors in the LGBT community, the prospect of Senator Sessions as Attorney 

General is personally and professionally alanning. National data shows LGBT people, and 

particularly trans gender women of color, are disproportionately victimized by rape and sexual 

assault, intimate partner violence and homicide. One in two trans gender people will be raped or 

sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims 

are transgender women. In fact, only II days into the new year, two trans gender women of color 

have already been murdered- Mesh a Caldwell, an African American transgender woman from 

Mississippi, and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow, a two-spirit Oglala Lakota woman from South 

Dakota. 

We must trust the Attorney General to enforce and apply our laws fairly, per our Constitution's 

provisions on equal protection. We must trust the Attorney General to respect the humanity of all 

Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for our most vulnerable victims of 

crime. Given his voting record on VA WA and on LGBT issues, we have no reason to put our 

faith in Senator Sessions as Attorney General. We cannot trust that he would enforce the Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act, or the nondiscrimination clause of the Violence Against Women Act to 

protect LGBT victims and other vulnerable survivors against discrimination from victim service 

agencies nationwide. 

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that a broad range of national organizations working to end 

violence against women, including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 

Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Jewish 

Women, Ujima, Inc., the National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, 

the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and Break the Cycle, oppose Senator Sessions' 

nomination because of these issues I am raising today. Thank you. 
284 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 

JAY ANN SEPICH 

before the 

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION 

OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS 

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

January 11, 2016 

Good Morning Chairman Grassley and Members of the Committee. My name 

is jayann Sepich. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of 

the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. 

In August 2003, my oldest daughter Katie, a vivacious 22 year old graduate 

student, was brutally raped, strangled to death, and her body set on fire. It is 

never easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror at losing our 

daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. 

No strong suspects emerged in Katie's case, but Katie had fought for her life. 

The skin and blood of her attacker were found under her fingernails, and a 

DNA profile identifying her killer was extracted and uploaded into the 

national forensic DNA database called CO DIS. 
285 

I made the comment to investigators that the man who had killed Katie was 

such a monster that he would surely be arrested for another crime, his cheek 

would be swabbed, and we would soon have his identity. He wouldn't be able 

to harm another young woman. That is when I learned that, at the time, it was 

not legal in New Mexico, or in most States, to take DNA at the time of a felony 

arrest. It could only be taken after conviction. 

I was stunned. We do not use DNA to accurately identify persons arrested for 

serious crimes? We release them from law enforcement custody without a 

check of the DNA database for a possible match to other unsolved crimes? We 

collect fingerprints, mug shots, Social Security numbers, and run multiple 

criminal system checks to establish identity- including information as to 

what other crimes the person may have been involved in-- but we do not 

collect DNA? 

After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the collection of 

DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the non-profit association DNA 

Saves. We know we cannot ever bring Katie back. But we absolutely believe 

that we may be able to prevent new crimes - prevent this horrible pain from 

being visited upon other parents -by advocating for stronger DNA database 

laws that allow for the collection of DNA from persons arrested for serious 

crimes. 

To date, thirty State Legislatures and the US Congress have enacted laws 

requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 

2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that taking 
286 

DNA at the time of booking for a felony arrest is "a legitimate police booking 

procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." (Maryland v. 

King, 569 U.S._ (2013)). 

Senator Sessions helped craft the legislative language that became the DNA 

Fingerprint Act to provide federal authorities with the authorization to collect 

DNA from arrestees. (P.L. 109-162; 42 USC 14135a) In 2008, Senator 

Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as an original cosponsor, introduced 

the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. (P.L. 

112-253,42 USC 14137a) This federal law provides additional funding, 

through the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Elimination Act (42 USC 14135), to 

those states that have enacted laws to expand their databases. Once again, as 

the judiciary Committee's Ranking Member during the time in which this 

legislation was pending, Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping 

us to craft a bill that would gain bipartisan support, and eventually passed 

Congress unanimously. 

As a result of stronger state and federal DNA database laws, and the 

corresponding funding for implementation, we have seen many heinous 

criminals identified through arrestee DNA testing. New Mexico has seen over 

1200 cases matched. California is seeing ten matches every day on their DNA 

database. To date, the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one 

of the most successful Forensic DNA programs in this country, and one that 

many other States look to for guidance as DNA technology continues to 

improve. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences credits Senator 

Sessions for much of this success, largely due to the support Senator Sessions 
287 

provided from the outset to the state's forensic DNA program during his term 

as the Alabama Attorney General. Since its inception, Alabama has utilized 

the DNA Database to solve over 6,500 previously unsolved cases through 

COD IS. Alabama now averages almost two new 'hits' each and every day with 

their impact felt across this country- helping to solve cases ranging from 

simple burglary to murder in 43 states. 

In Katie's case, after three long years, DNA finally identified Gabrial Avila, an 

illegal Mexican national, as Katie's killer. But he would have been identified in 

under three months if law enforcement had been permitted to collect DNA at 

his arrest. 

Over the past eleven years, our family has worked to change DNA laws across 

the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of both parties. We have 

also seen opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Forensic DNA is 

a very complex issue and it is vitally important that policymakers take the 

time to fully understand these complexities in a truly non-partisan manner. 

Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he has stood in 

strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and 

exonerate the innocent. 

I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to the philosophy that one of the 

core responsibilities of our government is public safety. He cares about 

victims. He has been a leader on forensics policy for years. He has 

consistently supported vital funding for DNA programs, including the Debbie 

Smith DNA Backlog Elimination Act and the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA 
288 

Collection Act. Moreover, Senator Sessions was the author of the Paul 

Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act which provides further 

funding to crime laboratories for work in other important forensic disciplines. 

(42 USC 3797m) This federal funding support for publicly funded crime 

laboratories has had an enormous impact on public safety. According to the 

National Institute ofJusticel, since 2005, the funding provided to local and 

state crime laboratories through the Debbie Smith Act (called the DNA Backlog 

and Capacity Enhancement grants) has resulted in2 : 

More than 641,000 DNA cases processed 

Over 290,000 DNA profiles uploaded to CO DIS 

This accounts for 39% of all forensic profiles in CO DIS 

2.79 milion database offender samples uploaded to COOlS 

This accounts for 22% of all offender samples in CO DIS 

In total, the federal Debbie Smith DNA grants have been responsible for 

149,000 CO DIS hits, 42% of all matches made in CO DIS. 

Our lives were shattered when our daughter was brutally murdered. We 

know intimately the pain that violent crime brings to families. We also have 

reasonable access to the best identification technologies available. Senator 

Sessions has shown he understands the pain of victims and has put that 

1 Fiscal Year Funding for DNA Analysis, Capacity Enhancement and other Forenslc Activities (NCJ 249146, December 2015) 2 Percentages are based on grant figures from July 2015 as a percentage of samples CO DIS as of November 2016, 

per the FBI statistics at https://www.tbi.gov/services/laboratorv/biometric-analvsis/codis/ndis-statistics 
289 

understanding into action to help make changes that will make a difference. 

Senator Sessions will provide strong leadership to the United States 

Department of justice, and I hope you will support his nomination as Attorney 

General. 

Thank you. 
290 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 

4805 MT. HOPE DRIVE • BALTIMORE, MD 21215-3297 • (410) 580-5777 

CORNELL WILLLIAM BROOKS 

Prestdent & Chtef Execu/lve Officer 

TESTIMONY OF CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, 

ROSLYN M. BROCK 

Chairman Boardof01rectors 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) 

on the 

NOMINATION OF 

JEFFERSON "JEFF" BEAUREGARD SESSIONS Ill 

to be 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

before the 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

January 11, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and esteemed 

Senators of this committee. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and its units and 

members across the country and abroad, I am honored to present this testimony 

regarding the announced nomination of Senator Sessions to serve as the 841

h 

Attorney General of the United States. 

Founded almost 108 years ago, in February of 1909, the NAACP is our nation's 

oldest, largest, and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization. 

We currently have more than 2,200 membership units across the nation, with 

members in every one of the 50 states as well as units on overseas military bases. 

Along with our community-based adult units, we also have youth and college units in 

hundreds of communities and schools across the country as wei! as units in prisons. 
291 

Page 2 of19 

Through programs and projects in its substantive "game-changer" areas, criminal 

justice, economic opportunity, education, health, civic engagement, political 

advocacy, international affairs and youth empowerment, the NAACP works across 

the substantive spectrum of civil rights to advance the cause of social justice and 

equality for all Americans. 

The Attorney General of the United States is a position of critical importance to the 

NAACP, as well as to the nation as a whole. Not only does the Attorney General 

oversee laws, policies and programs that are crucially important to underserved 

communities, but he or she represents the American ideal of equal justice and equal 

protection under the law. From the dark days of racist lynchings in the South, 

through the years of Jim Crow laws, to the present, with racially-motivated crimes on 

the rise, voter suppression alive and well, and racialized policing increasingly rearing 

its ugly head, the Attorney General of the United States is the highest ranking 

government official entrusted to pursue justice over and above partisan political 

influences and objectives. As such, the Attorney General must, through words and 

deeds, inspire confidence that he or she will protect the rights and interests of all 

persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, age, point of 

national origin, or socio-economic station in life, especially those who are unable to 

protect themselves. 

We take no pleasure in stating that, in the view of the NAACP, Senator Sessions' 

record conclusively demonstrates that he lacks the judgment and temperament to 

serve effectively as Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions's record 

throughout his career, whether in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern 

District of Alabama, as Attorney General for the state of Alabama, or most recently 

as the junior U.S. Senator from Alabama, evinces a clear disregard, disrespect, and 

even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, 

the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country. 

Based on his record and his statements, the NAACP strongly believes that 

confirmation of Senator Sessions as Attorney General would be bad for America and 

could exacerbate already deepening racial divisions in this country. Rather than 

being perceived as the protector of civil rights, civil liberties, religious freedoms and 
292 

Page 3 of 19 

voting rights, the Department of Justice under the leadership of Senator Sessions 

could easily be seen as indifferent (at best) to the racial, ethnic, gender, disability, 

sexual orientation and religious discrimination that continues to plague our great 

nation. Indeed, the Senator's record shows a striking disregard for the very laws, 

policies, and programs he would be responsible for enforcing, overseeing and 

protecting as Attorney General, and his statements reflect complete disdain for 

groups, including the NAACP, that have long worked to protect the civil rights and 

liberties of all Americans. Moreover, his record demonstrates that he is out of step 

with even the most conservative members of Congress. Based on his record, Senator 

Sessions should not hold the position of Attorney General of the United States. 

SENATOR SESSIONS'S VOTING RECORD IN THE U.S. SENATE AND RECORD AS A 

FEDERAL PROSECUTOR DEMONSTRATES HIS HOSTILITY OR INDIFFERENCE TO CIVIL 

RIGHTS PROTECTIONS 

Perhaps the best evidence of Senator Sessions's troubling views and approach 

towards civil rights is his voting record during his 19 years in the United States 

Senate. Below we detail our concerns regarding Senator Sessions's record in the 

areas of (1) voting rights; (2) hate crimes; (3) violence against women and women's 

health care; (4) opposition to sensible gun control laws; (5) opposition to community 

policing and policing reform; (6) Americans' right to privacy; and (7) his voting record 

on Judicial nominees . In each of these areas, Senator Sessions has failed to support 

the creation or expansion of laws and programs that would increase civil rights 

protections and/or has affirmatively taken actions to retard the protection of civil 

rights. 

1. Voting Rights 

Protecting the right to free and fair access to the ballot is a foundational principle to 

our representative form of government. Through enforcement of the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965, the Attorney General of the United States is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring that no citizen's right to cast a ballot will be abridged on the basis of race. 

Through "America's Journey for Justice," the NAACP recently marched 1002 miles, 

from Selma, Alabama to Washington, D.C. to bring attention to the pressing need for 
293 

Page 4 of 19 

restoration of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, the NAACP is among the 

premier advocates for voting rights in this country, having secured or assisted in 

securing victories in several critically important federal voting rights cases during the 

past year alone.1 

Rather than protect the right of eligible citizens to vote, Senator Sessions has in the 

past used the power of the Department of Justice to intimidate and criminally 

prosecute those who lawfully assisted elderly citizens in casting their ballots. In 

1985, as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama (a component 

of the Justice Department), Senator Sessions brought criminal fraud prosecutions 

against three civil rights activists in Alabama who were helping elderly AfricanAmerican voters complete absentee ballots. 2 A jury unanimously acquitted all three 

defendants of all of the charges against them, in deliberations that lasted only a few 

hours. While the prosecution was unsuccessful, the chilling effect on voting rights 

activists was substantial, as the defendants faced 29 counts with sentences totaling 

up to 250 years. 3 Given the responsibility of the Attorney General of the United 

States to vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act and otherwise to protect the right 

of access to the ballot, we respectfully submit that Senator Sessions's misguided, 

unwarranted and failed prosecution of civil rights activists who were merely assisting 

others in the casting of absentee ballots should disqualify him, per se, from serving 

as Attorney General of the United States. We simply have no confidence, given his 

record, that Senator Sessions could fairly enforce the Voting Rights Act to protect the 

rights of African-American voters. 

We acknowledge that in 2006, Senator Sessions joined all of his Senate colleagues in 

supporting the reauthorization of portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which 

1 See North Carolina NAACP v, McCrory, Case No. 16-1468 (4th Cir. Jul. 29, 2016) (holding the State imposed voting 

restrictions with a racially discriminatory purpose); Texas NAACP v. Perry (combined with Veasey v Abbott), Case No. 14-

41127 (5th Cir. Jul. 20, 2016)(holding the Texas' photo voter identification requirement had a discriminatory effect on 

minority voters): League of Women Voters, et. a!. v. Newby, No. 16-5196 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 26, 20 16) (holding that an 

imposition of documentary proof of citizenship requirement violated the Administrative Procedure Act):: and Missouri State 

Con terence NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist, Case No. 4:14 CV 2077 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 22, 2016) (Dist Ct. holding 

that the at-large voting systems for school board members violates Sect. 2 of the Voting Rights Act of J 965). 

2 U.S. v. Albert Turner, eta!., Criminal No. 85-00014 (S.D. Ala. 1985). 

3 Drew Griffin. Woman Prosecuted Sen. Sessions Can't Forgive (Jan. 6, 2017 11:19 A.M.), 

http://v..'ww.cnn.com/20 17/0 1/06/politics/marion-three-jeff-sessions/ . 
294 

Page 5 of 19 

extended certain provisions for twenty-five years (the vote was unanimous; 98 to 0). 

It bears mentioning, however, that prior to passage of this important legislation, 

Senator Sessions had alerted his colleagues that he intended to offer an amendment 

to the reauthorization bill which would have substantially have weakened Section 5. 4 

While he did not ultimately offer his amendment, the incident suggests that Senator 

Sessions is an "outlier" on the issue of voting rights, a view that is supported by his 

previous reference to the 1965 Act (as reported in The Nation magazine) as "a piece 

of intrusive legislation."5 Likewise, in 2013, he said that the 2006 extension of 

portions of the Voting Rights Act was "probably too long an extension because 

there's just huge areas of the South where there's no problem."6 Not surprisingly, 

he lauded the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision effectively eviscerating portions of 

the Voting Rights Act and called it "good news, I think, for the South." 7 Furthermore, 

despite the Supreme Court's direction to Congress to update the Act to restore the 

protections that were struck down, Senator Sessions has opposed all such efforts in 

the U.S. Senate. 

Equally disturbing is Senator Sessions's strong support for photo identification voting 

requirements, despite the fact that up to 21 million Americans, or 11% of the entire 

voting-eligible population, do not have government-issued photo 1Ds.8 A 

disproportionate number of those who do not have government-issued photo 

identification are racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, students, or low-income 

Americans.9 A full 25% of African Americans who would otherwise be eligible to 

4 R. Neal, Voting Rights Act Extension Stalls, Facing South (May 16, 2006), available at, 

https://vv'Vt'W.facingsouth.org/2006/05/voting~rights~act-extension-stalls.html (quoting Sen. Sessions discussion on changing 

Section 5 of the VRA to either remove Alabama or extend it to northern states. such as. Boston). 

5 Ari B~rrnan, Jef!Sessions, Trump's Pick for Att :v Gen., is a Fierce Opponent of Civil Rights, The Nation (Nov. 18, 2016), 

available at, https://www.thenation.com/article!jefT-sessions-trumps-pick-for-attomey-general-is-a-fierce-opponent-ofcivil-rights/; See Also Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions. III to be U.S. Dist. Ct. 1. for the S.D. Ala.: Hearings Before the 

Committee on the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong. 1047, at. 159 (1986) (statement of Jefferson B. Sessions). 

6 152 Cong. Rec. S7,986 (Daily Record .July 20. 2006) (statement by Senator .Jeff Sessions), available at. 

https://\v-..vw.congress.gov I congressionnl-record/200617/20/senate-section/ article/s7949-6?r=3 7. 

1 Meredith Shiner, Can Cong. Fix the Voting Rights Act?, Roll Call, June 25,2013, available at, 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/can_ congress_ fix~~ the_ voting_righ!s_act-225935· l .html (last accessed January 5, 20 17) 

8 Brennan Ctr. for Justice at New York Univ . ., Election 2016: Restrictive Voting Lmrs By the Numbers. Sept. 28,2016, 

http://\V\\I"\\'.brennancenter.org/analysis/election~2016-restrictive-voting-rlaws-numbers (last accessed January 5, 2017). 

'Id. 
295 

Page 6 ofl9 

vote, do not have qualified, government issued photo identification.10 Yet, despite 

the concerns about the racially disparate impact of requiring photo identification for 

voting, in 2006, 2007 and again in 2013 (every time a vote on the subject was taken), 

Senator Sessions voted in favor of requiring federal "photo identification" from all 

voters.11 It bears noting here that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, among others, have ruled that 

such state-imposed photo identification requirements violate Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act. 12 While Senator Sessions and others have pointed to alleged "voter 

fraud" as a justification for requiring photo identification for voters, documented 

instances of voter impersonation are extremely rare (only 37 alleged instances out of 

1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014.)13 

2. Opposition to Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation 

Senator Sessions's votes regarding the strengthening and expansion of Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act likewise demonstrate a profound disregard or lack of appreciation for 

the worsening problem of hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual 

orientation and other immutable characteristics. As this committee is well aware, 

hate crimes remain a very serious problem in the United States; and the problem 

appears to have been exacerbated by the vitriolic rhetoric of the recent national 

10 The Advancement Project: rV!wt's Wi·ong with This Picture? New Photo !D Proposals Part of a National Push to Turn Back 

the Clock on Voting Rights( Apr. 13, 2011), at ii. available at, http://vrW\v.advancementprojectorglresources/entry/\vhats~ 

wrong-with-this-picture-new-photo-id-proposals-part-of-national-push. 

11 See Roll Call Vote On the Motion to Table McConnell Amdt No. 4085 (May 23, 2006) (Sen. Sessions voting no table 

amendment), available at 

http://www.scnate.gov/legisl ativc/LI S/roll_ call_lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?!.:ongress=-1 09&session=2& vote "c'00 143 ); Vote 

on Senate Amdt 1170 (Jun. 5, 2007) (Sen. Session voting yes to require photo identification for persons voting in person in 

federal elections), available at, 

http:/ /wvlw .senate.gov/lcgislative/LIS/roll_ call _lists/roll_ call~ _vote_ cfrn.cfrn?congress"-' 11 O&session= 1 & vote=OO 184; 

Voting on Senate Admt 526 (Mar.23. 20 13) (Sen. Sessions voting yes to establish a fund to require photo [0 for voting in 

federal elections, available at. 

http://v,:\'.w .senate.gov/lcgislative/LIS/roll_ call_lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress= 113&session= 1 & vote=00083. 

12 See NC lvAACP v. A1cCrory, supra; Veasey v. Ahbott. supra 

13 Justin Levitt, A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation finds 31 Credible Incidents Out of One Billion Ballots 

Cast, The Washington Post (Aug. 6, 2014), available at, https:llwmv.washingtonpost.comlnews/wonklwp/2014/08/06/acomprehensive-investigation~of-voter-impersonation-finds~3 I ~credible~incidents-out*O f-one~billion-ballotscastl?utrn _term=. 7b68ac4 ffi386. 
296 

Page 7 of 19 

election and is thus on the rise. 14 This form of domestic terrorism is designed to 

intimidate whole communities on the basis of personal and immutable 

characteristics and can spark conflicts that are damaging not only to the victims 

most directly affected but also to the very fabric of our society. Indeed, according to 

FBI statistics, a total of 5,818 hate crimes were committed in 2015, a 6% increase 

from 2014. 15 The increase was largely due to an increase of hate crimes against 

Muslims; however, the largest percentage of race-based crimes were committed 

against African Americans. 16 Nearly 60% of all hate crimes were based on race, 

ethnicity, or national origin. 17 Despite these alarming statistics, in 2000, and again in 

2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009 (every time a roll call vote on the subject was taken in 

the full Senate) Senator Sessions voted against expanding and strengthening the 

"Hate Crimes Prevention Act." 18 The Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act, which was finally enacted, despite and over Senator Sessions's 

objections, allows the federal government, through the U.S. Department of Justice, 

to work with state and local authorities to prevent, investigate, solve, and if 

necessary, punish hate crimes to the fullest extent possible. The expanded law 

specifically covers hate crimes against women, LGBT people, and people with 

disabilities. 

Given his overall civil rights record and his specific opposition to the strengthening 

protections against hate crimes, the NAACP seriously questions whether Senator 

Sessions would vigorously prosecute federal hate crimes. 

14 Southern Poverty Law Center, Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election. (Nov. 29. 2016) 

https:/ /v.,.ww.splcenter .org/20 16 I 129/ten-days-a fter-harassment-and-intimidation-aftermath-clection. 

15 Eric Lichtblau. U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims, The New York Times (Nov. 14, 2016), available 

at, http;/ 1\'r"''V\V, nytimes.com/20 16/11/15/us/po litics/tbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html? ~ FO. 

16 !d. 

!7 fd 

18 Sec Roll Call vote. Jun. 20, 2000, available at, 

http:/ /www.senatc.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ call_lists/roll_ call_ vote_ dln.cfm?congress= l 06&session=2&vote=OO 136; Sen, 

Roll Call vote (Jun. II. 2002), available at 

http://w\\-w.senatc.gov/Jegislative/U S/roll _,caii_Iists/roll_ call_.yote _ cfm.cfm?congress= 1 07 &rsession=2&vote=OO 14 7; Jun. 

15, 2004. available at. 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative!LIS/roll_ call_lists/ro II_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress= 1 08&session=2&vote::::OO 114; Sept. 

27,2007, available at, 

http:/ !Vt'vvw .scnate.gov/lcgislativc!LIS/roll_ call _lists/roll_ call_ vote_ ctln.cfm?congress= 11 O&sessio n= 1 & vote.::::()0350; and 

Jul. 16,2009, available at. 

http://""w.senate.gov/legislativc/L!Siroll_ call_listslroll_ call_ vote_ cfm.ctin?congress= lll&session~ I &vote=00233 
297 

Page 8 of 19 

3. Violence Against Women and Disregard for Women's Healthcare 

Senator Sessions's record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates a lack of concern and/or 

lack of understanding of the unique threats and challenges facing women in this 

country. According to the National Coalition on Domestic Violence, 20 people per 

minute are abused by a partner, which equates to 10 million people per year. 19 

Statistics show that one in three women and one in four men have been abused in 

their lifetime.20 This rate of violence affects not only the adults, but also the children 

who are exposed to intimate partner violence each year. 21 Furthermore, the 

presence of a handgun in the home increases the chance of a homicide by 500%.22 

The statistics regarding rape and sexual abuse are no less alarming, showing that 

one in five women has been raped in their lifetime, nearly half of them by an 

acquaintance.23 Despite this alarming regularity in physical threats to women, in 

2012 and again in 2013 (each time a vote on the subject was taken), Senator Sessions 

voted against reauthorization of the "Violence Against Women Act," which protects 

women from domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault. 24 Combined 

with this consistent opposition to sensible gun control laws (discussed below), his 

opposition to increased protections for victims of domestic abuse, rape and sexual 

assault shows a lack of concern for the safety and welfare of women. 

Furthermore, Senator Sessions opposed legislation to protect women's health care 

by voting against Title X funding, which supports contraception, breast cancer 

screening and other health services for low income women and by repeatedly voting 

to defund Planned Parenthood (in 2011 and 2015, every time there was a recorded 

vote), despite estimates that Planned Parenthood serves over five million clients a 

year, and that 75% of their clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the 

federal poverty level. Services provided at locations include screening for breast, 

19 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Statistics, http://ncadv.orglleam-more/statistics/national (last accessed 

Jan. 9. 2017). 

20 /d. 

21 !d. 

11Jd 

23 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention. Division of Violence Prevention Jnfograph;c, available at, 

https:l/lt·wft'.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ni.n~~/infographic.html (Last accessed Jan. 9, 2017). 

24 See generally NAACP Legislative Rept. Card for the 1 12"' Con g. (Issued in 2013), available at, http://action.naacp.org/page/· 

/washington%20bureaulll3Congress/ ALABAMA2.pdf 
298 

Page 9 of 19 

cervical and testicular cancers; contraceptives; pregnancy testing and pregnancy 

options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; 

comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; and vasectomies and 

tubal ligations. For many of Planned Parenthood's patients, the annual exams 

received at their facilities are the only access to health care they have. Furthermore, 

since a prohibition on federal funding for abortions is already in place, there is no 

justification for this reckless initiative. 

Lastly, Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which 

reinstitutes the original intent of Congress in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by mandating 

that an individual may file a discrimination suit against an employer (or former 

employer) within 180 days of the end of his or her employment, thereby restoring 

the ability of victims of pay discrimination to obtain effective remedies. In short, the 

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to ensure equal pay for equal work, and Senator 

Sessions's opposition to the Act is a troubling indication of his lack of commitment to 

combating employment discrimination against women. 

4. Opposition to Sensible Gun Control 

Every day in this country, 7 children die as a result of gun violence. 25 Gun violence is 

decimating many communities in our country, and is particularly damaging to 

African-American communities where 7,039 people were the victims of homicides in 

2015, according to the FBI. 26 Despite the destruction created by easy access to guns, 

Senator Sessions has consistently (in 1999, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2013 and in 

2015) (every time a vote on the subject was taken) opposed safe, sane and sensible 

measures to stem the unacceptable amount of gun violence in our communities and 

our nation. He has opposed expanding background checks to cover more gun 

purchasers, renewing the military style assault weapons ban, and increasing the 

~Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, Key Gun Violence Stats., http:J/www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics 

(last accessed Jan. 9, 2017). 

26 Fed. Bureau oflnvest., Expanded Hotnicide Table, 2015, available at. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-thcu.s.-20 l5ftablcs/expanded_ homicide_data_table _I_ murder_ victims_ by _race_ ethnicity _and _sex_ 2015.xls. While this 

denotes all African American victims of homicide, the FBI also reports that 71.4% of all homicides were committed by a 

firearm. 
299 

Page 10 of 19 

penalty for straw purchasers and gun traffickers. Demonstrating his extreme views 

on the subject, in 2010 Senator Sessions supported an amendment on the floor of 

the U.S. Senate which, had it become law, would have allowed persons determined 

to be mentally incompetent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to 

nevertheless own firearms. 27 The fact that he would be responsible for interpreting 

and enforcing our nation's gun laws as Attorney General is simply frightening, as he 

cannot be trusted to recommend and support changes to our gun control laws when 

necessary to protect our children and our communities. 

5. Criminal Justice and Policing Reform 

One area that has required urgent attention by the Department of Justice over the 

past several years is policing reform. As the nation's attention has been gripped by 

repeated instances of questionable police shootings of unarmed citizens (often 

African Americans), the Department of Justice has been called upon to investigate 

individual shootings as well as to investigate department-wide policies and practices 

that might violate the civil rights of the communities that police departments are 

entrusted to protect. Indeed, before and since the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown 

in Ferguson, Missouri, many Americans have looked to the Department to bring 

much needed reforms to policing practices in small towns and big cities across the 

country. One highly effective tool repeatedly used by the Department of Justice to 

effect meaningful reform of policing practices is the consent decree. Through 25 

investigations of police departments, resulting in 14 consent decrees over the past 7 

years, the Department of Justice has, without resorting to time-consuming and 

expensive litigation, reached agreement with police departments on methods 

intended to minimize if not eliminate abusive policing practices, including unlawful 

police shootings.28 

27 See NAACP Legislative Report Card ofthe !lith Congress, issued (Jan. II. 2011), available at. http://action.naacp.org/pagc/-

/action%20alcrts/lllth_report_. card.pd( 

28 See U.S. Dep 't of Just. Press Release, Justice Dep 't Releases Report on Civil Rights Div. 's Pattern and Practice Po lief? Reform 

Work (Jan. 4, 2017), available at. https://\\"ww.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice~department~re!ea<;es~report-civil~rights-division-spattem-and-practice-police-reform. 
300 

Page 11 of 19 

But under a Department of Justice led by Senator Sessions, it is unclear whether such 

progress toward more fair policing practices would continue. In a published research 

paper, Senator Sessions has called consent decrees "one of the most dangerous 

exercises of raw power" and stated that the use of consent decrees circumvents the 

democratic process. 29 Coupled with his opposition to the federal collection of data 

on police-involved shootings/0 Senator Sessions's opposition to the use of consent 

decrees gives the NAACP no confidence that progress toward more fair policing 

practices would continue were he to be confirmed as Attorney General of the United 

States. 

In the area of criminal justice reform, the NAACP and several other groups were able 

to work cooperatively with Senator Sessions in an effort that culminated in the 

passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which addressed racial disparities in 

federal cocaine sentencing provisions. We genuinely appreciate his efforts on that 

legislation; however, Senator Sessions' agreement with our position on the crack -

powder cocaine differential only went so far: Senator Sessions opposed 

retroactivity, in our opinion, a key element of the Fair Sentencing Act. Much of the 

thinking which went into the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994 has proven not only to be 

erroneous, but also contributed to a massive racial disparity in our prison population; 

a racial disparity which can only be corrected by applying the Fair Sentencing Act 

retroactively to those who were sentenced under the original guidelines. 

Sadly, the limited cooperation we did receive on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

stands in stark contrast to other positions he has taken regarding criminal justice 

reform. In 1999, for example, he voted against requiring states to address the 

disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles.31 In 2012, he voted against the 

creation of a national commission charged with a thorough review of the fairness of 

29 Michael Debow. et. at., Consent Decrees in !nst. Reform Litigation.· Strategiesfi)r State Legis., Alabama Pol'y Insti. (2008), 

available at http://www.alabarnapolicy.org/\'.'p-content/uploads/API-Research-Consent-Decrees.pdf. (Forward by Sen. Jeff 

Sessions) (Last Accessed January 6, 20! 7), 

30Tess Owen, The Future of Policing, Vice News (Dec. 5, 2016), available at https://news.vice.com/story/what-trump-andsessions-mean-for-police-reforrn. (last accessed Jan. 6, 2017). 

"NAACP Leg. Rept. Card, !06th Con g. (Oct. 2 L 2000), available at, http://action.naacp.org/page/-

/v .. 'ashington%20bureau/1 06thCongress. pdf 
301 

Page 12 of 19 

our federal criminal justice system.32 As the prison population in our country 

continues to balloon, so does the cost to state and federal governments and 

taxpayers. Over the last 30 years, there has been a 500% increase in incarceration. 

Furthermore, although almost 60% of the people in prison or jail right now are racial 

or ethnic minorities, while we comprise just over 27% of the national population. 

For a variety of reasons, the cry for reform has been loud and is growing- from both 

the right and the left. Yet, Senator Sessions has used his position on the Senate 

Judiciary Committee to block attempts to enact any reform, apparently satisfied with 

the status quo. Senator Sessions has also opposed efforts at the Department of 

Justice to prioritize the enforcement of violent offenders over low-level drug 

offenses like marijuana possession/ 3 while decrying President Obama's use of his 

clemency powers to reduce the harsh sentences of non-violent drug offenders in 

federal prisons.34 

Senator Sessions has also consistently (in 2005 and in 2007) (every time a vote on 

the subject was taken) opposed increases in funding for the Department of Justice 

Community Oriented Policing Services, or "COPS" program. The COPS Office is 

responsible for advancing community policing nationwide and supporting the 

community policing activities of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, 

and is one of the more successful initiatives in increasing the effectiveness of local 

police and improving relations between law enforcement and the communities they 

serve. To date, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion in the 

advancement of community policing. The COPS Office currently manages over 2,000 

active grants totaling $1.4 billion. 

Another area in which Senator Sessions appears out of touch is that of Civil Asset 

Forfeiture reform. Again, many of his colleagues from both chambers, both sides of 

the aisle, and all points on the political spectrum appear to agree that current laws 

31 Arnie Grawert. Brennan Center Analysis: Sen. Jetl'Sessions' Record on Crim. Just. 

13 James Higdon. Jeff Sessions' Coming War on Legal Marijuana, POLITICO. Dec. 5, 2016. 

http://www. politico.com/magazine/story/20 16/12/jetf~sessions-com ing-\var~on·legal~marijuana· 21450 1, 

34 Jamie Lovegrove, On Obama 's Aggressive Clemency Push, Sen John Cornyn Splits with Criminal Justice Reform Advocates, 

Dallas News (Dec. 20. 2016), available at, http://\\ n w.dal!asne\\S.com/ne\\S/pulitics/2016/12/20/amid-obama:;-al.!grtssivcckmLnt.:Y-m!sh-sen-john-conlYll-Splits-<.Timinal-justice-refbrm-acl\ ocatcs (quoting Sen. Sessions). 
302 

Page 13 of19 

create a financial incentive in too many cases to for law enforcement to pursue profit 

over the fair administration of justice, facilitate the circumvention of state laws 

intended to protect citizens from abuse, encourage the violation of due process and 

property rights of Americans, and disproportionately impact people of color and 

those with modest means. Even the most benign of bills reforming the civil asset 

forfeiture laws gets held up much to the frustration of many. 

6. Americans' Right to Privacy 

Senator Sessions has shown a blatant disrespect for Americans' right to privacy. In 

2016, the Email Privacy Act passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous 

vote. This legislation would have required a law enforcement agency to obtain a 

warrant prior to compelling tech firms such as Microsoft or Google to hand over the 

stored cell phone communications. During Senate Judiciary Committee 

consideration of the bill, Senator Sessions introduced an amendment which would 

have created a huge loophole and allowed law enforcement to demand the 

information even without a warrant. 

7. Votes on Presidential Nominees 

As Attorney General, one of Senator Sessions' responsibilities would be to advise the 

President on judicial nominations. This is particularly disturbing to the NAACP, as 

Senator Sessions has voted against the confirmations of Sonia Sotomayor, the first 

Latina nominated to serve on the U. S. Supreme Court/5 as well as the first female 

Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, who was also subsequently nominated and confirmed 

to the U.S. Supreme Court. 36 He also voted against Judge Robert Wilkins, an African35 Senate Roll Call Vote, N~mination of Sonia Sotomayor, 11 Jth Cong. (2009), available at. 

http://www .senate.gov/legislative/US/roll_ call_] ists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress= 1 11 &session~"' I & vote=00262. 

36 Senate Roll Call Vote, Nomination of Elena Kagan to become U.S. Solicitor Gen., !lith Cong. (2009), available at 

http://mvw.senate.gov/legislative/LlSiroH_ call _lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress~ 111 &session~ 1 & vote=OO 1 07; 

Senate Roll Call Vote. Nomination of Elena Kagan to become Assoc. I. on the U.S. Sup. Ct.), !11th Cong. (2010), 

availahle at 

http:! /v.rww .senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ call _lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congrcss"" 11 1 &session=2& vote=00229 
303 

Page 14 of 19 

American nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals/7 and twice voted against 

Ronnie White, an African-American nominee for the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Missouri. 38 All of these nominees were ultimately confirmed and 

now serve with distinction on the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeal, or 

federal district court. In contrast to these "no" votes, Senator Sessions voted to 

support the failed bid of Judge Charles Pickering, an alleged segregationist who was 

shown to have bullied the Department of Justice to support a more lenient sentence 

for a convicted cross burner, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit.39 His support for Judge Pickering demonstrates both a lack of judgment and 

a lack of respect for the career Department of Justice attorneys who were the object 

of Judge Pickering's bullying. 

Adding to this unfortunate record, Senator Sessions also opposed the nomination of 

Loretta Lynch to serve as the first female African American Attorney General in 2015, 

notwithstanding her longstanding service as a federal prosecutor in the United States 

Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. This record raises troubling 

questions regarding Senator Sessions's views towards eminently well-qualified 

nominees who are women and/or racial minorities. 

SENATOR SESSIONS'S WORDS SUPPORT HIS RECORD OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS CIVIL 

RIGHTS 

While Senator Sessions' voting record as a U.S. Senator is deeply concerning, his 

statements on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and disability are equally 

troubling and signal deep-seeded attitudes on these subjects that are fundamentally 

inconsistent with service as Attorney General of the United States. Many of these 

statements came to light during the hearing on his failed nomination to serve as a 

judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 1986. Some 

are more recent. Few, if any, are disputed by Senator Sessions. 

37 Senate Roll Call Vote, Nomination of Robert Wilkins to become J. of the D. C. Cir .. , 1131

h Cong. (2014), available at, 

http:/ /v.rv.w.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll ~ call_lists/roll __ caH_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress= 113&session=2& vote=OOOO? 

38 Senale Roll Call Vote, Nomination of Ronnie White to become J. on the E.D.Mo., 1 13th Cong. (2014), available at, 

http:/ /www.senate.gov/legislative/LlS/ro II_ call __ lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfrn.cfm?congress= l13&session=2& votc=0022 7 

39 Senate Roll Call Vote, To invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Charles W. Pickering for Jon the 5th Cir., available at, 

http:/ /v.'\V\V.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ call_lists/roll_ call_ vote_ cfm.cfm?congress= 1 08&session= 1 & votc=00419 
304 

Page 15 of19 

One such statement was made by Senator Sessions in 2015 regarding the public 

display of the Confederate Battle Flag. Earlier that year, Dylan Roof, a white 

supremacist who was driven, in part, by a misplaced allegiance to the Confederate 

Battle Flag and what it represents to many in the South, murdered nine AfricanAmerican churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in hopes of starting a race war. 

This senseless mass killing led many Americans of all political persuasions to engage 

in soul searching about the impact of public displays of the Confederate Battle Flag. 

When asked if he agreed with this change by many in their way of thinking, Senator 

Sessions said that calls to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from public buildings 

and other places of honor were among efforts by "the left" to "delegitimize the 

fabulous accomplishments of our country."40 As a U.S. Senator representing a state 

with an African-American population of 27 percent, Senator Sessions's statement 

reflects an astonishing and appalling ignorance and/or callousness regarding what 

the Confederate Battle Flag represents to most African Americans. It cannot be 

explained away by politics. 

Senator Sessions' recent statements regarding Muslims are also deeply troubling and 

appear to reflect a lack of tolerance toward those of different faiths and a basic 

disregard for religious liberties. He has recently allied himself with anti-Muslim 

organizations, including the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz 

Freedom Center; 41 while also defending and supporting the President-Elect's call for 

a ban on Muslim immigration into the United States.42 Answering a question about a 

religion-based ban on Meet The Press last year, he brushed aside concerns that such 

a ban would plainly violate the First Amendment, stating "There is no constitutional 

40 Hunter. Sessions: Confederate Flag Critics Seem to Delegitimize Fabulous Accomplishments of Our Country, Daily Kos (Nov. 

21,2016 1:15 P.M.). http://wv.~v.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/21/1602586/-Sessions-Confederate-tlag-critics-seek-todcleg.itimize~f3.bulous-accomplishments-of-our-country 

41 Southern Poverty La'v Ctr., Jeff Sessions: Champion of Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Extremists (Nov. 18. 2016), 

available at, https:/ /v..·ww.splcenter .org/hatewatch/20 16/11/18/jeff-sessions-champio n-anti-muslim-and-anti-immigrantextremists 

42 Statements of Sen. Jeff Sessions on Meet the Press Daily (.July 15, 2016), available at, 

http://mediamatters.org/video/20 16/D6/l5/watch-chuck-todd-grill-sen-jeff-sess ions-ten-minutes-about-his-support-trumpand-his-anti-islamic/21 0979 
305 

Page 16 of19 

right to come to America if you possess an ideology that is dangerous."43 Further 

underscoring his position, Senator Sessions was one of the few Senators who voted 

against a proposed amendment to existing legislation that would prevent a religious 

litmus test for people entering the country.44 In a lengthy speech on the Senate 

Floor, Sen. Sessions attempted to put forth the unfounded argument, stating that 

" ... so-called 'immigrants' rights' must be supreme to the rights of sovereign nations 

to determine who can and cannot enter their borders."45 The Senator's intentional 

conflation of Muslim theology and violent terrorism might work on the campaign 

trail, but is frightening to Muslims and unfitting for one who seeks to serve as the 

Attorney General of the United States. 46 

More broadly, Senator Sessions has consistently opposed immigration reform and a 

path to citizenship for undocumented persons, even going so far as to question the 

long settled principle that persons born in this country are U.S. citizens. 47 He 

strongly opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for temporary work 

authorization, and voted against the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien 

Minors (or DREAM Act), which would have provided a way for immigrants who came 

to the United States as children to earn their citizenship. In 2013, he also voted 

against the Senate's bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have toughened 

border security while giving more protections to undocumented individuals already 

in the country. In fact, Senator Sessions voted against bi-partisan immigration reform 

in 2007, 2010, and 2013 and he called the 2007 bill "terrorist assistance." 

It was during the 1986 hearing on his failed nomination to serve as a judge of the 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama that many of his troubling 

43 !d. 

44 Russell Berman, Senate to Vote on Donald Tmmp's Religious Test, The Atlantic (Dec. 10, 2015), available at 

http:/ /Vr"'\'\\'. theatlantic.com/po !itics/archive/20 15/12/a-senate-test~vote-on-donald-trumps-religious-test/419997 

45 Sen. Jeff Session Press Release, Sessions Delivers Remarks in Opposition to G!obal''Right to Migrate Amendment"', (Dec. JO, 

20 15), available at, htlp://I.V\\'W.sessions.senate.gov/publiclindex.cfm/ne\vs-releases?ID= 186AEDE2-B8 13-4 741-A 1 B 1-

C3759DFDD2C5 

46 /d. 

47 The Associated Press. Jeff Sessions among Republicans Criticizing 14th Arnend.'s Birthright Provisions (Aug. 3, 2010 

4:58PM), http://blog.aLcom/wire/2010/08~jeff_sessions_among_republican.html. (quoting JefYScssions ''I'm not sure 

exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil 

and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen") 
306 

Page 17 of19 

views and attitudes came to light. Thomas Figures, an African American Assistant 

U.S. Attorney, testified that Mr. Sessions said he thought the Ku Klux Klan was "OK 

until I found out they smoked pot." Senator Sessions later said that the comment 

was not serious, but did apologize for it. 

Mr. Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Mr. Sessions 

had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how 

the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions 

threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,"' by 

which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally. Figures also said that 

Sessions had called him "boy."48 He also testified that "Mr. Sessions admonished me 

to 'be careful what you say to white folks."' Senator Sessions responded to the 

testimony by denying the allegations, saying his remarks were taken out of context 

or meant in jest but not denying that they were made. 

Lastly, the NAACP is especially concerned with Senator Sessions's vote against 

Senator John McCain's bipartisan amendment reaffirming the prohibition of 

torture. 49 Given that Senator Sessions could well be called upon to opine on 

whether certain practices constitute torture, his position regarding the McCain 

amendment indicates, at best, a troubling lack of conscience regarding how the 

United States treats prisoners of war. 

SENATOR SESSIONS DISRESPECTS AND HOLDS DISDAIN FOR PROPONENTS OF CIVIL 

RIGHTS 

Senator Sessions's disdain for proponents of civil rights is apparent from the public 

record. During his 1986 judicial nomination hearing, four Department of Justice 

lawyers who had worked with Senator Sessions- and who were doubtless familiar 

with the penalties for perjury - testified that he had made several racist 

48 See 1Vominat;on of Jefferson B. ~\"essions, Ill to be US. Dist Ct Judge for the S. Dist of Ala: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. 

on the Judiciary, at 497, 99th Cong. I 047 (1986) (statement of Thomas Figures, counsel, U.S. Dep't of Just). 

49 Conor Friedersdort; These 21 Republicans Voted Against a Torture Ban, The Atlantic (Jun. 17. 2015). available at 

http://""w. theatlantic.com/politics/archive/20 15106/these-21-republicans-voted-against-a-torture-ban/396095/ (last 

accessed Jan. 9, 2016). 
307 

Page 18 of19 

statements. 5° One of those lawyers, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had also 

referred to the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "unAmerican" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the 

throats of people." 51 It was during the same confirmation hearing that Thomas 

Figures, an African-American Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Senator Sessions 

said that he believed the NAACP was an un-American organization teaching antiAmerican values. 5

2 Finally, in response to a question during the hearing from thenSenator Biden on whether he had called the NAACP and other civil rights 

organizations "un-American," Sessions replied "I'm often loose with my tongue. I 

may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or Communist, but I 

meant no harm by it."53 These very troubling statements by Senator Sessions, which 

he has never disavowed, evince a tendency on his part to demonize groups and 

persons with which he disagrees. We respectfully submit that these are not traits 

that the Attorney General of the United States should possess. 

******** 

The Attorney General of the United States is charged with ensuring the fair, impartial 

and equal administration of Justice for all Americans. Senator Sessions's record is 

replete with examples of his disrespect for laws and programs and laws intended to 

protect all Americans, his disregard for the basic civil, human, and Constitutionallyguaranteed rights of all people, and his disdain for groups with when he may 

disagree. In light of his record, we submit that he is simply incapable of fulfilling the 

responsibilities inherent in the office of Attorney General of the United States. 

It is for this reason that NAACP opposes the confirmation of Senator Sessions to 

serve as Attorney General of the United States. The NAACP calls on President-Elect 

Trump and all future Presidents to nominate individuals to serve as Attorney General 

who have a demonstrated commitment to the constitutional promises of civil rights, 

voting rights and civil liberties protection and enforcement for all, and an articulated 

SG See generally Sessions Nomination Hearing, at 518 (statement of Senator Joseph Biden). 

51 !d. at 48 (statement of Senator Theodore Kennedy, quoting testimony from Jfr. 1. Gerald Hebert, attorney, US. Dept. of Just.). 

52 Jd. (statement of JeffSt:ssions. nominee). 

/d. at 30 (statement of JefTSessions, nominee). 
308 

Page 19 of 19 

respect and promise to promote the civil and human rights of all people, regardless 

of their race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, place of national origin, sexual 

preference or station in life. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you on this important matter. 

stand prepared to answer any questions. 
309 

CHUCK CANTERBURY NATIONAL PRF.SIDE'NT 

NATIONAL 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE'' 

328 r..MSSACHUSETTS AVE. N E 

WASHINGTON, DC 20002 

PHONE 202-547-13189 • FAX 202-547·8190 

TESTIMONY 

of 

Chuck Canterbury 

National President 

Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police 

on the 

Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions III to be the next 

Attorney General ofthe United States 

before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

11 January 2017 

BUILDING ON A PROUD TRADITIONJAMES 0. PASCO. JR. EXECU'IVE D'REC.-OR 
310 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and 

distinguished Members of the Committee on the Judiciary. My 

name is Chuck Canterbury, National President ofthe Fraternal 

Order of Police. I am the elected representative of more than 

330,000 rank-and-file police officers-the largest law enforcement 

organization in the United States. 

I am very pleased to have this opportunity today. I have testified 

before Congress and this committee many times-including cabinet 

nominations, agency head nominations and even a nominee for the 

Supreme Court of the United States. I can say without reservation 

that I have never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm than 

I do today as I give Jefferson B. Sessions III the whole-hearted and 

full-throated support of the Fraternal Order of Police to be the next 

Attorney General of the United States. 

Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap 

Senator Sessions for this critical Cabinet post, the FOP immediately 

issued a statement to the press indicating our strong support for his 

nomination. He has been a true partner to law enforcement from 

his days as U.S. Attorney, as Attorney General for the great State of 

Alabama and throughout his tenure here in the United States 

Senate. 
311 

Senator Sessions has demonstrated commitment, not just on the socalled "law and order" issues, but also on officer safety issues that 

impact rank-and-file officers like our members. He was a leading 

cosponsor of the FOP's efforts to enact the Law Enforcement 

Officers' Safety Act, which was authored by our friend and former 

Chairman of this Committee, Pat Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions 

was the Republican lead cosponsor of S. 1132, the Law 

Enforcement Officers' Safety Act Improvements Act, which made 

important and needed changes to the original law passed in 2004. 

Senator Sessions provided real leadership to make the legislation a 

successful, bipartisan effort. 

More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage 

of S. 2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating COPS Expansion 

(POLICE) Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the 

legislation, which passed the Senate and then the House before being 

signed into law by the President. The law gives the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) the authority to 

award grants to State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to 

get Active Shooter Response Training for their officers. The need 

for this training has been identified by numerous law enforcement 

leaders and the FOP looks forward to working with Attorney 

General Sessions to launch and fund this program. 
312 

Senator Sessions also played a leadership role in our efforts to pass 

S. 2755, the Fallen Heroes Flag Act. The bill, which provides a flag 

flown over the U.S. Capitol to surviving family members of a public 

safety officer killed in the line of duty, was repeatedly passed by the 

House in prior Congresses only to die in the Senate. Senator 

Sessions was an important part of our effort to introduce a Senate 

verison of the bill which ultimately was signed into law. 

Now this may not sound like much but at a time when law 

enforcement officers are being hunted and targeted for violence, 

many of them are asking, "Who has my back? Who will protect me 

while I protect my community?" Bills like this which acknowledge 

and respect the sacrifices made by the rank-and-file officer truly 

resonate with my members and the public safety community. 

Members of this Committee may remember the years that were 

spent trying to address the issue of the disparity between the 

sentences for the use, possession and sale of crack cocaine versus 

powdered cocaine. There was a considerable gulf between the 

position of the FOP and those advocating a complete rewrite of 

Federal law to vastly lower the penalties for crack. 
313 

In 2001, Senator Sessions introduced a bill to address this issue and 

he worked tirelessly to bring everyone together. He made sure the 

voice of law enforcement was heard and also asserted his belief that 

the disparity as existed in law at that time was unjust. In 2010, as 

Ranking Member of this Committee, he brokered the compromise 

that led to the passage-with the FOP's support-of the Fair 

Sentencing Act. We accepted the compromise because it was fair, it 

was just and it reflected the perspective of the law enforcement 

community. The importance of his direct role on this issue cannot 

be overstated. Without Jeff Sessions, I believe this issue might well 

remain unresolved today. 

That said, I understand that a certain amount of partisanship is 

expected in nomination hearings like this, but I ask that all 

Members of this Committee recollect that Senator Sessions has 

worked in a bipartisan manner on many law enforcement and 

officer safety issues with you and with the FOP-more than I have 

time to list here. He has a 20 year record of bipartisanship and 

widespread support among our nation's law enforcement officers. 

When the cameras go off, I hope the Members of this Committee 

will keep this in mind as they consider this nomination. 
314 

On more than one occasion, Senator Sessions was among the few in 

standing up for law enforcement, especially when it came to the 

issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership and support, the 

equitable sharing program might well have been dismantled, leaving 

thousands of law enforcement agencies without the resources to 

cooperate with Federal task forces and other multijurisdictional 

efforts to combat trafficking in drugs, humans and weapons. 

For us, this demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man who can reach 

across the aisle to get things done for the rank-and-file officer as 

well as a man who will support those same officers, even when it is 

unpopular to do so. The men and women serving in law 

enforcement will be proud to have Senator Sessions as our top cop. 

Senator Sessions has served this country tirelessly and faithfully for 

the majority of his adult life. He is, above all else, a man who 

reveres the law and reveres justice. I believe that he will be an 

exemplary U.S. Attorney General with whom we will have a 

productive partnership and I urge this committee to favorably 

report his nomination. The FOP is very much looking forward to 

working with him at the Justice Department. 
315 

Thank you again of the opportunity to testify and I am happy to 

answer any of your questions. 
316 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID COLE, 

NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

ON THE NOMINATION OF SENATOR JEFFERSON SESSIONS TO BE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL 

HEARING BEFORE THE SENA IE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

JANUARY II, 2017 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for inviting 

me to testify on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union on the nomination of Senator 

JeJierson Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. The ACLU is strictly nonpartisan and, as a matter of long-standing policy, does not oppose or endorse the nomination of 

judges or executive branch officials. In this instance, we have such serious questions about the 

civil liberties and civil rights record of Sen. Sessions that we are taking the extraordinary step of 

testifying. We owe it to the American people and to the Senate because there are serious 

questions about Sen. Sessions's commitment to the civil rights and civil liberties that define us as 

a nation and that our organization was founded, nearly one hundred years ago, to defend. Sen. 

Sessions's record raises grave questions about his qualifications to serve as the nation's chicflaw 

enforcement officer. Some ofthose questions led this committee on a bipartisan vote to reject his 

nomination to become a federal district court judge in 1986. 1 The questions remain, and now he 

is being considered for a far more powerful post. At a minimum, those questions deserve 

thorough investigation before the Senate votes on his confirmation. 

At bottom, our concern is whether Sen. Sessions will be able in good faith to fulfill the 

obligations of the nation's top law enforcement official-namely to defend the rights of all 

1 Philip Hager, Panel's Action Only 2"J Such Turndown in 49 Years Reagan Judicial Nominee Rejected, L.A. TIMES 

(June 6, 1986), http:!/articles.latimes.com/1986-06-06/news/mn-8903 _ljudicial-nominee. 
317 

Americans and, in particular, those of the most vulnerable among us. Sen. Sessions's past 

statements and actions have demonstrated not just insensitivity but active hostility to the rights of 

many of our fellow citizens. He has reportedly made racially offensive remarks to AfricanAmerican colleagues, including about the Ku Klux Klan. 2 He vigorously defended Presidentelect Trump's patently unconstitutional call for a Muslim ban on immigration. 3 He claimed that 

President-elect Trump's outrageous and deeply offensive remarks about using his celebrity to 

grab women by their genitals did not describe sexual assault.4 He has criticized the Voting Rights 

Act,5 and as a US Attorney in Alabama, he prosecuted civil rights activists for merely assisting 

African-Americans to vote.6 Despite this, he now seeks to pad his application by taking credit for 

litigating voting rights cases on which he actually did no work. 7 He has consistently voted 

against legal protections for women and LGBT persons, and has denied that they face 

discrimination. 8 He twice opposed a legislative ban on torture9 and praised Michael Mukascy for 

declining to rule out waterboarding, a form oftorture. 10 And he has called Islam, a religion 

practiced by millions of Americans, a "toxic ideology." 11 

If you learned that a candidate for an entry-level position on your staff had said some of the 

offensive things Sen. Sessions has said and had misled you about his prior accomplishments, you 

would probably look elsewhere. You would almost certainly not hire him unless you did an 

extraordinarily thorough review of the young man's background. Here, such a review of Sen. 

2 Scott Zamost, Curt Devine & Katherine Noel, Sessions Dogged by Old Allegations of Racism, CNN (Nov. 18, 

20 16), http://www.cnn.com/20 16/11/17 /politics/jeff-sessions-racism-allegations/. 3 Tom LoBianco, Sessions: Trump Travel Ban Could Include Egypt, CNN, (June 20, 2016), 

http://www .cnn.com/20 16/06/ 19/po I itics/j eff-sessions-donald-ttump-muslim-ban/. 4 John McCormack, Jeff Sessions: Behavior Described by hump in 'Grab Them by the P---y Tape Isn't Sexual 

Assault, THE WEEKLY STANDARD (Oct. 10, 2016), http://www.week1ystandard.com/jcff-sessions-behaviordescribed-by-trump-in-grab-them-by-the-p-y-tape-isnt-sexual-assaultiarticle/2004799?custom_click~rss. 

5 Ari Berman, Voting Rights in the Age ()(Trump, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 19, 2016), 

http://www. nytimes.com/20 16/ II /22/ opin ion/voting-rights-in-the-age-of-trum p.htm I. 6 Robert Pear, Judge Nomination Stirs Opposition, N.Y. TiMES (Dec. I, 1985), 

http://www. nytimes.com/19 85/12/0 1 /us/j udgc-nomination-stirs-opposition.html. 7 J. Gerald Herbert, Joseph D. Rich & William Y comans. Jeff' Sessions Says He Handled These Civil Rights Cases. 

He Bare/v Touched Them. WASH. PosT (Jan. 3, 20 17), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessionssay s-he-handled-thcse-civil-rights-cases-he-barely-touched-them/20 17/0 l/03/4ddfffa6-d0fa-ll c6-a783-

cd3fa950f2fd _story.html?utmterm~.25 7eacfc618f. 8 !59, Cong. Rec. 57,793 (daily ed. >Jov. 4, 2013) (roll call vote no. 229), available at 

https:/ /www.congrcss.gov/crec/20 13/11/04/CREC-20 13 -11-04-pt 1-PgS 7793-2.pdf. 

° Conor friedersdorf, These 21 Republicans Voted Against a Torture Ban, DlE An.ANTIC (June 17, 2015), 

http://www. theatlantic.com/pol itics/archive/20 15/06/these-21-repu b I icans-voted-against-a-torture-ban/3 96095/. 10 Tamara Keith, On Waterboarding, A President Trump Could Face Resistance From Some Republicans, N.P.R. 

(Nov. 21, 20 16). http://www.npr.org/20 16/ II /21/502871948/on-waterboarding-a-president-trump-could-faceresistance-from-some-republicans. 

11 Joby Warrick & Abigail Hauslohner, 1i·ump 's Security Picks Deepen Muslim Worries About an Anti-Islamic 

White House, WASH. POST (Nov. 18, 20 16), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumpssecurity-picks-deepen-muslim-worries-about-an-anti-islamic-white-house/20 16/llll8/d7796cc6-add6-1! e6-8b45-

f8e493106fcd_ story.html?utm _tenn~.l925d88!7 4 79. 

2 
318 

Sessions was done, in 1986, by this very Committee, and it led to a bipartisan vote against Sen. 

Sessions's nomination to become a federal judge. 

The ACLU cannot and does not take a position on whether you should confirm Sen. 

Sessions's nomination. But we do maintain unequivocally that Sen. Sessions's record of hostility 

to civil rights warrants the most serious examination, particularly given the role he would play as 

chief enforcer of our nation's civil rights guarantees. We recognize, of course, that senatorial 

courtesy may make some members reluctant to probe their own colleague's record in detail. But 

given the importance of this position and the gravity of the allegations, we believe it is your 

responsibility to do so. 

We believe that it is especially important, at this time, to ensure that the nation's chief law 

enforcement officer is a uniter, not a divider. Controversy about the fairness of our justice 

system, especially along racial lines, has roiled our nation in recent years. Many of our citizens 

are deeply skeptical of a criminal justice system that disproportionately stops, frisks, arrests, and 

imprisons young men of color. Videos of police shootings of unarmed Black men have added to 

the frustration, alienation, and fear that too many feel about our justice system. When trust in the 

system erodes, problems soon follow. Those who don't trust the system are less likely to play by 

the rules, less likely to cooperate with police, and less likely to serve as witnesses in criminal 

trials. Our broken criminal justice system requires a leader who can comport his office with the 

fairness and resolve to unite us and who has shown compassion and sympathy for the most 

vulnerable. We think the statements and conduct of Sen. Sessions raise serious questions as to 

whether he is such a leader. 

II. AREASOFCONCERN 

In our view, Sen. Sessions's record raises grave concern in at least seven specific areas. 12 

Taken together, they raise questions about whether he is qualified to become an Attorney 

General for all the people, and in particular whether he will faithfully carry out his obligation to 

protect the most vulnerable among us. 

1) Racial equality and voting rights 

At an absolute minimum, the Attorney General of the United States must not be someone 

who harbors racial prejudice or fails to take seriously racism and racially motivated violence. It 

is this concern that probably most contributed to the Committee's rejection of Sen. Sessions 

when he was nominated to be a district court judge. It remains every bit a concern today. 

12 We detail even more extensive concerns in our report on Sen. Sessions. See ACLU, REPORT: THE CONFIRMATION 

SESSIONS (Jan. 20!7), available at https://www.aclu.org/report/report-confirmation-sessions. 

3 
319 

In the 1986 hearings, one of Sen. Sessions's fanner colleagues, Thomas Figures, an AfricanAmerican attorney, testified that Sen. Sessions had called him "boy" and had told him he thought 

the Ku Klux Klan was okay until he learned that some of them smoked marijuana. 13 Some have 

suggested that the comment about the Klan might have been a joke, although Mr. Figures 

testified that he took it seriously. 14 Even if said in jest, however, the remark demonstrates a 

disturbing level of insensitivity. It is not unlike joking about the Nazis to a Jew. The Klan was 

responsible for the lynching of thousands of African-Americans, and it is defined by an ideology 

of racial supremacy and hatred. There are some subjects you don't joke about. 

Along similar lines, in a speech in 2006 on immigration, Sen. Sessions broadly condemned 

all Dominican immigrants, saying, "Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican 

Republic to the United States is coming here because they have a provable skill that would 

benefit us and that would indicate their likely success in our society." 15 Is a man who proclaims 

such baseless and offensive stereotypes about an entire ethnic community qualified to be the 

Attorney General of the United States? 

One of the Attorney General's most important responsibilities is to ensure that the machinery 

of democracy works fairly for all. The Justice Department enforces all federal voting rights laws. 

It prosecutes election misconduct. provides guidance on compliance with federal voting laws, 

and monitors elections. It is currently engaged in ongoing litigation to protect voting rights in at 

least six states. Yet Sen. Sessions's record on voting rights is deeply troubling. 

In the 1980s, when he was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sen. Sessions 

investigated and prosecuted three long-time civil rights activists for alleged voter fraud. 

According to former Governor Deval Patrick, who as a young lawyer with the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund represented one of the defendants, Sessions's theory for many of 

the charges in the indictment was that it was a federal crime to help someone to vote or to advise 

them on how they should vote, even when they sought the help. 16 It is, of course, not a crime to 

advise people how to vote; that's the whole point of an electoral campaign. Candidates 

themselves, their supporters, newspapers, our friends, and our spouses all advise us on how to 

vote. The judge hearing the case rejected Sessions's overbroad and anti-democratic theory before 

trial and dismissed 50 counts in the indictment. Sessions proceeded to trial anyway on the 

13 Michelle Ye Hee Lee, J~f!Sessians's Comments an Race: For the Record. WASH. POST (Dec. 2, 2016), 

https :/ /www. washingtonpost.com/news/fact -checker/wp/20 16/ 12/02/j eff-scssionss-comments-on-race-for-therecord/?utm term= .a 18d4cd03609. 

"!d. - 15 Same Stein & Amanda Terkel, Donald Trump's Attorney General Nominee Wrote Off Nearly All Immigrants 

From An Entire Count1y, HUFFINGTON POST (Nov. 20, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessionsdominican-immigrants_us_582f9dl4e4b030997bbf8ded. 

16 Letter from DevalL. Patrick to Senator Charles Grass ley and Senator Dianne Feinstein (Jan 3, 20 17), available at 

http://www .naacpldf.org/fi les/about-us/Deval-L-Patrick-Letter-re-Sessions-AG-Nom-1-3-17. pdf. 

4 
320 

remaining counts, and after a three-week trial, he was unanimously rebuffed by the jury, which 

found all three defendants not guilty on all charges. 

The prosecution took place in the wake of a significant increase in voting by AfricanAmericans in Alabama and throughout the South. In 1965. almost no African-Americans voted 

in Alabama. By 1982. about 70.000 African-Americans were voting and had helped elect 138 

Black officials across the region. 17 The case concerned the use of absentee ballots, which are, of 

course, used by white and Black voters alike. Sessions, however, investigated only the use of 

absentee ballots by Black voters and only in counties where white incumbents were losing 

ground because of advances in voting rights. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 

Sessions's investigation focused on "five Black Belt counties where black leaders had begun to 

assume local office- Perry. Sumter. Greene. Wilcox. and Lowndes." 17 The investigation was 

entirely one-sided. Again. according to the Brennan Center: 

Sen. Sessions and his counterpart in the Northern District of Alabama began 

investigating alleged absentee ballot fraud by black civil-rights activists .... 

'Hundreds of witnesses. most of them black. [were] interviewed about vote 

thud.' Meanwhile. at the same time, the Depat1ment of Justice refused to 

investigate complaints that white politicians solicited longtime nonresidents to 

submit absentee ballots in local elections. In Perry County. where the Marion 

Three had collected absentee ballots. the FBI went to the doors of hundreds of 

black citizens, flashing their badges. asking how they had voted. '"'hether they had 

received help ti·om black civil-rights activists. whether they could read and write. 

and ''hy they had voted absentee. The chairman ofthc National Council of Black 

State Legislators called the tactics an effort 'to disenfranchise blacks who are 

finally gaining political power in the South.d 8 

As a federal legislator. Sen. Sessions has opposed restoring felons' voting rights even after 

they have done their time 19 and even though felon disenfranchisement disproportionately affects 

African-Americans. He has defended restrictive voter 10 laws.20 which also disproportionately 

exclude minority and poor voters. notwithstanding the widely noted lack of virtually any 

evidence of voter impersonation fraud. Sen. Sessions joined his colleagues in a 98-0 vote to 

extend the Voting Rights Act in 2006. But more recently. he called the Supreme Court's decision 

17 ADAM GITLIN & WENDY R. WEISER, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, THE JUSTICE DEPARTME).lT'S VOTER FRAUD 

SCANDAL: LESSONS (20 17), available at https://www.brcnnanccntcr.org/publicationljustice-departments-voterfraud-scandal-lessons. 

18 ld. 

19 Ari Berman, J~ffSessions Has Spent His Whole Career Opposing Voting Rights, THE NATION (Jan 10, 20 17), 

https://www.thenation.com/article/jeff-sessions-has-spent-his-wholc-career-opposing-voting-rights/. 

20 Tierney Sneed, Why Jeff Sessions As Attorney General Horrifies Voting Rights Advocates, TALKJNG POINTS 

MEMO (Nov. 18, 2016), http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dclwhy-trump-s-choice-of-jeff-sessions-as-ag-is-alarmingvoting-rights-advocates. 

5 
321 

in Shelby County 1·. Holder.' 1 which gutted the Act's most impottant enforcement provision. 

·'good nev.s ... for the South.''22 The decision. which lifted an obligation on many states with a 

history of voting discrimination to clear voting changes with the .Justice Department, spurred 

renewed eftotts in several of those states to suppress voting by minorities. In North Carolina. for 

example. a federal appeals coutt found that the state legislature intentionally discriminated 

against Black voters through a series of voting changes undc1taken the day after Shelby County 

was decided.23 Sen. Sessions has expressed no concern whatsoever about those effmts. 

2) Religious freedom 

Sen. Sessions has also shown insensitivity at best and hostility at worst toward Muslims and 

the Muslim faith. When Donald Trump advocated a ban on all Muslims entering the United 

States, a blatantly unconstitutional proposal, Sen. Leahy introduced an amendment providing that 

"it is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into 

the United States based on their religion."24 The amendment did no more than restate what the 

Constitution already requires. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from taking 

action that either favors or disfavors any specific religion, and therefore the government can no 

more favor specific religions in immigration decisions than it can in public displays or funding 

decisions. Yet Sen. Sessions was one of only four senators to oppose the amendment.25 

As noted above, Sen. Sessions has also called Islam, one of the largest religions in the world 

and a faith held by millions of Americans, a "toxic ideology." If he had called Christianity a 

"toxic ideology," is there any doubt that he'd be disqualified for this post? 

It is just as forbidden to use one's office to favor a specific religion as to disfavor it. Yet Sen. 

Sessions has adopted a very different stance toward Christianity than towards Islam. In 1998, he 

defended the actions of Alabama Judge Roy Moore in displaying the Ten Commandments in his 

courtroom. Indeed, he introduced a formal resolution in the Senate to support the display?6 Such 

a display, as the courts have ruled, plainly violates the Establishment Clause. It links the 

administration of public justice with the tenets of a specific faith and thereby sends a message to 

the millions of Americans who do not share that faith that they are outsiders.27 (An Alabama 

21 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). 22 Sharon LaFraniere & Matt Apuzzo, Jeff Sessions, a Lifelong Outsider, Finds the Inside Track, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 8, 

20 17), http://www.nytimes.com/20 17/0 1/08/uslpolitics/jeff-sessions-attomey-general.html. 23 "iorth Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4'h Cir. 2016). 24 S. 1318 (2015) (nonbinding amendment from Sen. Leahy), available at 

http://www.judiciary.scnate.gov/imolmedia/doc!Leahy2%20-%20ALB 15F55.pdf. 25 Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sessions Delivers Remarks in Opposition to Global 'Right to Migrate' 

Amendment (Dec. I 0, 20 15 ), http://www.sessions.senate.gov/publiclindex.cfmlnews-releases?ID= 186AEDE2-

B813-4741-A IB l-C3759DFDD2C5. 06 Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Senator Sessions Offers Resolution Defending Display of Ted Commandments 

(Apr. 2, 1998), http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1998/4/senator-sessions-offers-resolutiondefending-display-of-the-ten-commandments27 McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (2005). 

6 
322 

judicial ethics committee subsequently removed Judge Moore from office for defying a court 

order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the state courthouse). Here, too, 

one might ask, would Sen. Sessions support the display of an analogous list of"commandments" 

from Islam or any other religion? The Constitution demands religious neutrality from 

government officials. Sen. Sessions has failed that test. He should be asked whether he respects 

the separation of church and state and how his statement that Islam is a "toxic ideology" squares 

with his constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward particular religions. 

3) Prosecutorial ethics 

The Attorney General sits atop the most powerful prosecutors' office in the nation. It is 

essential that anyone assuming that position have impeccable ethics. Yet Sen. Sessions's 

involvement in a case of egregious prosecutorial misconduct when he was Attorney General of 

Alabama raises urgent questions about his fitness for the job. Working hand-in-glove with US 

Steel and its outside counsel, both of whom had made contemporaneous contributions to 

Sessions's senatorial campaign, then-Attorney General Sessions's office brought more than 200 

criminal charges against TIECO, Inc., an equipment vendor, arising out of a business dispute 

with US Steel. Sen. Sessions's office described the case at as "ofthe most magnitude that the 

Attorney General's office has undertaken in the last twenty-five years."28 Yet all 222 charges 

were eventually dismissed before trial, many for being baseless, others for prosecutorial 

misconduct. In a remarkable opinion, the Alabama state trial judge hearing the case concluded 

that "the misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses in both extensiveness and 

measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed 

by the Court. "

29 

The court found that the "tbe prosecutorial misconduct is so pronounced and persistent that it 

permeates the entire atmosphere of this prosecution and warrants a dismissal of these cases."30 It 

also found the misconduct so pervasive that "this court can only conclude it is dealing with either 

intentional and deliberate misconduct or conduct so reckless and improper as to constitute 

conscious disregard for the lawful duties of the Attorney General and the integrity and dignity of 

this court and this Judge."31 

The misconduct perpetrated by the Attorney General's office is breathtaking. According to 

the court, it included: 

I) the Attorney General's repeated refusals and failures to produce exculpatory 

evidence; 

28 Order and Opinion, Alabama v. TIECO, Inc., Case Nos. CC-96-2961 (Circuit Ct. of Jefferson County, AL July 

16, 1997), at 3-4. 29 ld at 2. 30 fd 

31 fd 

7 
323 

2) the Attorney General's repeated denials of the very existence of exculpatory 

evidence subsequently discovered by the Defendants; 

3) the flagrant disregard of the constitutional rights of those accused; and 

4) the completely incredible and deceptive testimony of so many witnesses this 

Court treated as officers of the court (some of whom were either assistants or 

agents for the Attorney Gcneral).32 

Then-Attorney General Sessions's office conducted the investigation and brought the 

case in unusually close collaboration with US Steel. . The Attorney General's office 

inappropriately shared with US Steel and its outside counsel multiple documents that it 

obtained through the criminal process. The judge suggested that the Attorney General's 

office brought the case to aid US Steel in its private civil lawsuit against TIECO and 

rushed the case to indictment only after an ethics complaint was filed against Sessions. 

The state ethics commission found no ethics violation in July 1996, but one year later, all 

222 charges in the case had been dismissed, many of them for egregious prosecutorial 

misconduct. The trial court's finding of prosccutorial misconduct thus post-dates the 

ethics commission's ruling. Notably, the Attorney General's office neither sought 

reconsideration of the prosecutorial misconduct decision nor filed an appeal, despite its 

damning indictment of the office. 

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at NYU Law School, has informed the 

committee in a letter dated January 6, 2017, that the decision dismissing the case "is the 

most scathing criticism of a prosecutorial office I have read in the nearly 40 years I have 

been teaching legal ethics."33 More than 30 ethics professors share Professor Gillcrs's 

assessment, and have also filed letters with the committee.34 

The TIECO ease, like the prosecution of voting rights activist Albert Turner, raises 

serious questions about Sessions's abuse of prosecutorial power. Both cases involved the 

!d. 33 Letter from Stephen Gillers, Prof. of Law, NYU School of Law, to Sen. Chuck Grass ley and Sen. Dianne 

Feinstein (Jan 6, 20 17). 34 See Letter from Stephen Sa1tzburg et at. to Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Jan 7. 2017); Letter 

from Cheryl Bader et al., to Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Jan 9, 2017). Some have suggested that 

a subsequent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the related civil case between US 

Steel and TIECO undermines the findings of misconduct. See United States Steel. LLC. v. T/ECO, fnc., 26/ FJd 

1275 (I T'h Cir. 200f).But as Prof. Gillers correctly explains in his letter, the Eleventh Circuit decision has no such 

effect. The court held merely that it was a legal error to admit the trial court's opinion and addendum as evidence in 

the civil case, because as hearsay it was legally presumed unreliable, and therefore its introduction was prejudicial, 

denying US Steel the opportunity to cross-examine the declarants The Eleventh Circuit did not question Judge 

Garrett's findings or their factual basis, as that issue was not before them. It merely determined that its introductnio 

was erroneous because it was very prejudicial to US Steel and denied it an opportunity to cross-examine its accusers. 

The only court that could have reviewed the Alabama state trial judge's findings would have been an Alabama state 

appellate court, but the Alabama District Attorney elected not to appeal. 

8 
324 

filing of multiple charges that were so baseless that they were dismissed before trial. In 

both cases, prosecutorial authority may have been used for illegitimate purposes- for 

partisan gain in the Turner case and to aid campaign contributors in the TIECO case. 

And both cases ended in an utter and complete rebuff to the Attorney General's office. 

The facts of these cases are complicated, and it is possible that Sen. Sessions can explain 

his actions. But at a minimum, in light of the power the Attorney General of the United 

States wields, the committee and the Senate should demand full disclosure from Sen. 

Sessions of all documents relating to both cases {including the related ethics 

investigation). Only an examination of the full record by the Committee and the full 

Senate can dispel the concerns that these cases raise on the record as it stands today. 

4) Criminal justice, due process, and privacy rights 

As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions would directly oversee the federal criminal justice 

system, and he would also play a leading role in ensuring that the states' administration of 

criminal law respects the civil rights of all. In particular, the Justice Department's Civil Rights 

Division investigates alleged patterns and practices of civil rights violations by state and local 

police. Where appropriate, it enters enforceable consent decrees to bring about reform. Such 

measures have been pivotal in protecting constitutional and civil rights in cities like Los Angeles, 

Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Ferguson, Missouri. 

Yet Sen. Sessions has criticized such consent decrees as "dangerous" and an "end run around 

the democratic process."35 These decrees are neither dangerous nor anti-democratic. By 

definition, they are entered into only with the consent of elected officials, so they are as 

democratic as anything else that an elected official does. The real danger lies not in being 

obligated to obey our nation's civil rights laws, but in allowing patterns and practices of civil 

rights violations to go unremedied. 

Although Sen. Sessions supported legislation to eliminate prison rape and the disparity 

between crack and powder cocaine, more recently he was the leading opponent of the Sentencing 

Reform and Corrections Act, a bipartisan consensus bill to reduce overly harsh mandatory 

minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. In Congress, the bill was supported by, among 

others, Republican Senators Charles Grassley, Mike Lee, and John Cornyn as well as House 

Speaker Paul Ryan. A coalition of conservative and liberal criminal justice organizations also 

supported the bill, as did the Major Cities Chief and National District Attorneys Associations. 

The bill was based on a consensus that our nation has relied too excessively on the criminal 

justice system to respond to a variety of social ills, overpopulating the nation's prisons through 

the imposition of costly and overly harsh prison sentences that do not fit the crime. In opposing 

35 MICHAEL E. DEBOW, GARY J. PAL!\IER & JOHN J, PARK, JR., ALABAMA POLICY INSTITUTE, CONSENT DECREES IN 

INSTJTLT!ONAL REFORM LITIGATION: STRATEGIES FOR STATE LEGISLATIJRES (2008), available at 

http://www.alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/API-Research-Consent-Decrees.pdf. 

9 
325 

the bill, Sen. Sessions claimed, contrary to all the evidence, that crime was "rising at an alarming 

rate."36 In fact, crime in 2015 was at the lowest it had been in several decades and was not 

rising.37 

Sen. Sessions has been an ardent proponent of civil asset forfeiture laws, which empower the 

government to take people's property without affording them basic due process and without 

establishing that they have committed any crime. Many innocent people have lost their homes 

and property because of this expansive and overbroad authority. As the Heritage Foundation has 

explained, "This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever 

having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being 

stripped of their money and property by law enforcement."38 Washington Post columnist George 

Will harshly criticized Sen. Sessions in a recent column for his support of unfair civil asset 

forfeiture laws and suggested that the Judiciary Committee should question Sen. Sessions about 

his zealous support of this unfair and often abused practice. 39 

Sen. Sessions has also supported dragnet surveillance of Americans. When it was revealed 

that the National Security Agency was misusing a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act to collect 

in bulk the phone records of virtually every American, Congress overwhelmingly voted, on a 

bipartisan basis, to eliminate bulk collection with the full support of the intelligence community. 

Yet Sen. Sessions voted against that law, and claimed, without any evidentiary support, that the 

bulk collection program had identified terrorist plots and helped prevent attacks.40 In fact, the 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had found, after examining the NSA program in 

detail, that the bulk collection program identified no actual terrorists and disrupted no terrorist 

plots.41 

36 Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sessions: Don't Weaken Criminal Law in Middle of Crime Wave (Oct. 13, 

20 I 5), http:/ lwww .sessions.senate.govlpu blic/index.cfm/20 151 l 0/sessions-don-t-weaken-criminal-law-in-middle-ofcrime-wave. 

37 See Ames C. Grawert, Analysis: Sen. Jeff Sessions's Record on Criminal JusJice, BRENNAN CEN. FOR JUSTICE, 2-

3, (20 I 7), https ://www. brennan center .org/ analy si s/analysis-sen-jeff-sessions-record-crim inal-j ustice. 38 Civil Asset Fmfeiture: 7 Things You Should Know. HERITAGE FOUND. (Mar. 26, 2014), 

http:/ /w\\'W. heritage.org/research/reports/20 I 4/03/ civil-asset-forfeiture-7-th ings-yo u-shoul d-know. 39 George Will, The l'ery Bad Reason Sessions is "Vel)' Unhappy, " WASH. POST (Dec. 23, 20 16), 

https://www. washingtonpost.com/ opinions/the-very-bad-reason-j eff-sessions-is-veryunhappy/20 l6/l2/23/213a3 cb8-

c86d-ll e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf storv.html?utm term~.dfb5b7637058; 

see also Jennifer Rubin, Fighti;;g th~ Wrong Battle on Sessions, WASH. POST, (Dec. 22, 201 6), 

https :/ /www. was hi ngtonpost.com/blogs/rightturn/wp/2 0 16/ 12/22/fighting-the-wrong-battle-onsessions/?utm term~.f8d499005278. 

40 Jeff Session~. Why Should Terrorists Be Harder to Investigate than Routine Criminals 7 • NATIONAL REVIEW (May 

20, 20 I 5), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418675/dont-hamper-nsas-ability-stop-terrorist-attacks. 41 PRIVACY A~D CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD, REPORT ON THE TELEPHONE RECORDS PROGRAM 

CONDUCTED UNDER SECTIO~ 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND ON THE OPERA TIOXS Of TilE FOREIGN 

INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE (20 14), available at https://\\'WW.pclob.gov/library/215-

Report _on _the_ Telephone_ Records _Program.pdf. 

10 
326 

In short, Sen. Sessions has opposed bipartisan consensus reforms of the criminal justice 

system's most troubling features, including unduly harsh mandatory minimums for nonviolent 

offenses, the forfeiture of property without due process from entirely innocent individuals, and 

the dragnet suspicionless surveillance of law-abiding Americans. The Senate should ask whether 

someone so far outside the mainstream on criminal justice should be put in charge of the nation's 

most powerful law enforcement agency. 

5) Equality for women and LGBT people 

The Justice Department plays a central part in the safeguarding the rights of women and 

LGBT people. It is responsible for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes and civil rights 

violations and for enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VA W A) and the Freedom of 

Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). Yet Sen. Sessions's record reveals a fundamental failure 

to take seriously- or in some instances, even to recognize- discrimination against women and 

gays and lesbians. He denied that "grab[bing] women by the pussy,'' as Donald Trump bragged 

he could do, constituted sexual assault, Sen. Sessions said "I don't characterize that as a sexual 

assault. I think that's a stretch." If grabbing a woman by her genitals is not sexual assault in Sen. 

Sessions's mind, one wonders what would be. 

Sen. Sessions also voted against reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act42 and 

has condemned the Supreme Court's protection of women's constitutionally protected choice to 

terminate a pregnancy.43 While the ACUJ has long supported the right of anti-abortion activists 

to express their views, they cross the line when they use violence or brute force to block women 

from entering clinics that are established to provide them necessary and constitutionally 

protected medical care. Would Sen. Sessions, who has condemned Roe v. Wade and Planned 

Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,44 be a vigorous enforcer of laws that protect 

women's right to access abortion clinics? 

Sen. Sessions has been equally hostile to the rights of LGBT people. He voted in favor of a 

constitutional ban on marriage equality. He voted against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't 

Tell,"45 a change of course favored by the military because sexual orientation has no relevance to 

military service. He stated in 2009 that filling a Supreme Court vacancy with an openly gay 

nominee "would be a big concern that the American people might feel - might feel uneasy 

42 159 Cong. Rcc. S616 (daily ed. Feb 12, 2013) (roll call vote no. 19), available at 

https:/lwww.congress.gov/crec/20 13/02/l2/CREC-20 13-02-12-pt I-PgS613-2.pdf. 43 Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Partial-Birth Abortion ban Act of 1997 (May 15, 1997), 

http :1/www. sessions. senate.gov/pu bliclindex.cfm/199715/partial-birth-abortion-ban-act-of-1997 -. 44 For Sen. Sessions's condemnation of both decisions, see Sen. Jeff Sessions, Speech on Reflections on Judicial 

Independence (Oct. 17, 1997). 45 156 Cong. Rec. SI0,684 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 2010) (roll call vote no. 281) available at 

https:llwww.congress.gov/crec/20 I 0/12118/CREC-20 I 0-12-18 .pdf. 

11 
327 

about.'' 46 He has opposed extending anti-discrimination employment law to gays and lesbians.47 

And in voting against legislation that extended the hate crimes law to crimes motivated by 

gender, sexual orientation, or disability, Sessions argued that the law was unnecessary because 

women and LGBT people do not face serious discrimination. Sen. Sessions said, "today I am not 

sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just 

don't see it."48 lfthe Attorney General does not see discrimination against women and LGBT 

people, how can he carry out his statutory responsibilities to enforce bans on such 

discrimination? 

The Senator's opposition to LGBT rights has a long history. When he was Attorney General 

of Alabama, Sen. Sessions tried to bar a state university from funding the activities of the Gay 

Lesbian Bisexual Alliance, a student group at the University of South Alabama, including 

sponsoring a conference. Sessions contended that supporting the group would violate a state law 

prohibiting public universities from funding groups promoting a "lifestyle or actions prohibited 

by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws."49 When the students sued, a federal judge declared 

the state law unconstitutional because it penalized students for constitutionally protected 

speech.50 The court found that the law was plainly unconstitutional under the authority of a 

recent Supreme Court decision treating the refusal to fund a Christian student group's activities 

as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Sen. Sessions was undeterred. "1 intend to do 

everything I can to stop that conference," he said, vowing to appeal. 51 The district court's 

decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. Sessions's deputy at the time, now federal judge 

William Pryor, saw the appeal as so baseless that he declined to participate. But Sessions 

proceeded nonetheless. 

6) Torture and human rights. 

Few legal prohibitions are more fundamental than the ban on torture and cruel, inhuman, and 

degrading treatment. It is a violation of the Constitution, a crime under federal law, a war crime 

under humanitarian law, and a violation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 

" Satyam Khanna, Sessions Flip-Flops: Gay Supreme Court Nominee Would be a 'Big Concern, · THINKPROGRESS 

(May 8, 2009). https:/lthinkprogress.org/sessions-flip-flops-gay-supreme-court-nominee-would-be-a-big-concem266a I a6b4b3 d#.odrv9w99t. 47 United States Senate, Vote 229, 13. 

"Hearing on the ,\1atthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Before the S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 

Ill th Cong. (2009), avai/ah/e at https:llwww.gpo.gov/fdsyslpkg/CHRG-lll shrg56684/pdfiCHRGlllshrg56684.pdf. 

49 The law provided that "No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any college or university to, directly 

or indirectly, sanction, recognize, or support the activities or existence of any organization or group that fosters or 

promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws." Gay Lesbian Bisexual 

Alliance v. Sessions, 917 F. Supp. 1548, 1549 (M.D. Ala. 1996)(quoting statute), ciff'd, 110 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 

1997). 

50 Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Sessions. 917 F. Supp. at 1553-54. 

51/d 

12 
328 

Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, which the United States helped draft and 

has signed and ratified. As Sen. John McCain said, the prohibition on torture is so fundamental 

to our legal system that "it is about who we are."52 

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September II, 2001, the Justice Department, in a series 

oflegal opinions now withdrawn and widely rejected, allowed the CIA to use "waterboarding," a 

torture tactic, as well as other forms of torture and abuse against certain suspected AI Qaeda 

detainees. That "experiment" in torture was an unmitigated disaster, as the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence showed in excruciating detail. It was also blatantly illegal. 

Yet Sen. Sessions has opposed legal reforms designed to forestall a repetition of such abuse 

and has praised a former Attomey General for refusing to commit to abjuring waterboarding. In 

2005, Sen. Sessions supported Vice President Dick Cheney's efforts to have the CIA exempted 

from an anti-torture amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain to the Detainee Treatment 

Act. 5

3 That amendment was designed to underscore America's commitment not to torture, by 

forbidding all federal officials from using cruel, inhuman, and degrading tactics in interrogations, 

no matter where they were acting and regardless of the nationality of the detainee. In the end, 

Sen. Sessions was one of only nine senators to vote against Sen. McCain's anti-torture 

amendment. 

In 2008, Sen. Sessions praised Attomey General Michael Mukasey for refusing to rule out 

waterboarding. 10 And in 2015, he was one of only 21 senators who opposed a bipartisan 

amendment, sponsored by Sens. McCain and Feinstein, that required all federal agencies to 

interrogate detainees solely through tactics authorized in the Anny Field Manual. 5

4 

Given the centrality of the prohibition on torture and abuse to the rule oflaw, the Committee 

should ensure that Sen. Sessions is committed to abiding by and enforcing the bans on both 

torture and all forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and will abjure not only 

waterboarding, but all cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. 

7) Respect for speech, association, and the defense of constitutional rights. 

Finally, Sen. Sessions has shown a disturbing tendency to castigate those who defend 

constitutional rights with which he disagrees. The ACLU and NAACP, two of his targets, are 

two of the nation's oldest and most established civil liberties and civil rights organizations. Sen. 

52 Press Release, Sen. John McCain, Floor Statement by Senator John McCain on Senate Intelligence Committee 

Report on CIA Interrogation Methods (Dec. 19, 2014), http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID~ I al5e343-66b0-4 73f-b0c l-aS 8f984db996. 53 David Espo & Liz Sidoti, Cheney Seeks CIA Exemption to Torture Ban, WASH. POST (Nov. 5, 2005), 

http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.lcontent/article/2005/11/05/ AR200511 050041 O.html. 54 161 Cong. Rec. 54182 (daily ed. June 16, 2015) (roll call vote no. 209), available at 

https://www.congress.gov/crec/20 15/06il6/CREC-20 15-06-16-pti-PgS4!73 .pdf. 

13 
329 

Sessions called both groups "un-American" and ''communist-inspired."55 He also accused the 

groups oftrying to "force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put 

problems behind them."56 He has criticized nominees to the bench for having the "ACLU 

gene,"57 "ACLU DNA,"58 and "ACLU Chromosomc."59 

To similar effect, at the outset of President Barack Obama's tenn, Sen. Sessions criticized 

several appointees to the Justice Department, including the Solicitor General, for having engaged 

in constitutional litigation to vindicate the rights of alleged "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo. 

The Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to the constitutional 

protection of habeas corpus. Yet even though the lawyers singled out by Sen. Sessions were 

merely pursuing legal claims that the Constitution itself guaranteed, Sen. Sessions argued that 

this representation should be held against them. More recently, he condemned a judicial nominee 

because she had represented the family of Freddie Gray, a Black man who died while being 

transported in a police van without proper care.60 

The ACLU finds these statements concerning not because he has attacked us in particular, 

but because we need an Attorney General who respects the rights of citizens to band together to 

defend their constitutional rights and of lawyers to represent unpopular clients. Our system of 

justice depends on respecting the rights of all to have legal representation. We need an Attorney 

General for all Americans. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In our view, the nomination of Sen. Sessions to be Attorney General raises multiple 

serious questions about whether he is fit for the job. The Attorney General must uphold the laws 

equally for all, must exercise prosecutorial discretion responsibly and ethically, and has a special 

responsibility to enforce the civil rights laws, designed to protect those who have historically 

been victims of discrimination and continue to face discrimination today. Yet Sen. Sessions, in 

his statements and deeds, has shown insensitivity if not hostility to the rights of the most 

vulnerable. He has said that he does not believe that women and gays and lesbians suffer 

discrimination, that ]slam is a "toxic ideology," that we should use religion as a barrier to 

55 Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Jeff Sessions's Comments on Race: For the Record, WASH. PoST (Dec. 2, 2016), 

https:/ /v.ww. washingtonpos t. com/news/fact -checker/wp/20 16/12/02ij eff-sessi onss-comment>-on-race-for-therecord/?utm term~.a 18d4cd03609. 56 Jd -

57 Press Release, Sen. Leahy, Leahy: Debate on Chen Nomination Long Overdue (May 10, 2011), 

https://www.leahy.senate.gov/prcss/lcahy-debate-on-chen-nomination-long-overdue. 

58 156 Cong. Rec. S10,870 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2010) (statement of Sen. Sessions), available at 

https://v.ww.congress.gov/crec/20 1 0/12/21/CREC-20 1 0-12-21-pt1-PgS 1 0852-2.pdf. 50 Bob Egelko, Senate Panel Oks Liu, Chen Nominations- Again, S.F. GATE (Sept. 24, 20 I 0), 

http://www .sfgate.com/nation/article/Senate-panel-0 Ks-Li u-Chen-nominations-again-3 25199 5 .php. 60 Mary Clare Jalonick, Senate Confirms Obama Judicial Nominee for Maryland, A.P. (May 16, 2016), 

http://bigstory .ap.org/article/6d2b b02ae3 84491 fllc 1 ad4 317 aa2d3 5b/senate-confirms-ob ama-j udicial-nomineemaryland. 

14 
330 

immigration, and that grabbing a woman by her genitals does not amount to sexual assault. He 

has abused his powers as a prosecutor to bring baseless charges against voting rights activists for 

getting out the vote, and he has collaborated with contributors to his senatorial campaign to use 

the criminal process, again baselessly, to aid those contributors in a private dispute with a 

competitor. His office was charged with engaging in the worst prosecutorial misconduct that an 

Alabama trial judge had ever witnessed, and Sen, Sessions's successor did not even deem that 

decision susceptible to appeal. In our view, these statements and actions compel the Senate to 

undertake the most thorough and deliberate investigation of Sen, Sessions's record before voting 

on his confirmation. 

15 
331 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Larry Thompson 

Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

On the Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to sen'e as Attorney General 

January 10,2017 

One of my favorite descriptions of public service is former President Theodore 

Roosevelt's. He praised the person who actually enters the "Arena" and, while suffering the slings 

and arrows of criticism, continues to strive "valiantly" to serve the public's interests. It is my 

experience that there can be no public service without public criticism. Senator Jeff Sessions has 

seen his fair share of such criticism. But there can be no doubt that his life of public service and 

his clear record of achievement in strong law enforcement and bipartisan legislation eminently 

qualify him to serve as Attorney General. 

I first came to know Senator Sessions more than thirty years ago, when we were both young 

prosecutors. He was the United States Attorney in Mobile and I was the United States Attorney 

in Atlanta. We sometimes shared a hotel room on Department of Justice travel to stretch our 

limited per diems. We were young prosecutors trying to save money. During the lifetime since 

then, we've shared personal and professional counsel. And I have been honored to witness my 

good friend's accomplishments as a prosecutor and a legislator. 

Among his many accomplishments as a federal prosecutor and United States Senator, two 

clearly define the Senator as a leader with a commitment to both strong law enforcement and equal 

justice for all. 

First, as United States Attorney, Senator Sessions successfully prosecuted Alabama Ku 

Klux Klan "Grand Titan" Bennie Jack Hays, who ordered his son, Henry Hays, to kill an AfricanAmerican man. Henry Hays and James "Tiger" Knowles did the cowardly deed by abducting, 

torturing, and murdering a 19 year-old. 
332 

As is common in cases like this with serious civil rights overtones, the investigation was a 

joint federal-state effort. The state District Attorney noted that the investigative power of the FBI 

and a federal grand jury were needed. He also noted that when he reached out to Senator Sessions, 

the Senator responded: "Tell me what you need and you'll have it.'' Tiger Knowles pled guilty in 

federal court to a civil rights violation and received a life sentence to be served in federal 

prison. Senator Sessions, however, pressed to ensure that Hays was tried in state court, where 

prosecutors could seek the death penalty. Hays was found guilty and received the death 

sentence. As Alabama Attorney General, Senator Sessions successfully argued to uphold Hays' 

sentence. 

Here's a second mark of Senator Sessions' commitment both to strong law enforcement 

and justice for all: his record of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice 

issues. Senator Sessions' leadership was instrumental in the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 

201 0. This landmark legislation reduced the penalties for crack possession which unfairly targeted 

African-Americans and brought the penalties more in line with the penalties for powder cocaine. 

This was a tremendous accomplishment. Senator Sessions first introduced the legislation 

in 2001 to reduce the unjust disparity in sentencing. He said: "I think we're at a point where this 

100-to-1 disparity which does fall heavier on the African-American community simply because 

that's where crack in most often used. has got to be fixed." Senator Sessions worked to reduce 

this disparity for nine long years before he was joined by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois in a 

successful bipartisan effort to enact the legislation. Wade Henderson, President of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, praised Senator Sessions in 20 I 0 for his "steadfast 

commitment" to ending this "racial discriminatory disparity." 

2 
333 

That Senator Sessions can view law enforcement and the Department of Justice issues 

through a bipartisan lens was further demonstrated when he was one of only 17 Republican 

senators to vote to confirm President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder. 

These remarkable accomplishments demonstrate that Senator Sessions' deep experience as 

a federal prosecutor and United States Senator will bring much needed strong leadership to the 

Department of Justice. I am confident that, as Attorney General, Senator Sessions will impartially 

and vigorously enforce our laws. He knows that his role as Attorney General is to enforce the law 

and no longer to write it as a legislator. He will administer equal justice for all without regard to 

person. I have no doubt that he will enforce the law in favor of all Americans' civil rightsregardless oftheir positions or perspectives. In short, he will lead the Department with the integrity 

and commitment that have marked his service as prosecutor and legislator. 

Indeed, Senator Sessions' entire life in the "Arena" of public service reflects these key 

characteristics of fair play and humility. While being battered at times, he has worked hard, always 

with an eye to advancing the public good-and he has succeeded. Senator Jeff Sessions, a good 

man, deserves confirmation as our nation's next Attorney General. 

3 
334 

Testimony Of Senator Cory A. Booker 

Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

On "Attorney General Nomination" 

January 11, 2017 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and distinguished members ofthe 

committee. I know it is exceptional for a Senator to testifY against another Senator 

nominated for a cabinet position, and I appreciate the opportunity you have 

afforded me today. 

I have worked closely with many of you, on both sides of the dais, on matters related 

to criminal justice reform and you know just how deeply motivated I am by the 

many issues our next Attorney General will heavily influence. 

I know that some of my colleagues are unhappy that I'm breaking with Senate 

tradition to testifY against the nomination of one of my colleagues. But I believe, like 

perhaps all of my colleagues, that in the choice between standing with Senate norms 

or standing up for what my conscience tells me is best for our country, I will always 

choose conscience and country. 

While Senator Sessions and I have consistently disagreed on issues, he and I have 

always exercised a collegiality and mutual respect between us. 

Perhaps the best example of this is the legislation we cosponsored to award the 

Congressional Gold Medal to those "foot soldiers" who marched at Selma, Alabama. 

This was a blessing and honor to me because, in 2015, a retired judge, who was 

white, told me it was those brave marchers on the Edmund Pettis Bridge who 

inspired him as a young lawyer in the 1960s to seek "justice for all" in New jersey, 

and begin representing black families looking to integrate white neighborhoods. 

One of those families was mine. 

I am literally sitting here because of people- marchers in Alabama and volunteer 

lawyers in New Jersey- who saw it as their affirmative duty to pursue justice. 

The march for justice in America still continues. 

I know of the urgency for law and order. I imagine that no sitting Senator has lived 

in higher crime neighborhoods than I have. I have seen unimaginable violence on 

American streets. I know the tremendous courage of law enforcement who put their 

lives on the line every day to fight crime. 

I want an Attorney General who is committed to supporting law enforcement and 

securing law and order. But that is not enough. 

1 
335 

America was founded heralding not law and order, but justice for all. And critical to 

that is equal justice under the law. 

Law and order without justice is unobtainable, they are inextricably tied together. If 

there is no justice, there is no peace. 

The Alabama State Troopers on the Edmond Pettis Bridge were seeking law and 

order. 

The marchers were seeking justice- and ultimately the greater peace. 

One of the victories of the Modern Civil Rights movement was the 1957 Civil Rights 

Act, which in effect made the Attorney General not only the chief law enforcement 

officer ofthe United States, but also vested in the office the responsibility to pursue 

civil rights and equal protections for all in America. 

Senator Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requirement of 

the job- to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal 

rights, and justice for all. In fact, at numerous times in his career, he has 

demonstrated a hostility toward these convictions, and has worked to frustrate 

attempts to advance these ideals. 

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will be required to pursue justice for women, but his 

record indicates that he won't. 

He will be expected to defend the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans, but his 

record indicates that he won't. 

He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates that he won't. 

He will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants and affirm their human 

dignity, but his record indicates he won't. 

His record indicates that as Attorney General he would obstruct the growing 

national bipartisan movement toward criminal justice reform. 

His record indicates that we cannot count on him to support state and national 

efforts toward bringing justice to a justice system that people on both sides of the 

aisle readily admit is biased against the poor, drug addicted, mentally ill, and people 

of color. 

His record indicates that at a time when even the FBI director is speaking out about 

implicit racial bias in policing and the need to address it; at a time when the last two 

Attorneys General have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system; and at 

a time when the Justice Department he would lead has uncovered systemic abuses 

2 
336 

in police departments all over the United States including Ferguson, including 

Newark; Senator Sessions would not continue to lead urgently needed change. 

The next Attorney General must bring hope and healing to our country, and this 

demands a more courageous empathy than Senator Sessions' record demonstrates. 

Challenges of race in America cannot be addressed if we refuse to confront them. 

Persistent biases cannot be defeated unless we combat them. 

The arc ofthe universe does not just naturally curve toward justice- we must bend 

it. 

If one is to be Attorney General they must be willing to continue the hallowed 

tradition in our country of fighting for justice for all, for equal justice, and for civil 

rights. America needs an Attorney General who is resolute and determined to bend 

the arc. Senator Sessions' record does not speak to that desire, intention, or will. 

With all that is at stake in our nation now, I pray that my colleagues will join me in 

opposing his nomination. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

3 
337 

Good afternoon members of this distinguished panel. It is a pleasure 

and a privilege to appear before you today. 

My name is Willie J Huntley Jr. I am an attorney located in Mobile, AI. I 

have been practicing law for over 30 years. I am a solo practioner, with 

The Huntley Firm, PC. My law firm is engaged in providing litigation 

based legal services. My practice consists of criminal and civil litigation. 

This involves civil rights, personal injury actions and representation of 

state, municipal and county governmental agencies. 

I attended Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama on a football 

scholarship where I played running back for the Tigers (War Eagle). I 

graduated from Auburn University in 1980 with a degree in political 

science. I graduated from Cumberland School of Law located in 

Birmingham, AI in 1984. I was admitted to the Alabama Bar in 1984. 

In 1984 I served as a law clerk for United States District Court Judge 

Robert Varner in Montgomery, AI.. Following my clerkship, I started a 

position as an Assistant District Attorney in Macon County Alabama 

from 1984-1986. I was responsible for supervising all operations and 

prosecuting all criminal cases in District and Circuit Court. 

From 1987-1991, I served as an Assistant United States Attorney, in the 

Southern District of Alabama, located in Mobile, Alabama. 

I met Jeff Sessions in 1986. My first contact was thru a phone call to my 

office while I was an assistant district attorney. At the time of the 

phone calli was aware of the allegations made against Jeff during his 

bid to obtain a federal judgeship. I recall my secretary came into my 

office to tell me that Jeff Sessions was on the phone. My first thought 

was is this a prank call. My second thought was why is Sessions calling 
338 

me, I knew I had not committed a crime in Mobile. I answered the call 

and it was in fact Jeff Sessions. During the conversation, I was asked if I 

was interested in joining his office in Mobile as an AUSA. I was very 

interested. During law school I clerked for the US Attorney Office in 

Birmingham, AI. We made arrangements to have dinner in Montgomery 

AI. 

We met along with our spouses for dinner. The dinner was supposed to 

last 1 Y2 hours, shorter if there was a problem. My wife and I were very 

aware that Jeff had been labeled as a RACIST. The dinner lasted nearly 3 

hours. The 4 of us discussed a variety of topics that included politics, 

religion, sports, (Auburn in particular) Boy Scouts ( I was a former Boy 

Scott),law, family, cases I handled as an assistant district attorney and 

the type cases I would handle as an AUSA. 

We specifically discussed the allegation that Jeff called an AUSA "boy". 

Jeff very openly explained the allegation and denied that the event ever 

occurred. During the meeting I became firmly convinced that the man 

sitting before me was not a RACIST! My then wife and I discussed the 

matter and we both concluded Jeff was not a racist. 

I still had concerns because I was moving my family to Mobile. A place 

where neither one of us had family or friends. My instincts could be 

wrong about Jeff and he is a racist and my family could be stuck in a 

very difficult situation. We made the move. 

I was assigned to prosecute general criminal crimes and specifically civil 

rights violation. Being the person with the least seniority, I was assigned 

the less popular assignments. The first day Jeff assigned me the task of 

writing a brief in a criminal appeal. The brief was due within 10 days. 

Jeff wanted the draft of the brief several days ahead of the due date for 
339 

his review and to insure the brief was timely filed. I met the deadline. 

Jeff returned the draft after his review. When I looked at the draft there 

was a capital A written in red ink at the top of the first page followed by 

the initials JBS. I didn't know I was going to receive a grade. 

My first jury trial was a felon in possession of a firearm. Jeff assigned a 

veteran AUSA to help me prepare for trial. Jeff also offered advice on 

jury selection and trial tactics. 

While overseeing civil rights cases, several cases were brought by the 

Justice Department Civil Rights Division involving indictments of 

excessive use of force by police officers. Jeff fully supported these 

prosecutions. One such case involved the prosecution of a Selma AI 

police officer that was the son of then Mayor of Selma. 

During my tenure as an AUSA Jeff was always available for advice and 

counsel on professional and personal matters. Jeff maintained an open 

door policy and had time for everyone in the office, even while he 

served on the Attorney General Advisory Committee. There were 

occasions when Jeff did not know I was listening or I was present and I 

never heard or felt that he was racially insensitive. 

My second child, Ashley, was born in the early morning hours following 

12 hours of labor. While I was sitting in the room around 7 am half 

asleep, there was a knock on the door. I was expecting a nurse to open 

the door. The early morning visitor was Jeff Sessions. I was very 

surprised to see Jeff. We discussed the birth, he checked on my wife 

and daughter and made sure everyone was okay, he wasn't worried 

very much about me. The visit lasted about 30 minutes. Jeff has visited 

in my home many times, attended my family functions. My family has 
340 

visited in his and Mary's home. He knows all my family members 

including my 82 year old mother. 

In 1991, I made the difficult decision to leave the best job I ever held. I 

received an offer to enter private practice with a law firm that 

specialized in asbestos personal injury defense litigation. Jeff tried 

everything in his power to convince me to stay. This departure would 

not end our relationship. 

After Jeff was elected Attorney General, I joined his transition team. 

Jeff later assigned me to represent the State of Alabama in ongoing civil 

litigation as a Special Assistant Attorney General. This assignment 

involved the defense of a statewide race discrimination case against the 

State of Alabama. The case involved several hundred state employees. I 

also handled condemnation cases. 

During Jeff's tenure as Alabama Attorney General, he was charged with 

violating the State Ethics Act involving arising from a criminal 

investigation connected with a company called Tieco. Jeff could have 

retained any lawyer to defend the Ethics charges. However )eff 

selected my Firm to defend the charges .Following a 9 hour hearing, the 

charges were determined to be unfounded and dismissed .Jeff was 

then able to successfully win a US Senate seat. 

In closing I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. Jeff Sessions is the perfect choice for Attorney General. The 

man you witnessed testify yesterday is the man I have known for over 

30 years. The man you saw testify yesterday is the man that has never 

displayed to me over 30 years any racial insensitivity. The man you saw 

testify yesterday I entrusted with my oldest son, Buddy, currently 

practicing law in Atlanta, Ga .. I would have never allowed my son to 
341 

work in Washington DC as an intern for a man I thought was a racist. I 

sent my oldest child to Jeff because he would take care of him and treat 

him the same way Jeff treated me. I wouldn't hesitate to send my 

youngest child, Alexis to work for Jeff. I believe Jeff Sessions as Attorney 

General of the United States and head of the Department of Justice, 

understands and respects the power and responsibility that goes hand 

in hand with the position. Jeff Sessions will enforce and follow the laws 

of the United States evenhandedly, equally and with justice for all. Jeff 

sessions will adhere to the Justice department motto "Qui Pro Domina 

Justitia Sequitur" translated from Latin means for "Who prosecutes on 

behalf of justice (or the Lady Justice" Jeff Sessions will protect and 

defend the rights of all people. 
342 

(£ongnss of tbe ~lnitel:l $lt«tcs ~)om!r of l'rprc!Srntiltilm.l 

~ltlashington. DC 205LS-to05 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS (GA) 

ON THE NOMINATION OF SENATOR JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, Ill 

TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

January 11,2017 

Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Millions of Americans are encouraged by attempts to create a more inclusive democracy 

in the last 50 years. There is a clear majority of Americans, who want ours to be a fair and just 

nation. The people who are afraid today about the direction this nation is headed are the voices I 

represent today. They are deeply disturbed by leaders who reject decades of progress and seek to 

return to a dark past when the power of law was used to deny the freedoms guaranteed to all 

Americans by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments. 

I am here today to raise questions about the President-elect's nominee for attorney 

general, because many are concerned that his call for "law and order" means what it meant in 

Alabama and other parts of the South -- where the law was used to violate the rights of the most 

vulnerable among us. 

I was born and raised in the heart of rural Alabama -- not very far from where Senator 

Sessions grew up. In fact, I am only a few years older than Senator Sessions. He was born in 

I946, and I was born in 1940. In those days there was no way to miss the chokehold of 

discrimination and hate that was rampant throughout our State. Segregation was the law; it 

ordered the society of the Deep South. An African American who did not cross the street when a 

white person walked down the san1e sidewalk, who did not move to the back of the bus, who 

drank from a white water fountain, or who looked a white person directly in his eyes could be 

arrested and taken to jail. 

All around us there was murder and lynching. Black men were castrated. Women and 

children were beaten and harassed. Churches were bombed. Four little girls were killed on a 

Sunday morning. Civil rights workers were disappearing. Three young men I knew -- James 

Chaney, Andrew "Andy" Goodman, and Michael "Mickey" Schwerner --were beaten, shot, and 

killed for helping African Americans register to vote. 

Senator Sessions and I come from a region with a history of beating and jailing people 

because of the color of their skin. Heart-breaking stories like those of Virgil Ware, a !3-year-old 
343 

boy who was shot near Birmingham by an Eagle Scout inspired by a segregationist rally, were 

far too frequent. We come from a region where many White southerners- lawyers, ministers, 

rabbis who exercised their legal right to criticize these actions were forced to flee their homes. 

This was the law and the order of our society in Alabama. This was the world where Senator 

Sessions and I were both raised. 

I was one of many young people who could no longer stand on the sidelines and watch 

discrimination happen, even though it was the law of the land. The forces of law and order in 

Alabama were so strong that those of us who wanted to stand up against this injustice had to 

confirm that we knew we were willing to put our bodies our lives- on the line. We knew that 

the price of dissent could be death. The only way we could demonstrate that the law which 

ordered Alabama society was an offense to human dignity was to challenge that law and expose 

the moral injustice people of color had to endure. 

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that it is not law that is sacred above all, but the spark of 

the divine that is enshrined in every human being. As leaders of this society, we cannot simply 

wrap ourselves in the rule of law and use it as an excuse to cover the enforcement of inherent 

bias in the statutes. It is our daily work as legislators to seek to create laws that are fair but also 

respect the human dignity of all Americans, not just some. 

That is why I see myself in the young people of today who are protesting against the 

order of our society that treats some crimes with lenience but offers the harshest penalties to their 

mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. It is important to question how the nominee will 

confront the challenges of warranted criticism, or free, but unsavory, speech, and the exercise of 

the right to demonstrate how the law itself creates injustice. 

On March 7, 1965, Hosea Williams --who worked with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. --

and I attempted to lead a march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery. Many men, 

women, and children were beaten, trampled, and gassed by the local sheriff. The terrible events 

of that day led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and are part of the historical 

record used to validate the reauthorization of that law in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and most 

recently in 2006. When people around the country and the world saw what passed for the 

enforcement of law and order in Alabama, their outcry was deafening. They demanded change. 

When Senator Sessions served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, 

he chose to prosecute a few of those civil rights icons who were on the bridge with us that day. 

If you look closely at the pictures, you can see one of those gentlemen, Mr. Albert Turner, in the 

second row, right behind Hosea. The Marion Three, as they were known, were tried for voter 

fraud as they attempted to register people to vote in rural Perry County, people who before had 

had no voice. In a matter of hours, an Alabama jury predisposed to convicting African 

Americans found them all innocent of any guilt. Mrs. Albert Turner, who was wronged by these 

actions, still bears the traumatic memory of his prosecution to this day. 

It took massive, orchestrated dissent for Congress to pass and the President to sign the 

Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 into law. It required criticism of this great nation and the laws 

that were on the books to move this nation toward equal justice. We have made a lot of progress, 

2 
344 

but we are not there yet. As demonstrated by the thousands of pages of evidence submitted to 

Congress during the 2006 VRA reauthorization, voting discrimination and the scars and 

remnants of racism are still deeply embedded in our society. 

In 1986 letters submitted to this very Committee, Mrs. Coretta Scott King opposed Mr. 

Session's nomination to be a Federal judge, and Alabama State legislators highlighted his 

comment that "the Voting Rights Act is an intrusive piece of legislation and black and white 

people could work out any problems without having civil rights forced down their throats." 

These foot soldiers for voting rights knew that any progress was due solely to the effectiveness 

and continued need of the Voting Rights Act. 

Elected in 1996, Senator Sessions had many opportunities to take a true leadership role. 

Unfortunately, as a Senator and a Member of this very Committee, Senator Sessions continued to 

turned a blind eye to unrelenting efforts to suppress minority voting rights during the 2006 VRA 

reauthorization. 

His carefully crafted speeches mirrored those of others who declared the Voting Rights 

Act a relic of the past. Senator Sessions begrudgingly voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights 

Act in 2006. He argued for a new formula and for the burden to be on the Department of Justice, 

not the States. He cited an increase in voter turnout and in African Americans serving in public 

office as signs of change, and he echoed an irritation which mirrored those forces in Alabama 

whose continued attempts to suppress minority voting rights were thwarted hundreds of times by 

the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Not once have I heard Senator Sessions praise the VRA for the changes and protections 

against present-day, ongoing, discriminatory practices in jurisdictions previously covered by the 

preclearance formula. Not once did he condemn his hometown's continued efforts to prevent 

African American representation on the City Council. Not once did he praise the Department of 

Justice's success in thwarting repeated attempts to undermine minority voting rights in Alabama. 

Not once have I heard Senator Sessions acknowledge the cold, hard facts necessitating 

Alabama's continued preclearance coverage under the VRA. 

The record must be clear. Voting Rights Act had a two-way door. There were 

jurisdictions which were no longer subjected to preclearance after building a strong record, and 

there were jurisdictions added for failing to adhere to the spirit and letter of the law. For 

decades, Alabama participated in a pervasive, concerted attempt to suppress minority voting 

rights. Time and time again, Alabama and many other covered States and jurisdictions made the 

case for the VRA's continued need and fought at every possible opportunity against the law's 

implementation. After years of determined defiance, Alabama finally succeeded in breaking the 

heart and soul of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County v. Holder case. 

In the aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, when the Supreme Court gutted 

the heart and soul of the Voting Rights Act, minorities and civil rights advocates were in 

mourning, while Senator Sessions was jubilant. He called the decision "good news for the 

South." Before the ink was dry on the Shelby County v. Holder decision, states like Alabama, 

3 
345 

Texas, and North Carolina adopted flagrantly restrictive voter identification legislation -which 

defied the spirit and intent of the Voting Rights Act. After the Shelby County v. Holder decision, 

Alabama even began closing the very offices where African Americans and other voters now 

needed to secure the newly required voter identification. It was the modern version of counting 

bubbles on a bar of soap or jelly beans in ajar. 

Too many people believe that the 48 years of a fully-operational Voting Rights Act 

stomped out hundreds of years of hate. Truth be told, Alabama and many other covered 

jurisdictions made the case for the Voting Rights Act time and time again. Alabama's persistent, 

consistent efforts to discriminate against minority voters resulted in Federal court cases and 

consent decrees. These extraordinary measures are the only reason why Alabama does not have 

the recent records of Georgia, Mississippi, or Texas. Let me be even clearer, without the Voting 

Rights Act, Alabama's recent record would be much, much worse. 

Representing Alabama on this Committee, Senator Sessions had an opportunity to lead, 

but in Senator Sessions' mind, there is an "excessive focus on race in American politics." His 

friends may argue that he was only doing his job, but the Senator knows full well that the law of 

Alabama and in many states in the Deep South is used like a ramrod not to cultivate justice, but 

to implement the political will of one group over another to this very day. 

This is why so many Americans fear potentially unprecedented opposition and hostility 

towards realizing the mission and mandate of the Civil Rights Division and the Voting Section of 

the Department of Justice. This is what is so concerning about the idea of someone who voted 

against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Violence Against Women Act being the chief 

law enforcement official in our nation. 

We have made progress. We have come a long way, but we are not there yet. Old 

women and young children may not be beaten and trampled by horses, but there are other means 

and devices of suppressing the guarantee of all Americans to stand up and speak out for their 

rights. 

We are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic country. We are and must be aware of our 

differences. We cannot escape this reality. The issue of discrimination cannot be swept into a 

corner or under a rug. It is still here. Senator Sessions grew up in Alabama the same way that I 

did. Maybe he did not taste the bitter fruits of racism, but there is no way to ignore the lingering 

reality of hate in our country. 

Look around. In recent years, we witnessed forces coming out of the shadows. There is 

a deliberate, systematic attempt to take us back to a different time, a different place. No one, but 

no one should be discriminated against because of their race, religion, disability, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Will he feel the hurt and pain of the people today, 

or will he disregard it as a memory pain of the past? 

Discrimination existed in the past, and it exists to this day. Those familiar with history 

know all too well that the law can be used to deny or to protect human dignity. This is why the 

head of the Department of Justice is one of the most important positions in our nation, and its 

leader must be a headlight, not a taillight for all Americans, not just a select few. It will require 

4 
346 

more than "maintaining" the freedom and equality of the system. It will take more than a 

commemorative photo on a bridge in Selma or a medal ceremony in the Capitol. It will take 

hard work and commitment from the soul. 

At times and when pressed, Senator Sessions may have done what was required, but the 

question is whether he go the extra mile. Today, I ask the members of this Committee to 

consider the same question that Senator Sessions posed to many witnesses who went through this 

very same confirmation process. Will his background, sympathies, and prejudices impact his 

service to our nation? 

Mr. Chairman, I have heard members of this Committee imply that we must ignore the 

past, that we should not give weight to the actions of another period. I disagree. I believe it is 

the only true answer to the questions asked today. 

Many want to gamble with the question, "Where does Senator Sessions stand?" As a 

fellow Southerner, I have no doubt that Senator Sessions is polite to all he meets. My concern is 

not about how nice he is; it is about what is in his heart and soul. Will he open up the political 

process? Will he fight to realize the dream of one person, one vote? Will he support the spirit 

and the will of the law? Will he join the civil rights community in enforcing the remaining 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act? Will he work with Congress to restore the preclearance 

formula? 

Or will the Senator encourage a continued and full assault on the remnants the Voting 

Rights Act as he did in the aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder decision? Will he oppose 

common-sense, bipartisan, legislative responses to fix what the Supreme Court broke? Will he 

empower career staff to fight for the human rights and civil rights of all - especially those who 

have no one to speak up and speak out for them? 

Let me be crystal clear. If we are to govern this nation justly, we must protect progress at 

every turn, not elevate those who question the necessity of progress itself. The Attorney General 

is expected to be a champion of justice for all people. They fight to ensure that every person -

White, African American, Latino, Asian, or Native American- will be allowed to participate in 

the democratic process and that every person will be afforded equal protection under the law. 

When faced with a challenge, Senator Sessions has frequently chosen to stand on the 

wrong side of history. As the entire world watches, I ask the Members of this Committee to look 

deep within and ask whether we can take that chance with the highest law enforcement official in 

our country. Leadership is not easy. You have a lot of information and are digging for the truth. 

You are expected to make tough decisions- to do what is right, what is just, and what is fair for 

those who hope that you will stand up on their behalf. 

Again, I thank you for the invitation and opportunity to testify today. 

5 
347 

STATEMENT OF JESSE SEROYER, 

FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, IN SUPPORT OF 

JEFF SESSIONS FOR 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Good morning Chaiiman Grassley and Senator Feinstein. 

My name is Jesse Seroyer, Jr. I am from the State of Alabama. My 

professional career spans from 1976 to 2016 which includes eleven 

years with the Opelika Police Department, Opelika, Alabama, eight and 

one-half years as United States Marshal for the Middle District of 

Alabama, and twenty and one-half years with the Alabama Attorney 

General Office. I am not a politician or political activist, but I have 

known Jeff Sessions personally for over twenty years. 

I first met Jeff Sessions when he served as the United States Attorney for 

the Southern District of Alabama. As U.S. Attorney, Jeff prosecuted a 

Klansman for the abduction and murder of a black teenager. 

Following Jef~s election as Alabama Attorney General, I had the 

privilege to serve on his transition team and later served as his Deputy 

Chief Investigator. The beginning of his tenure as Attorney General 

presented Senator Sessions with challenges that included a budget crisis, 

a one-third reduction of staff, and a reorganization as a result of staff 

reduction. Professionalism, accountability, and compassion for the 

employees that lost their jobs were evident in all of the decisions made 

by Jeff Sessions. One example of this is the decision to work diligently 

to retain an African American investigator for additional months totaling 

less than a year in order for the investigator to be able to retire. Another 

decision was to keep me. Jeff did not have to do that, but he did. 

In regards to his expectations of the Attorney General, we were charged 

with the responsibilities of working various types of cases which 

included: White Collar Crimes; Public Corruption; Voter Fraud; and 

1 
348 

Criminal Investigations. As I reflect on our work, there was never a time 

when any of these cases was investigated with any political agenda or 

motive. The utmost respect and integrity was exercised for all 

individuals involved. Jeff Sessions' service and decisions as attorney 

general earned him a reputation of respect among his colleagues and an 

appreciation for his willingness to do what was right for all of the people 

of Alabama. 

As Attorney General, Jeff Sessions argued to uphold the conviction and 

sentence of Klansman Henry Hays for the murder of Michael Donald. 

When Jeff became a U.S. Senator, he helped me be appointed as the 

United States Marshal for the Middle District of Alabama. He did not 

have to do that, but he did. While Jeff was serving in the U.S. Senate, 

Klansman Henry Hays was executed in the electric chair. 

In the over two decades that I have known Jeff, the man, he has never 

said or done anything that indicated to me that he is a racist or racially 

insensitive. His words and his actions have shown me that he is a 

straight arrow, law and order prosecutor who gets the job done. 

It did not matter to Jeff if the victim of a crime was black or the criminal 

suspect was white. What mattered was doing the right thing. 

Regardless of politics, Jeff followed the law and the facts. Jeff Sessions 

loves the law and he loves the law enforcement people who protect 

families from criminals every day. 

I did not learn these things from a politician's press release or a special 

interest group's website. I learned them from over 20 years of knowing 

Jeff Sessions. He is a good and decent man. He will be a great Attorney 

General of the United States. 

2 
349 

Testimony of the Honorable Cedric L. Richmond, Member of Congress 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 

"Attorney General Nomination" 

Tuesday, January 10,2017 

9:30A.M. 
350 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 

their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... " -Declaration of Independence 

"No State shall ... deny fo any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

" ... one Nation under God, indivisible, with liber~v and justice for all." -Pledge of Allegiance 

Jeff Sessions record on issues of civil rights, law, and justice disqualifies him from 

assuming the position of Attorney General of the United States. 

I would like to thank Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and the Members 

of this esteemed Committee for allowing me to testify before you today. The Constitutional duty 

of the United States Senate to advise and consent to presidential appointees is an essential check 

on executive power and a fundamental component of American democracy. I know that you do 

not take lightly the process you all are now undertaking, and I do not underestimate the gravity 

of the moment before us. 

The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration oflndependence, set forth the ideal of universal 

equality that rests at the heart of the most vibrant democracy in the history of the world. When 

Congress proposed, and the States ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment with its Equal Protection 

Clause, our nation took a giant step toward fulfilling that foundational principle. The Pledge of 

Allegiance, recited everyday in grade school classrooms and in the halls of this very Congress, 

serves as a constant reminder that every one of us hears a solemn duty to continue striving 

towards the achievement of justice for all Americans. While all of the officials appointed by the 

President of the United States and confirmed by this body have a tremendous responsibility to 

recognize, protect, and advance the interests of the American people, there is no ofilce for which 

the duty to apply the law equally is greater than that of the Attorney General of the United States. 

On January 3'd of this year, I was sworn in as the 25th Chair of the Congressional Black 

Caucus. For more than 45 years, the Black Caucus, known as the "Conscience of the Congress," 
351 

has worked to improve conditions for African-Americans across the country. The Black Caucus 

enters the I lS'h Congress with a record 49 Members representing tens of millions of AfricanAmericans from all walks of life. Our constituents live in urban city centers, nearby suburbs, and 

rural counties. They are doctors and lawyers; schoolteachers and firefighters; football coaches 

and small business owners. We represent kids leaving home for college prepared to take on the 

world and parents returning home from prison searching for a second chance at life. The 

experiences and realities of our constituents are as broad and diverse as America itself. One 

thing that we all share, however, is that all of our lives have been impacted tremendously by the 

work and mission of the Department of Justice, and by the many men and women who have been 

responsible for leading the department's efforts to create a more just and equitable America. 

On June 22, I 870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law legislation creating the 

United States Department of Justice, drastically increasing the Attorney General's 

responsibilities. Amos Akerman, the first Attorney General to lead the Department of Justice, 

used these expanded powers and resources to vigorously prosecute the Ku Klux Klan's 

widespread use of violent tactics against African-American voters in the South. Akerman's 

prosecutions and President Grant's willingness to enforce the law to stop the Klan, created 

conditions that facilitated massive African-American voting turnout in 1872. For the first time in 

our nation's history, former slaves were afforded the opportunity to participate in the democratic 

process, cementing the transition from slave to citizen. 

In the late 1950's, President Eisenhower's Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. drafted 

legislation that eventually became the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which created the Civil Rights 

Division at DOJ. This represented the first significant effort by the federal government to protect 

the constitutional rights of African-Americans since the Reconstruction period. In the early 
352 

1960's, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy worked to protect African-Americans from 

violence, especially those involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and started the process that 

would eventually produce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the next administration. 

Nickolas Katzenbach served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, 

and used his authority as the leader of the Department of Justice to enforce the provisions of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Katzenbach personally enforced the 

desegregation of the University of Alabama after Governor George Wallace stood in the 

doorway, refusing the admission of African-American students. Katzen bach also represented the 

United States in challenges to the Voting Rights Act, and fought for the Supreme Court to 

uphold the law's provisions which mandated that states with a history of discriminatory voting 

practices receive federal preclearance before enacting new voting laws. 

Eric Holder was nominated by President Barack Obarna in 2009 to serve as the nation's 

first African-American Attorney General. Holder led the Department of Justice's Smart On 

Crime Initiative which reversed practices that created disparities within the criminal justice 

system disproportionately impacting African-Americans and other minority communities. Holder 

also worked to create accountability measures for law enforcement entities that historically 

targeted minorities and were known for policing misconduct. 

The bottom line is that personnel matters. A great leader in the position of Attorney 

General can mean the difference between a robust effort to protect the rights of the aggrieved or 

a decision to neglect them. The office of Attorney General must be willing to uphold the banner 

of justice for all Americans, including those who have been underserved and underrepresented in 

our nation's pursuit for justice and equal rights. lt is through this context that we must 
353 

thoroughly examine the nomination of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Ill to serve as the 84th 

Attorney General of the United States of America. 

In 1986, President Reagan nominated Jeff Sessions, a young U.S. attorney from Mobile, 

Ala., for the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama. Due to his insensitivity on 

the questions of race, Sessions ultimately became only the second nominee in 50 years to be 

rejected by this very committee. Despite the fact that a Republican-controlled Judiciary 

Committee deemed Sessions too regressive on issues of race and civil rights to serve as a district 

court judge, now-Senator Sessions has been nominated to serve as Attorney General. 

Let me be clear. Sen. Sessions should not be disqualified from assuming this position 

simply because of a failed confirmation 30 years ago. The opposition of groups who have 

advocated on behalf of underserved communities for generations such as the National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; the 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; and the National Urban League among 

others, also should not, in and of itself, block this nomination from moving forward. 

As with any nominee, Sen. Sessions should be confinned or denied based on his record 

and the policies he can be expected to pursue upon taking office. When it comes to issues of 

justice, equality, and civil rights, Sen. Sessions' record is simply abhorrent. In a career spanning 

more than three decades in public service, he has sought to advance an agenda that will do great 

hann to African-American citizens and communities. It is for this reason that the CBC and its 

members believe Sen. Sessions should be disqualified for the post he now seeks to assume. 

Jeff Sessions has demonstrated a total disregard for the equal application of justice and 

protection of the law as it applies to African-Americans. 

Police Accountability 
354 

In November 2015, Sen. Sessions said "it is a real problem when we have Black Lives 

Matter making statements that are really radical, that are absolutely false, and then being invited 

to the White House." The Senator's callous dismissal of the legitimate complaints expressed by 

young activists in the Black Lives Matter movement is no surprise given his record on the issue 

of police accountability. In 1995, Sen. Sessions, in his capacity as Alabama's Attorney General, 

filed an amicus brief urging reversal of a federal court's decision that police officers were not 

shielded from a civil lawsuit alleging that they brutally wounded a suspect simply because they 

were working in their capacity as public officials. The Supreme Court ultimately affinned the 

decision, but if Sen. Sessions had had his way, private citizens would be severely limited in their 

ability to seek retribution for police brutality. 

The possibility that an individual who holds these views would run the agency with direct 

responsibility for oversight of law enforcement departments throughout the country has dire 

consequences for African-Americans, who are 3 112 times more likely than whites to experience 

the use of force. African-Americans account for 24 percent of police killings despite being just 

l3 percent of the U.S. population. Unarmed African-Americans are five times more likely than 

unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer. While some have attributed 

these disparities to higher levels of violence in African-American neighborhoods, police reform 

advocates and researchers have consistently concluded that there is no correlation between 

violent crime and who is killed by police ofticers. Given these stark realities, it should come as 

no surprise that African-Americans are only about half as likely as whites to have a positive view 

of the job their local police are doing when it comes to holding officers accountable when 

misconduct occurs. 
355 

It is unclear if Sen. Sessions believes that police officers should ever be held accountable 

for any level of misconduct. In a 2008 paper published by the Alabama Police Institute, Sen. 

Sessions called consent decrees a '"dangerous exercise of raw power" and an "end run around the 

democratic process." Under President Obama, DOJ began 23 investigations into law 

enforcement agencies accused of violating civil rights and entered II consent decrees to bring 

much-needed reforms to policing in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, and other cities. Without 

this level of federal intervention, it is unlikely that the citizens of Ferguson, MO would ever see 

relief from a police department that DOJ found to be engaged in a '"pattern or practice of 

unlawful conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution, and federal statutory law." The Department's report found that the Ferguson 

Police Department was targeting African-American residents and treating them as revenue 

streams for the city by striving to continually increase the money brought in through fees and 

fines. If this is Sen. Sessions' idea of the democratic process at work, he should be disqualified 

from consideration as the country's top law enforcement official. 

Alabama Judicial Elections 

In I 994, Sessions filed a federal court objection to a plan that would add black judges to 

state appeals courts. The plan was agreed to by his predecessor in the Alabama AG's office in 

order to settle a federal Voting Rights Act lawsuit filed by the Alabama Democratic Conference. 

The lawsuit claimed that the state appeals courts violated the Voting Rights Act because the 

statewide elections for judges make it difficult for blacks to be elected. The settlement would 

have allowed the state's governor to appoint black appeals court judges, but the judges would 

later have to run in statewide elections to retain the new appellate court slots. Sessions, a former 

U.S. attorney in Mobile, said the settlement created a 'racial quota' for the courts, took away 
356 

voters' rights to elect judges and protected incumbent judges. Once he was elected as Attorney 

General, Sessions told the lith U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that he couldn't defend the plan 

because it improperly focused on race and sent the message that race matters in the 

administration of justice. The Appeals Court ultimately voided the settlement. To this day, there 

has not been a single African-American judge on Alabama's appellate courts despite the fact that 

African-Americans make up more than one-fourth of the state's population. Only two AfricanAmericans have ever served on the Alabama Supreme Court. Both of them were appointed by a 

governor. 

Central Park Five/Death Penalty 

As recently as August, Sen. Sessions praised President-Elect Trump's 1989 campaign to 

bring back the death penalty for the "Central Park Five," a group of Black and Latino children 

accused of raping a white woman who were later exonerated by DNA evidence. According to 

Sen. Sessions, this showed President-Elect Trump's strength and his belief in law and order. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial 

disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." A defendant is 

several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. While whites 

make up 46 percent of murder victims, 76 percent of victims in death penalty verdicts since 1976 

are white. African-Americans make up 50 percent of murder victims, but only 15 percent of 

victims in death penalty verdicts are black. Given that death penalty proceedings have a proven 

racial bias, it should come as no surprise that African-Americans represent 63 percent of those 

exonerated by DNA testing. The fact that Sen. Sessions has voiced his support for a campaign 

calling for the execution of five American citizens in the face of exonerating evidence should 

give this Committee pause. In addition, Sen. Sessions' willingness to ignore this dark legacy of 
357 

the death penalty, a lasting vestige of Jim Crow-era lynching, calls into question his ability to 

apply the law in a manner that serves the interests of all Americans. 

Felon Disenfranchisement 

Today, nearly 6 million Americans are unable to vote because of a past felony conviction. 

African-Americans are four times more likely to be impacted by felony disenfranchisement laws 

than the rest of the adult population, with one out of every 13 African-Americans currently 

unable to access to the ballot due to a prior conviction. Despite making up only 13 percent of the 

population, African-Americans make up more than 30 percent of those impacted these laws. In 

2002. Sen. Sessions opposed legislation that would have restored felons' right to vote after they 

had completed their sentences. 

Sen. Sessions justified his opposition by stating the he "[doesn't] think American policy 

is going to be better informed if we have a bunch of felons in the process." In making this 

incredibly insensitive and uninformed statement, Sen. Sessions was not merely ignoring the 

tremendous negative impact these polices have on political participation in African-American 

communities. He was also willingly ignoring the 1985 decision in Hunter v. Undenvood, in 

which the Supreme Court struck down his home state of Alabama's felon disenfranchisement 

law after finding evidence that it was passed to intentionally exclude African-Americans from 

the ballot. 

Education 

In 1956, as a way to sidestep the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, 

Alabama voters amended the state Constitution to deprive students of a right to public education. 

As Alabama's Attorney General, Sen. Sessions led the battle against an Alabama circuit court 

ruling that determined the State's inequitable funding was unconstitutional and ordered the state 
358 

to come up with a system to remedy the inequity. 20 years later, the condition of Alabama's 

public schools stand as perhaps the darkest stain on Sen. Sessions' putrid civil rights legacy. In 

1972, due to strong federal enforcement, only about 25 percent of African-American students in 

the South attended intensely segregated schools in which at least nine out of I 0 students were 

racial minorities. In districts released from desegregation orders between 1990 and 20 II, 

53 percent of black students now attend such schools. In Alabama, thanks in part to the efforts of 

Sen. Sessions, nearly a quarter of African-American students now attend apartheid schoolsmeaning schools whose white population is I percent or less. This trend has devastating lasting 

effects as the achievement gap for African-American students grows the longer they spend in 

segregated schools. When they start gth grade, African-American students are already three years 

behind their white counterparts in math and reading . 

.Jeff Sessions supports a system of mass incarceration that has disproportionately targeted 

African-Americans citizens aud devastated African-American communities. 

In 1971, President Nixon declared a War on Drugs, which he labeled as "public enemy 

number one in the United States." At the time of this declaration, America's prisons and jails 

held fewer than 200,000 people. Today that number sits at over 2,000,000. The burdens of this 

failed war have fallen overwhelmingly on African-American communities. African-Americans 

make up 13.2 percent of the U.S. population but make up 35 percent of jail inmates, and 37 

percent of prison inmates. African-American males are incarcerated at more than six times the 

rate of white males, and African-American females are incarcerated at more than double the rate 

of white females. 

These disparities can largely be attributed to the fact that police have targeted poor 

African-American neighborhoods, funneling more of those residents into the criminal justice 

system. African-American adults use drugs at similar or even lower rates than white adults, yet 
359 

African-Americans are more than two-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for drug 

possession, and nearly four times more likely to be arrested for simple marijuana possession. In 

2014, African-American adults accounted for just 14 percent of those who used drugs but close 

to a third of those arrested for drug possession. Once in court, judges are tougher on AfricanAmerican drug offenders every step of the way. For example, nearly half of the counties in 

Florida sentence African-Americans convicted of felony drug possession to more than double the 

time of whites, even when their backgrounds are the same. In 2014, African-Americans were 

nearly six times more likely than white people to be in prison for drug possession. 

In recent years, leaders on both sides of the aisle, including many of the Members of this 

Committee, have found common ground on the need to reform our broken criminal justice 

system. The Justice Department, on August 2013, instructed federal prosecutors to charge and 

lock up fewer low-level drug offenders. This was central to then-Attorney General Eric Holder's 

Smart on Crime Initiative. Both the House and Senate made strides towards the passage of 

bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation in the most recent Congress. Everyone from the 

ACLU to the Koch Institute supported this effort. Unfortunately, the legislation ultimately 

stalled due in large part to the opposition of the most conservative members of the Senate led by 

Sen. Sessions. Sen. Sessions questioned whether the legislation would "send a message to judges 

and prosecutors that we're not interested in people serving sentences anymore" as "the crime rate 

is beginning to go up." This is a strange reason to oppose relatively modest, bipartisan legislation 

given that the U.S. crime rate is at a historic low. 

Sen. Sessions' opposition should come as no surprise given his career record on issues of 

crime and justice. In his time as Alabama's Attorney General and his time in the Senate, Sessions 

has supported the harsh truth-in-sentencing laws and mandatory minimums that have been 
360 

identified as the primary drivers of mass incarceration. In a 2002 floor statement, Sen. Sessions 

expressed his belief that our country has benefited from the War on Drugs. In a 20 I 5 interview 

with PBS, Sen. Sessions reaffirmed his belief that the war on drugs is a "success." Sen. Sessions 

has called marijuana reform a 'tragic mistake' and criticized FBI Director James Corney and 

Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch for not vigorously enforcing a the federal 

prohibition. He has characterized the unwillingness to oppose successful marijuana legalization 

ballot measures in the states as one of President Obama's "great failures." The fact that Sen. 

Sessions has remained steadfast in his wrongheaded views in spite of the fact that 

John Ehrliehman, counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President 

Nixon, has admitted that the War on Drugs was an effort to vilify African-American leaders and 

disrupt African-American communities is troubling. His willingness to declare drug enforcement 

policies that have devastated African-American communities across the country a "success" 

should be disqualifying. 

Jeff Sessions cannot be relied upon to enforce the Voting Rights Act and protect the voting 

rights of all Americans. 

As a U.S. Attorney, Sen. Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring 

charges against civil rights activists for voter fraud since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965 (VRA). In January 1985, Sen. Sessions, then the US Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama, charged three African-American activists with 29 counts of voter fraud. The group, 

known as the "Marion Three", faced over I 00 years in prison. At trial, the jury deliberated for 

less than three hours before returning a not guilty verdict on all counts. 

The Marion Three case marked the beginning of Sen. Sessions' role in the conservativeled effort to undermine the VRA, which he admitted to calling a "piece of intrusive legislation." 

Although he joined every other Senator in voting for a 2006 extension of the VRA, he did so 
361 

while criticizing the bill's critical Section 5 pre-clearance provisions. When the Supreme Court 

gutted these same provisions in Shelby County v. Holder, Sen. Sessions hailed the decision as 

"good news ... for the South." He stated, "if you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, 

people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of their skin." In the wake of that 

ruling, every single one of the states Sessions mentioned passed voting restrictions that 

disproportionately affected racial minorities. 

In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential 

election. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to 

registration restrictions. This is part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began 

after the 20 I 0 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh 

measures making it harder to vote. Six of the 16 states that have passed voter ID laws since 20 I 0 

have a documented history of discriminating against minority voters. All but one of those states' 

laws were put in place after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County. In July 2016, a U.S. 

circuit court struck down North Carolina's law, calling it "the most restrictive voting law North 

Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow." The judges charged that Republican lawmakers 

had targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision." 

Voter ID laws have all been sponsored by Republicans and passed overwhelmingly by 

Republican legislatures. These laws have all been justified based on a need to guard against 

alleged voter fraud. As Alabama's Attorney General, Sessions supported legislation that would 

force voters to show identification at the polls. In a June, 2012 Senate Judiciary hearing, Sen. 

Sessions criticized AG Holder for challenging state election laws, claiming that the laws were 

necessary to guard against voter fraud. In March 2013, Sen. Sessions voted to support requiring 

Americans to show a photo lD to vote in federal elections. While claims of widespread fraud are 
362 

rampant amongst those on the Right, the evidence to support such claims is scant. Researchers 

have found about 31 incidents of voter fraud in the more than I billion ballots that were cast in 

elections at all levels of government from 2000 through 2014. Of the more than 137.7 million 

ballots cast in the 2016 election, election and law enforcement officials in all 50 states have yet 

to report any indications of widespread fraud. 

Richard Posner, a conservative U.S. circuit court judge appointed by President Reagan, 

has called the concerns about fraud a "a mere fig leaf' intended to justify laws that "appear to be 

aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly Blacks." An analysis of voting laws 

nationwide found that only six of the 31 states that require 10 at the polls apply those standards 

to absentee voters, who are generally whiter and older than in-person voters and thus are more 

likely to vote Republican. If, as Judge Posner suggests, these laws are intended to suppress 

voting among African-Americans, preliminary evidence suggests that they are working. A 2014 

GAO study found that turnout dropped among both young people and African-Americans in 

Kansas and Tennessee after new voter ID requirements took effect in 2012. Given Sen. Sessions' 

support for these laws, it is no wonder that Gerald Hebert, a former DOJ attorney who testified 

against Sessions in his 1986 confirmation hearing, recently deemed his nomination as Attorney 

General as "a threat to voting rights for all minorities." 

In his decades-long career in public life, Sen. Jeff Sessions has proven himself unfit to serve 

in the role of Attorney General of the United States of America. 

I would not have the opportunity to testilY before this Committee if not for men like 

john Lewis who was beaten within an inch of his life in pursuit of the right to vote for 

African-Americans in the South. It's a shame that he must sit here more than 50 years later 

to defend the rights he fought so hard to gain. We sit here as the progeny of men and 

women who were bought, sold, enslaved, raped, tortured, beaten, and lynched. In the early 
363 

days of our nation, Black people were bought as chattel and considered three-fifths of a 

human beings. However, we have been able to endure and largely overcome that history 

thanks in part to brave men and women, both Democrat and Republican, who sat where 

you sit and cast often difficult votes for freedom and equality. These courageous legislators 

were often required to stand up to their friends, families, neighbors, and even members of 

their own party to do what they knew was right. I come before you today asking you to do 

the same. 

On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution 

abolishing slavery in the United States. On June 4, 1919, the Senate approved the Woman 

Suffrage Amendment, clearing the way for state ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment 

and universal suffrage for women throughout the country. On June 10, 1964, for the first 

time in the history of this illustrious body, the Senate was able to muster enough votes to 

cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. Nine days later the Senate approved the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, one of the 20th century's towering legislative achievements. On August 4, 

1965, the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act ensuring that America, for the first time in its 

history, would be a true democracy for all its citizens. As recently as November 7, 2013, 

Republican Members of this Committee joined your Democratic colleagues to pass the 

Employment Non-Discrimination Act, landmark legislation that would have barred most 

employers from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. 

While each of these bills was approved by a different collection of Senators facing a 

different national climate and different sets of political realities, they all share one thing in 

common. History will always look back fondly on each and every aye vote, knowing that it 

was cast by a courageous individual who found him or herself on the right side of history. 
364 

Now you all must face a choice: be courageous or be complicit. If you vote to confirm 

jeff Sessions, you take ownership of any and everything he may do in office. Long after the 

headlines have passed, history books will remember the choice you make. I understand the 

political incentive to support your Senate colleague and the nominee of a President-Elect 

who has returned control of the White House to your party. However, a vote to confirm 

Sen. Sessions as Attorney General is not simply run-of-the mill DC politics. jeff Sessions has 

no track record of fighting for justice for minorities. Far more often than not he has found 

himself on the wrong side of history on issues of equality and equal protection. jeff Sessions 

is to equal justice what George Wallace was equal access to education, what Bull Connor 

was to equal protection of the law. Each and every Senator who casts a vote to confirm Sen. 

Sessions will be permanently marked as a co-conspirator in an effort to move this country 

backwards towards a darker period in our shared history. So I ask you all, where do you 

stand? It is clear from Sen. Sessions' record where he stands. Will you stand with him and 

allow history to judge you for doing so? If the tables were turned, do you believe he would 

stake his legacy on your record as he's asking you to stake your legacy on his? I implore you 

all to take these questions seriously and weigh them properly as you prepare to cast what 

will be one of the most consequential votes in your time as a United States Senator. 
365 

Testimony by Mr. William Smith at a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General 

January 11,2017 

Chairman Grassley, Senator Feinstein and members of the Committee: 

I'm here today to express my absolute support and full confidence in Senator Jeff 

Sessions, who has been nominated by President-Elect Trump, to serve as Attorney 

General of the United States. 

I make this statement, not as someone who has known Senator Sessions in passing, but as 

someone who has had Jeff Sessions as a friend, boss and confidant for over 20 years. 

When I submitted my application to be admitted to the Supreme Court of the United 

States, I wanted one name as my movant, the name that throughout my Senate career 

exemplified "equal justice under law." The certificate on my wall bears the name of Jeff 

Sessions. 

I think it is important for the Committee and for members of the Senate to know my 

history with Senator Sessions, so it can be absolutely clear that I have first hand 

experience of his character, honesty, integrity and concern for people. 

I first met Senator Sessions at an Auburn football game in 1995. It would be 

inappropriate for me not to say WAR EAGLE, right here. At the time, he was Attorney 

General in Alabama, but campaigning for the Senate. I was working on another 

campaign. Senator Sessions and I talked for a few minutes before the game. At that 

time, Senator Sessions had a number of people he could have been talking to, but instead, 

missing opportunities to connect with voters, he stood there talking to me, someone he 

should have known was already going to vote for him, given who I was campaigning for. 

Most politicians you meet forget you and your name the moment you walk away from 

them. Senator Sessions remembered me and greeted me at the next Auburn game. He 

might not remember any of this, but I will never forget it. 

Fast forward to March 200 I, six years removed from that first meeting and some casual 

interactions between then. I was a research librarian at the University of Southern 

California School of Law and received a phone call out of the blue. Senator Sessions had 

a position open on his Senate Judiciary Committee staff, and during that phone 

conversation I was informed that they only had one candidate Senator Sessions wanted 

for the job; it was me, and I had not applied. The library profession is not known for 

promoting conservative policies, and Senator Sessions knew I was an African American, 

so he was recruiting an African American librarian out of California to potentially lead 

his Judiciary Committee staff. That's not a risk most conservatives would be willing to 

make. I began working for him in April2001, and when the Chief Counsel departed later 

that year, I was promoted to lead the Subcommittee Senator Sessions chaired despite 

there being other qualified attorneys on staff. It also became clear to me that I had been 

hired for that very purpose, to lead the legal team of Senator Sessions. 
366 

In May of200I, I had been working for Senator Sessions for a little over a month, when 

then Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party and caucused with the Democrats. 

Because of reduced budgets, I witnessed a number of Republican staffers lose their job. I 

was thinking, last man in, and first one out. I had sacrificed a successful academic career 

to move to Washington. Senator Sessions sensed that I was concerned and pulled me 

aside to tell me he knew the sacrifice I had made and assured me that he would find away 

to make sure I was able to keep my job, even though there was not enough money in the 

Judiciary Committee allotment to pay my salary. It was at that point I began to know of 

Senator Sessions' loyalty. 

Over the years, I have had a number of experiences to give me a sense of Senator 

Sessions' character. In one instance, after I first started, I neglected to turn in notice to 

the personal office about Judiciary hearings. We were having a hearing with the FBI 

director. Needless to say, when I went over to get the Senator the morning of the hearing, 

it blew up the schedule. I had more than a few people yelling at me and telling me that 

the Senator was going to have to miss the hearing. When I was in the middle of 

explaining that Senator Sessions knew about the hearing, as I had briefed him the night 

before, he happened to walk into the office. Different staffers told their version of how I 

had ruined the day and how important meetings on the schedule would be missed. 

Senator Sessions had a right to be angry with me. I had made a mistake, but what he was 

angry about was how he witnessed me being treated. He told the staff to calm down, that 

he was going to the FBI hearing and looked at me and smiled. As I recall, he and I were 

the only ones smiling in the office at that point. 

Throughout my time with Senator Sessions before I got married and moved away to 

practice law, we spent numerous hours together. The hours and the subject matter were 

challenging and our conversations were often challenging, because Senator Sessions had 

not hired me to be a yes man, but to give him my best advice. Even during those 

challenging times, Senator Sessions respected my point of view and me. He never said 

anything derogatory and never provided any sense that he had any racial animus. It was 

during these long hours where I recognized that Senator Sessions had become more of a 

friend and confidant than a boss. We would spend hours talking about my career path 

and my life and when I would tell the Senator how I had come over to talk about work, he 

would often say, "It's late, let's talk about that tomorrow." More times than not, he was 

more concerned for my well being than the memo we needed to discuss. 

Even when I moved to Alabama, I was not out of touch with Senator Sessions. I was 

Treasurer of his leadership PAC, so I've experienced multiple sides of his life. When 

Senator Arlen Spector switched parties and Senator Sessions became the ranking member 

on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions offered me the job of Chief Counsel on the 

full committee staff. While I was off the Hill, I did a lot of writing; one of my writings 

was seen by some as controversial. There was a media firestorm after my hire and 

members of my own staff advocated for Senator Sessions to distance himself from me 

and essentially invite me to find other work. Senator Sessions told those who did not 

want to stand with me, that they, not I would be looking for work. He did not cut and run 

on me. This is just another situation where some would have cheered Senator Sessions 
367 

for tenninating me, but instead he protected me. That's not the action a racist would take 

for an African American. 

Senator Sessions has the intellectual capacity to be an outstanding Attorney General. I 

have worked in a number of environments and interacted with a lot of smmi 

people. Senator Sessions is among the smaJiest. In one instance, we were discussing a 

trap and trace matter with some of the best lawyers from the Justice Department. Senator 

Sessions, using the memory recall that only few lawyers have about legal matters, left 

these DOJ lawyers baffled about a historic case that was on point. These lawyers later 

apologized to me for not being prepared for the meeting and unable to answer all of the 

questions from Senator Sessions. I told them not to worry. This was not the first time 

Senator Sessions had left a group of intellectuals baftled and it would not be the last time. 

Senator Sessions has been my fi·iend and my confidant. He was there to advise me when 

I made the decision to return home to Alabama and practice law this after convincing 

me one last time, to give him one more year as his Chief. He was there to advise me 

when I made the decision to come back to Washington. When my dad became sick and 

passed away and I needed to spend an extended period in Alabama, Senator Sessions 

never questioned the time I needed to take off. Instead, he was praying for me and my 

family and checking to make sure we were doing fine. He was very supportive during a 

time when !needed support. 

Much has been said about the record of Senator Sessions on a number of matters, but the 

truth is. his political views are very mainstream. I could systematically go through every 

issue that has been raised, but I'll limit my comments to three: 

I was working for Senator Sessions when practically the first issue I think Senator 

Sessions had to face on immigration, moved to the forefront. Senator Durbin had 

introduced the Dream Act and I received a memo from one of the lawyers on staff 

recommending that we support the legislation. I instructed the lawyer to rewrite the 

memo, opposing the legislation. At that point. I practically took over establishing the 

immigration recommendations in the office, basing the recommendations off of legal 

immigration not illegal activities. Senator Sessions might have not followed the original 

recommendation, but l state this to demonstrate that it does not make you racist because 

you oppose people benefiting from illegal activities. Senator Sessions, just like me. 

supports legal immigration. Indeed, my wife immigrated legally t!·om the Philippines. 

There has been much talk about the Voting Rights Act. Even though Senator Sessions 

voted for the Voting Rights Act, members, political pundits, and the media continue to 

misrepresent his position on the legislation. I statled Senator Sessions during a p011ion of 

the Voting Rights Act debate. The Supreme Court in the Shelby County case struck down 

a portion of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5that we had sought to modify. The truth is. 

discrimination and voter fraud remains a problem, but it is not limited to the South. 

During the debate, there was direct evidence of voter suppression in places such as 

Massachusetts, so Republicans offered an amendment to expand Section 5 to all fifty 
368 

states. Democrats signaled and demonstrated that all amendments would be blocked. If 

that amendment had passed. Section 5 would still be law today. So Senator Sessions is 

not to blame for the negligence of members who blocked an amendment to save a critical 

p01iion ofthe Voting Rights Act. 

One of the latest allegations against Senator Sessions is that he has been fighting criminal 

justice refonn. This. again, simply mischaracterizes the facts. What Senator Sessions 

opposes is releasing convicted. violent drug offenders, which the current proposal does. 

Let's not forget, again, while I was working with Senator Sessions, how he championed 

reducing the disparities between crack and powder cocaine after receiving request from 

the NAACP to help African American communities. The original version of the bill had 

a pilot program to release non-violent elderly offenders. Senator Sessions had sympathy 

toward these people. having witnessed grandmothers and girlfriends sentenced to long 

sentences for refusing to turn on a son. daughter or boyfriend. So instead of fighting 

against true reforn1, Senator Sessions has been a leader. 

I could note countless other mischaracterizations, but I think it is clear from these 

examples that Senator Sessions has taken reasonable approaches to policy. 

I did not know Senator Sessions in 1986, but I have studied his record. I have reviewed 

the evidence and even by the lowest standards, anyone looking at the evidence fairly 

could not say that he is a racist. All of the witnesses who testified against him in 1986 

were discredited, with at least two of them writing the Committee to admit they had 

provided false testimony. In the one case that has received prominent attention. all of the 

defendants agreed to plead guilty to at least one count, providing a pretty clear indication 

that even they thought they were guilty of something. I know that he prosecuted 

members of the Ku Klux Klan. stood up against George Wallace in Alabama and filed 

lawsuits to desegregate the schools, but those are things I've only been able to read about 

and investigate over the years. The real experience is my personal experience. 

Again, I have 20 years of history with Senator Sessions. What I've learned over that 

period of time is that he is an honorable man, who believes in the rule of law. pursues 

justice under all circumstances and loves his family and friends. I've learned that Senator 

Sessions is willing to debate anyone on the merits, but he's not willing to attack their 

character. In my I 0 years of working for him and writing speeches for him. he would 

agree to debate on the merits. but he would not pursue personal insults or character 

assassinations. That is what makes this process so painful to witness. From my point of 

view, Senator Sessions has respected his Senate colleagues. never sought revenge for the 

way he was mistreated; he has worked fairly with them, debated them vigorously. but 

never pursued a derogatory approach. I simply wish everyone would take the same 

approach as Senator Sessions. What I've learned through my 20 year history with him is 

that integrity. honor. and humility is more important that a political victory where 

personal attacks are the means to achieve that victory. 

I'm here to support the nomination of Senator Sessions because everyone in this city who 

knows him, everyone in Alabama and around the country who knows him, might not 
369 

agree with some of his policy views, but not one person can honestly look into his heart 

and not see the love he has for his country, the rule of law, and the Department of Justice. 

I support Jeff Session because he's the exactly what we need at the Department of 

Justice, someone would will enforce and defend the laws of the United States regardless 

of whether he agrees with them personally. because that's his job. I wholeheartedly stake 

my reputation on Senator Sessions. He will serve our nation well. 
370 

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions 

to be United States Attorney General 

January 10,2017 

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this very important hearing to consider the 

nomination of our colleague Senator Sessions to serve as the 84th Attorney General of the 

United States. 

Before we get started, I want to set out a couple ground rules. I'm going to handle this hearing 

the same way I handled the hearing for Attorney General Lynch's nomination. And it's also the 

same way Chairman Leahy handled previous hearings. I want everyone to be able to watch the 

hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the view of those behind them, or 

speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others, so officers will immediately remove those 

individuals. 

Now, before I tum to my opening statement, let me explain how we're going to proceed. 

Senator Feinstein and I will give our opening remarks. Then I'll call on Senators Shelby and 

Collins to introduce the nominee. Following Senator Sessions' opening remarks, we'll begin the 

first round of questions. Each Senator will have an initial I 0 minute round for questions. After 

the first round, we're going to do eight minute rounds of questions. I want everyone to know 

that I'm prepared to stay here as long as Members have questions they'd like to ask in 

person. Again, that's the way I handled Attorney General Lynch's nomination. I think that's the 

most fair way to proceed for both Members and the nominee. 

I'd like to welcome our new Members to this Committee. !look forward to working with you. 

I'd also like to recognize and welcome a number of important audience members: former 

Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey. Welcome back, as well, to Senator Kyl, a former 

Member of this Committee. 

Finally, before I turn to my opening remarks, I wanted to extend my congratulations to Senator 

Feinstein on her new role as Ranking Member of this Committee. I have a great deal of respect 

for her, and we've always worked well together. I look forward to working with her on all of the 

important issues this Committee handles. 

With that, I'll turn to my opening remarks. 

Our hearing today hardly introduces Senator Sessions to the Committee. No, we're here today to 

review the character and qualifications of a colleague who has served alongside us in the Senate 

for twenty years. That includes time as the Ranking Member of this Committee. We know him 

well. We know the policy positions he has taken as a legislator. I've been on both sides of 

debates with Senator Sessions. Having served with him for so long we pretty well know whether 

he supports your policy positions or opposes them. He tells us so with thoughtfulness, humility, 

and respect. As a former Chairman of this Committee has put it, Senator Sessions is "wonderful 
371 

to work with." We know him to be, as another senior Democrat on this Committee described 

him, "a man of his word." As a third senior Democrat colleague put it, "he is always a 

gentleman"; "he is straightforward and fair." 

Most of all, the Members of this Committee know him to be a leader who has served the people 

of Alabama-and all Americans-with integrity, dedication, and courage. 

As former Chairman Leahy observed the last time a new President took office, it's "important 

that the Justice Department have its senior leadership in place without delay .... We need the 

Justice Department to be at its best." Perhaps my good friend Senator Schumer said it best when 

he observed that we should "move to a vote, hopefully sooner rather than later." And when we 

do, as he said, we "won't be voting for or against the President's policies." Instead, we'll be 

voting for a colleague with a first-rate legal mind whose record proves his commitment to just 

law enforcement and eminently qualifies him to lead the Department of Justice. 

I've been encouraged by the initial support many of our colleagues on both sides ofthe aisle 

have expressed for Senator Sessions' nomination. So I look forward to hearing from Senator 

Sessions and moving to his confinnation without delay. 

Senator Sessions' record is a life of public service. And so we know his story. He was raised in 

the small town of Hybart, Alabama, where his father owned and ran a small country store. He 

then studied at Huntingdon College and the University of Alabama before practicing law in 

Russellville and Mobile. Senator Sessions has always been an active member of his 

community. He taught school before attending law school and taught Sunday School at Ashland 

Place Methodist Church. He served our Nation in the Army Reserve, attaining the rank of 

Captain. 

After his time in private practice, Senator Sessions served as an Assistant United States Attorney 

in the Southern District of Alabama. He then headed that office after the Senate confinned him 

as United States Attorney, a post he held for a dozen years. All told, that's !5 years as a federal 

prosecutor in the Department. 

It was during that time that he oversaw the investigation of Klansman Francis Hays for the brutal 

abduction and murder of a black teenager, Michael Donald. f le made sure that case was brought 

in state court where the defendant was eligible for and received the punishment he justly 

deserved, the death penalty. His office then successfully prosecuted that murderer's accomplice 

in federal court. 

Based on his prosecutorial record, the people of Alabama elected him their Attorney General and 

then their Senator. He has served with us since 1997. And, as our former Chairman observed, 

this Committee has relied on him for his prosecutorial experience during the course of his Senate 

service. 

Throughout his public service, both within the Department and outside of it, he has raised his 

hand and served when called upon. l-Ie has done his duty, enforced the law fairly, and let the 

chips fall where they may. 
372 

Reflecting on this record of service, it's no surprise that Senator Sessions is also an Eagle 

Scout. Other members of this Committee may know, as I do, that the Scouts' motto-"Be 

Prepared"-sits on his desk in his Senate office. 

Senator Sessions' entire life of dedicated public service has prepared him for this day. Tf he's 

confirmed-and I expect he will be-Senator Sessions will shed his role as a legislator who 

writes our laws and he'll take on the task of enforcing the laws Congress has written. He has 

made this transition before, when the people of the State of Alabama elected him their Senator 

based on his record of service as United States Attorney and Attorney General there. 

As one Member of this Committee observed about a lawyer's transition into the role of a judge: 

"There are turning points in a person's life when they put away things ofthe past and move into 

new responsibilities." Serving as our Nation's Attorney General will mark another such turning 

point in Senator Sessions' distinguished career. 

And every Member of this Committee knows from experience that, in his new role, Senator 

Sessions will be a leader for law and order administered without regard to person. 

Leadership to that end is exactly what the Department now needs. It should go without saying 

that the Department is tasked with the responsibility of enforcing our laws-ALL of our lawsin a dispassionate and even-handed way. 

We write the laws. The Executive enforces them,.faithfully. This is a simple but foundational 

principle. 

Unfortunately, for the last several years the Department has simply declined to enforce some 

laws the Executive branch found distasteful. The Department's failure to enforce the law has run 

the gamut of issues from criminal law legislation to our nation's duly enacted immigration laws. 

It's true that each branch of government has an independent duty to assess the constitutionality 

ofthe laws it writes, administers, or adjudicates. But it's equally tme that the Executive has a 

constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I know our 

colleague Senator Sessions respects the legislative process and the prerogative of Congress to 

write the law. As he explained during the confirmation hearing we held for John Ashcroft's 

nomination to serve as Attorney General, 'The Attorney General is a law enforcer. There is a 

big difference between a politician and a Senator where we vote on policy and executing 

policy." 

!look forward to hearing from Senator Sessions on how he will transition from voting on policy 

matters to enforcing the laws he has labored so long to improve and sustain. 

Just as he respects Congress's duly enacted laws, Senator Sessions knows and respects the 

importance of an independent Attorney General at the Department's helm. When he has 

questioned other candidates for the office of Attorney General, he has made plain the priority of 

an Attorney General's independence. He sought assurances on this account during the 

confirmation hearing for Attorney General Eric Holder-a nominee Senator Sessions and I both 
373 

supported despite our policy disagreements. Senator Sessions asked: "You are not threatening 

and not guaranteeing you are going to prosecute people until you fairly evaluate all the facts and 

the evidence and the law they thought they were dealing with at the time?" 

During this Committee's hearing on the confirmation of another Attomey General, he reflected 

on the obligations of the office as he knew them from his service in Alabama: "You speak for the 

legal interests of the State." As a result, he said, •'there are times when the Attomey General 

represents the State, he has an obligation and a duty regardless of what the parties to a litigation 

may say"-including when one of those parties is the government-"to ensure that it is fair for 

all the people of the State." 

This firm grasp on the separation of powers equips Senator Sessions to provide the Department 

with independent leadership of the highest integrity. lie knows the Department's obligations 

well-not only because he knows the Department but because he has seen those obligations 

observed in the breach from his seat beside us in the Senate. 

To this legislator, the Department's failure in the just enforcement of our laws isn'tjust a policy 

disappointment on a particular issue. It's an affront to the very separation of powers that defines 

our role and the voice of the people that warrants our votes. I imagine Senator Sessions may have 

thoughts on that question too, and I'd like to hear them. 

On this Committee, we don't always agree on the right way to handle the complex policy issues 

we consider. And when you have served in the Senate as long as Senator Sessions and I have, 

you are bound to find at least a few points of disagreement with even the most like-minded 

colleague. 

But Senator Sessions' two decades of service beside me testify without question to this: he is a 

man of honor and integrity, dedicated to the faithful and fair enforcement of the law, who knows 

well and deeply respects the Department of Justice and its role. I look forward to hearing from 

him about his vision and plans for the Department. 

With that, I'll tum to Ranking Member Feinstein. And, again, congratulations to you on your 

new role as Ranking Member. I look forward to working with you. 

-30-
374 

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), 

On Senator Dianne Feinstein Becoming Ranking Member 

of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 10, 2017 

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes for the first time in the IIS'h Congress and we 

mark an historic moment in the Committee's 200 year history. Last week, Senator Dianne 

Feinstein was named the Committee's ranking member, the first time in American history that a 

woman has served in this capacity. It is striking that 352 members have served on the 

Committee, and only six of those-- all Democrats-- have been women. Three of those six 

women are proudly serving on this important Committee today: Senator Feinstein, Senator 

Klobuchar, and Senator Hirono, whom we welcome back to the Committee. 

Senator Feinstein has long been a leading voice on this Committee. I have enjoyed working with 

her on countless issues ranging from national security to immigration reform to Supreme Court 

nominations. Senator Feinstein has broken down barriers throughout her career, and her new 

role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is only the latest example. As the 

Committee grapples with some of the most pressing issues facing our country, we will all be 

counting on Ranking Member Feinstein's leadership. We should all congratulate her on this 

historic moment. 

##### 
375 

Questions for the Record for Senator Jeff Sessions 

Senator Richard Blumenthal 

January 17,2017 

1. The Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution 

specifically prohibits the President from receiving "any other emolument," meaning 

anything other than his salary from the federal government or state governments. 

a. Will President-Elect Trump be bound by this clause'? 

b. Will the tax breaks and subsidies that President-Elect Trump's businesses 

receive from state and local governments place him in violation of this 

clause? 

c. Should you need to investigate whether President-Elect Trump has violated 

this clause, will you commit to recusing yourself from any such investigation 

and appointing a special counsel? 

2. The Stop Insider Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act bars the President 

and other executive branch employees from using "nonpublic information derived from 

[or acquired through] their position as an executive branch employee as a means for 

making a private profit." 

a. Would you agree that if a member of President-Elect Trump's family who is 

acting as an official or unofficial West Wing adviser uses private information 

they learn through government service for a business decision, they have 

violated the STOCK Act or other insider trading laws? 

b. Would you agree that if President-Elect Trump passes information he has 

learned from government service to a member of his family and that family 

member uses it for a business decision, this violates the STOCK Act or other 

insider trading laws'! 

3. It may be difficult to know whether a member of the President-Elect's family is using 

private information to make business decisions- particularly if the family members who 

are running his businesses participate in private meetings with other government officials 

or foreign leaders. These meetings would provide these family members ·with exactly the 

kind of advantage the STOCK Act was designed to protect against. 

a. If a member of the Trump family sits in on a private meeting that could 

discuss information related to the family member's business interests, will 

you commit to investigating whether there has been a violation of the 

STOCK Act? 

b. Will you commit to recusing yourself from any such investigation and 

appointing a special counsel? 

4. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it has reached a settlement of 

claims with Deutsche Bank concerning sales of securities, and reports state that inquiries 

continue regarding allegations that Deutsche Bank helped launder money for Russian 

clients. It has been well publicized that Deutsche Bank is President-Elect Trump's 

biggest creditor. During your hearing, you stated that you didn't know if President-Elect 
376 

Trump's interests would be implicated in this case due to his borrowing from Deutsche 

Bank. 

a. Now that you have had a chance to study the matter, would you agree that 

this case presents the potential for a conflict of interest? Why or why not? 

b. lfthe Deutsche Bank matter has the potential to impact President-Elect 

Trump's interests, will you commit to recusing yourself from this matter and 

appointing a special counsel? 

c. What specific steps will you take to ensure that the President-Elect's interests 

do not affect the final settlement and the outcome of those inquiries? 

d. Will you commit to setting up firewalls between the White House and DOJ to 

avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest? 

5. If President-Elect Trump continues to have a financial stake in the Trump organization 

after he becomes President, as he has indicated he will, he will face other situations in 

which companies or governments have economic leverage over him or the potential to 

affect his financial interests through their actions. The American public is unable to 

understand the full extent of this leverage because President-Elect Trump has not released 

his tax returns or other comprehensive accounting of his financial and business 

arrangements. 

a. Have you seen President-Elect Trump's tax returns or any other 

comprehensive accounting of his financial and business arrangements? 

b. If you have, do you believe this information should be shared with the 

American people? 

c. If you have not, how will you know whether President-Elect Trump may 

have a personal financial interest in a matter being pursued or investigated 

by DOJ? If you do not have that knowledge and President-Elect Trump 

weighs in on DOJ actions or policies, how will you ensure that this does not 

present the potential for a conflict of interest? 

6. America's intelligence agencies agree that Russia attempted to disrupt the 2016 

presidential election in a manner that violates U.S. laws against hacking. During both of 

the last Democratic administrations, you demanded that the Attorney General recuse 

herself rather than participate in an investigation with potential political ramifications. 

During your nomination hearing, however, you would not commit to recusing yourself 

from an investigation of alleged Russian hacking. 

a. Will you commit to recusing yourself from any case regarding the Trump 

campaign- and, specifically, the investigation of Russian interference with 

the election? If not, why not? 

7. DOJ is currently investigating Hapoalim Bank for helping wealthy Americans avoid 

paying taxes, and the bank could face hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. Jared 

Kushner, President-Elect Trump's son-in-law, has received multiple loans from 

Hapoalim. 

a. What specific steps will you take to ensure that Mr. Kushner's interests do 

not affect DOJ's investigation into Hapoalim? 

2 
377 

b. Will you commit to setting up firewalls between the White House and DOJ to 

avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest? 

c. Will you recuse yourself and appoint a special counsel to handle the 

investigation and any future prosecution ofHapoalim? 

8. Operation Rescue and associated anti-choice groups ran a publicity campaign in the 

1990s that involved "wanted posters" for abortion providers. Some of these posters 

identified specific providers and provided personal information, such as license plate 

numbers and descriptions of cars. An en bane federal appeals court has held that these 

posters constituted "true threats" and therefore fall outside of the First Amendment's 

protections. Planned Parenthood ofColumbia/Willamette. Inc. v. American Coalition of 

Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (en bane). 

a. Do you agree that these posters are "true threats"? 

9. In his statement of support for your nomination, Operation Rescue President Troy 

Newman said, "I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past." 

a. What projects have you worked on with Troy Newman? 

I 0. Access to women's health clinics is protected under the federal Freedom of Access to 

Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a crime to use force or threat of force to 

interfere with a person obtaining or providing reproductive health services, or to damage 

a reproductive health facility. 

a. Will you commit to strong enforcement of the FACE Act? 

b. Will you direct your staff to continue work that has been done under the 

Obama Administration and deliver trainings for local law enforcement in 

order to educate officers about what constitutes a violation of the FACE Act? 

c. As your predecessors have, will you direct U.S. Marshals to protect abortion 

providers when extremists have made threats to their lives? 

II. During the campaign, President-Elect Trump said that women who have abortions should 

be punished? After a significant backlash, he tried to reverse his position. 

a. Do you think that women who have abortions should be punished? 

b. If you arc opposed to punishing women for having an abortion, what steps 

will you take as Attorney General to discourage the use of the criminal legal 

system to deny pregnant women access to reproductive health services? 

c. What will you do to ensure that women who have abortions or whose 

pregnancy losses are perceived as abortions, as well as those who provide 

reproductive health services, will not be subjected to prosecution or criminal 

punishment? 

12. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover a full range of FDA-approved 

methods of birth control without charging patients co-pays. This benefit has made a 

tremendous difference for women's health and economic security. DOJ has defended this 

benefit from legal challenges by companies that do not want to comply with the 

requirement. 

3 
378 

a. If confirmed as Attorney General, will you direct DOJ to continue to defend 

this requirement in court? 

b. If a business owner believes it is his religious duty to discriminate based on 

race, religion, or sexual orientation, do you believe the business owner has a 

rightto do so? 

13. During your hearing, you agreed with Senator Leahy that acts that President-Elect 

Donald Trump has described perfonning- grabbing women by the genitals without their 

consent- would constitute sexual assault. 

a. Would you agree that a law enforcement official who hears that a woman 

has been grabbed by the genitals without her consent should investigate to 

determine whether prosecution for sexual assault is appropriate? 

b. Will you commit to encouraging and supporting vigorous investigation 

and prosecution of sexual assault by state and local as well as federal 

authorities? 

14. On the subject of sexual assault in the military, President-Elect Trump has said, "What 

did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" 

a. Do you agree with President-Elect Trump that sexual assault is the natural 

result of having male and female service members working together? Why or 

why not? 

b. What specific steps will you take to combat the problem of military sexual 

assault? 

15. On your questionnaire for this committee, you list Davis v. Board of School 

Commissioners ofMobile County as one of the most significant litigated matters that you 

handled. You listed Joseph D. Rich, who then worked in the Educational Opportunities 

Litigation Section ofDOJ's Civil Rights Division, as your co-counsel on that case. Mr. 

Rich has said that you had "no substantive involvement" in the case, and at your hearing 

you said, "I don't know Mr. Rich. Perhaps he handled a case that I never worked with." 

a. Do you know Joseph D. Rich? 

b. Did you work with him on Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 

County? 

c. What specific work did you do on Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of 

Mobile County? 

16. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits health care programs or activities that 

receive HHS funding or are involved with the insurance marketplaces from 

discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability .. In 

August 2016, five states and several private organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the 

final regulations implementing Section 1557. 

a. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you direct DOJ to continue to 

defend these regulations in court? 

17. Last November, Carl Higbie- spokesman for a Donald Trump Super PAC and a 

campaign surrogate- cited the World War II-era Japanese internment camps as a 

4 
379 

precedent for a Muslim registry. The Supreme Court allowed the use of these camps in 

Korematsu v. United States, a case that has been called a "stain on American 

jurisprudence." 

a. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you agree not to positively cite 

Korematsu in briefs or other legal documents that you or your 

representatives file on behalf of the United States? 

18. You have objected to President Obama's efforts to admit refugees from areas where, in 

your words, "terrorists roam freely." These refugees are screened for 18 to 24 months by 

law enforcement, the military, and the intelligence communities. America has a history of 

admitting refugees in times of conflict- including, notably, refugees from Germany in 

the 1930s and 1940s and from Vietnam in the 1970s. 

a. Was America's system for screening refugees better in the 1930s and 1940s 

than it is today? 

b. Was America's system for screening refugees better in the 1970s than it is 

today? 

c. If today's screening is inadequate but still better than what existed 

previously, should America have refused entry to European refugees in the 

1930s and 1940s and to Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s? 

19. In your testimony, you said, "I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by 

our LGBT community. I will ensure that the statutes protecting their civil rights and their 

safety are fully enforced." 

a. What specifically do you understand about "the demands for justice and 

fairness made by our LGBT community"? 

b. What statutes protecting LGBT safety and civil rights will you enforce? 

20. Imagine that an employer fires an employee solely because the employee is gay. 

a. Would such an action conflict with "the demands for justice and fairness 

made by our LGBT community?" 

b. Would you support a law that would prohibit this kind of firing? 

c. If the employer maintains that his religion compels him to fire gay workers, 

is the employer's action protected by the Constitution? 

21. In 2011, the Alabama legislature adopted H.B. 56. Major provisions of the law included 

requiring police to arrest anyone of whom they had a "reasonable suspicion" of being in 

the country illegally and denying public services, including public education, to 

undocumented immigrant children. DOJ's Civil Rights division closely monitored the 

implementation of the law to ensure that it did not result in illegal discrimination on the 

basis of race or ethnicity by public institutions or law enforcement agencies. 

a. If confirmed as Attorney General, what steps would you take to ensure that 

H.B. 56 and similar legislation does not result in discrimination on the basis 

of race or ethnicity? 

b. What actions would you take if investigation revealed that the 

implementation of such laws did, in fact, result in discrimination? 

5 
380 

22. Last year, during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump argued that it would not 

require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children born to 

parents who are in the U.S. illegally. He argued that it would only require an act of 

Congress. You have said that this is not an extreme position. You have also repeatedly 

expressed skepticism that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to grant 

citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not United States 

citizens. 

a. In your opinion, does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee citizenship to all 

children born on American soil? 

b. If so, would a constitutional amendment be required to overturn this 

guarantee? 

c. If not, how would you determine clearly which children are American 

citizens and which are not? 

23. No Senator since at least 1900 has voted in favor of his or her own confirmation to a 

Cabinet position. At your hearing, you stated that you did not have plans to vote on your 

own nomination. 

a. I interpreted your answer at your hearing as a commitment that you would 

not vote on your own nomination. Is that correct? 

b. If your answer was not intended as a commitment, will you commit now to 

not voting on your nomination? If not, why not? 

c. Will you commit to not voting on any other Trnmp Administration 

nominations while your nomination is pending? If not, how does that not 

present a conflict of interest? 

24. After you submitted your initial questionnaire response to this committee, it quickly 

became clear that you had left out large amounts of significant material. In 20 I 0, you 

asserted that Goodwin Liu, a nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had 

omitted 117 items from his questionnaire. You said ofLiu, 

"At best, this nominee's extraordinary disregard for the Committee's 

constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression 

that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the 

Committee. Professor Liu's unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to 

complete these basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his 

nomination in jeopardy." 

You also suggested at Liu' s hearing that he might be guilty of a felony for failing to 

provide every document called for by the questionnaire. Although you supplemented 

your initial questionnaire responses, it was revealed at your hearing that you failed to 

include numerous items responsive to the requests. 

a. If Goodwin Liu 's omissions were inexcusable, why is that that yours are 

acceptable? 

6 
381 

25. In your initial questionnaire response, you repeatedly indicated that you relied on 

"searches of publicly available electronic databases" in order to gather all relevant 

infonnation. 

a. Did you search for information on your record on Google? For example, 

when looking for examples of speeches, did you search for "Jeff Sessions" 

and "speech"? 

b. If so, why did you not include the first result from a Google search- your 

speech to the 2016 Republican National Convention? 

c. In trying to find transcripts of your appearances on news shows, many of 

which you listed as unavailable, did you search the websites of the shows on 

which you appeared? 

d. If so, why did you not include transcripts that are readily available from 

searching the websites of those shows- for example, a transcript of your 

responses during an October 13, 2016 appearance on Breitbart Radio, which 

can be found simply by searching for your name on the Breit bart website? 

e. When you saw that your initial questionnaire included only 134 speeches 

given over 35 years in public life, did that not suggest to you that the 

response was not comprehensive? 

f. When you saw that your initial questionnaire did not include any print or 

radio interviews prior to September 2002, did that not suggest to you that the 

questionnaire was incomplete? 

26. You have received awards from at least two organization designated by the Southern 

Poverty Law Center as extremist groups1 - the Federation for American Immigration 

Reform and the Center for Security Policy- but you only disclosed one of these on your 

questionnaire. 

a. Have you received any other awards from SPLC-designated extremist 

groups that you have not yet reported to this Committee? 

b. Have you given any speeches to SPLC-designated extremist groups that you 

have not yet reported to this Committee? 

27. In a keynote address at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2013 West Coast Retreat, 

you said, "[David Horowitz has l written some papers. I've passed them around, the draft, 

to a bunch of senators, and shared these thoughts." At your hearing, you called David 

Horowitz a "brilliant writer." 

a. Which papers did you circulate to your fellow Senators? 

b. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says- in the chapter title of one of his 

books- that "guns don't kill blacks, other black people do"? 

c. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says it is "obvious" that "too many 

blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes"? 

d. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says that the term "people of color" is 

"a racist phrase designed ... to enforce the fascist hierarchy"? 

e. Do you agree with David Horowitz that Black Lives Matter is "a racist 

group" and "a roving lynch mob"? 

https://www .s plcente r.org/lighti ng·hate/ extremist ·files/groups 

7 
382 

f. Do you agree with Horowitz that "there is no credible evidence [that] racism 

against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem"? 

28. In your questionnaire, you did not disclose that you received the Franklin Society Award 

from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which was founded by John 

Tanton. 

a. Do you agree with Tanton when he says, "Migrants are usually selfish in 

their motivation"? 

b. Do you agree with Tanton that he says, "Too much diversity leads to 

divisiveness and conflict"? 

29. As a former prosecutor, I am disturbed that President-Elect Trump's continued insistence 

that the five black and Latino men known as the Central Park 5 arc guilty- despite their 

exoneration by DNA evidence. During the campaign, you said that President-Elect 

Trump's 1989 campaign to reinstate the death penalty for the Central Park 5 showed his 

dedication to "law and order." 

a. Do you believe that the Central Park 5 are innocent? If not, why not? 

b. If you do believe that tbe Central Park 5 are innocent, will you say 

unequivocally that President-Elect Trump was wrong to call for them to be 

killed and wrong to double down on his position after they were exonerated? 

c. Does Donald Trump's approach to the Central Park 5 case reflect the 

approach that you will take to similar cases if confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

d. Do you agree that failing to pursue all possible methods of exonerating an 

innocent defendant, in eluding DNA evidence, leaves open the possibility that 

the real criminal will go free and commit additional crimes? 

30. At your hearing, you said, "Congress has taken an action now that makes it absolutely 

improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United 

States by our military and by all our other departments and agencies." 

31. 

a. Are stress positions designed to inflict pain torture? 

b. Is forced nudity torture? 

c. Is slamming individuals into walls torture? 

d. Is slapping or hitting detainees torture? 

e. Is depriving detainees of sleep for prolonged periods torture? 

f. What actions would you take if the Trump Administration attempted to 

change the rules governing use of these techniques without seeking 

Congressional approval? 

a. If an individual detained at Guantanamo Bay Cuba can show that they were 

detained based on faulty intelligence or mistaken identity, should they be 

released? 

b. Should Guantanamo detainees be given the chance to prove that they were 

detained based on faulty intelligence or mistaken identity? 

8 
383 

c. How long can an individual be detained -at Guantanamo or anywhere else -

before they are given a chance to show that their detention was wrongful? 

32. When passing the USA FREEDOM Act, Congress made bulk collection under section 

215 of the USA PATRIOT Act illegal. In a National Review op-ed, you argued that law 

enforcement can still use a subpoena to collect all of the information that used to be 

collected under section 215. During your hearing, you were asked if you agreed that the 

executive branch cannot reinstate the bulk collection of America's phone records without 

amending federal statutes. You responded, "That appears to be so and I can't swear that 

that's absolutely, totally, always true, but it appears to be so." 

a. Please detail the situations where the principle would not hold true. 

I 

33. Using a device called a stingray, law enforcement can scan a crowd and identify every 

cell phone within the specified area. Without clear rules governing the use of stingrays, 

these devices give law enforcement the ability to create massive databases of individuals 

who have protested against the government, individuals who belong to a minority or 

unpopular religion, or simply Americans who have assembled to express views that the 

government does not like. 

a. Will you commit to not tracking Americans' location in order to target and 

catalog individuals' exercise of First Amendment activities, such as religious 

activities, protests, and political rallies? 

b. Will you commit not to use stingrays to identify every American who has 

chosen to attend a particular political rally or worship service, unless you 

have probable cause to believe that a specific criminal or dangerous 

individual is in attendance? 

c. If you do collect information on all of the attendees at a rally or worship 

service- for example, because you believed a criminal would attend -will 

you commit to purge the information of any innocent American whose 

information was captured inadvertently? 

34. The American people want to know that you will take white collar crime as seriously as 

you will take other crimes. 

a. Will you commit to zealously investigating white collar crimes? 

b. Will you commit to leaving in place, and considering expanding upon, the 

Yates Memo, which established Justice Department procedures that 

encourage prosecutors to actively investigate and prosecute individual 

criminal liability for corporate crimes? 

35. DOJ has initiated or considered initiating a number of investigations in recent years that 

are particularly important to me. Will you commit to continue actively pursuing the 

following investigations and prosecutions: 

a. Takata and Takata executives 

b. Price collusion by United States airlines 

c. The merger of Anthem with Cigna and of Aetna with Humana 

9 
384 

36. In 2014, I was proud to lead an effort to successfully amend the Animal Welfare Act to 

prohibit attendance at a cockfight universally and without qualification in Puerto Rico 

and all other U.S. jurisdictions. Before these 2014 amendments became law, the 

longstanding prohibition on sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a cockfight only 

applied in Puerto Rico to the extent a defendant knew that a bird was bought, sold, 

delivered, transported or received in interstate commerce for the purpose of participating 

in the fight. There is still much work to be done in ensuring that the law's protections are 

fully implemented. 

a. Will you develop a plan to ensure that federal animal fighting laws are 

enforced in Puerto Rico, and to begin the process of shutting down the 

dozens of arenas in Puerto Rico in which animal fights are conducted in 

contravention of federal law? 

37. In recent years, there have been hundreds of cases in which individuals were exonerated 

based on faulty forensic evidence. This has long been an issue of bipartisan concern. 

a. Will you continue to work with Members of this Committee and the 

Commerce Committee to ensure that law enforcement and criminal justice 

stakeholders have the strongest and most reliable forensic tools possible to 

ensure that crimes are solved, public safety is protected, and wrongful 

convictions are avoided? 

b. As you know, the FBI has been working to review thousands of cases 

involving erroneous hair analysis testimony, resulting in the exoneration of 

innocent people and, in many cases, the identification of the true perpetrators 

of crimes. Will you work with the FBI and others to ensure that this 

review is completed, and that this type of error is not repeated going 

forward in this or other forensic disciplines? 

10 
385 

Follow Up Questions for the Record for Senator Jeff Sessions 

Senator Richard Blumenthal 

January 23, 2017 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether you would commit to recusing yourself 

from any investigation into whether or not your boss, President Trump, has violated the 

Domestic Emoluments Clause or the insider trading laws. I also asked whether you would recuse 

yourself from cases in which President Trump or his family have a financial or political interest. 

You responded that you are "not aware of a basis to recuse yourself' but would not say one way 

or the other whether you would recuse yourself. 

a. Are there circumstances under which you would consider it appropriate to handle 

an investigation of civil or criminal wrongdoing by your own boss? Please answer 

yes or no. 

b. If you believe that such an investigation would not pose a conflict of interest, please 

explain why. 

c. You have committed to "consult with [Justice] Department ethics officials" if your 

"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Will you commit to accepting the 

advice of career staff if they recommend that you recuse yourself from a particular 

investigation or case? 

d. Can you give any examples of a situation where an Attorney General has 

investigated civil or criminal wrongdoing by the President who appointed him or 

her and where you consider the Attorney General's conduct to have been 

appropriate? 

a. Have you discussed the Domestic Emoluments Clause, the Foreign Emoluments 

Clause, or the insider trading laws with President Trump, with any employee of 

President Trump, or with any agent for President Trump? If so, please discuss the 

content and depth of those conversations. 

b. Have you discussed whether or not President Trump, his family, or individuals who 

did paid or unpaid work for his campaign may face civil or criminal liability, under 

any statute or Constitutional provision, with President Trump or any of his agents 

or employees? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those conversations. 

c. Have you discussed with President Trump or any of his agents or employees the 

possibility that an ongoing or future investigation could embarrass the President or 

his Administration? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those 

conversations. 

d. Have you discussed Russian hacking with President Trump or any of his agents or 

employees? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those conversations. 

In response to a question for the record from Senator Durbin, you indicated that you have not 

read the unclassified or classified version of the January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment 

"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections." 

a. Have you read that assessment or any part of that assessment- for example, the 1.5 

page "Key Judgments" section- since Senator Durbin asked about it? 
386 

b. If so, how will this information inform your decisions regarding investigatory 

priorities should you become Attorney General? If not, why not? 

c. Have you discussed your decision to read or not read this intelligence assessment 

with President Trump or any of his agents or employees? 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether a member of President Trump's family 

who relies on nonpublic information to make business decisions has violated the STOCK Act or 

other insider trading laws." While you did not answer this question, you indicated that the 

answer hinges on whether the Trump family member is an "executive branch employee." 

a. If a Trump family member does not qualify as an "executive branch employee," as 

that term is used in the STOCK Act, do you believe that such family member can 

use private information they learn through government service to make business 

decisions? Please provide a yes or no answer. 

In response to my original questions for the record, you said that you "have not reviewed the 

details of whether a constitutional amendment would be required'' to overturn the Fourteenth 

Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all children born on American soil. You expressed 

skepticism of birthright citizenship as far back as 20 I 0, and more recently you indicated that you 

have been reading legal briefs on the subject. Now that you have had additional time to review 

the details of this issue, I would appreciate your answer on this important question. 

a. Would a constitutional amendment be required to overturn the Fourteenth 

Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all children born on American soil? 

b. How would you determine which children are guaranteed American citizenship and 

which are not? 

In my original questions for the record, I asked you to detail the circumstances under which the 

executive branch could reinstate the bulk collection of Americans' phone records without amending 

federal statutes. While you provided some additional information about your past statements, which I 

appreciate, you did not answer my question. To be clear, I am not asking about what you have said in 

the past. I want to know what you believe today. 

a. Under what circumstances could the executive branch reinstate the bulk collection of 

Americans' phone records without working with Congress to amend federal statutes'! 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether you would "commit to not tracking 

Americans' location in order to target and catalog individuals' exercise of First Amendment 

activities, such as religious activities, protests, and political rallies." You responded merely that you 

will "enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved fidelity to the Constitution." While I appreciate 

your general willingness to follow the law as you interpret it, my question asked you to make a 

specific commitment. The American people should not have to wait until you are in office to find out 

whether you plan to track their First Amendment-protected activities. 

a. Will you commit not to track Americans' location in order to target and catalog 

individuals' First Amendment-protected activities, such as religious activities, protests, 

and political rallies? 
387 

In my original questions for the record, I asked you for two commitments regarding the appropriate 

use of stingray technology. In your response, you declined to comment on "what federal law or the 

Constitution allows in these circumstances." With respect, I did not ask what federal law or the 

Constitution allows. I asked whether you would commit not to engage in the practices described. 

Please respond with a yes or no answer. 

a. Will you commit not to use stingrays to identify every American who has chosen to 

attend a particular political rally or worship service, unless you have probable cause to 

believe tbat a specific criminal or dangerous individual is in attendance? 

b. If you do collect information on all of the attendees at a rally or worship service- for 

example, because you believed a criminal would attend- will you commit to purge the 

information of any innocent American whose information was captured inadvertently? 
388 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of tbe United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 QUESTIONS 

FROM SENATOR COONS 

1. Evidence shows that solitary confinement has significant mental health consequences 

when used for extended periods of time. 

a. Do you believe solitary confinement should only be used as a last resort? 

b. Do you believe solitary confinement should ever be used for juveniles? 

2. Individuals are being jailed throughout the country when they are unable to pay a variety 

of court fines and fees. There is often little or no attempt to learn whether these 

individuals can afford to pay the imposed fines and fees or to work out alternatives to 

incarceration. 

a. Under your leadership, will the Department of Justice work to end this practice? 

b. What is your position on the practice of imposing unaffordable money bail, which 

results in the pretrial incarceration of the poor who cannot afford to pay? 

3. The Department of Justice established the Office for Access to Justice (A TJ) in March 

2010 to address the access-to-justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice system. ATJ's 

mission is to help the justice system efficiently deliver outcomes that are fair and 

accessible to all, irrespective of wealth and status. How will you improve access to 

justice for indigent criminal and civil defendants? 

4. In August of 2013, the Department of Justice released the Cole memorandum, providing 

that states could pursue their own marijuana policy as long as the policy docs not violate 

certain federal priorities, such as selling to minors or transporting marijuana across state 

lines. 

a. Will you continue to follow the Cole memorandum? 

b. Will you instruct Department of Justice prosecutors to bring actions against those 

who use state-sanctioned medical marijuana, provided they are using it in 

accordance with the guidance of the Cole memorandum? 

5. How will you implement and enforce the Death In Custody Reporting Act and the FBI 

National Use of Force database? 

6. When you were the Alabama Attorney General, Alabama was the only state that 

handcuffed prisoners to "hitching posts" as punishment, cuffing them by both wrists to a 

pole at chest level with feet shackled for up to I 0 hours at a time, unprotected from the 

sun, heat, or rain, and without access to water or even access to a bathroom. On March 

27, 1995, the Department of Justice sent letters to you, as Alabama's Attorney General, 

along with the Governor and other state officials declaring Alabama's use of the hitching 

post unconstitutional and unjustified. However, the use ofthe hitching post continued. 

On June 27, 1995, the Justice Department sent a letter to the Alabama Department of 

Corrections stating, "We remain deeply concerned about your unwillingness to take any 
389 

corrective action regarding the 'rail' or 'hitching post.' ... [W]e have concluded that the 

use of the 'rail' is without penological justification." The Alabama Department of 

Corrections was sued over the use of the hitching post in 1995 but continued to defend its 

use. At the hearing and in our private meeting, I asked you about the use of the hitching 

post in Alabama prisons when you were the Alabama Attorney General. However, you 

indicated in our meeting that you did not remember the issue, and your response at the 

hearing only addressed the use of ehain gangs. Do you believe that the use of hitching 

posts is acceptable? 

7. In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 744 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that prison 

officials "violated clearly established law" when they continued to use the hitching post. 

Why didn't you intervene to stop this unconstitutional practice when you were Alabama 

Attorney General? 

8. In 2014, the Department of Justice concluded its investigation of allegations of sexual 

abuse and sexual harassment at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, finding that: 

For nearly two decades, Tutwiler staff have harmed women in their care with 

impunity by sexually abusing and sexually harassing them. Staff have raped, 

sodomized, fondled, and exposed themselves to prisoners. They have coerced 

prisoners to engage in oral sex. Staff engage in voyeurism, forcing women to 

disrobe and watching them while they use the shower and use the toilet. Staff 

sexually harass women, subjecting them to a daily barrage of sexually explicit 

verbal abuse. 

Also, there are federal lawsuits pending against Alabama state prisons challenging 

unconstitutional conditions, including high rates of violence and inadequate medical and 

mental health treatment. On October 6, 2016, the Justice Department announced that it 

had opened a statewide investigation into Alabama's prisons for men, which "will focus 

on whether prisoners are adequately protected from use of excessive force and staff 

sexual abuse by correctional officers, and whether the prisons provide sanitary, secure 

and safe living conditions." 

a. Will you ensure that the Department of Justice continues all of these 

investigations into conditions in Alabama prisons? 

b. As a public official in Alabama, what have you done to ensure that Alabama 

prison facilities comply with the Constitution? 

9. The President-elect has claimed that millions of people voted illegally in the presidential 

election. 

a. Do you agree, and if so, on what evidence do you rest your claim? 

b. If not, do you contend that there were instances of voter fraud in the 2016 

presidential election, and on what evidence do you base your claim? 

c. How do you plan on using the resources of the Department of Justice to 

investigate alleged instances of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election? 

2 
390 

10. A 2014 study by Justin Levitt published in the Washington Post found that since 2000, 

there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation, during a period in which 

there were 1 billion ballots cast. In light of this report, do you think it is justifiable for 

the Department of Justice to spend resources on combatting in-person voter fraud? 

II. Do you agree that certain photo ID laws can disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters and 

disproportionately and unreasonably burden African-American and Latino voters? 

12. The FBI reported that hate crimes targeting Muslims increased by 67% in 2015. How do 

you believe the Department of Justice should use its resources to address rapid, 

documented increases in crimes such as this one? 

13. Would you ever rely on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), as precedent? 

14. Do you believe internment of American citizens or residents is lawful? 

15. Last year, without debate or congressional action, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure was amended to expand the government's ability to obtain a warrant 

and remotely access electronic devices. The rules now allow federal prosecutors to seek 

a warrant in any district "where activities related to a crime may have occurred." Will 

you instruct the Department of Justice to issue guidance on how this should be 

interpreted? 

16. Do you believe that religious institutions, including mosques, should be targeted for 

warrantless surveillance? 

17. What will you do to ensure vigorous enforcement of the Ethics in Government Act, 

bribery and honest services laws, and anti-nepotism laws? 

18. What is your interpretation of the effect of the Emoluments Clause on the ability of 

President-elect Trump or his family members to continue doing business with foreign 

governments after inauguration? 

a. Do you understand the arrangements announced at the President-elect's press 

conference on January 11, 2017 to be sufficient to comply with the Emoluments 

Clause? 

b. If your answer is "yes," what is the basis for your understanding that the 

President-elect is not receiving monetary or other benefits from foreign entities 

through his continued ownership interests in the Trump Organization, even if he 

does not have day-to-day control? 

19. President-elect Tnimp, through the Trump Organization, has a contract with the U.S. 

Government that allows the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C. to lease the Old 

Post Office property. This contract, however, contains a clause stating that "No ... 

elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share 

or part of this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom." If President-elect Trump 

does not divest his interests in this hotel prior to inauguration, the question of whether 

3 
391 

this contract has been breached will need to be decided. As Attorney General, your 

responsibilities would include enforcement of government contracts like this one. 

a. If President-elect Trump does not divest his interests in the Trump International 

Hotel Washington, D.C., will you enforce the contract? 

b. What steps do you commit to taking to prove to the public that the Justice 

Department's actions and your own \Viii not be influenced in any way by the 

President-elect's monetary interests? 

20. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) supports the Attorney General in fulfilling his 

responsibility to provide legal advice to the President, heads of executive departments, 

and heads of military departments. 

a. Do you agree that, as discussed in the Best Practices for OLC Legal Advice and 

Written Opinions (May 16, 2005 and July 16, 201 0), the Attorney General and 

OLC should provide "candid, independent, and principled advice-even when 

that advice may be inconsistent with the desires ofpolicymakers" including the 

President? 

b. What standard do you believe must be met before an Attorney General or OLC 

opinion is overturned? 

21. The total volume of worldwide piracy in counterfeit products is estimated to be 2.5% of 

world trade (USD $461 billion). Counterfeit products such as fake pharmaceutical drugs 

or faulty electronics can cause direct physical harm to Americans, and the profits from 

these illicit sales often go directly to the coffers of organized crime. How will you use 

Department of Justice resources to address this growing threat? 

22. The Department of Justice has made substantial efforts to combat trade secret theft by 

foreign nationals. In 2009, only 45 percent of federal trade secret cases were against 

foreign companies; this number increased to over 83 percent by 2015. 

a. Will you prioritize enforcement actions to combat trade secret theft by foreign 

nationals? 

b. How do you plan to continue the Department of Justice's efforts to successfully 

target criminal trade secret theft? 

23. The United States' scientific and technological leadership is a prime reason for our 

economic advancement over many decades. Our innovation ecosystem is driven by the 

rewards of scientific innovation made possible by a vibrant capitalist economy. It relics 

on generous funding of scientific research and an educational system that is broad-based 

at the bottom and unparalleled in availability and quality at the top. It further relies on 

immigration, a commitment to sustained investment, and certainty provided by the rule of 

law. How will the Department of Justice, under your leadership, work to support 

components of the Executive Branch with missions focused on promoting scientific and 

technological progress, such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of 

Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office? 

4 
392 

24. Do you support the revocation or modification of the 14th Amendment's constitutional 

guarantee of birthright citizenship? 

25. You previously have expressed support for Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's HB 56, 

but both laws contained unconstitutional provisions. 

a. Would you have the Justice Department intervene if a state passes a law like 

Arizona's SB 1070 or Alabama's HB 56? 

b. Which portions of these laws do you understand to be constitutional, if any? 

26. The Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA) authorizes funds to directly support 

establishment and operation of local and regional Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs), 

as well as training and technical assistance related to improving the investigation and 

prosecution of child abuse and neglect. These centers are intended to coordinate a 

multidisciplinary response to child abuse (e.g., law enforcement, child protection/social 

services, medical services, mental health) in a manner that ensures child abuse victims 

receive the support services they need and do not experience the investigation of child 

abuse as an added trauma. Close to 3!2,000 children were served at CACs in 2015. Will 

you include full funding for the Victims of Child Abuse Act in the Department of 

Justice's proposed budget? 

27. When the Justice Department decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), the Department "notifl.ied] the courts of [the Department's] interest in 

providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in [the 

DOMA] cases." If the Department of Justice decides it cannot defend a law, will you 

take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Congress or others can continue to 

defend the law? 

28. The Department of Justice established the Violence Reduction Network in 2014. VRN 

provides a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in communities around the 

country by deploying federal resources in a targeted, strategic, data-driven way to assist 

state and local law enforcement. Through its participation in the VRN, the Wilmington 

Police Department created a new homicide unit, and the homicide clearance rate rose 

from less than I 0 percent to more than 50 percent on current-year cases. 

a. How will you support the sustainability of the Violence Reduction Network 

improvements in cities that have participated in the program? 

b. Will you expand the VRN to work with additional cities? 

29. Studies show that 5 percent of gun dealers sell 90 percent of guns that are subsequently 

used in criminal activity. How will you direct the Department of Justice to instruct the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to crack down on dealers that 

funnel thousands of crime guns to city streets? 

30. The Justice Department has supported the Youth Mentoring Program, which provides 

much needed funding to organizations like Boys & Girls Clubs of America. In my state 

of Delaware, those mentoring funds support programming to 44,100 young people 

5 
393 

between the ages of 5-18 years old. As Attorney General, will you ensure that the Youth 

Mentoring Program will be fully funded? 

31. In May 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing made a series of 

recommendations aimed at making communities safer, including developing lasting 

positive connections between law enforcement and the communities they serve and 

improving youth attitudes toward law enforcement. How will the Department of Justice 

promote and support partnerships between law enforcement and young people to promote 

stronger, safer communities? 

6 
394 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted .January 25, 2017 

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR COONS 

1. In response to Question for the Record 1 (b) regarding the use of solitary confinement, 

you stated that "[t]he need to maintain safety is especially true for juveniles, who often 

present unique correctional challenges." 

a. Why do you believe that there is a greater need for maintaining safety for 

juveniles compared to other incarcerated people? 

b. Why do you believe that there are "unique correctional challenges" presented by 

incarceration of juveniles that impact the need for the use of solitary confinement? 

c. What are these "unique correctional challenges"? 

2. Question for the Record 2 noted that individuals are being jailed throughout the country 

when they arc unable to pay a variety of court fines and fees, often with little or no 

attempt to learn whether these individuals could afford to pay or to work out alternatives 

to incarceration. In your response, you stated that you would "make every effort to 

protect the constitutional rights of individuals in the federal criminal justice system." 

However, this is not a problem confined to the federal criminal justice system. For 

example, a Department of Justice report (available at 

https://wvvw.justice.gov/sites/default/tilcs/opa/pressreleases/attachments/20 15/03/04/fenwson police department repott.pdj) found that 

traffic offenses such as expired license plates and failure to register a vehicle "comprised 

the majority of offenses that led to a[n arrest] warrant" in Ferguson, Missouri, besides 

Failure to Appear ordinance violations. If you arc confirmed, how will the Department of 

Justice work to end the incarceration of individuals for failure to pay fines and court fees 

when they cannot afford to pay them? 

3. Question for the Record 3 asked "how" you would improve access to justice for indigent 

criminal and civil defendants. Your response stated that you would "work to ensure that 

the constitutional rights of defendants are protected." 

a. What affirmative steps will you take to improve access to justice? 

b. How will you support the work of the Department of Justice Office for Access to 

Justice? 

4. With respect to Question for the Record 4, you previously stated you are "generally 

familiar with the Cole memorandum" but declined to explain whether you would follow 

the Department of Justice's established practice of focusing Controlled Substance Act 

enforcement to address the most significant threats. The Cole memorandum is available 

at https://www.justice.Qov/iso/opa!resources/30520 13 829132756857467.pdf. 

a. Do you agree that the Department of Justice's resources are best focused on 

"significant threats" and that individuals who use medical marijuana in 

accordance with state law do not present such a threat? 
395 

b. Do you believe that prosecution of the seriously ill is a good use of the 

Department of Justice's limited resources? 

5. With respect to Questions for the Record 6 and 7 regarding Alabama's use of the hitching 

post, you stated that the Complaint in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) "was not filed 

until after [you] w[ere] elected to the Senate." Other lawsuits were also pending while 

you were Alabama Attorney General. See Austin v. Hopper, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (1998) 

(relevant claims filed in September 1995); see also Fountain v. Talley, 104 F. Supp. 2d 

1345 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (filed in 1994). Question for the Record 6 specifically refers to 

two letters from the Department of Justice that were sent to you on March 27, 1995, 

about two months into your two years of service as Alabama Attorney General, informing 

you of the Justice Department's findings that the use of the hitching post was 

"indefensible" and "violates constitutional standards" and that "[p ]ractices of this sort 

cannot be justified no matter how many superficial safeguards exist." These letters are 

available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/hitching-post-report -tutwiler 

and https://\vww.judiciarv.senate.gov/d0\\11load/hitching-post-report -casterling. What, 

if any, actions did you take to stop the use of the hitching post when you were serving as 

Alabama Attorney General? 

6. Question for the Record 8 cites several recent or pending federal investigations and 

lawsuits related to the treatment of prisoners in Alabama prison facilities and inquires as 

to your efforts to ensure Alabama's prison facilities comply with the Constitution. Your 

response cites your 2003 introduction of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. 

a. As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as Alabama Attorney 

General, what actions did you take to ensure that Alabama prison facilities 

complied with the Constitution? 

b. During your time in the Senate since 2003, what have you done to address the 

continued mistreatment of prisoners? 

7. With respect to Question for the Record 9(b ), you stated that you "believe that fraudulent 

activities regularly occur during election cycles," and that "[t]here is no reason to believe 

that this election is any exception." You cited the 2005 report from the Carter-Baker 

Commission on Federal Election Reform. The report has been criticized as deeply 

flawed for its lack of transparent process, failure to consult with recognized experts, and 

minimal attempt to gather empirical data to support its conclusions. 

a. Have you reviewed and considered criticisms of the Carter-Baker Commission 

report, such as those reported in the Brennan Center's report (available at 

https://v .. ww·.brcnnancenter.org/press-release/voting-rights-groups-rcspond-cartcrbaker-commission-rcport-election-reforn1)? 

b. What empirical evidence do you have to support your belief that voter fraud 

"regularly occur[ s ]"? 

c. Do you believe that millions of individuals voted illegally in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

8. Question for the Record 10 references a 2014 report in the Washington Post (available at 

https :/ /www. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/20 14/08/06/ a-comprehensive2 
396 

investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billionballots-cast/?utm tenn=.dc645a28fb6b) finding that since 2000, there were only 31 

credible allegations of voter impersonation, during a period in which there were 1 billion 

ballots cast. You previously responded, "Please see responses to 9(b) and (c)," but these 

responses do not address whether the expenditure of Department of Justice resources to 

combat in-person voter fraud is justified in light of this study. In light of the 2014 report 

by Justin Levitt, do you think it is justifiable for the Department of Justice to spend 

resources on combatting in-person voter fraud? 

9. In your response to Question for the Record 11, you stated that the "government cannot 

create laws designed to improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote." 

Recently, the Fifth Circuit, in an en bane decision, affirmed that a Texas Statute "violates 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects" on minorities. 

Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 272 (5th Cir. 2016). The Department of Justice was 

recently granted a 30-day continuance to allow additional time to brief the new leadership 

of the Department of Justice on this case and the issues to be addressed. Do you believe 

that the Department of Justice should continue to vigorously litigate this case, where 

there has been a direct violation of the Voting Rights Act? 

10. In Response to Question for the Record 14, you stated that "[n]o person or groups of 

persons should be interned without a clear legal basis." 

a. Do you believe it would be possible to demonstrate a clear legal basis to intern 

U.S. citizens and/or residents? 

b. If your answer is "yes," please cite specific justifications and sources you would 

rely upon. 

11. In response to Question for the Record 16, you stated that you "do not believe that a 

building or organization should be targeted for surveillance because it is a religious 

institution." 

a. Do you believe that a religious institution should be targeted because it is of a 

particular faith, i.e., should a religious institution be targeted because it is a 

Muslim institution? 

b. Will you commit to instructing the FBI that the agency should not surveil a house 

of worship unless there is probable cause of criminal activity? 

12. In your response to Question for the Record 18, you stated that "President Trump has 

stated that he will comply with his obligations under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, 

and in fact, that he will take additional steps beyond what may be required under the 

Constitution." However, the plan President Trump outlined on January 11, 2017 (to 

address his potential conflicts and violation of the Emoluments Clause) did not require 

President Trump to relinquish ownership of his business or to establish a blind trust. The 

plan also did not indicate that President Trump would seek the consent of Congress to 

keep the benefits he receives from foreign entities through his businesses. The Director 

of the Office of Government Ethics has stated that this plan breaks with the practice of 

past presidents. 

3 
397 

a. Based on these facts, has President Trump, in your view, complied with the 

requirements of the Emoluments Clause? 

b. On January 23,2017, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 

supported by a bipartisan group of past presidential ethics lawyers and 

constitutional law scholars, filed a complaint against President Trump for 

violating the Emoluments Clause (available at 

http:/ I s3 .amazonaws. com/ storage. ci tizensforethi cs. org/wpcontent/uploads/20 I 7/01123222 93 7 /Complaint-17-45 S.pdt). Will you recuse 

yourself from this matter, given your personal involvement in President Trump's 

campaign in which he repeatedly stated his views about what he did and did not 

have to do to avoid conflicts of interest? 

13. In response to Question for the Record 20 regarding the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC): 

a. You agreed with prior Best Practices for OLC Legal Advice and Written Opinions 

(May 16,2005 and July 16, 2010) that OLC should provide "candid, independent, 

and principled advice," but you did not comment on the second portion of the 

quoted statement in Question 20(a), that OLC should provide such candid, 

independent, and principled advice "even when that advice may be inconsistent 

with the desires of policymakers" including the President. It is your view that 

OLC should provide "candid, independent and principled advice-even when that 

advice may be inconsistent with the desires of policymakers" including the 

President? 

b. You noted that an OLC opinion should be overturned "only after the most careful 

study and reflection," but Question 20(b) asked what standard should be met 

before an Attorney General or OLC opinion is overturned. What do you contend 

is the appropriate legal standard? 

14. In response to Question for the Record 24 regarding the 14th Amendment's constitutional 

guarantee of birthright citizenship, you indicated that you "have not studied this issue indepth" and would "enforce the law and the Constitution, and recognize that Congress 

may determine whether to enact changes to the law." 

a. Based on your review of the 14th Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 

169 U.S. 649 (1898) and its progeny, and U.S. law, do you believe a 

constitutional amendment would be required for the U.S. to stop recognizing 

children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants as U.S. citizens? 

b. In an interview with Laura Ingraham in August 2015, you reportedly stated that it 

is "not an extreme position" to interpret the 14th Amendment such that a person 

born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented is not entitled to U.S. 

citizenship at birth (available at hllp://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/jeff-sessionsbacks-trump-on-birthright-citizenship-absolutelv-not-an-extreme-position-videoO. 

Is that your position? 

15. In response to Question for the Record 25 regarding Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's 

HB 56, you indicated that "[t]he constitutionality of state laws is evaluated on a case-by4 
398 

case basis" and that you "would defer to the Supreme Court's reasoning as to which 

portions of these laws were found to be constitutional." 

a. What is your understanding of the judicial rulings in Arizona v. United States, 132 

S. Ct. 2492 (2012), Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of 

Alabama, 691 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2012), and United States v. Alabama, 691 

F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012)? 

b. Will you follow the law as set forth in these rulings? 

16. In response to Question for the Record 29 regarding Justice Department instructions to 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, you noted that if confirmed, 

you "will support the continued enforcement of federal gun laws, as appropriate, and 

focus on criminal offenders." What factors will you consider when determining whether 

it is appropriate to enforce federal gun laws? 

17. In response to Question for the Record 30 regarding the Justice Department's support for 

the Youth Mentoring Program, you indicated that you were "not familiar with the 

specifics of the funding associated with this particular program," and, if confirmed, you 

would "make funding decisions only after a careful evaluation of any current practice or 

program administered by the Department and the effectiveness of those practices to aid in 

the administration of justice." What metrics will you use to evaluate Department of 

Justice progran1s, and what tools will you use to judge the effectiveness of these 

programs in aiding the administration of justice? 

18. In response to Question for the Record 31, you indicated that, if confirmed, "working 

with and supporting State and local law enforcement" to build trust and partnerships with 

the communities they serve will be a top priority, but you did not indicate how you will 

do so. This question referenced the recommendations of the President's Task Force on 

21st Century Policing, which are available at 

https://cops.usdoj.aov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForcc FinalReport.pdf. Please identify any 

recommendations you will support to build trust and partnerships between law 

enforcement and the communities they serve. 

5 
399 

Senator Dick Durbin 

Written Questions for Attorney General Nominee Senator Jeff Sessions 

January 17, 2017 

For any questions with subparts, please respond to each subpart separately. 

I. When we met in my office prior to your confirmation hearing, I talked with you about the 

epidemic of gun violence facing the City of Chicago. 

In September, Mayor Emanuel put forward a public safety plan; I handed you a copy of it at 

our meeting. The plan calls for hiring nearly a thousand more Chicago police officers and 

detectives. It calls for more training and equipment, like body-worn cameras and gunshot 

detection technology. It calls for more mentoring programs for youth. And it calls for 

policing reforms to rebuild trust and cooperation between the police and the community. 

All of these are areas where the Justice Department can help. The COPS grant program 

helps put local police departments put more cops on the beat. The Byrne-JAG program helps 

them buy equipment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides 

mentoring and violence prevention funds. And the Justice Department was invited in by the 

mayor, the state Attorney General and me to review the Chicago Police Department's 

policies and practices. 

I believe the Justice Department must sustain and increase its support for Chicago in light of 

the crisis there. On January 2, President-elect Trump tweeted that Mayor Emanuel should 

ask for federal help in light of the violence. I was surprised in our meeting when I asked if 

you would support programs like COPS and Byrne-JAG as Attorney General and you replied 

"well, I'm going to take what Congress gets me." I then asked if you would include those 

grant programs in Justice Department budget requests and you said, "well, I'll think about it. 

I've thought in the past the money is not best spent on COPS." Your comments troubled me, 

because cutting these programs is the last thing Chicago needs now. 

Now that you have had further time to think about it, please answer the following questions: 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will not seek to 

cut Justice Department grant funding for the City of Chicago and instead seek 

increases in that funding to help address the gun violence crisis there? 

b. Will you commit to provide federal resources and support to improve Chicago's 

public safety, including helping the City to (1) hire additional officers and detectives 

through the COPS program; (2) purchase body-worn cameras and other equipment 

through the Byrne-JAG program and other Office of Justice Programs initiatives; 

(3) boost men to ring and violence prevention programs through the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and other Office of Justice Programs 

initiatives; and (4) reform its policing practices pursuant to the investigation 

findings and recommendation made by the Department on January 13? Please 

respond to each subpart of this questions separately. 
400 

c. Will you commit not to request cuts to the COPS Hiring Program below FY17 levels 

in the Justice Department's budget requests if you are confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

d. Will you commit not to request cuts to the Byrne-JAG program below FY17 levels 

in the Justice Department's budget requests if you are confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

e. Will you commit not to request cuts to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention below FY17 levels in the Justice Department's budget 

requests if you are confirmed as Attorney General? 

2. On January 13, the Department of Justice announced the findings of an investigation into the 

Chicago Police Department (CPD) that had been initiated on December 7, 2015 by the Civil 

Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. The 

investigation had been requested by a number of Illinois federal, state and local officials, 

including myself, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Chicago Mayor Rahm 

Emanuel, after the release of the videotape of the fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald. 

The investigation lasted for 13 months and was conducted with thoroughness and 

professionalism by career Department employees. 

The Department's findings reveal that the Department found reasonable cause to believe that 

the CPD has engaged in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in 

violation of the Constitution. The Department largely attributes this pattern or practice of 

unconstitutional force to deficiencies in CPD's training, supervision, accountability, and data 

collection systems. The findings also reveal that CPD's pattern or practice of unreasonable 

force falls disproportionately on predominantly minority neighborhoods, and that some CPD 

officers have engaged in racially discriminatory conduct. The findings are sobering, and they 

make clear that CPD must undergo significant reforms to restore the trust and confidence of 

the communities it polices and also to boost the morale of CPD officers who arc committed 

to engaging in effective, ethical and active policing but who feel they are insufficiently 

trained and supported in that effort. 

On January 13, the City of Chicago and the Justice Department signed an Agreement in 

Principle in which they commit to negotiate reforms over the coming months to ensure 

sustainable, constitutional and effective policing in Chicago. The Agreement states: 

Going forward, the Parties commit to negotiate in good faith to reach a comprehensive 

settlement in the form of a consent decree to be entered as an order of the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Settlement Agreement will include 

reforms ofCPD's use of force practices and accountability mechanisms, as well as its 

training, community policing, supervision, data collection, transparency, officer wellness 

systems and promotion practices. 

When I met with you prior to your confirmation hearing, I told you about this Justice 

Department investigation into the CPD and asked you about moving forward with a consent 

decree upon the issuance of the investigation's findings. You replied that you "don't know 

anything about" the investigation and that you "would have to study it." At your 

2 
401 

confirmation hearing, you responded to a question by Senator Hirono by saying "[t]he 

consent decree itself is not necessarily a bad thing, could be a legitimate decision ... I just 

think that caution is always required in these cases." 

It was the assessment of the career Justice Department professionals who conducted the CPD 

investigation that the CPD must undergo significant reforms to rebuild trust with the 

communities most challenged by violent crime and that "it is not likely to be successful in 

doing so without a consent decree with independent monitoring." 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will honor the Agreement in 

Principle that the Justice Department signed on January 13? 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work with the City to 

implement the reform recommendations made by the Department, including 

through the use of a consent decree? 

3. I sent a letter on December 13 to Attorney General Lynch inquiring whether there is an 

ongoing criminal investigation by career Justice Department employees into Russian 

interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That night Attorney General Lynch stated 

in a television interview that an investigation is ongoing. 

When you and I met prior to your confirmation hearing, I asked if you would continue this 

investigation if you were confirmed as Attorney General. You responded "If there's a basis 

to continue it, yes. There may be. But Congress also has investigations ongoing." 

I was troubled by your answer. Congress does have a key role to play in investigating 

Russia's actions and amplifying the Obama Administration's sanctions on Russia. But only 

the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute the perpetrators. We need an Attorney 

General who will protect our democratic processes from foreign interference. And that 

Attorney General may also have to stand up to President-elect Trump, who inexplicably 

continues to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

a. Have you read the unclassified or classified versions of the January 6 Intelligence 

Community Assessment "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US 

Elections"? 

b. Do you believe that this assessment provides the "basis" you said you needed for the 

Department of Justice to continue a criminal investigation into Russian interference 

in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

c. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will not 

impede or shut down any FBI or Justice Department investigation into Russian 

efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

d. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will recuse 

yourself from any ongoing FBI or Justice Department investigation into Russian 

efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

e. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will recuse 

yourself from any investigation into whether President-elect Trump or any of his 

family, campaign staff, business associates or advisors had any communication with 
402 

Russian officials or operatives during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, or had 

any connection to, knowledge of, or involvement in Russian efforts to influence the 

2016 U.S. presidential election? 

4. In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said the following about the Trump Organization: "we see a lot of 

money pouring in from Russia." 

a. Do you know how much of the Trump Organization's assets or debts are held or 

owned by Russian individuals, businesses, and/or government officials? 

b. Do you know how much money Russian individuals, businesses and/or government 

officials have paid to, invested in, or otherwise "pour[ed] in" the Trump 

Organization? 

c. If you are confirmed as the chieflaw enforcement officer of the United States, how 

will you ensure that the actions of President-elect Trump and his administration are 

not influenced or impacted by the Trump Organization's financial connections with 

Russian individuals, businesses, or government officials? 

d. Do you believe the American people would benefit from full transparency of the 

Trump Organization's assets, debts, and foreign entanglements? 

c. Should such transparency include the public release of President-elect Trump's tax 

returns for each year in which he has campaigned for or served in the office of 

President of the United States? 

5. On July 9, 1997, you expressed strong support for robust bipartisan Congressional 

investigations into whether China attempted to influence the 1996 presidential election. You 

said on the Senate floor: 

We need a bipartisan effort, similar to those conducted in the past. We 

need the spirit of Howard Baker in the Watergate hearings who, as a 

Republican, made sure that he cooperated in that investigation and sought 

the truth. We need the spirit of Warren Rudman, Republican, who 

participate in the Irangate matters that were investigated here. He always 

sought to get to the truth regardless of politics. 

a. Do you believe that we need to "get to the truth" about Russian interference in the 

2016 U.S. presidential election, "regardless of politics"? 

b. If your answer to question S(a) is yes, how do you believe we should get to this 

truth'! 

c. If your answer to question S(a) is no, how do you differentiate allegations of Chinese 

interference in the 1996 election from allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 

election? 

d. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you support and assist Congressional 

investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 

including by providing information that Members of Congress- Democrats, 

Republicans and Independents alike- request as part of such investigations? 

4 
403 

6. During his confirmation hearing, Congressman Michael Pompeo, the nominee for the 

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was asked by Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence (SSCI) Vice Chairman Mark Warner "[d]o you pledge to continue to pursue 

your own inwstigati,,n into ongoing Russian active measures and any attempts they or others 

may have to undermine the United States, our political system. or our position in the \lorldT 

Congressman Pompeo ans11 ered .. Senator. I do:· 

Do you pledge to continue to pursue any ongoing inYestigation by the ,Justice 

Department into Russian intct·ference in the 2016 election or any other attempts Russia 

may han made to undermine the United States, our political system, or our position in 

the world'? 

7. On September 28,2016, Director James Corney ofthe Federal Bureau ofinvestigation 

testified before the House Judiciary Committee and was asked about the Department's 

standard for commenting on whether an investigation is underway. Director Corney stated 

that "[o]ur standard is we do not confirn1 or deny the existence of investigations," but he 

cited examples of"exceptional circumstances" that he said justified commenting on the 

existence of investigations, including "when there is a need for the public to be reassured" 

and "where the public needed transparency." 

a. Do you agree with Director Corney that Department of Justice officials are justified 

in commenting on the existence of investigations in exceptional circumstances, 

including "when there is a need for the public to be reassured" and "where the 

public need[s] transparency"? 

b. Do you believe that the American people deserve to know whether the Department 

of Justice is fully investigating the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

e. Will you commit to promptly inform the American people about the outcome of the 

Department of Justice's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

d. Will you commit to promptly inform the American people if the Department of 

Justice closes, terminates, or declines to further pursue an investigation into Russian 

interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

8. During his confirmation hearing, General John Kelly, the nominee for Secretary of 

Homeland Security, was asked ifhe accepted the conclusions of the intelligence community 

regarding Russian interference in our election. He answered "yes, with high confidence." 

Do you agree with General Kelly's answer? 

9. The Foreign Emoluments Clause in Art. I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that 

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no Person holding any Office 

of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any 

present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign 

State." 
404 

The Foreign Emoluments Clause reflects a fundamental priority of the Founding Fathers as 

they designed our form of government. They were worried about foreign powers attempting 

to influence and corrupt the leadership of our nation, so the Constitution included safeguards 

against pressure from such powers, particularly the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which was 

adopted unanimously at the Constitutional Convention. As Delegate Edmund Randolph of 

the Continental Congress said during the ratification debates in Virginia, "[i]t was thought 

proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office 

from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states." 

a. Do you believe that all current provisions of the Constitution must be followed and 

enforced, including the Foreign Emoluments Clause? 

b. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, what steps will you take to ensure that 

the Foreign Emoluments Clause is followed and enforced? 

c. President-elect Trump says that he is taking steps to avoid unconstitutional 

emoluments. But without seeing his federal tax returns and having full 

transparency of his and his family's business holdings and debts, how can the 

American people be confident that all potential emoluments have been eliminated 

and will continue to be avoided throughout his Presidency? 

d. President-elect Trump has said he will donate to the U.S. Treasury profits from 

foreign government payments made to his hotels. Do you believe that the 

subsequent donation of payments can cure a violation of the Foreign Emoluments 

Clause, which provides that no officeholder may "accept" such payment? If so, 

why? 

c. If the Office of Legal Counsel is asked to assess the legality of any receipt of 

emoluments by President Trump, would you recuse yourself from reviewing or 

influencing the Office's decision? If not, why not? 

f. On what basis will you decide when to personally recuse yourself from involvement 

in a case, investigation or other matter involving the financial interests of Presidentelect Trump or his family? 

g. If you recuse yourself from involvement in a case, investigation, or other matter 

involving the financial interests of President-elect Trump or his family, will you 

commit to having the matter handled by career Justice Department officials instead 

of political appointees? If not, why not? 

I 0. If we are serious about reducing the number of shootings in Chicago, we cannot ignore the 

pipeline of illicitly-trafficked guns from Indiana into Chicago. As Lake County Indiana 

Sheriff John Buncich said last year, hundreds of guns from Lake County show up in Chicago 

crimes every year, and "individuals are skirting federal law, especially at these gun 

shows ... there's a lot of illegal gun sales." 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work with officials in Indiana 

on reforms that will reduce the illicit trafficking of guns from Indiana gun shows to 

the streets of Chicago? 

b. Will you commit that, if you arc confirmed, you will make it a priority of the 

Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute those who are selling guns that 

supply Chicago's criminal gun market? 

6 
405 

c. If you are confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that cases involving straw 

purchasing, gun trafficking, and dealing in firearms without a license are 

prosecuted? Will the Department of Justice's budget requests support additional 

resources, specifically for ATF, to enforce these laws? 

11. Two critically important law enforcement tools for fighting violent crime are crime gun 

tracing and ballistics matching. Local police departments and sheriffs offices can use ATF's 

online eTrace tool to trace guns recovered in crime in order to generate leads in criminal 

investigations and to identify those who illegally traffic in guns. And ATF's National 

Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIB IN) lets local law enforcement take digital 

computer images of ammunition casing evidence recovered at crime scenes and match them 

to particular guns. This helps law enforcement identify trigger-pullers and helps discover 

links between gun crimes. 

I have made it a priority to encourage every local law enforcement agency in Illinois to trace 

all of their crime guns through eTrace and to use NIBIN for all recovered ammunition 

casings. I have reached out to hundreds of police chiefs and sheriffs in my state about these 

tools, and 476 Illinois law enforcement agencies now use eTrace and 260 use NIBIN. These 

tools help solve crimes. 

If confirmed as Attorney General, would you take steps to urge all state and local law 

enforcement agencies to use eTrace and NIBIN for all guns and ammunition casings 

recovered in crimes? 

12. You have repeatedly emphasized the importance of enforcing the gun laws on the books. 

FBI NICS background checks on prospective gun purchasers are one of the most important 

mechanisms we have to enforce the laws that prohibit felons, the mentally unstable, and other 

prohibited purchasers from obtaining guns. 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work to ensure that the records 

in the NICS background check system are as complete and up-to-date as possible? 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the Department of Justice will not 

submit budget requests that seek to reduce the amount of FBI resources and the 

number of FBI personnel dedicated to operating the NICS system below FY17 

levels? 

c. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the FBI will respect and enforce current 

federal and state laws regarding NICS background checks, including by assisting 

each state to conduct checks on gun sales in that state? 

d. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the FBI will continue to run NICS 

background checks on private sales in any state when the private seller voluntarily 

goes to a federally-licensed dealer to conduct a background check on the buyer? 

13. On May 6, 1998, you spoke at length on the Senate floor about federal conflict of interest 

laws. You described the "fundamental principle that a man or woman can only serve one 

master, not two, and should not be holding public office with a clear conflict of interest." 

7 
406 

You continued: 

We have crafted over the years a series of laws that are designed in such a 

way that those laws protect the public from conflicts of interest and other 

types of unhealthy relationships that would put that person in office in a 

position in which his total fidelity is to anything other than the government 

which he represents. That is what we are looking for. Somewhere in the 

Book of Ecclesiastes the preacher said "A bribe corrupts the mind." A 

conflict of interest corrupts the mind. The person is tom. You cannot serve 

two masters. You can only serve one master. 

You also said in a press release that day that "Laws should apply equally to all people." 

a. Do you believe that President-elect Trump has rid himself of his conflicts of interest 

such that his "total fidelity" is now only to the government which he represents? 

b. How can the American people verify that President-elect Trump's "total fidelity" is 

only to the government which he represents if he does not release his annual tax 

returns? 

14. In an interview on November 23, President-elect Trump said "the president can't have a 

conflict of interest. 

In your view, is this an accurate statement? 

15. In your May 6, 1998 Senate floor speech on conflicts of interest you said "U.S. attorneys are 

prosecuting people who do these kinds of things with these kinds of conflicts. To pass a law 

to say everybody else has to adhere to them except for one individual because he or she is 

special is a big mistake." 

Do you think it is a "big mistake" to have federal criminal conflict of interest laws that 

do not apply to the President? 

16. On January 5, The Wall Street Journal published a story entitled "Trump's Debts are Widely 

Held on Wall Street, Creating New Potential Conflicts." The story noted that President-elect 

Trump said in his financial disclosure form that his businesses owe at least $315 million to 

ten companies. But The Wall Street Journal analyzed these debts and found that they had 

been securitized and are now held by more than ISO companies. Also, Mr. Trump did not list 

in his disclosure form his debts for partnerships that he does not fully control. The Journal 

was able to identify at least $1.5 billion in such debts, including loans that Mr. Trump 

personally guaranteed. 

The potential for conflicts of interest here is staggering. For example, as The Journal noted, 

"Deutsche Bank, which is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department over its equity 

trades for wealthy clients in Russia, is the single biggest lender to properties controlled by 

Mr. Trump." 
407 

In addition, The Journal found that "If the Trump businesses were to default on their debts, 

the giant financial institutions that serve as so-called special servicers of these loan pools 

would have the power to foreclose on some of Mr. Trump's marquee properties or seek the 

tens of millions that Mr. Trump personally guaranteed on the loans." One ofthe main 

servicers of Mr. Trump's debt is Wells Fargo, which was recently penalized by the Consumer 

financial Protection Bureau for creating sham consumer accounts. 

As The Journal concluded, a broad array of financial institutions "now are in a potentially 

powerful position over the incoming president." 

a. Do you agree with this conclusion? 

b. What would be your plan, if you are confirmed, to ensure that President Trump and 

his family are not susceptible to pressure from the financial institutions that hold 

their and their businesses' debt? 

17. There is an important program in the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs called 

the John R. Justice Program. Named after the late former president of the National District 

Attorneys Association, the John R. Justice Program provides student loan repayment 

assistance to state and local prosecutors and public defenders across the nation 

Congress created this program in 2008 and modeled it after a student loan program that DOJ 

runs for its own attorneys. The Jolm R. Justice program helps state and local prosecutors 

and defenders pay down their student loans in exchange for a three-year commitment to their 

job. This is a very effective recruitment and retention tool for prosecutor and defender 

offices. And since DOJ is giving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants each year to state 

and local law enforcement, which generates more arrests and more criminal cases, it is 

critical that we help prosecutor and defender offices keep experienced attorneys on staff to 

handle these cases. 

The John R. Justice Program has helped thousands of prosecutors and defenders across the 

country. But for the program to remain successful, the Department of Justice must remain 

committed to funding this program and to carefully administering it. 

Will you commit to keep this program operating during your tenure if you are 

confirmed? 

18. You have said that marijuana should not be legalized and that "good people don't smoke 

marijuana." 

Would you oppose the nomination of a person to a position in the Justice Department 

or a federal judgeship if you found out that the person had used marijuana in his or her 

life? 

19. Although the population of Alabama is more than one quarter African American, there has 

never been an African-American judge from Alabama on the federal appeals court. Last 

February, President Obama sought to fill an II th Circuit vacancy by nominating Abdul 

9 
408 

Kallon, a highly-regarded A!ncan-Americanjudge from Alabama whose district court 

nomination you supported in 2009. However, you did not submit your blue slip for Judge 

Kallon's nomination to the II th Circuit, meaning this Committee could not move forward 

with a hearing. 

a. Why did you not submit your blue slip? 

b. In your view, is Judge Kallon qualified to serve on the 11th Circuit? 

20. On January 23, 2009, you issued a press release announcing your opposition to President 

Obama's nomination of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary. You said: 

I have decided to vote against Mr. Geithner's nomination because his failure to 

properly pay his taxes on multiple occasions was, in my view, likely a 

deliberate attempt to avoid his tax obligations. Failure to pay taxes would 

disqualify any IRS agent from further employment, so it should also disqualify 

Mr. Geithner from being confirmed Secretary of the Treasury, a cabinet position 

that oversees the IRS and prosecutions for tax evasion. 

You went on to say: 

The American people have made clear that they want accountability and 

responsibility restored to Washington. Ignoring Mr. Geithner's failure to pay 

his taxes and elevating him to Secretary-where he will supervise agents and 

other officials who would be subject to termination for a similar breach of 

trust-is not a good way to meet the public's expectations. 

Are you confident that President-elect Trump has properly paid all his taxes? Please 

explain the basis for your response. 

21. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will work to 

enjoin state laws that restrict voting and registration in ways that disproportionately 

affect African-American or other minority voters? 

22. At your nomination hearing, you suggested that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides 

adequate remedies to problematic voting restrictions. However, consider the example of the 

North Carolina voting law, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held was 

based on discriminatory intent. While section 2 of the Voting Rights Act permitted the 

state's misconduct to be remedied through litigation, this only occurred after much of the law 

had been implemented in the 2014 election. Prior to Shelby County, this law would have 

been reviewed by DOJ through the preclearance mechanism and these unconstitutional 

voting restrictions would have been stopped before any harm was done. 

In light of the time lag involved in section 2 enforcement, how can you suggest a Voting 

Rights Act without preclearance is adequate? 

10 
409 

23. At your nomination hearing, you stated that the "Supreme Court decided that we should not 

have ... preclearance." However, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court did not find 

that preclearance was unconstitutional, but that the formula for determining which 

jurisdictions are subject to preclearance is unconstitutional. 

In 2015, I joined Senator Leahy and Senator Coons in introducing the Voting Rights 

Advancement Act (VRAA), in order to update the preclearance formula and restore the 

Voting Rights Act. The VRAA responds to many of the Court's concerns about the original 

preclearance formula, which you also criticized during the 2006 reauthorization of the Act. 

For example, the VRAA includes a rolling preclearance coverage formula that applies to all 

states and hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. 

a. Do you agree that the Supreme Court has not held that preclearance is 

unconstitutional? 

b. Without asking you to take a position on the specifics of the VRAA, would an 

updated coverage formula address your concerns about preclearance? 

24. In Wisconsin, a newly-implemented voter photo identification law led to challenges and 

confusion in the April primary. Consider the case of Eddie Lee Holloway, Jr. He moved 

from my home state of Illinois to Wisconsin in 2008 and was able to vote without any 

problems before the voter 1D law went into effect. After the law was passed, Mr. Holloway 

went to a DMV in Milwaukee with an expired Illinois photo ID, his birth certificate, and his 

Social Security card to obtain a Wisconsin photo ID for voting. However, his application was 

rejected due to a clerical error on his birth certificate, which read "Eddie Junior Holloway." 

Mr. Holloway spent hundreds of dollars traveling to Illinois to try to fix this problem. In 

addition to the Milwaukee DMV, he visited the Vital Records System in Milwaukee, the 

Illinois Vital Records Division in Springfield, an Illinois DMV, and his high school in 

Decatur, Illinois-all in an attempt to obtain sufficient records for a Wisconsin voter ID. 

Despite all of these efforts, Mr. Holloway was unable to vote in the April primary. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Holloway is not alone. Last year, a study based on data from the annual 

Cooperative Congressional Election Study found: "The patterns are stark. Where strict 

identification laws are instituted, racial and ethnic minority turnout significantly declines." 

For example, among Latino voters, "turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general 

elections and 5.3 percentage points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other 

states." 

What is your response to people like Mr. Holloway who have been prevented from 

exercising their fundamental right to vote due to burdensome voter ID laws? 

25. In 2014, GAO released a study on the impact of voter ID laws, at the request of Senators 

Sanders, Leahy, Schumer, Nelson, and myself. The study found that in two states with strict 

voter ID laws-Kansas and Tennessee--the laws hurt turnout. The impact of the law was 

greatest among African-Americans, young people, and newly-registered voters. 

11 
410 

Do the results of this study concern you? 

26. At our meeting before your nomination hearing, you acknowledged that in your state, there 

was a "brutal, ruthless denial of the right to vote." You went on to say that the Voting Rights 

Act "fixed it." However, just two years ago, your state made national headlines for closing or 

reducing service at more than 30 DMV locations, shortly after Alabama enacted a Jaw 

requiring voters to present a photo ID to vote. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote to state officials to "raise [their] grave concerns 

regarding the State's intended closures" which occurred "predominantly in rural counties 

with large Black populations, high poverty rates, and little to no public transportation." 

Congresswoman Terri Sewell called for a DOJ investigation into the closures, stating that the 

"closures will potentially disenfranchise Alabama's poor, elderly, disabled, and black 

communities." The federal Department of Transportation opened a civil rights investigation 

to examine the incident. 

Did you disagree with Congresswoman Sewell's conclusions on how the closures might 

impact Alabama voters? 

27. You have been outspoken in your defense of religious freedom for Christians. For example, 

you denounced a I 997 court order that limited prayer in Alabama public schools, calling it 

"one more example of the effort by the courts to eliminate the natural expression of religious 

belief from public life." A year later, you introduced a Senate resolution "affirming the right 

to display the Ten Commandments in public places, including government offices and 

courthouses." You said "[w]e've got to end the hostility toward the display of the Ten 

Commandments in public places." 

You have been much more ambivalent about religious freedom for Muslims. You have 

referred to it as "a toxic ideology" and said of American Muslims "our nation has an 

unprecedented assimilation problem." In response to President-elect Trump's proposed ban 

on Muslim immigrants, you said, "I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has 

forced that discussion." 

President-elect Trump has gone further, saying "Islam hates us." He has also said that there is 

"absolutely no choice" but to close some mosques and that he would consider creating a 

database of American Muslims. And, last July, he launched an offensive attack against Khizr 

and Ghazala Khan-the grieving parents of a fallen Muslim-American solider. 

At the same time, American Muslims arc facing a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes, 

according to the FBI and other experts. 

a. Will you commit to vigorously enforcing civil rights laws to combat discrimination 

against American Muslims, including federal hate crimes laws? 

b. Do you believe it would be legally permissible to shut down mosques? 

c. Do you believe it would be legally permissible to create a database of American 

Muslims? 

12 
411 

d. Do you think that President-elect Trump's comments on the Khan family were 

appropriate? 

e. Last year, President-elect Trump said American Muslims "know who the bad 

apples are, where the bad seeds are and they don't report them." But FBI Directors 

Mueller and Corney have both praised the Muslim community for cooperating with 

law enforcement and reporting suspected terrorists. Do you agree with the 

President-elect or Directors Mueller and Corney? 

28. Last October marked the seven-year anniversary of the passage of one of the most important 

civil rights laws of our time, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of2009. 

You vigorously opposed the law at the time of its passage, saying it was "unwarranted, 

possibly unconstitutional. .. and it violates the basic principle of equal justice under the law." 

You went on to say that the bill "has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement." 

At your nomination hearing, Senator Leahy asked you about this law. You stated:"[T]he law 

has been passed. The Congress has spoken. You can be sure I will enforce it." 

If you are confirmed to be Attorney General, what steps will you take to vigorously 

enforce the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 

2009? 

29. When the Senate considered the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of2009, you expressed particular concern about a provision in the law that 

expanded federal hate crime protections to cover victims who are targeted based on their 

gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. You even suggested this provision 

was unnecessary because women and LGBT individuals do not face serious discrimination, 

saying: "today I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that 

kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." 

However, as the New York Times reported last year: 

Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, [Florida], lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender people were already the most likely targets of hate crimes in 

America, according to an analysis of data collected by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

According to the data, LGBT Americans are "twice as likely to be targeted as AfricanAmericans, and the rate of hate crimes against them has surpassed that of crimes against 

Jews." 

a. At your nomination hearing, you stated that you "understand the demands for 

justice and fairness made by our LGBT community" and that you "will ensure that 

the statutes protecting their civil rights and their safety arc fully enforced." Can you 

13 
412 

elaborate on how you will ensure that the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 

transgender Americans are protected? 

b. My staff was unable to find any other instance of you using the term "LGBT" in 

public prior to your nomination hearing. Is this a term that you have ever used in 

public prior to your hearing? 

30. In a 2014 speech to the Anti-Defamation League, FBI Director Corney said: 

Hate crimes are different from other crimes. They strike at the heart of one's 

identity-they strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is 

loss-loss of trust, loss of dignity, and in the worst case, loss of life. Hate crimes 

impact not just individuals, but entire communities. When a family is attacked 

because of the color of their skin, it's not just the family that feels violated, but 

every resident of that neighborhood. When a teenager is murdered because he is 

gay, the entire community feels a sense of helplessness and despair. And when 

innocent people are shot at random because of their religious beliefs-real or 

perceived-our nation is left at a loss. 

Do you agree with Director Corney's statement? 

31. In 2012, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights that examined hate crimes and the threat of domestic extremism. After the 

hearing, at my request, the FBI began tracking hate crimes against Arab Americans, Hindu 

Americans, and Sikh Americans, among others. This is a positive step, but if state and local 

law enforcement agencies fail to report hate crimes, we cannot understand the full extent of 

the problem and what steps must be taken to address it. 

In his speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Director Corney also highlighted this issue, 

noting: 

We need to do a better job of tracking and reporting hate crime to fully 

understand what is happening in our communities and how to stop it. There are 

jurisdictions that fail to report hate crime statistics. Other jurisdictions claim there 

were no hate crimes in their community-a fact that would be welcome if true. 

We must continue to impress upon our state and local counterparts in every 

jurisdiction the need to track and report hate crime. It is not something we can 

ignore or sweep under the rug. 

a. Do you share Director Corney's concerns about hate crimes being underreported? 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will take steps to ensure that the 

FBI and the Department of Justice work together to improve hate crime reporting 

by state and local law enforcement? 

32. When I was Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human 

Rights, I held two hearings on the human rights, fiscal, and public safety consequences of 

solitary confinement. Anyone who heard the chilling testimony of Anthony Graves and 

14 
413 

Damon Thibodeaux-exonerated inmates who each spent more than a decade in solitary 

confinement-knows that this is a critical human rights issue that we must address. 

In light of the mounting evidence ofthe harmful-even dangerous-impacts of solitary 

confinement, states around the country have led the way in reassessing the practice. Progress 

has been made at the federal level as well. However, there are still nearly I 0,000 federal 

inmates in segregation. 

a. Do you believe that long-term solitary confinement can have a harmful impact on 

inmates? 

b. If you are confirmed, can you assure me that you will examine the evidence and 

work with BOP to make ensure that solitary confinement is not overused? 

33. In federal prosecutions, the majority of drug offenders are non-violent, have low criminal 

histories, and are not leaders or organizers. In 2015,48.1 percent of drug offenders were in 

criminal history category I, and 12.9 percent were in criminal history category II. Indeed, 

82.8 percent of all drug offenses did not involve the use of a weapon. Only 7. 7 percent of all 

drug offenders had an aggravating role adjustment (were leaders, organizers, managers or 

supervisors). A 2016 Report by the United States Sentencing Commission found that the 

number of federal offenders whose most serious offense was simple drug possession 

increased nearly 400 percent during the six-year period between fiscal years 2008 and 2013. 

I introduced Alton Mills to you as an example of one of these low level ofienders. Alton 

Mills spent 22 years in federal prison, on a life sentence, until December 2015 when 

President Obama commuted his sentence. 

If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you prioritize the prosecution of highlevel drug offenders over low-level offenders? 

34. During your confirmation hearing, you said "We will prosecute those who 

repeatedly violate our borders. It will be my priority to confront these crimes 

vigorously, effectively and immediately." 

The bipartisan United States Sentencing Commission noted in its April2015 report 

that illegal reentry cases are a significant portion of all federal cases in which 

offenders are sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, constituting 

26 percent of all such cases in fiscal year 2013. 

In April2016, the chair of the Sentencing Commission noted that, "there are many 

low level offenders who return to the United States for reasons related to family or 

work as well as reasons relating to conditions in their home country." 

a. How you would seek to balance limited prosecutorial resources when 

considering illegal reentry cases versus national security cases and other 

non-immigration criminal cases? 

15 
414 

b. How would you use your discretion in choosing to prosecute particular 

illegal reentry cases? Would work or family ties in the U.S., or conditions in 

the foreign national's home country, impact your decision? 

35. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General's determination 

and ruling on all questions oflaw is controlling. During your confirmation hearing, I 

asked you how you would use your vast authority as Attorney General, including in 

your role overseeing the immigration courts. You will also oversee the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest administrative body for interpreting and 

applying immigration laws, including our asylum laws which provide protection to 

vulnerable individuals seeking refuge from persecution. You will have the authority 

to unilaterally revoke decisions of the BIA or to reduce the BIA's membership from 

its current number of 17. You will have the authority to hire and fire immigration 

judges. 

a. Will you commit to not removing any currently serving immigration judges or 

BIA members, except for cause? 

b. What is your plan to deal with the backlog of more than 500,000 pending cases 

in the immigration courts? 

c. Will you commit to maintaining or increasing the current number of 

immigration judges and courts nationwide? 

d. How do you plan to hire immigration judges in the future and what criteria 

would you use to disqualify applicants? Would you view as a negative factor 

prospective judges' membership in groups like the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association or the American Civil Liberties Union? 

e. Do you believe a child can represent herself fairly in immigration court without 

access to counsel? 

36. The goal of so-called "sanctuary cities" policies is to promote effective community policing 

by encouraging immigrant communities to trust local police. 

Do you believe that existing law authorizes the Executive Branch to bar or limit federal 

funding to the estimated 364 counties and 39 cities nationwide that have policies 

limiting their police department's role in enforcing immigration laws or would this 

require Congress to change the law? 

37. Regarding refugees. a joint statement by Michael Hayden. fom1er director of the CIA and 

NSA. and James Stavridis. former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. said: 

It's ironic, to say the least, that today some politicians are seeking to 

shut out refugees in the name of national security. The global refugee 

crisis is straining the resources and infrastructures of Lebanon, Jordan, 

and Turkey, which are hosting the vast majority of Syrian refugees. 

16 
415 

By doing more to host and help refugees, the United States would 

safeguard the stability of these nations and thereby advance its own 

national security interests. 

Moreover, hostility to refugees helps ISIS. Conversely, welcoming 

refugees regardless of their religion, nationality, or race exposes the 

falseness of terrorist propaganda and counters the warped vision of 

extremists. 

Do you agree that limiting refugee resettlement could assist ISIS propaganda efforts'! 

38. A document titled, Immigration Handbook For The New Republican Majority: A Memo For 

Republican Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions, dated January 2015, is available via your 

Senate website. 

Did any outside groups assist you or your staff in creating, editing, or reviewing this 

document, and if so, which groups? 

39. In the Immigration Handbook For The New Republican Majority: A Memo For Republican 

Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions, you state: 

The Congressional Research Service estimates that the foreign-born population 

could reach as high as 58 million within a decade based on recent trends. Only an 

adjustment in policy will change this trajectory-just as policy was changed early 

in the 20th century to allow labor markets to tighten. 

There had been a great wave of immigration in the four decades leading up to the 

Coolidge Administration. This substantial increase in the labor pool had created a 

loose labor market that tilted the balance of power to large employers over 

everyday workers. Coolidge believed it was rational and sensible to swing the 

pendulum back towards the average wage-earning American. 

The Immigration Act of 1924, to which you refer, limited the number of immigrants to the 

U.S. via a national origins quota based on the 1890 census. It excluded immigrants from 

Asia, and severely restricted new immigration from much of the world outside of Northwest 

Europe and Scandinavia. 

Please explain why you cited the immigration restrictions enacted by the Coolidge 

Administration without mentioning their exclusionary nature? 

40. According to the Department of Justice website, clemency applications are handled in the 

following manner: "After all relevant information has been received, OPA prepares a 

proposed recommendation for disposition of the case that is submitted to the Deputy 

Attorney General, who makes the final determination of the Justice Department's 

recommendation to the President. The Deputy Attorney General's signed recommendation is 

then transmitted to the White House, and the President acts on each case when he believes it 

is appropriate to do so." 

17 
416 

a. Will you commit to keep the practice in place of the Deputy Attorney General 

making the final determination on a clemency application? 

b. Will you commit that you will not review or overturn the Deputy Attorney 

General's recommendation in any clemency case? 

!8 
417 

Questions for the Record 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Senator Jeff Sessions, Nominee to be U.S. Attorney General 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

1. News reports have indicated that President-Elect Trump's chosen National Security Advisor, 

Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, engaged in multiple communications with the Russian 

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. on the same day that President Obama mmounced sanctions 

against Russia. 

a. Have you communicated with President-Elect Trump about these communications to 

tlte Russian Ambassador? Have you spoken with anyone else 011 the transition team 

(including General Flynn) or President-Elect Trump's staff? If so, please specify wlto 

you communicated with, and wit en. 

b. If confirmed, you will be interacting frequently with General Flynn in his capacity as 

National Security Advisor. Will you recuse yourself from any FBI or Justice 

Department investigation into whether Flynn's communications were permissible 

under the law, including the Logan Act? If not, why not? 

2. At your hearing, Senator Coons asked whether you would support legislation to strengthen 

and uphold sanctions against Russia for the cyber-attack it organized that was designed to 

influence the American elections. You responded that "That is something that is appropriate 

for Congress and the Chief Executive to consider. In other words, how do you respond to 

what is believed to be a cyber attack from a major nation? It is difficult just to say, well, we 

are going to prosecute the head of the KGB or some group that has participated in it-no 

longer a KGB, of course. So in many ways, the political response, the international foreign 

policy response, may be the only recourse." 

In fact, the federal criminal code contains numerous criminal statutes levying serious 

penalties that might be available in a case involving allegations of international hacking. In 

addition, the Department of Justice has used these to prosecute individuals in the past. In 

addition, the Department may be required to decide whether to bring criminal charges against 

any person who committed these hacks, aided and abetted these hacks, or conspired to 

commit these hacks. 

a. The Department has charged similar cases against state-sponsored individuals 

associated with the Iranian government, as well as members of the Chinese military. 

Will you commit that the Department will take a11y and all steps necessary to enforce 

federal statutes that were violated, and not just rely on political diplomacy? 

b. Have you reviewed either the classified or unclassified assessments by the Intelligence 

Community regarding Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections? 

c. Do you agree with the Intelligence Community's assessments? If not, please specify 

those assessments with which you disagree. 
418 

d. Given the extent of your involvement in President-Elect Trump'.~ political campaign, 

will you recuse yourself from any decision regarding whether to bring federal criminal 

prosecutions in connection with Russian hacking of the election? If not, why not? 

e. Please identify all persons with whom you have spoken who share your view that the 

U.S. response to Russian hacking should be limited to "the political response, the 

international foreign policy response." 

3. The Department of Justice Inspector General recently wrote to Congress indicating that the 

OIG would be reviewing a number of issues with respect to the Hillary Clinton email server 

investigation. 

When asked during your oral testimony how you would handle any investigation involving 

Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, you stated, "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 could be otherwise 

connected to it." 

a. Does your commitment to recuse yourself extend to the recently-announced review by 

the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General into a number of issues 

with respect to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation? If not, why not? 

b. If confirmed, who will handle any recommendations made by DOJ regarding any 

investigation involving Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation? Who will handle 

recommendations by the Inspector General? 

c. Senator Grassley posed the following question to Attorney General Lynch after her 

hearing, and I would pose the same question: "Given the clear language of tire 

Inspector General Act, will you give me your commitment that, if confirmed, you will 

not stonewall the Inspector General or delay his work?" 

d. Will you also give me your commitment that you will not allow any subordinate official 

at the Department to stonewall or delay the Inspector General's work? 

4. You testified at your hearing that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is "the law of 

the land. It has been so established and settled for quite a long time and it deserves respect. 

And I would respect it and follow it." 

a. How will you "respect it and follow it"? 

b. What is your understanding of the meaning of a case being "settled law"? 

c. Do you commit that the Department of Justice will not file amicus briefs or in other 

ways try to alter case law on reproductive rights? 

5. You also testified at your hearing that the Roe decision "violated the Constitution and really 

attempted to set policy and not follow law." 

2 
419 

a. If you believe a case is "the law of the land" and "settled for a long time" but you also 

believe the case "violated the Constitution," how would that impact the conduct of the 

Justice Department under your leadership? Are there other Supreme Court cases you 

believe to be settled law, yet which you also believe violate the Constitution? If soplease list each and explain the constitutional provision that is violated. 

6. Senator Hirano asked you at your hearing whether you would "direct or advise your Solicitor 

General to weigh in before that Supreme Court which has an opportunity to overturn Roe v. 

Wade?" You responded that the decision is "firmly ensconced as the law of the land, and I do 

not know we would see a change in that." 

In that same answer, you told Senator Hirano that "cases seldom come up on such a clear 

issue. They come up at the margins" of the constitutional right to have an abortion as set 

forth in Roe. 

a. If confirmed, will the Justice Department under your leadership argue that Roe v. 

Wade and its progeny (e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. 

Hellerstedt) should be overturned? Please answer yes or no. 

7. Violence at women's health clinics remains a very serious issue. In the fall of2015, for 

example, a Colorado man killed three people at a clinic. At your hearing, you testified that 

you will "enforce the laws that make clear that a person who wants to receive a lawful 

abortion cannot be blocked by protesters and disruption of a doctor's practice ... I am pro-life, 

as you know, but we have settled on some laws that are clearly effective, and as Attorney 

General, you can be sure we would follow them." You also testified that medical 

professionals who provide abortions "deserve the same protection that any entity, business or 

otherwise or health care entity is entitled to ... [Maybe] [e]ven more so, because we have a 

specific law about abortion clinics." That law, of course, is the Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act (FACE) of 1994. 

8. Part ofthe Justice Department's efforts to enforce FACE and protect women and providers 

from violence at women's health clinics is the National Task Force on Violence Against 

Health Care Providers, which was established in 1998 by then-Attorney General Janet Reno 

and which is staffed through the Department's Civil Rights Division. The Task Force 

includes DOJ attorneys as well as investigators from the FBI, ATF, and the U.S. Marshals 

Service. 

a. Will you ensure that the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care 

Providers has adequate resources? 

b. Will you ensure that the Department will continue to be active and engaged on issues 

related to patient and provider safety at women's health clinics, including by bringing 

relevant cases under FACE and interacting with groups that represent providers and 

clinics? 

9. At the nomination hearing, I asked you about a provision ofthe Justice for Victims of 

Trafficking Act, which sets aside at least $5 million and up to $30 million of funding for 

3 
420 

grants or programs for "the provision of health care or medical items or services to victims of 

trafficking." (18 U.S.C. § 3014(h)(l)-(2)) 

I read the following from Senator Cornyn's floor remarks explaining that these funds are 

subject to the Hyde Amendment and its important exceptions: 

"[E]veryone knows the Hyde amendment language contains an exception for rape and 

the health ofthe mother. So under this act, these limitations on spending wouldn't 

have anything to do with the services available to help those victims of human 

trafficking." 

You testified that you were "not aware of how the language for this grant program has been 

established," but that you "would follow the law." 

Please review the provision and Senator Cornyn's explanation above to answer the following 

question: 

a. Will you commit that these grant funds will not be denied to service providers who 

assist victims of sex trafficking in obtaining the comprehensive health services they 

need, including an abortion? 

10. In response to Senator Hatch's question about the importance of religious freedom, you 

testified that "It would be a very high priority of mine." 

a. If confirmed, how would yon ensure that enforcement of religious freedoms will not 

harm women's access to health care, including contraception, or the rights of LGBT 

individuals? 

b. Do you believe that a business open to the public has a right under the First 

Amendment to refuse to serve an individual because that individual is gay, or lesbian, 

or bisexual, or transgender? 

11. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) wrote a letter to Congress warning that PresidentElect Trump's nominees' hearings are taking place even before OGE has completed its 

review of all of the nominees to ensure there are no ethical, financial or criminal concerns. 

The Director of OGE stated: '·J an1 not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE 

was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had 

completed the ethics review process:• 

On May 6. 1998, you expressed similar concerns when discussed your experience as a former 

prosecutor and stressed the importance of adhering to ethics laws. You also stressed the role 

of OGE in preventing government corruption and analyzing whether waivers should be 

provided. 

In this particular speech, you were speaking in opposition to legislation that would have 

allowed someone paid by the IRS employees' union to participate on an IRS oversight board. 

You stated that such an aJTangement flouted OGE advice, and was arguably criminal. You 

stated, in part: 

4 
421 

We have crafted over the years a series of laws that are designed in such a way that those 

laws protect the public from conflicts of interest and other types of unhealthy 

relationships that would put that person in office in a position in which his totalfidelity is 

to anything other than the government which he represents. 

Somewhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes the preacher said '"A bribe corrupts the mind. "A 

conflict of interest corrupts the mind. The person is torn. You cannot serve two 

masters. You can only serve one master. 

You can't serve two masters. 

After making these comments, you then enumerated the conflicts of interest statutes in the 

criminal code. Those statutes are aimed at preventing officials with financial interests from 

making government decisions clouded by financial interests. 

a. If you are confirmed-and President-Elect Trump's other nominees are confirmedyou will work together closely together in the President's Cabinet. If any of PresidentElect Trump's nominees are confirmed prior to ethics clearance and a criminal 

conflict of interest is discovered, will you recuse yourself from the investigation? 

b. If you do not recuse yourself, what steps will you take to ensure that the Department 

faitlifully investigates ami prosecutes, if appropriate, such violations? 

12. Last week. President-Elect Trump announced that he would retain ownership of his company 

while shifting assets into a trust managed by his sons; make "no new foreign deals"; subject 

any new domestic business deals to review by an ethics adviser whom he would appoint; 

give up his position as an officer at the Trump Organization; and limit communications with 

company executives to profits and loss statements. 

The Director of OGE said that "stepping back from running his business is meaningless from 

a cont1ict of interest perspective." He also stated that "the plan does not comport with the 

tradition of our Presidents over the past 40 years. This isn't the way the Presidency has 

worked since Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 in the immediate 

aftermath of the Watergate scandal." 

a. President-Elect Trump has decided to maintain his financial interests in entities that 

are likely to be impacted by his Presidential decisions- such as decisions about laws to 

sign, executive actions to take, treaty negotiations, military decisions, and domestic 

policy decisions. Do you believe that if his financial interests are impacted by his 

decisions, this violates the anti-corruption principles that you identified in 1.998? If 

yes, what are the proper steps for the Attorney General to take in such a situation? if 

not, why not? Please explain your answer in detail. 

b. You testified that you would be willing to say "no" to the President. Have you 

communicated with President-Elect Trump about his business interests and how to 

resolve any conflicts arising from those interests? If your answer is yes, please 

describe those communications. If your answer is no, do you plan to? Please explain 

your rationale. 
422 

President-Elect Trump has claimed on many occasions that he cannot release his tax returns 

because of an ongoing audit by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). 

a. Do you believe the President-elect should release Iris tax returns when the IRS audit 

is complete? If not, why not? 

b. If confirmed, as a general matter, what specific steps do you envision taking to 

ensure that any legal issues arising from President-Elect Trump's business interests 

are handled in the same manner by the Department as any other American citizen? 

c. You were extensively involved in President-Elect Trump's political campaign. If the 

IRS determines that the President-Elect has potentially violated a criminal or civil 

tax law, and the case is referred to the Department of Justice, will you recuse 

yourself from any decisions that are made regardi11g possible crimi11al or civil 

actions? If not, why /tot? 

d. If you do not recuse yourself, what steps will you take to ensure the Department of 

Justice thoroughly investigates any al/egatio11s a11d appropriately pursues a11y civil or 

criminal enforcement action that is witlti11 the Department's jurisdiction? 

13. There is a clause of the Constitution that prohibits foreign government payments to federal 

officials. This clause is called the Emoluments Clause. It states: 

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any 

Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of 

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, 

or foreign State."' 

This Clause has become more and more important as President-Elect Trump's dealings 

abroad and conversations with foreign leaders have become known. 

According to longstanding Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, this clause was intended 

by the Framers to preserve the independence of officers of the United States from corruption 

and foreign influence. One of the relevant OLC opinions states: "Those who hold offices 

under the United States must give the government their unclouded judgment and their 

uncompromised loyalty:' 

a. OLC opinions clearly establish that the President is covered by the Emoluments 

Clause. Will you assure the Committee that you will uphold this OLC precedent? 

b. Do you agree that cabinet officers are covered by the Clause? 

c. OLC opinions clearly establish that foreign state-owned or state-controlled businesses 

are "presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause" so that U.S. 

officials cannot receive emoluments from foreign state-owned busi11esses. Will you 

assure the Committee that OLC will not change its view during President-Elect 

Trump's administration? 

6 
423 

d. What is the proper enforcement mechanism for an emoluments violation? 

14. As Attorney General you will be charged with enforcing the Voting Rights Act. This 

obligation is all the more important after the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby 

County, Alabama v. Holder, which struck down a key component of the Voting Rights Act. 

That same year, however, you spoke about voting rights issues and declared that "there's just 

huge areas of the South where there's no problem." 

In 2013, the Department of Justice sued the State of Texas, alleging that its voter ID law 

violated the Voting Rights Act. And just last year, the en bane Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals agreed, holding that Texas' voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act and 

"diminished African Americans' and Hispanics' ability to participate in the political 

process." 

Also in 2013, the Department of Justice sued the State of North Carolina, alleging that a state 

law had been adopted with the purpose, and would have the result, of denying or abridging 

the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, in 

violation of the Voting Rights Act. And just last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 

found that a North Carolina law, including voter lD provisions, was enacted with 

discriminatory intent and "restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of 

which disproportionately affected African Americans". 

a. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department continue to investigate claims that 

voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on minority voters, and bring charges if 

the evidence supports bringing such a case? Please answer yes or no. If yes, will the 

Department work to investigate those matters quickly? 

b. Texas has sought Supreme Court review of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Veasey v. 

Abbott, the Texas voter ID case. In October, the Justice Department filed a brief in 

opposition to Texas's petition for certiorari. If confirmed, do you plan to continue 

defending the position that the Justice Department has taken since 2013-that Texas's 

Jaw violates the Voting Rig/its Act? If not, please explain. 

c. If confirmed, will the Justice Department change its position in any current voting 

rights case? If so, please identify all such cases. 

15. During the hearing,! asked you, "Do you believe that the government can, pursuant to a 

general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States 

without charge or trial?" 

You answered: "Classicaliy, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a German 

soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was done, I'm sure, at the Civil War and 

most wars since." 

I responded: "I'm talking about Americans." 

7 
424 

You then stated: 

"!hear you. So then the question is, we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple 

years and I would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid. But as reality 

dawns on us, and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues. 

"So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do 

believe and Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war 

and when members who- unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a 

military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to 

be connected to an enemy, a designated enemy of the United States." 

"So I am- I probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and 

the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be 

debated in the future." 

a. Do you believe that an American citizen or lawful permanent resident apprehended in 

the United States can, pursuant to an authorization to use military force, be indefinitely 

detained by the U.S. Government without charge or trial? I am not asking about 

detention pursuant to criminal or immigration proceedings, but specifically detention 

pursuant to an authorization to use military force. Yes or no, and please explain your 

answer. 

The following discussion took place between you and Senator Graham: 

Senator Graham. So as to how long an enemy combatant can be held, traditionally under 

the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they are no longer 

a danger. Does that make sense to you? 

Senator Sessions. It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of 

war. 

Senator Graham . ... When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we'll know 

when it's over? 

Senator Sessions. I've asked a number of witnesses in armed services about that, and it's 

pretty clear we're talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm 

in the Middle East that just seems to have legs, and will continue for some time. 

b. Is it your understanding that the law allows the U.S. Government to militarily detain 

American citizens or lawful permanent residents captured in the United States for 

decades pursuant to an authorization to use military force? Yes or no, and please 

explain your answer. 

16. The Department of Justice currently is confronted with a clear conflict in federal and state 

law, and a determination of how to use federal enforcement resources in marijuana cases. 

8 
425 

Currently, twenty-eight states and the District of Colombia have legalized medical or 

recreational marijuana, or both. This includes Colorado, Washington, and most recently, 

California. An additional 14 states have laws in place related to cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana, in place. 

Federal law, as you know, prohibits numerous actions with respect to marijuana, including 

possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute it. 

In December 2014, Congress passed an appropriations bill that contained the following 

provision: 

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be 

used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, 

to prevent any ofthem from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, 

distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. 

Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit- in an opinion written by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, and 

joined by Judges Carlos T. Bea and Barry G. Silverman- concluded that this language, "at a 

minimum, ... prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the 

prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana 

Laws and who fully complied with such laws." (United States v. l1klntosh, Aug. 16, 2016) 

a. How do you intend to balance federal marijuana enforcement with other enforcement 

priorities, given tile number of states that have legalized recreational or medical 

marijuana under their own laws? 

b. If confirmed, do you plan to continue tile policies contained in tile "Cole Memo", 

which set forth eight enforcement priorities for federal marijuana enforcement? If you 

do intend to change the Cole Memo, how do you intend to change it? 

17. The National Academy of Sciences just released a report entitled "The Health Effects of 

Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for 

Research" (20 17). According to the press release issued with the report, this report was "an 

in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science 

says and to highlight areas that still need further examination." 

The National Academy of Sciences also stated: "One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and 

cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults. The committee found evidence to support that 

patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a 

significant reduction in pain symptoms. For adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle 

spasms, there was substantial evidence that short-term use of certain "oral cannabinoids" 

man-made, cannabinoid-based medications that are orally ingested- improved their reported 

9 
426 

symptoms. Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there 

was conclusive evidence that certain oral carmabinoids were effective in preventing and 

treating those ailments.'' 

The National Academy of Sciences also stated: "Regarding the link between marijuana and 

cancer, the committee found evidence that suggests smoking cannabis does not increase the 

risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use- such as lung and head and neck 

cancers.'' 

However, the National Academy also stated: "Evidence suggests that carmabis use prior to 

driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident. Furthermore, 

evidence suggests that in states where cannabis use is legal, there is increased risk of 

unintentional cannabis overdose injuries among children." 

The National Academy also noted that there are numerous challenges and barriers to 

conducting research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cam1abinoid use. 

During the last session of Congress, Senators Grassley, Leahy, Tillis and I introduced 

legislation to reduce barriers associated with researching marijuana. This legislation would 

expedite the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process to research marijuana, 

and allow doctors to use their existing registrations to conduct research and clinical trials on 

carmabidiol, rather than the Schedule I registration that is currently needed. It would also 

increase the scientific research base for marijuana by authorizing medical and osteopathic 

schools, as well as research universities and pharmaceutical companies, to conduct research 

using their own strains of marijuana and cannabidiol. The goal, ifthe science shows that 

marijuana or its components are indeed helpful in treating certain medical conditions, is to 

develop medicines that can be brought to the market with FDA-approval, just like any other 

medicine. I believe this is important legislation and plan to reintroduce it again this session. 

a. Given the number of states that have legalized recreational a11d medical marijua11a 

u11der tlleir ow11 laws, would11 't you agree it is importa11t that we k11ow as much as 

possible about the health-related a11d other impacts ojmarijua11a usage? 

b. What do you i11tend to do as Attorney General to advance our knowledge in that area? 

Are there specific regulatio11s that you would ease related to marijua11a research? If so, 

which o11es? 

18. Senator Leahy asked you about the most recent FBI hate crimes statistics. The FBI's most 

recent annual hate crimes report found that in 2015, there were 5.818 single-bias incidents 

im·o1ving 7.121 victims. Of those victims. 17.7 percent \\ere targeted because of their sexual 

orientation: and 1.7 percent because of their gender identity. \Ve also know that these 

numbers arc likely underreported. 

a. Senator Graham asked you "If a state is not prosecuting crimes against people based on 

their sex, their race, whatever reason, then it's proper for the federal government to come 

in and provide justice, don't you think?" You responded "J do." 

10 
427 

Do you similarly agree that if a state is not prosecuting crimes against people based on 

their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is likewise proper for the federal 

government to "come in and provide justice," in accordance with the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009? 

b. Do you believe it is inappropriate for the Justice Department to prosecute cases under 

the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 if the 

state is prosecuting the same defendant based on the same factual scenario? 

c. Five states do not have any hate crimes laws-including South Carolina, where 

Dylann Roof was recently convicted and sentenced by a jury on federal hate crimes and 

firearms charges. Additionally, 14 states have hate crimes laws that do not include 

sexual orientation, and 28 states have hate crimes laws that do not include gender 

identity-but sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the ShepardByrd Act. Under your leadership, if confirmed, what steps will the Department take to 

ensure hate crimes that occur in these states continue to be prosecuted? 

d. Can you assure the Committee hate crimes enforcement will remain vigilant? Yes or 

no. If your answer is yes, please detail the steps you will take to ensure that 

enforcement of such crimes across the country remains a priority. For example, in 

2015, tile Civil Rights Division -in conjunction with U.S. Attorneys Offices and the 

FBI -<Jrganized a series of regional hate crimes trainings in Missi.~sippi, California, 

Oregon, Kansas and Florida. These meetings helped to train local and federal law 

enforcement in flow to recognize, investigate, and prove !late crimes. Tiley helped to 

educate communities and engage them in the process of ensuring public safety. And 

they helped to encourage better hate crime reporting and data collection. If the answer 

is no, please explain your rationale. 

e. Many other crimes-crimes involving the possession and distribution of illegal drugs, 

for example-are criminalized at both the state and federal/eve/. Please provide to the 

Committee all other examples where you, as a Senator, sought evidence that states 

were doing an inadequate job prosecuting certain crimes before you voted to 

criminalize certain conduct at the federal level, or voted increase penalties for certain 

conduct at the federal level. If there are no other examples you can identify, please say 

so. 

19. The career civil service in our country is a fundamental part of the guarantee to all Americans 

that nobody will be targeted for investigation or prosecution based on political beliefs or 

favoritism. That means that protection for career Department of Justice attorneys is 

extremely important. During the Bush Administration, even the hiring of career Department 

attorneys, particularly in the Civil Rights Division, became politicized. 

You did an interview on American Family Radio on November 7, 2016, the day before the 

election, and the radio host stated that, in her view, the Department of Justice was "being 

filled, packed, with left-wing attorneys." She called Department attorneys "the left of the 

left," and "a nightmare." 

11 
428 

She then asked you, "If Donald Trump is elected, what would happen to the Justice 

Department, do you think?" 

You responded: "First, you are exactly right." You then noted you had spoken with former 

Attorney General John Ashcroft about how, in your view, "If Hillary Clinton is elected, there 

will be four more years of filling every spot in the Department of Justice with these secular, 

progressive, liberals that are going to make the Department even less traditional and lawful in 

its policies, more of a political machine, and that is the wrong direction. But every other 

cabinet person, place will be the same-whether it's EPA, whether it's the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Servicesall ofthose Departments will be packed with also, now, for 12 consecutive years, with the 

secular left. It just-is. And this is another reason this election's stakes are so high." 

a. Please explain your comments on this radio program. What did you mean by your 

statements? 

b. Will you assure this Committee that the Department of Justice will not make any 

hiring, promotion, transfer, termination, or evaluation determinations based on an 

individual's political or religious beliefs? 

20. U.S. Attorneys are, as you know. selected with the advice oftheir home-state senators-and 

they are subject to an approval process for those senators known as a blue slip, which you 

yourself have used many times. 

a. How do you and the Administration intend to consult with home-state senators from 

both parties and ensure that politics is kept out of the U.S. Attorney appointments? 

21. In your Committee Questionnaire, you listed four civil rights cases on your list of top ten 

"most significant litigated matters which you personally handled." I would like to better 

understand your role in these cases, and the extent to which you "personally handled" them. 

For each of these four cases-Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. 

United States v. Concunah County, United States v. Dallas County Commission, and United 

States v. Marengo County Commission-please list the following: 

a. Every pleading or document filed with the court that you not only read, but also edited 

or otherwise substantially contributed to the arguments or positions developed therein. 

b. Every hearing, oral argument or other court proceeding in which you directly 

participated. 

c. Any other role you may have had in litigating or supervising other government 

attorneys who worked on these cases. 

22. At your hearing, you were asked about your vote against reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act in 2013. The law included important expanded protections for 

vulnerable groups, including LGBT, Native American, and immigrant victims, in an effort to 

ensure that all victims of violence are protected. 

12 
429 

You testified that you voted against the bill because of "some specific add-on revision in the 

bill that caused my concern." You also testified that"[ o ]ne of the more concerning 

provisions was a provision that gave tribal courts jurisdiction to try persons who were not 

tribal members." 

a. Which provisions of the law do you mean to indicate were "add-ons"? 

b. If the provisio11 on tribal jurisdiction had not been part of the bill, would you have 

supported the bill's protection from discrimination for LGBT victims? If not, why not? 

c. If the provision on tribal jurisdiction had not been part of the bill, would you have 

supported the bill's expanded protections for immigrant victims? If not, why uot? 

d. Now that the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has been 

implemented for three years, including the provision on tribal jurisdiction, do you still 

oppose it? If so, why? And would you seek to challenge that provision oftlte law? 

Would you seek to challenge any other provisions of the law? 

e. If confirmed, will you recommend that the Administration support reauthorization of 

the law as-is? 

23. A 2016 report from the American Association of University Women states: "At the rate of 

change between 1960 and 2015, women are expected to reach pay equity with men in 2059. 

But even that slow progress has stalled in recent years. If change continues at the slower rate 

seen since 2001, women will not reach pay equity with men untii2J52." ('The Simple Truth 

about the Gender Pay Gap," Fall2016) 

In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data from 2014 showed that women earned 

dramatically less than men in occupations from legal, to sales, to education, to technology, to 

healthcare. 

a. Do you believe that there is a pay gap for women in which women are discriminated 

against and paid less for doing substantially similar or the same work even when 

factors such as education or experience are accounted for? 

24. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama for 19 years, mostly as a 

manager. During the years she worked at Goodyear, her pay "slipped in comparison to the 

pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority." (Ginsburg dissent.) The problem 

Lilly Ledbetter had a problem, however, because she had no idea she was being 

discriminated against. By the time she found out, it had been going on for years. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded her claims were barred. The Court ruled the 

deadline to bring a case started to run at the time the discrimination first occurred- not when 

she found out it happened. This decision meant employers could discriminate with impunity 

so long as they kept it hidden from their employees for 180 days. 

Congress voted to overturn this decision in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of2009. Four 

Republican women Senators voted for the law. At the hearing, you were asked about your 

13 
430 

vote against the legislation. You testified, "We had a hearing on it in the Judiciary 

Committee. A number of witnesses testified, and the testimony, as I understood it, was that 

[Lilly Ledbetter] did in fact have notice, and the Court found that she had notice, and that is 

why they had that statute of limitations was enforced. You need a statute of limitations of 

some kind, and if they do not know, then you can allow it to continue indefinitely. But as I 

understood, that was the ruling. So it was less problematic for future cases than was 

discussed, but my recollection is not perfectly clear on that issue. That was one of the factors 

I remember being involved in my decision." 

a. Now that you have had an opportunity to review the issue and the Supreme Court's 

decision, please discuss the reasons you were opposed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 

Act of 2009. Are you still opposed to the law? 

b. Please provide with specificity the basis of your statement at the hearing: "We had a 

hearing on it in the Judiciary Committee. A number of witnesses testified, and the 

testimony, as I understood it, was that [Lilly Ledbetter] did in fact have notice, and the 

Court found that she had notice, and that is why they had that statute of limitations 

was enforced. " 

25. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § I 003.1, the Attorney General has authority to certify cases of the 

Board ofimmigration Appeals (BIA) to himself. Through this authority, the Attorney 

General can establish or reverse precedent in immigration law. According to the 

Congressional Research Service, in the past this authority has been used very rarely: it was 

used in just five cases by Attorney General Mukascy, and in just three cases by Attorney 

General Holder. 

a. Do you believe that, in line with established practice, this authority for the Attorney 

General to decide immigration appeals himself or herself must be used sparinglyleaving the adjudicative process to function as it usually does with decisions made by 

immigrationjudge.f and members of the board of immigration appeals? 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, what criteria do you intend to consider in deciding 

which BIA cases you will seek to certify to yourself? 

26. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has acknowledged that its resources enable it 

to remove only a fraction ofthe undocumented population each year. You have also 

recognized that financial considerations do not make it possible to identify and remove 

everybody who is in the country illegally. 

a. Do you believe that young people who have qualified and received deferred action 

through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program constitute 

high enforcement priorities? 

b. What about the parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents? 

c. Which types of individuals do you believe constitute high enforcement priorities? 

14 
431 

27. 8 U.S.C. § 1373 establishes certain guidelines regarding commw1ication between state and 

local governments and federal immigration agencies with respect to an individual's 

citizenship or immigration status. In interpreting this statute, the Department of Justice's 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has concluded that it "does not impose on states and 

localities the aftirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding 

their citizenship or immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take 

specific actions upon obtaining such information." 

a. Will you adhere to BJA 's current interpretation of 8 U.S. C.§ 1373? 

b. If not, what is your interpretation of 8 U.S. C.§ 1373? And what is your interpretation 

based on? 

28. The principle of birthright citizenship, regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of 

an individual's parents, is enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. That 

clause provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 

The Supreme Court affirmed this principle almost I 20 years ago in US. v. Wong Kim Ark, 

169 U.S. 649 (1898), noting: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth 

under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, 

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and 

needs no naturalization." And: "In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by 

birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms." 

a. Do you believe that a child born in the United States to undocumented parents is a 

citizen of the United States? 

b. With respect to a child born in the United States, under what circumstances do you 

believe that Congress can modify the scope of birthright citizenship by statute? 

c. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department file briefs in support of efforts to 

alter the constitutional provision regarding birthright citizenship? 

29. A number of states across the country, including California, have passed laws allowing 

undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. California's in-state tuition law has 

made it possible for Wldocumented students in the state to pursue higher education and 

develop the skills and knowledge to contribute more fully to their communities and our 

economy. 

a. Do you believe that federal law prohibits states from providing access to in-state tuition 

for undocumented students? 

b. Do you intend to take any action against states that provide in-state tuition for 

undocumented students? If so, what type of legal action do you intend to pursue 

against these states? 

15 
432 

30. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny 

undocumented children free K-12 public education. In its opinion, the Court noted: "By 

denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure 

of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in 

even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation." 

a. Will you commit to upholding and enforcing Plyler v. Doe? 

31. On a variety of occasions you have expressed strong concerns about Congress passing 

immit,,>ration reforms because you were worried about jobs being taken from American 

citizens. In 2013 you said, "Why would any member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a 

time of high unemployment, falling wages, to bring in a huge surge of new labor that can 

only hurt the poorest among us." And on the Senate Floor on June 23, 2016, you went so far 

as to say that all jobs created in the country during the period between 2000 and 2014 "went 

to the foreign born." 

The Washington Post, as recently as Christmas 2016, reported that a Virginia vineyard 

owned by President-Elect Trump or his company had applied for six H-2A visas to work 

seasonal jobs. Additionally, as you know, President-Elect Trump's companies have applied 

for a number ofH-2B visas, mostly in his hotel businesses, including 20 waiters and 

waitresses for his Trump International Beach Resort in Florida, in December 2016 alone. 

Further, the Washington Post reported that since 2013, President-Elect Trump's businesses 

have requested 513 employment-based visas, with 269 of these visas for foreign workers set 

to begin employment after President-Elect Trump declared his candidacy for President. 

a. If any of these companies, or individuals working with these companies, is believed to 

violate federal crimina/law, !tow will the Department of Justice proceed to investigate 

or prosecute individuals from the President's own companies? 

b. You were extensively involved in President-Elect Trump's political campaign. Will you 

recuse yourself from any decisions regarding the investigation or prosecution of 

President-Elect Trump's own companies? 

32. Throughout the campaign, President-Elect Trump accused U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo 

Curiel of being biased based on Judge Curiel's heritage. President-Elect Trump was quoted 

by the press as saying: 

• "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico." (Politi fact, June 8, 

2016, quoting Jake Tapper interview with CNN) 

• "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest." (Wall Street Journal, June 3, 

2016) 

• "It's an absolute conflict" (Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2016) 

16 
433 

• "He's a member of a club, or society, very strongly pro-Mexican" (John Dickerson, Face 

the Nation, Interview, June 5, 2016) 

• "I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. I think it has to do with perhaps the 

fact that I'm very, very strong on the border. Very, very strong on the border . ... Now, he 

is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. !said it loud and clear." (Fox 

News Sunday, February 27, 2016) 

In addition, in an interview with John Dickerson on CBS News Mr. Trump was asked whether he 

believed a judge who is a Muslim would also be unfair to him. He said, "that would be possible, 

absolutely." 

a. Would it ever be appropriate for the Department of Justice to seek a judge's recusal 

from a case involving the Trump administration based on the judge's race, gender, 

et/micity,family heritage or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender 

identity? If so, please explain. 

h. Through the Office of Legal Policy and otherwise, the Department historically has had 

a significant role in the judicial nominations process. Can you assure the Committee 

that the Department of Justice will not support any efforts by the President-Elect to 

reject candidates for judicial positions based on their race, gender, ethnicity,family 

heritage or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity? 

33. After your initial submission of your Senate Judiciary Questionnaire ("Committee 

Questiommire") on December 9, 2016, you made three subsequent supplemental submissions 

to address missing materials. These additional submissions included over 50 hours of audio 

and visual material and hundreds of pages of documents. Your initial submission was, 

therefore, incomplete. 

Additionally, the Committee never received the following requested material from your years 

as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama or as Attorney General of Alabama: 

Interviews: Radio, television, and print interviews while you were U.S. Attorney for the 

Southern District of Alabama and Attorney General of Alabama. 

Nominees regularly produce materials documenting statements to the press regardless of 

whether a full transcript is available, or whether the statements were part of a formal 

interview. I identified examples of such materials to you in a list on January 5, 2017. Tn a 

letter to me on January 6, 2017, you responded that you were not sure if the materials were 

responsive because you could not confirm the exact circumstances under which you made the 

comments. However, nominees are generally expected to produce press statements whether 

they were part of a formal interview or not. The burden to establish exactly how the 

comments were made is not on the Committee. 

For example, a 1996 Birmingham News article available in a public database but missing 

from your materials indicates you made comments during an interview about strengthening 

criminal laws. (Stan Bailey, Sessions Says Crime Laws Need Change, BIRMINGHAM NEWS, 

Dec. 18, 1996 ("'I was most surprised at how much more difficult it is, it seems to be, to 

17 
434 

prosecute fraud and corruption,' Sessions said in an interview Tuesday.")) Another 1996 

article missing from your materials but available in a public database indicates you made 

comments to the press regarding the National Rifle Association (NRA) at an event while you 

were campaigning for U.S. Senate. (Sean Reilly, Sessions: NRA comments were a mistake, 

MOBILE REGISTER, November 2, 1996 ('"I don't agree with that comment,' Sessions said 

Friday of the NRA letter. 'It's not something that should have been said."') 

Speeches: For the fourteen years you served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama and Attorney General of Alabama, you listed just three speeches, and you had notes 

or transcripts for just one of these. During this time, you campaigned for Alabama Attorney 

General and the U.S. Senate. 

You served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for 12 years. An 

online search shows that the current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama has 

made at least ten speeches in the last five years. You also served for two years as Alabama 

Attorney General. An online search shows that the current Attorney General of Alabama has 

made at least seven speeches in the last year alone. 

a. What steps did you or your staff take to ensure that the materials you provided to the 

Committee in response to the Questionnaire were complete? Please specifically detail 

the efforts you or your staff made to identify and locate materials from your time as 

U.S. Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. 

b. After your initial incomplete production, did you or your staff take any different or 

additional steps to gather a more complete set of materials? For example, did you or 

your staff attempt to identify and search newspaper archives of Alabama news 

publications that may be available in the state but not searchable nationwide? Did you 

or your staff ask the Alabama Attorney General to produce material in the state 

archive, or work with the state archives directly? Please detail your and your staff's 

efforts. 

34. During your hearing, you testified that "I've received hundreds- multiple hundreds of 

awards over my career." You have only listed 79 awards as part of your Committee 

Questionnaire. 

a. What process did you use to determine which of the "multiple hundreds of awards" 

you have received would be listed on your Committee Questionnaire? Put another 

way: !tow did you decide which awards /tot to include on your Committee 

Questionnaire? Please outline what steps were taken to ensure a full inventory of your 

awards were provided. 

b. Please provide the Committee with a list of any missing awards. 

35. Since 2009, funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program and the 

COPS Hiring program have dropped by 32 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Byrne JAG 

is the cornerstone federal justice assistance program, providing hundreds of millions of 

dollars to state and local law enforcement each year. The COPS Hiring program provides 

18 
435 

more than a hundred million in funding to hire new, or rehire, law enforcement or to increase 

community policing. 

Police officers need this support. And cutting support for this funding or allowing cuts to 

be made- would undermine the brave law enforcement officers that put their lives on the 

line for communities every day. The cuts since 2009 have had real impact. 

a. Will you support increased funding for these essential programs? 

b. In FY16, California received $30.3 million from Byrne-JAG and $11.725 miffionfrom 

the COPS program. Wiff you ensure funding for California law enforcement in these 

programs is not reduced, except as may be proportional to any overall reduction in the 

program by Congress? 

36. I believe that the men and women who serve as state and local law enforcement officers are 

some of the finest and bravest public servants we have. The vast majority of police officers 

do exemplary work and build strong relationships with the community to keep the public 

safe. However, we also know that in many communities, trust between community members 

and state and local law enforcement is deeply frayed. 

I recently convened a pair of meetings with more than 50 African American community, 

religious and political leaders, and law enforcement officers in San Francisco and Los 

Angeles. A key point that emerged was that change must take root from the bottom up, but 

the federal government especially the Justice Department- has a role to play in 

recommending best practices and providing or supporting civilian oversight. In some cases, 

where the Department has found a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing, the 

Department has entered consent decrees in order to ensure that needed reforms happen at an 

institutional level. 

During your hearing, you told Senator Hirano that "there's a concern that good police 

officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have 

individuals within the department who have done wrong, and those individuals need to be 

prosecuted." 

a. Please list all investigations or proceedings under Section 14141 tltat tlte Civil Rights 

Division has undertaken since 1994 that you believe were undertaken erroneously 

and/or should not have been brought. 

37. In addition to Section 14141 investigations, the Justice Department's Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provides, upon request, assistance to police departments 

to help develop long-term, holistic strategies to improve policing. 

In my home city of San Francisco, the COPS unit has helped identify specific areas for the 

San Francisco Police Department to improve its own policies, particularly in the wake of 

several usc-of-force incidents that sparked protests across the state. The program under which 

the COPS office assisted the SFPD is called the Collaborative Reform Initiative, and it is a 

program that has collaborated with police departments nationwide, including in Baltimore, 

Memphis, Philadelphia, and Salinas. 

19 
436 

a. Will you commit to continuing this type of technical assistance for police departments 

that request it? 

38.ln May 2016, the Department of Justice filed an indictment against South Carolina Police 

Officer Michael Slager after he fatally shot Walter Scott, an African American man. Officer 

Slager was indicted both on federal criminal civil rights and obstruction charges. 

On December 6, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinksi asked Vice President-Elect Pence "Will the 

next administration support the feds continuing the case against Slager?" Vice PresidentElect Pence replied, "Well, l think that'll be a decision that the Attorney General will review 

and make after January the 20th, and I'll let our designee and of course President-Elect 

[Trump] review that."' 

a. Have you discussed this case with President-Elect Trump, Vice President-Elect Pence, 

or other members of the transition team? Please specify. 

b. Do Vice President-Elect Pence or President-Elect Trump have any reason to believe 

that you plan to withdraw a previously-filed indictment in this case-or any other 

criminal or civil rigllts cases the Justice Department is currently prosecuting? 

c. Do you believe it would be appropriate for President-Elect Trump to "review" any 

prosecutorial decisions you, or any other employees of the Department of Justice, 

make? 

39. When I was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Committee approved a full 

report on detention and interrogation- more than 6,700 pages and 38,000 footnotes. This 

report was produced based on a fulsome staff review of mostly CIA documents describing 

the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation program. It includes extensive 

information about the Justice Department's role in authorizing this program, but also how the 

CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Justice Department about the 

operation of the program. 

This report was approved by a bipartisan vote in the Intelligence Committee of 9-6. 

After months of negotiations, the Executive Summary of this report was declassified with 

redactions. This summary runs 500 pages. The Committee sent copies of the full report to a 

number of relevant agencies, including the Department of Justice and FBI. 

a. Have you read the Executive Summary? 

b. Will you commit to reading the full report if confirmed- and instructing appropriate 

officials to read the full report, to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past? 

c. Will you commit til at you will not return the Justice Department's copy of tile report to 

tile Senate? 

40. At your hearing, Senator Graham asked you whether you support the continuation of use of 

Guantanamo Bay as a confinement facility for foreign terrorists. 

20 
437 

The U.S. has been detaining individuals without charge or trial at the Guantanamo Bay 

detention facility for the past 15 years. A total of 780 people have been held at the facility 

since it opened. Of this number, approximately 540 were released during the George W. 

Bush administration, and 183 during the Obama administration. Another nine died in 

custody, six by suspected suicide. A total of 55 remain. 

During this time, only a very small number of cases were prosecuted in the military 

commissions, fifteen in total. Eight of these resulted in convictions, three of which have been 

fully overturned on appeal; several others were partially overturned. A number of other 

appeals are pending. Other cases are bogged down in pre-trial hearings. The case against the 

five men accused in the September II, 2001 attacks is in its fourth year of pre-trial hearings 

and a trial date is still years away. 

Meanwhile, the government has prosecuted more than 500 terrorism suspects in federal 

court, including Dzohkar Tsamaev, the Boston Marathon bomber; Faisal Shahzad, who tried 

to set off a car bomb in Times Square; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called 

"underwear bomber," all of whom were convicted. 

You have made comments indicating that individuals captured by the U.S. abroad should not 

be prosecuted in federal court, but rather in military commissions in Guantanamo. 

a. Do you agree the Department of Justice has a record of success bringing terrorismrelated criminal charges against hundreds of defendants since September 11, 2001? 

b. As Attorney General, do you intend to stop prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal 

court? Do you intend to stop enforcing,Jor example, 18 U.S. C.§ 23398, which 

criminalizes the provision of material support or resources to a designated foreign 

terrorist organization? 

41. In the past, you have asserted that existing gun laws must be enforced aggressively. You 

have said when you were the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama, you 

committed yourself to prosecute violations of"hundreds of gun laws." 

You went so far as to claim you sent a newsletter to local law enforcement to bring you cases 

involving gun violations. You stated, "l created a newsletter and sent it to every sheriff. I 

said: If you have the kind of criminal that needs prosecuting under Federal gun laws, you 

bring those cases to me and we will prosecute them." 

You also have the highest political rating from the National Rifle Association and 

consistently have voted against attempts to strengthen background checks and otherwise 

make federal gun laws stronger. 

a. Will you commit to fully enforcing existing gun laws, including by taki11g enforcement 

measures strongly opposed by gun rights groups? 

b. There haYe been legal challenges to federal, state and local gun laws since the Heller and 

McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010. 

21 
438 

If confirmed, under what circumstances would the Department of Justice decline to defend a 

federal firearms law against a legal clral/enge? 

42. As you are aware, any person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms must conduct 

background checks on gun buyers. Courts have identified several factors to determine 

whether an individual is "engaged in the business" of buying and selling firearms; there is no 

specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the requirement. As 

ATF stated in its January 2, 2016 guidance document, "even a few firearms transactions, 

when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is 'engaged 

in the business' of dealing in firearms." 

For example, in United States v. Shan, the Second Circuit found that the defendant was 

properly convicted of dealing in firearms without a license when he sold just two firearms in a 

month and acknowledged that he had a source for more guns. The Sixth Circuit has similarly 

noted, "IT]he statute does not establish a minimum threshold for the number of guns sold." 

As a result of decisions like these, the Justice Department has brought cases against 

individuals who illegally sold guns without a license, only later to have those guns found at 

deadly crime scenes. In St. Paul, for example, a man transfened a gun at least 9 times afier 

buying guns online and then trying to sell those guns on the secondary market. Court records 

indicated that several of the guns that were sold were part of drug trafficking crimes, and other 

"shots-fired" incidents. 

This case is but one example of individuals buying guns and then illegally selling them to 

individuals without background checks, and the guns then being found at crime scenes. 

a. Will you commit to investigating and prosecuting illegal gun dealers who are selling 

weapons without conducting a background check? If your answer is yes, please 

describe in detail your plan for doing so. 

43. In 2014, in Abramski v. United States, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that "a 

person who buys a gun on someone else's behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself' 

violates the law prohibiting material false statements on federal gun forms. 

This decision is vital to the prosecution of so-called "straw purchasers" who buy guns on 

behalf of those, such as felons, who cannot pass a background check. The Department of 

Justice's position in this case was that the buyer's "knowingly false statement that he was the 

actual purchaser of the handgun" violated the law. 

The National Rifle Association's position was that this was "not a permissible construction" 

of the law. 

a. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department prosecute those who lie on federal 

firearm sale forms by falsely claiming they are the actual purchasers? 

b. Will you defend tit is law, including the Supreme Court's Abramski decision, against a 

constitutional challenge? 

22 
439 

44. The A TF the agency that investigates gun crimes lacks sufficient resources to carry out 

its statutory responsibilities. You and other Republican colleagues have said that we should 

focus on fully enforcing existing gun laws before passing new ones. 

However, since Fiscal Year 20 II (the first year Republicans were in charge of the House 

during the Obama Administration), Congress appropriated $182.3 million over five years less 

than the agency said it needed, because of Republican opposition to greater funding. 

Since Fiscal Year 20 II, A TF has grown by a total of only I 0 people or 0.2 percent (from 

5,016 employees to 5,026 employees). Over the same period, the number of guns bought and 

sold in America skyrocketed. The FBI conducted 27 percent more background checks in 

2014 than in 20 II (from 16.5 million to 21 million). In addition, I understand that 544 

Special Agents (one-fifth of the total A TF Special Agent population) were eligible to retire 

last year. 

The only way to truly enforce existing gun laws is to ensure agencies like A TF have the 

funding they need to do the job. 

a. Would you agree that in order for gun laws to be fully enforced, we need ATF to be fully 

staffed and ATF investigators to be well-trained and well-equipped? Yes or no. 

b. Will you commit, if you are confirmed as the Attorney General, to make sure that the DOJ 

budget request reflects tile resources necessary to ensure that ATF can fully execute the 

mission given to it by Congress? 

23 
440 

Supplemental Questions for the Record 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Senator Jeff Sessions, Nominee to be U.S. Attorney General 

Submitted January 26,2017 

I. Senator Leahy asked you whether you would recuse yourself from DOJ actions against or 

investigations of Donald Trump or his linances. You responded: ··If merely being a supporter 

of the President" s during the campaign warranted recusal from involvement in any matter 

involving him. then most typical presidential appointees would be unable to conduct their 

duties. lam not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters."' I asked you a similar 

question. whether you would recuse fi·om deciding whether to bring prosecutions in 

connection with Russian hacking of the election, and you responded.""] am not aware of a 

basis to recuse myself from such matters ... 

You were not merely "a supporter of the President's during the campaign'' You were the 

first senator to expressly suppmi him. almost one year ago. You appeared with him at 

multiple rallies. You spoke at the Republican National Convention. You were an active 

surrogate for Mr. Trump's campaign. The Washington Post has written that "After Sessions 

became one of the lirst members of Congress to endorse Trump this February, he became an 

adviser on almost every major decision and policy proposal Trump made during the 

campaign," including chairing his National Security Advisory Committee. It has also written 

that you assisted with the selection of Vice President Pence. The Trump campaign website 

states: "Senator Sessions has been one of Mr. Trump's most trusted policy advisers, assisting 

him in making selections." All of this goes far beyond what we are used to seeing f!·om 

political appointees. 

a. Please state for the record: 

(1) all Trump campaign events that you attended or participated in; 

(2) all capacities in which you advised the President-elect during the 

campaign; and 

(3) every specific decision made during the campaign on which you 

ad\'ised the President-elect. 

b. In light of your efforts as a campaign surrogate on the Trump campaign, will 

you reconsider your stated intention not to recuse yourself from matters 

before the Department involving Mr. Trump, his campaign, or connections 

to Russia? 

c. Is there any scenario under which you would find it inappropriate to handle 

a matter before the Department involving Mr. Trump? 
441 

2. In your hearing before the Committee, you pledged to recuse yourself from involvement in 

"those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the 

campaign or could otherwise be connected to it." 

You were announced in March 2016 as the Chair of the Trump Campaign's National 

Security Advisory Committee. In a later annow1cemcnt from a month before the election. the 

Trump campaign stated the campaign's ·'National Security Advisory Council'' had already 

included you, General Mike Flynn, and others. 

So far you have refused to commit to recusing yourself from involvement in any 

investigations related to the Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. elections to benefit President 

Trump. You testified that you still have not reviewed the Intelligence Community's 

classified and unclassified assessments on these Russian activities and intentions. The media 

has reported that intelligence agencies are examining links between President Trump and his 

senior advisors and the Russian govemmcnt. For example, reports state that the intelligence 

agencies are examining contacts between President Trump's National Security Adviser 

Michael Flynn, who served with you on the campaign's national security team, and Russian 

government officials. 

I want to give you an opportunity to reconsider your answer on recusal, especially in light of 

the Washington Post's editorial on January 24, 2017: "Mr. Sessions played a key role in the 

president's campaign. At the least, Mr. Sessions would raise the appearance of a conflict if 

he made law enforcement decisions related to that campaign. He should commit to recusing 

himself now.'' 

a. Given the extent to which you were publicly identified with President 

Trump's political campaign and national security advisory council, will you 

commit to recuse yourself from involvement in any investigations into ties 

between President Trump, his businesses, or his campaign aids and the 

Russians? 

b. Will you commit to recuse yourself from involvement in any investigations 

into Mr. Flynn's ties to the Russians? 

c. Would you commit to recuse yourself from involvement in .!!!!Y investigations 

related to the Trump's campaign's contacts with the Russians? 

d. If not, please explain the difference between investigations involving 

candidate Hillary Clinton (for which you said you would recuse yourself), 

and investigations into the Trump campaign and candidate Donald Trump 

(for which you have said you arc unaware of a basis to recuse)? 

e. If the Department ethics officials recommended that you recuse yourself 

from a matter involving President Trump, his businesses, or his associates, 

would you commit to follow their recommendation? 

2 
442 

f. Do you doubt that the Department of Justice's National Security Division 

and the Deputy Attorney General are adequately equipped to handle such an 

investigation without the involvement of the Attorney General? 

g. Your written testimony regarding what you would recuse from is 

substantially narrower than how you testified at your hearing. 

At the hearing, you said that you will recuse from "those kind of 

investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during tlte 

campaign or could otherwise be connected to it." 

Your written response stated you would recuse "from any investigation Q[ 

Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation." 

Do you stand by your original statement, or arc you changing the answer you 

gave in your committee hearing? 

3. 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee from participating in a criminal investigation or 

prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization that 

is the subject of the investigation. Political relationship is dei]ned in the regulation as 

meaning ·•a close identification with an elected otiicial, a candidate (whether or not 

successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising 

from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal otiicial thereof'' 

a. You have a close political relationship with President Trump, as one of his 

major campaign surrogates. Do you believe 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 requires you to 

recuse yourself? If not, why not'? 

b. If not, in what scenario would a political relationship make it improper for 

an Attorney General to participate in an investigation'? 

4. The DOJ has a general standard that an employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions 

creating the appearance that the employee is violating the Department's ethical standards, 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(l4). 

a. Do you maintain that participating in an investigation into a person for 

whom and with whom you campaigned closely and on whose campaign you 

performed a leadership role does not create the appearance of violating DOJ 

ethical standards, or create the appearance of impropriety'! 

3 
443 

5. In my questions for the record, I asked you if you had reviewed either the classified or 

unclassified assessments by the Intelligence Community regarding Russian activities and 

intentions during the recent U.S. elections. Your response, which I found surprising, was "I 

have not reviewed their assessments." 

a. Did you receive specific directions or advice not to review these assessments? 

b. If you did receive such direction or advice, please tell us the sum and 

substance of that advice. 

c. If you did receive such direction or advice, please identify each person who 

gave you such advice or direction. 

d. If there is another reason you have not reviewed these assessments-which 

were widely reported on and, in my belief, represent a truly dangerous threat 

to our democracy-please discuss. 

The unclassified assessment begins: "Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential 

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine 

the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation 

in directness, level of activity, and scope of efJort compared to previous operations." 

The unclassified assessment continues: "We also assess Putin and the Russian Government 

aspired to help President-Elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting 

Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." 

e. Please review the rest of the unclassified assessment, and state whether you 

have done so. 

f. Please review the classified assessment, and state whether you have done so. 

g. Please state for each individual finding of the unclassified assessment 

whether you agree or disagree: 

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most 

recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led 

liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation 

in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous 

operations." 

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 

2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine 

public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm 

her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian 

Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have 

high confidence in these judgments." 

4 
444 

"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect 

Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and 

publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." 

"We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered 

an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the 

consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic 

process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential 

presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a 

clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that 

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign 

then focused on undermining her expected presidency." 

h. Is there any assessment in the unclassified assessment with which you 

disagree? If so, please identify it. 

6. I also asked you whether, as Attomey General, you would continue defending the position 

that the Department of Justice has taken since 2013 in a lawsuit the Department filed against 

the State of Texas -that the State's voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act. You 

responded that my question "implicated an ongoing legal matter" and therefore that it would 

be "inappropriate" for you to comment. Just after President Trump's Inauguration on Friday, 

however, the Justice Department requested to postpone a hearing initially scheduled in the 

case for Tuesday "[b ]ecause of the change in administration." 

a. Do you believe that the Justice Department's requested delay in the Texas 

voter ID case leaves open the door for abandoning the position the 

Department has taken since 2013-that the Texas law violates the Voting 

Rights Act? If so, will you commit to continue defending the Department's 

longstanding position if confirmed? 

7. In my questions for the record, I asked you about the Justice Department's duty to investigate 

voter ID laws and the disproportionate impact such laws have on minority voters. In 

response, you noted that "The Supreme Court held in Crmrford v. Marion County Election 

Board that voter identification laws are neither per se unconstitutional, nor do they 

necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act." 

a. Where in the Crawford opinion do you identify a holding that Voter ID laws 

do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act? 

b. Do you agree that no question under any section of the Voting Rights Act 

was presented to the Supreme Court or decided in Crawford? 

c. Do you agree that no question of the legality of Voter ID laws under Section 2 

ofthe Voting Rights Act was even litigated at any level in Crawford? 

5 
445 

d. The Department of .Justice that you have been nominated to lead has 

successfully challenged voter ID provisions such as the very restrictive voter 

ID law that Texas passed in 2013. Please detail the kinds of factors you 

would look at to determine whether a voter ID law runs afoul of the Voting 

Rights Act, and in determining whether an enforcement action is 

appropriate. 

Abortion and Punishment 

8. Senator Blumenthal submitted to you a Question for the Record related to President Trump's 

comment during the campaign that women who have abortions should be punished. The 

President later tried to walk back his comment. 

Senator Blumenthal asked you, "Do you think that women who have abortions should be 

punished?" You did not answer his question. You responded by pointing to how the 

Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. 

In addition, Senator Blumenthal asked what you would do to ensure that women who have 

abortions are not prosecuted or criminally punished. You answered: "I will take no 

enforcement actions that are unauthorized by federal law. Individuals who seek abortions 

and abortion providers who comply with federal laws should not be subject to prosecution or 

criminal punishment." 

a. Would you support a change in criminal law to punish women who have 

abortions? Please answer yes or no. 

b. Should women who receive abortions be punished by means outside of the 

criminal justice system? For example, under civil law? Please answer yes or 

no. 

9. A news article last week reported that President Trump's Transition Team was meeting with 

career staff at the White House about their intent to cut spending in the federal government, 

including by eliminating certain programs. (THE HILL, January 19, 2017) The Transition 

Team is reportedly relying on a document entitled Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget 

for 2017, published by the Heritage Foundation, to outline cuts to programs. 

In the Blueprint for Balance, one of the recommendations is to eliminate grants provided 

under the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA) because "these services should be funded 

and implemented locally. Using federal agencies to fund the routine operations of domestic 

violence programs that state and local governments could provide is a misuse of federal 

resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal 

government." 

VA W A was first passed in 1994 to address the need for a national response to develop and 

strengthen services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 

stalking. VA W A now provides grant resources to service providers working directly with 

6 
446 

victims, many of them to help victims pursue justice under the law against their perpetrators. 

Elimination of these programs would return victims to a time when inadequate and irregular 

local services prevented many of them from living safely and rebuilding their lives. 

At your hearing, you testified that while you did not vote for reauthorization in 2013, you 

have twice voted to support the Violence Against Women Act. You testified, "It is kind of 

frustrating to be accused of opposing VA WA, the Violence Against Women Act, when I 

have voted for it in the past." 

a. Do you agree with the Heritage Blueprint for Balance's recommendation to 

eliminate VA WA grants? If not, why? 

b. Do you agree with the Heritage Blueprint for Balance's rationale for 

eliminating VA WA grants that using federal funding for domestic violence 

programs is a "misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns 

that are truly the province of the federal government"? 

c. Given your support for VA WA prior to its 2013 reauthorization, if 

confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the President 

understands the importance of VA WA programs? What steps would you 

take to ensure that DOJ's budget request reflected these programs? 

10. At your hearing, I asked you about your ownership interest in subsurface mineral rights in 

Alabama. These ovvnership interests were not listed on either your financial disclosure to the 

Judiciary Committee or on the fonns the Committee received for your nomination from the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

I asked you whether you owned these interests. You testified, "I believe that is so." Later in 

your testimony, you assured me that "It's something I'm going to take affirmative action 

in .. .I want to adhere to high standards. We're going to find out what we did or didn't do and 

correct it." 

a. Have you indeed reviewed your financial filings with the Office of 

Government Ethics, Judiciary Committee, and Ethics Committee? If so, did 

you determine that disclosure of ownership of the subsurface mineral was 

missing? 

b. What steps have you taken to update and correct these filings? Please also 

note if the Committee should expect to receive updated filings. 

c. Please describe in detail your knowledge of these mineral rights and the land 

under which they are located. 

7 
447 

Supplemental Questions for the Record 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Senator Jeff Sessions, Nominee to be U.S. Attorney General 

Submitted January 29, 2017 

I. Significant concerns have been raised by both Democratic and Republican members of 

the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding President Trump's Executive Orders, and 

especially the Executive Order titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry 

into the United States." One Republican Senator noted, for example, that this executive 

order "may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.'' 

Did you read, review, provide legal analysis, or provide any other comments 

regarding the following Executive Orders before they were issued? If so, please 

describe in detail what role you played with regard to each Executive Order. Also, 

please provide copies of any documents reflecting your input regarding the content 

of the orders. 

a. Executive Order: "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," 

January 25, 2017, text available at https://w\vW.\vhitehouse.!rov/the-pressoffice/20 I 7/0 I /2 5/presidential-executi vc-order-enhancing-public-safetv-interiorunited 

b. Executive Order: "Border Security and Immigration 

Enforcement Improvements," January 25, 2017, text available at 

https://www. whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/20 I 7/0 I /25/executive-order-bordersecurity-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements 

c. Executive Order: "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United 

States," January 27, 2017, text available at 

2. According to press reports, the Executive Orders referenced in Question 1 were drafted 

primarily by your longtime aide Stephen Miller and by White House advisor Steve 

Bannon. Please describe in detail (including dates) any communications, correspondence, 

or discussions you had with Mr. Miller, Mr. Bannon, or any other White House official 

relating to each of the orders listed above. 

3. During the 2016 presidential campaign, did you participate in creating documents that 

resembled or served as the basis for the Executive Orders listed in Question 1? If so, 

please provide copies of those documents. 

4. The Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC's) website states that: "All executive orders and 

proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal 

Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's 

formal approval.'" However, the Justice Department has declined to comment officially as 
448 

to whether OLC reviewed the Executive Orders listed in Question I. 

a. Did OLC review the orders before they were issued? 

b. If OLC reviewed the orders before they were issued, who specifically 

reviewed them? 

c. If not, what officials or attorneys within the executive branch reviewed the 

executive order to evaluate their form or legality? 

5. Executive Order I I 030 states in part: 

Sec. 2. Routh7fi and approval o{dr(lf/s 

(a) A proposed Executive Order or proclamation shallfirst be submitted ... to the Director 

qlthe Office of Management and Budget ... 

(b) !{the Director o{the Office of' Management and Budget approves the proposed 

Executive Order or proclamation, he shall transmit it to the Attorney Genera/for his 

consideration as to itsform and legality. 

(c) l(tlte Attornev General approves tlte proposed Executive Order or proclamation. he 

shall transmit it to the Director o{the Office (){the Federal Register, National 

Archil•es and Records Administration: Provided. that in cases of sufficient urgency 

the Attorney General may transmit it directly to the President: and providedfiwther. 

that the authority 1'ested in the Attorney General by this section may be delegated to 

him, in1rhole or in part, ro the Deputy At forney General. Solicitor General. or to 

such Assistant Attorney General as he may designale. 

And 28 C.F.R. § 0.25 states "77u'fi!llmrii1J;-de.\·cri/Jed mailers are assigned ro. and shall 

he conducted, handled. or superrised by, the Assist all/ Attonwy Cleneml. Office o{Legal 

Counsel: 

(a) Preparing thefimnal opinions oft he Allomey General: rendering infbmwl opinions 

and legal advicu to the wrrious agencies of' the Gon:rnmen/: and ossisling the 

AI forney General in the f'Cr(imnarrce o(hisfimctions as legal mh-iserto the Prcside/11 

ami as a member o/. and legal adriser to. The Cabinet. 

(b) Preparing and making necessarr revisions a/proposed Executive orders and 

proc/amatiom. and ad1•ising as to tbeir (orm and /egalitr prior to their trmmnission 

to tile President; and pertimning like(imctions 1rith respect to regulations ami other 

similar matters 1r/1ich require the approwrl oftlw President or the Attomey General. .. 

Based on these documents: 

a. What is your understanding of OLC's role in revit'wing and approving 

Executive Orders? 
449 

h. Do ~·ou agree that OLC has, by law, been delegated the authority to review 

virtually all Executive Orders'? 

c. If President Trump issued an Executive Order without allowing OLC to review 

its form and lcgalit)·, would the Department of .Justice, under your leadership, 

continue to defend the legality of that Executive Order'? 

d. If President Trump attempted to circumvent OLC's role when issuing Executive 

Orders, ho" would you respond'? Would you resign'? 

6. Before the Executive Orders listed above were issued. were they distributed to, or vetted 

by, the agencies that will be asked to interpret and eniorce them? 

7. A ne\vs report 1 has stated that not only was the January 27 Executive Order not reviewed 

by the Ot1ice of Legal Counsel, but in fact, lawyers in other Departments who were 

concerned about the breadth of the Executive Order were overruled by non-lawyers at the 

White House: 

"Friday night. DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order 

restrictions applying to seven countries --Iran. Iraq. Libya. Somalia. Syria. 

Sudan and Yemen-- did not app~F to people 1rith lmrfitl penmment residence. 

generally re(i•rred to as green card holders. 

The White House orerruled that guidance orernight. according to officials 

fi:uniliar with the rollout. That order cameji'im1 the President's inner circle, led hy 

Stephen Mill<!r and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case 

basis. DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US" 

a. To the best of your knowledge, is this description of the process that led to the 

issuance of the .January 27 Executive Order correct? 

b. If you do not have personal knowledge of that process: Do you believe that such 

a process, if correctly desc1·ibed, is appropriate? 

c. ~'hat is the legal basis for applying the Executive Order's restrictions to Lawful 

Permanent Residents ("green ca1·d holders") from the seven affected countries? 

8. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: Is there any legal justification for 

denying entry to Iraqis who risked their lives serving as translators for U.S. 

servicemembers? 

9. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: Is there any legal justification tor 

preventing lawful permanent residents of the United States from travelling home because 

they are nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya or Yemen? 

I 0. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: There have been reports that the 

Executive Order is being applied to dual citizens of the seven listed countries, many of 

whom are also citizens of the United States' closest allies. What is the legal basis for 
450 

applying the Executive Order's restrictions to dual citizens? 

II, Senators McCain and Graham stated on January 29, 2017 that they believed that 

President Trump's January 27 Executive Order ''was not properly vetted," Do you agree 

or disagree with that statement? 

12. You have been nominated to be the nation's chief law enforcement ofticial. Senators 

McCain and Graham have expressed their concem that the Executive Order ·'may do 

more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security:• Do you agree or disagree 

with that statement? 
451 

Written Questions of Senator Jeff Flake 

"Attorney General Nomination" 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 10-11,2017 

I. Historically, the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue entities that commit 

serious fraud against the government. However, under President Obama, the Department 

of Justice for the first time used the Act to bring claims against lenders for technical 

violations of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guidelines. In many cases, these 

actions were based on finding minor documentation or processing errors that did not 

cause loan defaults or otherwise impact loan quality or performance. Many lenders have 

been forced to settle these allegations for billions of dollars to mitigate reputational harm 

and legal costs. As a result of these risks, many lenders have scaled back or left the FHA 

program altogether, limiting access to credit for working families that rely on FHA for 

financing their first home. 

a. Under your leadership, will the Justice Department only pursue False Claims Act 

cases in which the individual kno·wingly uses a false record or knowingly makes a 

false statement that is material to a false claim? 

b. During your confirmation hearing, Senator Grassley asked that you regularly 

report to Congress on the status of False Claims Act cases. 

1. Will you commit to reporting on outstanding False Claims Act cases? 

ii. If so, will you identify in these reports to Congress which False Claims 

Act cases rely on a false-certification theory? 
452 

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

"Attorney General Nomination" 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator AI Franken 

Questions for Senator Sessions: 

Question 1. During my time in the Senate, one of the issues I've focused on is advancing 

equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. For me, that means 

making sure that our federal civil rights laws protect LGBT kids from discrimination and 

harassment in school. It means making clear that in this country, no one should be fired because 

they're gay or transgender. And generally, it means making sure that LGBT people are treated 

with the same dignity and respect afforded to everyone else under the law. So I was heartened to 

see you acknowledge LGBT people in your hearing testimony, where you stated that you 

"understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community." 

However, I have trouble reconciling that claim with your record on LGBT issues. You voted 

against prohibiting job discrimination against LGBT people. You voted against ending "Don't 

Ask, Don't Tell." You argued that expanding our hate crimes law to protect LGBT people would 

"cheapen the civil rights movement." And you described the Supreme Court decision granting 

same-sex couples the right to marry as "part of a continuing effort to secularize, by force and 

intimidation, a society that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people to sail across 

unknown waters." 

Give your past record with regard to LGBT issues, how can you assure the LGBT 

community that you truly understand their demands for justice and, if confirmed, that you 

will work in their best interests? 

In your testimony, you stated that you "will ensure that the statutes protecting their rights 

and their safety are fully enforced." Under Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the 

Department's work to protect and advance the rights ofLGBT people was an integral part 

of DOl's civil rights enforcement. If confirmed, can Americans expect the same from 

you? 
453 

Question 2. For the majority of Americans, requiring that LGBT people are treated equally does 

not come at the expense of protecting other people's rights. Nor do most people believe that 

treating LGBT people equally is incompatible with respecting the religion of people who don't 

necessarily share our beliefs. However, you are a supporter of the deceptively named First 

Amendment Defense Act (FADA), a bill that would allow people and some institutions, even 

those that receive taxpayer dollars, to ignore laws that require them to recognize marriage 

equality if doing so is contrary to their religious beliefs. If enacted, this bill would prevent the 

federal goverrunent from enforcing laws and regulations that require federal benefits for samesex spouses, and that prevent commercial landlords and even homeless shelters from turning 

away married same-sex couples, among other laws. 

Some have argued that FADA is necessary to protect pastors, ministers, and churches who fear 

that they'll be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples. But the First Amendment already 

prevents clergy or churches from being forced to marry a couple if doing so is contrary to their 

beliefs. It always has. The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized 

that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states, did not change that. 

• Why do you believe that a bill like F ADA is necessary? And how do you reconcile your 

support for F ADA, which would sanction discrimination against lawfully married gay 

and lesbian couples, with your claim to "understand the demands for justice and fairness 

made by the LGBT community?" 

2 
454 

Question 3. You strongly opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of2009, which extended federal hate crimes protections to victims who were 

targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such crimes have an 

especially pernicious impact on members of the LGBT community. As FBI Director Corney 

explained, "[h]ate crimes are different from other crimes. They strike at the heart of one's 

identity. They strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is loss: loss of 

trust, loss of dignity and, in the worst case, loss of life." 

In November, the FBI released its annual report on hate crime statistics, which relies upon data 

gathered and reported by state and local law enforcement agencies. According to the report, 

7,121 people were victims of hate crimes in 2015. Of those 7,121 victims, 17.7 percent were 

targeted because of their sexual orientation and 1.7 percent were targeted because of their gender 

identity. However, during a 2009 hearing on the bill that extended protections to the LGBT 

community, you stated that "I'm not sure women or people with different sexual orientations 

face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." 

• In light of the data gathered by the FBI, do you still hold the view that LGBT people do 

not experience that kind of discrimination? If so, why? 

Although the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act enables the 

Department to prosecute crimes motivated by the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation 

or gender identity, and to provide assistance to state and local authorities in the investigation and 

prosecution of hate crimes, federal law does not require state or local law enforcement to report 

such incidents. As a result, Director Corney acknowledged, "[t]here are jurisdictions that fail to 

report hate crime statistics. Other jurisdictions claim there were no hate crimes in their 

community, a fact that would be welcome if true." 

• In recognition of this fact, the FBI has worked with advocacy and law enforcement 

organizations to improve the investigation of hate crimes and to develop a standard for 

collecting, analyzing, and reporting hate crime incidents. Do you agree that 

underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local law enforcement remains an 

obstacle to combatting hate crimes? If not, why? 

• What steps will you take to encourage greater participation in hate crimes reporting by 

state and local law enforcement agencies? 

3 
455 

Question 4. A number of organizations and individuals have voiced support for your nomination 

or submitted letters praising your suitability for the post. On the day your nomination was 

annow1ced, the antiabortion group Operation Rescue issued a press release in which its president, 

Troy Newman wrote quote, "[w]e could not be happier about the selection of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

as the next Attorney General. I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past and know 

him to be an experienced prosecutor and principled pro-life advocate with a reputation for 

honesty." 

• What projects did you work on with Mr. Newman? Please list each project separately and 

describe your level of involvement in each. 

The title of the above Operation Rescue press release is "We Stand Ready to Assist Attorney 

General-Designate Sessions in Prosecuting Planned Parenthood." In the release, Mr. Newman 

said "a new sheriff is coming to town" and that Planned Parenthood would no longer be 

protected. 

• Have you made a commitment to Mr. Newman or to Operation Rescue to prosecute 

Planned Parenthood? If so, please describe any discussions you have had with Mr. 

Newman or his associates regarding the prosecution of Planned Parenthood or other 

reproductive health providers. 

In 1994, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. FACE 

prohibits threatening or intimidating women seeking reproductive health services and the doctors 

who provide them. It prohibits physically interfering with or injuring patients and clinicians. It 

prohibits damaging clinic property. And the Department of Justice enforces the FACE Act. 

• It is critically important, especially in light of your support from radical elements within 

the antiabortion movement, that patients and women's health providers not doubt the 

Department's willingness to enforce the law and guard against threats. How can you 

reassure abortion providers and women seeking health care services that you will strictly 

enforce the FACE Act, if confirn1ed? 

4 
456 

Question 5. In September 2015, the Department of Justice released policy guidance on the use of 

cell-site simulators-portable surveillance devices that collect cell phone identification and 

location information by mimicking cell phone towers. The guidance was released after I wrote to 

the Department raising concerns about the use of these systems. 

Cell-site simulators, known as International Mobile Subscriber Identity Catcher devices (IMSIcatchers), "DRTBoxes, "dirtboxes," or "Stingrays," have the ability to compel affected mobile 

phones to reveal their location and users' registration infonnation. Recent complaints filed with 

the FCC have also alleged that cell-site simulators can disrupt cellular service and may interfere 

with calls for emergency assistance. As such, I believe that the devices must be used with great 

care and only in limited circumstances. In my view, the need for law enforcement to monitor and 

apprehend criminal suspects should not come at the expense of innocent Americans' privacy. 

In order to ensure that the Department uses cell-site simulators in a manner that is consistent with 

the Constitution, the Department's 20 15 guidance provides that law enforcement agencies must 

first obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before deploying cell-site simulators. 

However, this guidance could be repealed at any time. 

• The 2015 policy provides a critical protection for Americans' privacy. If you are 

confirmed, will you continue to require a warrant before authorizing the use of cell-site 

simulators? lf not, why? 

• The 2015 guidance also sets forth practices concerning the collection and retention of 

data. If confirmed, will you commit to keeping the guidance's data retention and 

transparency provisions in place? If not, why? 

• If confirmed, will you commit to preventing the Department from using cell-site 

simulators to surveil individuals participating in First Amendment-protected activities, 

such as attending political protests or religious ceremonies? If not, why? 

5 
457 

Question 6. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, I 

have watched the proliferation of body-worn cameras with cautious optimism. Body cameras 

have the potential to help build trust between law enforcement and the community, and reduce 

uncertainty in the courtroom. At the same time, body cameras collect incredibly sensitive 

information, and it is essential that law enforcement agencies develop privacy and data 

protection policies to address how data captured by body cameras is collected and used. 

In September 2015, the Department of Justice awarded more than $23 million in grants to local 

and tribal law enforcement agencies to expand the use of body-worn cameras. The grants support 

the purchase of cameras, training and technical assistance, and efforts to catalog and examine the 

impact of their use. The Department also created a body-worn camera toolkit, which includes 

model policies that grantee agencies may reference in setting up their own programs. Under the 

current program, grantees are required to develop and articulate policies on privacy and data 

retention, but the Department docs not require that grantee policies meet any one standard. 

In my view, it's essential that the public and law enforcement have a clear understanding of how 

the sensitive information captured by body cameras is handled. So long as the Department of 

Justice is supporting the purchase of body-worn cameras by state and local law enforcement 

agencies, I think it's important that DOJ make sure departments who purchase body cameras 

with federal funds have a meaningful policy in place guiding their use, including a privacy 

policy. 

• If confirmed, will you commit to working with me to ensure that grantees develop strong 

policies to protect the integrity of the data and the privacy of both police and the public? 

If not, why? 

6 
458 

Question 7. Senator Hatch asked you about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 

Act (RLUIPA), which is enforced by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. You told 

Senator Hatch that "religious freedom is a great heritage of America. We respect people's 

religion .... It's mandated in the Constitution." 

• In a 2016 report on the Department's RL UIP A work, the Department noted that the 

number of RLUIP A investigations involving mosques or Islamic schools had risen 

dramatically from 2000 to 2006. In December 2016, for example, the Department filed a 

lawsuit against Culpeper County, Virginia, alleging that the county violated RLUIPA 

when it denied a sewage permit application to the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC), 

effectively preventing the ICC from building a mosque. The complaint alleges that since 

1992, the county had considered 26 applications and never denied the permit for a 

commercial or religious use prior to ICC's application. Do you agree that enforcement of 

RLUIPA---on behalf of all religious faiths-is critically important? 

• Will you commit to defending the rights of Muslim Americans-as strenuously as those 

of any other faith-to be free from unduly burdensome, unreasonable or discriminatory 

zoning, landmarking, and other land use regulations? 

• The 2016 report by the Department also contained this finding: "Another troubling 

statistic that emerges from the last five-and-a-half years reinforces the conclusion that 

there is particularly severe discrimination faced by Muslims in land use: While 84% of 

non-Muslim investigations opened by the Department resulted in a positive resolution 

without the United States or private parties filing suit, in mosque and Islamic school 

cases, only 20% have resulted in a positive resolution without the filing of a RLUIPA 

suit." Will you commit that the Department will maintain the same resources for its 

RLUIP A work, including work on behalf of Muslim Americans? 

• You are reported as having said, that the true threat confronting the United States is "the 

toxic ideology of Islam." How can you assure an asylum applicant claiming persecution 

based on their Islamic faith v.ill receive a fair hearing in the immigration courts, if you 

are confirmed? 

7 
459 

Question 8. I am concerned about further consolidation in the media and telecommunications 

markets because it often leads to higher prices, fewer choices, and even worse service for 

consumers. Furthermore, when you have a small group controlling what Americans can watch, 

the risk of private censorship over political content grows. 

ln a speech in October, President-elect Trump announced his opposition to AT &T's proposed 

acquisition of Time Warner, saying that his administration would not approve the deal. He also 

stated tbat his administration would revisit Comcast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal, suggesting 

that it never should have been approved in the first place. 

• At a time when a typical American household spends on average about $2,700 annually 

on telephone, video, and broadband services, do you agree with the president-elect that 

consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries is a problem? 

• Should you be confirmed as attorney general, how will an Antitrust Division under your 

supervision evaluate AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner? Will it revisit 

Comcast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal? 

8 
460 

Question 9: In December, President-elect Trump met with Masayoshi Son, chief executive of 

Softbank, which owns Sprint. Mr. Son has allegedly long sought for his company to acquire TMobile, which would collapse the U.S. wireless market from four major nationwide carriers to 

three. Following the meeting, Mr. Son reportedly committed to investing $50 billion in the 

United States and creating 50,000 new jobs. What Mr. Son will receive in return for these 

investments is unclear. 

• Have you discussed the meeting between Mr. Son and the president-elect with Mr. 

Trump? If so, what promises were made to Mr. Son in exchange for his commitments to 

invest in the United States? 

• What role will an Antitrust Division under your supervision play in the new 

administration? Should companies seeking regulatory approval of their mergers and 

acquisitions plan to communicate with the president-elect directly prior to -or during 

the Department of Justice review process? How will you ensure an impartial review? 

9 
461 

Question 10: I am increasingly concerned about internet companies that can use their positions 

as dominant media platforms to stifle competition and inhibit the free flow of information. In 

recent years, we've heard allegations of online intermediaries leveraging their market dominance 

to the detriment of content creators and innovative startups. For example, Google has given 

preference to its O\Vll products and services in search results while downgrading competitors' 

products and services. I've also heard from photographers in my home state that Google is taking 

original content from photographers' distributors' websites without appropriate compensation or 

attribution. Apple is preventing its competitors in the music streaming market from promoting 

lower prices to consumers on Apple iOS. And Amazon is using its dominance in the book 

market to impose unfair contractual terms on publishers and authors. 

• What will an Antitrust Division under your supervision do to address allegations that 

these dominant platforms' unilateral behavior is anticompetitive and may ultimately harm 

the free flow of ideas and content? 

In recent years, antitrust investigations against Google and Apple for alleged anti-competitive 

conduct have taken place at the Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust enforcement 

authority with the Department of Justice. However, this does not preclude the Justice Department 

from asserting jurisdiction over these issues in the new administration. 

• As Attorney General, would you be open to examining allegations of anti-competitive 

conduct by some of these dominant platforms at the Department of Justice? 

10 
462 

Question 11: As we saw following Comcast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal, conditions that are 

placed on deals that are approved can be difficult to enforce and are not always reliable. Another 

major problem is that those conditions expire. 

• How do you believe the Department of Justice can ensure that merger conditions actually 

have enough teeth to protect consumers in the long term? 

• There is increasing evidence that other types of merger remedies, including divestitures, 

aren't sufficient in protecting consumers from harm. Do you agree that in cases such as 

those, the DOJ should be more willing to challenge these deals in court, as it was slated 

to do in the case ofComcast-Time Warner Cable? 

11 
463 

Question 12: Four years ago, as the Supreme Court was considering American Express v. Italian 

Colors, I asked Assistant Attorney General William Baer about the importance of private 

antitrust enforcement. He has since told me that the Supreme Court's decision in that case made 

it much harder for small businesses to file private antitrust enforcement actions and instead they 

are forced to arbitrate their claims. 

• Do you agree that antitrust enforcement has changed since that decision? Do you 

currently have concerns about small business' ability to bring antitrust claims to a public 

court of law? If not, why? 

12 
464 

Question 13: Since entering the Senate, I have made it a priority to combat the widespread and 

harmful impact of forced arbitration. These clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by 

stripping consumers and workers of their legal rights and insulating corporations from any 

accountability. 

I have a letter that you sent on June 1 0, 1999 to one of your constituents. You write, "thank you 

for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about the Federal Arbitration Act and 

consumer transactions. I appreciate the reality that in many cases, arbitration clauses in contracts 

for sales of consumer goods limit a person's right to sue in state or federal court." 

• Do you still believe that arbitration clauses often limit Americans' right to sue in a public 

court oflaw? 

I do not oppose the use of arbitration when it is voluntarily agreed to by both parties after a 

dispute has arisen. But consumers and workers have a right to a meaningful choice about where 

to enforce important state and federal laws. Forced arbitration clauses, by their very nature, 

effectively deny Americans of this choice. 

In 2012, in response to President Obama's weekly address, you stated that "before entering 

politics, I was a federal prosecutor. I tried many cases and spoke to many juries. The brilliance of 

our legal system is that it places judgment in the hands of everyday citizens. Twelve complete 

strangers, from all walks oflife, sit in a jury box, carefully weigh the evidence, and then reach an 

impartial verdict." Despite the praise you have offered for our nation's public courts and justice 

system, you have consistently defended forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment 

contracts. 

• Why should any American be forcibly denied the fundamental rights and protections 

inherent in the "brilliance of our legal system" as you so aptly recognized in 2012? 

One very public example of mandatory arbitration is former Fox News anchor Gretchen 

Carlson's lawsuit alleging that she'd been sexually harassed by her boss Roger Ailes, the 

founder, and former CEO and chairman of the network. Ailes' lawyers tried to force her ease 

into private arbitration, arguing that Ms. Carlson had breached the terms of her employment 

contract, which included a forced arbitration clause. The arbitration clause in Ms. Carlson's 

contract also prohibited her from speaking out about the claims- as is the case in most forced 

arbitration agreements. Had Roger Ailes and Fox News been successful in forcing Ms. Carlson 

into arbitration and abiding by those terms, her colleagues at Fox News, many of whom were 

also victims of sexual harassment, would have been left in the dark about her case and may never 

have come forward with their O'W11 claims. 

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at least 25% of American 

women say they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. 

• Do you agree that women with claims of sexual harassment and employment 

discrimination deserve access to the courts and an impartial jury verdict? lfnot, why? 

13 
465 

• Do you believe it is it fair for corporations and employers to force consumers and 

workers to surrender their fundamental legal rights before a dispute has even arisen? If 

so, why? 

• In light of the fact that arbitration proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and have the 

ability to cover up discriminatory patterns and practices, why should they not be subject 

to the same transparency afforded participants in the civil justice system you praised in 

2012? 

Forced arbitration also impacts servicemembers who are trying to enforce the legal rights they 

fight to protect. Take the case of Kevin Ziober, a Navy Reservist who, after informing his 

company he was being deployed to tight for his country in Afghanistan, was thrown a farewell 

party with an American-flag shaped cake, and then summarily dismissed by his employer in 

violation of a federal law called the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act. After returning from active duty, Kevin filed suit against his former employer, and has been 

fighting for years for the right to enforce congressionally mandated protections for 

servicemembcrs in a public court oflaw. 

• Do you agree that we should afford the same protections inherent in our civil justice 

system to everyone, especially our men and women in uniform? 

14 
466 

Question 14: In recent years, the growing use of so-called stalking apps, which allow users to 

track someone's location or even listen to their phone calls and read their text messageswithout their knowledge or consent, has raised serious concerns. Federal law does not currently 

prohibit developers from creating apps that surreptitiously track gee-location data. This loophole 

in the law grants stalkers and domestic abusers access to a powerful tool enabling increased 

violence against women. 

• Do you agree that location data can be highly personal information and is deserving of 

privacy protections? 

Last year, I reintroduced legislation- the Location Privacy Protection Act- that would, among 

other things, an1end the federal wiretap statute to explicitly include the interception of location 

data and allow for the forfeiture of proceeds from the sale of smartphone tracking apps. 

• Should you be confirmed as Attorney General, will you work with me on this legislation 

to ensure that the federal government has all the tools necessary to protect women from 

stalking apps and their attendant violence and abuse? 

DOJ has the authority under existing wiretap laws to prosecute creators of apps that allow 

stalkers to listen to victims' phone calls, intercept text messages, or otherwise intercept content 

from victims' phones. In response to my request, which was joined by Senators Grassley, 

Comyn, and Graham, the DOJ exercised this authority and began taking criminal action against 

the creators of these stalking apps within the last few years. Although this is a positive 

development in the enforcement of our nation's laws, there is more that DOJ can do to protect 

the victims of stalking apps. 

• What will you do to ensure DOJ continues taking such action against the creators of 

stalking apps? 

15 
467 

Question 15: In our courtesy visit, we discussed violence against Native women, and I told you 

how important the issue is to me. When I provided you with a statistic demonstrating just how 

prevalent violence against Native women is and at the hands of non-Indians- you expressed 

shock and said that you didn't realize the extent of the problem. 

Over 84% of Native women experience domestic or sexual violence. And over 97% of them are 

victimized by non-Indians. That's a recent stat. But in 2012, all you had to do was talk to one 

tribe, and you would have learned that women in Indian Country are regularly abused by nonIndians who go unprosecuted and unpunished. 

During the hearing you told me you would spend a little time with the Poarch Band of Creek 

Indians in Alabama to better understand how the issue of domestic and sexual violence is 

affecting Indian Country. I also think it is necessary to visit at least one tribe where the special 

domestic violence jurisdiction is being exercised. Tribes are using that authority to secure long 

overdue justice for victims and are doing so with care and deliberation and in a manner that 

protects defendants' rights. 

• During the hearing you also told Senator Hirano that you can't commit to not challenging 

VA WA on these grounds. But you also admitted to not understanding the gravity of the 

problem of violence against native women when you voted on it in 2013. Now that you 

are better informed on the issue, will you commit to enforcing and defending this very 

important provision? 

16 
468 

Question 16: In 2011, the Office for Victims of Crime established the National Coordination 

Committee on the American Indian/ Alaska Native (AI/ AN) Sexual Assault Nurse ExaminerSexual Assault Response Team (SANE-SART) Initiative. The Committee has since issued a 

report with specific recommendations for the Department of Justice on improving the federal 

government's response to adult and child victims of sexual violence in tribal nations, and the 

Obama Administration has implemented many of these recommendations. 

• As attorney general, will you commit to continuing these policies to further address 

sexual violence in Indian Country? If not, why? 

17 
469 

Question 17: The Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for investigating and 

prosecuting crime in much oflndian country. The rates of violent victimization on many Indian 

reservations are the highest in the nation, but crimes in Indian country still largely go 

unprosecuted and unpunished. 

• What will be your approach to addressing crime in Indian country? What steps will you 

take to reduce crime in Indian country? 

18 
470 

Question 18: In recent years the media has increasingly highlighted the tragic prevalence of 

sexual assault in our country- whether it be on our military bases, on our college campuses, or at 

the hands of once-beloved public figures. In response, most of us in Congress have publicly 

committed to doing whatever is necessary to combat such violence and ensure that victims have 

access to justice. But critical to that effort is also our willingness- as the nation's leaders to 

speak openly and honestly about the systemic barriers to addressing the problem. 

• As attorney general- and the nation's top victim advocate- what would you say to the 

hundreds of thousands of survivors of sexual violence who may be unwilling to report 

their abuse for fear of retaliation or concern that they will not be believed? 

• What steps do you think our law enforcement can take to address a culture that often fails 

to hold perpetrators accountable and instead blames the victims? 

19 
471 

Question 19: As we've explored previously in the Judiciary Committee- and as research 

continues to demonstrate- runaway and homeless youth are particularly vulnerable to trafficking 

and exploitation. Covenant House New York's 2013 survey found that youth involved in 

commercial sexual activity frequently reported exchanging sexual acts for basic necessities like 

food or a place to sleep. And a more recent study by Covenant House New Orleans found that a 

quarter of the homeless youth they interviewed had been victims of trafficking or sexual labor. 

Finally, according to the Human Rights Campaign, of the nearly 2 million young people who are 

affected by homelessness each year, research shows that up to 40 percent of homeless youth 

identify as LGBT. 

• You were one of three senators who opposed the effort to reauthorize the Runaway and 

Homeless Youth Act in the Judiciary Committee in the ll3'h Congress. Why exactly did 

you oppose? 

• Should you be confirmed as attorney general, how can I trust that you will work to ensure 

that all kids, including LGBT youth and those that need it the most, have access to shelter 

and other necessary services to prevent them from becoming a victim of trafficking? 

20 
472 

Question 20: As the Department of Housing and Urban Development has frequently recognized, 

survivors of domestic violence face unique challenges in securing and maintaining adequate 

housing. Indeed, according to the Department of Justice, one-in-four homeless women in the 

United States is a survivor of domestic violence. And not surprisingly, once a woman becomes 

homeless, she becomes more vulnerable to violence and exploitation. In fact, nine-in-ten 

homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse. 

The Department of Justice is charged with protecting Americans' right to access housing 

free from discrimination. Should you be confirmed as Attorney General, what will you do 

to address the link between homelessness and domestic violence? How will you work 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to accomplish these goals? 

21 
473 

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the .Judiciary 

"Attorney General Nomination" 

Follow-Up Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator AI Franken 

Follow-Up Questions for Senator Sessions: 

Question I. In my original questions for the record, I asked what assurances you could provide 

the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community that you would work to protect 

their rights. I also noted that under both Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the Department of 

Justice made protecting and advancing the rights ofLGBT people an integral part of the 

Department's civil rights enforcement. You responded that "[t]hc Civil Rights Division has a 

historic and proud record of defending the civil rights of all Americans, particularly the most 

vulnerable. That will certainly continue under my leadership, ifi am fortunate to be confirmed as 

Attorney General." 

As a part of the Civil Rights Division's efforts to combat discrimination against LGBT people, 

attorneys, staff, and members of the Division's leadership participate in the LGBTI Working 

Group. The Working Group advises the Division's leadership and sections on legal and policy 

issues relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, and 

HIV/AIDS status. In addition to exploring how existing federal civil rights laws can address 

discrimination against LGBT people, the Group also identifies appropriate matters and cases for 

the Division. 

• In acknowledgement of your commitment to continue the Civil Rights Division's 

"historic and proud record of defending the civil rights of all Americans, particularly the 

most vulnerable," will you commit to allowing the LGBTI Working Group to continue 

its work within the Division? 
474 

Question 2. In my original questions for the record, I raised the issue of your opposition to the 

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of2009, which extended 

federal hate crimes protections to victims targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or 

gender identity. During a 2009 hearing on that bill, you stated that "I'm not sure that women or 

people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." 

In my question, I provided you with data from the FBI's armual report on hate crime statistics, 

which documented that of the 7,121 victims of hate crimes in 2015, 17.7 percent were targeted 

due to their sexual orientation and 1.7 percent because of their gender identity (see U.S. DEP'T OF 

JUSTICE, FED.i3UREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE UNIF. CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM, HATE CRIME 

STATISTICS, 2015 (2017), available at https:-/ucr.ll1i.!.!O\/hatc-crime 1

2015). I asked you whether 

you still hold the view that LGBT people do not "face that kind of discrimination." In response, 

you wrote that your 2009 statement "reflected an opinion that I reached based on information 

available to me at the time" and you committed to "work diligently to ensure that all Americans 

receive equal protection under our laws." You did not, however, answer the question. 

• In light of the data gathered by the FBI, do you still hold the view that LGBT people do 

not experience that kind of discrimination? If so, why? 

• The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act requires that the 

attorney general or a designee authorize all criminal prosecutions brought under the Act. 

Given your opposition to the Act, will you commit to signing off on charges brought 

pursuant to the Act, including for crimes targeting members of the LGBT community? 

2 
475 

Question 3. In my original questions for the record, I explained that federal law does not require 

stale or local law enforcement to report hate crime incidents to the federal government, and I 

drew your attention to FBI Director Corney's statements acknowledging that underreporting of 

hate crimes remains a challenge (see James B. Corney, Director, Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 

Address at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit (April28, 2014), available 

at https:l\Y\1 11 .thi.l'OI .nc11 s'spccchcs.'thc-fbi-and-thc-adl-11 orkinL!-lO\Iard-a-1\ orld-11 ithouthatc ). I asked whether you agreed that underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local 

law enforcement remains an obstacle to combatting hate crimes. You responded that you had 

"not been presented with the information necessary" to form an opinion or to evaluate Director 

Corney's assertion. 

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) issued a report that 

analyzed data from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which documented that 

while 46 percent of hate crime incidents were reported to police for years 2003-2006, that 

number dropped to 35 percent for years 2007-2011 (see U.S. DEP'T OF JusTICE, OFFICE OF 

JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JCSTICE STATISTICS, NCJ 241291, SPECIAL REPORT: HATE 

CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003-2011 (2013), available at 

hllps: 1/l\\\\l .bjs.l.'OI 1contcnt 'pub pdf he~ 03ll.pdt). 

Of the 14,997law enforcement agencies that participated in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program in 2015, 88.4 percent of agencies reported that no hate crimes occurred in their 

jurisdictions (see U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNJFOR;-.1 CRIME 

REPORT, HATE CRIME STATISTICS, 2015, HATE CRIME BY JURISDICTION (2016), available at 

https: 1iucr.l1,i.um hatc-crimc''015.tupic-pal'.cs'jurisdiction Jimll). Moreover, according to an 

Anti-Defamation League analysis of the FBI's 2015 hate crime statistics, 87 American cities 

with populations over 100,000 either failed to report any information at all or reported zero biasmotivated crimes. 

• Having now been presented with Justice Department and FBI data, as well as FBI 

Director Corney's views on underreporting, are you able to evaluate his assertion or offer 

an opinion as to whether underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local law 

enforcement remains a problem? 
476 

Question 4. During your hearing, I expressed an interest in better understanding why you listed 

four civil rights cases among the top ten "most significant litigated matters which you personally 

handled" on your questionnaire. In light of your answers, I would like to further explore the role 

you played in these cases. 

Davis v. Board o(School Commissioners o[Mobile Countv 

The Davis school desegregation case listed on your questionnaire was filed in 1963, long before 

you became U.S. Attorney. 

• Is it correct that your name and signature are not on the complaint? Yes or no. 

• Did you prepare any legal brief or other filing in this case? Yes or no. If yes, please 

provide all such filings. 

• Did you appear in any court hearing in this case? Yes or no. 

• In your questionnaire entry for this case, you listed as co-counsel Joseph D. Rich and 

Angela Schmidt. Did you supervise either of them on this case? Yes or no. 

• Did any Assistant United States Attorney in your oftlce personally litigate this case 

along with Joseph D. Rich or Angela Schmidt? Yes or no. If yes, please provide that 

Assistant U.S. Attorney's name for the record. 

Various court filings from the mid-1980s in this case are signed solely by attorneys for the Civil 

Rights Division. Many do not list your name. Some list your name without a signature. Examples 

are below. For each one, please describe, if vou recall, your substantive involvement in any of 

these filings and state whether you believe they were prepared primarily by attorneys from the 

Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division based in Washington, DC. 

• One filing dated August 26, 1986, is signed by Angela Schmidt. Then-Assistant Attorney 

General William Bradford Reynolds and Joseph D. Rich are also listed. Your nan1e is 

not listed. 

• Another filing, from July 21, 1986 is signed by Joseph D. Rich. Then-Assistant Attorney 

General for Civil Rights William Bradford Reynolds and Angela Schmidt are also listed. 

Your name is not listed. 

• Another filing, dated August 21, 1985, is signed by Joseph D. Rich. Then-Assistant 

Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, H. Joseph Beard, Jr., and Angela Schmidt 

are also listed. Your name is not listed. 

• Another filing, dated October 16, 1981, is signed by Myron S. Lehtman of the Civil 

Rights Division. Then-Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, Walter 

Gorman, and Kenneth Barnes of the Civil Rights Division are also listed. Your name is 

listed as United States Attorney. 

4 
477 

United States v. Conecuh Countv 

The Conecuh County case was filed while you were United States Attorney. 

The docket sheet in this case lists Mr. Jones, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Tanner, and you as attorneys. 

It states that, on November 2, 1983, a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction was held in Selma, Alabama and denied by the court. 

• Did you appear at that hearing? 

• Did any Assistant United States Attorney under your supervision appear at that hearing? 

• Was this hearing primarily handled by attorneys from the Department of Justice's Civil 

Rights Division based in Washington? 

The consent decree in the Conecuh County case is signed by: Judge W.B. Hand; John K. Tanner 

of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division; and attorneys for the defendants (Robert G. 

Kendall; J.B. Nix; EdwardS. Allen; and Carroll H. Sullivan). Steven H. Rosenbaum is also 

listed, from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. Your name is not listed. 

• Please describe in detail the nature of your participation in the preparation or negotiation 

of this consent decree. 

• Was this consent decree primarily negotiated by attorneys from the Department of 

Justice's Civil Rights Division based in Washington? Yes or no. 

• Did any Assistant United States Attorney under your supervision substantively participate 

in the negotiation or preparation of this consent decree? Yes or no. If yes, please identify 

that Assistant United States Attorney. 

United States v. Dallas Countv Commission 

As you state, United States v. Dallas County Commission was filed in 1978, and the first trial in 

this case took place in 1979 and 1980-all before you became U.S. Attorney. The post-trial 

decision issued by the district court in 1982. 

Following the first trial, the district court concluded that the government had not proven vote 

dilution. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded in 1984. See United States v. Dallas 

County Commission, 739 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1984). 

The 1984 appellate decision in this case, as available on an online search database (LexisNexis), 

lists the following as counsel from the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC: William 

Bradford Reynolds; Jessica Silver; and Irving Gornstein. It also lists Thomas H. Figures, an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney in Mobile, Alabama, who was under your supervision. 

5 
478 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

case? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, following a remand from the 1984 appellate decision, 'The 

district court conducted a hearing with regard to elections for County Commission, and on 

March 6, 1986 it issued a preliminary injunction against at-large voting in Commission races in 

the June 1986 Democratic Primary." United States v. Dallas County Commission, 791 F.2d 83 I, 

832 (lith Cir. 1986). 

• Did you draft any brief or motion seeking this preliminary injunction? 

• Did you otherwise participate in the briefing on this motion for a preliminary injunction? 

If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the preliminary injunction hearing discussed in this quotation? If 

so, what was the nature of your participation? 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the district court after the 1984 remand denied a motion for 

preliminary injunction against the Dallas County School Board-and the United States appealed. 

Dallas County, 791 F.2d at 83!-33. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and ordered the district court 

to grant the preliminary injunction. !d. at 833. 

The 1986 appellate decision in this case, as available on an online search database (LexisNexis), 

lists the following as counsel from the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC: Gerald W. 

Jones, Paul F. Hancock; J. Gerald Hebert. It also lists you as U.S. Attorney. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

case? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

Following the remand of the school board case, the district court entered orders approving 

remedial plans for the County Commission and School Board over the objections of the United 

States. See United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1433, 1436 (11th Cir. 1988) 

(school board); United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430 (lith Cir. 1988) 

(county commission). In both cases, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the remedial 

plans approved by the district court did not cure the violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

The 1988 appellate decision in the Dallas County Commission case (850 F.2d 1430) as available 

on an online search database (LexisNexis) lists the following as attorneys for the United States in 

the appeal: "Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Washington, District of Columbia, Jessica Dunsay Silver"; and "Wm. Bradford Reynolds, U.S. 

6 
479 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, For U.S.A." It 

does not list your name. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in the 

Dallas County Commission appeal that resulted in the 1988 decision? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

The 1988 appellate decision in the Dallas County School Board case (850 F.2d 1433) as 

available on an online search database (LexisNexis) lists the following as attorneys for the 

United States in the appeal: "Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jessica Dunsay 

Silver, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, J. Gerald Hebert, U.S. Dept. of 

Justice, William Bradford Reynolds, Voting Section, Gerald W. Jones, Civil Rights Division, 

Paul F. Hancock, Washington, District of Columbia, J.B. Sessions U.S. Attorney, Mobile, 

Alabama." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in the 

Dallas County School Board appeal that resulted in the 1988 decision? If so, what was 

the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

Following the 1988 Eleventh Circuit decisions, the district court entered an order finding that 

commissioners elected in 1988 were only to serve two-year terms, instead of four-year tem1s. 

This was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed. United States v. Dallas County 

Commission, 904 F.2d 26 (II th Cir. 1990). 

The 1990 appellate decision in this case as available on an online search database (LexisNexis) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States in the appeal: "John R. Dunne, Asst. 

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Irving Gomstein, Washington, 

District of Columbia for plaintiff." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

United States v. Marengo Countv Commission 

The Department of Justice's complaint in United States v. Marengo County Commission was 

filed in 1978, and the first trial in this case was conducted in Selma, Alabama on October 23, 

1978 and January 4, 1979. See Clark v. Marengo County, 469 F. Supp. 1150, 1154 (S.D. Ala. 

7 
480 

1979). The post-trial decision issued on April 23, 1979 (469 F. Supp. 1150). All of these actions 

took place before you became U.S. Attorney. 

The Eleventh Circuit in 1984 noted that the 1979 decision found that the "at-large system for 

electing the Marengo County, Alabama county commission and school board" did not violate the 

Constitution, Civil Rights Act of 1870, or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. United States v. 

Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546, 1550 (II th Cir. 1984). 

In that appellate decision, the court noted that, since the 1979 decision, the court had "remanded 

this case once" already. The decision later notes that, following the Supreme Court's decision in 

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), the appeals court remanded the case to the district 

court for presentation of additional evidence. Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 1552. 

The appeals court decision then notes: "On July 30, 1981, the district court in the present case 

again ordered judgment for defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs had not established 

unresponsiveness. The court rejected the United States' offer to present additional evidence." !d. 

• Any proceedings leading up to this July 30, 1981 order occurred prior to your becoming 

the U.S. Attorney, correct? 

The United States appealed the July 30, 1981 order. The Eleventh Circuit then granted the 

United States' motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of the Supreme 

Court's review of Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982). See Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 

1552. 

Following the Rogers decision and the 1982 amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 

the Eleventh Circuit in 1984 "remand[ed] this case to the district court to allow the parties a 

limited opportunity to update the record and, in the event that the court finds a continuing 

violation of the Voting Rights Act, to allow the court to devise an appropriate remedy." 

The 1984 appellate decision in this case as available on an online search database (LexisNexis) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States in the appeal: "William F. Smith, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, 

William B. Reynolds, Asst. AG, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, 

District of Columbia, Joan A. Magagna, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Washington, District of Columbia, Brian K. Landsberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights 

Division, Washington, D.C., William R. Favre, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Mobile, Alabama, Thomas H. 

Figures Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant." Your name does not appear. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any motions in this appeal? If 

so, what was the nature of your participation? 
481 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

The Eleventh Circuit's 1984 decision notes, "The purpose of the remand is to allow the parties to 

update the record and to supplement the record with evidence that might tend to affect our 

finding of discriminatory results. In view of the evidence already in the record, the defendants 

bear the burden of establishing that circumstances have changed sufficiently to make our finding 

of discriminatory results in 1978 inapplicable in 1984." Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 1574-75. 

The district court held a post-remand hearing in March 1985 in the Northern Division (Selma). 

See Clark v. Marengo County, 623 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Ala. 1985). The district court found "no 

significant changes have occurred since 1978 that affect the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' 

finding of a Section 2 violation." !d. at 34. The Court says that the Eleventh Circuit's mandate 

essentially made the district court's role "merely ministerial." !d. 

The 1985 district court decision as available on an online search database (Westlaw) lists the 

following as attorneys for the United States: "J. Gerald Hebert, Christopher G. Lehmann, Dept. 

of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for United States." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings leading up to the 

March 1985 post-remand hearing in this case? If so, how? 

• Did you participate in the March 1985 post-remand hearing? If so, how? 

On August 8, 1986, the District Court issued another order, which is cited in your questionnaire. 

Clark v. Marengo County, 643 F. Supp. 232 (S.D. Ala. 1986). The decision notes that there had 

been a hearing "on July 29, 1986 for the purpose of addressing the parties' objections to the 

Court's June 23, 1986 districting plan and determining whether said plan complies with Section 

2 of the Voting Rights Act." !d. at 233. 

The 1986 district court decision in this case as available on an online search database (Westlaw) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States: "Jefferson B. Sessions, Ill, W.A. 

Kimbrough, Jr., U.S. Attys., Mobile, Ala., J. Gerald Hebert, Voting Section, Civil Rights Div., 

Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings (including 

proposed districting plans) leading up to the July 29, 1986 hearing? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings (including 

proposed districting plans) filed with the court in 1985 or 1986 prior to the Court's 

issuance ofthe June 23, 1986 districting plan? 

• Did you participate in the July 29, 1986 hearing? If so, what was the nature of your 

participation') 

9 
482 

As you note, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the districting plan. Clark v. Marengo 

County, 811 F.2d 610 (lith Cir. 1987) (table). 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

• Did you participate in any oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit in this appeal? If so, 

what was the nature of your participation? 

10 
483 

Question 5. After you admitted to not understanding the gravity of the problem of violence 

against native women when you voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act (VA W A) in 2013, I asked you on the record about your willingness to defend the 

special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) provision. Your response stated, "I 

understand that a pilot program has been initiated that seeks to conform tribes' exercise of 

criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. I will 

carefully study this program before reaching any legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal 

jurisdiction provision." 

VA W A 2013, which was enacted on March 7, 2013, recognizes tribes' inherent power to 

exercise SDVCJ over non-Indians who commit acts of domestic violence and amends the Indian 

Civil Rights Act to require due process protections before a tribe can exercise SDVCJ. Congress 

recognized that it may take time for many tribes to get these protections in place and set the 

effective date for the provision two years after passage of the law. Congress also created the Pilot 

Project, which you reference in your response, to allow for accelerated implementation for those 

tribes who demonstrated to the attorney general's satisfaction that the tribe's criminal justice 

system had adequate safeguards in place to protect defendants' rights. The Pilot Project ended 

nearly two years ago, in March 2015. It has been widely hailed as a success for holding domestic 

violence offenders accountable while also protecting their fundamental right to due process. It 

has been the subject of DOJ reports, Congressional briefings, law review articles, and dozens of 

newspaper articles and conference sessions. Two bills have since been introduced to build on the 

success of the Pilot Project and further strengthen tribal authority. 

• When did you learn about the SDVCJ pilot program, which was a key provision of the 

law you opposed in 2013? Was it before or after your nomination hearing, during which 

you stated that your opposition to VA WA rested on your concerns surrounding the 

SDVCJ provision? 

• In the two weeks since your hearing, during which your familiarity with SDVCJ was 

raised several times, what efforts have yon undertaken to learn more about how tribes are 

exercising this jurisdiction? Have you spoken with any tribal governments exercising 

SDVCJ? 

II 
484 

Question 6: In response to my question about how you would address the high rates of violent 

crime in Indian country you stated, "I will be committed to ensuring that federal law enforcement 

resources are fully deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on Federal reservations, and will 

request additional resources where existing resources are inadequate." Thank you for your 

commitment. I look forward to working with you to ensure the federal government fulfills its 

responsibilities to investigate and prosecute crime on reservations. 

In response to my question about violence against Native women, however, you stated that 

"State and local law enforcement resources greatly exceed those of Federal and tribal 

governments combined. On the exclusively Federal reservations where federal law enforcement 

has proved to be inadequate to reduce high levels of violent crime, Congress may consider 

allowing state and local authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and local law 

enforcement has proven effective on many existing Indian reservations, and the extension of 

such criminal jurisdiction to both Indians and non-Indians in Indian country does not offend 

constitutional guarantees." 

Your suggestion to empower state law enforcement on reservations is not new. It was first 

enacted by Congress in 1953 as Public Law 83-280 (PL 280). Initially enacted in six states, PL 

280 authorized state jurisdiction on Indian reservations and eliminated federal jurisdiction over 

major crimes committed in Indian country, but it also allowed other states to acquire jurisdiction 

at their option. At first, PL 280 was forced on tribes without their consent. President Nixon 

disavowed it, calling it a "policy of forced termination", in favor of a policy that acknowledged 

that tribal governments are best positioned to exercise authority to govern their lands and people. 

Since amendments to PL 280 in 1968, tribal consent is required before a state can acquire 

jurisdiction and states are permitted to cede jurisdiction back to the federal government. 

Importantly, since 1968, no tribe has consented to state jurisdiction, and many states have ceded 

jurisdiction back to the federal government, often citing their view that PL 280 is largely an 

unfunded mandate to police lands that they cannot tax. 

Finally, the bipartisan Indian Law & Order Commission concluded in its recent report !.1 

Ruadmap l(lr \ iakin!C :\atiw America Safer that "While problems associated with institutional 

illegitimacy and jurisdictional complexities occur across the board in Indian country, the 

Commission found them to be especially prevalent among Tribes subject to P.L. 83-280 or 

similar types of State jurisdiction. Distrust between Tribal communities and criminal justice 

authorities leads to communication failures, conflict, and diminished respect." 

What is the basis for your recommendation that Congress should consider allowing state 

and local authorities to exercise greater jurisdiction on tribal lands? 

• Have you reviewed the effectiveness of PL 280, the Indian Law & Order Commission's 

report on the issue, or gathered the views of tribal governments about an expansion of 

state jurisdiction on their lands? 

12 
485 

Question 7: During your hearing, I asked you about a claim made by the then-president-elect. In 

late November, he tweeted that "In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won 

the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." As you know, 

President Trump lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. And as you know, state officials 

have found virtually no credible reports of fraud, and no sign of widespread fraud. 

So I asked you whether you agreed with the president-elect that millions of fraudulent votes had 

been cast, and you responded, "I don't know what the President-elect meant or was thinking 

when he made that comment, or what facts he may have had to justify his statement." I also 

asked you whether you had talked to the president-elect about the issue. You replied, ·'I have not 

talked to him about that in any depth." 

Yesterday, January 24, 2017, President Trump welcomed House and Senate leaders to the White 

House for their first official meeting, where the president reportedly again claimed that he lost 

the popular vote because millions of undocumented immigrants cast illegal votes. Only this time 

he provided a slightly more specific number, saying it was somewhere between 3 million and 5 

million fraudulent votes. These were the headlines in two of our nation's leading papers in 

response to his claim: "Trump Rcp~ats Lie About Popular Vote in l\ keting With Lam113kcrs," 

the New York Times said. "\\'ithout eYidcncc. Trump tell:< i<mmakers 3 million to 5 million 

ilkL'al ballnts co:<l him the popular\ ole," reported the Washington Post. 

• Yes or no, do you agree with the president that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 

the presidential election? If not, why? Do you anticipate that he will request that the 

Department investigate once you are confirmed? 

• If somewhere between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes were cast in the presidential 

election, where do you believe such votes were cast? Please identify the states and 

precincts where the criminal activity is alleged to have taken place. 

• In what way are the 3 million to 5 million votes believed to be illegal? 

• Since your hearing, have you spoken with the president about his claims that millions of 

illegal ballots were cast? Have you asked the president why he continues to believe that 

there was widespread voter fraud in the presidential election? If so, when? And please 

describe your conversation. 

13 
486 

Question 8: I asked you what steps law enforcement can take to address a culture that often fails 

to hold perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and instead blames the victims. You replied, 

"Law enforcement authorities can best 'address' such a culture by aggressively investigating 

sexual assault offenses and vigorously prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law." 

In December 2015, the Department of Justice issued guidance- "ldentil\inl! and Pr~wntimc 

Gender Bias in L<m LntiJrccmcnt Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence"- that 

examined how gender bias can undermine the response of law enforcement agencies to sexual 

and domestic violence and provided a basic set of recommendations for law enforcement to help 

address that gender bias. The guidance, which was designed in collaboration with law 

enforcement leaders and advocates, found that gender biases can affect law enforcement officers' 

perceptions of crimes committed against members of certain populations and prevent them from 

effectively handling allegations of such crimes, which could ultimately amount to unlawful 

discrimination. For example, if a police officer believes a sexual assault to be less severe because 

the victim was assaulted by an acquaintance or was intoxicated when the assault occurred, that 

constitutes gender bias and could impact whether the officer fully investigates the claim or 

prioritizes a swift response. The guidance also found that eliminating gender bias in policing 

practices is integral to combatting sexual and domestic violence and preventing future 

victimization because an appropriate law enforcement response fosters victim confidence and 

makes victims more likely to report future incidents. On the other hand, if law enforcement does 

not respond effectively to an incident of sexual assault or domestic violence, the guidance found 

that victims are less likely to participate in the investigation and prosecution of their case or seek 

police assistance in the future. 

• Are you familiar with this guidance? If not, will you commit to reviewing it to better 

understand some of the system barriers to addressing sexual violence? 

• Do you agree that this guidance demonstrates that addressing sexual violence in our 

country requires more than simply "aggressively investigating and vigorously 

prosecuting" sexual assault offenses? Will you work with me to address these systemic 

barriers? 

14 
487 

Question from Senator Graham 

1. Along with Senator Donnelly, I introduced at the end of last Congress the INVEST to 

Prevent Crime Act. The Act authorizes for five years a grant program focused on 

neighborhoods struggling to address persistent crime. Grantees will develop cross-sector 

partnerships between residents, local law enforcement, a research entity, and community 

and business partners. The partnerships will plan and implement strategies to address 

specific drivers of crime in their target neighborhoods. The program builds on DOJ' s 

Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program, which has been appropriated between 

$10.5M and $18M since FY2013, and has shown very promising results in reducing 

crime rates. 

Do you agree that building structured partnerships between community members and 

local police agencies could help reduce crime? 

Do you plan to continue DOl's support for grant programs like the Byrne Criminal 

Justice Innovation Program, which are designed to reduce crime in our country's most 

challenging neighborhoods while improving community-police relations? 
488 

Senator Grassley, Chairman 

Questions for the Record 

J cff Sessions 

Nominee, to be United States Attorney General 

Sue-and-Settle and Settlement Slush Funds 

Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department arranged for settling defendants to donate 

money to non-victim third-parties, including politically favored groups. This was simply another 

tool by which the Obama Justice Department would pick winners and losers based on a politicallydriven agenda. Payments ordered by settlements with the Department of Justice should only be 

used to punish the defendant and to make actual victims whole again, not to benefit favored 

groups. 

The Obama Justice Department also abused its settlement authority by signing off on settlements 

and consent decrees with interest groups that committed agencies to fast-track new regulations. 

This practice, known as sue-and-settle, undermines transparency and accountability in the 

rulcmaking process and offends the intent of Congress. 

As Attorney General, will you commit to working with Congress and this Committee to ensure 

that settlements entered into by the Department, and any payments derived from them, are used 

appropriately for punishment of defendants and redress of actual victims? Will you likewise 

commit to working with Congress and this Committee to end abusive sue-and-settle tactics? 

The Obama administration promised a new era of open government. President Obama even called 

his administration the most transparent in history. But the facts demonstrate otherwise. Under 

President Obama, FOIA lawsuits and FOIA request denials reached record highs. And it's no 

secret that some of his top officials used methods that totally circumvented transparency and 

accountability protections. 

With a new administration comes an opportunity to set a new standard for transparency. And the 

Justice Department plays a central role in ensuring government-wide compliance with FOIA, our 

nation's premier transparency law. Accordingly, as Attorney General, will you commit to working 

with Congress and this Committee to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of FOIA are carried 

out? 

Prescription Drug Prices 

As you know, the high cost of prescription drugs is an increasing concern for American consumers. 

President-Elect Trump agrees and has pledged to "bring down drug prices." Do you believe that 

the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department has a role to play with respect to these 

concerns? Can you assure me that drug competition issues will be a priority for the Justice 

Department, if you are confirmed to be U.S. Attorney General? 
489 

Bankruptcy 

I believe the bankruptcy system has been made much better and fairer thanks to the enactment of 

comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation in 2005. Nevertheless, critics desire to weaken the 

statute. 

I. Will you commit to actively supporting, defending, and making enforcement of the 

bankruptcy laws a priority for the U.S. Trustee Program? 

2. Will you support and encourage greater enforcement actions by the U.S. Trustee Program 

to prevent abusive or fraudulent bankruptcy filings, including vigorous review of attorney 

fee applications in large Chapter II bankruptcy cases? 

3. Will you assist in efforts to fight attempts to undermine the bankruptcy reform law? 

Juvenile Justice System 

1. A significant number of girls in the juvenile justice system are actually victims of human 

trafficking. What efforts will the Attorney General make to promote the identification of 

these victims and help ensure their needs are better met? 

2. The programs authorized under the 1974 Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act 

are long overdue for reauthorization. There was broad bipartisan support for these 

programs' reauthorization in the !14th Congress (as evidenced by the Senate Judiciary 

Committee's unanimous approval of a reauthorization bill in 2015 and the House of 

Representatives' 2016 passage of a companion bill by a vote of 382-29). JJDPA 

reauthorization remains a top priority for this Committee in the !15th Congress. 

Alabama in recent years has embraced the importance of juvenile justice reforms. 

(Research indicates that such reforms not only conserve taxpayer resources but also 

promote better outcomes for the nation's at-risk youth.) Given Alabama's recent success in 

juvenile justice reform and the federal taxpayers' 40-ycar investment in JJDPA 

implementation, will you encourage the rest of the nation to adopt similar reforn1s and 

engage in a robust implementation of the JJDP A? 

Scope of Executive Privilege 

For the past five years, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform (HOGR) has sought subpoenaed documents from the Department of Justice 

related to Operation Fast and Furious.l1

l Originally, the Department failed to produce any 

documents responsive to the October 2011 subpoena despite failing to formally assert a legally 

recognized privilege. In fact, only a feeble attempt to rely on "confidentiality interests" and 

Ill Stephen Dinan. Election eve surprise: DO.! belatedly releases Fast & Furious documents, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 4, 

2014, available at http: \\\\\\ .\\<J~hin~tiillli..Dl~s.com ne\\ s '20 1-t 'no\· -1 'justi~e--Jeruubmits-6--H~--mu:.es-Hlst-furimis­

~l~}_L~i_'~llilg_t__illl. 

2 
490 

"separation of powers" was profferedJ2l Eventually the Department asserted executive privilege 

over the majority of relevant documents, and shortly thereafter, the Committee voted to hold 

Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. 

In August 2012, HOGR filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

seeking to enforce its subpoena of documents, including those created after a February 4, 2011 

letter to me which falsely claimed the Department had not been walking guns, to understand how 

the Department came to know the letter was false. [

3

1 In August 2014, after years of litigation, the 

court ordered the Department to produce a privilege log. However, the court also held that the 

deliberative process privilege "could be invoked in response to a congressional subpoena."[4

l 

In response to the order, the Department produced an incomplete "list" of a subset of documents, 

along with about two thirds of those documents which it had previously unlawfully withheld, given 

that it had a legal obligation to comply with the subpoena and given that even the Department did 

not take the position that those documents were privileged. The remaining documents on the 

Department's "list" were categorically withheld on deliberative process grounds as well as five 

other claims of"privilege" never previously asserted. 

HOGR then filed a motion to compel production of all documents, without redactions, created 

following the Department's false and misleading February 2011 letter to CongressYl On January 

19, 2016, the district court granted the Committee's motion in part and denied it in part. The court 

ordered the Department to produce all documents from its 2014 "set" that it had withheld on 

deliberative process grounds, but denied the Committee's motion to compel remaining responsive 

documents.l6l 

HOGR appealed on October 2016 to seek production of all other documents responsive to the 

subpoena.Pl Among other things, the appeal also generally challenges the district's court's holding 

that the common law "deliberative process" privilege can form a valid basis for denying access to 

information regarding Executive Branch misconduct sought by a congressional subpoena. The 

appeal is currently pending. 

The most problematic aspect of the long negotiation and litigation over the Fast and Furious 

documents is the Department's continued insistence, and the district court's assent to the 

Department's position, that the constitutionally based Executive Privilege extends far below the 

President to shield the "deliberative process" of lower-level, unelected bureaucrats. The 

deliberative process privilege is a common law doctrine and a basis for a Freedom of Information 

Act exemption. It is not a Constitutional privilege of equal standing with the inherent power of 

Congress to conduct oversight inquiries. Deliberative process also traditionally applies only to 

1

21 Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 21, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House 

of Representatives v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-5078 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 2016) ["HOGR Brief']. 

i'l Complaint available at bttu:_1:bC1Jtim9JlrfJJJiclcom tile> c:Qill.clilln\:-JlJllif. 

1

4

1 HOGR brief at 9. 

lSJ Available at bJJp: en er::.i~ht.hou::-(:.:.!0\ \\ p-cQntcnLWllllil~h.l.Q.l.-tLI_Cg~r:L~LDilf. 

1

6

1 HOGR brief at 25. 

[71Jd. 
491 

content that is deliberative and pre-decisional. [Sl It does not shield material created after a decision 

is made, or that is purely factual. 

Worse, the Department has even used this exceedingly broad view of Executive Privilege to shield 

production of documents the former Attorney General himself admitted were not actually 

privileged at a//.19

1 The Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion on the President's assertion 

of Executive Privilege further suggests inexplicably that the privilege applies to a document, 

"regardless of whether a given document contains deliberative materiaJ."l 10l 

Moreover, in a very troubling trend, the Department and other Executive Branch agencies also 

have relied on the district court's opinion in their refusal to produce a vast array of information to 

Congress in response to subpoenas, claiming broadly not only a dubious "deliberative process" 

privilege but also general, unarticulated "confidentiality" interests and other vague concepts. 

Many of those examples are featured in an amicus brief that I and several other congressional 

committee chairmen in the House and the Senate filed in the HOGR appeal. [II] The brief challenges 

the attempts by the Obama administration to stretch the Executive Privilege beyond its 

constitutional boundaries to shield from congressional review documents it claims are 

"deliberative" or even merely "confidential." The brief asserts that the administration's overbroad 

privilege claims, including in response to congressional subpoenas, serve only to thwart legitimate 

congressional ovcrsight.li2J 

I. What is the scope of executive privilege, particularly over agency documents unrelated to 

the President? 

2. Does the President have an executive privilege to withhold documents subpoenaed by 

Congress that have nothing to do with advice or communications involving the White 

House? If so, what is the legal basis for that claim? 

3. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will personally review and examine the expansive 

claims of Executive Privilege asserted by the Department in this long running litigation 

with Congress under its previous leadership and decide whether it is proper and consistent 

with the law to continue litigating them? 

On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Grassley-Leahy FBI Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act. The Act clarifies, once and for all, that FBI employees are protected 

for making disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse within their chains of command-just like every 

other federal government employee. The Department of Justice should work swiftly to update its 

i'IJnreSealedCase, 121 F.3d 729,745 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 

1

9

1 Def.'s Mot. For Certification of Sept. 30, 2013 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)at 

8-9, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives v. Holder, 1: 12-cv-1332 

(D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2013). 

1! 0136 Op. O.L.C. I, 3 (June !9, 2012). 

ill] Brief of Amici Curiae Chairmen of Certain House and Senate Oversight Committees in Support of Appellant, 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform oft he United States House of Representatives v. Loretta Lynch, 

No. 16-5078 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 13, 2016). 

{Ill "[T]hc power of inquiry-with the process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the 

legislative function." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). 

4 
492 

current regulations in accordance with the new statutcl 13l and ensure FBI employees are fully 

apprised oftheir protections. 

Unfortunately, the version of the FBI WPEA-which unanimously passed the Judiciary 

Committee early in 2016---did not become law. This version sought to improve the investigative 

and adjudicative procedures for FBI reprisal claims to address significant deficiencies noted by the 

Government Accountability Office and the Department of Justice in their respective reports on the 

FBI whistleblower program. 

For example, that version of the bill would have addressed lengthy delays in the investigations and 

adjudications procedures for FBI whistle blower claims. Among other things, the bill provided for 

the ability of the Department to utilize more experienced administrative law judges to evaluate 

cases and allowed for interim relief for whistle blowers where the Office of the Inspector General 

finds a reasonable basis to believe reprisal occurred. The bill also would have required the 

Department to meet its obligations under FOIA and follow the example of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board in publicizing its opinions. The Department has promised to consider doing so, 

but in nearly two years has failed to publicize a single FBI whistleblower case. The result is that 

the FBI has access to case precedent, but potential whistleblowers do not. 

Notably, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved these key reforms in early 2016. 

However, the Department of Justice and the FBI objected to these improvements-behind the 

scenes-without ever providing any official written comment on the bill. 

I. If confirmed, how will you ensure that FBI employees are fully apprised of their new 

protections from reprisal committed by their supervisors? 

2. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Department and the FBI work with this 

Committee to continue to improve protections for whistleblowers at the FBI? 

3. If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing any changes the Department makes to its 

policies and procedures in handling FBI whistleblower complaints? 

4. If confirmed, will you provide this committee with regular updates on the Department's 

progress in improving the effectiveness and timeliness of its policies and procedures for 

addressing these claims? 

Improper Handling Restrictions on Committee Documents 

During the course of the Clinton investigation, the FBI provided a document production that was 

largely unclassified but contained some classified material. The production included "handling 

restrictions" on all the unclassified material which prevented necessary staff without a clearance 

from reviewing the unclassified material. These restrictions were never negotiated for, rather the 

FBI unilaterally used them. 

1

131 28 C.F.R. Part 27. The current regulations limit the individuals to whom FBI employees may make protected 

disclosures to nine specifically designated entities or individuals. In establishing such a limited group, the 

Department ignored the central purpose of whistleblower protection laws, which is to encourage disclosures and 

protect employees from the individuals or entities most likely to reprise against them. 
493 

The FBI's action is entirely contrary to the executive order and regulations governing the handling 

of classified information. Under the law, the unclassified material should have been produced 

directly to the Committee, with only a classified addendum submitted to the Office of Senate 

Security. Executive Order 13526 states: 

The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, use a classified addendum 

whenever classified information constitutes a small portion of an otherwise 

unclassified document or prepare a product to allow for dissemination at the lowest level 

of classification possible or in unclassified form. 

Moreover, Section 1.7(a) of Executive order 13526 specifically states: 

In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as 

classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: 

(I) conceal violations oflaw, inefficiency, or administrative 

error; 

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or 

agency; 

(3) prevent or delay the release of information that 

does not require protection in the interest of national 

security. 

Importantly, by definition, unclassified information does not require protection in the interest of 

the national security. And Executive Order 13526 mandates that "in no case" shall it "be 

maintained as classified," which accordingly prohibits FBI's attempt to require the unclassified 

materials to be treated as classified and stored in a SCIF. 

The FBI's actions raise serious Constitutional separation of powers issues when the imposition of 

such document controls interferes with the independent oversight function of the Judiciary 

Committee. 

1. Do you agree that the Legislative Branch has independent and constitutionally based 

oversight powers that provide it the authority to oversee the Executive Branch? 

2. Do you agree that unilateral document controls by the Executive Branch undern1ine the 

independent and constitutionally based oversight powers of the Legislative Branch? If not, 

why not? Please explain. 

3. If confirmed, will you instruct Justice Department employees and its components to 

negotiate in good faith any handling restrictions with the Committee before production? If 

not, why not? 

6 
494 

1 

Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Questions for the Recordfollowing hearing on January 10, 2017 entitled: 

"Attorney General Nominations" 

The Honorable Jefferson B. Sessions, U.S. Senator 

I. During the hearing I asked Senator Sessions whether he would implement the Freedom of 

Access to Clinic Entrances act. He said, "I don't know exactly how threats are worded 

but if it is improperly done, they can be subject to criminal prosecutions and they would 

be evaluated properly in my administration." 

a. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that WANTED posters 

targeting abortion providers, as well as websites listing the addresses and 

telephone numbers of abortion providers and declaring them guilty of crimes 

against humanity. constitute actionable threats under the FACE Act. Do you agree 

with this ruling by the Ninth Circuit? 

2. During the hearing I asked Senator Sessions whether he supported "enhanced vetting" of 

people with "extreme views." 

a. How would you characterize what constitutes an extreme view? 

b. Do you believe certain religions are more prone to extreme views than others? 

And if so, which ones? 

3. At the hearing I asked if Senator Sessions would commit to maintaining and enforcing 

the consent decrees that the Justice Department has negotiated during the Obama 

administration. You said "those consent decrees remain in force until and if they are 

changed." You also stated " .. .ljust wouldn't commit that there would never be any 

changes in them. And if departments have complied or reached other developments that 

could justify the withdrawal or modification of the consent decree, of course I would do 

that." 

a. In light of ample empirical evidence showing that consent decrees have been an 

effective tool in addressing police misconduct, do you plan to instruct the Civil 

Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to continue issuing them?' 

b. Absent a showing that a police department has actually achieved full compliance 

with specific provisions of a consent decree or the entirety of a previouslynegotiated consent decree, will the Department of Justice under your leadership 

maintain, enforce, and defend against proposed changes to that consent decree? 
495 

c. If your answer to the prior question was anything other than yes, please identifY 

all criteria you will use to determine whether to maintain, enforce, and defend 

against changes to an existing consent decree entered into between a police 

department and the Justice Department. 

2 

d. What did you mean by "And if departments have ... reached other developments 

that could justify the withdrawal or modification of the consent decree, of course I 

would do that"? What "other developments could justify the withdrawal or 

modification" of a consent decree? 

4. During the hearing I cited the current Wells Fargo investigation and asked whether 

Senator Sessions would instruct the Department of Justice to pursue and hold accountable 

individual and corporate wrongdoers who defraud the American consumer. 

a. Do you believe that any financial institutions have a large enough financial impact 

that the Department of Justice would be hindered in any way from holding those 

institutions and/or their executives fully accountable in any case oflawbreaking? 

b. If confirmed, if you determine that the size or interconnectedness of any financial 

institution hinders the Department of.Tustice's ability to hold a bank or its 

executives accountable, will you work with banking regulators to take any 

necessary remedial action, including requiring the institution to divest assets, to 

ensure that the institution and its executives can be held accountable to the full 

extent of the law? 

c. As you know, many of Wells Fargo's consumer contracts contain provisions that 

require consumers to adjudicate disputes through arbitration, rather than in the 

court system. Wells Fargo has argued for dismissal of numerous consumer 

lawsuits over the fake account scandal based on these provisions. You have 

strongly defended the use of "forced arbitration" clauses during your time in the 

Senate. 1 If confirmed, will you defend rules enacted by banking regulators that 

limit the use of forced arbitration in consumer banking contracts to the full extent 

of the law? 

1 See e.g., ht1ps://w\V\V.congress.rrov/congressional-record/2000/3/28/senatc-section/article/s 1810-

2 ?g=% 7Bc}022search'%22%3A %5B%22financial%22°105 D% 7D&r=5, 

https:i/www.cuna.or£iuploadedhles/CUNA/Legislative And RegulatOJ)' Advocacy/Track Rerrulatorv Issues/Pen 

ding Regulatory Changes/2016/Conrrressionai%20Letter%l20to%20Cordray%20rc~·020arbitration5b259%20( llps!f 
496 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 24, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATORHIRONO 

I. In your response to my written question Ia., you indicated that you would "follow and 

enforce the law as defined by the courts, including the FACE Act". The question was 

whether you agree with the 2002 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Planned 

Parenthood of the Columbia!Wi!lamette. Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 

I 058, I 062-66 (9th Cir.2002) (en bane)) that "WANTED posters targeting abortion 

providers" constitute actionable threats under the FACE Act. Your position on this 

would be important in jurisdictions where the courts have not made a determination about 

this type of actionable threat against abortion providers, and the Department of Justice 

would have to decide whether to bring an action under the FACE Act. 

a. Do you agree with the decision in the Ninth Circuit? 

b. Would you direct prosecutors to pursue cases under the FACE Act against this type of 

threat jurisdictions where the Ninth Circuit decision is not controlling? 

2. In your response to my written question 2a., you stated that "An example of an extreme view 

would include those that call for the harming or killing those who do not share your religious 

beliefs." This seems to indicate that there are other views that might also be considered 

"extreme" for the purpose of "enhanced vetting." 

a. Are there other religious views that you would consider extreme? 

3. In your response to my written question 2b., you suggested that there is a historical context as 

to whether one religion is more likely to "exhibit more extreme and dangerous views than 

others." 

a. Which U.S. Government official(s) would properly determine whether a view is 

"extreme" or "dangerous" for the purpose of extreme vetting? 

b. How would you ensure that enhanced vetting would not result in impermissible 

profiling or discrimination based on religious views? 

4. In response to my written question 3b., you wrote, "[a ]s I testified before the Committee, I 

would not pre-judge a specific case, nor would I commit that there would never be any 

changes to consent decrees that have been entered into, particularly if departments have 

either complied or have made other improvements that might justify the withdrawal or 

modification of the consent decree." 
497 

a. In the absence of compliance or improvements made on the part of the parties bound 

by the consent decree, will the Department of Justice under your leadership maintain, 

enforce, and defend against proposed changes to that consent decree? 

b. In 2008, you wrote that consent decrees "constitute an end run around the democratic 

process."' Given your hostility to consent decrees and your refusal to provide 

assurances that you will maintain, enforce, and defend against changes to an existing 

consent decree entered into between a police department and the Justice Department, 

how can this Committee be confident that those decrees are safe from premature 

changes? 

c. During the hearing, you said that consent decrees are "not necessarily a bad 

thing." Can you please provide a situation in which you would consider a consent 

decree a ·'bad thing"? 

d. Under what circumstances would you oppose a consent decree regarding allegations 

of police misconduct? 

5. In response to my written question 4c., you responded, "I have not devoted significant 

study to this issue. However, ifi am confirmed, if such matters come before the 

Department of Justice, I will carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and 

circumstances of each case and endeavor to uphold and defend the Constitution in the 

pursuit of justice." 

a. As I noted in written question 4c., you strongly defended the use of"forced 

arbitration" clauses during your time in the Senate, including in a statement on the 

floor of the Senate.2 Please provide any sources you relied upon in preparing your 

remarks on the Senate floor. 

6. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has studied the issue of forced arbitration in 

an extensive report to congress. The report is available here: 

http: lllcs.c<•nsumcrllnancc.uo\ if' 0 0 1503 cfpb arbitrntiun-stuch-report-tu-conurcss2015.!1df 

a. Given the information in this report, does that change your response to question 

4c: "If confirmed, will you defend rules enacted by banking regulators that limit 

the use of forced arbitration in consumer banking contracts to the full extent of the 

law? 

1 http://www.alabamapolicy.org/wp-contentluploads/APJ-Research-Consent-Decrees.pdf 

2 https://www .congrcss.gov/congressional-record/2000/3/28/senate-section/article/s 1810-

2?q=%7B%22scarch%22%3A%5B%22financia1%22%5D%7D&r=5 
498 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Confirmation Hearing of Sen. Jeff Sessions for United States Attorney General 

Questions for the Record 

January 17,2017 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

Synthetic Drugs 

Synthetic drugs continue to be a major nationwide problem. Part ofthe problem is that sellers of 

these dangerous drugs have managed to find loopholes in the law, often avoiding detection by 

disguising their products and labeling them as "not for human consumption." 

• Can you comment on this issue, and will you commit to addressing the sale and 

distribution of synthetic drugs as Attorney General? 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Designation for Five Minnesota Counties 

The deadly opioid abuse and heroin epidemic has devastated communities in Minnesota and 

across the country. Until recently, Minnesota was one ofthe only states without a designated 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). This program, which was established in 1988, is 

intended to reduce drug trafficking by facilitating cooperation and information sharing among 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Although the HIDT A program is administered 

by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) plays an active role in supporting the program. 

• As Attorney General, would you continue to support the important work being done by 

the HIDTA program? 

• After I wrote a letter to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in August 

2016, five Minnesota counties (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Dakota, and Washington) 

were included in the Wisconsin HIDT A designation. It is important to me that the tive 

Minnesota counties receive meaningful funding through this designation. lfyou are 

confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to looking into this issue? 

Drug Courts 

Drug courts are a proven and effective tool to help non-violent offenders receive the treatment 

they need, while also saving taxpayers money and reducing crime. I have led efforts to advocate 

for funding for these important programs in the Senate. I understand that you brought the first 

expert on drug courts to Alabama in the early 1980s in an effort that led to the establishment of 

the Mobile County Drug Court. 

• Will you commit to continuing your support of drug courts if you are confirmed as 

Attorney General? 

Antitrust: Platform Competition 

As Ranking Member ofthe Antitrust Subcommittee, I have heard complaints that the internet is 

now dominated by a small number of companies that serve as platforms for the digital economy 

similar to the way railroads did a century ago. Others argue that these companies remain 

integral to creating opportunities for start-up businesses to grow and succeed. 

• What should the Antitrust Division be doing to ensure that digital markets remain open 

and competitive? 
499 

Antitrust: Anheuser-Busch lnBev's Acquisition ofSABMiller 

Recently, the Department of Justice filed its consent decree regarding Anheuser-Busch's 

acquisition of SABMiller. Conditions that protect beer wholesaler independence and that require 

Anheuser-Busch to report its acquisitions of craft brewers are critical to protecting the vital 

competition and innovation that craft brewers have provided the market. 

• Will you commit to vigorously enforcing the terms of the consent decree to protect 

competition and to carefully review any additional consolidation in the beer industry, 

including the acquisition of craft brewers by large national or international competitors? 

Antitrust: Agricultural Consolidation 

Currently, both E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company merger with the Dow Chemical 

Company and Bayer AG's acquisition of Monsanto Company, Inc., are under review by the 

Department of .Justice. Minnesota is the nation's fifth-largest agricultural producing state, and 

our farmers contribute nearly $21 billion to Minnesota's economy each year. I have heard 

concerns that each merger could undermine incentives to develop new traits and to license 

technology, that the Dow-DuPont merger could increase prices for com seeds and soybean seeds, 

and that Bayer's acquisition of Monsanto could excessively increase concentration for certain 

types of herbicides. 

• Will you commit to closely examining these transactions to make sure they do not harm 

fanners, limit innovation, or increase seed prices? 

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

Another responsibility ofDOJ's Voting Section is to enforce the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA), or the "motor voter law." Many states do not comply with the voter access provisions 

of the bipartisan NVRA, and, to date, DOJ has not been particularly active in enforcing these 

provisions. 

If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to active enforcement of 

Sections 5 and 7 of the NVRA, which, respectively, require states to provide voter 

registration opportunities at DMV s and at state public assistance and disability offices? 

• Another important section of the NVRA is Section 8, which sets requirements for how 

states maintain voter registration lists for federal elections. What role, if any, do you 

believe DOJ has in enforcing Section 8 of the NVRA, to purge duplicate registrations or 

registrations of deceased voters from the rolls? What protections do you believe are 

required to ensure that legitimate voters are not inappropriately purged from the rolls? 

Freedom of the Press 

In your hearing, I asked you if you would commit to following the standards now in place at the 

Justice Department to not put reporters in jail for doing their jobs. You responded that you did 

not know and "had not studied those regulations." 

• Upon further consideration, will you commit to not putting reporters in jail for doing their 

jobs? 

Immigration 

Research has shown that not only do immigrants already help grow the size of the economy for 

all Americans, but, according to one study, immigration reform would increase the wages of all 

2 
500 

Americans by $625 billion over a decade and create on average 145,000 new jobs each year. 

According to another recent study, immigrants contributed $22.4 billion to Minnesota's GDP, 

totaling 7.5 percent of the state's GDP in 2012. Immigrants also own 8.5 percent of businesses in 

the Minneapolis-St. Paul region alone. 

• When I raised the issue of the economic benefits of immigration in your hearing, you 

said, "I think as a nation, we should evaluate immigration on whether or not it serves and 

advances the national interest, not the corporate interest." Can you elaborate on this 

statement? Do you believe that immigration benefits the U.S. economy? 

National Security I Extremist Activities 

Protecting national security should always be a top priority of the Justice Department. In the 

Twin Cities, extremist recruitment has been a particular challenge. I was pleased that, in 2014, 

the Twin Cities were among three metropolitan areas selected for a pilot program to counter 

violent extremism run by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Our local 

community groups, faith leaders, U.S. Attorney, and law enforcement have partnered together to 

create a program called Building Community Resilience. I have repeatedly asked for the 

strongest possible level of funding for these efforts. 

• While much of the funding made available to this program has been through the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ) has also 

provided funding in the past. Will you commit to supporting efforts like this to counter 

extremist recruitment as Attorney General? 

In Minnesota, we know that law enforcement must partner with community leaders to build trust 

and put in place the programs that can guard against extremist recruiting efforts. Our U.S. 

Attorney Andy Luger has prosecuted dozens of terrorism cases and brought together community 

leaders working to address extremism. In addition, community groups are engaging populations 

that ISIS seeks to exploit and providing much-needed social services to communities that are 

undcrserved. 

• lfyou are confirn1ed, how would you work to support programs like the one in Minnesota 

that seek to strengthen trust between law enforcement and communities? 

3 
501 

Questions for the Record of Senator Patrick Leahy 

Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Hearing on the Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to Serve 

as Attorney General of the United States 

January 17, 2017 

1. At your hearing, I asked you several questions about your opposition to these two bills. 

With respect to VA WA, you stated "a number of people opposed some of the provisions in that 

bill." You mentioned specifically the tribal victims provision. 

a. Did you also oppose the new protections for LGBT Americans? 

I asked if you would defend the law's constitutionality, and you did not provide a full answer. 

You said only that you would "if it is reasonably defensible." 

b. Do you believe the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VA W A Reauthorization, including its LGBT 

and tribal victims provisions, is "reasonably defensible"? 

At your hearing, I asked about your statement that my hate crimes amendment "has been said to 

cheapen the civil rights movement." 

c. What did you mean by that? Do you believe that the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Preventjon Act "cheapen[ed) the civil rights movement"? 

2. As Attorney General you would be charged with overseeing the Office of Violence 

Against Women. This Office is a component of the Justice Department, and was developed to 

reduce violence against women by prosecuting acts of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 

assault, and stalking. This office provides 24 separate grant programs that support law 

enforcement, state and tribal coalitions, non-profit organizations, and institutions of higher 

education to serve survivors and hold offenders accountable. 

Will you commit to preserving these critical grant programs and to ensure they 

receive the funding they need so that the Office can effectively carry out its mission? 

3. The Attorney General has delegated authority to the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, which oversees our country's immigration courts and the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. In recent years, developments in immigration law have led to a recognition that 

domestic violence can serve as the basis for an asylum claim. These cases often involve 

immigrant women who have endured severe abuse at the hands of their partner and would be 

placed in danger if returned to their home country. But asylum continues to be denied to many 

of them. 

If confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to protecting victims of domestic 

violence who fear being returned to their home countries? 
502 

4. We have heard a lot in the last two months about the President -elect's business and 

financial holdings, and how he and his family might personally benefit from his decisions as 

President. This raises extremely troubling issues with respect to conflicts of interest, the STOCK 

Act, and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. 

I understand that you plan to divest some of your holdings if you are confirmed to be Attorney 

General. You also stated in your questionnaire that you have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and "will follow their guidance" on conflicts of interest. 

a. Should the President-elect follow your example and heed the Office of Government 

Ethics' guidance and divest from assets that might create a conflict of interest? 

b. If President-elect Trump does not follow the guidance of the Office of Government 

Ethics, what steps will you take to ensure that the new administration eliminates its 

conflicts of interest? Will you recuse yourself from conflicts of interest charges 

against the President-elect or members of his family? 

In a hearing early last year, Senator Tillis raised a question about the Emoluments Clause, which 

states that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States] shall, without 

the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title ... from any king, 

prince, or foreign state." He and Chairman Grassley both followed up with Attorney General 

Lynch on the issue. The question was whether the receipt of any payment "from a foreign 

government or an instrumentality of a foreign government" by a spouse of an executive branch 

officer violated the Constitution. Such questions are even more pressing when it is the 

constitutional officer himself who is receiving such payments. 

c. If the President-elect does not fully divest, does the rent paid by the Industrial and 

Commercial Bank of China to the President-elect for space at Trump Tower in New 

York raise concerns vis a vis the Emoluments Clause? The Bank, which is owned 

by the Chinese government, is according to news reports the largest tenant in 

Trump Tower. 

d. If the President-elect does not fully divest, does money paid by the embassies of 

various foreign governments for the use of event space or lodging at the Presidentelect's hotel here in Washington raise concerns vis a vis the Emoluments Clause? 

A 2009 Office of Legal Counsel opinion found that the Emoluments Clause "surely" applies to 

the president. As Justice Alito explained when he served in that office in 1986, the Clause is 

intended to minimize "the potential for 'corruption and foreign influence."' It was good to hear 

you state at your hearing, in response to Senator Blumenthal, that the Clause does apply to the 

President.1 

e. What is the Justice Department's role in enforcing the Emoluments Clause? 

1 Transcript 179. 

2 
503 

f. Who would have standing to bring a case regarding the Emoluments Clause? Do 

states have standing to enforce it? 

The President-elect has tried to minimize the potential conflicts of interest presented by his 

business interests by stating that his children will run the Trump Organization. Yet he has 

refused to give up his stake in the company, which does business with countless organizations 

and individuals tied to foreign governments. Ethics experts have declared that these conflicts of 

interest will not be resolved as long as the President-elect maintains a financial stake in his 

companies. 

g. When the President has a personal financial stake in the policies and trade deals his 

administration pursues, doesn't that pose a conflict of interest? 

h. If President-elect Trump fails to fully divest, how will the American public know if 

the President is making a decision to benefit America, or to make himself or his 

family more money? 

i. Doesn't the public interest demand full financial disclosure and divestment? 

Even if Mr. Trump fully divests himself from the Trump Organization and his children take full 

control of it, the problems do not go away. His children have taken an active role in the 

transition, and anything that benefits them will of course benefit their father. 

k. Should President-elect Trump's children participate in government policy 

discussions or meetings with foreign governments while they are also running or 

maintaining a stake in the Trump Organization? Does participation by Presidentelect Trump's children or other family members in his administration raise 

concerns about possible violations of anti-nepotism laws? 

Last month former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued that "traditional rules don't work" and 

that Congress should change existing ethics laws in order to accommodate the incoming 

President. These laws exist to ensure that public officials are focused on serving the public, and 

not on enriching themselves. 

I. Do you agree with Speaker Gingrich that we should weaken our ethics laws to 

accommodate the President-elect? 

5. While serving as Attorney General of Alabama, you attempted to vacate a consent decree 

that successfully reformed Alabama's child welfare system, turning it from "dysfunctional" to a 

national model, according to the New York Times. When you filed your motion to vacate the 

decree, you alleged that your predecessor and the client agency had colluded and engaged in 

"fraud upon the court." I am troubled that you made this allegation when the court "found no 

evidence" that "any party actively misled or deceived the Court." If confirmed as Attorney 

General, you will be tasked with representing the Federal government in court, and you will have 

to defend not only laws you voted against, but administrative actions taken by prior 

administrations that you disagree with. 

3 
504 

a. Is it common for an attorney to accuse their client of collusion and fraud? Do you 

believe that such accusations are consistent with an attorney's obligation to provide 

zealous advocacy on behalf of his or her client? 

b. Is it appropriate for an attorney, let alone an Attorney General, to make accusations 

of fraud in court without evidence to support the claim? 

Even the judge in this case said, "If the Court were to speculate, it would guess that political 

gamesmanship played perhaps the biggest role in determining the timing of this challenge. What 

was convenient and beneficial for one administration has saddled its successor with serious 

obligations with which it would rather not comply." 

c. Given this criticism, what steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that you make 

decisions as Attorney General only on the basis of law rather than your own 

ideology? 

6. In the past year, four people, including a newborn baby, have died in the jail run by 

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, and according to news reports the Department of Justice is 

considering opening an investigation into thatjail.2 The Sheriffs office issued a statement that 

essentially says he is counting on you as Attorney General to quash any investigation into the 

conditions at the jail. 

Did you campaign for Mr. Trump with Sheriff Clarke, or have any other interaction 

with him in the last year? If so, please describe them. If so, will you recuse yourself 

from any Justice Department investigation of that jail or of Sheriff Clarke? 

7. Traditionally, the Attorney General and the Department's Office of Legal Policy have 

had a significant role in the selection of judicial nominees. Unprecedented obstruction in the 

Senate has resulted in I 08 current vacancies, including the vacancy on the Supreme Court to 

which Merrick Garland was nominated and should have been confirmed last year. 

a. What will be your role in the Trump administration with respect to judicial 

nominations? 

I am concerned that your record on nominations does not indicate any efTorts at diversity. You 

failed to return the blue slip for Kenneth Simon, and failed to return the blue slip for Judge 

KaJlon, who would have been the first African American judge to fill an Alabama seat on the 

Eleventh Circuit. Moreover, each of the ten Bush-nominated judges confirmed to seats in 

Alabama was white. Just three African Americans have ever served on the Federal bench in 

Alabama. Over the past eight years, President Obama has made judicial diversity a priority, and 

has made significant progress in ensuring the Federal bench reflects the Nation it serves. 

http :1/www .j sonline.com/ story /news/local!m ilwau kee/20 16/11 /16/inmate-baby -died-after-staff-ignored-herlabor/93988574. 

4 
505 

b. If confirmed, will you and the incoming administration commit to continuing this 

work, and putting forward nominees who represent a breadth of racial, religious, 

and professional backgrounds? 

As a Senator and a member of this Committee for 20 years, you are very familiar with the blue 

slip and the role that home state Senators play in judicial selection. You used the blue slip to 

block the nominations of Kenneth Simon and Abdul Kallon. But the blue slip also guarantees 

the constitutional role of advise and consent as a check against presidential power, and ensure 

that the Senate is not a mere rubber stamp. Chairman Grassley recently reiterated his support for 

the blue slip and his intent to keep the current policy that nominees will not move forward 

'Without two positive blue slips in place. 

c. If confirmed, will you continue to support this policy, even if it means nominations 

made by the President-elect do not receive a hearing? 

During the previous Republican administration, many Senators were concerned that the 

administration circumvented their traditional role of making recommendations for judgeships 

and instead effectively outsourced the process to right-wing legal groups. 

d. Will you and the incoming administration commit to preserving the rights of home 

state Senators, and work with alllOO of us to find consensus nominees to serve on 

our independent judiciary? 

8. When evaluating President Clinton and President Obama's judicial and executive branch 

nominees, you often asked questions based on nominees' associations with particular groups and 

organizations, particularly if nominees had been members of organizations such as the ACLU. 

For example, when opposing Judge Susan Mollway, you said: 

"l know all of us are active in various activities. And I think it is appropriate that we be 

asked about those activities when we are nominated for a position like this ... I am certain 

that as a board member she did not sign those pleadings, and maybe did not personally 

conduct in-depth research. In fact, I think she suggested she has not researched each one 

of these issues. But I think it is appropriate for us to ask about those positions" 

You concluded that this organization held views that were "outside the mainstream." You noted 

that "when asked at our confirmation hearing if there were any policy positions of the Hawaii 

ACLU that she disagreed with" this nominee did not name any, and you argued this was "a 

sufficient basis ... to have a serious concern" about the nomination. 

I have grave concerns regarding organizations with which you have been involved. 

In 2014, you accepted the "Daring the Odds" award from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called David Horowitz an "anti-Muslim 

extremist" and has an extensive and detailed profile of Mr. Horowitz's racist and repugnant 

remarks against Muslims, Arabs, and African-Americans. 

5 
506 

In your hearing, you stated to Senator Blumenthal with regard to Mr. Horowitz that "I am not 

aware of everything he has ever said or not." You also defended your association with him by 

saying "I am not aware of those comments, and I do not believe David Horowitz is a racist or a 

person that would treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge." Now you have had the 

opportunity to learn more about the extremist remarks Mr. Horowitz has made. 

For example, Mr. Horowitz has repeatedly claimed that the United States government has been 

infiltrated by Muslims. He has referred to Muslims as "Islamic Nazis" who "want to kill Jews, 

that's their agenda."3 

a. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has said "Obama is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim. 

he certainly isn't a Christian .... He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend 

American."4 

b. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has even claimed that Muslims have "infiltrated" the Republican Party, and that 

"Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim."; 

c. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Given statements like those, it's not shocking that Mr. Horowitz was cited in the manifesto 

written by Norway terrorist Andres Breivik. Mr. Breivik killed 77 people in a 2011 attack that 

was inspired by his belief that Muslims were taking over Europe. 

d. Other than that award, have you had any involvement with that organization? Has 

all such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

In 20\5, you received the "Keeper of the Flame" award from the Center for Security Policy. The 

Center for Security Policy has been strongly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, and is 

considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

In 2011, its founder, Frank Gaffney, was banned from the Conservative Political Action 

Conference (CPAC) because, in the words of one board member, "they didn't want to be 

associated with a crazy bigot." Among his disgraceful statements, Mr. Gaffney has said that the 

two Muslims in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, have "longstanding 

Muslim Brotherhood ties.''6 

e. CP AC did not want to be associated with a "crazy bigot," but you accepted an 

award from him in 2015. Do you condemn Mr. Gaffney's remarks and his 

http://mondoweiss.net/20 ll/03/peter-king-hearings-come-to-flatbush-david-horowitz-stokes-anti-muslimsenti ment-at-b rook! y n-co I lege. 4 http:i/www.rightwingwatch.org/post/david-horowitz-knows-obama-is-a-muslim-because-he-hates-america-somuch. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/david-horo,vitz-says-huma-abedin-is-\vorse-than-alger-hiss-and-grovernorq ui st-is-a-practicing -m us I i m-su bverting -the-gop. 6 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland·security/276636-muslim-brotherhood-day-on-capitol-hill. 

6 
507 

insinuation that the two Muslim Congressmen are affiliated with the Muslim 

Brotherhood? 

f. Do you believe it is acceptable for the Attorney General to associate with Mr. 

Gaffney and his extremist organization? 

g. Mr. Gaffney has complained about Somali refugees holding jobs in the meat 

processing industry, saying "it kind of creeps me out that they arc getting jobs in the 

food supply of the United States."7 Do you condemn that statement? 

h. Mr. Gaffney argued that a Muslim member of Congress should not be allowed to 

serve on the House Intelligence Committee because of his "extensive personal and 

political associations with ... jihadist infrastructure in America."8 Do you condemn 

that remark? 

i. Mr. Gaffney has said of President Obama that it is an "increasingly indisputable 

fact that this president is providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. 

And that is the definition, as you know, of treason."9 Do you condemn the offensive 

allegation that President Obama is a traitor? 

j. Other than that award, have you had any involvement with that organization or 

with Mr. Gaffney? Has all such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

President-elect Trump has appointed Michael Flynn to be his National Security Advisor. The 

National Security Advisor has typically been the President's principal advisor on national 

security matters, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. 

Mr. Flynn serves on the board of advisors for an organization called ACT for America. The 

Southern Poverty Law Center has called this organization "far and away the largest grassroots 

anti-Muslim group in America." In August 2016 -less than six months ago Mr. Flynn spoke 

at an event for this group. He is on video saying that Islam "is a political ideology. It definitely 

hides behind this notion of it being a religion." He also added that Islam is "like a malignant 

cancer." 10 

k. Do you disaYow and condemn Mr. Flynn's remarks? 

I. Do you believe that the President's national security adYisor should refer to Islam as 

a "malignant cancer"? 

m. Do you believe the National Security Advisor should be associated with 

organizations that promote anti-Islamic bigotry and conspiracy theories? 

In the unclassified Intelligence Community Assessment on "Assessing Russian Activities and 

Intentions in Recent US Elections" released on January 6. 2017. there are seven pages describing 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bloglcivil-rights/271366-fi'eedom-and-hate. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/frank-gaffney-muslim-congressman-part-of-islamic-fifth-column. 

http://W\\W.rightwingwatch.org/postlfrank-gaffney-obama-playing-for-the-other-team-committing-treason. 10 https://qz.com/84 I I 97/i slam-is-a-malignant-cancer-the-hateful-rhetoric-of-michael-flynn-trumps-new-nationalsecurity-adviser. 

7 
508 

the activities ofRT America TV. The report notes that the network's "Leadership [is] closely 

tied to, controlled by Kremlin:· Mr. Flynn has given a paid speech to RT. and attended a dinner 

celebrating the network· s anniversary. where he sat at the same table as Vladimir Putin1 1 

n. What legal issues docs the relationship between the incoming National SccuritJ 

Advisor and the Russian government raise? 

In 2015. you received an award ti·om the Eagle Forum for "Excellence in Leadership ... The late 

founder of that organization has a long history of controversial remarks. That includes 

advocating for .. railroad cars full ofillegals going south .. 12 and increasing the pay gap between 

men and women. 11 and arguing that married women by definition cannot be raped by their 

husbands. ~ 

o. Do you agree that there should be "railroad cars full of illegals going south"? Do 

you condemn that remark? 

p. Do you agree that married women by definition cannot be raped by their husbands? 

Do you condemn that remark'! 

q. Do you agree that the pay gap between men and women should be increased, rather 

than diminished? 

r. 'VIs. Schlafly also claimed "it would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on 

On-American Activities" to target Muslims. 15 Do JOU agree with that statement? 

s. Other than that award, have you had any involvement with that organization? Has 

all such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

9. Over the course of the 2016 campaign, you offered extensive criticisms of the power that 

elites and special interests have in our politics. Even after Citizens United unleashed a massive 

flow of money into our elections, there are still laws that regulate political spending and 

coordination between campaigns and P ACs. Under the leadership of Eric Holder, the 

Department of Justice in 2015 successfully prosecuted illegal coordination between a campaign 

and a PAC. This was the first prosecution of its kind. The lead prosecutor on the case stated: 

'The Department of Justice is fully committed to addressing the threat posed to the integrity of 

federal primary and general elections by coordinated campaign contributions, and will 

aggressively pursue coordination offenses at every appropriate opportunity." 

If confirmed, you will be joining an administration that has pledged to "drain the swamp" in 

Washington. In order to ensure that our government is open responsive to its citizens, it is 

critical that Americans know who is lobbying their representatives. The Lobbying Disclosure 

Act created a registration requirement for lobbyists which is enforced by the Department of 

Justice through the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC. 

11 http:/lwww.cnn.com/20 16/11/20/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-rt-syria. 12 http:/lwww.rightwingwatch.org/post/phyllis-schlafly-wants-railroad-cars-full-of-illega1s-going-south. 13 http:llwww.rightwingwatch.orglpostlschlafly-increase-the-pay-gap-so-women-will-have-better-opportunities-tofind-a-husband. 

14 

15 

http://www.rightwingwatch.orglpostlschlafly-reiterates-view-that-married-women-cannot-be-raped-by-husbands. 

http://www,rightwingv .. 'atch.org/post/schlafly~reinstate-the-house-committee-on-un-american-activities. 

8 
509 

Will you ensure that the Lobbying Disclosure Act and its reporting requirements 

are fully enforced, and that the President-elect's choice for U.S. Attorney in 

Washington, DC, makes it a priority? 

10. The President-Elect has proposed that to fight terrorists, the United States should "take 

out their families." Intentionally killing the family members of a terrorist would violate any 

number oflaws, including the Geneva Conventions as well as U.S. statutes. 

If you are confirmed, would you advise the President that targeting and killing 

family members of terrorists is not a legal option? 

11. Too often, deportation cases are brought against immigrant children who do not have 

lawyers. Last year, I was appalled when I heard that an immigration judge stated it is possible to 

teach immigration law to three- and four-year olds. That is outrageous. These vulnerable 

children have often fled horrific violence in their home countries. Then they are expected to 

navigate our complex immigration laws on their own, without counsel. That hardly constitutes 

justice. The least we can do is give these children a fair day in court. 

When Senator Coons asked you about this issue, you deflected, saying only that "I do not believe 

we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lav.yers for everybody that enters the 

country unlawfully." You added simply that "Congress would need to decide what to do about 

it." If confirmed as Attorney General, you will have broad discretion over the immigration 

courts system, including the appointment of immigration judges, and so I am asking about your 

personal views. 

a. Do you believe that unaccompanied minors in immigration court should receive 

access to counsel? Do you agree that toddlers can learn immigration law sufficiently 

to understand the consequences they are facing and meet the requirements of due 

process? 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, how will you ensure that these vulnerable 

children receive due process? 

12. The First Amendment and a free and vibrant press are at the heart of our democracy. As 

the President-elect takes office, conscientious whistleblowers may seek to provide the press with 

vital information about abuses. Too often, when the government or private litigants are unhappy 

with leaks, they seek to punish the journalists for doing their job. Given that the incoming White 

House Press Secretary has demanded a journalist apologize for attempting to ask the Presidentelect a question, and threatened to have him removed from future press conferences, I am deeply 

concerned about the incoming administration's commitment to bedrock First Amendment 

principles. 

This Committee twice approved bipartisan federal media shield legislation that would establish a 

qualified privilege for journalists to protect their sources and the public's right to know. On both 

occasions, you voted against the shield bill. 

9 
510 

a. Will you maintain existing Department regulations restricting subpoenas issued to 

the news media (28 CFR 50.10)? 

b. What limits do you believe the First Amendment places on attempts to stifle the free 

press? What role should the Justice Department play to protect journalists? 

13. We are grappling with a new wave of drug abuse, this time to powerful prescription 

opioids and heroin. Rural states, like my home state of Vermont, have been particularly hard-hit. 

You have said that "The best way for us to improve our pressure from the law enforcement end 

on drug trafficking in America is to increase prosecutions and investigations." Enforcement will 

always play a role, and the Justice Department's Drug Enforcement Administration plays a 

critical role in preventing the diversion and over-prescription of opioid painkillers. But at the 

root of every drug crisis is addiction. And we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. One 

important lesson from the failed war on drugs is that supply will relentlessly chase demand 

fueled by addiction regardless ofthe penalties. We must confront addiction like we do any 

other public health crisis: through evidence-based prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. 

a. If you are confirmed, what will your strategy be to confront addiction to 

prescription painkillers? 

b. The Justice Department currently supports numerous diversion programs to keep 

certain offenders with addiction issues out of the criminal justice system, and 

naloxone programs to save addicts' lives. Would you continue both the diversion 

programs and the naloxone programs? 

14. John Yoo's 2002 OLC memo justifying torture stated that: "Any effort by Congress to 

regulate the interrogation of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting 

of the Commander-in-Chief in the President." 

a. You voted against both of Senator McCain's amendments to ban torture and other 

cruel treatment by U.S. officials, first in 2005 and again last year. Do you agree with 

John Yoo that congressional regulation of torture is unconstitutional? 

b. Will you commit that you will not reinstate that OLC opinion, or any of the other 

OLC opinions justifying torture that were later rescinded? 

c. Is John Yoo participating in any capacity on the new administration's transition 

team? What role is he playing? Have you been in contact with him in the last year? 

During the Bush Administration, John Yoo and Jay Bybee wrote OLC opinions stating that the 

President has the power, as Commander-in-Chief, to violate acts of Congress- both the criminal 

prohibition on torture, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That dangerous theory has 

been largely repudiated. Many of the memos they drafted or signed have been rescinded. 

10 
511 

d. Do you believe that the President has the authority under any circumstances to 

exercise a "commander-in-chief override" to violate acts of Congress? 

15. The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the National Voter Registration 

Act (NVRA), which sets forth certain voter registration requirements in connection with federal 

elections, including at Department of Motor Vehicle offices (the "motor-voter" registration 

process). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a Kansas law requiring that 

voter registration applicants provide documentary proof of citizenship would cause a "mass 

denial of a fundamental constitutional right," and enjoined the Kansas law from being enforced 

because it conflicts with the NVRA's federal voter registration form. As a result, the Court held 

that the Kansas law was preempted by the NVRA and could not be enforced with respect to 

motor-voter applicants. Alabama has a similar law, but the secretary of state has not enforced 

it. If confirmed as Attorney General, you would be responsible for making decisions regarding 

enforcement of the NVRA and to following court decisions on the NVRA. 

If confirmed, will your Justice Department take positions that are contrary to the 

Tenth Circuit's ruling on the NVRA by asserting that a state may require 

Americans to submit proof of citizenship papers to register to vote at a DMV 

office? 

16. American consumers and employees are increasingly waiving their legal rights by 

agreeing to forced arbitration clauses. These are often slipped into a contract and written in legal 

jargon. Through hearings in this Committee and other efforts, we have learned that the 

arbitration process has none of the safeguards of our court system. There is no rule of law or 

precedent. No transparency. No way to appeal an adverse judgment. 

The secrecy of the arbitration process allows wrongdoing to go undiscovered and unpunished for 

years. Recent examples include Wells Fargo's forced arbitration over millions of sham accounts, 

and Gretchen Carlson's fight against sexual harassment at Fox News. 

a. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Justice Department pursues 

and prosecutes companies who try to exploit consumers and employees by hiding 

behind one-sided arbitration agreements? 

On January 13, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related employment arbitration 

cases and consolidated them for argument. In one of those cases, NLRB v. Murphy Oil, the 

Justice Department argued in its petition for certiorari that arbitration agreements that bar workrelated class actions by employees violate the National Labor Relations Act and are therefore 

unenforceable. 

b. If confirmed, do you commit that you will not change the government's position in 

this case in any way? 

17. When opposing many of President Obama's nominees, you argued that some were 

simply too political to be trusted in leadership positions at the Department of Justice. You 

complained that one nominee "has a record of and a reputation for very strong political activity" 

ll 
512 

and that "I am concerned whether he is capable of putting aside partisan beliefs." You also 

stated that "The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country. This is not 

traditionally a political position. It is a law position." I agree with you on that. 

I don't think that there is any doubt you are a conservative Republican politician. You have also 

been a loyal advocate for Donald Trump over the past year. 

If we adopt your standard in opposing Justice Department nominees with "very 

strong political activity," how can we support your nomination, or those of other 

potential Trump nominees? 

18. Last August, the Department of Justice announced that the Bureau of Prisons would 

begin to phase out its use of private prisons. In her memo ordering the phase-out, Deputy 

Attorney General Yates \\Tote that private prisons "simply do not provide the same level of 

correctional services, programs, and resources; they do not save substantially on costs; and as 

noted in a recent report by the Department's Office oflnspector General, they do not maintain 

the same level of safety and security." I strongly oppose the usc of for-profit prison companies 

for detention purposes and believe this was a positive step toward ending the government's 

reliance on such facilities. 

a. Do you believe that detention should be a for-profit business? 

b. In the interests of better serving the goals of the Justice Department and reducing 

costs to the American taxpayer, will you continue this phase-out of for-profit 

prisons? 

19. You have been a strong and consistent proponent of the theory that the United States 

should treat terrorism suspects as so-called "enemy combatants." You have argued that we 

should subject them to mandatory military custody and interrogation, without access to lawyers, 

and that we should try them by military commission if at all. You have argued that this should 

apply even to individuals picked up inside the United States, as this country is included in the 

"battlefield" in the war withal Qaeda. 

a. Do you believe this war framework should apply to American citizens picked up in 

the United States? 

b. Should Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, 

have been placed in military custody and treated as a wartime enemy? 

c. If we are at war withal Qaeda, and if you believe the battlefield includes the United 

States, can we also use lethal force against al Qaeda suspects in the United States? 

20. In 2000, you described the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the 

"single greatest obstacle our educators face.'' You then stated it creates "lawsuit after lawsuit, 

special treatment for certain children." You said it is "a big factor in accelerating the decline in 

civility and discipline in classrooms all over America." 

12 
513 

a. Do you still hold believe that mainstreaming causes a "decline in civility and 

discipline in classrooms all over America?" 

Last year, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Georgia alleging that its segregation of 

students with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 16 You have 

previously argued in favor of such segregation and expressed skepticism of mainstreaming. 17 In 

this lawsuit, the Justice Department noted that some of the facilities used by students with 

disabilities "are located in poor-quality buildings that formerly served as schools for black 

students during de jure segregation." 

b. If confirmed, will you continue to pursue this case, and bring others where students 

with disabilities are being segregated from their peers in violation of the ADA? 

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School 

District. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing that 

the IDEA requires states to provide more than de minimis educational benefits and in fact "give 

eligible children with disabilities an opportunity to make significant educational progress."18 

c. If you are confirmed, will the Department of Justice maintain its position in this 

case? 

The ADA contains, at 42 U.S.C. § 12202, a waiver of state sovereign immunity. Twice during 

the Bush administration, in Tennessee v. Lane (2004) and U.S. v. Georgia (2006), the Justice 

Department argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the waiver was a valid exercise of 

Congressional power under Section V ofthe Fourteenth Amendment. 

d. If confirmed, will you commit to defending the constitutionality of this exercise of 

Congress's Section V power? 

The voting rights of Americans with disabilities are protected by the ADA, the Voting Rights 

Act, and several other statutes. 19 But several studies have found individuals with disabilities face 

barriers to the franchise that are exacerbated by voter ID requirements.20 

e. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the voting rights of Americans 

with disabilities are protected? 

21. You claim to be a champion of the Voting Rights Act because you voted for VRA's 

reauthorization in 2006. But aside from this single vote, you have consistently criticized the 

VRA. You have called it an "intrusive piece of legislation" and have questioned its 

constitutionality based on your belief that there is "relatively little present-day evidence" of voter 

16 https:iiwww.ada.goviolmsteadldocumentslgnets _ complaint.html. 17 https:l/www.gpo.gov/fdsyslpkg/CREC-200 1-11-07/pdf/CREC-2001-11-07-ptl-PgS 11511.pdf#page~8. 

18 http://www.seotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/20 16/11/15-827 -amicus-petitioner-U .S.pdf. 19 https://www.ada.gov/ada _voting/ada_ voting_tahtm. 20 See, e.g., http://www.vox.com/20 16/4/J/11346714/voter-id-1aws-disabilities. 

13 
514 

discrimination. When the 2013 Shelby County decision struck down a central provision of the 

VRA, you argued that the decision was "good news ... for the South" and observed that "Shelby 

County never had a history of denying the vote." 

a. Since the Shelby County decision, some individuals have argued that there is no need 

to restore the protections of Section 5 because the Justice Department can still use 

Section 2 to bring lawsuits against states and localities that are discriminating 

against voters. But at the same time, some of these same individuals have argued 

that Section 2 might also be unconstitutional. Do you believe that Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional? 

The current Justice Department is involved in several suits against states that have enacted severe 

voting restrictions that disproportionately harm minority voters. In two of these cases, courts of 

appeals found that voter ID laws in North Carolina and Texas were discriminatory and violated 

the VRA. 

b. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department maintain its current position in 

these cases- especially since federal appeals courts have found these voter ID laws 

to be discriminatory? 

22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in 

an effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ 

documents/ICA _ 2017 _ 0 !.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate 

or political party. This is about protecting our democracy. 

a. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia was 

responsible for the hack of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign chair? 

b. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia provided to 

Wik.ileaks the information that it stole? 

c. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia engaged in 

these activities in order to interfere with the election in Donald Trump's favor? 

d. Do you consider this to be illegal behavior, and a threat to our democratic process? 

e. Several of the President-Elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have 

l:Q!!.been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government 

about the 2016 election, either before or after election day? 

f. Attorney General Lynch has confirmed that career officials are investigating 

Russian interference in the 2016 elections. If confirmed, will you commit to 

allowing this investigation to move forward? What will you do if the White House 

directs you to end the investigation? 

14 
515 

23. I am greatly concerned about racial disparities within our criminal justice system. In 

2010, you agreed to reduce the dramatic disparity between sentences for crack and powder 

cocaine offenses, but you refused to eliminate the disparity altogether or to allow the changes in 

the Fair Sentencing Act to be retroactive. 

But our justice system is full of disparities. Racial minorities still receive nearly 80 percent of all 

mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. For years I have worked with a bipartisan 

group of senators on this Committee to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. 

This bipartisan effort has had the strong support of the Justice Department and many others in 

law enforcement. 

You were the most vocal opponent of those efforts on this Committee. That concerns me. 

a. If you are confirmed to be the next Attorney General, what do you plan to do to 

reduce racial disparities in our criminal justice system? 

In 2013, the Justice Department established a policy to reserve the most severe mandatory 

minimum sentences for high-level or violent drug traffickers. This was after the Sentencing 

Commission found that nearly half of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases were 

imposed on lower-level offenders, not managers and importers. That is not what Congress 

intended. The often used 10- and 5-year minimums, for exan1ple, were intended to capture only 

serious traffickers- not low-level offenders like couriers. 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, would you leave the 2013 policy in place to focus 

these mandatory minimum penalties on high-level and violent offenders, consistent 

with the Justice Department's current policy? 

24. When you were Attorney General of Alabama, your office was reprimanded for 

prosecutorial misconduct in a case against a Birmingham-based company called TIECO. The 

judge in that case found "extensive evidence of serious and wholesale prosecutorial misconduct 

by the Office ofthe Attorney GeneraL" While you were investigating TIECO, your office seized 

TIECO's business records, and then made those confidential records available to another 

company, which then sued TIECO. 

Ultimately, the criminal case against TIECO was thrown out because of the prosecutorial 

misconduct findings against your office. These findings are deeply troubling. 

I understand that your deputy Attorney General, Bill Pryor, took over for you, and was heading 

up the office when the criminal case against TIECO was dismissed. But the misconduct 

occurred when the office was under your watch. And Attorney General Pryor did not appeal the 

dismissaL 

a. Why do you think that the office you had led decided against appealing the 

misconduct order in that case? It was not just a reflection on you, but the entire 

office. Do you agree that your office mishandled the case? 

15 
516 

b. The judge said "[TJhe misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses 

in both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever 

previously presented to or witnessed by this court." How would you conduct the 

case differently, if you were able to do it over again? 

These findings also suggest a lack of understanding that sensitive documents collected by law 

enforcement officials must not be handed over to political allies. In the past year, DOJ and FBI 

have been involved in some very sensitive investigations, with very high stakes and a profound 

impact on our nation. 

c. If confirmed, what steps would you take to guard against prosecutorial misconduct 

in the Justice Department? 

25. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld marriage equality, Alabama Supreme Court Justice 

Roy Moore effectively ordered the probate judges in Alabama to refuse marriage licenses to gay 

couples. He was later suspended by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for "disregard for 

binding federal law." 

a. Do you agree with the Alabama court's decision to suspend Justice Moore for his 

actions? 

b. If confirmed, what actions would you take if any official refuses to issue a marriage 

license to a same-sex couple? 

c. When is it appropriate for a judge or other public official to disregard a Supreme 

Court decision? 

26. Last year, we enacted the most sweeping reforms to the Freedom oflnformation Act in 

decades. Our bill coditled the "presumption of openness," requiring all administrations to 

operate with transparency as their default setting. The DOJ Office oflnformation Policy is 

responsible for enforcing compliance with FOIA across the federal government. President-elect 

Trump has a demonstrably poor record on transparency. He has still refused to release his tax 

returns. He has even denied press credentials to reporters who criticize him. 

If confirmed, you will be FOIA's chief enforcer in the federal government. How will 

you enforce the "presumption of openness" in the face of the President-elect's 

resistance to transparency? 

27. I am very concerned about the abuse of administrative civil asset forfeiture laws, which 

are not overseen by a judge. As a former prosecutor, I believe that ifthere is a crime, you prove 

it. You do not let the suspect go and simply keep their cash because the seizure is protected by a 

low standard of proof and a labyrinth of administrative hurdles for the property owner. In a 

column criticizing your support for civil asset forfeiture, conservative columnist George Will 

compared this to "Alice in Wonderland" where the queen says "Sentence first-verdict 

afterwards." Chairman Grassley and I have worked on a bill to ensure that this law enforcement 

tool does not devolve into a mere fundraising tool. 

16 
517 

The Justice Department recently took some very modest steps to guard against 

questionable seizures of cash during road-side stops, and seizures of bank accounts 

where there is little evidence of a crime. If you arc confirmed, will you commit to 

maintaining these limited protections for innocent property owners? 

28. In your testimony you said "I deeply understand the history of civil rights in our country" 

and that "We must continue to move forward and never back." One ofthe witnesses who 

testified in support of your nomination described you as "A son of the South who has had upclose experiences with our great civil rights movement" 

a. Please describe your "up-close experiences" with the Civil Rights Movement. 

That witness also stated, "Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do in 

the area of racial equality." 

b. In what areas do racial inequalities persist? What, specifically, are the appropriate 

remedies for these inequalities? 

This past weekend, the President-elect tweeted criticisms of Congressman John Lewis. He said: 

"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in 

horrible shape and falling apart (not to ...... mention crime infested) rather than falsely 

complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk- no action or results. Sad!" 

c. Do you agree with President-elect Trump that John Lewis is "All talk, talk, talk?" 

29. While your hearing was happening, Congressman Brooks stated "in a radio interview on 

Tuesday that criticism of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions ... is part of an ongoing 'war on whites' by 

Democrats. "21 

Do you agree that Democrats are waging "war on whites?'' 

30. According to several news reports, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will hold a 

position in the Trump administration. In 2013, while Bondi's office was considering joining a 

lawsuit against Trump University for fraud (which was settled two months ago for $25 million), 

Mr. Trump donated $25,000 to a group supporting Bondi. The donation was made illegally from 

Mr. Trump's foundation, and he was forced to reimburse the foundation and to pay a penalty to 

the IRS. One month after the donation was received, Bondi's office decided not to join the 

lawsuit against Mr. Trump. 

21 

Do you believe that the decision not to join the lawsuit against Trump University, 

following Mr. Trump's illegal donation, raises concerns questions about a quid pro 

quo? 

http://www.cnn.com/20 17/0 l/ll/politics/kfile-mo-brooks-war-on-whites. 

17 
518 

31. In 2015, after Chairman Grass ley and I wrote several letters expressing concerns about 

the use of cell-site simulators (sometimes called "Stingrays"), which can sweep up cell signals 

indiscriminately trom cell phones in their vicinity, the Justice Department issued new policy 

guidance governing their use.22 

Will you commit to keeping that policy in place? 

32. In 2010, the Antitrust Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture held five joint 

public workshops to explore competition issues affecting the agricultural sector and the 

appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement. Many in agriculture were very 

frustrated that those workshops, although they highlighted many concerns and antitrust problems 

in agriculture, did not appear to lead to any new enforcement or stricter actions by the 

Department of Justice in the agriculture sector. 

a. In your opinion, are there areas within the agriculture sector where the Department 

should take a stronger look at competition affecting agriculture? 

b. Do you believe that there are actions that the Department should take regarding 

consolidation and the conduct of dominant players in the dairy industry? If 

confirmed, what will you do to address the long-standing concerns to make sure that 

dairy farmers, small processors, and consumers are treated fairly in the 

marketplace? 

In the last quarter-century, as highlighted in the Judiciary Committee hearing on September 20, 

2016, the agricultural industry has consolidated dramatically into what many refer to as the "Big 

Six" companies that now control the market for seeds and agrochemicals. Due to several 

mergers proposed last year, the market may soon shift to the "Big Four." Many concerns have 

been raised in the agriculture industry that this will raise barriers to entry for new innovators and 

increase the prices that farmers pay. 

c. How will the proposed agriculture mergers involving Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, 

Bayer, and Syngenta affect small businesses and the prices our farmers pay? 

d. How should the Justice Department evaluate these proposed agriculture mergers? 

Do you believe that the effects of these mergers on American farmers and 

consumers should be reviewed collectively? 

Last year the French-Multinational food-products corporation Danone proposed to acquire White 

Wave Foods, Inc. ("White Wave"), which many in the organic dairy sector fear could lessen 

producers' leverage in any contract negotiations on pay price and contractual obligations, 

effectively creating a monopsony. 

e. If confirmed, what will you do to scrutinize this proposed acquisition and ensure 

that the Department applies conditions to this merger to alleviate the very real 

monopsony concerns that have been raised? 

22 https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/767321/download. 

18 
519 

According to reports you have accepted contributions from Monsanto and Bayer, two companies 

with mergers currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice. I have seen reports that 

President-elect Trump also holds stock in Monsanto. 

f. If confirmed, how will you ensure that you and the Department of Justice will 

remain objective in any review and scrutiny of these mergers? Will you recuse 

yourself from reviews of mergers involving companies from which you have 

received campaign contributions? 

g. If confirmed, will you ensure that the President-elect provides solid evidence to 

substantiate the claims made by his Transition Team that he sold off all of his 

investments in the stock market last year, to ensure that he does not have a financial 

interest in the mergers and acquisitions that the Department of Justice reviews? 

I am deeply concerned by reports that "Top executives of Bayer AG and Monsanto Co. met with 

President-elect Donald Trump ... to pitch the benefits of their planned deal."23 

h. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that reviews of proposed mergers 

arc free of political considerations? 

33. If confirmed, you will be the first Attorney General in 12 years to have previously been 

an elected official, which raises concerns about decisions the Justice Department may make 

regarding your campaign contributors. The Project on Government Oversight has found that 

approximately one-third of your top donors have "current, known matters involving the 

Department of Justice."24 As others have noted, you were also a strong supporter and surrogate 

of the President-elect, which raises concerns about how you would handle Department actions 

against Mr. Trump or businesses to which he is connected. In a November 5, 2016, op-ed,25 you 

and several other prominent Trump supporters harshly criticized Attorney General Lynch for not 

recusing herself from matters involving Hillary Clinton because Lynch had had a "39-minute 

conversation" with President Bill Clinton. 

a. By the recusal standard that you put forth in that op-ed, is it fair to expect you to 

recuse yourself from any matters regarding Mr. Trump or his finances? 

b. In cases or investigations involving Mr. Trump or your own campaign contributors, 

what will your recusal standard be, if not the standard articulated in the op-ed? 

34. At a Senate Judiciary Committee executive business meeting on March 26, 2015, you 

voted against reporting my Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act, 

which reauthorized a grant progran1 that has helped state and local law enforcement agencies to 

23 http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-monsanto-ceos-pitch-deal-to-trump-1484166068. 24 http://www. pogo.org/ our-work/reports/20 17 /at -least-one-third-of-attorney -general-nominees-top-donors-havem alters-in vo !vi ng -do j. htm l#fn3. 25 http://www. foxnews. co m/opini on/20 16/11/05/ giuliani -sessions-keating-et -al-time-for-loretta-lynch-to-appointspecial-counsel.htm I. 

19 
520 

purchase more than 1.2 million protective vests. This program's reauthorization will ensure that 

more than 200,000 more oflicers receive such vests. You also voted against reporting the Rafael 

Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act, which created a national alert system for law 

enforcement officers who are missing, killed, or seriously injured in the line of duty. The bills 

were reported by voice vote, but you requested to be recorded as a "nay" to both. Despite your 

opposition in Committee, both bills ultimately passed and are now law. These bills will save 

officers' lives, and both received enthusiastic support from the law enforcement community. 

Why did you vote against my Bulletproof Vest Partnership reauthorization? Why 

did you vote against Blue Alert? 

35. At your confirmation hearing, in response to a question of mine on whether you would 

use our limited Federal resources to prosecute sick people who followed their state laws with 

regards to medical marijuana, you said "I won't commit to never enforcing federal law, Senator 

Leahy, but absolutely it's a problem of resources for the federal government." 

a. Does this mean you would consider arresting and prosecuting patients who follow 

their state medical marijuana laws? 

Congress, tlrrough an appropriations amendment, has decided the federal government should not 

dismantle state medical marijuana programs. Since 2014, the Justice Department cannot 

"prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, 

possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." Last August, in United States v. Mclntosh, 26 the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "at a minimum, [this amendment] prohibits 

DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals 

who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied 

with such laws." 

b. Would this congressional prohibition prevent the DEA from raiding medical 

marijuana dispensaries that are compliant with state law, or from shutting down 

banks or other businesses that work with dispensaries? 

36. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) requires parties to 

the treaty, including the United States, to promptly inform, upon arrest, nationals of signatory 

nations, that they have the right to meet with consular officials. Thousands of Americans are 

arrested in foreign countries every year, sometimes on questionable charges. The right to visit 

with U.S. consular officials provides U.S. nationaJs the ability to communicate with their 

families, retain competent legal counsel, and receive assistance from the U.S. Government. To 

help ensure domestic compliance with Article 36, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an 

amendment to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandating that a judge 

presiding at the defendant's initiaJ appearance inform "a defendant who is not a United States 

citizen [that he or she] may request that an attorney for the government or a federal law 

enforcement official notifY a consular oflicer from the defendant's country of nationality that the 

defendant has been arrested." 

26 No. 15-10117(9thCir.2016). 

20 
521 

a. Do you agree that this amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is a 

helpful change that will ensure Article 36 compliance at the Federal level? What 

other steps would you take to ensure compliance with Article 36? 

There are a number of well documented cases in which the U.S. is not in compliance with our 

Article 36 obligations, and that noncompliance has strained our relationships with a number of 

important allies including Great Britain and Mexico. President Bush attempted to remedy one 

set of cases in 2008 through Executive Memorandum. However, the Supreme Court in Medellin 

v. Texas27 recognized the obligation but instructed that Congress must pass legislation to provide 

a remedy in these cases. 

b. In order to meet our legal obligations and protect the interests of U.S. national 

traveling abroad, would you work with the Congress to enact legislation that 

provides a mechanism to redress failures to provide the legally required VCCR 

notifications? 

37. At a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2016, the 

Director of the National Security Agency and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command Admiral 

Mike Rogers testified that '"[ e ]ncryption is foundational to the future. And anyone who thinks 

we are just going to walk away from that, I think, is totally unrealistic." Secretary of Defense 

Ash Carter has similarly stated that "encryption is a necessary part of data security and strong 

encryption is a good thing .... [W]e need our data security and encryption to be as strong as 

possible." 

In addition to Admiral Rogers and Secretary Carter, countless other national security experts 

have emphasized that strong encryption is vital to our national security and that any attempt to 

weaken encryption only makes Americans less secure particularly when the United States and 

the American people face increased threats of cyberattack from hostile nation-states and 

cybercrirninals. 

Do you agree with NSA Director Rogers, Secretary of Defense Carter, and other 

national security experts that strong encryption helps protect this country from 

cyberattack and is beneficial to the American peoples' digital security? 

27 552 u.s. 491 (2008). 

21 
522 

Additional Questions for the Record of Senator Patrick Leahy 

Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Hearing on the Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to Serve 

as Attorney General of the United States 

January 25,2017 

Many answers to my written questions were non-responsive. While some answers quoted 

statutes and cases to support your position (e.g. Questions 4b, II a, 15, 19a), in other responses 

you professed a complete lack of knowledge, even on topics that have dominated the news in 

recent months. You acknowledged in one response that you believe a statute is constitutional, 

but in others you refused even to say whether you considered a law to be "reasonably 

defensible." When responding to these follow up questions, please review any necessary 

materials to provide substantive answers to my questions. 

I also was troubled by your responses to questions 8 and 22, in which you consistently did not 

answer the question directly and stated that you had "no knowledge of whether [an individual] 

actually said [remarks relevant to the question] or in what context." Yet you omitted in your 

response footnotes that I included, which provided the relevant source material. I am re-asking 

those questions here and, for your convenience, I am appending these source materials to this 

document. 

Questions 8 and 22 

8. In 2014, you accepted the "Daring the Odds" award from the David Horowitz Freedom 

Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called David Horowitz an "antiMuslim extremist" and has an extensive and detailed profile of Mr. Horowitz's racist and 

repugnant remarks against Muslims, Arabs, and African-Americans. 

In your hearing, you stated to Senator Blumenthal with regard to Mr. Horowitz, "I am not aware 

of everything he has ever said or not." You also defended your association with him by saying 

"!am not aware of those comments, and I do not believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person 

that would treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge." Now you have had the 

opportunity to learn more about the extremist remarks Mr. Horowitz has made. 

For example, Mr. Horowitz has repeatedly claimed that the United States government has been 

infiltrated by Muslims. He has referred to Muslims as "Islamic Nazis" who "want to kill Jews, 

that's their agenda." 1 

a. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

http://mondoweiss.net/20 11/03/peter-king-hearings-come-to-flatbush-david-horowitz-stokes-anti-muslimsentiment-at-brooklyn-college. 
523 

Mr. Horowitz has said "Obama is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, 

he certainly isn't a Christian .... He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend 

American."2 

b. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has even claimed that Muslims have "infiltrated" the Republican Party, and that 

"Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim."3 

c. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

In 2015, you received the "Keeper of the Flame" award from the Center for Security Policy. The 

Center for Security Policy has been strongly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, and is 

considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

In 2011, its founder, Frank Gaffney, was banned from the Conservative Political Action 

Conference (CPAC) because, in the words of one board member, "they didn't want to be 

associated with a crazy bigot."4 Among his disgraceful statements, Mr. Gaffney has said that the 

two Muslims in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, have "longstanding 

Muslim Brotherhood ties."5 

e. CP AC did not want to be associated with a "crazy bigot," but you accepted an 

award from him in 2015. Do you condemn Mr. Gaffney's remarks and his 

insinuation that the two Muslim Congressmen are affiliated with the Muslim 

Brotherhood? 

f. Do you believe it is acceptable for the Attorney General to associate with Mr. 

Gaffney and his extremist organization? 

g. Mr. Gaffney has complained about Somali refugees holding jobs in the meat 

processing industry, saying "it kind of creeps me out that they are getting jobs in the 

food supply of the United States."6 Do you condemn that statement? 

h. Mr. Gaffney argued that a Muslim member of Congress should not be allowed to 

serve on the House Intelligence Committee because of his "extensive personal and 

political associations with ... jihadist infrastructure in America."7 Do you condemn 

that remark? 

i. Mr. Gaffney has said of President Obama that it is an "increasingly indisputable 

fact that this president is providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/posUdavid-horowitz-knows-obama-is-a-muslim-because-he-hates-america-somuch. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/posUdavid-horowitz-says-huma-abedin-is-worse-than-alger-hiss-and-grovernorquist-is-a-practicing-muslim-subverting-the-gop. 

4 http://religiondispatches.org/cpac-conservatives-shun-crazy-bigot-gaffney. 

http://thehill.comlblogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/276636-muslim-brotherhood-day-on-capitol-hill. 

http:/ /thehill.comlblo gs/congress-blog/civil-rights/2 713 66-freedom-and-hate. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.orglpost/frank-gaffney-muslim-congressman-part-of-islamic-fifth-column. 

2 
524 

And that is the definition, as you know, of treason."8 Do you condemn the offensive 

allegation that President Obama is a traitor? 

President-elect Trump has appointed Michael Flynn to be his National Security Advisor. The 

National Security Advisor has typically been the President's principal advisor on national 

security matters, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. 

Mr. Flynn serves on the board of advisors for an organization called ACT for America. The 

Southern Poverty Law Center has called this organization "far and away the largest grassroots 

anti-Muslim group in America." In August 2016 -less than six months ago- Mr. Flynn spoke 

at an event for this group. He is on video saying that Islam "is a political ideology. It definitely 

hides behind this notion of it being a religion." He also added that Islam is "like a malignant 

cancer."9 

k. Do you disavow and condemn Mr. Flynn's remarks? 

I. Do you believe that the President's national security advisor should refer to Islam as 

a "malignant cancer''? 

m. Do you believe the National Security Advisor should be associated with 

organizations that promote anti-Islamic bigotry and conspiracy theories? 

In the unclassified Intelligence Community Assessment on "Assessing Russian Activities and 

Intentions in Recent US Elections'' released on January 6, 2017. there are seven pages describing 

the activities ofRT America TV. The rep01t notes that the network's ·'Leadership [is] closely 

tied to. controlled by Kremlin." Mr. Flynn has given a paid speech to RT. and attended a dinner 

celebrating the network's anniversary. where he sat at the same table as Vladimir Putin. 10 

n. Given the facts presented here, what legal issues does the relationship between the 

National Security Advisor and the Russian government raise? 

In 2015, you received an award from the Eagle Forum for "Excellence in Leadership." The late 

founder of that organization has a long history of controversial remarks. That includes 

advocating for "railroad cars full of illegals going south" 11 and increasing the pay gap between 

men and women. 12 and arguing that married women by definition cannot be raped by their 

husbands. 13 

o. Do you agree that there should be "railroad cars full of illegals going south"? Do 

you condemn that remark? 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post!frank-gaffney-obama-playing-for-the-other-team-committing-treason. 

https://qz.com/841197/islam-is-a-malignant-cancer-the-hateful-rhetoric-of-michael-flynn-trumps-new-nationalsecurity-adviser. 

10 http://www.cnn.com/20 16/11/20/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-rt-syria. 11 http://www .rightwingwatch.org/post!phy llis-schlafly-wants-railroad-cars-full-of-illegals-going-south. 12 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post!schlatly-increase-the-pay-gap-so-women-will-have-better-opportunities-tofind-a-husband. 

J3 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post!schlafly-reiterates-view-that-married-women-cannot-be-raped-by-husbands. 

3 
525 

p. Do you agree that married women by definition cannot be raped by their husbands? 

Do you condemn that remark? 

q. Do you agree that the pay gap between men and women should be increased, rather 

than diminished? 

r. Ms. Schlafly also claimed "it would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on 

Un-American Activities" to target MuslimsY Do you agree with that statement? 

22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in 

an effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ 

documents/ICA _ 2017 _ Ol.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate 

or political party. This is about protecting our democracy. Please review this report and respond 

to the following questions. 

a. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia was 

responsible for the hack of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign chair? 

b. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia provided to 

Wikileaks the information that it stole? 

c. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia engaged in 

these activities in order to interfere with the election in Donald Trump's favor? 

Additional follow-up questions 

1. You previously responded to questions 22a-c that you "have no reason not to accept the 

intelligence community's conclusion(s) as contained in the report." Given that response, I was 

surprised that when I then asked you if Russia's behavior, which was detailed in the report, was 

illegal and a threat to our democracy, your response was only, "I have not reviewed the matter in 

any detail; therefore, I am not in a position to opine on it." 

This issue has received significant news coverage, has been the subject of the DNI report 

provided with these questions, and will be the subject of an investigation by the Intelligence 

Committee (https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/joint-statement-on-committee-inquiryinto-russian-intelligence-activities). Senators McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed previously 

called for an investigation by a select bipartisan committee 

(https:/ /www .washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/20 16/12/18/mccain-calls-for-committee-toinvestigate-russia-hacking-theres-no-doubt-of-interference/?utm _term=.36d83eddfc08). 

Please read the appended report before responding. 

a. 

14 

Given the information presented in the DNI report, do the Russian attempts to 

interfere in the 2016 election, including its hacks ofthe Democratic National 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/schlafly-reinstate-the-house-committee-on-un-american-activities. 

4 
526 

Committee and of "some Republican-affiliated targets" (Report 3), constitute illegal 

behavior? If your answer is anything other than an unambiguous "yes," please 

explain how this hacking might possibly be legal. 

b. The report states on page one: 

"We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin 

ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, 

the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US 

democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability 

and potential presidency." 

Given these conclusions and the entirety of the report, do you believe the Russian 

attempts to interfere in the 2016 election constitute a threat to our democratic 

process? If your answer is anything other than an unambiguous "yes," please 

explain why such foreign interference in the American electoral process- seeking to 

"undermine public faith in the US democratic process"- is acceptable. 

2. I previously asked you about the propriety of President Trump giving a White House 

position to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. I noted, "In 2013, while Bondi's office was 

considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University for fraud (which was settled two months 

ago for $25 million), Mr. Trump donated $25,000 to a group supporting Bondi. The donation 

was made illegally from Mr. Trump's foundation, and he was forced to reimburse and to pay a 

penalty to the IRS once the illegal payment became public. One month after the donation was 

received, Bondi's office decided not to join the lawsuit against Mr. Trump." I asked whether 

these facts, and the reported White House job for Attorney General Bondi, raised concerns about 

a quid pro quo. 

You responded, "I am not aware of facts that would support the assertions made in the above 

question and am unable to opine on this matter." I have appended to these questions a New York 

Times article from last year, titled "New Records Shed Light on Donald Trump's $25,000 Gift to 

Florida Official." Please review the article, which provides the factual predicate for the question. 

Do the facts of Mr. Trump's illegal donation, Ms. Bondi's ensuing decision not to 

join the lawsuit, and now the White House job for Ms. Bondi raise any concerns 

about a quid pro quo? 

3. When I asked what your recusal standard will be, if confirmed, your responses were not 

satisfactory. You argued in an op-ed that Attorney General Lynch should have recused herself 

from matters involving Secretary Hillary Clinton because Lynch had had a single conversation 

with President Bill Clinton while the investigation was ongoing 

(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/20!6111/05/giuliani-sessions-keating-et-al-time-for-lorettalynch-to-appoint-special-counsel.html). I asked whether you would apply the same standard to 

yourself regarding President Trump. 

5 
527 

You argued that it would be unfair to expect you to recuse yourself for "merely being a supporter 

ofthe President's during the campaign." l fear you are selling yourself short. ABC News 

referred to you as "Top Trump foreign policy adviser Sen. Jeff Sessions" 

(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-trump-adviser-jeff-sessions-trumpcampaign/story?id=41358247). The Washington Post said, "In Donald Trump's world, most 

roads, it seems, lead back to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), President-elect Trump's pick for 

attorney general. After Sessions became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump 

this February, he became an adviser on almost every major decision and policy proposal Trump 

made during the campaign" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/20 16/ ll/18/1 0-

things-to-know-about-sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attomey-general). Your 

relationship with President Trump went beyond mere support. 

Your response to my recusal questions was that you would consult with Justice Department 

ethics officials in cases where you "believed [your] impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned." Justice Department recusal standards are codified at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (see 

appended). In relevant part, the regulations state: 

... no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a 

personal or political relationship with: 

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of 

the investigation or prosecution; or 

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that 

would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. 

"Political relationship" is defined as "a close identification with an elected official. .. arising from 

service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof." 

Under the definition in 28 C.F.R. § 45.2(c), did you have a "political relationship" 

with President Trump before you were nominated to be Attorney General? Please 

answer yes or no. 

4. In my first round of written questions I asked you whether, when opposing the 2013 

Leahy-Crapo VA W A reauthorization, you opposed its new protections for LGBT Americans. 

Your response was nearly 300 words, but it did not directly answer the question, so I will ask 

again. 

Did you oppose the new protections for LGBT Americans in the 2013 VA W A 

reauthorization? Please answer yes or no. 

5. I asked at your hearing whether you would defend VA WA's constitutionality, and you 

said only "if it is reasonably defensible." I then asked in my written questions whether you 

believed "the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VA WA Reauthorization, including its LGBT and tribal victims' 

provisions, is 'reasonably defensible."' You answered only that you "will carefully study this 

6 
528 

program before reaching any final legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal jurisdiction 

provision." 

Based on your strong opposition to the law, as well as your thorough preparation for this 

nomination process, I find it difficult to believe you have not "carefully stud[ied]" it. Moreover, 

you did assert that particular laws were constitutional in other responses. In your response to 

14a-b, you wrote, "I believe that this statute is constitutional." Here, I am not asking for such an 

endorsement of a law's constitutionality, I am just asking whether you believe it is "reasonably 

defensible." 

Do you believe the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VA W A Reauthorization, including its LGBT 

and tribal victims' provisions, is "reasonably defensible"? Please answer yes or no. 

6. In response to question 37, on encryption, you wrote "It is also critical, however, that 

national security and criminal investigators be able to overcome encryption." 

a. Please explain what you mean by this. 

b. Do you believe that all encryption should provide a "back door" for law 

enforcement officials? Please answer yes or no. 

7. In response to Question 19(c), you said the United States should take "great care" before 

using lethal force in the United States in the armed conflict against al Qaeda and associated 

forces. 

a. Aside from circumstances such as self-defense when law enforcement officials are 

permitted to lawfully use lethal force, what circumstances could justify the use of 

lethal force on U.S. soil? 

In 2013, Senator Rand Paul wrote to former Attorney General Eric Holder asking, "Does the 

President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in 

combat on American soil?" Former Attorney General Holder responded categorially, "The 

answer to that question is no." 

b. Do you agree with former Attorney General Holder? Please answer yes or no. 

8. I asked in my first round of written questions about your comment that the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act "has been said to cheapen the civil 

rights movement." You emphasized, "Those were not my words." I recognize that. 

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the U.S. Attorney in Idaho has used the Act to bring 

federal hate crimes charges against a man who murdered a gay man by "push[ing] [the victim] to 

the ground and kick[ing] him at least 30 times with steel-toed boots while [the victim] begged for 

his life." The Post noted, "The fatal beating of the openly gay man has been compared by some 

in the community to the murder of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student from Wyoming 

whose torture and subsequent death set off a nationwide debate about hate crimes and 

7 
529 

homophobia and led to the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 

Act." The article is appended and can be found at 

https:/ /www. washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/20 17/01 /24/idahoan-admits-to-brutalmurder-of-gay-man-as-he-pleaded-for-his-life-now-faces-hate-charge. 

While you emphasized that you were not speaking in your own words when you said that my 

hate crimes amendment "has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement," I would still like 

to know whether you agree with that statement. 

When you said in 2009 that "the hate crimes amendment .•. has been said to 

cheapen the civil rights movement," did you agree with that viewpoint? Do you 

agree with it now? Please answer yes or no. 

9. At your hearing, Senator Franken asked you about President Trump's claims that there 

were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 election. You responded, "I don't know what the 

President-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment, or what facts he may have 

had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and 

we need to ensure that there is integrity in it, and I do believe we regularly have fraudulent 

activities occur during election cycles." 

Earlier this week, President Trump reportedly "surprised the top Republicans and Democrats in 

Congress on Monday when, during a dinner at the White House, he repeated his claim that 

millions of undocumented immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton." 

(http://www .cnn.com/20 17/01 /24/politics/wh-trump-believes-millions-voted-lllegally.) In a 

press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded to a question about that 

erroneous claim by saying, "The President does believe that, I think he's stated that before, and 

stated his concern of voter fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign and continues 

to maintain that belief based on studies and evidence people have brought to him." Again, as 

Senator Franken noted at your hearing, there is zero evidence to support this outlandish claim. 

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker Recidivism Watch" stated: 

Despite Trump's repeated claims, his attorneys stated there was no evidence of voter 

fraud in the 2016 election. In a court filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein's 

recount petition, lawyers for Trump and his campaign wrote: 'All available evidence 

suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.' 

When we debunked this claim on Nov. 29,2016, we implored Trump's staff members to 

please drop this talking point- as we are tired oftelling them it is false. We can't 

emphasize this point enough. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/factchecker /wp/20 I 7/0 1 /24/reci divism-watch-spicer-uses-repeatedly-debunked-citations-fortrumps-voter-fraud-claims/?utm _tenn=.89751 bee5353.) 

Speaker Paul Ryan evidently agreed with President Trump's attorneys and is quoted by Fox 

News saying, "I've seen no evidence to that effect. I've made that very, very clear." 

(http://www. foxnews.com/po I itics/20 I 7/0 I /24/ spicer -digs-in-on-trumps-illegal-voting-c !aim -asryan-distances.html.) 

8 
530 

Senator Lindsey Graham also evidently agreed with President Trump's attorneys, and argued, 

"To continue to suggest that the 2016 election was conducted in a fashion that millions of people 

voted illegally undermines faith in our democracy." (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-

election/ gop-senator-president -trump-stop-e !aiming-i lle gals-cost-you-popu lar-n 71 13 8 6.) 

Press Secretary Spicer stated that President Trump believes these claims, even though the 

president's lawyers do not. I am not asking you to explain the President's beliefs; I would like to 

know whether you share that belief. 

Do you share President Trump's belief that "millions of undocumented immigrants 

voted for Hillary Clinton" in the 2016 election? Please answer yes or no. If your 

answer is anything other than an unambiguous "no," please provide evidence to 

support the claim that millions of votes were cast illegally. 

10. On Wednesday President Trump announced several executive orders involving 

immigration, including an order involving constructing a border wall and others targeting 

immigrants. Additional executive orders, targeting refugees, are expected on Thursday. 

What role did you or your staff have in formulating and drafting these executive 

orders? 

11. The New York Times reported this morning that President Trump is preparing an 

executive order that would expand the use of the ineffective military commission system, allow 

individuals to be transferred to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and allow the CIA to 

reopen secret "black sites," among other things. 

a. Do you believe international law prohibits U.S. officials from engaging in torture or 

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? If so, what is the source of that 

prohibition? 

b. Do you believe, as a matter of law, that we are in an armed conflict with those who 

"harbor" AI Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces? What constitutes 

"harboring"? 

c. Do you believe, as a matter of law, that we are in an armed conflict with those who 

provide "substantial support" to AI Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces? What 

constitutes "substantial support"? 

d. What limits does the U.S. Constitution set on placing U.S. citizens in military 

custody on U.S. soil? 

e. Do you believe the United States is in an armed conflict with all "violent Islamic 

extremists"? How would you define a "violent Islamic extremist?" 

9 
531 

Appendix 

• Source material for old question 8 (articles documenting quotes by Michael Horowitz, Frank 

Gaffney, Phyllis Schlafly, and Michael Flynn) 

• Source material for old question 22 and question I (Intelligence Community Assessment, 

"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections") 

• Source material for question 2 (NY Times article, "New Records Shed Light on Donald 

Trump's $25,000 Gift to Florida Official") 

• Source material for question 3 (Sessions op-ed; 28 C.P.R.§ 45.2) 

• Source material for question 8 (Washington Post article) 

• Source material for question 9 (articles documenting quotes by Sean Spicer, Speaker Ryan, 

Senator Graham, and legal filings by Donald Trump's lawyers) 

• Source material for question II (NY Times article on CIA black sites) 

10 
532 

King hearings come to Flatbush: David Horowitz stokes 

anti-Muslim sentiment at Brooklyn College 

Brooklyn College had its own Peter King hearing last night when right-wing commentator David 

Horowitz spoke to a feisty crowd of students and faculty. 

At first I debated whether or not to even give voice to what David Horowitz said. After all, it is 

pretty well known that Horowitz is the Glenn Beck of Zionists---a rambler of hate who 

continually contradicts himself and history. 

But given the current political climate and the audience filled with faculty and students who 

eagerly echoed Horowitz's calls of anti-Muslim sentiment, I feel it is important to document. 

Outside the library where the lecture was held, security guards insisted that ten or so peaceful 

protesters huddled in the rain stand behind steel gates they had brought out for the occasion. 

Inside, security guards searched bags before running a handheld metal detector over 

everyone entering the lecture hall-security measures I have never before experienced in my 

four years of attending guest speaker events at the college. In his opening comments, 

Horowitz remarked, "How does it feel to go through a check point? I'll tell you one thing, I feel 

safer and that's what check points are about-making people feel safe when they're under 

attack by terrorists and Middle East Jew haters." Later, Horowitz added, "check points are 

there to protect the innocent from the guilty." 

Perhaps it was no coincidence that Horowitz was brought on campus with the help of two 

faculty members only a month following the controversy over the school administration's 

decision to reinstate Political Science adjunct Professor Kristofer Petersen-Overton, who was 

fired following outside political motivation due in part to his scholarly work on Palestinian 

national identity. Horowitz was sure to make reference to the apparent "hostile environment" 

that "liberal professors" create and to which students are subjected. Apparently, "Jewish 

organizations across the country have been intimidated from presenting their case." 

But it became all the more clear last night that this so-called "hostile environment" is something 

being created by the very people pointing to its existence. 

Just last week the Brooklyn College administration placed restrictions on the ability of the 

Palestine Club to participate in a series of direct action events organized in conjunction with 

other student organization across New York City as part of Israeli Apartheid Week. The club 

proposed to have a 6 ft x 8 ft mock wall out of paper to symbolize the separation wall in the 

West Bank, but according to the co-founder of the Palestine Club, Eeman Abuasi, the 

administration claimed-amongst many other things-that the wall would fuel more tension on 

1/2 
533 

campus and could be insulting to some students. Instead, the administration said the Palestine 

Club could only have the event if they agreed to construct a smaller model that could be 

placed on a table for display, like a diagram at an elementary school science fair. 

Given this context, it was all the more disturbing last night when I looked across the crowd and 

saw tears run down the face of a member of the Palestine Club as Horowitz said to the group 

of mostly nodding heads, "All through history people have been oppressed but no people has 

done what the Palestinians have done-no people has shown itself so morally sick as the 

Palestinians have." 

Horowitz, who admitted he had actually never even been to Israel, proceeded to give 

everyone a lesson in Middle East politics: according to him, Muslims in the Middle East are 

"Islamic Nazi's" who "want to kill Jews, that's their agenda." He added later, "all Muslim 

associations are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood." 

Horowitz appeared to be too delusional to even be quoted, or taken seriously if it weren't for 

the audience members who so fervently agreed with what he was saying. 

The most revealing moment came when a young Arab-American woman directed a question to 

Horowitz and the audience: "You talk about Muslims as if you know them-We have a Muslim 

American Society, we have a Palestine Club [on campus]. I want to raise the question to any 

of the Jews in this room, and students, have you guys ever been threatened by a Muslim on 

campus or an Arab?" To this, the crowd almost unanimously spun around in their seats to face 

the young woman and replied "yes." Someone shouted, "and we're scared when we see 

Muslims on buses and airplanes too." 

Horowitz encouraged anti-Muslim hate by telling the crowd, "no other people have sunk so low 

as the Palestinians have and yet everybody is afraid to say this," claiming that Muslims are a 

"protected species in this country" and that he's "wait[ing] for the day when the good Muslims 

step forward." 

The scary thing is that people listen to such hateful rhetoric and nod along. What would they 

say if someone said the same about Jewish people? Alas-hate speech is indeed the 

downside of First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, if the Brooklyn College administration 

justifies its decision to hinder the ability of the Palestine Club to partake in a cross-city peaceful 

demonstration because it's offensive, it is a wonder why they would agree to give voice to a 

person who encourages hysterical fear of Muslims. 

Zoe Zenowich is a Senior in the Scholars Program at Brooklyn College, where she is the 

managing editor of the Excelsior, a student newspaper. Follow her on Twitter @zoezenowich. 

212 
534 

David Horowitz Knows Obama Is A Muslim Because He 

Hates America So Much 

Brian Tashman I August 21, 2014 2:00pm 

David Horowitz dropped by the American Family Association's 'Today's Issues" today, where 

he spoke with AFA head Tim Wildman about how President Obama refuses to condemn the 

mass killings of Christians or take military action against ISIS. Of course, Obama has 

repeatedly condemned the killing of Christians and has ordered 90 airstrikes against ISIS to 

.d..illg. 

But in Horowitz's world, Obama is cheering on ISIS because he's a Muslim who hates 

America. 

"Obama is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, he certainly isn't a 

Christian," Horowitz said. "He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend American. 

It really is disgraceful. He's inviting the terrorists to behead more Americans when he should 

be attacking them with our military. His whole agenda in office has been to defeat America, he 

lost the war in Iraq deliberately, he created a vacuum which ISIS has filled." 

"Saying he's the worst president we've ever had is not saying enough." 

Wildman said he didn't used to believe the conspiracy theory that Obama is a secret Muslim, 

but now he does due to what he sees as the president's anti-American actions. 

"I think he is, I don't think there's really any question," Horowitz said, arguing that Obama is a 

"liar" who "lies all the time." 

Horowitz also said that Obama is letting immigrants illegally cross the border in order to kill 

Americans through anthrax and beheadings. 

"When he was re-elected, the first thought that came into my mind is, a lot of people are going 

to be dead because of this election, and how right I was," he said, warning that the president 

"destroyed our borders" in order to let "our enemies" enter the U.S. 

'They're going to come across our border with their dirty bombs and their anthrax and 

whatever else, you know, their swords to behead us .... The ones who are going to do the 

killing are coming across our open border and this president is not defending us." 

1/1 
535 

David Horowitz Says Huma Abedin is 'Worse than Alger 

Hiss' and Grover Norquist is a 'Practicing Muslim' 

Subverting the GOP ---~== g 

By Brian Tashman I October 1, 20121:50 pm 

David Horowitz has been promoting his new book Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion 

on conservative talk radio by attacking Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin as a Muslim 

Brotherhood agent and arguing that President Obama was only elected because he is black 

because "part of the racism of our society is [that] if you're black you can get away with 

murder." Horowitz's interview with Janet Mefferd was no different, as he charged that Abed in 

"is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life" and that she has been 

pushing foreign policy favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Horowitz even said that Abed in "is 

worse than Alger Hiss," the accused Soviet spy. 

But it is not just the Obama administration which has been penetrated by the Muslim 

Brotherhood, as Horowitz warned that "the Republican Party has also been infiltrated" thanks 

to conservative luminary Grover Norquist, whom he said is a "practicing Muslim." Norquist is a 

reviled figure among anti-Muslim activists like Horowitz, who in 20111ashed out at Norquist 

from the podium at CPAC, mainly due to the fact his wife is a Muslim-American and he works 

with Muslim Republicans like Suhail Kahn. 

Horowitz: \Yc have a medicq.-t! enemy \vith t\vcnty~first century technology aimed at us: thcy\'C 

infiltrakd our goYemmcnt. If you ,-, .. ondcrt:d hO\Y it's pv:-.sible tha1 Obama and Hillary \\·ou1d r1o1 

knu'v or would pretend what \Yas happening \Yasn 't happening in the J\ ... 1iddle East or how tht~y 

could turnover Egypt as they llaYc to the :V'Iu:.:.lim Brotherhood, wlt1ch ls the Hmntainhcud of Al 

()aeda ;md all ofthc1..e tc1Tihk h!amic :\azi organizations. the anS\'i.·cr is not really hard to lind: the 

chief ath isL~r to the Amcric<m goYcrnmcnt on ?\luslim afl11ir~, Hillary Clinton··s <.h.~puty chief' of 

stafl: Huma Ahcdin, a :vruslim Brotherhood up(Tativc and sh\..· has been all her lik, and her 

1.vhok 

~lefft•rd: 

This is Wdr~t: than Alger Hiss, for thos~ in your audi~nce who arc old cnnngh to 

is a So\·i~t agent \\·ho wt:~s right next to RooSC\"t::lt at Yalta. 

\ cr:y true ~md yc! you had these five congressme-n~ ~dichd.:- Bachmann and the 

others. \\·ho tried to say the inspectors-general need to look inw this. and even Republicans siood 

up on the floor and said no: 

Horowitz: You hod Bochner and McCain. and :\lcCt1in is just bonkers. But the Republican Pany 

hus also hL-cn infiltrated. Grover Norquist is a r'vluslim, he is a practicing Muslim. 

Later, Horowitz explained that liberals and radicallslamists are working out of their shared 

"hatred for America" and promoted the ridiculous and debunked conspiracy that Bill Ayers 

wrote Obama's book Dreams from My Father. 112 
536 

1\'lefferd: \Vhy is it that you sec so many who arc radicals and progrcssiYes supporting radical 

Islam'? 

Horowitz: Because they share a common enemy: the great Satan, which is us, and the little Satan, 

which is Israel. It's very simple, the left f(rr many, many years now, maybe haifa century, has had 

no practical program, they have no idea what they were going to do ~Yith the world when they get 

the power. So what organizes them is their hatred J(w Amcorica. Why would you want to bankrupt 

America') \Vhy would you want to take its military down'' Why \VOuld you apologize to our 

cncmlcs, as our President has done~ unless you were radical and you hclicvc that we 'rc the great 

oppressor nation. l know he talks out of two sides of his mouth, he actually makes Bill Clinton 

look like a Boy Scout in the rcalm of rectitude in what he's saying, this guy lies so easily. Of 

course because he's black he gets a pass on everything, \Vc haYc reached a very low point in our 

national evolution. I'm hoping that this book, you know it's not going to change the world, but 

those people who are buying and reading ''Radicals" will at least understand the mentality behind 

these people and how inllucntial they arc. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist and was 

Barack Obama's doses\ political ally for twenty years and wrote his autobiography. 

212 
537 

CPAC Conservatives Shun "Crazy Bigot" Gaffney 

Fl. f€fiGi:ontitSP0ff'f',ff,,tf,fQ 

January 5, 2011 

Frank Gaffney, the lslamophobic activist bent on getting Congress to investigate "creeping 

shari'ah," talked to the conspiracy web site World Net Daily, claiming "that CPAC has come 

under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudistyle Shariah law." 

Gaffney's exhibit A is Suhail Khan, a member of the American Conservative Union board, 

which annually sponsors the Conservative Political Action Conference. WND's piece is based 

on Gaffney's charges "that Islam ism has infiltrated the American Conservative Union, the host 

of CPAC, in the person of Washington attorney and political activist Suhail Khan and a group 

called Muslims for America." 

I caught up with Khan this afternoon, who last spoke with RD about the American Center for 

Law and Justice's calls for the Justice Department to investigate the Congressional Muslim 

Staffers Association, based on similar paranoias about the infiltration of "radical Islam" in the 

highest levels of government. 

Khan said he's known Gaffney for 15 years, and worked with him on defense issues when he 

was a staffer on the Hill. But, Khan added, while Gaffney "does get called and asked to be part 

of coalitions because he can represent that defense component ... I can tell you from my 15 

years of being around him, his cachet has greatly diminished .... The level of rhetoric and 

completely outlandish levels of accusation has really driven a lot pf responsible people, 

members of Congress to say that we don't want to be affiliated with you." 

Gaffney first launched his crusade against Khan when the latter ran for the ACU board in 2007, 

a position to which he was elected and re-elected by the ACU membership, and which was 

ratified by the board. Khan, who served in the Bush administration, has long endured 

accusations from conservatives• that, among other things, he was a secret al Qaeda mole, and 

now, from Gaffney and WND, a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Gaffney, said Khan, "definitely believes there is good political capital to be made in scaring and 

fear mongering, there may be some who may be swayed by alarmist and racist assertions, 

and worse, he makes a good living doing this stuff. Who knew there was money to be made in 

being a professional bigot?" 

Because Gaffney's group was not invited to participate in CPAC, "that is why this is surfacing 

now," said Khan. "Frank has been frozen out of CPAC by his own hand, because of his antics. 

We need people who are credible on national security .... but because of Frank's just 

completely irresponsible assertions over the years, the organizers have decided to keep him 

112 
538 

out." That, Khan added, is similar reaction to current and former members of Congress, 

including Bobby Jindal, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and the late Henry Hyde, who distanced 

themselves from Gaffney. 

The conservative shunning of Gaffney, said Khan, is not "because of any pressure from 

Muslim activists but because they didn't want to be associated with a crazy bigot." 

*Khan points out that it wasn't conservatives, but Gaffney making these unfounded 

accusations. Those accusations got play, however, in magazines like Front Page, which 

published Gaffney's "Khan Job" when Khan was first running for the ACU board, and which 

drew on an earlier report Gaffney said had a "a validating introduction by David Horowitz," 

Front Page's editor. 

212 
539 

Muslim Brotherhood Day on Capitol Hill 

On Monday, April18, legislators' offices will be visited by individuals associated with a group 

unknown to most lawmakers: The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). 

In the interest of helping members of the U.S. Congress understand precisely who their 

interlocutors are, permit a brief introduction: The USCMO is the latest in a long series of front 

organizations associated with, and working to advance, the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood 

in the United States. 

Members of Congress should be clear about the true nature of that agenda. It is laid out most 

authoritatively in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors in the course of 

the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation's history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation eta/. 

Written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled "The 

Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America," this 

internal correspondence was meant for the eyes only of the organization's leadership in Egypt. 

So, the document is direct and to the point: It explicitly states that the mission of the Muslim 

Brotherhood in North America is "destroying Western civilization from within ... by [the infidels'] 

hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah's religion is made victorious over all other 

religions." 

There are two other important facts legislators should know about Akram's memo. 

First, the document helpfully attaches a list of 29 groups under the heading "Our organizations 

and organizations of our friends: Imagine if they all march according to one plan!" A number of 

the identified Muslim Brotherhood fronts- and many others that have come into being since 

1991 -are members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. Representatives and 

associates of such fronts will be among the lslamists in congressional offices on Monday. 

Second, the memo describes in detail the Muslim Brotherhood's favored technique for 

accomplishing its stated goal of "destroying Western civilization"- at least until such time as 

they are strong enough to use violence decisively: "civilization jihad." This sort of jihad involves 

employing stealthy, subversive means like influence operations to penetrate and subvert our 

government and civil society institutions. (The successful application of these means have 

been chronicled extensively in the Center for Security Policy's "Civilization Jihad Reader 

Series.") 

With the launch of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations in March 2014, the Muslim 

Brotherhood has secured a new instrument for its subversion: a self-described U.S. "political 

party" meant to dominate and mobilize Muslim voters across the country and get them 

marching according to one plan. The object is to elicit support for the Muslim Brotherhood's 

112 
540 

demands from candidates and to help achieve what the Islamic supremacists would regard as 

favorable outcomes in the 2016 elections. (For more on the USCMO, its purpose and activities 

to date, see "Star Spangled Sharia: The Rise of America's First Muslim Brotherhood Part)!") 

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have already embraced the Council of Muslim 

Organizations. For example, two with longstanding ties to assorted Muslim Brotherhood fronts, 

Reps. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), spoke at the USCMO's inaugural 

banquet in June 2014. Neither has disavowed the USCMO's subsequent participation in antiSemitic, pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations and its fundraising on behalf 

of Islamic Relief USA, a large, U.S.-based Islamic supremacist charity. 

Another reason lawmakers and their staffs should be leery of this new Muslim Brotherhood 

front group is its avowed intention to make common cause with radical non-Muslim entities like 

the Black Lives Matter movement. At a conference in December 2015 convened by two of the 

Muslim Brotherhood's most virulent fronts, the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of 

North America, leading USCMO figures publicly discussed how they could impart lessons to 

African-Americans by holding up the Brotherhood as the community that staged revolutions 

across the world. 

Congress is on notice: As long as organizations associated with Islamic supremacism like the 

USCMO and its member organizations dominate "Muslim Advocacy Day" on Capitol Hill, it will 

actually be Muslim Brotherhood Advocacy Day. And legislators should have nothing to do with 

either its participants or its programs. 

Gaffney acted as an assistant secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is the 

president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. He serves as a foreign policy adviser 

to presidential candidate Sen. Ted CruzRafae/ (Ted) Edward CruzOvemight Health Care: 

Trump eases rules on insurance outside ObamaCare I HHS office on religious rights gets 300 

complaints in a month I GOP chair eyes opioid bill vote bv Memorial Day HHS official put on 

leave amid probe into social media posts Trump, Pence to address CPAC this week MORE (RTexas). 

212 
541 

Freedom and hate 

At the beginning of each year, the Southern Poverty Law Center publishes a list of hate 

groups. These are groups we determine to have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an 

entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP), an anti-Muslim think tank is one of the groups listed for 

the first time in 2015. In the run-up to and after the release of our list, CSP officials have 

defended the organization by claiming that their mission is motivated by a "love of freedom, not 

hate." Their record suggests otherwise. 

The group has long equated Islam with terrorism. CSP vice president Claire Lopez, for 

example, said in 2013: "When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists." 

CSP dedicated much of 2015 to targeting Syrian refugees. Ann Corcoran, the head of the 

Refugee Resettlement Watch website wrote an anti-refugee booklet published by CSP in April 

titled, "Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America." It calls for a ban on all Muslim 

immigration to the U.S. and encourages Americans to oppose the opening of mosques in their 

neighborhoods (not a very freedom-loving call to action). CSP is also actively working to draft 

model legislation attempting to bar the relocation of Syrian refugees to locales across the U.S. 

In December, CSP received mainstream press attention when Republican front-runner Donald 

TrumpDonald John Trumpil.ccuser says Trump should be afraid of the truth Woman behind 

pro-Trump Facebook page denies being influenced by Russians Shulkin says he has White 

House approval to root out 'subversion' at VA MORE cited a widely debunked CSP poll in his 

call for a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration into the United States. The demonizing 

survey results claimed that American Muslims harbored "ominous levels" of support for 

"Islamic Supremacists" and that these citizens even supported the use of violence to install 

Sharia law in the U.S. When the poll was first released, a Georgetown University's Bridge 

Initiative characterized its "shoddy findings" and "unreliable methodology" concluding that it 

"should not be taken seriously." 

In September, CSP's founder, Frank Gaffney, surprised even us when he provided a platform 

for Jared Taylor, one of the most recognizable white nationalists in America today, by inviting 

him on his radio show to discuss the Syrian refugee "threat" to Europe. On the show, Gaffney 

called Taylor's openly racist American Renaissance website "wonderful" and said that he 

"appreciated tremendously" the work Taylor is doing, before scrubbing the interview from his 

website after we called him out. 

In its Feb. 24 piece published in The Hill, CSP's Jim Hanson claims the SPLC is "trying to 

suppress free speech" by calling it "lslamophobia." Hanson defines phobia as "an irrational 

fear." Earlier in 2015, Gaffney was asked at a speaking engagement about Somalis working 

meatpacking plants. His response: "I don't know about you, but it kind of creeps me out that 

112 
542 

they are getting jobs in the food supply of the United States"- making Hanson's point for him. 

Hanson also wrote in his op-ed, "We believe homosexuals have the right to live without fear." 

This is ironic when you consider the fact that some of CSP's most vocal backers in recent 

weeks have been two anti-LGBT hate groups, the American Family Association (AFA) and the 

Family Research Council (FRC). In 2010, FRC president Tony Perkins wrote that pedophilia, 

"is a homosexual problem." Gaffney has appeared multiple times on Perkins' radio show. 

2015 saw anti-Muslim sentiment and activity reach a fever pitch, with armed protests outside of 

mosques, elected officials bashing Muslims and the Islamic faith as well as heinous hate 

crimes committed against Muslims or those perceived to be. Throughout the year, the Center 

for Security Policy as well the David Horowitz Freedom Center and ACT! for America, two other 

groups listed by SPLC as hate groups for the first time, helped to drive this climate of fear and 

will certainly continue to do so in 2016. 

Beirich heads the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

212 
543 

Frank Gaffney: Muslim Congressman Part Of 'Islamic Fifth 

Column' 

~ 

Brian Tashman I February 26, 2015 11:35 am 

Frank Gaffney thinks that Rep. Andre Carson, one of two Muslim members of Congress, 

should lose his seat on the House Intelligence Committee because he might hand classified 

information.to Muslim Brotherhood operatives. 

Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who leads the Center for Security Policy, told 

WorldNetDaily that Carson, an Indiana Democrat, may use his position to advance "the 

imposition of Shariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate." 

Gaffney bases his claims on Carson's work with the Islamic Society of North America and the 

Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging that the groups were "unindicted coconspirator[s] in a terror-financing trial." Actually, the designations were removed due to lack of 

evidence. 

"At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson's presence on the House Intelligence Committee will 

necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and 

operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Isla mist Fifth Column and his 

participation in the panel's deliberations concerning how it can best be countered," Gaffney 

told WND. 

1/2 
544 

"Since there arc. at th0 n_wment, few topics more in need uf assiduous oversight by the l \mgress 

even if there \\Trc no actual risk of cornpromisc of national security secrets or fv1us1im 

Brotherhood influence opt•mtions associakd with Rep. Carson's presence on the fllmse 

Intelligence Committee- the potential impediment he may constitute to such work demands his 

removal from this paneL'" 

"Given the Muslim Brotherhood's unalterable commitment to Islamic suprcmacism," Gaffney 

said, "the imposition ofShariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate to rule gl<)bally in 

accordance with that totalitarian program in place of our constitutional republic and all other 

forms of government, what the Obama administration is doing is bad enough. Its serial efforts to 

engage, legitimme. fund, arm and otherwise empower the Brotherhood overseas and to rely upon 

the Brothers' domestic lhmt organizations as representatives of and outreach vehicles to the 

Muslim community in this country are inlensitjcing the dangers we face hom the Global Jihad 

Movement'' 

Gaffney said it "wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee 

charged with o\·ersceing U.S. intelligence anJ counterintelligence an individual with extensive 

personal and political associations with the l\'luslim Brotherhood's civilizmionjihadist 

infrastnlCture in America.'' 

"At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson's presence on the House Intelligence Committee will 

nec~ssitatc restrictions on his access to classified information about the presenc-e and operations 

this country of what amounts to a subversive lslamist fifth Column and his participation in the 

pancrs deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.'' 

212 
545 

Frank Gaffney: Obama 'Playing For The Other Team,' 

Committing Treason' ---- ... [;] WWW.righl\Ming,.eatch.•ocg 

f\ By Miranda Blue 1 December 16, 2015 2:55pm 

There's a new star in the world of Frank Gaffney, an activist who was largely banished from 

mainstream GOP circles for alleging that both the Obama administration and the Republican 

Party have been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, but has since been enjoying the 

attention of Donald Trumo and Ted Cruz. 

In recent days, Gaffney has been promoting the story of Phillip Haney, a former Department of 

Homeland Security employee who claims that the Obama administration pulled the plug on an 

investigation that he was conducting that he claims could possibly have caught the San 

Bernardino terrorists. It's hard to tell what of Haney's story is true since DHS has stayed mum 

on it other than to tell Fox News that his tale has "many holes." Haney mentioned in an 

interview with Sandy Rios this morning that he also locked horns with the Bush administration, 

but did not provide details. 

But in any case, Gaffney has latched onto Haney's story to promote his narrative that, as he 

told Indianapolis talk radio host Greg Garrison last week, President Obama is "playing for the 

other team" and that it is "indisputable" that the president is committing "treason." 

"What I believe this proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt- and I think this is also just the tip of 

the iceberg, by the way- is that the Obama administration is ... well, they're playing for the 

other team," Gaffney told Garrison. "And this is an extraordinarily dangerous thing for this 

country to be experiencing at a moment like this. I think it's contributing, frankly, to the mortal 

peril we're facing from these jihadists." 

It is, he said, an "increasingly indisputable fact that this president is providing aid and comfort 

to enemies of the United States. And that is the definition, as you know, of treason." 

1/1 
546 

Islam is a "malignant cancer": The hateful rhetoric of 

Trump's new national security adviser """"''""""'--~-=-~- ------=--- Q 'l', C<>>>u-u-,;-'>,;t,-tJ'<'>>'>'"''"n 

US president-elect Donald Trump famously said in a CNN interview last March that "Islam 

hates us." In this light, his pick for national secuirty adviser is pitch perfect. 

Retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn served as Trump's national security adviser during 

the campaign and agreed Friday (Nov. 18) to continue on. Flynn, a registered Democrat, 

served as head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency before he was ousted in 2014. Since 

then, he's been a brash critic of President Barack Obama and the national security 

establishment's approach to defeating terrorism-and he's made no secret of his disdain for 

Islam. 

"Islam is a political ideology ... it definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion," Flynn 

said in a speech at the annual conference of ACT for America, the largest anti-Muslim 

grassroots organization in the US. "It's like cancer ... a malignant cancer in this case." Flynn 

also serves as an adviser for the group, which was founded by Brigitte Gabriel, a leader of the 

anti-Islam lobby in the US. Flynn has described Gabriel as "incredibly courageous." 

#Trump Cbolce !(lr l'<ational St.:curity AJ,·iscr ;\1ichacl Flynn: Islmn polilical ideology that 

hides itsclfb ... ~hinJ \Yhat they call religion. pic.tv.,ritter.com/5hgaSem7Dq 

Zaid B:..~njamin \ a?aidbcnjamin) November 18.2016 

At other times, Flynn has been more careful to specify that "radical Islam" is the source of his 

ire. He led the charge in excoriating Democrats for not using the words "radical Islamic 

terrorism," and published a book this summer called The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the 

Global War Against Radical/slam And Its Allies. 

In it, Flynn writes that "without' a proper sense of urgency, we will eventually be defeated, 

dominated, and very likely destroyed" by Muslim militants. 'They are dead set on taking us 

over and drinking our blood." 

His rhetoric rarely distinguishes between extremism and ordinary Muslims; instead, Flynn 

insists that Muslims have "banned the search for truth" because they believe the Quran, 

Islam's holy book, is infallible. 

Flynn rivals Trump in his penchant for posting frequent and controversial messages on Twitter, 

a primary vehicle for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. In one of his most notorious tweets, Flynn wrote 

that the "fear of Muslims is rational." 

1/2 
547 

F"~ar uf \1us!ims ls RATiU?\,\L: please ftxward this tu oHl\.'l-s: th.:: lrurh fear:- n\) quc:stions ... 

https://t.co:NLifKFD9lU 

-General Fl;nn ((ii:GenFiynn l February 27. 2016 

In J1(':Xl24 hours. l dare' Arab & Persian world "lcaLkrs" to slcp ur to the plate and declare their 

Tslamic ideology sick and mu~t B he~tlcd. 

Cicncrcli Flynn ('aGcnFiynnJ July 15 2016 

The national security adviser appointment does not require Senate confirmation, even though 

the role offers the potential to significantly shape US foreign and military policy. Critics say that 

Flynn's anti-Islam rhetoric spells trouble for the US. 

Flynn is "convinced that all Muslims who practice traditional Islam are a security risk. That is 

not only untrue but extremely dangerous," says Will McCants, director for the Brookings 

Project on US relations with the Islamic world and the author of The ISIS Apocalypse: The 

History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. The effect will be to alienate 

many of the world's Muslims, he says, and send them "into the arms of jihadist recruiters" who 

contend that "America seeks to destroy their religion." 

212 
548 

Michael Flynn, on trip to Russia, said 'who knows' whether 

Syria gas attack was a 'false flag' 

(CNN)During a 2015 trip to Russia, Donald Trump's pick to be national security adviser, Lt. 

Gen. Michael Flynn, said he didn't know whether the 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria was 

conducted by the Syrian Army or by other forces in an attempt to draw the United States into 

the conflict. 

Flynn not ruling out the possibility of a "false flag" attack raises questions about how the Trump 

administration will approach the Syrian conflict. The Obama administration, the Arab League, 

NATO, and many western governments have pointed to Syrian President Bashar ai-Assad's 

regime as being responsible for the attack. A United Nations investigation didn't assign blame, 

but evidence from the report pointed to the Assad regime being responsible. 

Assad's regime and Russian President Vladimir Putin claim opposition forces were behind the 

attack. 

Flynn, who was the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for the Obama administration 

at the time of the 2013 attack, made the remarks during a December 2015 question and 

answer session hosted by the Russian government-funded television network, Russia Today. 

At the event, Flynn was asked by an audience member his take on reports the attack was 

carried out by Turkish intelligence and made to look like it was the Syrian government, 

otherwise known as a "false flag" operation. 

Read More 

"I'm going to address your question because it's a good question," Flynn said. "It's an 

interesting one. What keeps me up at night is the use of chemicals and biological weapons by 

terrorist groups that have the intent, they have the intellect, they don't necessarily have the 

specific types of capabilities just yet, but I believe that they will have the ability to get their 

hands on them. I think that all of us globally need to really pay very close attention to that." 

"Your specific question, I really don't know," Flynn said. "''m not going to sit here and tell you 

that I know. To have that level of knowledge or insight or detail of what an intelligence service 

is doing to do a false flag-- who knows. I don't have a good answer for you. I'm not able to 

answer your specific question." 

In a 2013 op-ed in the New York Times, Putin wrote, "No one doubts that poison gas was used 

in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by 

opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be 

siding with the fundamentalists." 

The questioner's claim might be grounded in a 2013 article by journalist Seymour Hersh in the 

London Review of Books, which claimed the jihadist rebel group ai-Nusra was behind the 

attack. The New Yorker and Washington Post both declined to publish the report, saying it 

didn't meet their standards. A follow up report from Hersh claimed the Turkish government 

supplied the chemical weapons for the attack. 

1/2 
549 

Emails to Flynn and spokespeople for the Trump transition team were not returned. 

Flynn told the Washington Post this year he was paid through his speaking agency for the 

appearance at the RT event. At the 2015 dinner for RT's anniversary, Flynn was seated at the 

same table as Putin. 

Before the panel, Flynn tweeted, "Regarding RT panel participation: know my values and 

beliefs are mine & won't change because I'm on a different piece of geography." 

At the event, Flynn cautioned the situation on the ground in Syria was complex and deception 

was being use. 

"What I know is that the complexity of the situation on the ground right now is beyond 

anybody's wildest imagination," he said. "[The panel moderator] highlighted it in one of her 

questions. I think her question was a very good one. It's all of the things that are happening, 

not just in Syria. This is happening in the region in a big way. The things that you're talking 

about, there's this tit-for-tat or there's this give and take. People are doing things. There is 

deception being used." 

"There is false information being used," he added. "This slide that I have up here is a 

component of that false information or how false information is applied. We have to 

understand-- this is why I think [the panel moderator is] driving me crazy up here, trying to get 

me to be more specific because right now we do have to be more specific. We have to be 

much more specific in our relationships, far more specific in our relationships, so there's not a 

misunderstanding and there's not a miscalculation because of some ill-advised tactic that's 

used in Damascus or Baghdad that causes something that we don't want." 

After publication of this story, RT cut the clip and posted it on YouTube. Watch it here: 

212 
550 

Phyllis Schlafly Wants 'Railroad Cars Full Of I !legals Going 

South' 

-- ------- -- --- ----· [3 www.righh>~•rng~·;,k 

By Brian Tashman 1 November23, 201511:20 

am 

Excited about Donald Trump's call for the mass deportation of the 11 million undocumented 

immigrants living in the U.S., Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly told WorldNetDaily this 

weekend that she wants American railways to join the deportation effort, hoping to one day 

"see those railroad cars full of illegals going south." 

Blasting President Obama's call for the U.S. to take in Syrian refugees as "ridiculous," she 

warned that "Obama wants to change the character of our country" by bringing in people who 

"have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited government, of the people 

being in control." 

"Every time they say, 'You can't deport these people, in my mind's eye, I see the picture of 

those railroad cars carrying the illegals out of our country when Eisenhower deported them. 

They say it was a failure. It wasn't at all," Schlafly told WND in an exclusive interview. "In my 

mind's eye, I see those railroad cars full of illegals going south. That's what they ought to do." 

"Obama wants to change the character of our country," Schlafly charged, reacting to an 

expose highlighted at the top of The Drudge Report on Friday. 

"These people come in and have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited 

government, of the people being in control, and I think it's very tragic," she continued. 

"We had a wonderful country of freedom and prosperity, and that's why everyone in the world 

wants to come here. But we can't let everyone in the world in. And we need to be very 

persnickety about who we let in. We only want people who love America and want to be 

American." 

Schlafly said Obama's plan to flood the U.S. with unscreened foreigners "certainly isn't 

American," and she never thought she'd see the day when a U.S. president failed to do his 

duty to protect the nation. 

"I never did. Even the ones I didn't vote for, I think, would have stood up for America," Schlafly 

said. "Obama has told us that he doesn't believe America should be thought of as better or 

exceptional. ... Obama has a mystique about him, and he continues to go down what I think is 

the wrong path. We need a leader who's going to stand up for America." 

Many politicians- Democrat and Republican- argue that the U.S. has a duty to accept 

"refugees." 

112 
551 

But Schlafly isn't having any of that "ridiculous" nonsense. 

"These ideas that they're putting out, that we have some obligation to admit all these people, 

are just ridiculous," she said. "We don't have an obligation to admit anybody. A country that 

doesn't have borders isn't a country. We need to have borders." 

She added, "I think the grassroots are going to win out because there are more of them every 

day who are believing what Trump says and disbelieving what the elite are trying to tell us." 

2/2 
552 

Schlafly: Increase The Pay Gap So Women Will Have 

Better Opportunities To Find A Husband 

-------=-"''= [;l wwwxlqh1twmcwctc1LG!0 

~By Kyle Mantyla I April15, 2014 10:24 am 

Phyllis Schlafly has never been a big fan of feminism or of efforts to promote equality between 

men and women in general. Schlafly is, after all, notorious for her stated belief that it is 

impossible for a husband to ever rape his wife because "when you get married you have 

consented to sex." 

Given this sort of outlook, it is not surprising that Schlafly opposes things like the Paycheck 

Fairness Act and efforts to close the gender pay gap, arguing in an op-ed published in The 

Christian Post that closing the pay gap will actually harm women. 

As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. As 

such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married 

because they will be "unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate." 

The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so 

that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands: 

Another fact is the inllu~nce ofhypergamy, which means that \\·omen typically choose a mate 

(husband or boythcnd) who earns more than she docs. Men don't haw the same preference for a 

highcr~caming mate. 

While womcn prefer to HA \'E a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higherearning pnrtnc:r in relationship. This simple hut profound dit1Crcncc hct\vecn the sexes has 

powerful consequences i\Jr the so-called pay gap. 

Suppose the pay gap bctv,·cen men and \\'Otncn ,,·ere magically eliminated. ]fthat happ~ned, 

simple arithmetic suggests that halfof\vomen \Yould be unable to find \Vhal they regard as a 

suitable male. 

Obviously. I'm not ''"omen \Von ·1 date or marry a lowcr~12arning men. only that they 

probably prefer not to. I fa higher-earning 1nan is not available, many \vomcn are more llkdy not 

to marry at all. 

The b~.:st way to improve economic prospt:cts for \\'omen is to improvl.:' job prot-;pcds for the men 

in their lives, eYen if that means increasing the so-calkd pay gap. 

111 
553 

Schlafly Reiterates View That Married Women Cannot Be 

Raped By Husbands 

,/. By Kyle Mantyla 1 May 7, 2008 3:51 pm 

Last year, Phyllis Schlafly spoke on the campus of Bates College where , among other things, 

she "belittled the feminist movement as 'teaching women to be victims,' decried intellectual 

men as 'liberal slobs' and argued t)lat feminism 'is incompatible with marriage and 

motherhood.'" She then went on to top herself by claiming that a married woman cannot be 

sexually assaulted by her husband, saying: 

the has conscnkd to 1 don't think yzm can call rape 

Needless to say, those views caused a bit of controversy ... controversy that has now 

reemerged at Washington University in St. Louis when school officials decided to honor 

Schlafly with an honorary doctorate: 

decision to hcstov,: honorary on conscn·ati\ c political acti\·lst 

Opponents of Schlal1y 's sociDl-nc-1\vorking \Vcbsiie 

facehook and hud member:-; 

Apparently the students don't think that Washington University should be honoring an 

immigrant-hating. UN-detesting, evolution-fighting. court-stril)l)ing, conspiracy-theorist antifeminist hypocrite who blames the Virginia Tech massacre on the English Department go 

figure. 

But the university isn't backing down ... and neither is Schlafly, who granted an interview to a 

Washington University student newspaper where she complained that the protesting students 

have "too much extra time" on their hands and reiterated her view that wives cannot be raped 

by their husbands: 

112 
554 

Could you darify some of the statements that you made in '\'Iaine last year about martial 

rape'? 

l think that when you get married you haw consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about. l 

don"t kmnv if maybe these girls missed sex cd. That doesn't mean the hnsb-<md cnn beat you up, 

we have plenty of !a\\.:s against assault and batt..:ry. If there is any -violence or mistr~.?atmcnt that 

can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to 

cal1ing it rape though. it isn't rape. it';.; a he said-she said where iCs just too ca~y to lie about 

'Was the way in "'hkh your statement was portrayed correct? 

Yes. Fcmirrists. if they get tired of a husband or if they want to light over child custody, they can 

make an accusation of marital rape and they want thai to be there, a\ ailahle to them. 

So you see this as mon' of a tool used by people to get out of ma!Tiagcs than as lcgi!imalL'-

Yes, l certainly do. 

212 
555 

Schlafly: 'Reinstate the House Committee on Un-American 

Activities' 

(] www.cighn•Ps:·· <<"i<ii 

By Brian Tashman 1 April23, 2013 10:55 am 

Eagle Forum founder and Joseph McCarthy admirer Phyllis Schlafly is using the Boston 

marathon bombings as an excuse to push for the reinstatement of the notorious House 

Committee on Un-American Activities. 

"It would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on Un-American Activities," Schlafly 

wrote in a column yesterday, "so we can have a look at those in our midst who may be 

jihadists, dupes of violent Muslim indoctrination, or (in old Communist lingo) fellow travelers or 

useful idiots." 

In her column, which she titled, "Are You American 1st or Muslim 1st?," Schlafly further argues 

that while it is okay to be a Christian first and American second, Muslims who put faith first 

should not be allowed in the country. 

1/2 
556 

The Bo~ton rnmc show;;; that cvmprchL~nsiH'" immigration reform ::.lwuld not be only 8 

southern border problem or c' en just a proh!cm of illegal aliens. H's also 8 problem or fon:igncrs 

vvho an: admitted legally but ~hould neYer hm e been admitted, and c)f othi..'rs atimitkd legally on ~~ 

,·isa lmt ;m.: not tracked ;u m~lb.· sure. they depart wb~Cn 1heir visitor's time expires. as L:.s. lnw 

require~. 

For starters. \Yhy would our gnYcmmcnt ha\c admitt.:.•J the Tsarnaev family \:vhosc son was 

named famcrlan'! That should haYc hccn a r~d ~Jkrt because that is the name. of one of the \\'Orld's 

notorious mass mnrdL'rcrs, l4th-ccnt't.11Y' Ccmral Asian \Varlord named T;:~mcrlan. \\'ho killed 

about I million people. 

1t's long overdue for Congress to hm\'! a series or hearings on the loopholes, broken promis~;:s. and 

disobeyed hn\ s involving both legal and illegal ~ntry into th~ Uniled. States. It would be usctll1 to 

rcinst81c the Hl)usc Committe-e on lin-American A-..·tl\'itics so wc. can have a look at those in our 

midst \\hn !Tla)' bC' jihad ish, dup~s ofviokn1 :viu:,lim indoctrination, or (in old Communist lingo) 

1Cltov: travdc-r-; or useful idiots. 

Tbcre is ph.~nty lll' l'.vid.:-nce that legal an~t illegal im1nigrant.s ofvurious nationJlitics, i11 

con1r:n L:ntion of pur citl?cnshlp pkdgc. retain their loy'alty to tht: hmd they came thnn. Brian 

Fishman, \\ho ~tudic:-: terrori~m at the 0;c''-, America foundation in \Va~hington. say~, ''I think 

therc:'s nth.'n a S~!EW of divided loyahi~~ in thesl.' ca~c::. where Americans !tlm to' iolcnt jihad 

arc you Am(:ricm11irst or ~m-· yuu ?v1usllm first?'' 

Our gon:-rnml!nt ~hould inYustign!r.: thoroughly and n:ject those who do not \Vant to bccomt3 

Americans, obey <.)ur Constitution and la\vs, sr('ak our language. and salutr.:: our ilag. And they 

h;1YC to accept the rule tb:1t disputes in our courts mu:,t he dccid.:d according to U.S. ht\\·. not any 

nxeign law. 

Schlafly's argument is reminiscent of an incoherent answer that Pat Robertson gave last year 

to a 700 Club viewer who asked him why he criticized Muslims who put their faith ahead of 

their nationality when he does the same. Robertson claimed that Muslims are different from 

Christians because they are "under control of a foreign power." 

212 
557 

Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions 

in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber 

Incident Attribution 

6 January 2017 
558 

Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US 

Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution 

"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" is a declassified version of a highly 

classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the 

President. 

The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise 

bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or 

methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future. 

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified 

report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and 

sources and methods. 

The Analytic Process 

The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the uncertainty surrounding foreign 

activities, capabilities, or leaders' intentions. This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to 

understand complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide or obfuscate their 

activities. 

On these issues of great importance to US national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to 

provide assessments to decision makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, 

and that adhere to tradecraft standards. 

The tradecraft standards for analytic products have been refined over the past ten years. These 

standards include describing sources (including their reliability and access to the information they 

provide), clearly expressing uncertainty, distinguishing between underlying information and analysts' 

judgments and assumptions, exploring alternatives, demonstrating relevance to the customer, using 

strong and transparent logic, and explaining change or consistency in judgments over time. 

Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community provides US policymakers, 

warfighters, and operators with the best and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as 

potential opportunities to advance US national security. 

Intelligence Community analysts integrate information from a wide range of sources, including human 

sources, technical collection, and open source information, and apply specialized skills and structured 

analytic tools to draw inferences informed by the data available, relevant past activity, and logic and 

reasoning to provide insight into what is happening and the prospects for the future. 

A critical part of the analyst's task is to explain uncertainties associated with major judgments based 

on the quantity and quality of the source material, information gaps, and the complexity of the issue. 

When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are 

conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. 

Some analytic judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous 

judgments, which serve as building blocks in rigorous analysis. In either type of judgment, the 

tradecraft standards outlined above ensure that analysts have an appropriate basis for the judgment. 
559 

Intelligence Community judgments often include two important elements: judgments of how likely it 

is that something has happened or will happen (using terms such as "likely" or "unlikely") and 

confidence levels in those judgments (low, moderate, and high) that refer to the evidentiary basis, 

logic and reasoning, and precedents that underpin the judgments. 

Determining Attribution in Cyber Incidents 

The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of 

cyber operation-malicious or not-leaves a trail. US Intelligence Community analysts use this 

information, their constantly growing knowledge base of previous events and known malicious actors, and 

their knowledge of how these malicious actors work and the tools that they use, to attempt to trace these 

operations back to their source. In every case, they apply the same tradecraft standards described in the 

Analytic Process above. 

Analysts consider a series of questions to assess how the information compares with existing 

knowledge and adjust their confidence in their judgments as appropriate to account for any 

alternative hypotheses and ambiguities. 

An assessment of attribution usually is not a simple statement of who conducted an operation, but 

rather a series of judgments that describe whether it was an isolated incident, who was the likely 

perpetrator, that perpetrator's possible motivations, and whether a foreign government had a role in 

ordering or leading the operation. 

2 
560 
561 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

This page intentionally left blank. 
562 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign, 

Scope and Sourcing 

Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product. 

Scope 

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence 

Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which 

draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the 

motivation and scope of Moscow's intentions regarding US elections and Moscow's use of cyber tools 

and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 

2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. 

When we use the term "we" it refers to an assessment by all three agencies. 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are 

identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting 

information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the 

redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow. 

We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 

election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, 

capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion. 

New information continues to emerge, providing increased insight into Russian activities. 

Sourcing 

Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are 

consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts-including specific 

cyber operations-and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources. 

Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlinloyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either 

directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests 

significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting 

what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and red lines, whether on 

Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States. 
563 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign, 

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in 

Recent US Elections 

Key Judgments 

ICA 2017-0lD 

6 January 2017 

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression 

of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these 

activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort 

compared to previous operations. 

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US 

presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, 

denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess 

Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We 

have high confidence in these judgments. 

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's 

election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her 

unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence 

in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. 

Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the 

electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton 

was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining 

her future presidency. 

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior 

since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and 

goals. 

Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert 

intelligence operations-such as cyber activity-with overt efforts by Russian Government 

agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or "trolls." 

Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US 

presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage 

candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin. 

Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US 

presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties. 

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence 

Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data 
564 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to 

Wikileaks. 

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local 

electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or 

compromised were not involved in vote tallying. 

Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a 

platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. 

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US 

presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their 

election processes. 

3 
565 

Thls report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

Contents 

Scope and Sourcing 

Key Judgments 

Contents 

CINFBI/NSA Assessment: Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 

2016 US Presidential Election 

Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election 

Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted 

Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US 

Election Operation Signals "New Normal" in Russian Influence Efforts 

Annexes 

A: Russia-Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US 

B: Estimative Language 

4 

iv 

6 

13 
566 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the infiuence campaign. 

Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US 

Presidential Election 
567 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US 

Presidential Election 

Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US 

Election 

We assess with high confidence that Russian 

President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence 

campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential 

election, the consistent goals of which were to 

undermine public faith in the US democratic 

process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her 

electability and potential presidency. We further 

assess Putin and the Russian Government 

developed a clear preference for President-elect 

Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that 

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the 

Russian influence campaign then focused on 

undermining her expected presidency. 

We also assess Putin and the Russian 

Government aspired to help President-elect 

Trump's election chances when possible by 

discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly 

contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three 

agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and 

FBI have high confidence in this judgment; 

NSA has moderate confidence. 

In trying to influence the US election, we assess 

the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding 

desire to undermine the US-led liberal 

democratic order, the promotion of which 

Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as 

a threat to Russia and Putin's regime. 

Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers 

disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as 

US-directed efforts to defame Russia, 

suggesting he sought to use disclosures to 

discredit the image of the United States and 

cast it as hypocritical. 

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary 

Clinton because he has publicly blamed her 

since 2011 for inciting mass protests against 

his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and 

because he holds a grudge for comments he 

almost certainly saw as disparaging him. 

We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian 

Government developed a clear preference for 

President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton. 

Beginning in June, Putin's public comments 

about the US presidential race avoided directly 

praising President-elect Trump, probably 

because Kremlin officials thought that any 

praise from Putin personally would backfire in 

the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly 

indicated a preference for President-elect 

Trump's stated policy to work with Russia, and 

pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what 

they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on 

Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the 

President-elect's approach to Russia with 

Secretary Clinton's "aggressive rhetoric." 

Moscow also saw the election of Presidentelect Trump as a way to achieve an 

international counterterrorism coalition against 

the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). 

Putin has had many positive experiences 

working with Western political leaders whose 

business interests made them more disposed 

to deal with Russia, such as former Italian 

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. 

Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin 

pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US 

election process as unfair almost immediately 
568 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the fuH supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

after the election because Moscow probably 

assessed it would be counterproductive to 

building positive relations. 

We assess the influence campaign aspired to help 

President-elect Trump's chances of victory when 

possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and 

publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the 

President-elect. When it appeared to Moscow that 

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency 

the Russian influence campaign focused more on 

undercutting Secretary Clinton's legitimacy and 

crippling her presidency from its start, including by 

impugning the fairness of the election. 

Before the election, Russian diplomats had 

publicly denounced the US electoral process 

and were prepared to publicly call into 

question the validity of the results. ProKremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter 

campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in 

anticipation of Secretary Clinton's victory, 

judging from their social media activity. 

Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted 

Moscow's use of disclosures during the US election 

was unprecedented, but its influence campaign 

otherwise followed a longstanding Russian 

messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence 

operations-such as cyber activity-with overt 

efforts by Russian Government agencies, statefunded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid 

social media users or "trolls." 

We assess that influence campaigns are 

approved at the highest levels of the Russian 

Government-particularly those that would be 

politically sensitive. 

Moscow's campaign aimed at the US election 

reflected years of investment in its capabilities, 

which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet 

states. 

2 

By their nature, Russian influence campaigns 

are multifaceted and designed to be deniable 

because they use a mix of agents of influence, 

cutouts, front organizations, and false-flag 

operations. Moscow demonstrated this during 

the Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Russia 

deployed forces and advisers to eastern 

Ukraine and denied it publicly. 

The Kremlin's campaign aimed at the US election 

featured disclosures of data obtained through 

Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state 

and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda. 

Russian intelligence collection both informed and 

enabled the influence campaign. 

Cyber Espionage Against US Political 

Organizations. Russia's intelligence services 

conducted cyber operations against targets 

associated with the 2016 US presidential election, 

including targets associated with both major US 

political parties. 

We assess Russian intelligence services collected 

against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and 

lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape 

future US policies. In July 2015, Russian 

intelligence gained access to Democratic National 

Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that 

access until at least June 2016. 

The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate 

(GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed 

at the US election by March 2016. We assess 

that the GRU operations resulted in the 

compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of 

Democratic Party officials and political figures. 

By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes 

of data from the DNC. 

Public Disclosures of Russian-Collected Data. 

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used 

the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and 

Wikileaks to release US victim data obtained in 
569 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to 

media outlets. 

Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an 

independent Romanian hacker, made multiple 

contradictory statements and false claims 

about his likely Russian identity throughout the 

election. Press reporting suggests more than 

one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 

interacted with journalists. 

Content that we assess was taken from e-mail 

accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 

appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June. 

We assess with high confidence that the GRU 

relayed material it acquired from the DNC and 

senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks. Moscow 

most likely chose Wikileaks because of its selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures 

through Wikileaks did not contain any evident 

forgeries. 

In early September, Putin said publicly it was 

important the DNC data was exposed to 

Wikileaks, calling the search for the source of 

the leaks a distraction and denying Russian 

"state-level" involvement. 

The Kremlin's principal international 

propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) 

has actively collaborated with Wikileaks. RT's 

editor-in-chief visited Wikileaks founder Julian 

Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London 

in August 2013, where they discussed renewing 

his broadcast contract with RT, according to 

Russian and Western media. Russian media 

subsequently announced that RT had become 

"the only Russian media company" to partner 

with Wikileaks and had received access to 

"new leaks of secret information." RT routinely 

gives Assange sympathetic coverage and 

provides him a platform to denounce the 

United States. 

3 

These election-related disclosures reflect a pattern 

of Russian intelligence using hacked information in 

targeted influence efforts against targets such as 

Olympic athletes and other foreign governments. 

Such efforts have included releasing or altering 

personal data, defacing websites, or releasing emails. 

A prominent target since the 2016 Summer 

Olympics has been the World Anti-Doping 

Agency (WADA), with leaks that we assess to 

have originated with the GRU and that have 

involved data on US athletes. 

Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated 

targets but did not conduct a comparable 

disclosure campaign. 

Russian Cyber Intrusions Into State and Local 

Electoral Boards. Russian intelligence accessed 

elements of multiple state or local electoral boards. 

Since early 2014, Russian intelligence has 

researched US electoral processes and related 

technology and equipment. 

DHS assesses that the types of systems we 

observed Russian actors targeting or 

compromising are not involved in vote tallying. 

Russian Propaganda Efforts. Russia's state-run 

propaganda machine--comprised of its domestic 

media apparatus, outlets targeting global 

audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network 

of quasi-government trolls-contributed to the 

influence campaign by serving as a platform for 

Kremlin messaging to Russian and international 

audiences. State-owned Russian media made 

increasingly favorable comments about Presidentelect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary 

election campaigns progressed while consistently 

offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton. 

Starting in March 2016, Russian Governmentlinked actors began openly supporting 

President-elect Trump's candidacy in media 
570 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

aimed at English-speaking audiences. RT and 

Sputnik-another government-funded outlet 

producing pro-Kremlin radio and online 

content in a variety of languages for 

international audiences-<:onsistently cast 

President-elect Trump as the target of unfair 

coverage from traditional US media outlets that 

they claimed were subservient to a corrupt 

political establishment. 

Russian media hailed President-elect Trump's 

victory as a vindication of Putin's advocacy of 

global populist movements-the theme of 

Putin's annual conference for Western 

academics in October 2016--and the latest 

example of Western liberalism's collapse. 

Putin's chief propagandist Dmitriy Kiselev used 

his flagship weekly newsmagazine program 

this fall to cast President-elect Trump as an 

outsider victimized by a corrupt political 

establishment and faulty democratic election 

process that aimed to prevent his election 

because of his desire to work with Moscow. 

Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader 

of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of 

Russia, proclaimed just before the election that 

if President-elect Trump won, Russia would 

"drink champagne" in anticipation of being 

able to advance its positions on Syria and 

Ukraine. 

RT's coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the 

US presidential campaign was consistently negative 

and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her 

of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and 

ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials 

echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign 

that Secretary Clinton's election could lead to a war 

between the United States and Russia. 

In August, Kremlin-linked political analysts 

suggested avenging negative Western reports 

4 

on Putin by airing segments devoted to 

Secretary Clinton's alleged health problems. 

On 6 August, RT published an Englishlanguage video called "Julian Assange Special: 

Do Wikileaks Have the E-mail That'll Put 

Clinton in Prison?" and an exclusive interview 

with Assange entitled "Clinton and ISIS Funded 

by the Same Money." RT's most popular video 

on Secretary Clinton, "How 100% of the 

Clintons' 'Charity' Went to ... Themselves," had 

more than 9 million views on social media 

platforms. RT's most popular English language 

video about the President-elect, called "Trump 

Will Not Be Permitted To Win," featured 

Assange and had 2.2 million views. 

For more on Russia's past media effortsincluding portraying the 2012 US electoral 

process as undemocratic-please see Annex A: 

Russia-Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence 

Politics, Fuel Discontent in US. 

Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its 

influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton. 

This effort amplified stories on scandals about 

Secretary Clinton and the role of Wikileaks in the 

election campaign. 

The likely financier of the so-called Internet 

Research Agency of professional trolls located 

in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties 

to Russian intelligence. 

A journalist who is a leading expert on the 

Internet Research Agency claimed that some 

social media accounts that appear to be tied to 

Russia's professional trolls-because they 

previously were devoted to supporting Russian 

actions in Ukraine-started to advocate for 

President-elect Trump as early as December 

2015. 
571 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet in the US 

Russia's effort to influence the 2016 US presidential 

election represented a significant escalation in 

directness, level of activity, and scope of effort 

compared to previous operations aimed at US 

elections. We assess the 2016 influence campaign 

reflected the Kremlin's recognition of the 

worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US 

Government and other private data-such as those 

conducted by Wikileaks and others-have 

achieved in recent years, and their understanding 

of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to 

maximize the impact of compromising information. 

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used 

intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, 

and press placements to disparage candidates 

perceived as hostile to the Kremlin, according 

to a former KGB archivist. 

Since the Cold War, Russian intelligence efforts 

related to US elections have primarily focused on 

foreign intelligence collection. For decades, 

Russian and Soviet intelligence services have 

sought to collect insider information from US 

political parties that could help Russian leaders 

understand a new US administration's plans and 

priorities. 

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) 

DirectorateS (IIIegals) officers arrested in the 

United States in 2010 reported to Moscow 

about the 2008 election. 

In the 1970s, the KGB recruited a Democratic 

Party activist who reported information about 

then-presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter's 

campaign and foreign policy plans, according 

to a former KGB archivist. 

5 

Election Operation Signals "New Normal" in 

Russian Influence Efforts 

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from 

its campaign aimed at the US presidential election 

to future influence efforts in the United States and 

worldwide, including against US allies and their 

election processes. We assess the Russian 

intelligence services would have seen their election 

influence campaign as at least a qualified success 

because of their perceived ability to impact public 

discussion. 

Putin's public views of the disclosures suggest 

the Kremlin and the intelligence services will 

continue to consider using cyber-enabled 

disclosure operations because of their belief 

that these can accomplish Russian goals 

relatively easily without significant damage to 

Russian interests. 

Russia has sought to influence elections across 

Europe. 

We assess Russian intelligence services will 

continue to develop capabilities to provide Putin 

with options to use against the United States, 

judging from past practice and current efforts. 

Immediately after Election Day, we assess Russian 

intelligence began a spearphishing campaign 

targeting US Government employees and 

individuals associated with US think tanks and 

NGOs in national security, defense, and foreign 

policy fields. This campaign could provide material 

for future influence efforts as well as foreign 

intelligence collection on the incoming 

administration's goals and plans. 
572 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those In the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

AnnexA 

Russia·· Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US' 

RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially 

expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy 

and civil liberties. The rapid expansion of RT's operations and budget and recent candid statements by RT's 

leadership point to the channel's importance to the Kremlin as a messaging tool and indicate a Kremlindirected campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest. The Kremlin has 

committed significant resources to expanding the channel's reach, particularly its social media footprint. A 

reliable UK report states that RT recently was the most-watched foreign news channel in the UK. RT 

America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties 

to the Russian Government. 

In the runup to the 2012 US presidential election in November, English-language channel RT America --

created and financed by the Russian Government and part of Russian Government-sponsored RT TV (see 

textbox 1) --intensified its usually critical coverage of the United States. The channel portrayed the US 

electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and "take 

this government back." 

RT introduced two new shows-- "Breaking 

the Set" on 4 September and "Truthseeker" 

on 2 November-- both overwhelmingly 

focused on criticism of US and Western 

governments as well as the promotion of 

radical discontent. 

From August to November 2012, RT ran 

numerous reports on alleged US election 

fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, 

contending that US election results cannot 

be trusted and do not reflect the popular 

will. 

In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of 

democracy" in the United States, RT 

broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdMessaging on RT prior to the US presidential election 

(RT, 3 November) 

party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. 

The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third 

of the population and is a "sham." 

• This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source 

Enterprise. 

6 
573 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

RT aired a documentary about the Occupy 

Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 

4 November. RT framed the movement as a 

fight against "the ruling class" and described 

the current US political system as corrupt and 

dominated by corporations. RT advertising 

for the documentary featured Occupy 

movement calls to "take back" the 

government. The documentary claimed that 

the US system cannot be changed 

democratically, but only through "revolution." 

After the 6 November US presidential 

election, RT aired a documentary called 

"Cultures of Protest," about active and often 

violent political resistance (RT, 1-

10 November). 

RT new show "Truthseeker" (RT, 11 November) 

RT Conducts Strategic Messaging for Russian Government 

RT's criticism of the US election was the latest facet of its broader and longer-standing anti-US messaging 

likely aimed at undermining viewers' trust in US democratic procedures and undercutting US criticism of 

Russia's political system. RT Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan recently declared that the United States 

itself lacks democracy and that it has "no moral right to teach the rest of the world" (Kommersant, 

6 November). 

Simonyan has characterized RT's coverage of 

the Occupy Wall Street movement as 

"information warfare" that is aimed at 

promoting popular dissatisfaction with the US 

Government. RT created a Facebook app to 

connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via 

social media. In addition, RT featured its own 

hosts in Occupy rallies ("Minaev Live," 10 April; 

RT, 2, 12 June). 

RT's reports often characterize the United 

States as a "sUiveillance state" and allege 

widespread infringements of civil liberties, 

police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 

28 October, 1-10 November). 

RT has also focused on criticism of the US 

economic system, US currency policy, alleged 

Simonyan steps over the White House in the 

introduction {rom her short-lived domestic show 

on REN TV (REN T\1, 26 December 2011) 

Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to 

Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US 

financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November). 

7 
574 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

RT broadcasts support for other Russian interests in areas such as foreign and energy policy. 

RT runs anti-tracking programming, 

highlighting environmental issues and the 

impacts on public health. This is likely 

reflective of the Russian Government's 

concern about the impact of tracking and 

US natural gas production on the global 

energy market and the potential challenges 

to Gazprom's profitability (5 October). 

RT is a leading media voice opposing 

Western intervention in the Syrian conflict 

and blaming the West for waging 

"information wars" against the Syrian 

Government (RT, 10 October-9 November). 

In an earlier example of RT's messaging in 

RT anti-tracking reporting (RT, 5 October) 

support of the Russian Government, during the Georgia-Russia military conflict the channel accused 

Georgians of killing civilians and organizing a genocide of the Ossetian people. According to 

Simonyan, when "the Ministry of Defense was at war with Georgia," RTwas "waging an information 

war against the entire Western world" (Kommersant, 11 July). 

In recent interviews, RT's leadership has candidly acknowledged its mission to expand its US audience and 

to expose it to Kremlin messaging. However, the leadership rejected claims that RT interferes in US 

domestic affairs. 

Simonyan claimed in popular arts magazine Afisha on 3 October: "It is important to have a channel 

that people get used to, and then, when needed, you show them what you need to show. In some 

sense, not having our own foreign broadcasting is the same as not having a ministry of defense. 

When there is no war, it looks like we don't need it. However, when there is a war, it is critical." 

According to Simonyan, "the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is 

not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the 

values of the country that it is broadcasting from." She added that "when Russia is at war, we are, of 

course, on Russia's side" (Afisha, 3 October; Kommersant, 4 July). 

TV-Novosti director Nikolov said on 4 October to the Association of Cable Television that RT builds on 

worldwide demand for "an alternative view of the entire world." Simonyan asserted on 3 October in 

Afisha that RTs goal is "to make an alternative channel that shares information unavailable elsewhere" 

in order to "conquer the audience" and expose it to Russian state messaging (Afisha, 3 October; 

Kommersant, 4 July). 

On 26 May, Simonyan tweeted with irony: "Ambassador McFaul hints that our channel is interference 

with US domestic affairs. And we, sinful souls, were thinking that it is freedom of speech." 

8 
575 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

RT Leadership Closely Tied to, Controlled by Kremlin 

RT Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan has close ties to top Russian Government officials, especially 

Presidential Administration Deputy Chief of Staff Aleksey Gromov, who reportedly manages political TV 

coverage in Russia and is one of the founders of RT. 

Simonyan has claimed that Gromov 

shielded her from other officials and their 

requests to air certain reports. Russian 

media consider Simonyan to be Gromov's 

protege (Kommersant, 4 July; Dozhd TV, 

11July). 

Simonyan replaced Gromov on stateowned Channel One's Board of Directors. 

Government officials, including Gromov 

and Putin's Press Secretary Peskov were 

involved in creating RT and appointing 

Simonyan (AflSha, 3 October). 

According to Simonyan, Gromov oversees 

political coverage on TV, and he has 

periodic meetings with media managers 

where he shares classified information 

and discusses their coverage plans. Some 

opposition journalists, including Andrey 

Loshak, claim that he also ordered media 

attacks on opposition figures 

(Kommersant, 11 July). 

The Kremlin staffs RT and closely supervises 

RT's coverage, recruiting people who can 

Simonyan shows RT facilities to then Prime Minister 

Putin. Simonyan was on Putin 's 2012 presidential 

election campaign staff in Moscow (Rospress, 22 

September 2010, Ria Novosti, 25 October 2012). 

convey Russian strategic messaging because of their ideological beliefs. 

The head of RT's Arabic-language service, Aydar Aganin, was rotated from the diplomatic service to 

manage RT's Arabic-language expansion, suggesting a close relationship between RT and Russia's 

foreign policy apparatus. RT's London Bureau is managed by Darya Pushkova, the daughter of 

Aleksey Pushkov, the current chair of the Duma Russian Foreign Affairs Committee and a former 

Gorbachev speechwriter (DXB, 26 March 2009; MK.ru, 13 March 2006). 

According to Simonyan, the Russian Government sets rating and viewership requirements for RT and, 

"since RT receives budget from the state, it must complete tasks given by the state." According to 

Nikolov, RT news stories are written and edited "to become news" exclusively in RT's Moscow office 

(Dozhd TV, 11 July; AKT, 4 October). 

In her interview with pro-Kremlin journalist Sergey Minaev, Simonyan complimented RT staff in the 

United States for passionately defending Russian positions on the air and in social media. Simonyan 

said: "!wish you could see ... how these guys, not just on air, but on their own social networks, Twitter, 

and when giving interviews, how they defend the positions that we stand on!" {"Minaev Live," 

lOApril). 

9 
576 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting infonnation on key elements of the influence campaign. 

RT Focuses on Social Media, Building Audience 

RT aggressively advertises its social media accounts and has a significant and fast-growing social media 

footprint. In line with its efforts to present itself as anti-mainstream and to provide viewers alternative 

news content, RT is making its social media operations a top priority, both to avoid broadcast TV 

regulations and to expand its overall audience. 

According to RT management, RT's website receives at least 500,000 unique viewers every day. Since 

its inception in 2005, RT videos received more than 800 million views on You Tube (1 million views per 

day), which is the highest among news outlets (see graphics for comparison with other news 

channels) (AKT, 4 October). 

According to Simony an, the TV audience worldwide is losing trust in traditional TV broadcasts and 

stations, while the popularity of "alternative channels" like RT or AI Jazeera grows. RT markets itself as 

an "alternative channel" that is available via the Internet everywhere in the world, and it encourages 

interaction and social networking (Kommersant, 29 September). 

According to Simonyan, RT uses social media to expand the reach of its political reporting and uses 

well-trained people to monitor public opinion in social media commentaries (Kommersant, 

29 September). 

According to Nikolov, RT requires its hosts to have social media accounts, in part because social 

media allows the distribution of content that would not be allowed on television (Newreporter.org, 

11 October). 

Simonyan claimed in her 3 October interview to independent TV channel Dozhd that Occupy Wall 

Street coverage gave RT a significant audience boost. 

The Kremlin spends $190 million a year on the distribution and dissemination of RT programming, 

focusing on hotels and satellite, terrestrial, and cable broadcasting. The Kremlin is rapidly expanding RT's 

availability around the world and giving it a reach comparable to channels such as AI Jazeera English. 

According to Simonyan, the United Kingdom and the United States are RT's most successful markets. RT 

does not, however, publish audience information. 

According to market research company Nielsen, RT had the most rapid growth (40 percent) among all 

international news channels in the United States over the past year (2012). Its audience in New York 

tripled and in Washington DC grew by 60% (Kommersant, 4 July). 

RT claims that it is surpassing AI Jazeera in viewership in New York and Washington DC (BARB, 

20 November; RT, 21 November). 

RT states on its website that it can reach more than S50 million people worldwide and 85 million 

people in the United States; however, it does not publicize its actual US audience numbers (RT, 

10 December). 

10 
577 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

TV News Broadcasters: Comparative Social Media Footprint 

You Tube Views 

YouTube Subscribers 

SGO 

Twitter Followers 

5.000 B,OOG 

Facebook likes 

facebook Chatter 

100 150 200 

11 
578 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

Formal Disassociation From Kremlin Facilitates RT US Messaging 

RT America formally disassociates itself from the Russian Government by using a Moscow-based 

autonomous nonprofit organization to finance its US operations. According toRT's leadership, this 

structure was set up to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act and to facilitate licensing abroad. In 

addition, RT rebranded itself in 2008 to deemphasize its Russian origin. 

According to Simonyan, RT America differs from other Russian state institutions in terms of 

ownership, but not in terms of financing. To disassociate RT from the Russian Government, the 

federal news agency RIA Novosti established a subsidiary autonomous nonprofit organization, TVNovosti, using the formal independence of this company to establish and finance RT worldwide 

(Dozhd TV, 11 July). 

Nikolov claimed that RT is an "autonomous noncommercial entity," which is "well received by foreign 

regulators" and "simplifies getting a license." Simonyan said that RT America is not a "foreign agent" 

according to US law because it uses a US commercial organization for its broadcasts (AKT, 4 October; 

Dozhd TV, 11 July). 

Simonyan observed that RT's original Russia-centric news reporting did not generate sufficient 

audience, so RT switched to covering international and US domestic affairs and removed the words 

"Russia Today" from the logo "to stop scaring away the audience" (Afisha, 18 October; Kommersant, 

4July). 

RT hires or makes contractual agreements with Westerners with views that fit its agenda and airs them 

on RT. Simonyan said on the pro-Kremlin show "Minaev Live" on 10 April that RT has enough 

audience and money to be able to choose its hosts, and it chooses the hosts that "think like us," "are 

interested in working in the anti-mainstream," and defend RT's beliefs on social media. Some hosts 

and journalists do not present themselves as associated with RT when interviewing people, and many 

of them have affiliations to other media and activist organizations in the United States ("Minaev Live," 

10April). 

12 
579 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign, 

Annex B 

Judgments of likelihood. Tile chart 

percen,tag:es. Unless otherwise stated. 

Almost Very 

no chance unlikely Unlikely Roughly even chance 

Highly 

Remote improbable Improbable Roughly even odds 

Likely 

Probable 

with 

Very 

likely 

Highly 

probable 

Almost 

certainly 

Nearly 

certain 

Confidence in the Sources Supporting Judgments. Confidence levels provide assessments of the quality 

and of source information that supports judgn1ents. Consequently, high, moderate, 

low of confidence to assessments: 

the information 

reliability of 

13 

nr£rHHrarnv information from multiple 

a fact or a certainty; 

ot 

or that 
580 

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified 

assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. 

This page intentionally left blank. 

14 
581 
582 

New Records Shed Light on Donald Trump's $25,000 Gift 

to Florida Official 

Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida in March at Mar-a-Lago in Palm 

Beach. Michele Eve Sandberg/Garbis, via Getty Images 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -It was Aug. 29, 2013, an unremarkable day inside Florida's 

whitewashed Capitol, and a typically sweltering one outside among the moss-bearded oaks 

and saba! palms. Around 3:45p.m., Jennifer Meale, the communications director for Attorney 

General Pam Bondi, fielded a seemingly routine call from a financial reporter for The Orlando 

Sentinel. The attorney general of New York had recently filed a lawsuit against Donald J. 

Iru.o:u:l alleging fraud in the marketing of Trump University's real estate and wealth-building 

seminars. Had Florida ever conducted its own investigation, the reporter asked. 

The call set off an exchange of emails between Ms. Meale and top lawyers in the office. She 

learned that 23 complaints about Trump-related education enterprises had been filed before 

Ms. Bondi became attorney general in 2011, and one since. They had never generated a 

formal investigation, she wrote the reporter, but added, "We are currently reviewing the 

allegations in the New York complaint." 

The Sentinel's I!WQ!!, which was published on Sept. 13, 2013, paraphrased Ms. Meale's 

response and took it a step further, saying that Ms. Bondi's office would "determine whether 

Florida should join the multi-state case." Four days later a check for $25 000 from the Donald 

J. Trump Foundation landed in the Tampa office of a political action committee that had been 

formed to support Ms. Bondi's 2014 re-election. In mid-October, her office announced that it 

would not be acting on the Trump University complaints. 

The proximate timing of the Sentinel article and Mr. Trump's donation, and suspicions of a quid 

pro quo, have driven a narrative that has dogged Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi for three years. It 

has intensified during Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, peaking this month with the filing of 

ethics complaints, calls for a federal investigation by editorial boards and Democrats in 

Congress, and a new investigation of Mr. Trump's foundation by New York regulators. 

But documents obtained this week by The New York Times, including a copy of Mr: Trump's 

check, at least partly undercut that timeline. Although the check was received by Ms. Bondi's 

committee four days after the Sentinel report, and was recorded as such in her financial 

disclosure filings, it was actually dated and signed by Mr. Trump four days before the article 

appeared. 

The check's date does not categorically demonstrate that Mr. Trump was not seeking to 

influence Ms. Bondi, a fellow Republican. Even as he has denied trying to do so in this 

instance, he has boasted brazenly and repeatedly during his presidential campaign that he has 

1/5 
583 

made copious campaign contributions over the past two decades, including to Hillary Clinton 

and other Democrats, in order to buy access and consideration for his business dealings. 

Politicians in Florida, which Mr. Trump considers his second home, have been among his 

leading beneficiaries. An analysis of public records shows he has contributed at least $375,000 

to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 

percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own. 

Although not unprecedented, his $25,000 gift to And Justice for All, the committee supporting 

Ms. Bondi, is among his largest. 

What is more, when Mr. Trump wrote that check, he still theoretically had reason to be 

concerned that Florida's attorney general could become a player in the legal assault on Trump 

University. 

Through 2010, when the company ceased operations, Florida had been one of the most 

lucrative markets for his unaccredited for-profit school. It ranked second among states in 

purchases, with 950 transactions, and third in sales, at $3.3 million, according to an analysis of 

sales data revealed in court filings. 

On Sept. 9 2013. Donald J. Trump signed a check from his foundation to And Justice for All a 

political committee supporting Pam Bondi. the Florida attorney general. The date of the check 

which was included in documents released on Tuesday by the New York attorney general 

highlights that the contribution appeared to be on its way before Ms. Bondi's office said 

publicly that it was reviewing complaints about Mr. Trump's for-profit education company 

Trump University. 

OPEN Document 

The lawsuit by New York's Democratic attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, which was 

announced on Aug. 25, 2013 -two weeks before Mr. Trump wrote the check to And Justice 

for All on Sept. 9- did not cite allegations from consumers in Florida. But news organizations 

had reported as early as 2010 that the attorneys general of Florida and Texas had fielded 

complaints from consumers who had paid up to $35,000 for Mr. Trump's seminars and 

mentoring programs. His contribution, therefore, could have been a pre-emptive investment to 

discourage Ms. Bondi from joining the New York case. 

Brian Ballard, Mr. Trump's lobbyist in Florida, said it was "ridiculous" to think his client sought 

to buy off Ms. Bondi. ''I'm the Trump Organization lobbyist. and he has never, ever brought up 

Trump University with me," he said. "It wasn't something of concern to him. With Donald 

Trump, if a friend calls up and says, 'Listen, I'm running for XYZ, could you help me?' his 

instinct is to say yes. That's all it was." 

Yet, even those who doubt anything nefarious between Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi 

acknowledge that they bear blame for the intensifying focus on the appearance of a conflict. 

215 
584 

For his part, Mr. Trump fanned the embers by sending the contribution from his nonprofit 

foundation, which cannot under federal law make political donations. When questions arose 

this year, he agreed to refund $25,000 to the foundation from his personal account and~ 

$2 500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. Trump officials have called the mix-up an 

inadvertent error by his staff. 

Ms. Bondi, meanwhile, has failed to explain why she accepted Mr. Trump's check even after 

learning that her office was examining the New York case against Trump University. Six 

months later, she allowed him to host a $3,000-per-head fund-raiser for her at his Mar-a-Lago 

Club in Palm Beach. Mr. Trump attended the event, which records indicate raised at least 

$50,000. 

Now, with the revelation of the date on Mr. Trump's check-which came in a release of 

correspondence by Mr. Schneiderman -it appears that Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi had in their 

possession a piece of favorable evidence that they bewilderingly failed to disclose. 

"All these things come together in a way that if you don't unpack the whole thing, the unspoken 

implications coalesce to create this great suspicion," said Mac Stipanovich, a longtime Florida 

Republican strategist and lobbyist who disdains Mr. Trump and has never worked with Ms. 

Bondi. "The optics are terrible even though there is not a shred of evidence that Pam Bondi 

solicited a bribe or that Donald Trump provided one." 

Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi have said they share a long friendship, but the origins of it are not 

apparent. Ms. Bondi, who declined requests for an interview, initially backed former Gov. Jeb 

Bush of Florida for president. After he withdrew from the race, she endorsed Mr. Trump the 

day before Florida's March 15 primary, snubbing the state's other favorite son, Senator Marco 

Rubio. The only woman currently holding statewide elected office in Florida, she has since 

become an enthusiastic Trump surrogate. 

Ms. Bondi became a conservative darling in 2010 when, as an assistant state attorney, she 

won her post in her first campaign of any kind. Her political future is unclear as she faces a 

two-term limit and has said she will not run for governor in 2018. 

It was in late summer 2013, as her re-election campaign was gearing up that Ms. Bondi called 

Mr. Trump to solicit the donation, aides to both of them have said; they have declined to 

provide a precise date. Records show that Mr. Trump had already donated $500 to Ms. Bondi's 

campaign on July 15. His daughter lvanka Trump donated another $500 on Sept. 10. 

The Texas attorney general's office, then under Greg Abbott, a Republican, had also decided 

in 2010 not to act on complaints against Trump University when it left the state. Mr. Trump 

later donated $35,000 to Mr. Abbott's successful2014 campaign for governor. Mr. Abbott's 

office has denied there was any connection. No other attorneys general have joined Mr. 

Schneiderman's litigation. 

3/5 
585 

Both Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi have said they never discussed complaints against Trump 

University and a separate entity, Trump Institute, which Mr. Trump did not own but that paid 

him licensing fees to use his name for wealth seminars held in hotel ballrooms. 

There is no evidence in more than 8,000 pages of documents released by Ms. Bondi's office in 

response to an open records request that she had any direct role in assessing a potential case 

against Trump University, or that she knew of the Florida complaints when she asked Mr. 

Trump for money. 

That would not be unusual. Although most of the complaints were received before Ms. Bondi's 

election, her predecessor, Bill McCollum, said he had never heard about them. His two top 

deputies and the chief lawyer and investigator in his consumer protection division each said in 

interviews that the complaints never reached their level. 

"For whatever reason, the synergy didn't exist before I left office," said Mr. McCollum, who 

received a $500 donation from Mr. Trump in 2006. 

Tens of thousands of consumer allegations are lodged with Florida's attorney general each 

year on everything from used-car sales to pharmaceutical marketing to price gouging. The 

consumer protection division currently has 38 lawyers and 37 investigators. Limits on 

manpower and resources mean that most complaints do not prompt a formal probe and 

therefore do not come to the attorney general's attention, former officials said. 

Mr. McCollum's deputy, Robert Hannah, and his consumer protection chief, Mary 

Leontakianakos, said the triage process took into account the quantity, veracity and 

seriousness of the complaints, as well as the number of Floridians affected and the potential to 

collect damages. Mr. Hannah said that "20 would not be the number of complaints that would 

cause someone to get concerned." 

The complaints against Trump University continued once Ms. Bondi took over, albeit at a 

slower pace because Trump University, as well as Trump Institute, based in Boca Raton, Fla., 

were no longer operating. 

In April 2011, Elizabeth J. Starr, then the chief of consumer protection in the Orlando office, 

wrote in an internal email that she had "light discussion" about devoting additional resources to 

assessing the Trump complaints. "The decision was made to hold off at that time," she wrote. 

In the weeks after the initial September 2013 article in The Sentinel, Ms. Bondi received daily 

emails from her staff to her personal Yahoo address with news reports about the Trump case. 

By mid-October, Scott Maxwell, a columnist for The Sentinel, had spotted Mr. Trump's $25,000 

donation in public filings and wrote that it smelled "awfully fishy." His column set off days of 

critical coverage. 

Despite the pressure, Mark Hamilton, a lawyer in the consumer protection division who 

eventually had a discussion with an attorney prosecuting the New York case, pushed his view 

internally that already-announced litigation would cover any Floridians who had been harmed 

4/5 
586 

by Trump University. Within two days, The Miami Herald reported that Ms. Bondi's 

spokeswoman had said no action would be necessary because the affected Florida consumers 

would be compensated if Mr. Schneiderman won his lawsuit. 

Mr. Trump also weighed in for the same article. 

"Pam Bondi is a fabulous representative of the people- Florida is lucky to have her," he said 

in a statement. 'The case in New York is pure politics brought by an incompetent attorney 

general, a political hack." 

5/5 
587 

Giuliani, Sessions, Keating, et al: Time for Loretta Lynch to 

appoint a Special Counsel 

Rudy Giuliani 

Editor's note: The authors of the following column are all supporting Donald Trump for 

president. 

We are concerned about the egregious damage that has been inflicted on two revered 

government agencies: the Department of Justice and Department of State. The primary 

missions of both have been derailed for political purposes. 

The Department of Justice has been thwarted by its top officials' refusal to conduct a proper 

investigation of former Secretary Clinton's unsecured email server and the Pay for Play 

accusations based on millions of dollars paid to President Clinton personally and the Clinton 

Foundation by entities having issues before the State Department, all while she was 

Secretary. 

Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton met on the Phoenix, Arizona tarmac 

days before Secretary Clinton was to be interviewed by the FBI for possible criminal activity. It 

has been reported that her staff ordered witnesses not to take pictures and no one was 

present during their 39-minute conversation. General Lynch never recused herself from 

decisions on the Clinton investigation after her self-admitted "mistake," as it has also been 

reported that she continues to deny the FBI the authority to convene a Grand Jury, which is 

necessary for any meaningful investigation. 

Seactary Clinton's conduct at the• Dc·panrncllt ol' State corrupted our foreign policy. 

It has also been reported that General Lynch opposed Director Comey from fulfilling his 

obligation to Congress by informing members of the discovery of 650,000 em ails on Anthony 

Weiner's and Hum a Abedin's computer, the existence of which had been concealed from 

government authorities. 

Recusal is a formal process. It is a written document specifically describing the scope of the 

recusal and designating the official in charge of the recused matter. If General Lynch went 

through the proper procedure for recusal, she has not publicly shared it. 

Secretary Clinton's conduct at the Department of State corrupted our foreign policy. She and 

President Clinton turned the agency into a Pay for Play adjunct of the Clinton Foundation and 

their personal bank account, the latter via his personal "speaking" fees. UBS, Switzerland's 

largest bank, contributed over $600,000 to the Foundation and loaned it over $30,000,000. 

UBS was grateful that Secretary Clinton had intervened in the IRS' demand to UBS to provide 

identities of 52,000 depositors. Secretary Clinton announced the settlement of only 4,450 

1/3 
588 

identities in an "unusual intervention by a top U.S. diplomat," according to the Wall Street 

Journal. UBS additionally paid President Clinton personally $1,500,000 for a series of 

questions and answers with top management. 

President Clinton reaped $6,200,000 personally from foreign governments and businesses for 

speeches while she was Secretary of State. For example, Ericsson, a Swedish corporation, 

had sanction issues pending before the State Department regarding telecom sales in certain 

countries. Ericsson paid President Clinton $750,000 for one speech. Days later the State 

Department announced the sanction list and Ericsson was not affected. 

Why should any spouse of a Secretary of State be permitted ever to receive one cent from a 

foreign entity? 

Because of our grave concern for integrity in government we ask for a Special Counsel. 

When a high public official is accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual 

predicate to investigate, it is imperative the investigation be thorough, with dispatch and 

without partisanship. 

Secretary Clinton is the subject of two spheres of criminal conduct: her deliberate, systematic 

mishandling of official and classified emails and her abuse of a family-controlled, tax-exempt 

Foundation, and corporate and foreign donations for her own economic and political benefit. 

These allegations arose well before this election year. 

Clinton's mishandling of emails became public in March 2015, and allegations over abuse of 

the Foundation arose well before that. There has long been sufficient factual predicate to 

require these matters be fully investigated. 

The appropriate response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly-charged 

political atmosphere is for the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel of great public 

stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without 

partisanship. 

In 1991-1992, a Special Counsel was appointed for three separate matters: House Bank, 

Iraq gate, and lnslaw. It was also done in 2003 in the Valerie Plame matter. 

Instead of moving with dispatch to ensure a vigorous investigation of Secretary Clinton, it 

appears that the Justice Department, along with State, have enabled the Clinton campaign to 

"slow roll" the inquiry. 

General Lynch continues to exert control of a matter that she should have assigned to another 

official. 

We are distressed by widespread and credible reports that FBI agents have been hindered by 

the Justice Department's withholding of basic investigative tools, such as grand jury 

subpoenas, which are fundamental in a complex investigation. 

It is time to do what should have been done long ago- appoint a Special Counsel. 

213 
589 

Rudolph W. Giuliani-- Former Associate Attorney General and U.S. Attorney in Southern 

District of New York 

Senator Jeff Sessions --former U. S. Attorney for Alabama's Southern District 

Frank Keating-- Former Associate Attorney General, U.S. in District of Kansas and Special 

Agent FBI 

Victoria Toensing --former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the 

U.S. Justice Department 

Henry McMaster-- former U.S. Attorney, District of South Carolina 

Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of the City of New York. 

313 
590 

§ 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship., 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Title 28. Judicial Administration 

Chapter I. Department of Justice 

Pa1t 45· Employee Responsibilities (Refs & Annos) 

28 C.F.R. § 45.2 

§ 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship. 

Currentness 

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or 

prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: 

(I) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or 

prosecution; or 

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected 

by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. 

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his 

participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and 

circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that 

a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph 

(a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full 

consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that: 

(I) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and 

professional; and 

(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public 

perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution. 

(c) For the purposes of this section: 

(I) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) 

for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser 

thereto or a principal official thereof; and 

(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce 

partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child 
591 

§ 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship., 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 

and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are 

"personal"' must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee. 

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals 

or organizations. 

Credits 

[Order No. 993-83,48 FR 2319, Jan. 19, 1983; 61 FR 59815, Nov. 25, 1996] 

SOURCE: Order No. 35()...{)5, 30 FR 17202, Dec. 31, 1965; 55 FR 30452, July 26, 1990; 61 FR 59815, Nov. 25, 1996; 

62 FR 23943, May 2, 1997; Order No. 2789-2005. 70 FR 69653, Nov. 17, 2005; Order No. 2835-2006, 71 FR 54414, 

Sept. 15, 2006. unless otherwise noted. 

AUTHORITY: 5 U.S. C. 301,7301, App. 3, 6; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 503, 528; DOJ Order 1735.1. 

Notes of Decisions (I) 

Current through January 12, 2017; 82 FR 4118. 
592 

Idahoan admits to brutal murder of gay man as he pleaded 

for his life. Now faces hate charge. 

q www.washingtonpos:Lcom 

Steven Nelson, 49, was attacked and beaten on April 30 and died of his injuries. (Boise State 

University) 

Steven Nelson pulled his car up to the Idaho Walmart that night in April expecting to meet a 

male escort, a man he had contacted via an ad on the website Backpage. Nelson picked up 

the bearded, tattooed man named Kelly Schneider and, at his request, drove him to Gotts 

Point, on the shore of Lake Lowell. 

Another man met them there. With him, Schneider pushed Nelson to the ground and kicked 

him at least 30 times with steel-toed boots while Nelson begged for his life, according to court 

documents. Nelson was choked and stripped of his clothes before they drove away in his car, 

taking Nelson's wallet, credit cards and clothing with him. 

Barefoot and naked, Nelson knocked on the doors of nearby homes, asking residents to call 

911. Hours after being transported to a Boise, Idaho, hospital with broken ribs and a bleeding 

ear, he died of cardiac arrest. 

In a state court Monday, Schneider pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, saying he intended to 

rob Nelson but not kill him, the Idaho Statesman~. He admitted to kicking the man 

repeatedly and acknowledged that his actions caused Nelson's death. 

Afterward, Idaho U.S. attorney Wendy J. Olson announced that Schneider, 23, of Nampa, 

Idaho, had been indicted on federal hate crime charges by a grand jury for willfully assaulting 

Nelson because of his sexual orientation. The indictment alleges that Schneider's actions 

resulted in the death of his victim. The charge is punishable by up to life in prison, supervised 

release of not more than five years and a $250,000 fine. He is scheduled to be arraigned 

Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Boise before Magistrate Ronald Bush. A trial date will be set 

at the same time. 

The fatal beating of the openly gay man has been compared by some in the community to the 

murder of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student from Wyoming whose torture and 

subsequent death set off a nationwide debate about hate crimes and homophobia and led to 

the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 

"Folks are grieving the loss of a fellow colleague, as well as facing the reality that our 

community can be a hostile and sometimes very dangerous place for folks who identify as 

LGBTQIA," said Adriane Bang, director of the Gender Equity Center at Boise State University. 

112 
593 

Prosecutors dropped Schneider's charges of felony robbery, theft and robbery conspiracy in 

exchange for his guilty plea on the murder charge. He faces up to life in prison when 

sentenced March 20. Prosecutors can recommend a fixed sentence as high as 28 years 

before parole eligibility, and the defense can ask for as little as 10 years. 

Deputy Canyon County Prosecutor Chris Boyd said Schneider had lured and beaten other 

victims "many, many times before." He called the beating of Nelson "particularly brutal," the 

Idaho Statesman reported. 

Jayson Woods, 28, of Nampa, is accused of helping Schneider as he beat and robbed Nelson 

of his car, wallet and other possessions. Kevin R. Tracy, 21, of Nampa, and Daniel Henkel, 23, 

of Wilder, are accused of hiding nearby in case Nelson put up a struggle. 

Woods's trial began in District Court on Monday, and Tracy and Henkel are scheduled as 

witnesses. Tracy is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 6 on first-degree murder, robbery and 

conspiracy charges. Henkel is set for trial March 6 on the same charges. They have both 

pleaded not guilty, the Idaho Statesman reported. 

Investigators identified and arrested Schneider by comparing his tattoos to a photo in the 

Backpage ad. They found the others with the help of a woman who called the sheriffs office to 

say her SUV had been used to drop Schneider off at the Walmart. According to court 

documents, the woman said Woods held her inside the SUV, drove her around and forced her 

to perform sex acts with random men for money. 

In the wake of the news last spring, family and friends mourned Nelson's death, recounting 

memories of his distinctive baritone voice, his talent for theater lighting and his love for baking 

croissants. 

He was in his late 40s when he finished his bachelor's degree in public relations at the 

University of Idaho in 2011. He hoped to work as a development director, possibly one day 

managing fundraising for a political campaign, the Idaho Statesman reported. 

Nelson was anything but shy, and gave presentations to university classes about his 

experiences as an openly gay man, according to University of Idaho Professor Becky Tallent. 

"Somebody brought up Matthew Shepard in class one day," she said. "Steven said something 

along the line of, 'I hope to God we've gotten past that kind of violence.'" 

According to KTVB Tallent said her friend and former student had previously received 

homophobic slurs and even a punch, but frequently let cruel comments roll off his back. 

"As he put it, people are just sometimes so bigoted that there's nothing you can do to talk to 

them," she said. 

Tallent said she was horrified to hear of the brutal way in which her friend died. 

"For one human being to do this to another is just beyond the pale, especially as someone as 

generous as Steven Nelson," she said. 212 
594 

Trump believes millions voted illegally, WH says-- but 

provides no proof 

Story highlights 

• Spicer, however, would not provide any concrete evidence for the claim 

• He would say only that Trump "has believed that for a while based on studies and 

information he has" 

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump believes millions of votes were cast illegally in last 

year's election, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday, but he wouldn't 

provide any concrete evidence for the claim, which has long been debunked. 

"The President does believe that, I think he's stated that before, and stated his concern of voter 

fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign and continues to maintain that belief 

based on studies and evidence people have brought to him," Spicer said. 

Pressed for what evidence exists, Spicer would say only that Trump "has believed that for a 

while based on studies and information he has." 

When pushed about whether Trump will call for an investigation into the voter fraud, Spicer 

said, "maybe we will." 

Trump surprised the top Republicans and Democrats in Congress on Monday when, during a 

dinner at the White House, he repeated his claim that millions of undocumented immigrants 

voted for Hillary Clinton -- allegedly depriving him of the popular vote, according to two sources 

familiar with the meeting. 

Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes in November, but won 

the Electoral College and thus the presidency. Trump, however, has seemingly been fixated on 

the popular vote, tweeting after the election in November that, "In addition to winning the 

Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who 

voted illegally." 

A number of studies have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. 

The Truth About Voter Fraud, a report written by experts at The Brennan Center for Justice, 

found voter fraud rates were between 0.00004% and 0.0009%. 

"Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely that an American 

will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls," reads the 

report. 

Trump's lawyers-- in an objection to Green Party candidate Jill Stein's Michigan 

recount petition -- have also argued that there was no evidence voter fraud in the 2016 

election. 

"All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud 

l:U 
595 

or mistake," the lawyers wrote in a filing. 

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed Trump earlier Tuesday over 

the claim. 

"I wasn't there, but if the President of the United States is claiming that 3.5 million 

people voted illegally, that shakes confidence in our democracy -he needs to disclose 

why he believes that," Graham told CNN. 

Spicer said Tuesday that Trump believes in widespread voter fraud, in part, because of 

a study that found 14% of people who voted were non-citizens. 

Spicer did not say expressly which study Trump has read,but a 2014 study by Jesse 

Richman and David Earnest found more than 14% of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010 

"indicated that they were registered to vote." 

The authors wrote, in a Washington Post opinion piece, the report showed "that 6.4 

percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 201 0." 

The study was designed by Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and in 2014 ~ 

group said their sample was so small that it could be incorrect and attributable to 

normal survey error and not non-citizens saying that they are registered to vote. 

Trump's campaign cited in October a 2012 study from the Pew Charitable Trusts 

entitled "Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient Evidence that American Voter Registration 

Systems Needs an Upgrade" as backup for that claim. The study found that "about 24 

million voter registrations are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate" and "more 

than 1.8 million dead people are listed as voters'' 

The study, which is based on 2011 data, is about the need to update voter rolls and 

underscores deficiencies in the voter registration system, but does not show that people 

who have registrations in two states are voting twice for Democrats or for Republicans. 

We fimnd millions of c'Ut of date registration records due to people moving 

or dying, but t~nmd non idencl' that voter fi:·aud resulted. 

- Dm·id Becker (c,i/' beckerdavidj) November 28. 2016 

David Becker, the primary author of the Pew Report, tweeted in 

November, 'We found millions of out of date registration records due to 

people moving or dying, but found no evidence that voter fraud resulted." 

CNN's Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report. 

2:U 
596 

Recidivism Watch: Spicer uses repeatedly debunked 

citations for Trump's voter fraud claims 

.fJJJ www.wa.sh!ngtonpost-ccm 

"/think there have been studies; there was one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 

percent of people who have voted were not citizens. There are other studies that were 

presented to him." 

-White House press secretary Sean Spicer, news briefing, Jan. 24, 2017 

Spicer cited repeatedly debunked research to support Trump's claim that millions of people 

voted illegally during the 2016 presidential election. These studies do not support Trump's 

Four-Pinocchio claims of "millions" of people voting illegally- as we've covered here, here, 

here, here and here. 

Spicer claimed Trump believes there was widespread voter fraud, based on studies that were 

presented to him. Then Spicer cited a Pew study that- as we noted before- does not 

support this claim. Moreover, Spicer conflated the Pew study with another study that 

-again -does not support this claim. 

A 2012 Pew Center on the States study found problems with inaccurate voter registrations, 

people who registered in more than one state (which could happen if the voter moves and 

registers in the new state without telling the former state) and deceased voters whose 

information was still on the voter rolls. 

The primary author of the Pew report tweeted in response to Trump's staffs claim that he "can 

confirm that report made no findings re: voter fraud." 

\Vc found millions of out of date n:gislration records due to pcopk moving or dying, but f(:mnd no 

evidence that voter fraud resulted. 

David Becker (@bcckcrdavidj) November 28 2016 

Spicer said a Pew study from 2008 showed that "14 percent of people who have voted were 

not citizens." He likely was referring to research by Old Dominion University professors, using 

data from 2008 and 2010. They found that 14 percent of noncitizens in the 2008 and 2010 

samples said they were registered to vote. 

But the researchers warned that "it is impossible to tell for certain whether the noncitizens who 

responded to the survey were representative of the broader population of noncitizens." 

One of the researchers, Jesse Richman, wrote about the Trump staffs use of his research. 

The results "suggest that almost all elections in the US are not determined by noncitizen 

participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions," he wrote. 

1/2 
597 

Despite Trump's repeated claims, his attorneys stated there was no evidence of voter fraud in 

the 2016 election. In a court filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount petition, 

lawyers for Trump and his campaign wrote: "All available evidence suggests that the 2016 

general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake." 

When we debunked this claim on Nov. 29, 2016, we implored Trump's staff members to please 

drop this talking point- as we are tired of telling them it is false. We can't emphasize this 

point enough. 

The Fact Checker Recidivism Watch tracks politicians who repeat claims that we have 

previously found to be incorrect or false. These posts are short summaries of previous 

findings, with links to the original fact-check. We welcome reader suggestions. 

(About our rating scale) 

Send us facts to check by filling outthis form 

Keep tabs on Trump's promises with our Trump Promise Tracker 

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter 

212 
598 

Spicer digs in on Trump's illegal voting claim, as Ryan 

distances 

rflwww.foxnews.com 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer dug in Tuesday on President Trump's claim to 

congressional leaders that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton last November because 

between 3 million and 5 million "illegals" cast ballots- even as House Speaker Paul Ryan 

pushed back. 

"''ve seen no evidence to that effect. I've made that very, very clear," Ryan said earlier 

Tuesday. 

But Spicer, asked repeatedly by reporters about the issue at Tuesday's briefing, said Trump 

believes this to be the case. 

"It was a comment he made on a longstanding belief," Spicer said." ... He believes what he 

believes based on the information he's been provided." 

Spicer said Trump remains "comfortable" with his Electoral College victory, which handed him 

the presidency regardless of the popular vote totals. 

Pressed on whether the administration would pursue an investigation into illegal immigrants 

voting given Trump's beliefs, Spicer said: "Maybe we will." He later backed off the suggestion, 

saying only that anything is possible. 

Trump made the claim during a meeting with congressional leaders Monday, though he's 

made similar assertions before. 

In late November, Trump tweeted that he had "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions 

of people who voted illegally." 

At the time, multiple law enforcement sources told Fox News that there was no evidence to 

support Trump's claims. 

Trump defeated Clinton in the Electoral College, collecting 304 votes to her 227. However, 

Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million ballots. 

Spicer said Tuesday that Trump's claim was based on "studies and evidence." 

Spicer did not provide hard data to back up the claim, citing only a 2008 study that called for 

updating voter rolls but did not conclude there has been pervasive election fraud. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, 0-N.Y., on Tuesday blasted Trump over the 

comments, which he described as falsehoods, and said the administration ought to talk about 

jobs. 

112 
599 

Spicer, though, said their focus right now is getting Americans back to work- something 

Trump has addressed in a flurry of executive actions including measures Tuesday aimed at 

reviving stalled pipeline projects. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

212 
600 

Lindsey Graham to Trump: Stop Claiming 'lllegals' Cost 

You Popular Vote 

by Frank Thorp V and Corky Siemaszko 

Exasperated Republican senator Lindsey Graham pleaded with President Donald Trump on 

Tuesday to stop repeating his widely debunked claim that millions of so-called "illegals" cost 

him the popular vote. 

"To continue to suggest that the 2016 election was conducted in a fashion that millions of 

people voted illegally undermines faith in our democracy," Graham, of South Carolina, told 

reporters in a hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. "It's not coming from a 

candidate for the office, it's coming from the man who holds the office. So I am begging the 

president, share with us the information you have about this or please stop saying it." 

Graham, who along with Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., has been one of Trump's more 

outspoken Republican critics, said the new president needs to put this issue to rest- for his 

own good. 

"As a mailer of fact I'd like you to do more than stop saying it," he said. "I'd like you to come 

forward and say having looked at it I am confident the election was fair and accurate and 

people who voted voted legally. Cause if he doesn't do that, this is going to undermine his 

ability to govern this country." 

There are no signs that Trump intends to do that. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said 

Tuesday afternoon that Trump has "believed for a long, long time" that illegal immigrants voted 

in the presidential election, but declined to share evidence that supports Trump's belief. 

When asked if Trump was planning to launch an investigation, Spicer said, "We're here on day 

two. Let's not prejudge what we may or may not do in the future." 

Trump reached the White House by winning the Electoral College, but he lost the popular vote 

to Hillary Clinton by a whopping 2.9 million votes, according to the certified final election 

results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Graham spoke out a day after Trump reportedly spent the first 10 minutes of his bipartisan 

meeting with congressional leaders at the White House claiming once again that 3 to 5 million 

people who shouldn't have been allowed to vote cast their ballots for Clinton. 

It's a false claim that Trump began making back in November when it became clear that he 

was losing the popular vote to Clinton. 

1/2 
601 

"By repeating false and unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations as the cause for losing the 

popular vote, President Trump is dangerously attacking the legitimacy of free and fair elections 

and the foundation of our democracy," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat, 

said. 

There are not "alternative facts," he added. 

"They are corrosive lies without any evidence," Padilla said. "Even leaders in the President's 

own party agree there is no evidence to support his claims since they were irresponsibly made 

back in November." 

But in an interview Tuesday with NBC's Hallie Jackson, Trump supporter Rep. Steve King, Rlowa, insisted "there is data out there" to back up the president's claim -but said he believes 

the figure was closer to 2.4 million. 

King said he came up with the figure by doing "an extrapolation calculation on how many 

illegals could have or could be voting in the United States." 

"So it's plausible the number, three million sounds like it's a plausible number to me," he said. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) would not answer whether he agreed 

with Trump, but said "the notion that election fraud is a fiction is not true." 

"It does occur," he told NBC's Kasie Hunt. "There are always arguments on both sides about 

how much, how frequent, and all the rest." 

Still, said McConnell, "most states have done a better job on this front." 

So far, just Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach- a Republican and political ally- has 

said Trump might have a case. And he has repeatedly cited a 2014 analysis by professors at 

Old Dominion University that was widely criticized by other scholars. 

Among those panning the Old Dominion analysis was the Cooperative Congressional Election 

§1yQy at Harvard University, which supplied some of the data. 

The National Association of Secretaries of State, which includes many Republicans, also took 

issue with Trump's claim. 

"We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President 

Trump, but we are open to learning more about the Administration's concerns," the group said 

in a statement. "In the lead up to the November 2016 election, secretaries of state expressed 

their confidence in the systemic integrity of our election process as a bipartisan group, and 

they stand behind that statement today." 

2/2 
602 

Trump Poised to Lift Ban on C.I.A. 'Black Site' Prisons 

By CHARLIE SAVAGE 

WASHINGTON- The Trump administration is preparing a sweeping executive order that 

would clear the way for the C.I.A. to reopen overseas "black site" prisons, like those where it 

detained and tortured terrorism suspects before former President Barack Obama shut them 

down. 

President Trump's three-page draft order, titled "Detention and Interrogation of Enemy 

Combatants" and obtained by The New York Times, would also undo many of the other 

restrictions on handling detainees that Mr. Obama put in place in response to policies of the 

George W. Bush administration. 

If Mr. Trump signs the draft order, he would also revoke Mr. Obama's directive to give the 

International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees in American custody. That 

would be another step toward reopening secret prisons outside of the normal wartime rules 

established by the Geneva Conventions, although statutory obstacles would remain. 

Mr. Obama tried to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and refused to send new 

detainees there, but the draft order directs the Pentagon to continue using the site "for the 

detention and trial of newly captured" detainees- including not just more people suspected of 

being members of AI Qaeda or the Tali ban, like the 41 remaining detainees, but also Islamic 

State detainees. It does not address legal problems that might raise. 

The draft order does not direct any immediate reopening of C.I.A. prisons or revival of torture 

tactics, which are now banned by statute. But it sets up high-level policy reviews to make 

further recommendations in both areas to Mr. Trump, who vowed during the campaign to bring 

back waterboarding and a "hell of a lot worse"- not only because "torture works," but 

because even "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway." 

Elisa Massimino, the director of Human Rights First, denounced the draft order as "flirting with 

a return to the 'enhanced interrogation program' and the environment that gave rise to it" She 

noted that numerous retired military leaders have rejected torture as "illegal, immoral and 

damaging to national security," and she said that many of Mr. Trump's cabinet nominees had 

seemed to share that view in their confirmation testimony. 

"It would be surprising and extremely troubling if the national security cabinet officials were to 

acquiesce in an order like that after the assurances that they gave in their confirmation 

hearings," she said. 

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to an email inquiring about the draft 

order, including when Mr. Trump may intend to sign it But the order was accompanied by a 

one-page statement that criticized the Obama administration for having "refrained from 

exercising certain authorities" about detainees it said were critical to defending the country 

1/3 
603 

from "radical Islam ism." 

Specifically, the draft order would revoke two executive orders about detainees that Mr. 

Obama issued in January 2009, shortly after his inauguration. One was Mr. Obama's directive 

to close the Guantanamo prison and the other was his directive to end C.I.A. prisons, grant 

Red Cross access to all detainees and limit interrogators to the Army Field Manual techniques. 

In their place, Mr. Trump's draft order would resurrect a 2007 executive order issued by 

President Bush. It responded to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling about the Geneva Conventions 

that had put C.I.A. interrogators at risk of prosecution for war crimes, leading to a temporary 

halt of the agency's "enhanced" interrogations program. 

Mr. Bush's 2007 order enabled the agency to resume a form of the program by specifically 

listing what sorts of prisoner abuses counted as war crimes. That made it safe for interrogators 

to use other tactics, like extended sleep deprivation, that were not on the list. Mr. Obama 

revoked that order as part of his 2009 overhaul of detention legal policy. 

One of the Obama orders Mr. Trump's draft order would revoke also limited interrogators to 

using techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. But in 2015, Congress enacted a statute 

locking down that rule as a matter of law, as well as a requirement to let the Red Cross visit 

detainees. Those limits would remain in place for the time being. 

Still, the draft order says high-level Trump administration officials should conduct several 

reviews and make recommendations to Mr. Trump. One was whether to change the field 

manual, to the extent permitted by law. Another was "whether to reinitiate a program of 

interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States" by 

the C.I.A., including any "legislative proposals" necessary to permit the resumption of 

such a program. 

It was not clear whether the C.I.A. would be enthusiastic about resuming a role in detaining 

and interrogating terrorism suspects after its scorching experience over the past decade. In 

written answers to questions by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's C.I.A. 

director, Mike Pompeo, said he would review whether a rewrite of the field manual was needed 

and left the door open to seeking a change in the law "if experts believed current law was an 

impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country." 

Mr. Trump's order says no detainee should be tortured or otherwise subjected to cruel, 

inhuman or degrading treatment "as prescribed by U.S. law," but it makes no mention of 

international law commitments binding the United States to adhere to humane standards even 

if Congress were to relax domestic legal limits on interrogations, such as the Convention 

Against Torture or the Geneva Conventions. 

Another core national security legal principle for Mr. Obama was to use civilian courts, not 

military commissions, whenever possible in terrorism cases -and to exclusively use civilian 

law enforcement agencies and procedures, not the military, to handle cases arising on 

domestic soil. The draft order also signals that the Trump administration may shift that 

2/3 
604 

approach as well. 

In 2012, after Congress enacted a statute mandating that the military initially take custody of all 

foreign Qaeda suspects, Mr. Obama issued a directive that pre-emptively waived that rule for 

most domestic circumstances, such as if the F.B.I. had arrested the suspect and was already 

in the process of an interrogation. 

But Mr. Trump's draft order calls for the attorney general, in consultation with other nationalsecurity officials, to review that directive and recommend modifications to it within 120 days. 

Many Republicans -including Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump's attorney general nominee 

-criticized the Obama administration's approach as weak, even though the civilian court 

system has regularly convicted terrorists at trial while the military commissions system has 

proved to be dysfunctional. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he would prefer to prosecute 

terrorism suspects at Guantanamo- including American citizens, although the law currently 

limits the commissions system to foreign defendants. 

Against that backdrop, Mr. Trump's draft order would direct Defense Secretary James N. 

Mattis, along with the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, to "review the 

military commissions system and recommend to the president how best to employ the system 

going forward to provide for the swift and just trial and punishment of unlawful enemy 

combatants detained in the armed conflict with violent lslamist extremists." 

Tom Malinowski, who was assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Obama 

administration, said the draft order showed that everyone who thought the office of the 

presidency or the advice of cabinet secretaries like Mr. Mattis would temper Mr. Trump "is 

being shown wrong again." 

"He'lllisten to his worst instincts over his best advisers unless restrained by law," Mr. 

Malinowski said. 

3/3 
605 

Questions for the Record-Senator Jeff Sessions to be the United States Attorney 

General 

Senator Thorn Tillis 

1. At your hearing, I mentioned a report published in December of 2014 by the 

Government Accountability Office entitled, "Department of Justice Could 

Strengthen Procedures for Disciplining Its Attorneys."! This report concluded 

that the Department of Justice had not appropriately addressed concerns 

regarding how it implements discipline for attorney professional misconduct. 

Will you commit to reviewing the report and reevaluating the procedures for 

addressing attorney professional misconduct? 

2. Our immigration system needs reform. One issue that I am particularly 

concerned with is the backlog in our immigration courts. Under 8 U.S.C. § 

1229a (b) (1), Congress gave immigration judges the authority during removal 

proceedings to sanction by penalty any action or inaction that is in contempt 

of the judge's orders under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General. To 

my knowledge, the Attorney General has never promulgated these regulations. 

As Attorney General, will you evaluate whether giving immigration judges the 

authority to hold individuals in contempt will help improve efficiency and 

reduce the backlog in our immigration courts? 

1 http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-15-156 
606 

Questions for the Record 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

Attorney General Nomination Hearing 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 10, 2017 

QUESTIONS POSED BY SENATOR WHITEHOUSE 

1) During your hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked you about comments 

you made in November, 2016 in an interview with American Family Radio with respect to 

"secular, progressive liberals" and the "secular Left" making the Department of Justice 

"unlawful" and "less traditional." In your response, you stated that you were "not sure" 

whether a secular person has as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is 

religious. In addition to your comments to American Family Radio and your response to 

me, you have previously stated the following: 

• "I really believe that this whole court system is really important and the real value 

and battle that we're engaged in here is one to reaffirm that there is objective truth, 

it's not all relative. And that means some things are right and some things are wrong, 

and we're getting too far away from that in my opinion and it's not healthy for any 

country and it's really not healthy for a democracy like ours that's built on the rule of 

law" (Faith and Freedom Coalition event, 2016). 

• And if you don't believe there's a truth, if you don't believe in truth, if you're a 

secularist, then how do we operate this government? How can we form a democracy 

of the kind that I think you and I believe in? ... I do believe we are a nation that, 

without God, there is no truth and it's all about power, ideology, advancement and 

agenda, not doing the public service" (Upon receipt of David Horowitz Freedom 

Center Award, 2014). 

a) Could you elaborate on your view that secular lawyers have contributed to 

"unlawfulness" at the Department of Justice? 

b) Do practicing Christians have access to the "objective truth?" 

c) Do practicing Jews have access to the "objective truth?" 

d) Do practicing Muslims have access to the "objective truth?" 

e) Do practicing Hindus have access to the "objective truth?" 

f) Could you elaborate on your statement at the hearing that a secular attorney may 

not have as good a claim to understanding the truth as a religious one? 

1 
607 

2) Sections 208 and 216, 18 U.S.C. provide civil and criminal penalties for "an officer or 

employee ofthe executive branch of the United States Govermnent ... [who] participates 

personally and substantially as a Govermnent officer or employee, through decision, 

approval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial 

or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, 

controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, 

he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, 

director, trustee, general partner or employee ... has a financial interest.... " 

a) Can you provide assurances that you will vigorously enforce 18 U.S. C. §§ 208 

and 216, as well as other laws and policies relating to executive branch conflicts 

of interest? 

b) What specific policies will you put in place to ensure that referrals to the 

Department of Justice regarding potential violations of 18 U.S. C. §§ 208 and/or 

216 by political appointees are fully and fairly investigated? 

3) Does the President have the authority to fire the Director of the Office of Government 

Ethics (OGE)? 

4) Terror organizations, drug cartels. htm1an traffickers, and other criminal enterprises abuse 

United States incorporation laws to establish shell companies designed to hide assets and 

launder money. The law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police, 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; National Association of Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys; and National District Attorneys Association, have all called on Congress to pass 

legislation to help law enforcement identifY the beneficial owners behind these shell 

companies. Chuck Canterbury, President ofthe National Fraternal Order of Police, explains, 

"When we are able to expose the link between shell companies and drug trafficking, 

corruption, organized crime and terrorist finance, the law enforcement community is better 

able to keep America safe from these illegal activities and keep the proceeds of these crimes 

out ofthe U.S. fmancial system." 

a) Do you agree that allowing law enforcement to obtain the identities of the 

beneficial owners of shell companies would help law enforcement to uncover and 

dismantle criminal networks? 

b) Will you commit to working with Congress on legislation to give law enforcement 

the tools needed to more effectively untangle the complex web of shell companies 

criminals use to hide assets and Iauder money in the United States? 

c) Under current law, banks are required to undertake due diligence to ensure that 

their customers are not laundering funds. No similar anti-money-laundering 

standards apply to the attorneys who help set up the shell companies integral to 

criminal enterprises. Do you support extending anti-money-laundering due 

diligence requirements to attorneys? 

2 
608 

5) As you know, U.S. intelligence agencies are unanimous in their conclusion that Russia 

interfered in the 2016 elections through a campaign of computer hacking, propaganda, and 

fake news. 

a) Are you prepared to use the full resources of the Department of Justice to 

investigate violations of law related to Russian interference, even if such an 

investigation could prove politically damaging to Donald Trump? 

b) Will you recuse yourself and appoint special counsel to look into the matter 

further? 

6) Several Trump campaign staff and advisors have close ties to Russia. Most notably, before he 

resigned, fanner campaign manager Paul Manafort was exposed to have received $12.7 

million in illegal cash payments from former Ukrainian President Viktor Y anukovych' s proRussian political party between 2007 and 2012. Manafort even brokered a deal to sell 

Ukrainian cable TV assets to a partnership he put together with a close ally of Putin. Are you 

prepared to recuse yourself and appoint special counsel to investigate any possible 

involvement of Trump campaign staff or advisors in the Russian election interference or 

any other illegal transactions with Russia that may have occurred? 

7) Earlier this month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Cyber Policy 

Task Force issued a report announcing recommendations to the 45th President for 

strengthening the nation's cybersecurity. Can you provide your assurances that, as 

Attorney General, you will familiarize yourself with these recommendations and others 

and equip the Department of Justice to play a strong role in deterring and combating 

cybercrime and holding those responsible accountable? 

8) Referring to the "alt right," White House strategist Steve Bannon, formerly ofBreitbart 

News, has called you "one of the intellectual, moral leaders of this populist, nationalist 

movement [alt right] in this country." In February 2015, you told Bannon that "Breitbart has 

been the absolute bright spot in this whole debate. You get it, your writers get it, every day 

they find new information that I use repeatedly in debate on the floor of the Senate because 

it's highlighting the kind of problems that we have. And nobody else is doing it effectively, 

it's just not happening, so to me it's like a source." 

Under Mr. Bannon's leadership, Breitbart News ran the articles with the following 

headlines: 

• Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy1 

• The Solution to Online "Harassment" is Simple: Women Should Log Off2 

• There's No Bias Against Women in Tech, They Just Suck at lnterviews3 

• Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield4 

http://www. breitbart.cornltech/20 15/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy I 

http ://www.breitbart.cornlmilo/20 16/07/05/solution-online-harassment-simple-women-log-off/ 

http://www.breitbart.cornlmilo/2016/07/0I/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/ 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/20 15/03/08/gab by-giffords-the-gun-control-movements-human-shield/ 

3 
609 

• Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed5 

• Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew6 

• Trannies Whine About Hilarious Bruce Jenner Billboard7 

a) Do you continue to believe that Breitbart News is a "bright spot"? 

b) Do you believe Breitbart News is a reliable source of information? 

c) Do you believe it would be appropriate to rely on Breitbart as a source in your 

role as Attorney General, should you be confirmed? Why or why not? 

9) Jurisdictions across the country, from South Carolina to California and Ohio to New 

Hampshire, are investing in a range of treatment alternatives to incarceration for low-level 

drug offenders. These programs are designed to shift the emphasis oflaw enforcement 

intervention toward the delivery of drug treatment and other services. In addition to drug 

courts, what treatment alternatives to incarceration models do you support and why? 

1 0) There is an emerging consensus in Congress, as well as the addiction field, and even in the 

law enforcement community that we can't arrest our way out of the drug problem and that 

the emphasis should be on directing people who struggle with addiction into treatment and 

away from the criminal justice system. 

a) Do you agree with this view? 

b) What steps would you consider taking as Attorney General to support this goal? 

!!)Do you intend to dismantle or keep intact the Department of Justice's Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Working Group? 

12) In January 2010, DOJ attorney David Margolis issued a memorandum suggesting that 

attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel may owe a duty of candor to their clients that is less 

than the duty owed by workaday litigators to their clients. Since that time, I have been 

informed that the Department no longer allows this loophole in ethical guidance it provides 

its attorneys. What is your view with respect to the duty of candor that OLC attorneys owe 

their clients? 

13) President Trump has called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a "terrible law." But the Act, 

as amended by the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998, is the cornerstone of federal 

efforts to prevent and prosecute bribery of foreign officials by U.S. corporations, and to 

maintain a fair and level playing field for small and mid-size corporations doing business 

overseas. Since 2008, the federal government-DOl, SEC, and the FBI-have maintained 

about !50 active investigations at any given time, resulting in $1.56 billion in fines in 2014. 

http ://wv.w.breitbart.com/big-government/20 15/07/14/racist-pro-nazi-roots-of-p1anned-parenthood-revea1ed/ 

http://www. breitbart.com/20 16-presidential-race/20 16/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/ 

http://www. breitbart.comlbig-government/2015/12/04/trannies-whine-hilarious-bruce-jenner-billboard/ 

4 
610 

Will you commit to continued vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 

and the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998? 

14)/s it still your view that broad mens rea reform, such as that encompassed in the Mens 

Rea Reform Act of 2015 (S, 2298) would hamper the ability of prosecutors to prosecute a 

wide array of federal crimes? 

IS) In recently criticizing commutations granted by President Obarna, you remarked, "So-called 

low-level, non-violent offenders simply do not exist in the Federal system." 

a) Do you believe this is a true statement? 

b) What evidence do you have to support it? 

16) At your hearing, you testified: "The guidelines have been either made voluntary by the 

sentencing commission in the courts and the policies of the attorney general." Are you 

aware that the Sentencing Guidelines were made voluntary because of a Supreme Court 

decision, not because of the Department of Justice or the Sentencing Commission? 

17) At your hearing, you testified: "The Justice Department now allows a prosecutor to present a 

case to the judge that doesn't fully reflect the evidence that they have in their files about a 

case. That's a problematic thing. You shouldn't charge, I think it's problematic and difficult to 

justifY a prosecutor charging five kilos of heroin when the actual amount was 10 to get a 

lower sentence." 

a) From where do you derive the idea that a prosecutor must charge the maximum 

charge in every case? 

b) Do you hold this view consistently across all federal criminal statutes and civil 

charges? 

c) The United States Attorney's Manual clearly disagrees with your narrow view of 

prosecutorial discretion. It states: "Under the Federal criminal justice system, the 

prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to 

prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law. The prosecutor's broad 

discretion in such areas as initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting or 

recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty 

pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts." Please explain 

how your testimony fits with the substantial discretion retained by prosecutors to 

determine which specific charges should be filed in a given case. 

d) The American Bar Association states one of the duties of a prosecutor is to "seek 

justice, not merely to convict," and another as, "the prosecutor must exercise sound 

discretion in the performance of his or her functions." How is it consistent with 

those obligations to always charge the maximum charge or charges in a given 

case? 

5 
611 

e) If you believe there are any considerations that counsel against levying the 

maximum charges in a given case, what are those considerations? Please list all 

of them. 

18) In the context of hate crimes prosecutions, you agreed with Senator Graham's statement as 

follows: "When the state's doing its job, the federal government should let the states do their 

job." You then said it is a "general principle." Your testimony here seems inconsistent with 

your view of other prosecutions, particularly drug prosecutions. 

a) Why in some contexts do you think the federal government should step in and file 

maximum charges, but in other where federal charges are available you 

nevertheless believe the states should take the lead? Please explain. 

b) Do you believe the federal government must always file maximum charges under 

the federal hate crimes law when the facts support such charges? Please explain. 

c) Do you believe the federal government must always file maximum charges under 

the civil rights laws when the facts support such charges? Please explain. 

d) Do you believe the federal government must always bring the most civil claims 

supportable by the facts under the civil rights laws? Please explain. 

e) Do you believe the federal government must always bring the most civil claims 

supportable by the facts under the voting rights laws? Please explain. 

19) You opposed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, explaining that there was 

not sufficient evidence that crimes against the LGBT community were being 

underprosecuted at the state level. How many underprosecuted crimes are necessary to 

justify federal intervention? 

20) The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations both 

reported a sharp increase in hate crimes following the election. 

a) Do you have an opinion on the reason for cause this increase? 

b) What steps will you take to investigate this trend? 

c) What steps will you take to work with minority communities to build trust and 

open lines of communication with the Department of Justice? 

d) What is the federal role in preventing and prosecuting crimes directed against 

racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups? 

21) Will the Civil Rights Division continue to investigate disparate impact discrimination 

claims? 

6 
612 

22) In 2003, former Attorney General John Ashcroft directed prosecutors to charge the "most 

serious, readily provable offense" available. You appeared to criticize any changes in policy 

to the Ashcroft memo instituted by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013. What are 

the substantive changes, if any, you intend to make as Attorney General to the Holder 2013 

memo on "Department Policy on Charging and Sentencing"? Please outline the rationale 

for the changes that you would propose. 

23) In 1996, as Alabama Attorney General, you told the Crime Subcommittee of the House 

Judiciary Committee that"[ w ]e must end this separation ofthe irrational and artificial wall 

between [the adult and juvenile] justice systems." You also lauded your office's push to 

remove the ability of a juvenile to immediately appeal his transfer to adult court and 

lamented the "red tape" associated with transfer hearings. 

a) Do you still believe that the division between the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems in this country is inappropriate? 

b) Do you believe that youth who are detained should be separated from adults? 

24) In 1997, you introduced a bill in this chamber that would allow states to jail juveniles as 

young as 13 with adults, prior even to conviction, would cut funding for juvenile crime 

prevention while increasing funding for new detention centers, and would allow states to 

expel children school for six months for "offenses" such as smoking cigarettes. Does the 

Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offenders Act of 1997 still reflect your views with respect to 

juvenile justice? 

25) Under President Bush, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

suffered a severe loss of morale and the desertion of numerous career civil servants. 

Administrator Flores left the Office under a cloud of corruption and mismanagement. 

a) Can you assure the Senate that you will take the responsibility of this Office 

seriously and ensure, to the extent that you are able, its capable and competent 

leadership? 

b) As far as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), do we 

have your assurances that you will empower OJJDP to effectively monitor states' 

compliance with its core protections for youth? 

26) In a 1999 floor speech, you decried the lack of enforcement of campaign finance laws and 

called for increased disclosure of outside spending. You stated: 

• Frankly, we ought to start enforcing the law. I spent 15 years as a Federal 

prosecutor. We are not doing a very good job, in my view, of finding people who 

violate existing laws and seeing that people are held accountable. There are 

going to be mistakes, and I am not talking about witch hunts and trying to disturb 

honest and decent candidates who have done their best to comply with many 

regulations, but we really need to watch those cases where we have serious 

enforcement problems. 

7 
613 

Will you commit to vigorously enforcing existing campaign finance laws, including 

prosecuting individuals that opening flaunt campaign finance disclosure laws, in your role 

as Attorney General? 

27) Social welfare groups, organized under section SO!(c)(4) of the Tax Code, are required to 

report political spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Social Welfare 

Organizations are also required to file reports with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

detailing the groups' actual or expected political activity. 

• Question 15 on IRS Form 1024 (application for recognition of tax exemption) 

asks, "Has the organization spent or does it plan to spend any money attempting 

to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to 

any Federal, state, or local public office ... ?" 

• Question 3 on IRS Form 990 (annual return of exempt organization) asks, "Did 

the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on 

behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office? If 'Yes,' complete 

Schedule C, Part I." 

Both IRS Forms I 024 and 990 are signed under penalty of perjury. Section I 001 of the U.S. 

criminal code, makes it a criminal offense to make 'any materially false, fictitious or 

fraudulent statement or representation' in official business with the government; and section 

7206 of the Internal Revenue Code, makes it a crime to willfully make a false material 

statement on a tax document filed under penalty of perjury. 

a) In your view, if an organization files inconsistent statements regarding their 

political activity with the FEC and the IRS, can the group be liable under section 

1101 or 7206? 

b) Will you commit to investigating any such inconsistent statements of which the 

Department of Justice becomes aware? 

28) At your confirmation hearing, you stated "I would just say that every election needs to be 

managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we 

regularly have fraudulent activities occur during election cycles." 

a) How did you reach the conclusion that "fraudulent activities" occur regularly 

during election cycles? 

b) What types of "fraudulent activities" occur during election cycles? 

c) Are you aware of any evidence of widespread voter fraud? 

d) Does the Department of Justice have sufficient tools to combat voter fraud? 

8 
614 

29) As discussed at your confirmation hearing, the Department of Justice has, at various points 

and under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, adopted procedures governing 

communications between the White House and DOJ in order to prevent political interference. 

Such efforts were documented, in the Clinton Administration, in correspondence between the 

Reno Justice Department and Senator Hatch. Several years later, following the hiring and 

personnel scandals under Attorney General Gonzales, Attorney General Michael Mukasey 

wrote that, "Communications [between the White House and DOJ] with respect to pending 

criminal or civil-enforcement matters ... must be limited" in order to ensure "that there is 

public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an 

impartial manner." 

a) Will you commit to implementing a policy limiting contacts and channels of 

communication between the White House and the Department of Justice based 

on the principles articulated in correspondence between the Clinton DOJ and 

White House as well as in the Mukasey letter? 

b) If so, will you commit to making this policy available to the Senate Judiciary 

Committee? 

c) With respect to the Civil Rights Division, can you provide your assurances that 

you will follow the "Experienced Attorney and Attorney Manager Hiring Policy," 

which outlines a detailed and transparent process that minimizes undue political 

interference when new attorneys are hired? 

30) Subject to certain limitations, the United States Attorneys Manual authorizes the Deputy 

Assistant Attorneys General in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, with 

respect to matters assigned to the Environment and Natural Resources Division, the 

"authority to compromise, dismiss or close cases." Do you commit to report to this 

Committee every instance in which the ENRD Assistant Attorney General makes a 

determination to close or settle a case (i.e., in which such decisions are made without 

relying on the delegation authority outlined above and in USAM 5-5.220)? 

31) Do you commit to report to this Committee each instance in which DOJ declines to initiate 

a case referred by the Environmental Protection Agency? 

32) Do you commit to report to this Committee every instance in which the Civil Rights 

Division Assistant Attorney General makes a determination to close or settle a case? 

33) Should you be confirmed as the lead law enforcement official for the United States, you 

would be responsible for the faithful execution of the Clean Air Act and other important 

environmental statutes. With respect to the Clean Air Act specifically, the Supreme Court 

found in its 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency decision that there was 

insufficient uncertainty regarding the factual basis of manmade global climate change to 

permit the EPA to justify not regulating carbon dioxide (and greenhouse gas) as an air 

pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As Attorney General, would you ensure that EPA 

remains true to the letter of the law and that decision? 

9 
615 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BLUMENTHAL 

1. The Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution 

specifically prohibits the President from receiving "any other emolument," meaning 

anything other than his salary from the federal government or state governments. 

a. Will President-Elect Trump be bound by this clause? 

RESPONSE: Yes. The Constitution provides that "The President shall, at stated Times, 

receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished 

during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that 

Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. See U.S. Canst., Art. II,§ 

I, cl. 7. 

b. Will the tax breaks and subsidies that President-Elect Trump's businesses 

receive from state and local governments place him in violation of this 

clause? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances, which do not exist at this time. 

Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If confirmed as 

Attorney General, I would provide legal advice on such matters only after examining the 

relevant facts and circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel 

and any other component of the Department having expertise bearing on such matters. 

c. Should you need to investigate whether President-Elect Trump has 

violated this clause, will you commit to recusing yourself from any such 

investigation and appointing a special counsel? 

RESPONSE: The President has a constitutional obligation to comply with the Emoluments 

Clause of Article II. If confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide the President with the 

best legal advice and assistance that he might require in that regard. I am not aware of a basis to 

recuse myself from such investigations. If a specific matter arose where I believed my 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials 

regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at my confirmation hearing, I 

will always be fair and work within the law and the established procedures of the Department. 

2. The Stop Insider Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act bars the President 

and other executive branch employees from using "nonpublic information derived from 

[or acquired through] their position as an executive branch employee as a means for 

making a private profit." 

a. Would you agree that if a member of President-Elect Trump's family who 
616 

is acting as an official or unofficial West Wing adviser uses private 

information they learn through government service for a business 

decision, they have violated the STOCK Act or other insider trading 

laws? 

RESPONSE: While I have not thoroughly studied this issue, as you note, this provision of 

the STOCK Act covers "executive branch employee[s]." I am not aware of any guidance the 

Office of Government Ethics has provided on the definition of"executive branch employee." 

Any analysis of the STOCK Act's application would take into account a number of factors, 

including any applicable guidance from that Office, the specific circumstances of the family 

member's position and duties, and the nature of the information in question. 

b. Would you agree that if President-Elect Trump passes information he has 

learned from government service to a member of his family and that 

family member uses it for a business decision, this violates the STOCK Act 

or other insider trading laws? 

RESPONSE: While I have not thoroughly studied this issue, according to guidance from the 

Office of Government Ethics, the STOCK Act prohibits the same conduct as the Standards of 

Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (Standards of Conduct). The Standards 

of Conduct prohibit "knowing unauthorized disclosure" of"nonpublic information" to further 

one's own private interest "or that of another." 5 U.S.C. § 2635.703(a), cited in OGE Advisory 

LA-16-10 (2016). Any analysis of the STOCK Act's application likely would take into 

account a number of factors, including the nature of the information in question, the knowledge 

of the person disclosing it, and whether he or she disclosed it to further the recipient's private 

interest. 

3. It may be difficult to know whether a member of the President-Elect's family is using 

private information to make business decisions- particularly if the family members who 

are running his businesses participate in private meetings with other government officials 

or foreign leaders. These meetings would provide these family members with exactly the 

kind of advantage the STOCK Act was designed to protect against. 

a. If a member of the Trump family sits in on a private meeting that could 

discuss information related to the family member's business interests, will 

you commit to investigating whether there has been a violation of the 

STOCK Act? 

RESPONSE: The hypothetical question posited would depend on a number of facts and 

specific circumstances which do not exist at this time. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

ensure that the Department applies the same standards in deciding to initiate an investigation 

whether the subject of the investigation is a member of the President's family or not. In 

addition, the Department would carefully investigate any evidence of insider trading provided 

by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

b. Will you commit to recusing yourself from any such investigation and 

appointing a special counsel? 

2 
617 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. If a specific 

matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult 

with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made 

clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

4. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it has reached a settlement of 

claims with Deutsche Bank concerning sales of securities, and reports state that inquiries 

continue regarding allegations that Deutsche Bank helped launder money for Russian 

clients. It has been well publicized that Deutsche Bank is President-Elect Trump's biggest 

creditor. During your hearing, you stated that you didn't know if President-Elect Trump's 

interests would be implicated in this case due to his borrowing from Deutsche Bank. 

a. Now that you have bad a chance to study the matter, would you agree that 

this case presents the potential for a conflict of interest? Why or why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not privy to the details of the Department's settlement with Deutsche Bank, 

nor am I familiar with the President's interests as they relate to Deutsche Bank. Without all the 

facts and without the resources of the Department of Justice at my disposal, it would be 

premature for me to provide a legal opinion on the matter. 

b. If the Deutsche Bank matter has the potential to impact President-Elect 

Trump's interests, will you commit to recusing yourself from this matter and 

appointing a special counsel? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

c. What specific steps will you take to ensure that the President-Elect's interests 

do not affect the final settlement and the outcome of those inquiries? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed and it is determined that the President has a conflict arising 

from Deutsche Bank's status as his creditor, I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure 

that the Department of Justice represents the interests of the American people in the impartial 

enforcement of the law. I am not privy to the details of the Department's settlement with 

Deutsche Bank, nor am I familiar with the President interests as they relate to Deutsche Bank. 

Without all the facts and without the resources of the Department of Justice at my disposal, it 

would be premature for me to announce how the Department would proceed. 

d. Will you commit to setting up firewalls between the White House and DOJ to 

avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest? 

RESPONSE: As the nation's chieflaw enforcement officer, is important for the Attorney 

General to have an open line of communication to the President. In certain circumstances, it 

3 
618 

may be appropriate to set up firewalls between the White House and the Department of Justice 

to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. Such determinations are 

fact-specific. If I am confirmed, I will endeavor to uphold the highest standards of ethical 

conduct and avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interests at all times. 

5. If President-Elect Trump continues to have a financial stake in the Trump organization 

after he becomes President, as he has indicated he will, he will face other situations in 

which companies or governments have economic leverage over him or the potential to 

affect his financial interests through their actions. The American public is unable to 

understand the full extent of this leverage because President-Elect Trump has not released 

his tax returns or other comprehensive accounting of his financial and business 

arrangements. 

a. Have you seen President-Elect Trump's tax returns or any other 

comprehensive accounting of his financial and business arrangements? 

b. If you have, do you believe this information should be shared with the 

American people? 

RESPONSE: I have not seen President Trump's tax returns or any other comprehensive 

accounting of his financial and business arrangements. While he has a financial disclosure form 

that is available to the public, I have not studied it. 

c. If you have not, how will you know whether President-Elect Trump may have 

a personal financial interest in a matter being pursued or investigated by 

DOJ? If you do not have that knowledge and President-Elect Trump weighs 

in on DOJ actions or policies, how will you ensure that this does not present 

the potential for a conflict of interest? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will review any relevant information at 

my disposal to determine whether the President has a conflict of interest that could affect 

Department of Justice matters or investigations. I will also instruct the Office of Legal Counsel 

to provide the President with guidance on identifying and mitigating conflicts of interest. 

6. America's intelligence agencies agree that Russia attempted to disrupt the 2016 

presidential election in a manner that violates U.S. laws against hacking. During both of 

the last Democratic administrations, you demanded that the Attorney General recuse 

herself rather than participate in an investigation with potential political ramifications. 

During your nomination hearing, however, you would not commit to recusing yourself 

from an investigation of alleged Russian hacking. 

a. Will you commit to recusing yourself from any case regarding the Trump 

campaign -and, specifically, the investigation of Russian interference with 

the election? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any investigations beyond what is contained in public reporting. 

As such, I am unable to comment on the status of any such investigations except to say that I 

believe that all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in a 

4 
619 

fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any 

potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures 

of the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will 

insist upon if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. 

I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. However, if a specific 

matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult 

with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made 

clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

7. DOJ is currently investigating Hapoalim Bank for helping wealthy Americans avoid paying 

taxes, and the bank could face hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. Jared Kushner, 

President-Elect Trump's son-in-law, has received multiple loans from Hapoalim. 

a. What specific steps will you take to ensure that Mr. Kushner's interests do 

not affect DOJ's investigation into Hapoalim? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will review any 

relevant information at my disposal to determine whether any such conflict of interest exists that 

could affect Department of Justice matters or investigations. I will also instruct the Office of 

Legal Counsel to provide guidance on identifYing and mitigating conflicts of interest. 

b. Will you commit to setting up firewalls between the White House and DOJ to 

avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest? 

RESPONSE: As the nation's chieflaw enforcement officer, is important for the Attorney 

General to have an open line of communication to the President. In certain circumstances, it 

may be appropriate to set up firewalls between the White House and the Department of Justice 

to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. Such determinations are 

fact-specific. If I am confirmed, I will endeavor to uphold the highest standards of ethical 

conduct and avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interests at all times. 

c. Will you recuse yourself and appoint a special counsel to handle the 

investigation and any future prosecution of Hapoalim? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

8. Operation Rescue and associated anti-choice groups ran a publicity campaign in the 1990s 

that involved "wanted posters" for abortion providers. Some of these posters identified 

specific providers and provided personal information, such as license plate numbers and 

descriptions of cars. An en bane federal appeals court has held that these posters 

5 
620 

constituted "true threats" and therefore fall outside of the First Amendment's protections. 

Planned Parenthood ojColumbia/WillarneUe, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 

290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (en bane). 

a. Do you agree that these posters are "true threats"? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, these providers are entitled to the protection 

of relevant federal law. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

faithfully follow and enforce the law as defined by the courts, including the FACE Act and all 

other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to enforce. 

9. In his statement of support for your nomination, Operation Rescue President Troy Newman 

said, "I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past." 

a. What projects have you worked on with Troy Newman? 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any such projects. 

I 0. Access to women's health clinics is protected under the federal Freedom of Access to 

Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a crime to use force or threat of force to 

interfere with a person obtaining or providing reproductive health services, or to damage a 

reproductive health facility. 

a. Will you commit to strong enforcement of the FACE Act? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will faithfully follow and enforce federal laws as defined by the courts, 

including the FACE Act and all other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to 

enforce. 

b. Will you direct your staff to continue work that has been done under the 

Obama Administration and deliver trainings for local law enforcement in 

order to educate officers about what constitutes a violation of the FACE Act? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will review all 

Departmental practices to ensure the full and fair enforcement of federal laws. 

c. As your predecessors have, will you direct U.S. Marshals to protect abortion 

providers when extremists have made threats to their lives? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I would use the resources of the Department to ensure the full and fair 

enforcement of federal law. Any specific enforcement decisions or actions would depend upon 

the facts and circumstances of each case. 

11. During the campaign, President-Elect Trump said that women who have abortions should 

be punished? After a significant backlash, he tried to reverse his position. 

6 
621 

a. Do you think that women who have abortions should be punished? 

RESPONSE: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to an 

abortion. That right has been limited by various state and federal statutes restricting abortion, 

many of which have been upheld as constitutional. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will faithfully enforce all federal laws and do so consistently with the 

Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. 

b. If you are opposed to punishing women for having an abortion, what steps 

will you take as Attorney General to discourage the use of the criminal legal 

system to deny pregnant women access to reproductive health services? 

RESPONSE: Rights that are expressly protected by the Constitution, or found to be implied by 

the Supreme Court, can only be abridged in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court has 

identified some such circumstances in regard to abortion rights. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, it will be my duty to ensure that these rights are not 

unconstitutionally restricted, but also, that lawful restrictions are not disregarded. 

c. What will you do to ensure that women who have abortions or whose 

pregnancy losses are perceived as abortions, as well as those who provide 

reproductive health services, will not be subjected to prosecution or criminal 

punishment? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will take no 

enforcement actions that are unauthorized by federal law. Individuals who seek abortions and 

abortion providers who comply with federal laws should not be subject to prosecution or 

criminal punishment. 

12. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover a full range of FDA-approved 

methods of birth control without charging patients co-pays. This benefit has made a 

tremendous difference for women's health and economic security. DOJ has defended this 

benefit from legal challenges by companies that do not want to comply with the 

requirement. 

a. If confirmed as Attorney General, will you direct DOJ to continue to defend 

this requirement in court? 

RESPONSE: I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, it will be my 

responsibility to conduct a thorough review of departmental matters pending in the courts to 

ensure the fair administration of justice. I have no specific knowledge of the case in question, 

but will follow the law and the Constitution without reservation. 

b. If a business owner believes it is his religious duty to discriminate based on 

race, religion, or sexual orientation, do you believe the business owner has a 

right to do so? 

RESPONSE: I disagree with the characterization of those who hold traditional or religious 

7 
622 

values as believing in a "duty to discriminate" if they are asked to provide a service or take 

some other action that would conflict with their consciences. With respect to the Affordable 

Care Act's contraception mandate, the Supreme Court held that there are protections available 

under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act for religious individuals and businesses. I 

have not personally studied the parameters of that decision or its impact. If I am confirmed, 

when such matters come before the Department of Justice, I will carefully and objectively 

evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case and endeavor to uphold and defend the 

Constitution in the pursuit of justice. 

13. During your hearing, you agreed with Senator Leahy that acts that President-Elect Donald 

Trump has described performing- grabbing women by the genitals without their consentwould constitute sexual assault. 

a. Would you agree that a law enforcement official who hears that a woman has 

been grabbed by the genitals without her consent should investigate to 

determine whether prosecution for sexual assault is appropriate? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. Will you commit to encouraging and supporting vigorous investigation and 

prosecution of sexual assault by state and local as well as federal authorities? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

14. On the subject of sexual assault in the military, President-Elect Trump has said, "What did 

these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" 

a. Do you agree with President-Elect Trump that sexual assault is the natural 

result of having male and female service members working together? Why or 

why not? 

b. What specific steps will you take to combat the problem of military sexual 

assault? 

RESPONSE: I do not believe that sexual assault, nor any criminal activity for that matter, is 

"inevitable," particularly among the members of our armed forces. Ifl am confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will support the enforcement of federal laws against sexual assault and all 

other violent crimes, in the military. 

15. On your questionnaire for this committee, you list Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 

of Mobile County as one of the most significant litigated matters that you handled. You 

listed Joseph D. Rich, who then worked in the Educational Opportunities Litigation Section 

of DOJ's Civil Rights Division, as your co-counsel on that case. Mr. Rich has said that you 

had "no substantive involvement" in the case, and at your hearing you said, "I don't know 

Mr. Rich. Perhaps he handled a case that I never worked with." 

a. Do you know Joseph D. Rich? 

b. Did you work with him on Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 

8 
623 

County? 

c. What specific work did you do on Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of 

Mobile County? 

RESPONSE: The Questionnaire requested the "ten (1 0) most significant litigated matters 

which you personally handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record. Give the 

citations, if the cases were reported, and the docket number and date if unreported. Give a 

capsule summary of the substance of each case. Identify the party or parties whom you 

represented; describe in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final 

disposition of the case. Also state as to each case: 

a. the date of representation; 

b. the name of the court and the name of the judge or judges before whom the case 

was litigated; and 

c. the individual name, addresses, and telephone numbers of co-counsel and of 

principal counsel for each of the other parties." 

To be clear, Davis v. Board of School Commissioner of Mobile County was a case of historic 

significance with far-reaching impact. 1 was the attorney of record, along with five other cocounsel for the plaintiffs including Mr. Rich. I have no specific recollection of Mr. Rich in 

dealing with this litigation. In October 1981, after I was confirmed as the United States 

Attorney, I was listed as counsel for the United States' Response to Defendants' Objection to 

Exhibits of United States and Plaintiffs. In 1983, I co-filed the Revised Pretrial Brief of United 

States along with colleagues in the Civil Rights Division, and, in 1985, the United States 

supplemented that brief. This case was certainly one of the ten most significant matters during 

my time as a United States Attorney. It is true that every matter a United States Attorney 

handles is significant; however, very few have the historic impact as that of Davis v. Board of 

School Commissioner of Mobile County. I would not relegate the level or importance of this 

case to include another case-one more characteristic of a United States Attorney's case loadsimply because I may have had greater participation. I clarified the nature of my involvement 

as in a supportive role in supplemental responses to the Questionnaire. 

16. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits health care programs or activities that 

receive HHS funding or are involved with the insurance marketplaces from discriminating 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In August 2016, five 

states and several private organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the final regulations 

implementing Section 1557. 

a. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you direct DOJ to continue to 

defend these regulations in court? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, it will be my 

responsibility to conduct a thorough review of departmental matters pending in the courts to 

ensure the fair administration of justice. I have no specific knowledge of the case in question, 

but will follow the law and the Constitution without reservation. 

17. Last November, Carl Higbie- spokesman for a Donald Trump Super PAC and a campaign 

9 
624 

surrogate- cited the World War II-era Japanese internment camps as a precedent for a 

Muslim registry. The Supreme Court allowed the use of these camps in Korematsu v. 

United States, a case that has been called a "stain on American jurisprudence." 

a. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you agree not to positively cite 

Koremat.m in briefs or other legal documents that you or your representatives 

file on behalf of the United States? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

18. You have objected to President Obama's efforts to admit refugees from areas where, in 

your words, "terrorists roam freely." These refugees are screened for 18 to 24 months by 

law enforcement, the military, and the intelligence communities. America has a history of 

admitting refugees in times of conflict- including, notably, refugees from Germany in the 

1930s and 1940s and from Vietnam in the 1970s. 

a. Was America's system for screening refugees better in the 1930s and 1940s 

than it is today? 

b. Was America's system for screening refugees better in the 1970s than it is 

today? 

c. If today's screening is inadequate but still better than what existed previously, 

should America have refused entry to European refugees in the 1930s and 

1940s and to Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, because of the circumstances involving 

these refugees, I believe that a thorough vetting is critical to ensure that those we admit are not 

national security risks to the United States. The comparative effectiveness of refugee screening 

processes from different decades, spanning 30 to 85 years ago, is an area of expertise best left 

to the departments primarily responsible for such tasks. 

19. In your testimony, you said, "I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by 

our LGBT community. I will ensure that the statutes protecting their civil rights and their 

safety are fully enforced." 

a. What specifically do you understand about "the demands for justice and 

fairness made by our LGBT community"? 

RESPONSE: I firmly believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, 

no matter their background. While as Senators we may have disagreed about the most effective 

ways to address the challenges facing our country, my duty as Attorney General, if I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed, would be to enforce the laws passed by Congress. I would 

endeavor to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner 

possible to ensure full enforcement of all federal laws and the protections inherent in them. 

b. What statutes protecting LGBT safety and civil rights will you enforce? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will uphold and 

10 
625 

enforce all federal laws and the Constitution. 

20. Imagine that an employer fires an employee solely because the employee is gay. 

a. Would such an action conflict with "the demands for justice and fairness 

made by our LGBT community?" 

RESPONSE: In general, such a firing would appear to be in violation of the law and would 

conflict with justice and fairness. Congress, within the bounds of the Constitution, determines 

the scope of the protections of such laws. 

b. Would you support a law that would prohibit this kind of firing? 

RESPONSE: It is up to Congress to define the scope of federal law. The Justice Department's 

role is to faithfully enforce those laws, which I will do ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General. 

c. If the employer maintains that his religion compels him to fire gay workers, is 

the employer's action protected by the Constitution? 

RESPONSE: The Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions in the past, at least in part. 

The Court's most recent holding on an issue of this kind reaffirmed that the Establishment 

Clause of the First Amendment protects religious entities from government interference with 

employment decisions. I have not thoroughly studied the holdings or reasoning and therefore 

am not in a position to offer an opinion on how the Court's interpretation would apply generally 

to such a situation. 

21. In 2011, the Alabama legislature adopted H.B. 56. Major provisions of the law included 

requiring police to arrest anyone of whom they had a "reasonable suspicion" of being in 

the country illegally and denying public services, including public education, to 

undocumented immigrant children. DOJ's Civil Rights division closely monitored the 

implementation of the law to ensure that it did not result in illegal discrimination on the 

basis of race or ethnicity by public institutions or law enforcement agencies. 

a. If confirmed as Attorney General, what steps would you take to ensure that 

H. B. 56 and similar legislation does not result in discrimination on the basis 

of race or ethnicity? 

RESPONSE: In 2013, the Department of Justice secured a permanent injunction against 

major provisions ofH.B. 56 on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. If I am confirmed, I 

will enforce the injunction. 

b. What actions would you take if investigation revealed that the implementation 

of such laws did, in fact, result in discrimination? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, the Department of Justice will pursue declaratory judgments, 

injunctions, and other remedies against laws that result in discrimination. 

II 
626 

22. Last year, during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump argued that it would not 

require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children born to 

parents who are in the U.S. illegally. He argued that it would only require an act of 

Congress. You have said that this is not an extreme position. You have also repeatedly 

expressed skepticism that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to grant 

citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not United States 

citizens. 

a. In your opinion, does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee citizenship to all 

children born on American soil? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, under the current state of the law, children 

born in the United States become citizens. 

b. If so, would a constitutional amendment be required to overturn this 

guarantee? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the details of whether a constitutional amendment would be 

required. 

c. If not, how would you determine clearly which children are American citizens 

and which are not? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the details of this matter. 

23. No Senator since at least 1900 has voted in favor of his or her own confirmation to a 

Cabinet position. At your hearing, you stated that you did not have plans to vote on your 

own nomination. 

a. I interpreted your answer at your hearing as a commitment that you would 

not vote on your own nomination. Is that correct? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. If your answer was not intended as a commitment, will you commit now to 

not voting on your nomination? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: See response to 23(a). 

c. Will you commit to not voting on any other Trump Administration 

nominations while your nomination is pending? If not, how does that not 

present a conflict of interest? 

RESPONSE: As Senator Durbin has noted, unless or until I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I am "still the Senator from Alabama."1 As such, I have an 

1 Seung Min Kim, "Dems demand Sessions recuse himself on confirmation votes," Politico, Jan. 18, 20 17. 

12 
627 

obligation to faithfully represent my constituents for as long as I am their Senator. I do not 

believe that is a conflict of interest. To do otherwise would reduce the representation to which 

the State is constitutionally entitled. I would also note that other Senators in my situation have 

proceeded in the same manner. 

24. After you submitted your initial questionnaire response to this committee, it quickly 

became clear that you had left out large amounts of significant material. In 2010, you 

asserted that Goodwin Liu, a nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had omitted 

117 items from his questionnaire. You said of Liu, 

"At best, this nominee's extraordinary disregard for the Committee's constitutional 

role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he 

knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee. 

Professor Liu's unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to complete these 

basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his nomination in 

jeopardy." 

You also suggested at Liu's hearing that he might be guilty of a felony for failing to 

provide every document called for by the questionnaire. Although you supplemented your 

initial questionnaire responses, it was revealed at your hearing that you failed to include 

numerous items responsive to the requests. 

a. If Goodwin Lin's omissions were inexcusable, why is that that yours are 

acceptable? 

RESPONSE: It is my recollection that Justice Liu withheld a substantial percentage of his 

records, which the Committee members did not have access to, and which prevented the 

members of the Committee from being able to fully review his record. On the other hand, I 

provided a more complete record in response to the Committee's Questionnaire than any 

nominee for the position of Attorney General in recent memory.2 The records I submitted were 

voluminous, totaling more than 150,000 pages, including thousands of press releases, floor 

speeches, hearing statements, and other materials, and more than 2,000 television, radio, and 

print interviews. I also submitted more than 50 hours of video and audio clips of interviews, 

speeches, and press conferences. Additionally, I supplemented my Questionnaire responses 

three times. Despite all of my good faith efforts, with such an extensive career in public 

service, of course it is likely that there are an extremely small percentage of items that I was 

unable to locate, identify, or remember. Finally, my long record of public service was already 

well known to the members of the Committee and to my colleagues in the Senate, many of 

whom have served with me for more than 20 years. 

25. In your initial questionnaire response, you repeatedly indicated that you relied on "searches 

of publicly available electronic databases" in order to gather all relevant information. 

2 Letter from Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein to Chairman Charles E. Grassley, Dec. 13, 2016 ("Senator 

Sessions' production is, as I understand it, in excess of 150,000 pages of material. This is more than I 00 times 

what Attorney General Lynch produced (1500 pages) and more than 29 times what Attorney General Holder 

produced (5100 pages))." 

13 
628 

a. Did you search for information on your record on Google? For example, 

when looking for examples of speeches, did you search for "Jeff Sessions" 

and "speech"? 

RESPONSE: Yes, in assisting me with the preparation of my questionnaire responses, staff 

used Google for various searches. 

b. If so, why did you not include the first result from a Google search- your 

speech to the 2016 Republican National Convention? 

RESPONSE: Both speeches I gave at the 2016 Republican National Convention were, in fact, 

included as video attachments to my original response to the Committee's Questionnaire. 

c. In trying to find transcripts of your appearances on news shows, many of 

which you listed as unavailable, did you search the websites of the shows on 

which you appeared? 

RESPONSE: In assisting me with the preparation of my Questionnaire, staff searched many of 

the websites of shows on which I appeared, in addition to searching various transcript databases. 

d. If so, why did you not include transcripts that are readily available from 

searching the websites of those shows for example, a transcript of your 

responses during an October 13, 2016 appearance on Breitbart Radio, 

which can be found simply by searching for your name on the Breitbart 

website? 

RESPONSE: I identified over 2,000 television, radio, and print interviews in my responses to 

the Committee. It appears that the partial transcript of the October 13,2016 interview was 

inadvertently not included in the responses, although the interview itself was identified in my 

responses and is publicly available. 

e. When you saw that your initial questionnaire included only 134 speeches 

given over 35 years in public life, did that not suggest to you that the 

response was not comprehensive? 

RESPONSE: I submitted to the Committee all responsive items I was able to identify through 

extensive searches. These responses included more than 150,000 pages of materials, including 

more than I ,000 speeches from my time in the United States Senate alone-many on the 

Senate floor-and more than 250 speeches outside of the United States Senate. 

f. When you saw that your initial questionnaire did not include any print or 

radio interviews prior to September 2002, did that not suggest to you that 

the questionnaire was incomplete? 

RESPONSE: I submitted to the Committee all responsive items that I was able to identify 

through extensive searches, including more than 2,000 television, radio, and print interviews, 

including several from the late 1990s. 

14 
629 

26. You have received awards from at least two organization designated by the Southern 

Poverty Law Center as extremist groups -the Federation for American Immigration 

Reform and the Center for Security Policy- but you only disclosed one of these on your 

questionnaire. 

a. Have you received any other awards from SPLC-designated extremist 

groups that you have not yet reported to this Committee? 

b. Have you given any speeches to SPLC-designated extremist groups that 

you have not yet reported to this Committee? 

RESPONSE: I have submitted to the Committee all awards that I have received and speeches 

that I have given that I have been able to identify, locate, or recall. As I testified before the 

Committee, I, like all members of Congress, have received many awards from and given many 

speeches before many groups over my long career in public service. That does not mean that I 

am familiar with or agree with every position taken or statement made by every group or every 

member of every group, or would be influenced by the particular point of view espoused by 

every group or every member of every group. Furthermore, SPLC's opinion of an 

organization or individual is not universally accepted. 

27. In a keynote address at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2013 West Coast Retreat, 

you said, "[David Horowitz has] written some papers. I've passed them around, the draft, 

to a bunch of senators, and shared these thoughts." At your hearing, you called David 

Horowitz a "brilliant writer." 

a. Which papers did you circulate to your fellow Senators? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I believe I have read two of Mr. Horowitz's 

books. Further, he has been a prolific writer, authoring many books, articles, and papers, and I 

am unsure as to which particular papers I may have shared with colleagues. 

b. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says- in the chapter title of one of his 

books that "guns don't kill blacks, other black people do"? 

RESPONSE: I do not believe I have read that particular book, so I am unfamiliar with the 

subject matter in that chapter and what information the author might be referring to with that 

chapter title. It would be imprudent to judge a chapter by its title, particularly without having 

read additional information to know whether the chapter title is referring to something specific 

or is in a particular context. 

c. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says it is "obvious" that "too many 

blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes"? 

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with that quote. As I testified before the Committee, I am not 

familiar with everything Mr. Horowitz has ever said. I do not know the context of the quote 

referenced above, so I do not know what he meant. However, I strongly believe that too many 

crimes are committed in the United States in general. In an ideal world, there would be far 

15 
630 

fewer people committing crimes and, as a result, there would be far fewer people in prison for 

those crimes, and far fewer victims of crimes. 

d. Do you agree with Horowitz when he says that the term "people of color" 

is "a racist phrase designed ... to enforce the fascist hierarchy"? 

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with that quote. As I testified before the Committee, I am not 

familiar with everything Mr. Horowitz has ever said. I do not know the context of the quote 

referenced above, or the full quote, so I do not know what he meant. 

e. Do you agree with David Horowitz that Black Lives Matter is "a racist 

group" and "a roving lynch mob"? 

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with that quote. As I testified before the Committee, I am not 

familiar with everything Mr. Horowitz has ever said. I do not know the context of the quote 

referenced above, or the full quote, so I do not know what he meant. 

f. Do you agree with Horowitz that "there is no credible evidence [that] racism 

against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem"? 

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with that quote. As I testified before the Committee, I am not 

familiar with everything Mr. Horowitz has ever said. I do not know the context of the quote 

referenced above, so I do not know what he meant. 

28. In your questionnaire, you did not disclose that you received the Franklin Society Award 

from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which was founded by John 

Tanton. 

a. Do you agree with Tanton when he says, "Migrants are usually selfish in their 

motivation"? 

b. Do you agree with Tanton that he says, "Too much diversity leads to 

divisiveness and conflict"? 

RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Supplemental Questionnaire I submitted to the Committee on 

December 23,2016, I disclosed that I received the Franklin Society Award from the 

Federation for American Immigration Reform. As I testified before the Committee, I, like all 

members of Congress, have received many awards from and given many speeches before 

many groups over my long career in public service. That does not mean that I am familiar 

with or agree with every position taken or statement made by every group or every member of 

every group, or would be influenced by the particular point of view espoused by every group 

or every member of every group. As I also testified, I believe the United States should have a 

lawful system of immigration that is fair and objective and gives people from all over the 

world the right to apply for admission in order to prosper and to improve their lives and our 

country. 

29. As a former prosecutor, I am disturbed that President-Elect Trump's continued insistence 

that the five black and Latino men known as the Central Park 5 are guilty- despite their 

16 
631 

exoneration by DNA evidence. During the campaign, you said that President-Elect 

Trump's 1989 campaign to reinstate the death penalty for the Central Park 5 showed his 

dedication to "law and order." 

a. Do you believe that the Central Park 5 are innocent? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: First, I reject the characterization of my comments. My actual comments were 

in reference to an advertisement the President published over 20 years ago calling for a 

restoration of the rule of law, particularly in New York City. That advertisement does not 

mention the Central Park Five or any other case-rather, it was a general commentary on the 

deterioration of the rule oflaw, which had led to an epidemic of violent crime and murders and 

made many residents of New York City, including African-American, Hispanic, and other 

minority families, afraid to go out at night. My comments referred to the general notion that 

the President has long been in favor of restoring the rule of law and deterring serious crime, 

which is something that the Department of Justice will be committed to doing if I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. With respect to the above-referenced case, it is 

my understanding that the defendants' convictions were vacated. 

b. If you do believe that the Central Park 5 are innocent, will you say 

unequivocally that President-Elect Trump was wrong to call for them to be 

killed and wrong to double down on his position after they were exonerated? 

RESPONSE: I have not discussed the case with the President, so I cannot say whether any 

statements he may have made about the case were inaccurate or were supported by relevant 

information. 

c. Does Donald Trump's approach to the Central Park 5 case reflect the 

approach that you will take to similar cases if confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

RESPONSE: I have not discussed this case with the President, and I am unsure as to what is 

meant by his "approach" to the case. Certainly, a politician on the campaign trail is likely to 

"approach" criminal cases differently than would a prosecutor involved in or overseeing an 

investigation or prosecution. 

d. Do you agree that failing to pursne all possible methods of exonerating au 

innocent defendant, including DNA evidence, leaves open the possibility that 

the real criminal will go free and commit additional crimes? 

RESPONSE: I agree that it is of the utmost importance that only those who commit crimes be 

prosecuted and convicted. Certainly, whenever an innocent defendant is convicted of a crime 

they did not commit, that means the real criminal has gone free and will likely commit 

additional crimes. 

30. At your hearing, you said, "Congress has taken an action now that makes it absolutely 

improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United States 

by our military and by all our other departments and agencies." 

17 
632 

a. Are stress positions designed to inflict pain torture? 

b. Is forced nudity torture? 

c. Is slamming individuals into walls torture? 

d. Is slapping or hitting detainees torture? 

e. Is depriving detainees of sleep for prolonged periods torture? 

RESPONSE: Federal law is clear that it is unlawful for either the military or our intelligence 

agencies to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or to use interrogation 

techniques that are not prescribed by the Army Field Manual. Thus, both our military and 

intelligence agencies are permitted to employ only those interrogation techniques authorized by 

the Army Field Manual. 

f. What actions would you take if the Trump Administration attempted to 

change the rules governing use of these techniques without seeking 

Congressional approval? 

RESPONSE: The rules governing these and other techniques are now set by federal statute and 

cannot be unilaterally altered by the executive branch. The President has a duty to faithfully 

execute all federal laws--even those that he disagrees with, and even if he is frustrated that 

Congress will not enact his agenda. If the President claimed the authority to nullify federal 

laws, or to refuse to enforce valid federal laws, I would inform him that such action is illegal 

and insist that he follow the law. 

31. 

a. If an individual detained at Guantanamo Bay Cuba can show that they were 

detained based on faulty intelligence or mistaken identity, should they be 

released? 

b. Should Guantanamo detainees be given the chance to prove that they were 

detained based on faulty intelligence or mistaken identity? 

RESPONSE: It is ultimately up to Congress to determine the scope of such policies. However, 

the U.S. Supreme Court has held that detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility 

may challenge their detention via a writ of habeas corpus. 

c. How long can an individual be detained -at Guantanamo or anywhere elsebefore they are given a chance to show that their detention was wrongful? 

RESPONSE: Under the law, the United States can detain an active member of al Qaeda or 

other enemy combatants for as long as the conflict persists and as long as the person continues 

to pose a threat to others. While it is proper to periodically reevaluate the status of detainees 

and to release and repatriate those who no longer pose a threat, a number of detainees who have 

been released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have returned to waging war against 

the United States and its allies. Some have killed innocent people, including Americans. 

32. When passing the USA FREEDOM Act, Congress made bulk collection under section 215 

ofthe USA PATRIOT Act illegal. In a National Review op-ed, you argued that law 

18 
633 

enforcement can still use a subpoena to collect all of the information that used to be 

collected under section 215. During your hearing, you were asked if you agreed that the 

executive branch cannot reinstate the bulk collection of America's phone records without 

amending federal statutes. You responded, "That appears to be so and I can't swear that 

that's absolutely, totally, always true, but it appears to be so." 

a. Please detail the situations where the principle would not hold true. 

RESPONSE: In a May 20, 2015 op-ed titled "Why Should Terrorists Be Harder to Investigate 

than Routine Criminals?," I noted that section 215 is a type of subpoena authority, and that, 

even as originally enacted, section 215 requests for business records are subject to restrictions 

that are not applied to other types of subpoena authorities that are routinely used by criminal 

investigators. For example, I noted that unlike subpoenas used by the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, section 215 requests require pre-approval by a federal judge. In the op-ed, I 

criticized the then-pending USA Freedom Act and its further restrictions on the use of section 

215 to obtain bulk telephone records data, noting that the Act "would prevent our intelligence 

officers from obtaining information in this manner at all." (Emphasis in original.) I continue 

to believe that this is true and am not aware of any interpretation of the USA Freedom Act that 

would allow the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215, absent further 

amendments by Congress to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 

33. Using a device called a stingray, law enforcement can scan a crowd and identify every cell 

phone within the specified area. Without clear rules governing the use of stingrays, these 

devices give law enforcement the ability to create massive databases of individuals who 

have protested against the government, individuals who belong to a minority or unpopular 

religion, or simply Americans who have assembled to express views that the government 

does not like. 

a. Will you commit to not tracking Americans' location in order to target and 

catalog individuals' exercise of First Amendment activities, such as religious 

activities, protests, and political rallies? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carry out 

my duty to enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved fidelity to the Constitution, 

including the First Amendment. 

b. Will you commit not to use stingrays to identify every American who has 

chosen to attend a particular political rally or worship service, unless you 

have probable cause to believe that a specific criminal or dangerous 

individual is in attendance? 

RESPONSE: Without having studied this issue in depth, I cannot comment on what federal 

law or the Constitution allows in these circumstances. It is my understanding that this is an 

unsettled question amongst the federal courts of appeal. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will carry out my duty to enforce the Jaws and will do so with 

unreserved fidelity to the Constitution, including the First Amendment. 

19 
634 

c. If you do collect information on all of the attendees at a rally or worship 

service- for example, because you believed a criminal would attend -will you 

commit to purge the information of any innocent American whose 

information was captured inadvertently? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carry out 

my duty to enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved fidelity to the Constitution, 

including the First Amendment. 

34. The American people want to know that you wiJI take white coiJar crime as seriously as 

you will take other crimes. 

a. Will you commit to zealously investigating white collar crimes? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. Will you commit to leaving in place, and considering expanding upon, the 

Yates Memo, which established Justice Department procedures that 

encourage prosecutors to actively investigate and prosecute individual 

criminal liability for corporate crimes? 

RESPONSE: I have reviewed the Yates memo and generally agree with it. However, I have 

not made any decisions with respect to whether I would change that policy if confirmed. 

35. DOJ has initiated or considered initiating a number of investigations in recent years that 

are particularly important to me. Will you commit to continue actively pursuing the 

foiJowing investigations and prosecutions: 

a. Takata and Takata executives 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that Takata Corp. pled guilty on January 13, 2017, and has 

agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve the case referenced in the above question. It is also my 

understanding that three Takata executives have been indicted. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will conduct a thorough review of all departmental matters 

pending in the courts to ensure the fair administration of justice. I have no specific knowledge 

of the case in question, but will follow the law and the Constitution without reservation. 

b. Price collusion by United States airlines 

RESPONSE: The goal of United States antitrust law is to protect American consumers. If 

companies coiJude in setting prices, Americans suffer from price-gouging and lack of 

competition in the marketplace. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 

the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department would be focused on the core mission of 

protecting the integrity of the markets in which American consumers participate, and wiiJ do 

whatever is necessary, within the bounds of the law, to ensure that those markets function fairly 

and efficiently. 

20 
635 

c. The merger of Anthem with Cigna and of Aetna with Humana 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Department 

would analyze merger challenges in the same manner it always has: by evaluating whether the 

merger is likely to reduce competition in the relevant market, and by extension, whether that 

merger will negatively impact consumer welfare. Under my leadership, the Department would 

conduct a full and fair economic analysis of the likely effects of this merger on American 

consumers. We would determine, based on the results ofthat analysis, whether to challenge the 

deal. 

36. In 2014, I was proud to lead an effort to successfully amend the Animal Welfare Act to 

prohibit attendance at a cockfight universally and without qualification in Puerto Rico and 

all other U.S.jurisdictions. Before these 2014 amendments became law, the longstanding 

prohibition on sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a cockfight only applied in Puerto 

Rico to the extent a defendant knew that a bird was bought, sold, delivered, transported or 

received in interstate commerce for the purpose of participating in the fight. There is still 

much work to be done in ensuring that the law's protections are fully implemented. 

a. Will you develop a plan to ensure that federal animal fighting laws are 

enforced in Puerto Rico, and to begin the process of shutting down the 

dozens of arenas in Puerto Rico in which animal fights are conducted in 

contravention of federal law? 

RESPONSE: While I have not studied this issue in depth, if I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I expect to learn more about it and will ensure that federal law 

is being enforced to the fullest extent. 

37. In recent years, there have been hundreds of cases in which individuals were exonerated 

based on faulty forensic evidence. This has long been an issue of bipartisan concern. 

a. Will you continue to work with Members of this Committee and the 

Commerce Committee to ensure that law enforcement and criminal justice 

stakeholders have the strongest and most reliable forensic tools possible to 

ensure that crimes are solved, public safety is protected, and wrongful 

convictions are avoided? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. As you know, the FBI has been working to review thousands of cases 

involving erroneous hair analysis testimony, resulting in the exoneration of 

innocent people and, in many cases, the identification of the true perpetrators 

of crimes. Will you work with the FBI and others to ensure that this review is 

completed, and that this type of error is not repeated going forward in this or 

other forensic disciplines? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor to 

direct and utilize the resources ofthe Department in the most effective manner possible to 

21 
636 

ensure the enforcement of federal law and the protections inherent therein. I will carefully 

evaluate any current departmental practices and the effectiveness of those practices to aid in the 

administration of justice. 

22 
637 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 23,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BLUMENTHAL 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether you would commit to recusing yourself 

from any investigation into whether or not your boss, President Trump, has violated the 

Domestic Emoluments Clause or the insider trading laws. I also asked whether you would recuse 

yourself from cases in which President Trump or his family have a financial or political interest. 

You responded that you are "not aware of a basis to recuse yourself' but would not say one way 

or the other whether you would recuse yourself. 

a. Are there circumstances under which you would consider it appropriate to handle 

an investigation of civil or criminal wrongdoing by your own boss? Please answer 

yes or no. 

b. If you believe that such an investigation would not pose a conflict of interest, please 

explain why. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Each case depends on facts and specific circumstances. It would 

not only be impossible, but unwise, for me to suggest that an Attorney General would or 

would not be presented with a conflict in every possible scenario that involves the President. 

In other words, I cannot offer an opinion that would fit in every instance. I can only reiterate 

that, if a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate 

way to proceed. 

c. You have committed to "consult with (Justice] Department ethics officials" if your 

"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Will you commit to accepting the 

advice of career staff if they recommend that you recuse yourself from a particular 

investigation or case? 

RESPONSE: I would seek the recommendations of Justice Department ethics officials and 

value them in my decision-making on such a question. 

d. Can you give any examples of a situation where an Attorney General has 

investigated civil or criminal wrongdoing by the President who appointed him or 

her and where you consider the Attorney General's conduct to have been 

appropriate? 

RESPONSE: I do not know whether such examples exist. Any past decision by an 

Attorney General to recuse or to proceed in a case involving the President should not be read 

to suggest that recusal or lack of recusal would be necessary or proper in every case. As I 

indicated above, a decision to recuse or to proceed should be based only on the facts and 

circumstances presented. 
638 

e. Have you discussed the Domestic Emoluments Clause, the Foreign Emoluments 

Clause, or the insider trading laws with President Trump, with any employee of 

President Trump, or with any agent for President Trump? If so, please discuss the 

content and depth ofthose conversations. 

f. Have you discussed whether or not President Trump, his family, or individuals who 

did paid or unpaid work for his campaign may face civil or criminal liability, under 

any statute or Constitutional provision, with President Trump or any of his agents 

or employees? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those conversations. 

g. Have you discussed with President Trump or any of his agents or employees the 

possibility that an ongoing or future investigation could embarrass the Presideut or 

his Administration? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those 

conversations. 

h. Have you discussed Russian hacking with President Trump or any of his agents or 

employees? If so, please discuss the content and depth of those conversations. 

RESPONSE to (e)- (h): No. 

In response to a question for the record from Senator Durbin, you indicated that you have not 

read the unclassified or classified version of the January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment 

"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections." 

a. Have you read that assessment or any part of that assessment- for example, the 1.5 

page "Key Judgmeuts" section- since Senator Durbin asked about it? 

b. If so, how will this information inform your decisions regarding investigatory 

priorities should you become Attorney General? If not, why not? 

c. Have you discussed your decision to read or not read this intelligence assessment 

with President Trump or any of his agents or employees? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): No. 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether a member of President Trump's family 

who relies on nonpublic information to make business decisions has violated the STOCK Act or 

other insider trading laws." While you did not answer this question, you indicated that the 

answer hinges on whether the Trump family member is an "executive branch employee." 

a. If a Trump family member does not qualify as an "executive branch employee," as 

that term is used in the STOCK Act, do you believe that such family member can 

use private information they learn through government service to make business 

decisions? Please provide a yes or no answer. 

2 
639 

RESPONSE: Such individuals would be subject to any applicable federal laws to the same 

extent as any other individual subject to the jurisdiction of federal law. 

In response to my original questions for the record, you said that you "have not reviewed the 

details of whether a constitutional amendment would be required" to overturn the Fourteenth 

Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all children born on American soil. You expressed 

skepticism of birthright citizenship as far back as 2010, and more recently you indicated that you 

have been reading legal briefs on the subject. Now that you have had additional time to review 

the details of this issue, I would appreciate your answer on this important question. 

a. Would a constitutional amendment be required to overturn the Fourteenth 

Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all children born on American soil? 

b. How would you determine which children are guaranteed American citizenship and 

which are not? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): I have been aware of this issue for many years. I am aware that 

scholars have differing views and I have not conducted the careful research needed to express 

an opinion on the subject. 

In my original questions for the record, I asked you to detail the circumstances under which the 

executive branch could reinstate the bulk collection of Americans' phone records without 

amending federal statutes. While you provided some additional information about your past 

statements, which I appreciate, you did not answer my question. To be clear, I am not asking 

about what you have said in the past. I want to know what you believe today. 

a. Under what circumstances could the executive branch reinstate the bulk collection 

of Americans' phone records without working with Congress to amend federal 

statutes? 

RESPONSE: In your original question, you note my testimony wherein I agreed that the 

current state of the law appears to be that the executive branch cannot reinstate bulk 

collection without amending federal statutes. In addition, this sentence appears at the end of 

my original written response: "I ... am not aware of any interpretation of the USA Freedom 

Act that would allow the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215, absent 

further amendments by Congress to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." 

In my original questions for the record, I asked whether you would "commit to not tracking 

Americans' location in order to target and catalog individuals' exercise of First Amendment 

activities, such as religious activities, protests, and political rallies." You responded merely that 

you will "enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved fidelity to the Constitution." While I 

appreciate your general willingness to follow the law as you interpret it, my question asked you 

to make a specific commitment. The American people should not have to wait until you are in 

office to find out whether you plan to track their First Amendment-protected activities. 

3 
640 

a. Will you commit not to track Americans' location in order to target and catalog 

individuals' First Amendment-protected activities, such as religious activities, 

protests, and political rallies? 

RESPONSE: I reiterate my commitment that, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will carry out my duty to enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved 

fidelity to the Constitution, including the First Amendment. If any such action was necessary 

to further a legitimate law enforcement or national security purpose, it should be conducted 

only within the parameters set by the Constitution. 

In my original questions for the record, I asked you for two commitments regarding the 

appropriate use of stingray technology. In your response, you declined to comment on "what 

federal law or the Constitution allows in these circumstances." With respect, I did not ask what 

federal law or the Constitution allows. I asked whether you would commit not to engage in the 

practices described. Please respond with a yes or no answer. 

a. Will you commit not to use stingrays to identify every American who has chosen to 

attend a particular political rally or worship service, unless you have probable cause 

to believe that a specific criminal or dangerous individual is in attendance? 

b. If you do collect information on all of the attendees at a rally or worship servicefor example, because you believed a criminal would attend- will you commit to 

purge the information of any innocent American whose information was captured 

inadvertently? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): It is my understanding that the Justice Department adopted a 

policy in 2015 that requires a warrant based on probable cause before stingray surveillance 

can be used, unless exceptional circumstances are present. Ifi am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will evaluate this policy, as well as any relevant data, in 

order to ensure that our constitutional protections are upheld. 

4 
641 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

OPESTIONS FROM SENATOR COONS 

I. Evidence shows that solitary confinement has significant mental health consequences when 

used for extended periods of time. 

a. Do you believe solitary confinement should only be used as a last resort? 

RESPONSE: It is vital that our prisons be able to secure prisoners and maintain order, but it is 

also important that they be a safe environment for those prisoners while they are incarcerated, as 

well as for those guarding them. I believe that we should closely evaluate the studies and 

evidence and make the best determination about how to handle what can be a dangerous prison 

population in a way that is both constitutional and effective. 

b. Do you believe solitary confinement should ever be used for juveniles? 

RESPONSE: It is vital that our prisons be able to secure prisoners and maintain order, but it is 

also important that they be a safe environment for those prisoners while they are incarcerated, as 

well as for those guarding them. The need to maintain safety is especially true for juveniles, 

who often present unique correctional challenges. I believe that we should closely evaluate the 

studies and evidence and make the best determination about how to handle what can be a 

dangerous prison population in a way that is both constitutional and effective. 

2. Individuals are being jailed throughout the country when they are unable to pay a variety of 

court fines and fees. There is often little or no attempt to learn whether these individuals 

can afford to pay the imposed fines and fees or to work out alternatives to incarceration. 

a. Under your leadership, will the Department of Justice work to end this practice? 

RESPONSE: These are legitimate concerns, and ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will make every effort to protect the constitutional rights of individuals in 

the federal criminal justice system. 

b. What is your position on the practice of imposing unaffordable money bail, which 

results in the pretrial incarceration of the poor who cannot afford to pay? 

RESPONSE: There have been a number of concerns expressed by different groups, 

stakeholders, and officials regarding the use of money bail, and there is also ongoing litigation 

in various jurisdictions around the country regarding this practice. I believe that we should 

closely evaluate these concerns and the evidence to determine areas where pretrial 

incarceration practices can be improved, while also securing suspected criminals or providing 

adequate assurances that they will be present for court proceedings. 

3. The Department of Justice established the Office for Access to Justice (A TJ) in March 
642 

2010 to address the access-to-justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice system. A TJ's 

mission is to help the justice system efficiently deliver outcomes that are fair and accessible 

to all, irrespective of wealth and status. How will you improve access to justice for 

indigent criminal and civil defendants? 

RESPONSE: Ensuring that individuals are aware of and able to exercise their rights is an 

important part of a fair justice system. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will work to ensure that the constitutional rights of defendants are protected. 

4. In August of20 13, the Department of Justice released the Cole memorandum, providing that 

states could pursue their own marijuana policy as long as the policy does not violate certain 

federal priorities, such as selling to minors or transporting marijuana across state lines. 

a. Will you continue to follow the Cole memorandum? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with the Cole memorandum, I am not privy to any 

internal Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness and value of the policies 

contained within that memorandum. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will certainly review and evaluate those policies, including the original justifications 

for the memorandum, as well as any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or 

how they may change in the future. 

b. Will you instruct Department of Justice prosecutors to bring actions against those 

who use state-sanctioned medical marijuana, provided they are using it in 

accordance with the guidance of the Cole memorandum? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with the Cole memorandum, I am not privy to any 

internal Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness and value of the policies 

contained within that memorandum. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will certainly review and evaluate those policies, including the original justifications 

for the memorandum, as well as any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or 

how they may change in the future. 

5. How will you implement and enforce the Death In Custody Reporting Act and the FBI 

National Use of Force database? 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that in December 2016, the Department of Justice issued 

a report on the progress of implementing the Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA), which 

requires federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to report information regarding 

deaths of detainees, arrestees, or prisoners while they are in the custody of those agencies. The 

report indicated that guidelines for reporting that data will not be finalized before the second 

quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. It is also my understanding that the FBI is collaborating with 

major law enforcement organizations to develop a national use-of-force data collection effort, 

whereby law enforcement agencies may voluntarily collect and report data regarding the nonlethal use of force by their officers. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will support these efforts. 

2 
643 

6. When you were the Alabama Attorney General, Alabama was the only state that 

handcuffed prisoners to "hitching posts" as punishment, cuffing them by both wrists to a 

pole at chest level with feet shackled for up to I 0 hours at a time, unprotected from the sun, 

heat, or rain, and without access to water or even access to a bathroom. On March 27, 

1995, the Department of Justice sent letters to you, as Alabama's Attorney General, along 

with the Governor and other state officials declaring Alabama's use of the hitching post 

unconstitutional and unjustified. However, the use of the hitching post continued. On June 

27, 1995, the Justice Department sent a letter to the Alabama Department of Corrections 

stating, "We remain deeply concerned about your unwillingness to take any corrective 

action regarding the 'rail' or 'hitching post.' ... [W]e have concluded that the use of the 

'rail' is without penological justification." The Alabama Department of Corrections was 

sued over the use of the hitching post in 1995 but continued to defend its use. At the 

hearing and in our private meeting, I asked you about the use of the hitching post in 

Alabama prisons when you were the Alabama Attorney General. However, you indicated 

in our meeting that you did not remember the issue, and your response at the hearing only 

addressed the use of chain gangs. Do you believe that the use of hitching posts is 

acceptable? 

RESPONSE: In a series of cases decided years after I was no longer the Attorney General for 

the State of Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the use of hitching posts for punitive 

reasons unrelated to safety issues or emergencies is prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce federal law as 

interpreted by the Supreme Court. 

7. In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 744 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that prison officials 

"violated clearly established law" when they continued to use the hitching post. Why didn't 

you intervene to stop this unconstitutional practice when you were Alabama Attorney 

General? 

RESPONSE: To my knowledge, in that case, the Supreme Court prohibited the use of the 

hitching post as applied in that case, due to the circumstances that case presented. The 

complaint in that case was not filed until after I was elected to the Senate, and the first filing by 

Alabama in that case was not until nearly two months after I had left the Alabama Attorney 

General's Office. 

8. In 2014, the Department of Justice concluded its investigation of allegations of sexual 

abuse and sexual harassment at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, finding that: 

For nearly two decades, Tutwiler staff have harmed women in their care with impunity 

by sexually abusing and sexually harassing them. Staff have raped, sodomized, 

fondled, and exposed themselves to prisoners. They have coerced prisoners to engage 

in oral sex. Staff engage in voyeurism, forcing women to disrobe and watching them 

while they use the shower and use the toilet. Staff sexually harass women, subjecting 

them to a daily barrage of sexually explicit verbal abuse. 

Also, there are federal lawsuits pending against Alabama state prisons challenging 

unconstitutional conditions, including high rates of violence and inadequate medical and 

3 
644 

mental health treatment. On October 6, 2016, the Justice Department announced that it had 

opened a statewide investigation into Alabama's prisons for men, which "will focus on 

whether prisoners are adequately protected from use of excessive force and staff sexual 

abuse by correctional officers, and whether the prisons provide sanitary, secure and safe 

living conditions." 

a. Will you ensure that the Department of Justice continues all of these investigations 

into conditions in Alabama prisons? 

RESPONSE: Safe and secure prison conditions are an essential part of our justice system. If I 

am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that violations of 

federal law in prison facilities are investigated and remedied no matter the state, and that our 

justice system protects inmates and those guarding them. 

b. As a public official in Alabama, what have you done to ensure that Alabama prison 

facilities comply with the Constitution? 

RESPONSE: It is vital that our prisons be able to secure prisoners and maintain order, but it is 

also important that they be a safe environment for prisoners and those who guard them. That is 

why, in 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which has 

been critical in making prisons a safer and more humane environment. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue to look for solutions like this to 

the challenges faced by correctional facilities. 

9. The President-elect has claimed that millions of people voted illegally in the presidential 

election. 

a. Do you agree, and if so, on what evidence do you rest your claim? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I am not aware of the context or the basis 

for the President-elect's remarks and have conducted no research nor reviewed data on the 

ISSUC. 

b. If not, do you contend that there were instances of voter fraud in the 2016 

presidential election, and on what evidence do you base your claim? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I believe that fraudulent activities regularly 

occur during election cycles. There is no reason to believe that this election is any exception. I 

would also note that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission report, "Building Confidence in 

U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform," found that "there is no 

doubt" that voter fraud occurs, that "a good ID system could deter, detect, or eliminate several 

potential avenues of fraud such as multiple voting or voting by individuals using the 

identities of others or those who are deceased- and thus it can enhance confidence," and that 

"most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their 

democracies remain strong." 

c. How do you plan on using the resources of the Department of Justice to investigate 

4 
645 

alleged instances of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election? 

RESPONSE: The Department of Justice has a number of important responsibilities in this 

area, including investigating and prosecuting election fraud that violates federal criminal 

statutes, as well as investigating and bringing suit to prevent violations of federal voting rights 

laws. Ifi am confirmed as Attorney General, I am committed to enforcing all of the federal 

laws within the Department's jurisdiction, including the laws regarding voting, in a fair and 

even-handed manner. Any specific enforcement decisions or actions would depend upon the 

facts and circumstances of each case. 

10. A 2014 study by Justin Levitt published in the Washington Post found that since 2000, 

there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation, during a period in which 

there were I billion ballots cast. In light of this report, do you think it is justifiable for the 

Department of Justice to spend resources on combatting in-person voter fraud? 

RESPONSE: Please see responses to 9(b) and (c). 

II. Do you agree that certain photo ID laws can disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters and 

disproportionately and unreasonably burden African-American and Latino voters? 

RESPONSE: As I testified at the hearing, government cannot create laws designed to 

improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote. The voting rights of Americans are 

protected by federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court held in 

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, that voter identification laws are neither per se 

unconstitutional, nor do they necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. The analysis of such 

laws are specific to the particular law, the jurisdiction, and a wide range of factors that Congress 

has identified as relevant in determining whether a particular voting practice comports with the 

Voting Rights Act. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I am committed to enforcing all of 

the federal laws within the Department's jurisdiction, and particularly the laws regarding 

voting, in a fair and even-handed manner. 

12. The FBI reported that hate crimes targeting Muslims increased by 67% in 2015. How do 

you believe the Department of Justice should use its resources to address rapid, 

documented increases in crimes such as this one? 

RESPONSE: I believe that Americans of all backgrounds and religious faiths are entitled to 

equal protection of the law. I share your commitment to protecting all Americans and, ifi am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work with our law enforcement 

professionals to enforce laws and to tailor enforcement efforts as necessary. 

13. Would you ever rely on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), as precedent? 

RESPONSE: I would not positively cite Korematsu v. United States as precedent. 

14. Do you believe internment of American citizens or residents is lawful? 

5 
646 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any proposal for internment of American citizens or residents. 

The Korematsu lesson our nation learned in WWII from the unjustified internment of Japanese 

citizens and residents must never be forgotten. This was a national tragedy that cannot be 

allowed to happen again. No person or groups of persons should be interned without a clear 

legal basis. 

15. Last year, without debate or congressional action, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure was amended to expand the government's ability to obtain a warrant and 

remotely access electronic devices. The rules now allow federal prosecutors to seek a 

warrant in any district "where activities related to a crime may have occurred." Will you 

instruct the Department of Justice to issue guidance on how this should be interpreted? 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that the new version of Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 41 regarding venue took effect less than two months ago, after Congress chose not 

to take action to disapprove of the changes adopted by the Supreme Court. As this change is 

relatively new and I have not had a chance to study its impact, I do not yet know whether 

additional guidance is necessary. 

16. Do you believe that religious institutions, including mosques, should be targeted for 

warrantless surveillance? 

RESPONSE: I do not believe that a building or organization should be targeted for 

surveillance because it is a religious institution. 

17. What will you do to ensure vigorous enforcement of the Ethics in Government Act, bribery 

and honest services laws, and anti-nepotism laws? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that the Department of Justice 

properly and professionally enforces all federal1aws within its jurisdiction, including those 

involving government ethics, bribery, and anti-nepotism. I will ensure that Department 

personnel comply with the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, 

see 5 U.S.C. § I 0 I, and follow the rules of the Office of Government Ethics, see id., § 402, 

404, in a just and proper manner. 

18. What is your interpretation of the effect of the Emoluments Clause on the ability of 

President-elect Trump or his family members to continue doing business with foreign 

governments after inauguration? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances. Therefore, I am not in a position to 

offer even an informal opinion on it. If confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide legal 

advice on such matters only after examining the relevant facts and circumstances presented, 

and consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel and any other component of the Department 

having expertise bearing on such matters. 

a. Do you understand the arrangements announced at the President-elect's press 

conference on January II, 2017 to be sufficient to comply with the Emoluments 

6 
647 

Clause? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study. Therefore, I 

am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. However, President Trump has 

stated that he will comply with his obligations under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and in 

fact, that he will take additional steps beyond what may be required under the Constitution. 

b. If your answer is "yes," what is the basis for your understanding that the Presidentelect is not receiving monetary or other benefits from foreign entities through his 

continued ownership interests in the Trump Organization, even if he does not have 

day-to-day control? 

RESPONSE: See response to 18(a). 

19. President-elect Trump, through the Trump Organization, has a contract with the U.S. 

Government that allows the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C. to lease the Old 

Post Office property. This contract, however, contains a clause stating that "No ... elected 

official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of 

this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom." If President-elect Trump does not 

divest his interests in this hotel prior to inauguration, the question of whether this contract 

has been breached will need to be decided. As Attorney General, your responsibilities 

would include enforcement of government contracts like this one. 

a. If President-elect Trump does not divest his interests in the Trump International 

Hotel Washington, D.C., will you enforce the contract? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study and would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances with which I am not familiar. 

Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. 

b. What steps do you commit to taking to prove to the public that the Justice 

Department's actions and your own will not be influenced in any way by the 

President-elect's monetary interests? 

RESPONSE: If it is determined that the President has a conflict with the potential to 

influence, or to appear to influence, the impartiality of the Department of Justice, I will take 

whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the Department of Justice represents the interests 

of the American people in the objective enforcement of the law. Any such decisions will 

depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the matter; therefore, it would be premature 

for me to announce how the Department might proceed. 

20. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) supports the Attorney General in fulfilling his 

responsibility to provide legal advice to the President, heads of executive departments, and 

heads of military departments. 

a. Do you agree that, as discussed in the Best Practices for OLC Legal Advice and 

Written Opinions (May 16,2005 and July 16, 2010), the Attorney General and OLC 

7 
648 

should provide "candid, independent, and principled advice--even when that advice 

may be inconsistent with the desires of policymakers" including the President? 

RESPONSE: I believe that the Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel should 

always provide candid, independent, and principled advice. 

b. What standard do you believe must be met before an Attorney General or OLC 

opinion is overturned? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, the Office of Legal Counsel is a vitally 

important office which opines on important legal issues facing the Executive Branch. The OLC 

should render objective decisions, and thus should overturn a previous OLC opinion only after 

the most careful study and reflection. 

21. The total volume of worldwide piracy in counterfeit products is estimated to be 2.5% of 

world trade (USD $461 billion). Counterfeit products such as fake pharmaceutical drugs 

or faulty electronics can cause direct physical harm to Americans, and the profits from 

these illicit sales often go directly to the coffers of organized crime. How will you use 

Department of Justice resources to address this growing threat? 

RESPONSE: Intellectual property crime is a serious problem that threatens the safety of 

American consumers, the success of American companies, and even our national security. If I 

am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure the Department of 

Justice investigates violations of federal law, and prosecutes whenever appropriate, to 

safeguard the American people and the American economy. 

22. The Department of Justice has made substantial efforts to combat trade secret theft by 

foreign nationals. In 2009, only 45 percent of federal trade secret cases were against 

foreign companies; this number increased to over 83 percent by 2015. 

a. Will you prioritize enforcement actions to combat trade secret theft by foreign 

nationals? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will devote the 

resources of the Department of Justice to achieving the Department's missions in many areas, 

and the priorities of each enforcement action will be an evolving decision based on the facts, 

the needs at the time, and the resources available to the Department, so that we can best ensure 

justice for the American people and entities, including those affected by trade secret theft. 

b. How do you plan to continue the Department of Justice's efforts to successfully 

target criminal trade secret theft? 

RESPONSE: The Department of Justice's efforts to combat trade secret theft involve 

coordination between multiple components that have jurisdiction and bring relevant expertise 

to these issues. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure 

that the Department regularly reviews the allocation of resources and the results of these 

efforts to determine the right methods to improve the work to combat trade secret theft. 

8 
649 

23. The United States' scientific and technological leadership is a prime reason for our 

economic advancement over many decades. Our innovation ecosystem is driven by the 

rewards of scientific innovation made possible by a vibrant capitalist economy. It relies on 

generous funding of scientific research and an educational system that is broad-based at the 

bottom and unparalleled in availability and quality at the top. It further relies on 

immigration, a commitment to sustained investment, and certainty provided by the rule of 

law. How will the Department of Justice, under your leadership, work to support 

components ofthe Executive Branch with missions focused on promoting scientific and 

technological progress, such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of 

Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office? 

RESPONSE: The U.S. Department of Justice defends these agencies, and others, before the 

courts. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Justice Department 

will properly and vigorously represent these agencies when they are sued, and ensure that 

their views on legal issues are taken into consideration in such matters. 

24. Do you support the revocation or modification of the 14th Amendment's constitutional 

guarantee of birthright citizenship? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied this issue in-depth. If I am confirmed, I will enforce the law 

and the Constitution, and recognize that Congress may determine whether to enact changes to 

the law. 

25. You previously have expressed support for Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's HB 56, but 

both laws contained unconstitutional provisions. 

a. Would you have the Justice Department intervene if a state passes a law like 

Arizona's SB 1070 or Alabama's HB 56? 

b. Which portions ofthese laws do you understand to be constitutional, if any? 

RESPONSE: The constitutionality of state laws is evaluated on a case-by-case basis before a 

determination is made by the Attorney General to intervene. Any specific decisions or actions 

would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore 1 am unable to 

answer the hypothetical. I would defer to the Supreme Court's reasoning as to which portions 

of these laws were found to be constitutional. 

26. The Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA) authorizes funds to directly support 

establishment and operation of local and regional Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs), as 

well as training and technical assistance related to improving the investigation and 

prosecution of child abuse and neglect. These centers are intended to coordinate a 

multidisciplinary response to child abuse (e.g., law enforcement, child protection/social 

services, medical services, mental health) in a manner that ensures child abuse victims 

receive the support services they need and do not experience the investigation of child 

abuse as an added trauma. Close to 312,000 children were served at CACs in 2015. Will 

you include full funding for the Victims of Child Abuse Act in the Department of Justice's 

proposed budget? 

9 
650 

RESPONSE: The aims of VOCAA are noble and critically important. I am grateful to have 

had the opportunity to work with you on this important legislation. I have been a long and 

vigorous supporter of CACs and served on the board of one in Mobile, Alabama. These centers 

have produced a positive sea change in the way children's cases have been handled. Ifl am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor to utilize the resources of 

the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement of federal law 

and, in particular, protections for children in danger of abuse and neglect. 

27. When the Justice Department decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 

the Department "notiflied] the courts of [the Department's] interest in providing Congress 

a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in [the DOMA] cases." If the 

Department of Justice decides it cannot defend a law, will you take whatever steps are 

necessary to ensure that Congress or others can continue to defend the law? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that 

the Justice Department notifies the other branches of the government, as appropriate, on the 

rare occasion that such a decision is reached. 

28. The Department of Justice established the Violence Reduction Network in 20I4. VRN 

provides a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in communities around the 

country by deploying federal resources in a targeted, strategic, data-driven way to assist 

state and local law enforcement. Through its participation in the VRN, the Wilmington 

Police Department created a new homicide unit, and the homicide clearance rate rose from 

less than I 0 percent to more than 50 percent on current-year cases. 

a. How will you support the sustainability of the Violence Reduction Network 

improvements in cities that have participated in the program? 

b. Will you expand the VRN to work with additional cities? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor to 

utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the 

enforcement of federal law. While I am not familiar with the details of the Violence Reduction 

Network, I will carefully evaluate any current departmental practices and the effectiveness of 

those practices to aid in the administration of justice. The positive results cited above are 

remarkable and could justify replication. 

29. Studies show that 5 percent of gun dealers sell 90 percent of guns that are subsequently 

used in criminal activity. How will you direct the Department of Justice to instruct the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to crack down on dealers that funnel 

thousands of crime guns to city streets? 

RESPONSE: When I served as a United States Attorney, protecting the public from violent 

gun-related crime was among my top priorities. As I testified before the Committee, I will 

enforce federal background check laws. Properly enforced, the federal gun laws can reduce 

crime in our cities and communities. Those who deliberately violate federal gun laws should 

be investigated and prosecuted. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 

I will support the continued enforcement of federal gun laws, as appropriate, and focus on 

10 
651 

criminal offenders. 

30. The Justice Department has supported the Youth Mentoring Program, which provides 

much needed funding to organizations like Boys & Girls Clubs of America. In my state of 

Delaware, those mentoring funds support programming to 44, I 00 young people between 

the ages of 5-18 years old. As Attorney General, will you ensure that the Youth Mentoring 

Program will be fully funded? 

RESPONSE: While I am not familiar with the specifics of the funding associated with this 

particular program, if confirmed, I will make funding decisions only after a careful evaluation of 

any current practice or program administered by the Department and the effectiveness of those 

practices to aid in the administration of justice. I will endeavor to direct and utilize the 

resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement of 

federal law. I will note that I have personally observed the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs 

and believe them to be important and cost-effective programs. 

31. In May 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing made a series of 

recommendations aimed at making communities safer, including developing lasting 

positive connections between law enforcement and the communities they serve and 

improving youth attitudes toward law enforcement. How will the Department of Justice 

promote and support partnerships between law enforcement and young people to promote 

stronger, safer communities? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, trust and partnerships between law 

enforcement and the communities they protect are essential to the ability of officers to keep 

those communities safe. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 

working with and supporting State and local law enforcement in these efforts will be one of my 

top priorities. 

II 
652 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 30,2017 

QUESTIONS FRQM SENATOR COONS 

I. In response to Question for the Record I (b) regarding the use of solitary confinement, you 

stated that "[t]he need to maintain safety is especially true for juveniles, who often present 

unique correctional challenges." 

a. Why do you believe that there is a greater need for maintaining safety for juveniles 

compared to other incarcerated people? 

b. Why do you believe that there are "unique correctional challenges" presented by 

incarceration of juveniles that impact the need for the use of solitary confinement? 

c. What are these "unique correctional challenges"? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): There have been studies and research demonstrating that juveniles 

represent unique incarceration challenges due to the fact that they are usually in earlier stages 

of psychological, mental, and physical development, and therefore can be particularly 

vulnerable, especially to the danger of suicide. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will evaluate these studies and our juvenile justice practices to ensure that 

our incarceration programs for juveniles are safe and effective. 

2. Question for the Record 2 noted that individuals are being jailed throughout the country 

when they are unable to pay a variety of court fines and fees, often with little or no 

attempt to learn whether these individuals could afford to pay or to work out alternatives 

to incarceration. In your response, you stated that you would "make every effort to 

protect the constitutional rights of individuals in the federal criminal justice system." 

However, this is not a problem confined to the federal criminal justice system. For 

example, a Department of Justice report (available at 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opalpressreleases/attachments/20 15/03/04/ferguson police department report. pdf) found that 

traffic offenses such as expired license plates and failure to register a vehicle "comprised 

the majority of offenses that led to a[n arrest] warrant" in Ferguson, Missouri, besides 

Failure to Appear ordinance violations. If you are confirmed, how will the Department of 

Justice work to end the incarceration of individuals for failure to pay fines and court fees 

when they cannot afford to pay them? 

RESPONSE: Ifi am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will evaluate 

such practices to ensure that the constitutional rights of all incarcerated individuals are 

protected. 

3. Question for the Record 3 asked "how" you would improve access to justice for indigent 

criminal and civil defendants. Your response stated that you would "work to ensure that the 

constitutional rights of defendants are protected." 

a. What affirmative steps will you take to improve access to justice? 

b. How will you support the work of the Department of Justice Office for Access to 

Justice? 
653 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): I am not familiar with the inner-workings or current practices of the 

Office for Access to Justice, so it would be difficult for me to opine as to how these practices 

could be improved or supported. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 

I will evaluate current practices or policies in place by the Department and the effectiveness of 

those practices to aid in the administration of justice. 

4. With respect to Question for the Record 4, you previously stated you are "generally 

familiar with the Cole memorandum" but declined to explain whether you would follow 

the Department of Justice's established practice offocusing Controlled Substance Act 

enforcement to address the most significant threats. The Cole memorandum is available 

at https:/ /www.justice.gov/iso/opa!resources/30520 l3829132756857467.pdf. 

a. Do you agree that the Department of Justice's resources are best focused on 

"significant threats" and that individuals who use medical marijuana in accordance 

with state law do not present such a threat? 

b. Do you believe that prosecution of the seriously ill is a good use of the Department 

of Justice's limited resources? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would endeavor to direct 

and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure full 

enforcement of all federal laws. A decision to prosecute is made based on the law and the 

unique circumstances surrounding a case; therefore, I cannot offer an opinion that would fit 

every instance. 

5. With respect to Questions for the Record 6 and 7 regarding Alabama's use of the hitching 

post, you stated that the Complaint in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) "was not filed 

until after [you J w[ ere J elected to the Senate." Other lawsuits were also pending while 

you were Alabama Attorney General. See Austin v. Hopper, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (1998) 

(relevant claims filed in September 1995); see also Fountain v. Talley, 104 F. Supp. 2d 

1345 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (filed in 1994). Question for the Record 6 specifically refers to 

two letters from the Department of Justice that were sent to you on March 27, 1995, about 

two months into your two years of service as Alabama Attorney General, informing you 

of the Justice Department's findings that the use of the hitching post was "indefensible" 

and "violates constitutional standards" and that "[p ]ractices of this sort cannot be justified 

no matter how many superficial safeguards exist." These letters are available at 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/hitching-post-report -tutwiler and 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/hitching-post-report -eastcrling. What, if 

any, actions did you take to stop the use of the hitching post when you were serving as 

Alabama Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: As I previously stated, the Supreme Court in Hope v. Pelzer prohibited the use 

of the hitching post only as applied in that case, due to the circumstances that case presented. 

The complaint in that case was not filed until after I was elected to the Senate, and the first 

filing by Alabama in that case was not until nearly two months after I had left the Alabama 

Attorney General's Office. 

6. Question for the Record 8 cites several recent or pending federal investigations and 

lawsuits related to the treatment of prisoners in Alabama prison facilities and inquires as 

to your efforts to ensure Alabama's prison facilities comply with the Constitution. Your 

2 
654 

response cites your 2003 introduction of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. 

a. As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as Alabama Attorney 

General, what actions did you take to ensure that Alabama prison facilities 

complied with the Constitution? 

b. During your time in the Senate since 2003, what have you done to address the 

continued mistreatment of prisoners? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Throughout my career, I have worked to address challenges facing 

the justice system. My efforts include leading the bipartisan passage of the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue 

to seek solutions to the challenges facing incarceration facilities. 

7. With respect to Question for the Record 9(b ), you stated that you "believe that fraudulent 

activities regularly occur during election cycles," and that "[t]here is no reason to believe 

that this election is any exception." You cited the 2005 report from the Carter-Baker 

Commission on Federal Election Reform. The report has been criticized as deeply flawed 

for its lack of transparent process, failure to consult with recognized experts, and minimal 

attempt to gather empirical data to support its conclusions. 

a. Have you reviewed and considered criticisms of the Carter-Baker Commission 

report, such as those reported in the Brennan Center's report (available at 

https://wv.cw.brennancenter.org/press-release/voting-rights-groups-respond-carterbaker-commission-report-election-refonn)? 

b. What empirical evidence do you have to support your belief that voter fraud 

"regularly occur[ s ]"? 

c. Do you believe that millions of individuals voted illegally in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): As I previously stated, I believe that fraudulent activities regularly 

occur during election cycles. There is no reason to believe that this election is any exception. I 

would also note that the views of the Brennan Center are not universally accepted. 

8. Question for the Record 10 references a 2014 report in the Washington Post (available at 

https://www .wash ingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/20 14/08/06/a-comprehensiveinvestigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billionballots-cast/?utm term=.dc645a28ib6b) finding that since 2000, there were only 31 

credible allegations of voter impersonation, during a period in which there were 1 billion 

ballots cast. You previously responded, "Please see responses to 9(b) and (c)," but these 

responses do not address whether the expenditure of Department of Justice resources to 

combat in-person voter fraud is justified in light of this study. In light of the 2014 report 

by Justin Levitt, do you think it is justifiable for the Department of Justice to spend 

resources on combatting in-person voter fraud? 

RESPONSE: Whether an investigation or prosecution of a voter fraud case or any other case 

is justified is a decision based on the unique circumstances and evidence presented in each 

case. 

9. In your response to Question for the Record 11, you stated that the "government cannot 

create laws designed to improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote." 

3 
655 

Recently, the Fifth Circuit, in an en bane decision, affirmed that a Texas Statute "violates 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects" on minorities. 

Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 272 (5th Cir. 2016). The Department of Justice was 

recently granted a 30-day continuance to allow additional time to brief the new leadership 

of the Department of Justice on this case and the issues to be addressed. Do you believe 

that the Department of Justice should continue to vigorously litigate this case, where there 

has been a direct violation of the Voting Rights Act? 

RESPONSE: As I have not yet been confirmed as Attorney General, I have not received the 

briefings referenced and do not have access to the internal information available to the 

Department. Accordingly, I cannot yet make a determination as to this specific case. 

10. In Response to Question for the Record 14, you stated that "[n]o person or groups of 

persons should be interned without a clear legal basis." 

a. Do you believe it would be possible to demonstrate a clear legal basis to intern 

U.S. citizens and/or residents? 

b. If your answer is "yes," please cite specific justifications and sources you would 

rely upon. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): As I previously stated, 

"I am unaware of any proposal for internment of American citizens or residents. The 

Korematsu lesson our nation learned in WW!l from the unjustified internment of 

Japanese citizens and residents must never be forgotten. This was a national tragedy 

that cannot be allowed to happen again. No person or groups of persons should be 

interned without a clear legal basis." 

11. In response to Question for the Record 16, you stated that you "do not believe that a 

building or organization should be targeted for surveillance because it is a religious 

institution." 

a. Do you believe that a religious institution should be targeted because it is of a 

particular faith, i.e., should a religious institution be targeted because it is a 

Muslim institution? 

RESPONSE: I believe that my original response answers this question. 

b. Will you commit to instructing the FBI that the agency should not surveil a house 

of worship unless there is probable cause of criminal activity? 

RESPONSE: If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work to 

ensure that any Department of Justice surveillance of any institution or person, regardless of 

religion, is conducted in accordance with applicable Jaw. 

12. In your response to Question for the Record 18, you stated that "President Trump has 

stated that he will comply with his obligations under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and 

in fact, that he will take additional steps beyond what may be required under the 

Constitution." However, the plan President Trump outlined on January 11,2017 (to 

address his potential conflicts and violation of the Emoluments Clause) did not require 

4 
656 

President Trump to relinquish ownership of his business or to establish a blind trust. The 

plan also did not indicate that President Trump would seek the consent of Congress to 

keep the benefits he receives from foreign entities through his businesses. The Director of 

the Office of Government Ethics has stated that this plan breaks with the practice of past 

presidents. 

a. Based on these facts, has President Trump, in your view, complied with the 

requirements of the Emoluments Clause? 

b. On January 23,2017, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 

supported by a bipartisan group of past presidential ethics lawyers and 

constitutional law scholars, filed a complaint against President Trump for violating 

the Emoluments Clause (available at 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wpcontent/uploads/20 17/0112322293 7 /Complaint-17 -458.pd0. Will you recuse 

yourself from this matter, given your personal involvement in President Trump's 

campaign in which he repeatedly stated his views about what he did and did not 

have to do to avoid conflicts of interest? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): As I have previously stated, this question is not one on which I have 

devoted any study. Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. 

13. In response to Question for the Record 20 regarding the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC): 

a. You agreed with prior Best Practices for OLC Legal Advice and Written Opinions 

(May 16,2005 and July 16, 2010) that OLC should provide "candid, independent, 

and principled advice," but you did not comment on the second portion of the 

quoted statement in Question 20(a), that OLC should provide such candid, 

independent, and principled advice "even when that advice may be inconsistent 

with the desires of policymakers" including the President. It is your view that 

OLC should provide "candid, independent and principled advice--even when that 

advice may be inconsistent with the desires of policymakers" including the 

President? 

RESPONSE: The nature of"candid, independent and principled advice" is that it is candid, 

independent and principled, which by definition means it may be inconsistent with the desires 

of policymakers. 

b. You noted that an OLC opinion should be overturned "only after the most careful 

study and reflection," but Question 20(b) asked what standard should be met 

before an Attorney General or OLC opinion is overturned. What do you contend is 

the appropriate legal standard? 

RESPONSE: If a serious question arose as to the legitimacy of a particular OLC opinion, the 

Attorney General should review it to determine whether or not it contains a reasonable 

interpretation of the law. If, after careful study and reflection, the Attorney General found that 

it did not, it would be necessary to overturn it. 

I 4. In response to Question for the Record 24 regarding the I 4th Amendment's constitutional 

guarantee of birthright citizenship, you indicated that you "have not studied this issue indepth" and would "enforce the law and the Constitution, and recognize that Congress may 

5 
657 

determine whether to enact changes to the law." 

a. Based on your review of the 14th Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 

169 U.S. 649 (1898) and its progeny, and U.S. law, do you believe a constitutional 

amendment would be required for the U.S. to stop recognizing children born in the 

U.S. to undocumented immigrants as U.S. citizens? 

b. In an interview with Laura [ngraham in August 2015, you reportedly stated that it 

is "not an extreme position" to interpret the 14th Amendment such that a person 

born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented is not entitled to U.S. 

citizenship at birth (available at http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/jeff-sessionsbacks-trump-on-birthright-citizenship-absolutely-not-an-extreme-position-video/). 

Is that your position? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): As [have previously stated, I am aware that scholars have differing 

views and have not conducted the careful research needed to express an opinion on the subject. 

15. In response to Question for the Record 25 regarding Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's 

HB 56, you indicated that "[t]he constitutionality of state laws is evaluated on a case-bycase basis" and that you "would defer to the Supreme Court's reasoning as to which 

portions of these laws were found to be constitutional." 

a. What is your understanding of the judicial rulings in Arizona v. United States, 132 

S. Ct. 2492 (2012), Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of 

Alabama, 691 FJd 1236 (lith Cir. 2012), and United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 

1269 (lith Cir. 2012)? 

b. Will you follow the law as set forth in these rulings? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): These cases, and others like them, have been based on an analysis of 

when federal immigration law preempts state laws on immigration. If I am confirmed as 

Attorney General, it will be my duty to enforce federal immigration laws as written and as 

interpreted by the courts. 

16. In response to Question for the Record 29 regarding Justice Department instructions to the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, you noted that if confirmed, you 

"will support the continued enforcement of federal gun laws, as appropriate, and focus on 

criminal offenders." What factors will you consider when determining whether it is 

appropriate to enforce federal gun laws? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will support the 

continued enforcement of federal gun laws based on careful evaluation of the pertinent facts 

and law in each case and the resources available to the Department. Effective enforcement of 

gun laws is a valuable tool in reducing violence in America and will be a priority. 

17. In response to Question for the Record 30 regarding the Justice Department's support for 

the Youth Mentoring Program, you indicated that you were "not familiar with the 

specifics of the funding associated with this particular program," and, if confirmed, you 

would "make funding decisions only after a careful evaluation of any current practice or 

program administered by the Department and the effectiveness of those practices to aid in 

6 
658 

the administration of justice." What metrics will you use to evaluate Department of 

Justice programs, and what tools will you use to judge the effectiveness of these programs 

in aiding the administration of justice? 

RESPONSE: The effectiveness of any program within the Department would be measured by 

the mission and stated objectives of that program, the success of the program in meeting those 

objectives, and the efficiency with which program resources were utilized. 

18. In response to Question for the Record 31, you indicated that, if confirmed, "working 

with and supporting State and local law enforcement" to build trust and partnerships with 

the communities they serve will be a top priority, but you did not indicate how you will do 

so. This question referenced the recommendations of the President's Task Force on 21st 

Century Policing, which are available at 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce Fina!Report.pdf. Please identify any 

recommendations you will support to build trust and partnerships between law 

enforcement and the communities they serve. 

RESPONSE: State and local law enforcement agencies face unique chalJenges, just as they 

also face challenges similar to federal law enforcement. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will listen to the concerns and experiences of these agencies 

and will work with and support them in dealing with these challenges and building partnerships 

with the communities they serve. 

7 
659 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DURBIN 

For any questions with subparts, please respond to each subpart separately. 

I. When we met in my office prior to your confirmation hearing, I talked with you about the 

epidemic of gun violence facing the City of Chicago. 

In September, Mayor Emanuel put forward a public safety plan; I handed you a copy of it at 

our meeting. The plan calls for hiring nearly a thousand more Chicago police officers and 

detectives. It calls for more training and equipment, like body-worn cameras and gunshot 

detection technology. It calls for more mentoring programs for youth. And it calls for 

policing reforms to rebuild trust and cooperation between the police and the community. 

All of these are areas where the Justice Department can help. The COPS grant program 

helps put local police departments put more cops on the beat. The Byrne-JAG program helps 

them buy equipment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides 

mentoring and violence prevention funds. And the Justice Department was invited in by the 

mayor, the state Attorney General and me to review the Chicago Police Department's 

policies and practices. 

I believe the Justice Department must sustain and increase its support for Chicago in light of 

the crisis there. On January 2, President-elect Trump tweeted that Mayor Emanuel should 

ask for federal help in light ofthe violence. I was surprised in our meeting when I asked if 

you would support programs like COPS and Byrne-JAG as Attorney General and you replied 

"well, I'm going to take what Congress gets me." I then asked if you would include those 

grant programs in Justice Department budget requests and you said, "well, I'll think about it. 

I've thought in the past the money is not best spent on COPS." Your comments troubled me, 

because cutting these programs is the last thing Chicago needs now. 

Now that you have had further time to think about it, please answer the following questions: 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will not seek to 

cut Justice Department grant funding for the City of Chicago and instead seek 

increases in that funding to help address the gun violence crisis there? 

RESPONSE: I am committed to working with you and Mayor Emanuel on addressing the 

violent crime problem in Chicago. lfi am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will seek to best use the resources available to the Department of Justice to address 

violent and other crimes in Chicago and elsewhere throughout the country, and to partner with 

state and local law enforcement agencies to help them address these issues. Resources are 

limited, however, and it would be unwise to commit to indefinitely providing a particular amount 
660 

of federal resources to a single jurisdiction or for individual purposes without knowing how 

circumstances might change needs or priorities in the future. 

b. Will you commit to provide federal resources and support to improve Chicago's 

public safety, including helping the City to (1) hire additional officers and detectives 

through the COPS program; (2) purchase body-worn cameras and other equipment 

through the Byrne-JAG program and other Office of Justice Programs initiatives; 

(3) boost mentoring and violence prevention programs through the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and other Office of Justice Programs 

initiatives; and ( 4) reform its policing practices pursuant to the investigation 

findings and recommendation made by the Department on January 13? Please 

respond to each subpart of this questions separately. 

RESPONSE: I agree with you that each of the federal resources mentioned in your question are 

important for improving public safety and I am committed to working with you and Mayor 

Emanuel on addressing the violent crime problem facing Chicago. If I am fortunate enough to 

be confirmed as Attorney General, I will seek to best use the resources available to the 

Department of Justice to address violent and other crimes in Chicago and elsewhere throughout 

the country, and to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies to help them address 

these issues. Resources are limited, however, and it would be unwise to commit to indefinitely 

providing a particular amount of federal resources to a single jurisdiction or for individual 

purposes without knowing how circumstances might change needs or priorities in the future. 

c. Will you commit not to request cuts to the COPS Hiring Program below FY17 levels 

in the Justice Department's budget requests if you are confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

RESPONSE: I believe the COPS Hiring Program serves an important purpose, particularly 

given the increase in violent crime across the country and the challenges facing State and local 

law enforcement and the communities they protect and serve. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will seek to best use the resources available to the Department 

of Justice to address violent and other crimes throughout the country, and to partner with State 

and local law enforcement agencies to help them address these issues. Resources are limited, 

however, and it would be unwise to commit to indefinitely providing a particular amount of 

federal resources for certain purposes without knowing how circumstances might change needs 

or priorities in the future. 

d. Will you commit not to request cuts to the Byrne-JAG program below FY17 levels 

in the Justice Department's budget requests if you are confirmed as Attorney 

General? 

RESPONSE: I believe the COPS Hiring Program serves an important purpose, particularly 

given the increase in violent crime across the country and the challenges facing State and local 

law enforcement and the communities they protect and serve. If! am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will seek to best use the resources available to the Department 

of Justice to address violent and other throughout the country, and to partner with State and local 

2 
661 

law enforcement agencies to help them address these issues. Resources are limited, however, and 

it would be unwise to commit to indefinitely provide a particular amount of federal resources to a 

single jurisdiction or for individual purposes without knowing how circumstances might change 

needs or priorities in the future. 

e. Will you commit not to request cuts to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention below FY17 levels in the Justice Department's budget 

requests if you are confirmed as Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: I believe the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention serves an 

important purpose. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will seek to 

best use the resources available to the Department of Justice to address violent and other crimes 

throughout the country, and to partner with State and local Jaw enforcement agencies to help 

them address these issues. Resources are limited, however, and it would be unwise to commit to 

indefinitely provide a particular amount of federal resources to a single jurisdiction or for 

individual purposes without knowing how circumstances might change needs or priorities in the 

future. 

2. On January 13, the Department of Justice announced the findings of an investigation into the 

Chicago Police Department (CPD) that had been initiated on December 7, 2015 by the Civil 

Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. The 

investigation had been requested by a number of Illinois federal, state and local officials, 

including myself, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Chicago Mayor Rahm 

Emanuel, after the release of the videotape ofthe fatal police shooting ofLaquan McDonald. 

The investigation lasted for 13 months and was conducted with thoroughness and 

professionalism by career Department employees. 

The Department's findings reveal that the Department found reasonable cause to believe that 

the CPD has engaged in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in 

violation of the Constitution. The Department largely attributes this pattern or practice of 

unconstitutional force to deficiencies in CPD's training, supervision, accountability, and data 

collection systems. The findings also reveal that CPD's pattern or practice of unreasonable 

force falls disproportionately on predominantly minority neighborhoods, and that some CPD 

officers have engaged in racially discriminatory conduct. The findings are sobering, and they 

make clear that CPD must undergo significant reforms to restore the trust and confidence of 

the communities it polices and also to boost the morale of CPD officers who are committed 

to engaging in effective, ethical and active policing but who feel they are insufficiently 

trained and supported in that effort. 

On January 13, the City of Chicago and the Justice Department signed an Agreement in 

Principle in which they commit to negotiate reforms over the coming months to ensure 

sustainable, constitutional and effective policing in Chicago. The Agreement states: 

Going forward, the Parties commit to negotiate in good faith to reach a comprehensive 

settlement in the form of a consent decree to be entered as an order of the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Settlement Agreement will include 
662 

reforms ofCPD's use of force practices and accountability mechanisms, as well as its 

training, community policing, supervision, data collection, transparency, officer wellness 

systems and promotion practices. 

When I met with you prior to your confirmation hearing, I told you about this Justice 

Department investigation into the CPD and asked you about moving forward with a consent 

decree upon the issuance of the investigation's findings. You replied that you "don't know 

anything about" the investigation and that you "would have to study it." At your 

confirmation hearing, you responded to a question by Senator Hirono by saying "[t]he 

consent decree itself is not necessarily a bad thing, could be a legitimate decision .. .I just 

think that caution is always required in these cases." 

It was the assessment of the career Justice Department professionals who conducted the CPD 

investigation that the CPD must undergo significant reforms to rebuild trust with the 

communities most challenged by violent crime and that "it is not likely to be successful in 

doing so without a consent decree with independent monitoring." 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will honor the Agreement in 

Principle that the Justice Department signed on January 13? 

RESPONSE: While I have not been privy to the discussions that led to the aforementioned 

agreement, I believe it is important to partner with law enforcement agencies that require 

assistance, and the recommendations made by career staff can be useful in attempting to achieve 

those goals. As I testified before the Committee, I think that there are concerns with the impact 

of using consent decrees for policy purposes and that caution should be used in these cases. Ifl 

am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully evaluate this 

agreement and the internal information that led to that agreement, and continue to search for 

solutions to problems in policing so we can best protect the rights of individuals while also 

protecting the public from crime. I look forward to working with you, the City of Chicago, and 

the Chicago Police Department on this important matter. 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work with the City to 

implement the reform recommendations made by the Department, including 

through the use of a consent decree? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully 

evaluate this agreement and the internal information that led to that agreement, and continue to 

search for solutions to problems in policing so we can best protect the rights of individuals while 

also protecting the public from crime. I look forward to working with you, the City of Chicago, 

and the Chicago Police Department on this important matter. 

3. I sent a letter on December 13 to Attorney General Lynch inquiring whether there is an 

ongoing criminal investigation by career Justice Department employees into Russian 

interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That night Attorney General Lynch stated 

in a television interview that an investigation is ongoing. 

4 
663 

When you and I met prior to your confirmation hearing, I asked if you would continue this 

investigation if you were confirmed as Attorney General. You responded "If there's a basis 

to continue it, yes. There may be. But Congress also has investigations ongoing." 

I was troubled by your answer. Congress does have a key role to play in investigating 

Russia's actions and amplifying the Obama Administration's sanctions on Russia. But only 

the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute the perpetrators. We need an Attorney 

General who will protect our democratic processes from foreign interference. And that 

Attorney General may also have to stand up to President-elect Trump, who inexplicably 

continues to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

a. Have you read the unclassified or classified versions of the January 6 Intelligence 

Community Assessment "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US 

Elections"? 

RESPONSE: No. 

b. Do you believe that this assessment provides the "basis" you said you needed for the 

Department of Justice to continue a criminal investigation into Russian interference 

in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

RESPONSE: See response to 3(a). 

c. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will not 

impede or shut down any FBI or Justice Department investigation into Russian 

efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any investigations beyond what is contained in public reporting. 

As such, I am unable to comment on the status of any such investigations except to say that I 

believe all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in a fair, 

professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any 

potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures of 

the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist 

upon ifi am confirmed as Attorney General. 

d. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will recuse 

yourself from any ongoing FBI or Justice Department investigation into Russian 

efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 
664 

e. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will recuse 

yourself from any investigation into whether President-elect Trump or any of his 

family, campaign staff, business associates or advisors had any communication with 

Russian officials or operatives during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, or had 

any connection to, knowledge of, or involvement in Russian efforts to influence the 

2016 U.S. presidential election? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

4. In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said the following about the Trump Organization: "we see a lot of 

money pouring in from Russia." 

a. Do you know how much of the Trump Organization's assets or debts are held or 

owned hy Russian individuals, businesses, and/or government officials? 

RESPONSE: No. 

h. Do you know how much money Russian individuals, businesses and/or government 

officials have paid to, invested in, or otherwise "pour[ed) in" the Trump 

Organization? 

RESPONSE: No. 

c. If you are confirmed as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, how 

will you ensure that the actions of President-elect Trump and his administration are 

not influenced or impacted by the Trump Organization's financial connections with 

Russian individuals, businesses, or government officials? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I would faithfully enforce federal laws, 

including any applicable laws regarding conflicts of interest. I will also instruct the Office of 

Legal Counsel to provide the President with guidance on identifying and mitigating conflicts of 

interest. 

d. Do you believe the American people would benefit from full transparency of the 

Trump Organization's assets, debts, and foreign entanglements? 

RESPONSE: As required by law, President Trump released a financial disclosure form that is 

available to the public. I have not studied it. However, it is my understanding that while a tax 

return shows how much a taxpayer paid in taxes, it does not provide any more information than a 

financial disclosure about the identity and nature of one's assets. 
665 

e. Should such transparency include the public release of President-elect Trump's tax 

returns for each year in which he has campaigned for or served in the office of 

President of the United States? 

RESPONSE: See response to 4(d). 

5. On July 9, 1997, you expressed strong support for robust bipartisan Congressional 

investigations into whether China attempted to influence the 1996 presidential election. You 

said on the Senate floor: 

We need a bipartisan effort, similar to those conducted in the past. We need 

the spirit of Howard Baker in the Watergate hearings who, as a Republican, 

made sure that he cooperated in, that investigation and sought the truth. We 

need the spirit of Warren Rudman, Republican, who participate in the 

Irangate matters that were investigated here. He always sought to get to the 

truth regardless of politics. 

a. Do you believe that we need to "get to the truth" about Russian interference in the 

2016 U.S. presidential election, "regardless of politics"? 

RESPONSE: It is always important to see truth, regardless of politics. 

b. If your answer to question S(a) is yes, how do you believe we should get to this 

truth? 

RESPONSE: In general, the best way to get to truth is in a fair, professional, and impartial 

manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. 

c. If your answer to question S(a) is no, how do you differentiate allegations of Chinese 

interference in the 1996 election from allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 

election? 

RESPONSE: I do not have a basis for comparison, as l am not aware of the details of any 

investigations beyond what is contained in public reporting. As such, I am unable to comment 

on the status of any such investigations except to say that I believe all investigations by the 

Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial 

manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The Department must follow the facts 

wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any potential charges based upon the facts and 

the law, and consistent with established procedures of the Department. That is what l always did 

as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon ifl am confirmed as Attorney 

General. 

d. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you support and assist Congressional 

investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 

including by providing information that Members of Congress- Democrats, 

Republicans and Independents alike- request as part of such investigations? 

7 
666 

RESPONSE: I will support all appropriate investigations and respond to appropriate requests. 

6. During his confirmation hearing, Congressman Michael Pompeo, the nominee for the 

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was asked by Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence (SSCI) Vice Chairman Mark Warner "[d]o you pledge to continue to pursue 

your own investigation into ongoing Russian active measures and any attempts they or others 

may have to unde1mine the United States, our political system, or our position in the world?" 

Congressman Pompeo answered "Senator. I do." 

Do you pledge to continue to pursue any ongoing investigation by the Justice 

Department into Russian interference in the 2016 election or any other attempts Russia 

may have made to undermine the United States, our political system, or our position in 

the world? 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any investigations beyond what is contained in public reporting. 

As such, I am unable to comment on the status of any such investigations except to say that I 

believe all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in a fair, 

professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any 

potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures of 

the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist 

upon if! am confirmed as Attorney General. 

7. On September 28,2016, Director James Corney of the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation 

testified before the House Judiciary Committee and was asked about the Department's 

standard for commenting on whether an investigation is underway. Director Corney stated 

that"[ o ]ur standard is we do not confirm or deny the existence of investigations," but he 

cited examples of "exceptional circumstances" that he said justified commenting on the 

existence of investigations, including "when there is a need for the public to be reassured" 

and "where the public needed transparency." 

a. Do you agree with Director Corney that Department of Justice officials are justified 

in commenting on the existence of investigations in exceptional circumstances, 

including "when there is a need for the public to be reassured" and "where the 

public need[s] transparency"? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with the basis for Director Corney's remarks. 

b. Do you believe that the American people deserve to know whether the Department 

of Justice is fully investigating tbe extent of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

RESPONSE: Decisions regarding informing the public of ongoing Department investigations 

should comply with the law and departmental procedures. 
667 

c. Will you commit to promptly inform the American people about the outcome of the 

Department of Justice's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will follow the law and departmental procedures with regard to 

informing the public regarding the outcome of Department investigations. 

d. Will you commit to promptly inform the American people if the Department of 

Justice closes, terminates, or declines to further pursue an investigation into Russian 

interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will follow the law and departmental procedures with regard to 

informing the public regarding the outcome of Department investigations. 

8. During his confirmation hearing, General John Kelly, the nominee for Secretary of 

Homeland Security, was asked if he accepted the conclusions of the intelligence community 

regarding Russian interference in our election. He answered "yes, with high confidence." 

Do you agree with General Kelly's answer? 

RESPONSE: I have no reason to disagree with him. 

9. The Foreign Emoluments Clause in Art. I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that 

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no Person holding any Office 

of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any 

present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign 

State." 

The Foreign Emoluments Clause reflects a fundamental priority of the Founding Fathers as 

they designed our form of government. They were worried about foreign powers attempting 

to influence and corrupt the leadership of our nation, so the Constitution included safeguards 

against pressure from such powers, particularly the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which was 

adopted unanimously at the Constitutional Convention. As Delegate Edmund Randolph of 

the Continental Congress said during the ratification debates in Virginia, "[i]t was thought 

proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office 

from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states." 

a. Do you believe that all current provisions of the Constitution must be followed and 

enforced, including the Foreign Emoluments Clause? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, what steps will you take to ensure that 

the Foreign Emoluments Clause is followed and enforced? 

9 
668 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I will take all appropriate actions in the course 

of my duties, including providing legal advice upon request, to ensure that office holders comply 

with their constitutional obligations. 

c. President-elect Trump says that he is taking steps to avoid unconstitutional 

emoluments. But without seeing his federal tax returns and having full 

transparency of his and his family's business holdings and debts, how can the 

American people be confident that all potential emoluments have been eliminated 

and will continue to be avoided throughout his Presidency? 

RESPONSE: As you noted, President Trump has stated that he will comply with his obligations 

under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and in fact, will take additional steps beyond what may 

be required under the Constitution. 

d. President-elect Trump has said he will donate to the U.S. Treasury profits from 

foreign government payments made to his hotels. Do you believe that the 

subsequent donation of payments can cure a violation of the Foreign Emoluments 

Clause, which provides that no officeholder may "accept" such payment? If so, 

why? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances, which do not exist at this time. 

Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide legal advice on such matters only 

after examining the relevant facts and circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of 

Legal Counsel and any other component of the Department having expertise bearing on such 

matters. 

e. If the Office of Legal Counsel is asked to assess the legality of any receipt of 

emoluments by President Trump, would you recuse yourself from reviewing or 

influencing the Office's decision? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

f. On what basis will you decide when to personally recuse yourself from involvement 

in a case, investigation or other matter involving the financial interests of Presidentelect Trump or his family? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

10 
669 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

g. If you recuse yourself from involvement in a case, investigation, or other matter 

involving the financial interests of President-elect Trump or his family, will you 

commit to having the matter handled by career Justice Department officials instead 

of political appointees? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

I 0. If we are serious about reducing the number of shootings in Chicago, we cannot ignore the 

pipeline of illicitly-trafficked guns from Indiana into Chicago. As Lake County Indiana 

Sheriff John Buncich said last year, hundreds of guns from Lake County show up in Chicago 

crimes every year, and "individuals are skirting federal law, especially at these gun 

shows ... there's a lot of illegal gun sales." 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work with officials in Indiana 

on reforms that will reduce the illicit trafficking of guns from Indiana gun shows to 

the streets of Chicago? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will make enforcement of federal gun crimes a top priority 

and aggressively engage with state and local law enforcement partners to achieve consistent 

policies for the apprehension of those violating federal gun laws. Properly enforced, federal gun 

laws can reduce crime in our cities and communities. 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will make it a priority of the 

Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute those who are selling guns that 

supply Chicago's criminal gun market? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will make enforcement of federal gun crimes a top priority 

and aggressively engage with state and local law enforcement partners to achieve consistent 

policies for the apprehension ofthose violating federal gun laws. Properly enforced, federal gun 

laws can reduce crime in our cities and communities. 

c. If you are confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that cases involving straw 

purchasing, gun trafficking, and dealing in firearms without a license are 

prosecuted? Will the Department of Justice's budget requests support additional 

resources, specifically for ATF, to enforce these laws? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will make reduction of illegal interstate trafficking of firearms 

a priority. I will work with Congress to ensure that the A TF has the resources necessary to fairly 

and efficiently investigate criminal activity. I understand the challenges ATF faces and believe 

II 
670 

with proper support and with vigorous prosecutions, A TF will be more productive without large 

increases in funding. 

II. Two critically important law enforcement tools for fighting violent crime are crime gun 

tracing and ballistics matching. Local police departments and sheriffs offices can use ATF's 

online eTrace tool to trace guns recovered in crime in order to generate leads in criminal 

investigations and to identify those who illegally traffic in guns. And ATF's National 

Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIB IN) lets local law enforcement take digital 

computer images of ammunition casing evidence recovered at crime scenes and match them 

to particular guns. This helps law enforcement identify trigger-pullers and helps discover 

Jinks between gun crimes. 

I have made it a priority to encourage every local law enforcement agency in Illinois to trace 

all of their crime guns through eTrace and to use NIB IN for all recovered ammunition 

casings. I have reached out to hundreds of police chiefs and sheriffs in my state about these 

tools, and 476 Illinois Jaw enforcement agencies now use eTrace and 260 use NIB IN. These 

tools help solve crimes. 

If confirmed as Attorney General, would you take steps to urge all state and local law 

enforcement agencies to use eTrace and NIBIN for all guns and ammunition casings 

recovered in crimes? 

RESPONSE: I have always believed that forensic analysis, and particularly firearms analysis, is 

key in reducing gun crime. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with you with respect 

to eTrace and NIBIN. 

12. You have repeatedly emphasized the importance of enforcing the gun laws on the books. 

FBI NICS background checks on prospective gun purchasers are one of the most important 

mechanisms we have to enforce the laws that prohibit felons, the mentally unstable, and other 

prohibited purchasers from obtaining guns. 

a. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will work to ensure that the records 

in the NICS background check system are as complete and up-to-date as possible? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the Department of Justice will not 

submit budget requests that seek to reduce the amount of FBI resources and the 

number of FBI personnel dedicated to operating the NICS system below FY17 

levels? 

RESPONSE: Through my service as a United States Attorney, and as a Senator, I am aware of 

the difficult choices that the Justice Department has to make during times of fiscal uncertainty. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will strive to ensure that the 

Department maintains the resources necessary to accomplish its mission, and that those resources 

are utilized in the most efficient and effective manner possible. 

12 
671 

c. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the FBI will respect and enforce current 

federal and state laws regarding NICS background checks, including by assisting 

each state to conduct checks on gun sales in that state? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

d. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, the FBI will continue to run NICS 

background checks on private sales in any state when the private seller voluntarily 

goes to a federally-licensed dealer to conduct a background check on the buyer? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

13. On May 6, 1998, you spoke at length on the Senate floor about federal conflict of interest 

laws. You described the "fundamental principle that a man or woman can only serve one 

master, not two, and should not be holding public office with a clear conflict of interest." 

You continued: 

We have crafted over the years a series of laws that are designed in such a 

way that those laws protect the public from conflicts of interest and other 

types of unhealthy relationships that would put that person in office in a 

position in which his total fidelity is to anything other than the government 

which he represents. That is what we are looking for. Somewhere in the Book 

of Ecclesiastes the preacher said "A bribe corrupts the mind." A conflict of 

interest corrupts the mind. The person is tom. You cannot serve two masters. 

You can only serve one master. 

You also said in a press release that day that "Laws should apply equally to all people." 

a. Do you believe that President-elect Trump has rid himself of his conflicts of interest 

such that his "total fidelity" is now only to the government which he represents? 

RESPONSE: While I have not studied this matter, it is my understanding that President Trump 

has taken steps to isolate himself from his business interests and to devote himself fully to the 

duties of the presidential office. 

b. How can the American people verify that President-elect Trump's "total fidelity" is 

only to the government which he represents if he does not release his annual tax 

returns? 

RESPONSE: As required by law, President Trump released a financial disclosure form that is 

available to the public. I have not studied it. However, it is my understanding that while a tax 

return shows how much a taxpayer paid in taxes, it does not provide any more information than a 

financial disclosure about the identity and nature of one's assets. 

13 
672 

14.1n an interview on November 23, President-elect Trump said "the president can't have a 

conflict of interest. 

In your view, is this an accurate statement? 

RESPONSE: I have not discussed this matter with the President and therefore do not know what 

he meant by that statement. 

15. In your May 6, 1998 Senate floor speech on conflicts of interest you said "U.S. attorneys are 

prosecuting people who do these kinds ofthings with these kinds of conflicts. To pass a law 

to say everybody else has to adhere to them except for one individual because he or she is 

special is a big mistake." 

Do you think it is a "big mistake" to have federal criminal conflict of interest laws that 

do not apply to the President? 

RESPONSE: I have not had a chance to study this issue in any detail. It is my understanding 

that in recent history, Presidents have followed the conflicts statute as though it applied to them, 

but the Department of Justice has explained that applying conflicts laws to the President would 

either disable him from performing one or more of his constitutional duties or augment the 

Constitution's qualifications for becoming President because, in general, conflicts laws force 

either recusal or divestiture. The Constitution precludes both. 

16. On January 5, The Wall Street Journal published a story entitled "Trump's Debts are Widely 

Held on Wall Street, Creating New Potential Conflicts." The story noted that President-elect 

Trump said in his financial disclosure form that his businesses owe at least $315 million to 

ten companies. But The Wall Street Journal analyzed these debts and found that they had 

been securitized and are now held by more than !50 companies. Also, Mr. Trump did not list 

in his disclosure form his debts for partnerships that he does not fully control. The Journal 

was able to identify at least $1.5 billion in such debts, including loans that Mr. Trump 

personally guaranteed. 

The potential for conflicts of interest here is staggering. For example, as The Journal noted, 

"Deutsche Bank, which is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department over its equity 

trades for wealthy clients in Russia, is the single biggest lender to properties controlled by 

Mr. Trump." 

In addition, The Journal found that "If the Trump businesses were to default on their debts, 

the giant financial institutions that serve as so-called special servicers of these loan pools 

would have the power to foreclose on some of Mr. Trump's marquee properties or seek the 

tens of millions that Mr. Trump personally guaranteed on the loans." One of the main 

servicers of Mr. Trump's debt is Wells Fargo, which was recently penalized by the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau for creating sham consumer accounts. 

As The Journal concluded, a broad array of financial institutions "now are in a potentially 

powerful position over the incoming president." 

14 
673 

a. Do you agree with this conclusion? 

RESPONSE: I have not had a chance to study this issue, and I am not privy to the details of the 

Department's settlement with Deutsche Bank, nor am I familiar with the President's interests as 

they relate to Deutsche Bank. Without all the facts and without the resources of the Department 

of Justice at my disposal, it would be premature for me to provide a legal opinion on the matter. 

b. What would be your plan, if you are confirmed, to ensure that President Trump and 

his family are not susceptible to pressure from the financial institutions that hold 

their and their businesses' debt? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the 

Department of Justice represents the interests of the American people in the impartial 

enforcement of the law. I am not privy to the details of the President's or his family's interests 

as they relate to any financial institutions. Therefore, it would be premature to announce how the 

Department might proceed in mitigating a hypothetical conflict of interest. 

17. There is an important program in the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs called 

the John R. Justice Program. Named after the late former president of the National District 

Attorneys Association, the John R. Justice Program provides student loan repayment 

assistance to state and local prosecutors and public defenders across the nation. Congress 

created this program in 2008 and modeled it after a student loan program that DOJ runs for 

its own attorneys. The John R. Justice program helps state and local prosecutors and 

defenders pay down their student loans in exchange for a three-year commitment to their job. 

This is a very effective recruitment and retention tool for prosecutor and defender offices. 

And since DOJ is giving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants each year to state and local 

law enforcement, which generates more arrests and more criminal cases, it is critical that we 

help prosecutor and defender offices keep experienced attorneys on staff to handle these 

cases. 

The John R. Justice Program has helped thousands of prosecutors and defenders across the 

country. But for the program to remain successful, the Department of Justice must remain 

committed to funding this program and to carefully administering it. 

Will you commit to keep this program operating during your tenure if you are 

confirmed? 

RESPONSE: While I am not familiar with the specifics of the current funding levels associated 

with the John R. Justice Program, if confirmed, I will make funding decisions only after a careful 

evaluation of any current practice or program administered by the Department and the 

effectiveness of those practices to aid in the administration of justice. I will endeavor to direct 

and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the 

enforcement of federal law and the protections they provide. 

15 
674 

18. You have said that marijuana should not be legalized and that "good people don't smoke 

marijuana." 

Would you oppose the nomination of a person to a position in the Justice Department 

or a federal judgeship if you found out that the person had used marijuana in his or her 

life? 

RESPONSE: My words have been grossly mischaracterized and taken out of context. As can be 

seen from the full quote, which I have provided below, I was discussing the value of treating 

people for using dangerous and illegal drugs like marijuana, and the context in which treatment 

is successful. As I have done in the Senate, if! were fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I would look closely at potential nominees to evaluate their character and 

fitness for the position. 

Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Apri/2016: 

''I'll just comment. because I was talking to somebody that's experienced in this, 

recently; it was the prevention movement that really was so positive. And it led to this 

decline. to the creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous. you cannot play with iL 

it's just not funny it is not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with 

clarity that good people don't smoke marijuana. And the result of that is, to give that 

away and make it socially acceptable, creates the demand-the increased demand that 

results in people being addicted or impacted adversely. I just hope that we can get our 

thoughts together on it. I believe the Department of Justice needs to be clearer. I believe 

the President really needs to reasse1t some leadership on this; I think it's really serious." 

19. Although the population of Alabama is more than one quarter African American, there has 

never been an African-American judge from Alabama on the federal appeals court. Last 

February, President Obama sought to fill an II th Circuit vacancy by nominating Abdul 

Kallon, a highly-regarded African-American judge from Alabama whose district court 

nomination you supported in 2009. However, you did not submit your blue slip for Judge 

Kallon' s nomination to the I I th Circuit, meaning this Committee could not move forward 

with a hearing. 

a. Why did you not submit your blue slip? 

RESPONSE: As Senator Shelby and I expressed in our statement when Judge Kallon was 

nominated, we had negotiated in good faith for several months with the White House to fill 

judicial vacancies. We believed progress had been made, but as it turned out, the White House 

was not interested in good faith negotiations. The White House announced Judge Kallon's 

nomination outside of those negotiations and at a very late date. Accordingly, we exercised our 

Senatorial prerogative not to return the blue slips. 

b. In your view, is Judge Kallon qualified to serve on the 11th Circuit? 

16 
675 

RESPONSE: I supported Judge Kallon's nomination to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Alabama in 2009. As you know, Senators exercise a more exacting review 

for nominees to the circuit courts, which I never had the opportunity to do in this case. As you 

may recall, ten of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees were not confirmed and 

were returned at the end of his Administration. Of note, Judge William Smith was nominated to 

the First Circuit on December 6, 2007, and was rated "Well Qualified" by the American Bar 

Association (ABA), but neither Senator Reed nor Senator Whitehouse returned blue slips on his 

nomination citing the need to conduct a "through and independent review" of his record and 

stating: "Before giving someone a lifetime appointment to the federal bench we need to carefully 

review their record." 1 Previously, Senator Whitehouse had suggested in September 2007 that it 

was too late in the president's term to consider a nomination to the First Circuit. Also notable is 

the nomination of Mr. Shalom Stone to the Third Circuit on July 17, 2007. He was rated 

"Substantial Majority Qualified/Minority Well Qualified" by the ABA, but neither Senator 

Lautenberg nor Senator Menendez returned blue slips on his nomination. Similarly, U.S. 

Attorney Rod Rosenstein was nominated to the Fourth Circuit on November 15, 2007, and was 

rated "Unanimous Well Qualified" by the ABA, but neither Senator Cardin nor Senator Mikulski 

returned blue slips on his nomination. 

20. On January 23, 2009, you issued a press release announcing your opposition to President 

Obama's nomination of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary. You said: 

I have decided to vote against Mr. Geithner's nomination because his failure to 

properly pay his taxes on multiple occasions was, in my view, likely a deliberate 

attempt to avoid his tax obligations. Failure to pay taxes would disqualifY any 

IRS agent from further employment, so it should also disqualify Mr. Geithner 

from being confirmed Secretary of the Treasury, a cabinet position that oversees 

the IRS and prosecutions for tax evasion. 

You went on to say: 

The American people have made clear that they want accountability and 

responsibility restored to Washington. Ignoring Mr. Geithner's failure to pay his 

taxes and elevating him to Secretary-where he will supervise agents and other 

officials who would be subject to termination for a similar breach oftrust-is not 

a good way to meet the public's expectations. 

Are you confident that President-elect Trump has properly paid all his taxes? Please 

explain the basis for your response. 

RESPONSE: President Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States. The American 

people have decided he is both qualified and the best person for the job of leading this country. 

have no knowledge regarding the President's taxes that would cause me to doubt what he has 

publicly stated regarding that issue. 

1 John Mulligan and G. Wayne Miller, "Bush selects Smith for U.S. appeals court," The Providence Journal, Dec. 7, 

2007. 

17 
676 

21. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will work to 

enjoin state laws that restrict voting and registration in ways that disproportionately 

affect African-American or other minority voters? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, government cannot create laws designed to 

improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote. If l am confirmed as Attorney 

General, I am committed to enforcing all ofthe federal laws within the Department's jurisdiction, 

and particularly the laws regarding voting, in a fair and even-handed manner. 

22. At your nomination hearing, you suggested that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides 

adequate remedies to problematic voting restrictions. However, consider the example of the 

North Carolina voting law, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held was 

based on discriminatory intent. While section 2 of the Voting Rights Act permitted the 

state's misconduct to be remedied through litigation, this only occurred after much of the law 

had been implemented in the 2014 election. Prior to Shelby County, this law would have 

been reviewed by DOJ through the preclearance mechanism and these unconstitutional 

voting restrictions would have been stopped before any harm was done. 

In light of the time lag involved in section 2 enforcement, how can you suggest a Voting 

Rights Act without preclearance is adequate? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce the law and the Constitution 

and leave to Congress the determination of whether to enact changes to the law. Further, this 

question implicates an ongoing legal matter that I may be called upon to review; therefore, it 

would be inappropriate for me to offer an opinion at this time. 

23. At your nomination hearing, you stated that the "Supreme Court decided that we should not 

have ... preclearance." However, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court did not find 

that preclearance was unconstitutional, but that the formula for determining which 

jurisdictions are subject to preclearance is unconstitutional. 

In 2015, I joined Senator Leahy and Senator Coons in introducing the Voting Rights 

Advancement Act (VRAA), in order to update the preclearance formula and restore the 

Voting Rights Act. The VRAA responds to many of the Court's concerns about the original 

preclearance formula, which you also criticized during the 2006 reauthorization of the Act. 

For example, the VRAA includes a rolling preclearance coverage formula that applies to all 

states and hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. 

a. Do you agree that the Supreme Court has not held that preclearance is 

unconstitutional? 

RESPONSE: The U.S. Supreme Court has not held that preclearance is necessarily 

unconstitutional. The Court has concluded that preclearance is an "extraordinary" remedy that 

may be permitted in the appropriate circumstances under Congress's exercise of its power under 

the Reconstruction Amendments. 

18 
677 

b. Without asking you to take a position on the specifics of the VRAA, would an 

updated coverage formula address your concerns about preclearance? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I would welcome the opportunity to work with 

your office and any members of the Committee on legislation affecting our nation's voting laws. 

This would include legislation that is both consistent with constitutional limits and designed to 

address the issues you have raised. I would defer to Congress on how this important issue should 

be deliberated within the legislative branch. 

24. In Wisconsin, a newly-implemented voter photo identification law led to challenges and 

confusion in the April primary. Consider the case of Eddie Lee Holloway, Jr. He moved 

from my home state of Illinois to Wisconsin in 2008 and was able to vote without any 

problems before the voter ID law went into effect. After the law was passed, Mr. Holloway 

went to a DMV in Milwaukee with an expired Illinois photo ID, his birth certificate, and his 

Social Security card to obtain a Wisconsin photo ID for voting. However, his application was 

rejected due to a clerical error on his birth certificate, which read "Eddie Junior Holloway." 

Mr. Holloway spent hundreds of dollars traveling to Illinois to try to fix this problem. In 

addition to the Milwaukee DMV, he visited the Vital Records System in Milwaukee, the 

Illinois Vital Records Division in Springfield, an Illinois DMV, and his high school in 

Decatur, Illinois-all in an attempt to obtain sufficient records for a Wisconsin voter ID. 

Despite all ofthese efforts, Mr. Holloway was unable to vote in the April primary. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Holloway is not alone. Last year, a study based on data from the annual 

Cooperative Congressional Election Study found: "The patterns are stark. Where strict 

identification laws are instituted, racial and ethnic minority turnout significantly declines." 

For example, among Latino voters, "turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general 

elections and 5.3 percentage points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other 

states." 

What is your response to people like Mr. Holloway who have been prevented from 

exercising their fundamental right to vote due to burdensome voter ID laws? 

RESPONSE: As I testified at the hearing, government cannot create laws designed to 

improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote. The voting rights of Americans are 

protected by federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court held in Crawford 

v. Marion County Election Board, that voter identification laws are neither per se 

unconstitutional, nor do they necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. The analysis of such laws 

are specific to the particular law, the jurisdiction, and a wide range offactors that Congress has 

identified as relevant in determining whether a particular voting practice comports with the 

Voting Rights Act. Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I am committed to enforcing all of the 

federal laws within the Department's jurisdiction, and particularly the laws regarding voting, in a 

fair and even-handed manner. 

25. In 2014, GAO released a study on the impact of voter ID laws, at the request of Senators 

Sanders, Leahy, Schumer, Nelson, and myself. The study found that in two states with strict 

19 
678 

voter ID laws-Kansas and Tennessee-the laws hurt turnout. The impact of the law was 

greatest among African-Americans, young people, and newly-registered voters. 

Do the results of this study concern you? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with this study. I would note, however, that the bipartisan 

Carter-Baker Commission report, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the 

Commission on Federal Election Reform," found that "there is no doubt" that voter fraud occurs, 

that "a good ID system could deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud such 

as multiple voting or voting by individuals using the identities of others or those who are 

deceased- and thus it can enhance confidence," and that "most advanced democracies have 

fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their democracies remain strong." 

26. At our meeting before your nomination hearing, you acknowledged that in your state, there 

was a "brutal, ruthless denial of the right to vote." You went on to say that the Voting Rights 

Act "fixed it." However,just two years ago, your state made national headlines for closing or 

reducing service at more than 30 DMV locations, shortly after Alabama enacted a law 

requiring voters to present a photo ID to vote. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote to state officials to "raise [their] grave concerns 

regarding the State's intended closures" which occurred "predominantly in rural counties 

with large Black populations, high poverty rates, and little to no public transportation." 

Congresswoman Terri Sewell called for a DOJ investigation into the closures, stating that the 

"closures will potentially disenfranchise Alabama's poor, elderly, disabled, and black 

communities." The federal Department of Transportation opened a civil rights investigation 

to examine the incident. 

Did you disagree with Congresswoman Sewell's conclusions on how the closures might 

impact Alabama voters? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, it is my understanding that these offices were 

closed and selected for consolidation due to state budgetary constraints and that the offices were 

selected based on areas with the lowest population levels. It was later determined that many of 

the closures were in counties with large African-American populations and so the decision was 

reversed. It is my understanding that every county in the state has a Board of Registrars and 

state election officials now issue photo voter identification cards on their own to ensure residents 

in affected counties retain the ability to obtain state-issued identification for the purposes of 

voting. As a federal elected official, I was not involved in or consulted regarding this process. 

27. You have been outspoken in your defense of religious freedom for Christians. For example, 

you denounced a 1997 court order that limited prayer in Alabama public schools, calling it 

"one more example of the effort by the courts to eliminate the natural expression of religious 

belief from public life." A year later, you introduced a Senate resolution "affirming the right 

to display the Ten Commandments in public places, including government offices and 

courthouses." You said "[w]e've got to end the hostility toward the display of the Ten 

Commandments in public places." 

20 
679 

You have been much more ambivalent about religious freedom for Muslims. You have 

referred to it as "a toxic ideology" and said of American Muslims "our nation has an 

unprecedented assimilation problem." In response to President-elect Trump's proposed ban 

on Muslim immigrants, you said, "I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has 

forced that discussion." 

President-elect Trump has gone further, saying "Islam hates us." He has also said that there is 

"absolutely no choice" but to close some mosques and that he would consider creating a 

database of American Muslims. And, last July, he launched an offensive attack against Khizr 

and Ghazala Khan-the grieving parents of a fallen Muslim-American solider. 

At the same time, American Muslims are facing a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes, 

according to the FBI and other experts. 

a. Will you commit to vigorously enforcing civil rights laws to combat discrimination 

against American Muslims, including federal hate crimes laws? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all civil rights law to combat 

discrimination against all Americans, including American Muslims. 

b. Do you believe it would be legally permissible to shut down mosques? 

RESPONSE: This scenario certainly does not sound like something that a law enforcement 

official normally would be engaged in, but without knowing more specifics, I am not able to 

respond to the hypothetical. 

c. Do you believe it would be legally permissible to create a database of American 

Muslims? 

RESPONSE: I do not believe a database of any group of Americans based on their religion 

would pass constitutional scrutiny. 

d. Do you think that President-elect Trump's comments on the Khan family were 

appropriate? 

RESPONSE: I believe that the President has made clear that he respects the sacrifice made by 

the Khan family. 

e. Last year, President-elect Trump said American Muslims "know who the bad 

apples are, where the bad seeds are and they don't report them." But FBI Directors 

Mueller and Corney have both praised the Muslim community for cooperating with 

law enforcement and reporting suspected terrorists. Do you agree with the 

President-elect or Directors Mueller and Corney? 

21 
680 

RESPONSE: Based on the individual situations each were referring to at the time, it is likely 

that I would agree with both the President and Directors Mueller and Corney. 

28. Last October marked the seven-year anniversary ofthe passage of one of the most important 

civil rights laws of our time, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of2009. 

·You vigorously opposed the law at the time of its passage, saying it was "unwarranted, 

possibly unconstitutional. .. and it violates the basic principle of equal justice under the law." 

You went on to say that the bill "has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement." 

At your nomination hearing, Senator Leahy asked you about this law. You stated:"[T]he law 

has been passed. The Congress has spoken. You can be sure I will enforce it." 

If you are confirmed to be Attorney General, what steps will you take to vigorously 

enforce the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 

2009? 

RESPONSE: I firmly believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, 

no matter their background. While as Senators we may have disagreed about the most effective 

ways to address the challenges facing our country, my duty as Attorney General, if I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed, would be to enforce the laws passed by Congress. I would 

approach enforcement of this law the same way that I would any other federallaw-I would 

endeavor to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner 

possible to ensure full enforcement of federal laws and the protections inherent in them. And I 

will work with our law enforcement professionals to tailor our efforts to ensure the safety of all 

of our communities. 

29. When the Senate considered the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of 2009, you expressed particular concern about a provision in the law that 

expanded federal hate crime protections to cover victims who are targeted based on their 

gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. You even suggested this provision 

was unnecessary because women and LGBT individuals do not face serious discrimination, 

saying: "today I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that 

kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." 

However, as the New York Times reported last year: 

Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, [Florida], lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender people were already the most likely targets of hate crimes in 

America, according to an analysis of data collected by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

According to the data, LGBT Americans are "twice as likely to be targeted as AfricanAmericans, and the rate of hate crimes against them has surpassed that of crimes against 

Jews." 

22 
681 

a. At your nomination hearing, you stated that you "understand the demands for 

justice and fairness made by our LGBT community" and that you "will ensure that 

the statutes protecting their civil rights and their safety are fully enforced." Can you 

elaborate on how you will ensure that the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 

transgender Americans are protected? 

RESPONSE: I firmly believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, 

no matter their background. While as Senators we may have disagreed about the most effective 

ways to address the challenges facing our country, my duty as Attorney General, ifl am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed, would be to enforce the laws passed by Congress. I would 

endeavor to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner 

possible to ensure full enforcement of federal laws and the protections inherent in them. And I 

will work with our law enforcement professionals to tailor our efforts to ensure the safety of all 

of our communities. 

b. My staff was unable to find any other instance of you using the term "LGBT" in 

public prior to your nomination hearing. Is this a term that you have ever used in 

public prior to your hearing? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

30. In a 2014 speech to the Anti-Defamation League, FBI Director Corney said: 

Hate crimes are different from other crimes. They strike at the heart of one's 

identity-they strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is 

loss-loss of trust, loss of dignity, and in the worst case, loss of life. Hate crimes 

impact not just individuals, but entire communities. When a family is attacked 

because of the color of their skin, it's not just the family that feels violated, but 

every resident of that neighborhood. When a teenager is murdered because he is 

gay, the entire community feels a sense of helplessness and despair. And when 

innocent people are shot at random because of their religious beliefs-real or 

perceived--our nation is left at a loss. 

Do you agree with Director Corney's statement? 

RESPONSE: I agree with Director Corney that attacks motivated out of prejudice have no place 

in our society. 

31. In 2012, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 

Human Rights that examined hate crimes and the threat of domestic extremism. After the 

hearing, at my request, the FBI began tracking hate crimes against Arab Americans, Hindu 

Americans, and Sikh Americans, among others. This is a positive step, but if state and local 

law enforcement agencies fail to report hate crimes, we cannot understand the full extent of 

the problem and what steps must be taken to address it. 

23 
682 

In his speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Director Corney also highlighted this issue, 

noting: 

We need to do a better job of tracking and reporting hate crime to fully understand 

what is happening in our communities and how to stop it. There are jurisdictions 

that fail to report hate crime statistics. Other jurisdictions claim there were no hate 

crimes in their community-a fact that would be welcome if true. We must continue 

to impress upon our state and local counterparts in every jurisdiction the need to 

track and report hate crime. It is not something we can ignore or sweep under the 

rug. 

a. Do you share Director Corney's concerns about hate crimes being underreported? 

RESPONSE: I am unable to thoroughly evaluate this assertion or offer an opinion as I have not 

been presented with the information necessary to do so. However, if I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I would expect to learn more about this issue and give it careful 

consideration. 

b. Will you commit that, if you are confirmed, you will take steps to ensure that the 

FBI and the Department of Justice work together to improve hate crime reporting 

by state and local law enforcement? 

RESPONSE: Certainly, effective engagement of state and local law enforcement is absolutely 

critical to protecting all Americans. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, it will be incumbent upon me to ensure that the resources of the Department of Justice 

and our partnerships with state and local law enforcement are utilized in a way that will ensure the 

enforcement of federal law and the protections our laws provide equally for all citizens. 

32. When I was Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human 

Rights, I held two hearings on the human rights, fiscal, and public safety consequences of 

solitary confinement. Anyone who heard the chilling testimony of Anthony Graves and 

Damon Thibodeaux --exonerated inmates who each spent more than a decade in solitary 

confinement--knows that this is a critical human rights issue that we must address. 

In light of the mounting evidence of the harmful--even dangerous-impacts of solitary 

confinement, states around the country have led the way in reassessing the practice. Progress 

has been made at the federal level as well. However, there are still nearly I 0,000 federal 

inmates in segregation. 

a. Do you believe that long-term solitary confinement can have a harmful impact on 

inmates? 

RESPONSE: It is vital that our prisons be able to secure prisoners and maintain order, but it is 

also important that they be a safe environment for those prisoners while they are incarcerated, as 

well as for those guarding them. I believe that we should closely evaluate the studies and 

evidence and make the best determination about how to handle what can be a dangerous prison 

24 
683 

population in a way that is both constitutional and effective. 

b. If you are confirmed, can you assure me that you will examine the evidence and 

work with BOP to make ensure that solitary confinement is not overused? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

33. In federal prosecutions, the majority of drug offenders are non-violent, have low criminal 

histories, and are not leaders or organizers. In 2015, 48.1 percent of drug offenders were in 

criminal history category I, and 12.9 percent were in criminal history category II. Indeed, 

82.8 percent of all drug offenses did not involve the use of a weapon. Only 7. 7 percent of all 

drug offenders had an aggravating role adjustment (were leaders, organizers, managers or 

supervisors). A 2016 Report by the United States Sentencing Commission found that the 

number of federal offenders whose most serious offense was simple drug possession 

increased nearly 400 percent during the six-year period between fiscal years 2008 and 2013. 

I introduced Alton Mills to you as an example of one ofthese low level offenders. Alton 

Mills spent 22 years in federal prison, on a life sentence, until December 2015 when 

President Obama commuted his sentence. 

If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you prioritize the prosecution of highlevel drug offenders over low-level offenders? 

RESPONSE: The same 2016 Sentencing Commission Report referenced above notes that the 

400 percent increase in drug possession offenses "is almost entirely attributable" to marijuana 

offenders arrested at or near the United States' border with Mexico, and that the median quantity 

of marijuana possessed by those arrestees was 22,000 grams, which is 48.5 pounds. Compared to 

the median of 5.2 grams (one-fifth of an ounce) of marijuana possessed by arrestees for drug 

possession offenses in other locations, this seems excessive. These, clearly, are not low-level 

drug possessors, but are drug traffickers who are smuggling their life-destroying poisons across 

the border and into our communities to tum a profit for violent drug cartels. Ifl am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will vigorously enforce the law and ensure that 

we make the most effective use of our limited enforcement resources to stop illicit drugs from 

being trafficked into our country and our communities. 

34. During your confirmation hearing, you said "We will prosecute those who repeatedly violate 

our borders. It will be my priority to confront these crimes vigorously, effectively and 

immediately." 

The bipartisan United States Sentencing Commission noted in its April2015 report that 

illegal reentry cases are a significant portion of all federal cases in which offenders are 

sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, constituting 26 percent of all such 

cases in fiscal year 20 13. 

25 
684 

In April2016, the chair of the Sentencing Commission noted that, "there are many low level 

offenders who return to the United States for reasons related to family or work as well as 

reasons relating to conditions in their home country." 

a. How you would seek to balance limited prosecutorial resources when considering 

illegal reentry cases versus national security cases and other non-immigration 

criminal cases? 

RESPONSE: With limited resources, it is important that the Department of Justice make the 

best use of its resources to address criminal activity. Striking that balance requires regular 

review of enforcement priorities, threats, and available resources to ensure the best allocation. If 

I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor to direct and utilize 

the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement 

of federal law. 

b. How would you use your discretion in choosing to prosecute particular illegal 

reentry cases? Would work or family ties in the U.S., or conditions in the foreign 

national's home country, impact your decision? 

RESPONSE: The choice of whether to prosecute any particular case should always involve a 

review of all of the unique and legally pertinent facts of that case, the relevant law, available 

evidence, and the likelihood of success in the prosecution. 

35. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General's determination and ruling 

on all questions of law is controlling. During your confirmation hearing, I asked you how 

you would use your vast authority as Attorney General, including in your role overseeing the 

immigration courts. You will also oversee the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the 

highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, including our 

asylum laws which provide protection to vulnerable individuals seeking refuge from 

persecution. You will have the authority to unilaterally revoke decisions of the BIA or to 

reduce the BIA's membership from its current number of 17. You will have the authority to 

hire and fire immigration judges. 

a. Will you commit to not removing any currently serving immigration judges or 

BIA members, except for cause? 

RESPONSE: I am unfamiliar with the staffing requirements at the Board of Immigration 

Appeals or in the immigration courts, so it would be premature for me to offer an opinion at this 

time on whether any changes should be made. 

b. What is your plan to deal with the backlog of more than 500,000 pending cases 

in the immigration courts? 

RESPONSE: I am very concerned by the backlog of pending cases, and if I am confirmed, I will 

carefully evaluate what actions should be taken to address it. 

26 
685 

c. Will you commit to maintaining or increasing the current number of 

immigration judges and courts nationwide? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will devote the 

appropriate number of immigration judges and courts to address the current backlog and any new 

cases. 

d. How do you plan to hire immigration judges in the future and what criteria 

would you use to disqualify applicants? Would you view as a negative factor 

prospective judges' membership in groups like the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association or the American Civil Liberties Union? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the opportunity to review the position description for immigration 

judges, but would expect them to be ethical, impartial, hard-working, and well-versed in 

immigration law, and believe those factors are more important than membership in any particular 

organization. 

e. Do you believe a child can represent herself fairly in immigration court without 

access to counsel? 

RESPONSE: My understanding is that the immigration laws of the United States provide all 

aliens with the privilege of being represented by the counsel of their choosing in civil 

immigration proceedings. It is also my understanding that Congress has specified that, while an 

alien retains such a privilege, any such representation must occur at no expense to the 

government. The sole exception to this is codified in section 1232(a)(5)(C) of Title 8, which 

charges the Department of Health and Human Services with ensuring: 

to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with section 292 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have 

been in the custody ofthe Secretary or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and who are 

not described in subsection (a)(2)(A), have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings 

or matters and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. To the 

greatest extent practicable, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make every 

effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide representation to 

such children without charge. 

36. The goal of so-called "sanctuary cities" policies is to promote effective community policing 

by encouraging immigrant communities to trust local police. 

Do you believe that existing law authorizes the Executive Branch to bar or limit federal 

funding to the estimated 364 counties and 39 cities nationwide that have policies 

limiting their police department's role in enforcing immigration laws or would this 

require Congress to change the law? 

RESPONSE: My understanding is that the Department of Justice's current position-announced 

after a recent review conducted by the Inspector General-is that applicants for Justice 

27 
686 

Department grants must comply with section 1373 of Title 8, as it is "an applicable federal law" 

for purposes of grant eligibility. 

37. Regarding refugees, a joint statement by Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and 

NSA, and James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said: 

It's ironic, to say the least, that today some politicians are seeking to 

shut out refugees in the name of national security. The global refugee 

crisis is straining the resources and infrastructures of Lebanon, Jordan, 

and Turkey, which are hosting the vast majority of Syrian refugees. 

By doing more to host and help refugees, the United States would 

safeguard the stability of these nations and thereby advance its own 

national security interests. 

Moreover, hostility to refugees helps ISIS. Conversely, welcoming 

refugees regardless of their religion, nationality, or race exposes the 

falseness of terrorist propaganda and counters the warped vision of 

extremists. 

Do you agree that limiting refugee resettlement could assist ISIS propaganda efforts? 

RESPONSE: I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, but should I be confirmed, I will faithfully enforce our immigration law pertaining to 

refugees consistent with federal law and with the policy preferences of the President. 

38. A document titled, Immigration Handbook For The New Republican Majority: A Memo For 

Republican Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions, dated January 2015, is available via your 

Senate website. 

Did any outside groups assist you or your staff in creating, editing, or reviewing this 

document, and if so, which groups? 

RESPONSE: My understanding is that my staff may have contacted some outside groups, such 

as the Center for Immigration Studies, to inquire about their publicly-available research that was 

cited in the document. However, we received no assistance from any outside group in creating, 

editing, or reviewing the document. 

39. In the Immigration Handbook For The New Republican Majority: A Memo For Republican 

Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions, you state: 

The Congressional Research Service estimates that the foreign-born population 

could reach as high as 58 million within a decade based on recent trends. Only an 

adjustment in policy will change this trajectory-just as policy was changed early 

in the 20th century to allow labor markets to tighten. 

There had been a great wave of immigration in the four decades leading up to the 

28 
687 

Coolidge Administration. This substantial increase in the labor pool had created a 

loose labor market that tilted the balance of power to large employers over everyday 

workers. Coolidge believed it was rational and sensible to swing the pendulum back 

towards the average wage-earning American. 

The Immigration Act of 1924, to which you refer, limited the number of immigrants to the 

U.S. via a national origins quota based on the 1890 census. It excluded immigrants from 

Asia, and severely restricted new immigration from much of the world outside of Northwest 

Europe and Scandinavia. 

Please explain why you cited the immigration restrictions enacted by the Coolidge 

Administration without mentioning their exclusionary nature? 

RESPONSE: The specific restrictions per country of origin was not the focus of the paragraph. 

The focus of the paragraph was how President Coolidge changed the immigration laws to adjust 

the labor pool in a manner that would benefit the average wage-earning American worker. 

40. According to the Department of Justice website, clemency applications are handled in the 

following manner: "After all relevant information has been received, OPA prepares a 

proposed recommendation for disposition of the case that is submitted to the Deputy 

Attorney General, who makes the final determination of the Justice Department's 

recommendation to the President. The Deputy Attorney General's signed recommendation is 

then transmitted to the White House, and the President acts on each case when he believes it 

is appropriate to do so." 

a. Will you commit to keep the practice in place of the Deputy Attorney General 

making the final determination on a clemency application? 

RESPONSE: Internal practices exist to provide a regular process for effective, consistent 

execution oflegal duties. However, these practices must sometimes undergo review and changes 

if it is found that they are ineffective, inefficient, or can be improved due to changes in the law, 

circumstances, or available resources. It would be unwise to commit to continuing an internal 

practice indefinitely and without regard to necessary changes or available improvements that 

may arise. 

b. Will you commit that you will not review or overturn the Deputy Attorney 

General's recommendation in any clemency case? 

RESPONSE: I cannot categorically commit that, if I am confirmed as Attorney General, I would 

never review or take action in any future case where I have legal authority or responsibility for 

the actions of the Department, unless it is a particular case in which a conflict of interest has 

caused me to recuse myself completely. 

29 
688 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General ofthe United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN 

I. News reports have indicated that President-Elect Trump's chosen National Security Advisor, 

Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, engaged in multiple communications with the Russian 

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, on the same day that President Obama announced sanctions 

against Russia. 

a. Have you communicated with President-Elect Trump about these communications to 

the Russian Ambassador? Have you spoken with anyone else on the transition team 

(including General Flynn) or President-Elect Trump's staff? If so, please specify who 

you communicated with, and when. 

RESPONSE: No. 

b. If confirmed, you will be interacting frequently with General Flynn in his capacity as 

National Security Advisor. Will you recuse yourself from any FBI or Justice 

Department investigation into whether Flynn's communications were permissible 

under the law, including the Logan Act? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

2. At your hearing, Senator Coons asked whether you would support legislation to strengthen 

and uphold sanctions against Russia for the cyber-attack it organized that was designed to 

influence the American elections. You responded that "That is something that is appropriate 

for Congress and the Chief Executive to consider. In other words, how do you respond to 

what is believed to be a cyber attack from a major nation? It is difficult just to say, well, we 

are going to prosecute the head of the KGB or some group that has participated in it-no 

longer a KGB, of course. So in many ways, the political response, the international foreign 

policy response, may be the only recourse." 

In fact, the federal criminal code contains numerous criminal statutes levying serious 

penalties that might be available in a case involving allegations of international hacking. In 

addition, the Department of Justice has used these to prosecute individuals in the past. In 

addition, the Department may be required to decide whether to bring criminal charges against 

any person who committed these hacks, aided and abetted these hacks, or conspired to 

commit these hacks. 
689 

a. The Department has charged similar cases against state-sponsored individuals 

associated with the Iranian government, as well as members of the Chinese military. 

Will you commit that the Department will take any and all steps necessary to enforce 

federal statutes that were violated, and not just rely on political diplomacy? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will examine, and where appropriate, enforce, the federal statutes 

referred to above. 

b. Have you reviewed either the classified or unclassified assessments by the Intelligence 

Community regarding Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections? 

RESPONSE: No. 

c. Do you agree with the Intelligence Community's assessments? If not, please specify 

those assessments with which you disagree. 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed their assessments, but I assume I would have no reason to 

disagree with their assessments. 

d. Given the extent of your involvement in President-Elect Trump's political campaign, 

will you recuse yourself from any decision regarding whether to bring federal criminal 

prosecutions in connection with Russian hacking of the election? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter 

arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at 

my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the established 

procedures of the Department. 

e. Please identify all persons with whom you have spoken who share your view that the 

U.S. response to Russian hacking should be limited to "the political response, the 

international foreign policy response." 

RESPONSE: My view is not that the response "should be limited" to a political or international 

foreign policy response. When I testified before the Committee, I was merely suggesting that in 

some cases, such a response may be the only recourse. As you point out, federal criminal 

statutes may be applicable. However, I am not privy to the facts or details of any ongoing 

investigations and my knowledge ofthe subject is limited to what is contained in public 

reporting, so I do not know what the appropriate response should be in this particular case. 

3. The Department of Justice Inspector General recently wrote to Congress indicating that the 

OIG would be reviewing a number of issues with respect to the Hillary Clinton email server 

investigation. 

When asked during your oral testimony how you would handle any investigation involving 

Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, you stated, "I believe the proper thing for me to 

2 
690 

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 could be otherwise 

connected to it." 

a. Does your commitment to recuse yourself extend to the recently-announced review by 

the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General into a number of issues 

with respect to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I stand by my commitment to recuse myself from any investigation of Secretary 

Clinton or the Clinton Foundation. I do not have sufficient information with respect to the 

Inspector General's investigation at this time and so I am unable to make a decision about 

recusal in that matter. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General and a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

b. If confirmed, who will handle any recommendations made by DOJ regarding any 

investigation involving Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation? Who will handle 

recommendations by the Inspector General? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, in any matter where 

I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department 

ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

c. Senator Grass ley posed the following question to Attorney General Lynch after her 

hearing, and I would pose the same question: "Given the clear language of the 

Inspector General Act, will you give me your commitment that, if confirmed, you will 

not stonewall the Inspector General or delay his work?" 

RESPONSE: The role of the Inspector General is critical to any agency's operation and 

provides a vital service to the general public. Ifi am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will respect the independence of the Inspector General and cooperate with 

him or her in every way possible. 

d. Will you also give me your commitment that you will not allow any subordinate official 

at the Department to stonewall or delay the Inspector General's work? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

4. You testified at your hearing that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is "the law of 

the land. It has been so established and settled for quite a long time and it deserves respect. 

And I would respect it and follow it." 

a. How will you "respect it and follow it"? 

3 
691 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, my personal 

convictions on the issue of abortion-which are well known-would not hinder me in my duty 

to faithfully enforce federal law and adhere to Supreme Court precedent on this issue. 

b. What is your under.~tanding of tile meaning of a case being "settled law"? 

RESPONSE: The 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to privacy that 

included the right to an abortion. Though limitations to this right have been upheld as 

constitutional by the Court in later cases, the basic premise of Roe has not been disrupted, 

meaning that it is settled law. There have been clarifying opinions on the subject of abortion 

since then. 

c. Do you commit that the Department of Justice will not file amicus briefs or in other 

ways try to alter case law on reproductive right.~? 

RESPONSE: Such decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances of the case or cases 

as they arise. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will ensure all matters receive a 

thorough and careful evaluation to ensure the fair administration of justice and will follow the 

law and the Constitution without reservation. 

5. You also testified at your hearing that the Roe decision "violated the Constitution and really 

attempted to set policy and not follow law." 

a. If you believe a case is "the law of tile land" and "settled for a long time" but you al.~o 

believe the case "violated the Constitution," flow would that impact the conduct of the 

Justice Department under your leadership? Are there other Supreme Court cases you 

believe to be settled law, yet which you also believe violate the Con.~titution? If so 

please list each and explain the constitutional provision that is violated. 

RESPONSE: As a Senator, I have expressed opinions on a number of Supreme Court cases. As 

Attorney General, my role would be very different. If a matter arose before the Department and 

circumstances demanded a fresh analysis of a Supreme Court decision, that would be conducted 

by the Solicitor General and the attorneys at the Justice Department. Asking the Supreme Court 

to overrule its own precedent is a very serious matter that requires careful, case-specific analysis 

at the time ofthe litigation. Ifi am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will ensure all matters 

receive a thorough and careful evaluation to ensure the fair administration of justice and will 

follow the law and the Constitution without reservation. 

6. Senator Hirano asked you at your hearing whether you would "direct or advise your Solicitor 

General to weigh in before that Supreme Court which has an opportunity to overturn Roe v. 

Wade?" You responded that the decision is "firmly ensconced as the law of the land, and I do 

not know we would see a change in that." 

In that same answer, you told Senator Hirano that "cases seldom come up on such a clear 

issue. They come up at the margins" of the constitutional right to have an abortion as set 

forth in Roe. 

4 
692 

a. If confirmed, will the Justice Department under your leadership argue that Roe v. 

Wade and its progeny (e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casev, Whole Woman's Health v. 

Hellerstedt) should be overturned? Please answer yes or no. 

RESPONSE: Such decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances of the case or cases 

as they arise. I will not pre-judge the issues. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will 

ensure all matters receive a thorough and careful evaluation to ensure the fair administration of 

justice and will follow the law and the Constitution without reservation. As stated above, asking 

the Supreme Court to overrule its own precedent would be a very serious matter that would only 

come as the result of careful, case-specific analysis at the time of the litigation. 

7. Violence at women's health clinics remains a very serious issue. In the fall of2015, for 

example, a Colorado man killed three people at a clinic. At your hearing, you testified that 

you will "enforce the laws that make clear that a person who wants to receive a lawful 

abortion cannot be blocked by protesters and disruption of a doctor's practice .. .I am pro-life, 

as you know, but we have settled on some laws that are clearly effective, and as Attorney 

General, you can be sure we would follow them." You also testified that medical 

professionals who provide abortions "deserve the same protection that any entity, business or 

otherwise or health care entity is entitled to ... [Maybe] [e]ven more so, because we have a 

specific law about abortion clinics." That law, of course, is the Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act (FACE) of 1994. 

8. Part of the Justice Department's efforts to enforce FACE and protect women and providers 

from violence at women's health clinics is the National Task Force on Violence Against 

Health Care Providers, which was established in 1998 by then-Attorney General Janet Reno 

and which is staffed through the Department's Civil Rights Division. The Task Force 

includes DOJ attorneys as well as investigators from the FBI, ATF, and the U.S. Marshals 

Service. 

a. Will you ensure that the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care 

Providers has adequate resources? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor to 

direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to 

ensure the enforcement of federal law. 

b. Will you ensure that the Department will continue to be active and engaged on issues 

related to patient and provider safety at women's health clinics, including by bringing 

relevant cases under FACE and interacting with groups that represent providers and 

clinics? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will faithfully follow and enforce federal laws as defined by the courts, 

including the FACE Act and all other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to 

enforce. I will use the resources of the Department to ensure the full and fair enforcement of 

5 
693 

federal law. Any specific enforcement decisions or actions would depend upon the facts and 

circumstances of each case. 

9. At the nomination hearing, I asked you about a provision of the Justice for Victims of 

Trafficking Act, which sets aside at least $5 million and up to $30 million of funding for 

grants or programs for "the provision of health care or medical items or services to victims of 

trafficking." (18 U.S.C. § 3014(h)(l)-(2)) 

I read the following from Senator Cornyn's floor remarks explaining that these funds are 

subject to the Hyde Amendment and its important exceptions: 

"[E]veryone knows the Hyde amendment language contains an exception for rape and 

the health of the mother. So under this act, these limitations on spending wouldn't 

have anything to do with the services available to help those victims of human 

trafficking." 

You testified that you were "not aware of how the language for this grant program has been 

established," but that you "would follow the law." 

Please review the provision and Senator Cornyn's explanation above to answer the following 

question: 

a. Will you commit that these grant funds will not be denied to service providers who 

assist victims of sex trafficking in obtaining the comprehensive health services they 

need, including an abortion? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would consult 

with the attorneys at the Justice Department to analyze the Hyde Amendment and the statutory 

language in question to determine what the intersection of these laws dictates in regard to antitrafficking expenditures. 

IO. In response to Senator Hatch's question about the importance of religious freedom, you 

testified that "It would be a very high priority of mine." 

a. If confirmed, how would you ensure that enforcement of religious freedoms will not 

harm women's access to health care, including contraception, or the rights of LGBT 

individuals? 

RESPONSE: The Supreme Court has held that there are protections available under the 

Religious Freedom and Restoration Act for religious individuals and businesses. However, I 

have not personally studied the parameters of the Court's relevant decisions on this question or 

their impact. Ifl am confirmed, when such matters come before the Department of Justice, I 

will carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case and endeavor to 

uphold and defend the Constitution in the pursuit of justice. 

6 
694 

b. Do you believe that a business open to the public has a right under the First 

Amendment to refuse to serve an individual because that individual is gay, or lesbian, 

or bisexual, or transgender? 

RESPONSE: That question has not been clearly settled by the Supreme Court or by statute. 

Typically, these matters are decided by state-enacted public accommodation laws and it is 

unlikely that the federal government would be directly involved in such cases. However, ifl am 

so fortunate as to be confirmed as the Attorney General, it will be my duty to uphold and defend 

the Constitution and to do so in keeping with Supreme Court precedent. 

II. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) wrote a letter to Congress warning that PresidentElect Trump's nominees' hearings are taking place even before OGE has completed its 

review of all of the nominees to ensure there are no ethical, financial or criminal concerns. 

The Director ofOGE stated: "I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE 

was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had 

completed the ethics review process." 

On May 6, 1998, you expressed similar concerns when discussed your experience as a former 

prosecutor and stressed the importance of adhering to ethics laws. You also stressed the role 

of OGE in preventing government corruption and analyzing whether waivers should be 

provided. 

In this particular speech, you were speaking in opposition to legislation that would have 

allowed someone paid by the IRS employees' union to participate on an IRS oversight board. 

You stated that such an arrangement flouted OGE advice, and was arguably criminal. You 

stated, in part: 

We have crafted over the years a series of laws that are designed in such a way that those 

laws protect the public from conflicts of interest and other types of unhealthy 

relationships that would put that person in o.ffice in a position in which his total fidelity is 

to anything other than the government which he represents. 

Somewhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes the preacher said "A bribe corrupts the mind. "A 

coriflict of interest corrupts the mind. The person is torn. You cannot serve two 

masters. You can only serve one master. 

You can't serve two masters. 

After making these comments, you then enumerated the conflicts of interest statutes in the 

criminal code. Those statutes are aimed at preventing officials with financial interests from 

making government decisions clouded by financial interests. 

a. If you are confirmed-and President-Elect Trump's other nominees are confirmedyou will work together closely together ill the President's Cabinet. If any of PresidentElect Trump's nominees are confirmed prior to ethics clearance and a criminal 

conflict of interest is discovered, will you recuse yourself from the investigation? 

7 
695 

RESPONSE: The Attorney General is different from other cabinet members because he or she is 

responsible for fair enforcement of the law. I am not aware of a basis to recuse myselffrom such 

investigations. If a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way 

to proceed. As I made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within 

the law and the established procedures of the Department. 

b. If you do not recuse yourself, what steps will you take to ensure that the Department 

faithfully investigates and prosecutes, if appropriate, such violations? 

RESPONSE: All investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in 

a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any 

potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures of 

the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist 

upon if I am confirmed as Attorney General. 

12. Last week, President-Elect Trump announced that he would retain ownership of his company 

while shifting assets into a trust managed by his sons; make "no new foreign deals"; subject 

any new domestic business deals to review by an ethics adviser whom he would appoint; 

give up his position as an officer at the Trump Organization; and limit communications with 

company executives to profits and loss statements. 

The Director ofOGE said that "stepping back from running his business is meaningless from 

a conflict of interest perspective." He also stated that "the plan does not comport with the 

tradition of our Presidents over the past 40 years. This isn't the way the Presidency has 

worked since Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 in the immediate 

aftermath of the Watergate scandal." 

a. President-Elect Trump has decided to maintain his financial interests in entities that 

are likely to be impacted by his Presidential decisions- such as decisions about laws to 

sign, executive actions to take, treaty negotiations, military decisions, and domestic 

policy decisions. Do you believe that if his financial interests are impacted by his 

decisions, this violates the anti-corruption principles that you identified in 1998? If 

yes, what are the proper steps for the Attorney General to take in such a situation? If 

not, why not? Please explain your answer in detail. 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances. Therefore, I am not in a position to 

offer even an informal opinion on it. If confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide legal 

advice on such matters only after examining the relevant facts and circumstances presented, and 

consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel and any other component of the Department having 

expertise bearing on such matters. 

b. You testified that you would be willing to say "no" to tile President. Have you 

communicated with President-Elect Trump about his business interests and how to 

8 
696 

resolve any conflicts arising from those interests? If your answer is yes, please 

describe those communications. If your answer is no, do you plan to? Please explain 

your rationale. 

RESPONSE: I have not communicated with the President regarding his business interests or 

how to resolve any conflicts arising from those interests. If confirmed as Attorney General, I 

would provide legal advice on such matters only after examining the relevant facts and 

circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel and any other 

component of the Department having expertise bearing on such matters. 

President-Elect Trump has claimed on many occasions that he cannot release his tax returns 

because of an ongoing audit by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). 

a. Do you believe the President-elect should release his tax returns when the IRS audit 

is complete? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: As required by a law passed by Congress, President Trump released a financial 

disclosure form that is available to the public. I have not studied it. However, it is my 

understanding that no law requires the disclosure of a President's tax returns. The mandated 

financial disclosure provides public disclosure of the key financial matters that Congress 

believed necessary. 

b. If confirmed, as a general matter, what specific steps do you envision taking to 

ensure that any legal issues arising from President-Elect Trump's business interests 

are handled in the same manner by the Department as any other American citizen? 

RESPONSE: All investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in 

a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions regarding any 

potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures of 

the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist 

upon if! am confirmed as Attorney General. 

c. You were extensively involved in President-Elect Trump's political campaign. If the 

IRS determines that the President-Elect has potentially violated a criminal or civil 

tax law, and the case is referred to the Department of Justice, will you recuse 

yourself from any decisions that are made regarding possible criminal or civil 

a(tions? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

9 
697 

d. If you do not recuse yourself, what steps will you take to ensure the Department of 

Justice thoroughly investigates any allegations and appropriately pursues any civil or 

criminal enforcement action that is within the Department's jurisdiction? 

RESPONSE: See response to 12(b). 

13. There is a clause of the Constitution that prohibits foreign government payments to federal 

officials. This clause is called the Emoluments Clause. It states: 

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any 

Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of 

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, 

or foreign State." 

This Clause has become more and more important as President-Elect Trump's dealings 

abroad and conversations with foreign leaders have become known. 

According to longstanding Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, this clause was intended 

by the Framers to preserve the independence of officers ofthe United States from corruption 

and foreign influence. One ofthe relevant OLC opinions states: "Those who hold offices 

under the United States must give the government their unclouded judgment and their 

uncompromised loyalty." 

a. OLCopinions clearly establish that the President is covered by the Emoluments 

Clause. Will you assure the Committee that you will uphold this OLC precedent? 

RESPONSE: While I have not reviewed the OLC opinions referred to above, nor have I devoted 

any study to this issue, in general, OLC opinions should be overturned only rarely and after 

careful study and reflection. If I am confirmed, I have no reason to believe that the Office of 

Legal Counsel would change its approach to such matters. 

b. Do you agree that cabinet officers are covered by the Clause? 

RESPONSE: While I have not devoted any study to this issue, it is my understanding that 

cabinet officers are covered by the Foreign Emoluments Clause. 

c. OLC opinions clearly establish that foreign state-owned or state-controlled businesses 

are "presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause"- so that U.S. 

officials cannot receive emoluments from foreign state-owned businesses. Will you 

assure the Committee that OLC will not change its view during President-Elect 

Trump's administration? 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that OLC opinions have examined ownership and control 

exercised by foreign states in determining whether a business should be deemed a foreign state 

under the Emoluments Clause. Ifl am confirmed, I have no reason to believe that the Office of 

Legal Counsel would change its approach to such matters. 

10 
698 

d. What is the proper enforcement mechanism for an emoluments violation? 

RESPONSE: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all federal office holders are 

obligated to abide by its terms. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will discharge all of the 

responsibilities of the office based upon my understanding of the requirements of the 

Constitution. 

14. As Attorney General you will be charged with enforcing the Voting Rights Act. This 

obligation is all the more important after the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby 

County, Alabama v. Holder, which struck down a key component of the Voting Rights Act. 

That same year, however, you spoke about voting rights issues and declared that "there's just 

huge areas of the South where there's no problem." 

In 2013, the Department of Justice sued the State of Texas, alleging that its voter ID law 

violated the Voting Rights Act. And just last year, the en bane Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals agreed, holding that Texas' voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act and 

"diminished African Americans' and Hispanics' ability to participate in the political 

process." 

Also in 2013, the Department of Justice sued the State of North Carolina, alleging that a state 

law had been adopted with the purpose, and would have the result, of denying or abridging 

the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, in 

violation of the Voting Rights Act. And just last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 

found that a North Carolina law, including voter ID provisions, was enacted with 

discriminatory intent and "restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of 

which disproportionately affected African Americans". 

a. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department continue to investigate claims that 

voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on minority voters, and bring charges if 

the evidence supports bringing such a case? Please answer yes or no. If yes, will the 

Department work to investigate those matters quickly? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, government cannot create laws designed to 

improperly inhibit the right of any eligible citizens to vote. The voting rights of Americans are 

protected by federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court held in Crawford 

v. Marion County Election Board that voter identification laws are neither per se unconstitutional, 

nor do they necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. The analysis of such laws are specific to 

the particular law, the jurisdiction, and a wide range of factors that Congress has identified as 

relevant in determining whether a particular voting practice comports with the Voting Rights Act. 

If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I am committed to enforcing all ofthe federal laws within 

the Department's jurisdiction, and particularly the laws regarding voting, in a fair and evenhanded manner. 

b. Texas has sought Supreme Court review of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Veasev v. 

Abbott, the Texas voter ID case. In October, the Justice Department filed a brief in 

11 
699 

opposition to Texas's petition for certiorari. If confirmed, do you plan to continue 

defending the position that the Justice Department has taken since 2013-that Texas's 

law violates the Voting Rights Act? If not, please explain. 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce the law and the 

Constitution. This question implicates an ongoing legal matter that I likely will be called upon 

to review and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time. However, as 

with all cases, I will carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and circumstances of the case 

and endeavor to uphold and defend the Constitution in the pursuit of justice. 

c. If confirmed, will the Justice Department change its position in any current voting 

rights case? If so, please identify all such cases. 

RESPONSE: This question implicates ongoing legal matters that I will be called upon to review 

if confirmed; therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time. I will 

carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case and endeavor to 

uphold and defend the Constitution in the pursuit of justice. 

15. During the hearing, I asked you, "Do you believe that the government can, pursuant to a 

general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States 

without charge or trial?" 

You answered: "Classically, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a German 

soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was done, I'm sure, at the Civil War and 

most wars since." 

I responded: "I'm talking about Americans." 

You then stated: 

"I hear you. So then the question is, we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple 

years and I would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid. But as reality 

dawns on us, and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues. 

"So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do 

believe- and Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many years- that we are in a war 

and when members who- unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a 

military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to 

be connected to an enemy, a designated enemy of the United States." 

"So I am- I probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and 

the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be 

debated in the future.'' 

a. Do you believe that an American citizen or lawful permanent resident apprehended in 

the United States can, pursuant to an authorization to use military force, be indefinitely 

12 
700 

detained by the U.S. Government without charge or trial? I am not asking about 

detention pursuant to criminal or immigration proceedings, but specifically detention 

pursuant to an authorization to use military force. Yes or no, and please explain your 

answer. 

The following discussion took place between you and Senator Graham: 

Senator Graham. So as to how long an enemy combatant can be held, traditionally under 

the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they are no longer 

a danger. Does that make sense to you? 

Senator Sessions. It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of 

war. 

Senator Graham . ... When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we'll know 

when it's over? 

Senator Sessions. I've asked a number of witnesses in armed services about that, and it's 

pretty clear we're talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm 

in the Middle East that just seems to have legs, and will continue for some time. 

b. Lf it your understanding that the law allows the U.S. Government to militarily detain 

American citizens or lawful permanent residents captured in the United States for 

decades pursuant to an authorization to use military force? Yes or no, and please 

explain your answer. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Under current law, it would appear that the United States may detain 

an active member of al Qaeda or other enemy combatants for as long as the conflict persists. As 

you know, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a plurality of the Supreme Court stated 

that "[t[here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." 

The plurality relied in part on Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. I (1942), in which the Court held that 

Congress authorized the military trial of aU .S. citizen who entered the country with orders from 

the Nazis to blow up domestic war facilities, but was captured before he could execute them. 

See also Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005); Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 

(4th Cir. 2008). Of course, citizens can contest their detention in federal court by writ of habeas 

corpus. 

16. The Department of Justice currently is confronted with a clear conflict in federal and state 

law, and a determination of how to use federal enforcement resources in marijuana cases. 

Currently, twenty-eight states and the District of Colombia have legalized medical or 

recreational marijuana, or both. This includes Colorado, Washington, and most recently, 

California. An additional 14 states have laws in place related to cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana, in place. 

Federal law, as you know, prohibits numerous actions with respect to marijuana, including 

possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute it. 

In December 2014, Congress passed an appropriations bill that contained the following 

provision: 

13 
701 

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be 

used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, 

to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, 

distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. 

Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit- in an opinion written by Judge Diarmuid 0' Scannlain, and 

joined by Judges Carlos T. Bea and Barry G. Silverman- concluded that this language, "at a 

minimum, ... prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the 

prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana 

Laws and who fully complied with such laws." (United States v. Mcintosh, Aug. 16, 20 16) 

a. How do you intend to balance federal marijuana enforcement with other enforcement 

priorities, given the number of states that have legalized recreational or medical 

marijuana under their own laws? 

RESPONSE: As former Attorney General Loretta Lynch herself said during her confirmation 

hearings almost two years ago, marijuana is still a criminal substance under federal law, and it is 

also still illegal under federal law not only to possess marijuana, but to distribute marijuana. I 

echo Attorney General Lynch's comments, and commit, as she did, to enforcing federal law with 

respect to marijuana, although the exact balance of enforcement priorities is an ever-changing 

determination based on the circumstances and the resources available at the time. 

b. If confirmed, do you plan to continue the policies contained in the "Cole Memo", 

which set forth eight enforcement priorities for federal marijuana enforcement? If you 

do intend to change the Cole Memo, how do you intend to change it? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with the Cole memorandum, I am not privy to any 

internal Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness of the policies contained within 

that memorandum. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will certainly 

review and evaluate those policies, including the original justifications for the memorandum, as 

well as any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or how they may change in 

the future. 

I 7. The National Academy of Sciences just released a report entitled "The Health Effects of 

Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for 

Research" (20 17). According to the press release issued with the report, this report was "an 

in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science 

says and to highlight areas that still need further examination." 

14 
702 

The National Academy of Sciences also stated: "One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and 

cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults. The committee found evidence to support that 

patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a 

significant reduction in pain symptoms. For adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle 

spasms, there was substantial evidence that short-term use of certain "oral cannabinoids"-

man-made, cannabinoid-based medications that are orally ingested- improved their reported 

symptoms. Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there 

was conclusive evidence that certain oral cannabinoids were effective in preventing and 

treating those ailments." 

The National Academy of Sciences also stated: "Regarding the link between marijuana and 

cancer, the committee found evidence that suggests smoking cannabis does not increase the 

risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use- such as lung and head and neck 

cancers." 

However, the National Academy also stated: "Evidence suggests that cannabis use prior to 

driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident. Furthermore, 

evidence suggests that in states where cannabis use is legal, there is increased risk of 

unintentional cannabis overdose injuries among children." 

The National Academy also noted that there are numerous challenges and barriers to 

conducting research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use. 

During the last session of Congress, Senators Grassley, Leahy, Tillis and I introduced 

legislation to reduce barriers associated with researching marijuana. This legislation would 

expedite the Drug Enforcement Administration registration process to research marijuana, 

and allow doctors to use their existing registrations to conduct research and clinical trials on 

cannabidiol, rather than the Schedule I registration that is currently needed. It would also 

increase the scientific research base for marijuana by authorizing medical and osteopathic 

schools, as well as research universities and pharmaceutical companies, to conduct research 

using their own strains of marijuana and cannabidiol. The goal, if the science shows that 

marijuana or its components are indeed helpful in treating certain medical conditions, is to 

develop medicines that can be brought to the market with FDA-approval, just like any other 

medicine. I believe this is important legislation and plan to reintroduce it again this session. 

a. Given the number of states that have legalized recreational and medical marijuana 

under their own laws, wouldn't you agree it is important that we know as much as 

possible about the health-related and other impacts of marijuana usage? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. What do you intend to do as Attorney General to advance our knowledge in that area? 

Are there specific regulations that you would ease related to marijuana research? If so, 

which ones? 

15 
703 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will defer to the 

American Medical Association and the researchers at the National Institutes of Health and 

elsewhere about the medical effects of marijuana. Without having studied the relevant 

regulations in depth, I cannot say whether they may need to be eased in order to advance 

research; but, I will review this. If confirmed, will be to enforce federal law, under which 

marijuana is currently a Schedule One controlled substance--defined as a drug with no currently 

accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. 

18. Senator Leahy asked you about the most recent FBI hate crimes statistics. The FBI's most 

recent annual hate crimes report found that in 2015, there were 5,818 single-bias incidents 

involving 7,121 victims. Of those victims. 17.7 percent were targeted because oftheir sexual 

orientation: and 1.7 percent because of their gender identity. We also know that these 

numbers are likely underreported. 

a. Senator Graham asked you "If a state is not prosecuting crimes against people based on 

their sex, their race, whatever reason, then it's proper for the federal government to come 

in and provide justice, don't you think?" You responded "I do." 

Do you similarly agree that if a state is not prosecuting crimes against people based on 

their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is likewise proper for the federal 

government to "come in and provide justice," in accordance with the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009? 

RESPONSE: If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, my duty will be 

the pursuit of equal enforcement of the law for all Americans. From time to time, this duty may 

necessitate federal involvement in a state where federal law is not being followed or where equal 

justice under the law is not being administered. 

b. Do you believe it is inappropriate for the Justice Department to prosecute cases under 

the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 if the 

state is prosecuting the same defendant based on the same factual scenario? 

RESPONSE: Any decision by the Justice Department to initiate a prosecution must be 

conducted in a fair, professional and impartial manner, and only after careful consideration of the 

facts and law presented by the case. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, 

and make decisions regarding any potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and 

consistent with established procedures of the Department. That is what I always did as a United 

States Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon ifl am confirmed as Attorney General. 

c. Five states do not have any hate crimes laws-including South Carolina, where 

Dylann Roof was recently convicted and sentenced by a jury on federal hate crimes and 

firearms charges. Additionally, 14 states have hate crimes laws that do not include 

sexual orientation, and 28 states have hate crimes laws that do not include gender 

identity-but sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the ShepardByrd Act. Under your leadership, if confirmed, what steps will the Department take to 

ensure hate crimes that occur in these states continue to be prosecuted? 

16 
704 

RESPONSE: Any decision by the Justice Department to initiate a prosecution must be 

conducted in a fair, professional and impartial manner, and only after careful consideration of the 

facts and law presented by the case. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, 

and make decisions regarding any potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and 

consistent with established procedures of the Department. That is what I always did as a United 

States Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon ifl am confirmed as Attorney General. 

d. Can you assure the Committee hate crimes enforcement will remain vigilant? Yes or 

no. If your answer is yes, please detail the steps you will take to ensure that 

enforcement of such crimes across the country remains a priority. For example, in 

2015, the Civil Rights Division- in conjunction with U.S. Attorneys Offices and the 

FBI-organized a series of regional hate crimes trainings in Mississippi, California, 

Oregon, Kansas and Florida. These meetings helped to train local and federal law 

enforcement in how to recognize, investigate, and prove hate crimes. They helped to 

educate communities and engage them in the process of ensuring public safety. And 

they helped to encourage better hate crime reporting and data collection. If the answer 

is no, please explain your rationale. 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Department 

will be vigilant in the full enforcement of all federal laws. I will endeavor to direct and utilize the 

resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement of 

federal law. The specific steps I will take to ensure the enforcement of any particular law will be 

decided after careful evaluation of any current practices of the Department and the effectiveness 

ofthose practices. 

e. Many other crimes--crimes involving the possession and distribution of illegal drugs, 

for example-are criminalized at both the state and federal level. Please provide to the 

Committee all other examples where you, as a Senator, sought evidence that states 

were doing an inadequate job prosecuting certain crimes before you voted to 

criminalize certain conduct at the federal level, or voted increase penalties for certain 

conduct at the federal level. If there are no other examples you can identifY, please say 

so. 

RESPONSE: Over the course of nearly 20 years serving in the Senate, I have cast numerous 

votes against federal action or interference when I believed that principles of federalism 

demanded it. A review of my voting history and public statements clearly reflect an adherence 

to this philosophy. Nevertheless, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 

my duty will be to enforce federal laws enacted by Congress and I will do so without reservation. 

19. The career civil service in our country is a fundamental part of the guarantee to all Americans 

that nobody will be targeted for investigation or prosecution based on political beliefs or 

favoritism. That means that protection for career Department of Justice attorneys is 

extremely important. During the Bush Administration, even the hiring of career Department 

attorneys, particularly in the Civil Rights Division, became politicized. 

17 
705 

You did an interview on American Family Radio on November 7, 2016, the day before the 

election, and the radio host stated that, in her view, the Department of Justice was "being 

filled, packed, with left-wing attorneys." She called Department attorneys "the left ofthe 

left," and "a nightmare." 

She then asked you, "If Donald Trump is elected, what would happen to the Justice 

Department, do you think?" 

You responded: "First, you are exactly right." You then noted you had spoken with former 

Attorney General John Ashcroft about how, in your view, "If Hillary Clinton is elected, there 

will be four more years of filling every spot in the Department of Justice with these secular, 

progressive, liberals that are going to make the Department even less traditional and lawful in 

its policies, more of a political machine, and that is the wrong direction. But every other 

cabinet person, place will be the same--whether it's EPA, whether it's the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Servicesall of those Departments will be packed with also, now, for 12 consecutive years, with the 

secular left. ltjust-is. And this is another reason this election's stakes are so high." 

a. Please explain your comments on this radio program. What did you mean by your 

statements? 

RESPONSE: These comments were made in response to my perception that individuals within 

the Department were using their own opinions of"truth" to decide when particular laws ought to 

be enforced, rather than consulting federal statutes or the Constitution. Abdicating a duty to 

enforce the law based on one's personal belief that an act clearly prohibited by law is nonetheless 

acceptable would fit my definition of"unlawfulness." The Department of Justice is an 

organization composed overwhelmingly of career professionals who do their duty every day. I 

will provide leadership that respects their professionalism and insists upon it. I will strive to 

enforce laws and set priorities that are consistent with the Constitution and the legislated intent 

of Congress. 

b. Will you assure this Committee that the Department of Justice will not make any 

hiring, promotion, transfer, termination, or evaluation determinations based on an 

individual's political or religious beliefs? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Department 

will follow federal law and Departmental regulations regarding all personnel decisions. 

20. U.S. Attorneys are, as you know, selected with the advice of their home-state senators-and 

they are subject to an approval process for those senators known as a blue slip, which you 

yourself have used many times. 

a. How do you and the Administration intend to consult with home-state senators from 

both parties and ensure that politics is kept out of the U.S. Attorney appointments? 

18 
706 

RESPONSE: While I have not discussed this matter with the President, I have no expectation 

that this process will deviate from the precedent set by prior Administrations and hope that the 

Senate will follow its traditions so that the process works to the benefit of the American people. 

21. In your Committee Questionnaire, you listed four civil rights cases on your list of top ten 

"most significant litigated matters which you personally handled." I would like to better 

understand your role in these cases, and the extent to which you "personally handled" them. 

For each of these four cases-Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 

United States v. Concunah County, United States v. Dallas County Commission, and United 

States v. Marengo County Commission--please list the following: 

a. Every pleading or document filed with the court that you not only read, but also edited 

or otherwise substantially contributed to the arguments or positions developed therein. 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that these pleadings and documents have been entered into 

the record for this hearing. As each pleading or document evidences, I was responsible for all of 

the content consistent with my ethical obligations under the Alabama State Bar's professional 

responsibility regulations and Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. My name and 

signature on the pleadings signified my full support of the pleading, that it was justified, and it 

represented my view as to what was appropriate, just as it did in criminal or other cases that I did 

not personally try. 

b. Every hearing, oral argument or other court proceeding in which you directly 

participated. 

RESPONSE: These cases were adjudicated over thirty years ago and I did not keep a record of 

every hearing, oral argument, or other court proceeding associated with them. My role as U.S. 

Attorney was to represent to the court my decision in these cases. 

c. Any other role you may have had in litigating or supervising other government 

attorneys who worked on these cases. 

RESPONSE: The role I had in these cases was equal to that of my five co-counsel in that we 

were each responsible for all of the content contained in the filings and for all representations 

made to the court, consistent with our ethical obligations under our State Bar's professional 

responsibility regulations and Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

22. At your hearing, you were asked about your vote against reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act in 2013. The law included important expanded protections for 

vulnerable groups, including LGBT, Native American, and immigrant victims, in an effort to 

ensure that all victims of violence are protected. 

You testified that you voted against the bill because of "some specific add-on revision in the 

bill that caused my concern." You also testified that "[ o ]ne of the more concerning 

provisions was a provision that gave tribal courts jurisdiction to try persons who were not 

tribal members." 

19 
707 

a. Which provisions of the law do you mean to indicate were "add-on,~"? 

RESPONSE: My testimony referred to the tribal-jurisdiction provision. This provision was not 

part of the original Violence Against Women Act, or a part of the 2000 and 2006 

reauthorizations (which I supported). Further, as I recall, the addition of this provision was the 

principal reason why eight ofthe nine Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

opposed the 2013 bill. 

b. If the provision on friba/jurisdiction had not been part of the bill, would you have 

supported the bill's protection from discrimination for LGBT victims? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: My principal concerns about the 2013 VA W A reauthorization centered on the 

tribal jurisdiction provision. The 2013 Act also includes a provision that prohibits recipients of 

federal grants (such as women's domestic-violence shelters) from discriminating on the basis of, 

among other things, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This provision includes an 

exception that a grantee may carry out sex segregation or sex-specific programming if it can 

show that such programming is "necessary to the essential operation of a program," and if it 

provides comparable services to individuals who cannot be provided with sex-segregated or sexspecific programming. My and other Senators' concerns about this provision centered on the 

fact that, on its face, its broad prohibition would appear to preclude operation of a women-only 

(or women and children-only) domestic violence shelter, and the Act's exception to this 

prohibition appears narrow and is unclear. Although a woman who has been the victim of 

violence at the hands of a husband or boyfriend may be better served by services that are 

provided outside the presence of men, it is unclear whether a women's domestic-violence shelter 

would be able to meet the Act's requirement that it show that providing women-only services is 

"necessary to the essential operation" of the shelter. I believe that, in some circumstances, it is 

appropriate for VA WA grant recipients to provide services that are limited to women. To the 

extent that VAWA 2013's new anti- discrimination provision is construed to, for example, 

prevent or make it difficult for a women's domestic violence shelter to provide services that it 

believes should be limited only to women, I continue to have serious reservations about that 

provision. In the past, I have received strong objections from a respected women and children's 

shelter on this very issue. 

c. If the provision on tribal jurisdiction had not been part of the bill, would you have 

supported the bill's expanded protections for immigrant victims? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE: My principal concerns about the 2013 VA WA centered on the tribal jurisdiction 

provision. The 2013 Act also includes a provision that expands the U visa program. U visas are 

available to aliens who have been victims of domestic violence and other crimes-they are 

intended to allow the alien to assist with a prosecution of the offense. These visas allow an alien 

to remain in the United States for four years and seek permanent-resident status. The Judiciary 

Committee received numerous statements from American citizens who have been victims of 

marriage fraud perpetrated by aliens who have abused the U visa program. These aliens have 

married a U.S. citizen without the intention of remaining married, and then falsely accused their 

spouse of domestic violence or other crimes in order to obtain a U visa and remain in the United 

States. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the VA WA reauthorization, an 

20 
708 

amendment was offered as an alternative to VA WA 2013 that would have applied basic antifraud protections to the U visa program. These proposals would have required that an alleged 

crime that justified a U visa be recently reported, that it be under actual investigation, and that 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services interview the parties (including the alleged 

perpetrator, if the victim consents) to determine if the allegations are credible. The Committee's 

then-majority refused to include any ofthese anti-fraud measures in VA WA 2013, and instead 

expanded the number of visas available from 10,000 to 15,000. I continue to have concerns 

about fraud, and believe that the 2013 Act's expansion of the program should have been 

accompanied by provisions that would prevent such abuse of the program. 

d. Now that the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has been 

implemented for three years, including the provision on tribal jurisdiction, do you still 

oppose it? If so, why? And would you seek to challenge that provision of the law? 

Would you seek to challenge any other provisions of the law? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, including 

the 2013 reauthorization of VA WA. I understand that a pilot program has been initiated that 

seeks to conform tribes' exercise of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the requirements of 

the Sixth Amendment. I will carefully study this program before reaching any legal conclusions 

about the VA W A tribal jurisdiction provision. 

During my meetings with Senators in preparation for this hearing, I have heard numerous 

concerns about non-enforcement in these matters. I will work to improve this issue. Sexual 

assault and other violent crime on Indian reservations are very serious problems-in some 

places, the problem has reached epidemic proportions. The federal government exercises 

criminal jurisdiction over many Indian reservations. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will be committed to ensuring that federal law enforcement resources are fully deployed to 

investigate and prosecute crime on federal reservations, and will request additional resources 

where existing resources are inadequate. Finally, I would note that on many Indian reservations, 

state and local authorities exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and local law enforcement 

resources greatly exceed those of federal and tribal governments combined. On the exclusively 

federal reservations where federal law enforcement has proved to be inadequate to reduce high 

levels of violent crime, Congress may consider allowing state and local authorities to exercise 

criminal jurisdiction. State and local law enforcement has proven effective on many existing 

Indian reservations, and the extension of such criminal jurisdiction to both Indians and nonIndians in Indian country does not offend constitutional guarantees. 

I am not aware of any other provision of the law that raises constitutional concerns. 

e. If confirmed, will you recommend that the Administration support reauthorization of 

the law as-is? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will study the law and its impact to 

determine whether improvements can be made. 

21 
709 

23. A 2016 report from the American Association of University Women states: "At the rate of 

change between 1960 and 2015, women are expected to reach pay equity with men in 2059. 

But even that slow progress has stalled in recent years. If change continues at the slower rate 

seen since 2001, women will not reach pay equity with men until2152." ("The Simple Truth 

about the Gender Pay Gap," Fall 20 16) 

In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data from 2014 showed that women earned 

dramatically less than men in occupations from legal, to sales, to education, to technology, to 

health care. 

a. Do you believe that there is a pay gap for women in which women are discriminated 

against and paid less for doing substantially similar or the same work even when 

factors such as education or experience are accounted for? 

RESPONSE: Any discrimination against a woman, because she is a woman, would violate 

federal law. I will enforce the law to the letter where evidence of such discrimination exists, if I 

am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. There should be equal pay for equal 

work. 

24. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama for 19 years, mostly as a 

manager. During the years she worked at Goodyear, her pay "slipped in comparison to the 

pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority." (Ginsburg dissent.) The problem 

Lilly Ledbetter had a problem, however, because she had no idea she was being 

discriminated against. By the time she found out, it had been going on for years. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded her claims were barred. The Court ruled the 

deadline to bring a case started to run at the time the discrimination first occurred- not when 

she found out it happened. This decision meant employers could discriminate with impunity 

so long as they kept it hidden from their employees for 180 days. 

Congress voted to overturn this decision in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of2009. Four 

Republican women Senators voted for the law. At the hearing, you were asked about your 

vote against the legislation. You testified, "We had a hearing on it in the Judiciary 

Committee. A number of witnesses testified, and the testimony, as I understood it, was that 

[Lilly Ledbetter] did in fact have notice, and the Court found that she had notice, and that is 

why they had that statute of limitations was enforced. You need a statute of limitations of 

some kind, and if they do not know, then you can allow it to continue indefinitely. But as I 

understood, that was the ruling. So it was less problematic for future cases than was 

discussed, but my recollection is not perfectly clear on that issue. That was one of the factors 

I remember being involved in my decision." 

a. Now that you have had an opportunity to review the issue and the Supreme Court's 

decision, please discuss the reasons you were opposed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 

Act of 2009. Are you still opposed to the law? 

22 
710 

RESPONSE: It is my recollection that the legislation would have effectively eliminated the 

statute of limitations for Title VII pay discrimination claims as long as an employee is receiving 

paychecks. This would appear to undermine the traditional goals that limitations periods seek to 

further even where, as here, according to testimony at Judiciary Committee hearings, a person 

had actual notice of alleged pay disparity, long before filing the action. Nevertheless, no position 

I took as a Senator would hinder me from enforcing any duly-enacted law. 

b. Please provide with specificity the basis of your statement at the hearing: "We had a 

hearing on it in the Judiciary Committee. A number of witnesses testified, and the 

testimony, as I understood it, was that {Lilly Ledbetter} did in fact have notice, and the 

Court found that she had notice, and that is why they had that statute of limitations 

was enforced." 

RESPONSE: On Tuesday, September 23, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing 

entitled "BARRIERS TO JUSTICE: EXAMINING EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK." Lilly 

Ledbetter, Cyrus Mehri, and Lawrence Lorber testified about the case and the Supreme Court's 

ruling in favor of the employer, Goodyear. Testimony offered by the witnesses, and the facts 

that were exposed in the case, indicated that Ms. Ledbetter's record included poor performance 

reviews and repeated layoffs. Nevertheless, she waited more than five years before filing a 

claim. 

25. Pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § I 003.1, the Attorney General has authority to certify cases of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to himself. Through this authority, the Attorney 

General can establish or reverse precedent in immigration law. According to the 

Congressional Research Service, in the past this authority has been used very rarely: it was 

used in just five cases by Attorney General Mukasey, and in just three cases by Attorney 

General Holder. 

a. Do you believe that, in line with established practice, this authority for the Attorney 

General to decide immigration appeals himself or herself must be used ~paringlyleaving the adjudicative process to function as it usually does with decisions made by 

immigration judges and members of the board of immigration appeals? 

RESPONSE: My understanding is that this authority is entirely discretionary. Decisions to use 

such authority would only be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I cannot speculate as to how 

often that authority should be exercised. 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, what criteria do you intend to consider in deciding 

which BIA cases you will seek to certifY to yourself? 

RESPONSE: I have not given thought to what criteria would be essential to a determination of 

whether to certify a case to myself for review. 

26. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has acknowledged that its resources enable it 

to remove only a fraction ofthe undocumented population each year. You have also 

23 
711 

recognized that financial considerations do not make it possible to identify and remove 

everybody who is in the country illegally. 

a. Do you believe that young people who have qualified and received deferred action 

through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program constitute 

high enforcement priorities? 

RESPONSE: As you know, decisions about "enforcement priorities" with regard to our civil 

immigration system reside in the Department of Homeland Security. Should I be confirmed as 

the Attorney General, I will have no role in establishing the Department of Homeland Security's 

civil enforcement priorities. 

b. What about the parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents? 

RESPONSE: Please see response to 26(a). 

c. Which types of individuals do you believe constitute high enforcement priorities? 

RESPONSE: Please see response to 26(a). 

27. 8 U.S.C. § 1373 establishes certain guidelines regarding communication between state and 

local governments and federal immigration agencies with respect to an individual's 

citizenship or immigration status. In interpreting this statute, the Department of Justice's 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has concluded that it "does not impose on states and 

localities the affirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding 

their citizenship or immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take 

specific actions upon obtaining such information." 

a. Will you adhere to BJA 's current interpretation of8 U.S. C.§ 1373? 

RESPONSE: Should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully execute the laws for 

which I am responsible for administering. 

b. If not, what is your interpretation of 8 U.S. C.§ 1373? And what is your interpretation 

based on? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the opportunity to undertake a detailed review of the BJA'S 

interpretation of the statute. If the BJA's interpretation of the statute is correct, I see no reason 

not to follow it. 

28. The principle of birthright citizenship, regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of 

an individual's parents, is enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. That 

clause provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 

The Supreme Court affirmed this principle almost 120 years ago in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 

169 U.S. 649 (1898), noting: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth 

24 
712 

under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, 

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and 

needs no naturalization." And: "In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by 

birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms." 

a. Do you believe that a child horn in the United States to undocumented parents is a 

citizen of the United States? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, under the current state of the law, children 

born in the United States become citizens. 

h. With respect to a child born in the United States, under what circumstances do you 

believe that Congress can modify the scope of birthright citizenship by statute? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the details of that. I do know there is some dispute about 

whether or not the Congress could change the status of current law regarding birthright 

citizenship. 

c. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department file briefs in support of efforts to 

alter the constitutional provision regarding birthright citizenship? 

RESPONSE: The determination as to how to handle a particular case is fact-specific, and I 

cannot speculate as to how the Department of Justice might litigate future hypothetical cases. 

29. A number of states across the country, including California, have passed laws allowing 

undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. California's in-state tuition law has 

made it possible for undocumented students in the state to pursue higher education and 

develop the skills and knowledge to contribute more fully to their communities and our 

economy. 

a. Do you believe that federal law prohibits states from providing access to in-state tuition 

for undocumented students? 

RESPONSE: My current understanding is that responding to this question would require an 

analysis of the laws of each individual state, compared with applicable federal law. At this time, 

I cannot comment on this issue. 

b. Do you intend to take any action against states that provide in-state tuition for 

undocumented students? If so, what type of legal action do you intend to pursue 

against these states? 

RESPONSE: Should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully execute the laws of 

the United States. 

30. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny 

undocumented children free K-12 public education. In its opinion, the Court noted: "By 

25 
713 

denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure 

of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in 

even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation." 

a. Will you commit to upholding and enforcing Plyler v. Doe? 

RESPONSE: Should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce the law as interpreted 

by the Supreme Court. 

31. On a variety of occasions you have expressed strong concerns about Congress passing 

immigration reforms because you were worried about jobs being taken from American 

citizens. In 2013 you said, "Why would any member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a 

time of high unemployment, falling wages, to bring in a huge surge of new labor that can 

only hurt the poorest among us." And on the Senate Floor on June 23,2016, you went so far 

as to say that all jobs created in the country during the period between 2000 and 2014 "went 

to the foreign born." 

The Washington Post, as recently as Christmas 2016, reported that a Virginia vineyard 

owned by President-Elect Trump or his company had applied for six H-2A visas to work 

seasonal jobs. Additionally, as you know, President-Elect Trump's companies have applied 

for a number ofH-28 visas, mostly in his hotel businesses, including 20 waiters and 

waitresses for his Trump International Beach Resort in Florida, in December 2016 alone. 

Further, the Washington Post reported that since 2013, President-Elect Trump's businesses 

have requested 513 employment-based visas, with 269 of these visas for foreign workers set 

to begin employment after President-Elect Trump declared his candidacy for President. 

a. If any of these companies, or individuals working with these companies, is believed to 

violate federal criminal law, how will the Department of Justice proceed to investigate 

or prosecute individuals from tire President's own companies? 

RESPONSE: I believe that all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and 

conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside 

influence. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions 

regarding any potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established 

procedures of the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is 

what I will insist upon if I am confirmed as Attorney General. 

b. You were extensively involved in President-Elect Trump's political campaign. Will you 

recuse yourself from any decisions regarding the investigation or prosecution of 

President-Elect Trump's own companies? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

26 
714 

32. Throughout the campaign, President-Elect Trump accused U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo 

Curiel of being biased based on Judge Curiel's heritage. President-Elect Trump was quoted 

by the press as saying: 

• "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico." (Politifact, June 8, 

2016, quoting Jake Tapper interview with CNN) 

• "I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest." (Wall Street Journal, June 3, 

2016) 

• "It's an absolute conflict" (Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2016) 

• "He's a member of a club, or society, very strongly pro-Mexican" (John Dickerson, Face 

the Nation, Interview, June 5, 20 16) 

• "I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. I think it has to do with perhaps the 

fact that I'm very, very strong on the border. Very, very strong on the border . ... Now, he 

is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. I said it loud and clear." (Fox 

News Sunday, February 27, 2016) 

In addition, in an interview with John Dickerson on CBS News Mr. Trump was asked whether he 

believed a judge who is a Muslim would also be unfair to him. He said, "that would be possible, 

absolutely." 

a. Would it ever be appropriate for the Department of Justice to seek a judge's recusal 

from a case involving the Trump administration based on the judge's race, gender, 

ethnicity,family heritage or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender 

identity? If so, please explain. 

RESPONSE: No. 

b. Through the Office of Legal Policy and otherwise, the Department historically has had 

a significant role in the judicial nominations process. Can you assure the Committee 

that the Department of Justice will not support any efforts by the President-Elect to 

reject candidates for judicial positions based on their race, gender, ethnicity,family 

heritage or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

33. After your initial submission of your Senate Judiciary Questionnaire ("Committee 

Questionnaire") on December 9, 2016, you made three subsequent supplemental submissions 

to address missing materials. These additional submissions included over 50 hours of audio 

and visual material and hundreds of pages of documents. Your initial submission was, 

therefore, incomplete. 

Additionally, the Committee never received the following requested material from your years 

as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama or as Attorney General of Alabama: 

Interviews: Radio, television, and print interviews while you were U.S. Attorney for the 

Southern District of Alabama and Attorney General of Alabama. 

27 
715 

Nominees regularly produce materials documenting statements to the press regardless of 

whether a full transcript is available, or whether the statements were part of a formal 

interview. I identified examples of such materials to you in a list on January 5, 2017. In a 

letter to me on January 6, 2017, you responded that you were not sure if the materials were 

responsive because you could not confirm the exact circumstances under which you made the 

comments. However, nominees are generally expected to produce press statements whether 

they were part of a formal interview or not. The burden to establish exactly how the 

comments were made is not on the Committee. 

For example, a 1996 Birmingham News article available in a public database but missing 

from your materials indicates you made comments during an interview about strengthening 

criminal laws. (Stan Bailey, Sessions Says Crime Laws Need Change, BIRMINGHAM NEWS, 

Dec. 18, 1996 ('"I was most surprised at how much more difficult it is, it seems to be, to 

prosecute fraud and corruption,' Sessions said in an interview Tuesday.")) Another 1996 

article missing from your materials but available in a public database indicates you made 

comments to the press regarding the National Rifle Association (NRA) at an event while you 

were campaigning for U.S. Senate. (Sean Reilly, Sessions: NRA comments were a mistake, 

MOBILE REGISTER, November 2, 1996 ('"I don't agree with that comment,' Sessions said 

Friday of the NRA letter. 'It's not something that should have been said."') 

Speeches: For the fourteen years you served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama and Attorney General of Alabama, you listed just three speeches, and you had notes 

or transcripts for just one of these. During this time, you campaigned for Alabama Attorney 

General and the U.S. Senate. 

You served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for 12 years. An 

online search shows that the current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama has 

made at least ten speeches in the last five years. You also served for two years as Alabama 

Attorney General. An online search shows that the current Attorney General of Alabama has 

made at least seven speeches in the last year alone. 

a. What steps did you or your staff take to ensure that the materials you provided to the 

Committee in response to the Questionnaire were complete? Please specifically detail 

the efforts you or your staff made to identify and locate materials from your time as 

U.S. Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. 

RESPONSE: In preparing my response to the Committee's Questionnaire, my staff and I 

conducted a thorough review of my own files, searches of publicly available electronic 

databases, and consultation with the Senate Library, the Congressional Research Service, and 

relevant committee libraries and historical offices within the Senate. In an effort to be as 

responsive as possible, my staff also conducted further review of existing files from the era, 

including historical archives maintained in electronic research databases such as LexisNexis, 

WestLaw, and ProQuest, public search engines, and Internet archive services that maintain 

records ofwebsites that no longer exist. Additionally, as records from my time as United States 

Attorney and Attorney General of the State of Alabama existed before the proliferation of the 

Internet and before electronic storage was as readily available as it is today, most of those 

28 
716 

records do not exist in any electronic databases of which I am aware, and my staff and I 

consulted with the Alabama Attorney General's Office and with the United States Attorney's 

Office for the Southern District of Alabama to locate archived files from my time in those 

offices. All responsive records identified or located as a result ofthese searches were submitted 

to the Committee. 

b. After your initial incomplete production, did you or your staff take any different or 

additional steps to gather a more complete set of materials? For example, did you or 

your staff attempt to identify and search newspaper archives of Alabama news 

publications that may be available in the state but not searchable nationwide? Did you 

or your staff ask the Alabama Attorney General to produce material in the state 

archive, or work with the state archives directly? Please detail your and your staff's 

efforts. 

RESPONSE: After my initial voluminous production, which was more extensive than any 

Committee Questionnaire response by any Attorney General nominee in recent memory and 

encompassed more than I 00 times the records produced by Attorney General Lynch, 1 items were 

brought to my attention as potentially responsive that had not been submitted. Some already had 

been submitted to the Committee, and some were not responsive items at all. A miniscule 

percentage of items, however, were responsive and subsequently submitted to the Committee in 

a supplemental response, which is a common practice for nominees. Additionally, in an effort to 

be as responsive as possible, my staff conducted additional searches to locate any other items 

that might have been missing. 

34. During your hearing, you testified that "I've received hundreds- multiple hundreds of 

awards over my career." You have only listed 79 awards as part of your Committee 

Questionnaire. 

a. What process did you use to determine which of the "multiple hundreds of awards" 

you have received would be listed on your Committee Questionnaire? Put another 

way: how did you decide which awards not to include on your Committee 

Questionnaire? Please outline what steps were taken to ensure a full inventory of your 

awards were provided. 

RESPONSE: My comment that I had received "multiple hundreds of awards" was hyperbole 

and I should have been more careful with my words. I listed in my response to the Committee 

Questionnaire all awards that I was able to locate, identify, or remember. 

b. Please provide the Committee with a list of any missing awards. 

RESPONSE: I have already provided to the Committee all responsive items, including awards, 

that I was able to locate, identify, or remember. 

1 Letter from Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein to Chairman Charles E. Grassley, Dec. 13, 2016 ("Senator 

Sessions' production is, as I understand it, in excess of 150,000 pages of material. This is more than 100 times what 

Attorney General Lynch produced (1500 pages) and more than 29 times what Attorney General Holder produced 

(51 00 pages))." 

29 
717 

35. Since 2009, funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program and the 

COPS Hiring program have dropped by 32 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Byrne JAG 

is the cornerstone federal justice assistance program, providing hundreds of millions of 

dollars to state and local law enforcement each year. The COPS Hiring program provides 

more than a hundred million in funding to hire new, or rehire, law enforcement or to increase 

community policing. 

Police officers need this support. And cutting support for this funding- or allowing cuts to 

be made- would undennine the brave law enforcement officers that put their lives on the 

line for communities every day. The cuts since 2009 have had real impact. 

a. Will you support increased funding for these essential programs? 

RESPONSE: Ifi am fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General, I will seek to best 

use the resources available to the Department of Justice to address violent and other crimes 

throughout the country, and to partner with State and local law enforcement agencies to help 

them address these issues. I will make funding decisions only after a careful evaluation of any 

current practice or program administered by the Department and the effectiveness of those 

practices to aid in the administration of justice. This will include a review of the Department's 

Inspector General's report criticizing program administration. As you know, resources are 

limited; therefore, prior to such an evaluation, it would be unwise for me to commit to an 

increase in funding for any specific purpose. 

b. In FY/6, California received $30.3 million from Byrne-JAG and $II.725 million from 

the COPS program. Will you ensure funding for California law enforcement in these 

programs is not reduced, except as may be proportional to any overall reduction in the 

program by Congress? 

RESPONSE: Ifi am fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General, I will seek to best 

use the resources available to the Department of Justice to address violent and other crimes 

throughout the country, and to partner with State and local law enforcement agencies to help 

them address these issues. I will make funding decisions only after a careful evaluation of any 

current practice or program administered by the Department and the effectiveness of those 

practices to aid in the administration of justice. As you know, resources are limited; therefore, 

prior to such an evaluation, it would be unwise for me to commit to an increase in funding for 

any specific purpose. 

36. I believe that the men and women who serve as state and local law enforcement officers are 

some of the finest and bravest public servants we have. The vast majority of police officers 

do exemplary work and build strong relationships with the community to keep the public 

safe. However, we also know that in many communities, trust between community members 

and state and local law enforcement is deeply frayed. 

I recently convened a pair of meetings with more than 50 African American community, 

religious and political leaders, and law enforcement officers in San Francisco and Los 

Angeles. A key point that emerged was that change must take root from the bottom up, but 

30 
718 

the federal government especially the Justice Department- has a role to play in 

recommending best practices and providing or supporting civilian oversight. In some cases, 

where the Department has found a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing, the 

Department has entered consent decrees in order to ensure that needed reforms happen at an 

institutional level. 

During your hearing, you told Senator Hirono that "there's a concern that good police 

officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have 

individuals within the department who have done wrong, and those individuals need to be 

prosecuted." 

a. Please list all investigations or proceedings under Section 14141 that the Civil Rights 

Division has undertaken since 1994 that you believe were undertaken erroneously 

and/or should not have been brought. 

RESPONSE: I have not been privy to internal Department data and information regarding every 

investigation undertaken under this section. However, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will carefully evaluate the authorities and tools available to the 

Department, including this section, and partner with departments to provide best practices and 

information whenever appropriate. 

37. In addition to Section 14141 investigations, the Justice Department's Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provides, upon request, assistance to police departments 

to help develop long-term, holistic strategies to improve policing. 

In my home city of San Francisco, the COPS unit has helped identify specific areas for the 

San Francisco Police Department to improve its own policies, particularly in the wake of 

several use-of-force incidents that sparked protests across the state. The program under which 

the COPS office assisted the SFPD is called the Collaborative Reform Initiative, and it is a 

program that has collaborated with police departments nationwide, including in Baltimore, 

Memphis, Philadelphia, and Salinas. 

a. Will you commit to continuing this type of technical assistance for police departments 

that request it? 

RESPONSE: While I am unfamiliar with the specific assistance provided to San Francisco, I 

agree it is important for law enforcement agencies to build trust and good relationships with the 

communities they protect, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Office ofthe 

Department of Justice can provide valuable information, resources, and technical assistance to 

law enforcement agencies looking to improve their practices. If confirmed, I will support their 

efforts. 

38. In May 2016, the Department of Justice filed an indictment against South Carolina Police 

Officer Michael Slager after he fatally shot Walter Scott, an African American man. Officer 

Slager was indicted both on federal criminal civil rights and obstruction charges. 

31 
719 

On December 6, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinksi asked Vice President-Elect Pence "Will the 

next administration support the feds continuing the case against Slager?" Vice PresidentElect Pence replied, "Well, I think that'll be a decision that the Attorney General will review 

and make after January the 20th, and I'll let our designee and of course President-Elect 

[Trump] review that." 

a. Have you discussed this case with President-Elect Trump, Vice President-Elect Pence, 

or other members of the transition team? Please specify. 

RESPONSE: No. 

b. Do Vice President-Elect Pence or President-Elect Trump have any reason to believe 

that you plan to withdraw a previously-filed indictment in this case--or any other 

criminal or civil rights cases the Justice Department is currently prosecuting? 

RESPONSE: I have not discussed this case with the President or the Vice President and 

therefore cannot comment on what they may or may not believe. I have not had an opportunity 

to review this case and have not made any decisions with regard to it or any other pending cases. 

However, I do not anticipate withdrawing any pending prosecutions that are justified by the facts 

and circumstances of the case and relevant laws. 

c. Do you believe it would be appropriate for President-Elect Trump to "review" any 

prosecutorial decisions you, or any other employees of the Department of Justice, 

make? 

RESPONSE: No. 

39. When I was chairman ofthe Senate Intelligence Committee, the Committee approved a full 

report on detention and interrogation- more than 6,700 pages and 38,000 footnotes. This 

report was produced based on a fulsome staff review of mostly CIA documents describing 

the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation program. It includes extensive 

information about the Justice Department's role in authorizing this program, but also how the 

CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Justice Department about the 

operation of the program. 

This report was approved by a bipartisan vote in the Intelligence Committee of 9-6. 

After months of negotiations, the Executive Summary of this report was declassified with 

redactions. This summary runs 500 pages. The Committee sent copies of the full report to a 

number of relevant agencies, including the Department of Justice and FBI. 

a. Have you read the Executive Summary? 

RESPONSE: No. 

32 
720 

b. Will you commit to reading the full report if confirmed- and instructing appropriate 

officials to read the full report, to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will ensure that I and other appropriate officials are fully briefed 

on the contents of the report to the extent that it is pertinent to the operations and mission ofthe 

Department of Justice. 

c. Will you commit that you will not return the Justice Department's copy of the report to 

the Senate? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

40. At your hearing, Senator Graham asked you whether you support the continuation of use of 

Guantanamo Bay as a confinement facility for foreign terrorists. 

The U.S. has been detaining individuals without charge or trial at the Guantanamo Bay 

detention facility for the past 15 years. A total of 780 people have been held at the facility 

since it opened. Of this number, approximately 540 were released during the George W. 

Bush administration, and 183 during the Obama administration. Another nine died in 

custody, six by suspected suicide. A total of 55 remain. 

During this time, only a very small number of cases were prosecuted in the military 

commissions, fifteen in total. Eight ofthese resulted in convictions, three of which have been 

fully overturned on appeal; several others were partially overturned. A number of other 

appeals are pending. Other cases are bogged down in pre-trial hearings. The case against the 

five men accused in the September 11,2001 attacks is in its fourth year of pre-trial hearings 

and a trial date is still years away. 

Meanwhile, the government has prosecuted more than 500 terrorism suspects in federal 

court, including Dzohkar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber; Faisal Shahzad, who tried 

to set off a car bomb in Times Square; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called 

"underwear bomber," all of whom were convicted. 

You have made comments indicating that individuals captured by the U.S. abroad should not 

be prosecuted in federal court, but rather in military commissions in Guantanamo. 

a. Do you agree the Department of Justice has a record of success bringing terrorismrelated criminal charges against hundreds of defendants since September II, 200I? 

RESPONSE: Yes. I also believe that the prosecution of terrorists in the military commission 

system would be successful if used. 

b. As Attorney General, do you intend to stop prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal 

court? Do you intend to stop enforcing,for example, 18 U.S. C.§ 2339B, which 

crimina/izes the provision of material support or resources to a designated foreign 

terrorist organization? 

33 
721 

RESPONSE: The statute you cite has proven to be a particularly valuable tool in the war on 

terrorism and I expect to vigorously prosecute offenses under that law where warranted. 

41. In the past, you have asserted that existing gun laws must be enforced aggressively. You 

have said when you were the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama, you 

committed yourself to prosecute violations of"hundreds of gun laws." 

You went so far as to claim you sent a newsletter to local law enforcement to bring you cases 

involving gun violations. You stated, "I created a newsletter and sent it to every sheriff. I 

said: If you have the kind of criminal that needs prosecuting under federal gun laws, you 

bring those cases to me and we will prosecute them." 

You also have the highest political rating from the National Rifle Association and 

consistently have voted against attempts to strengthen background checks and otherwise 

make federal gun laws stronger. 

a. Will you commit to fully enforcing existing gun laws, including by taking enforcement 

measures strongly opposed by gun rights groups? 

RESPONSE: If! am confirmed, I will make enforcement of federal gun crimes a top priority and 

aggressively engage with state and local law enforcement partners to ensure consistent policies for the 

apprehension of those violating federal gun laws. I fully expect gun prosecutions to increase. Properly 

enforced, federal gun laws can reduce crime in our cities and communities. 

b. There have been legal challenges to federal, state and local gun laws since the Heller and 

McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010. 

If confirmed, under what circumstances would the Department of Justice decline to defend a 

federal firearms law against a legal challenge? 

RESPONSE: The Executive Branch has a clear and unwavering duty to vigorously defend the 

constitutionality of any law for which a reasonable defense may be made. This includes the 

responsibility to defend in court acts of Congress with which the President may disagree as a 

matter of policy. That is an important and a time-honored principle to which I fully subscribe. 

There are two exceptions: (I) where a statute intrudes upon the separation of powers by 

infringing on the President's constitutional authority, and (2) where there are no reasonable 

arguments that can be presented in defense of a statute. These are narrow exceptions, and 

require the most careful consideration before being adopted. 

42. As you are aware, any person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms must conduct 

background checks on gun buyers. Courts have identified several factors to determine 

whether an individual is "engaged in the business" of buying and selling firearms; there is no 

specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the requirement. As 

A TF stated in its January 2, 20 I 6 guidance document, "even a few firearms transactions, 

when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is 'engaged 

in the business' of dealing in firearms." 

34 
722 

For example, in United States v. Shan, the Second Circuit found that the defendant was 

properly convicted of dealing in firearms without a license when he sold just two firearms in a 

month and acknowledged that he had a source for more guns. The Sixth Circuit has similarly 

noted, "(T]he statute does not establish a minimum threshold for the number of guns sold." 

As a result of decisions like these, the Justice Department has brought cases against 

individuals who illegally sold guns without a license, only later to have those guns found at 

deadly crime scenes. ln St. Paul, for example, a man transferred a gun at least 9 times after 

buying guns online and then trying to sell those guns on the secondary market. Court records 

indicated that several ofthe guns that were sold were part of drug trafficking crimes, and other 

"shots-tired" incidents. 

This case is but one example of individuals buying guns and then illegally selling them to 

individuals without background checks, and the guns then being found at crime scenes. 

a. Will you commit to investigating and prosecuting illegal gun dealers who are selling 

weapons without conducting a background check? If your answer is yes, please 

describe in detail your plan for doing so. 

RESPONSE: When I served as a United States Attorney, protecting the public from violent gunrelated crime was among my top priorities. As I testified before the Committee, I will enforce 

federal background check laws. Properly enforced, the federal gun laws can reduce crime in our 

cities and communities. Those who deliberately violate federal gun laws should be investigated 

and prosecuted. The Congress and government regulations set forth the circumstances and 

methods by which gun dealers may sell guns. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, violators will be prosecuted as appropriate. 

43. In 2014, in Abramski v. United States, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that "a 

person who buys a gun on someone else's behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself' 

violates the law prohibiting material false statements on federal gun forms. 

This decision is vital to the prosecution of so-called "straw purchasers" who buy guns on 

behalf of those, such as felons, who cannot pass a background check. The Department of 

Justice's position in this case was that the buyer's "knowingly false statement that he was the 

actual purchaser of the handgun" violated the law. 

The National Rifle Association's position was that this was "not a permissible construction" 

of the law. 

a. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department prosecute those who lie on federal 

firearm sale forms by falsely claiming they are the actual purchasers? 

RESPONSE: Properly enforced, the federal gun laws can reduce crime in our cities and 

communities. Those who deliberately violate federal gun laws should be investigated and 

prosecuted. I have personally prosecuted and supported prosecutions of those who lie on these 

35 
723 

forms. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will support the 

continued enforcement of federal gun laws, as appropriate. 

b. Will you defend this law, including the Supreme Court's Abramski decision, against a 

constitutional challenge? 

RESPONSE: It is appropriate for the Justice Department to consider the role of precedent 

whenever advocating before the Supreme Court. In addition, it is important for the Department 

to consider the facts of an individual case, and also to consider sound jurisprudence when 

determining the Justice Department's position on a legal issue. Ifl am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, the Justice Department will fairly and thoroughly evaluate these 

factors in arguments before the Supreme Court. 

44. The A TF- the agency that investigates gun crimes lacks sufficient resources to carry out 

its statutory responsibilities. You and other Republican colleagues have said that we should 

focus on fully enforcing existing gun laws before passing new ones. 

However, since Fiscal Year 20 I I (the first year Republicans were in charge of the House 

during the Obama Administration), Congress appropriated $182.3 million over five years less 

than the agency said it needed, because of Republican opposition to greater funding. 

Since Fiscal Year 2011, ATF has grown by a total of only 10 people or 0.2 percent (from 

5,016 employees to 5,026 employees). Over the same period, the number of guns bought and 

sold in America skyrocketed. The FBI conducted 27 percent more background checks in 

2014 than in 2011 (from 16.5 million to 21 million). In addition, I understand that 544 

Special Agents (one-fifth of the total ATF Special Agent population) were eligible to retire 

last year. 

The only way to truly enforce existing gun laws is to ensure agencies like A TF have the 

funding they need to do the job. 

a. Would you agree that in order for gun laws to be fully enforced, we needATF to be fully 

staffed and ATF investigators to be well-trained and well-equipped? Yes or no. 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. Will you commit, if you are confirmed as the Attorney General, to make sure that the DOJ 

budget request reflects the resources necessary to ensure that ATF can fully execute the 

mission given to it by Congress? 

RESPONSE: Through my service as a United States Attorney, and as a Senator, I am aware of 

the difficult choices that the Justice Department has to make during this time of tight budgets. 

Such awareness should be present in any request for taxpayer funds. I understand the challenges 

that A TF faces and believe that with proper support and with vigorous prosecutions, A TF can be 

more productive without large increases in funding. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

36 
724 

Attorney General, I will endeavor to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most 

effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement of federal law. 

37 
725 

Nomination of ,Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for tbe Record 

Submitted ,January 26,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN 

l. Senator Leahy asked you whether you would recuse yourself from DOJ actions against or 

investigations of Donald Trump or his finances. You responded: "If merely being a supporter 

of the President's during the campaign warranted recusal from involvement in any matter 

involving him. then most typical presidential appointees would be unable to conduct their 

duties. I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters." I asked you a similar 

question, whether you would recuse from deciding whether to bring prosecutions in 

connection with Russian hacking of the election. and you responded. "I am not aware of a 

basis to recuse myself from such matters." 

You were not merely "a supporter ofthe President's during the campaign." You were the 

tirst senator to expressly support him, almost one year ago. You appeared with him at 

multiple rallies. You spoke at the Republican National Convention. You were an active 

surrogate for Mr. Trump's campaign. The Washinb>ton Post has that "After Sessions 

became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump this February, he became an 

adviser on almost every major decision and policy proposal Trump made during the 

campaign." including chairing his National Security Advisory Committee. It has also written 

that you assisted with the selection of Vice President Pence. The Trump campaign website 

states: "Senator Sessions has been one of Mr. Trump's most trusted policy advisers, assisting 

him in making selections." All of this goes tar beyond what we arc used to seeing from 

political appointees. 

a. Please state for the record: 

(1) all Trump campaign events that you attended or participated in; 

RESPONSE: Attached is a list (Appendix A) of all campaign events that I attended of which 

I have records. 

(2) all capacities in which you advised the President-elect during tbe 

campaign; and 

(3) every specific decision made during the campaign on which you 

advised the President-elect. 

RESPONSE to (a)(2)- (a)(3): The President sought my input on a number of matters on 

which I have taken very public positions as a Senator; however. he had many advisors and it 

would be impossible t()f me to know any specific decisions that were made as a result of my 
726 

advice. I endorsed him in part because he was a leader advocating for issues I supported and 

believed in. 

b. In light of your efforts as a campaign surrogate on the Trump campaign, will 

you reconsider your stated intention not to recuse yourself from matters 

before the Department involving Mr. Trump, his campaign, or connections 

to Russia? 

RESPONSE: I cannot offer an opinion on recusal as to this, or any other issue, without 

knowing the particular facts and circumstances that would need to be considered. There is no 

opinion I could provide that would fit in every instance. If a specific matter arose where I 

believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department 

ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

c. Is there any scenario under which you would find it inappropriate to handle 

a matter before the Department involving Mr. Trump? 

RESPONSE: Each case depends on facts and specific circumstances. It would not only be 

impossible, but unwise, for me to suggest that an Attorney General would or would not be 

presented with a conflict in every possible scenario that involves the President. In other 

words, I cannot offer an opinion that would fit in every instance. If a specific matter arose 

where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. Recusal, of 

course, is one option. 

2. In your hearing before the Committee, you pledged to recuse yourself from involvement in 

"those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the 

campaign or could otherwise be connected to it." 

You were announced in March 2016 as the Chair of the Trump Campaign's National 

Security Advisory Committee. In a later announcement from a month before the election, the 

Trump campaign stated the campaign's "National Security Advisory Council" had already 

included you, General Mike Flynn, and others. 

So far you have refused to commit to recusing yourself from involvement in any 

investigations related to the Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. elections to benefit President 

Trump. You testified that you still have not reviewed the Intelligence Community's 

classified and unclassified assessments on these Russian activities and intentions. The media 

has reported that intelligence agencies are examining links between President Trump and his 

senior advisors and the Russian government. For example, reports state that the intelligence 

agencies are examining contacts between President Trump's National Security Adviser 

Michael Flynn, who served with you on the campaign's national security team, and Russian 

government officials. 

I want to give you an opportunity to reconsider your answer on recusal, especially in light of 

the Washington Post's editorial on January 24, 2017: "Mr. Sessions played a key role in the 

2 
727 

president's campaign. At the least, Mr. Sessions would raise the appearance of a conflict if 

he made law enforcement decisions related to that campaign. He should commit to recusing 

himself now." 

a. Given the extent to which you were publicly identified with President 

Trump's political campaign and national security advisory council, will you 

commit to recuse yourself from involvement in any investigations into ties 

between President Trump, his businesses, or his campaign aids and the 

Russians? 

b. Will you commit to recuse yourself from involvement in any investigations 

into Mr. Flynn's ties to the Russians? 

c. Would you commit to recuse yourself from involvement in !!!Y investigations 

related to the Trump's campaign's contacts with the Russians? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): I cannot offer an opinion on recusal as to this, or any other issue, 

without knowing the particular facts and circumstances that would need to be considered. 

There is no opinion I could provide that would fit in every instance. If a specific matter arose 

where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with 

Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

d. If not, please explain the difference between investigations involving 

candidate Hillary Clinton (for which you said you would recuse yourself), 

and investigations into the Trump campaign and candidate Donald Trump 

(for which you have said you are unaware of a basis to recuse)? 

RESPONSE: Prior to being nominated, I voiced publicly my opinion with respect to certain 

issues relating to the investigations involving Secretary Clinton. I am not aware of any 

investigations into the Trump campaign, and having been privy to no such information on 

which to opine, I have taken no position publicly or privately. As I have previously stated, 

each case depends on the facts and circumstances. If a specific matter arose where I believed 

my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics 

officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

e. If the Department ethics officials recommended that you recuse yourself 

from a matter involving President Trump, his businesses, or his associates, 

would you commit to follow their recommendation? 

RESPONSE: I would seek the recommendations of Department ethics officials and value 

them significantly in my decision-making on such a question. 

f. Do you doubt that the Department of Justice's National Security Division 

and the Deputy Attorney General are adequately equipped to handle such an 

investigation without the involvement of the Attorney General? 

3 
728 

RESPONSE: Certainly, the Justice Department is full of talented and experienced attorneys 

and I will endeavor to utilize them in the most effective ways possible to aid in the fair 

administration of justice. The question ofrecusal should not tum on whether others in the 

Department are equipped to handle an investigation without my involvement. As the leader 

of any office or business, you hope to surround yourself with staff that can handle issues in 

your absence; however, the confidence that you have in your staff is not a sufficient reason, 

in and of itself, for a constitutional officer to step away from a matter. 

g. Your written testimony regarding what you would recuse from is 

substantially narrower than how you testified at your hearing. 

At the hearing, you said that you will recuse from "those kind of 

investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the 

campaign or could otherwise be connected to it." 

Your written response stated you would recuse "from any investigation Q[ 

Secretary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation." 

Do you stand by your original statement, or are you changing the answer you 

gave in your committee hearing? 

RESPONSE: I stand by both statements and see no inconsistency in them. 

3. 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee from participating in a criminal investigation or 

prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization that 

is the subject of the investigation. Political relationship is defined in the regulation as 

meaning "a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not 

successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising 

from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof." 

a. You have a close political relationship with President Trump, as one of his 

major campaign surrogates. Do you believe 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 requires you to 

recuse yourself? If not, why not? 

b. If not, in what scenario would a political relationship make it improper for 

an Attorney General to participate in an investigation? 

RESPONSE to (a) (b): As I previously stated, if a matter arose in which I believed my 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics 

officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. Such a consultation would 

necessarily include careful evaluation of the statute in question and the factors it lists, in light 

of relevant facts and circumstances that are established at the time. It would not be 

appropriate to make this determination in a vacuum and without the expertise and experience 

of Department attorneys. 

4 
729 

4. The DOJ has a general standard that an employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions 

creating the appearance that the employee is violating the Department's ethical standards, 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.10l(b)(l4). 

a. Do you maintain that participating in an investigation into a person for 

whom and with whom you campaigned closely and on whose campaign you 

performed a leadership role does not create the appearance of violating DOJ 

ethical standards, or create the appearance of impropriety? 

RESPONSE: 5 C.P.R.§ 2635.10l(b)(J4) states: 

Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are 

violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular 

circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated 

shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the 

relevant facts. 

As I previously stated, if a matter arose in which I believed my impartiality might reasonably 

be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most 

appropriate way to proceed. Such a consultation would necessarily include careful 

evaluation of the statute in question and the factors it lists, in light of relevant facts and 

circumstances that are established at the time. It would not be appropriate to make this 

determination in a vacuum and without the expertise and experience of Justice Department 

attorneys. 

5. ln my questions for the record, I asked you if you had reviewed either the classified or 

unclassified assessments by the Intelligence Community regarding Russian activities and 

intentions during the recent U.S. elections. Your response, which I found surprising, was "I 

have not reviewed their assessments." 

a. Did you receive specific directions or advice !!Q! to review these assessments? 

RESPONSE: No. 

b. If you did receive such direction or advice, please tell us the sum and 

substance of that advice. 

RESPONSE: See response to 5(a). 

c. If you did receive such direction or advice, please identify each person who 

gave you such advice or direction. 

RESPONSE: See response to 5(a). 

5 
730 

d. If there is another reason you have not reviewed these assessments-which 

were widely reported on and, in my belief, represent a truly dangerous threat 

to our democracy-please discuss. 

RESPONSE to (a) (d): Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will have the resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my disposal 

to rely on in forming opinions on matters of this significance. Without those resources 

available to me, and because some aspect of this matter may come before the Department, l 

do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment at this time or to endeavor to reach 

any conclusion on this or other matters being discussed in the media. 

The unclassified assessment begins: "Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential 

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the 

US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in 

directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations." 

The unclassified assessment continues: "We also assess Putin and the Russian Government 

aspired to help President-Elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary 

Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." 

e. Please review the rest of the unclassified assessment, and state whether you 

have done so. 

f. Please review the classified assessment, and state whether you have done so. 

g. Please state for each individual finding of the unclassified assessment 

whether you agree or disagree: 

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most 

recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led 

liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation 

in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous 

operations." 

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 

2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine 

public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm 

her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian 

Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have 

high confidence in these judgments." 

"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect 

Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and 

publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." 

"We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered 

an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the 

6 
731 

consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic 

process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential 

presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a 

clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that 

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign 

then focused on undermining her expected presidency." 

h. Is there any assessment in the unclassified assessment with which you 

disagree? If so, please identify it. 

RESPONSE to (e)- (h): Ifi am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will have the resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my disposal 

to rely on in forming opinions on these statements as well as their legal ramifications. 

Without those resources available to me, and because some aspect ofthis matter may come 

before the Department, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to attempt to form any 

fixed opinions on these matters or to comment on these matters at this time. 

6. I also asked you whether, as Attorney General, you would continue defending the position 

that the Department of Justice has taken since 2013 in a lawsuit the Department filed against 

the State of Texas -that the State's voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act. You 

responded that my question "implicated an ongoing legal matter" and therefore that it would 

be "inappropriate" for you to comment. Just after President Trump's Inauguration on Friday, 

however, the Justice Department requested to postpone a hearing initially scheduled in the 

case for Tuesday "[b]ecause ofthe change in administration." 

a. Do you believe that the Justice Department's requested delay in the Texas 

voter ID case leaves open the door for abandoning the position the 

Department has taken since 2013-that the Texas law violates the Voting 

Rights Act? If so, will you commit to continue defending the Department's 

longstanding position if confirmed? 

RESPONSE: I have had no discussions with the outgoing leadership of the Department of 

Justice about their decision in this matter or the reasoning behind it. I cannot comment or 

make commitments about any ongoing legal matter involving the Department. This 

standard-refusing to opine on pending legal matters-has been adopted by previous 

nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is wise to follow this precedent. 

7. In my questions for the record, I asked you about the Justice Department's duty to investigate 

voter ID laws and the disproportionate impact such laws have on minority voters. In 

response, you noted that "The Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Marion County Election 

Board that voter identification laws are neither per se unconstitutional, nor do they 

necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act." 

a. Where in the Crawford opinion do you identify a holding that Voter ID laws 

do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act? 

7 
732 

RESPONSE: My response should have read as follows: "As the Supreme Court held in 

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board voter identification laws are not per se 

unconstitutional. Nor do they necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act." In other words, the 

subject of the sentence was intended to be "voter identification laws" and not the Crawford 

decision. 

b. Do you agree that no question under any section ofthe Voting Rights Act 

was presented to the Supreme Court or decided in Crawford? 

c. Do you agree that no question of the legality of Voter ID laws under Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act was even litigated at any level in Crawford? 

RESPONSE to (b) (c): See response to 7(a). 

d. The Department of Justice that you have been nominated to lead bas 

successfully challenged voter ID provisions such as the very restrictive voter 

ID law that Texas passed in 2013. Please detail the kinds of factors you 

would look at to determine whether a voter ID law runs afoul of the Voting 

Rights Act, and in determining whether an enforcement action is 

appropriate. 

RESPONSE: I cannot comment or make commitments about any ongoing legal matter 

currently involving the Department. This standard-refusing to opine on pending legal 

matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is 

wise to follow this precedent. 

Abortion and Punishment 

8. Senator Blumenthal submitted to you a Question for the Record related to President Trump's 

comment during the campaign that women who have abortions should be punished. The 

President later tried to walk back his comment. 

Senator Blumenthal asked you, "Do you think that women who have abortions should be 

punished?" You did not answer his question. You responded by pointing to how the 

Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. 

In addition, Senator Blumenthal asked what you would do to ensure that women who have 

abortions are not prosecuted or criminally punished. You answered: "I will take no 

enforcement actions that are unauthorized by federal law. Individuals who seek abortions 

and abortion providers who comply with federal laws should not be subject to prosecution or 

criminal punishment." 

a. Would you support a change in criminal law to punish women who have 

abortions? Please answer yes or no. 

8 
733 

RESPONSE: Congress is charged with making laws and with deciding whether to 

criminalize particular behavior, in accordance with the Constitution. As Attorney General, 

my job will be to enforce the laws duly passed by Congress. 

b. Should women who receive abortions be punished by means outside of the 

criminal justice system? For example, under civil law? Please answer yes or 

no. 

RESPONSE: This is a policy decision that must be decided by Congress. 

9. A news article last week reported that President Trump's Transition Team was meeting with 

career staff at the White House about their intent to cut spending in the federal government, 

including by eliminating certain programs. (THE HILL, January 19, 2017) The Transition 

Team is reportedly relying on a document entitled Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget 

for 2017, published by the Heritage Foundation, to outline cuts to programs. 

In the Blueprint for Balance, one of the recommendations is to eliminate grants provided 

under the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA) because "these services should be funded 

and implemented locally. Using federal agencies to fund the routine operations of domestic 

violence programs that state and local governments could provide is a misuse of federal 

resources and a distraction from concerns that are truly the province of the federal 

government." 

VA W A was first passed in 1994 to address the need for a national response to develop and 

strengthen services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 

stalking. VA W A now provides grant resources to service providers working directly with 

victims, many of them to help victims pursue justice under the law against their perpetrators. 

Elimination of these programs would return victims to a time when inadequate and irregular 

local services prevented many of them from living safely and rebuilding their lives. 

At your hearing, you testified that while you did not vote for reauthorization in 2013, you 

have twice voted to support the Violence Against Women Act. You testified, "It is kind of 

frustrating to be accused of opposing VA W A, the Violence Against Women Act, when I 

have voted for it in the past." 

a. Do you agree with the Heritage Blueprint for Balance's recommendation to 

eliminate VA WA grants? If not, why? 

b. Do you agree with the Heritage Blueprint for Balance's rationale for 

eliminating VA WA grants that using federal funding for domestic violence 

programs is a "misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns 

that are truly the province of the federal government"? 

c. Given your support for VAWA prior to its 2013 reauthorization, if 

confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the President 

understands the importance of VA WA programs? What steps would you 

take to ensure that DOJ's budget request reflected these programs? 

9 
734 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): I have not reviewed the report in question, nor have I been a 

participant in the meetings referenced above. As I have previously stated, ifl am confirmed, 

I will ensure that VA W A programs, and the funds made available by Congress, are employed 

in the most effective manner possible in furtherance of their stated missions. 

10. At your hearing, I asked you about your ownership interest in subsurface mineral rights in 

Alabama. These ownership interests were not listed on either your financial disclosure to the 

Judiciary Committee or on the forms the Committee received for your nomination from the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

I asked you whether you owned these interests. You testified, "I believe that is so." Later in 

your testimony, you assured me that "It's something I'm going to take affirmative action 

in .. .I want to adhere to high standards. We're going to find out what we did or didn't do and 

correct it." 

a. Have you indeed reviewed your financial filings with the Office of 

Government Ethics, Judiciary Committee, and Ethics Committee? If so, did 

you determine that disclosure of ownership of the subsurface mineral was 

missing? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

b. What steps have you taken to update and correct these filings? Please also 

note if the Committee should expect to receive updated filings. 

RESPONSE: On Wednesday, January 25,2017, I filed a revised Form 278, setting out my 

mineral interests separately. As required, I also revised my ethics agreement to cover these 

mineral interests. My understanding is that OGE forwarded an approved copy of this form to 

the Committee on January 27, 2017. On January 27, 2017, I filed a revised 2015 Senate 

financial disclosure form setting out all of my mineral holdings separately. 

c. Please describe in detail your knowledge of these mineral rights and the land 

under which they are located. 

RESPONSE: I own lands in Wilcox County and Monroe County, Alabama, with all mineral 

rights. There have never been any producing wells on these properties. I also own property 

in Choctaw County, Alabama, with full surface and mineral rights. In addition, in Choctaw 

County, I own certain mineral interests in lands where I do not own the surface. I have been 

generally aware that some of those mineral interests were reserved when my grandfather sold 

lands to the Adams Land and Timber Company over 60 years ago. In the 1950s, the U.S. 

Government purchased land from the Adams Land and Timber Company and my family that 

was to be flooded by the Coffeeville Lock and Dam, as well as for a wildlife preserve. The 

Adams Land and Timber mineral interests and my family's interests were reserved in the 

agreed upon sale of surface rights to the government. The income, all or part, that I receive 

from the one declining oil well that is now producing, arises from the reserved mineral rights 

that I own lying beneath the lands purchased by the government. These mineral interests 

10 
735 

have passed in the residuary clauses of a number of wills without ever being described. 

Further, in 20\5, Chief Capital contacted me to lease certain mineral interests of which 

ownership I was completely unaware. These interests passed from the wife of my mother's 

brother to him, then to my mother and her sister, and then to me. These mineral interests 

were not described in any of the wills and passed by general residuary clauses. 

My original OGE Form 278 and 2015 Senate financial disclosure form disclosed all ofthe 

income received from the mineral interests. My amended OGE Form 278 and my amended 

20\5 Senate financial disclosure form now list the non-fee simple mineral interests in 

Choctaw County, as required. 

II 
736 

Campaign Events 

August 21,2015 

February 28,2016 

July 17-22,2016 

August 23,2016 

August 24, 2016 

August 30, 2016 

August 31,2016 

September 17, 20 16 

September 26, 2016 

September 29, 2016 

October 3, 2016 

October 4, 2016 

October 15,2016 

October 19,2016 

October 24,2016 

October 30,2016 

October 31, 2016 

November 1, 2016 

November 4, 2016 

November 5, 2016 

November 6, 2016 

November 7, 2016 

November 8, 2016 

APPENDIX A 

Campaign Event, Mobile, AL 

Campaign Rally, Madison, AL 

Republican National Convention, Cleveland, OH 

Campaign Event, Austin, TX 

Campaign Event, Tampa, FL 

Campaign Event, Everett, W A 

Campaign Event, Phoenix, AZ 

Campaign Events, Manchester, Salem, and Dover, NH 

Presidential Debate, Hofstra University, NY 

Campaign Fundraiser, NY, NY 

Campaign Event, Dulles, VA 

Vice-Presidential Debate, Farmville, VA 

Campaign Events, Bangor, ME and Portsmouth, NH 

Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, NV 

Trump Victory office visit, Urbandale, IA 

Jasper County Central Committee Meeting, IA 

Breakfast, Des Moines, IA 

Lunch, Indianola, IA 

Colorado Christian University Event 

GOTV Rally, Lakewood, CO 

Denver Broncos Watch Party, Parker, CO 

Dinner with CO Volunteers 

Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, NV 

Breakfast, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 

Lunch, Navarre, FL 

Headquarters Visit, Pensacola, FL 

Border Tour, Naco, AZ 

Meeting, Cochise County Sheriff's Office, AZ 

Concord, Keene, Red Arrow Diner, NH 

Nashua, NH visit 

Windham, NH visit 

Meet and Greet, Portland, ME 

Trump Headquarters Event, Auburn, ME 

Richmond, Farmville, Lynchburg, Roanoke, VA events 

NYC Victory Party 

Non-Campaign Events (attended in support of the campaign): 

May 7, 2016 

May 14,2016 

May 20,2016 

NC GOP Meeting, Greensboro, NC 

Texas GOP Meeting, Dallas, TX 

NRA Leadership Forum, Louisville, KY 

12 
737 

May 22,2016 

October 22, 2016 

October 23,2016 

October 24, 2016 

October 25,2016 

October29, 2016 

Tennessee GOP Reagan Dinner, Murphreesboro, TN 

Lawrence County, PA GOP Dinner, New Castle, PA 

First Baptist Church of Charlotte Church Service, Charlotte, NC 

North Carolina State Fair, Raleigh, NC 

Pike County GOP Dinner, West Des Moines, lA 

Trump International Hotel Grand Opening, Washington, DC 

Iowa GOP Dinner, Iowa 

13 
738 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 29,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN 

I. Significant concerns have been raised by both Democratic and Republican members of 

the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding President Trump's Executive Orders, and 

especially the Executive Order titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry 

into the United States." One Republican Senator noted, for example, that this executive 

order "may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security." 

Did you read, review, provide legal analysis, or provide any other comments 

regarding the following Executive Orders before they were issued? If so, please 

describe in detail what role you played with regard to each Executive Order. Also, 

please provide copies of any documents reflecting your input regarding the content 

of the orders. 

a. Executive Order: "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," 

January 25, 2017, text available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/20 1 7/0 I /25/presidential-executi ve-order-enhancing-pub1ic-safety-interiorunited 

b. Executive Order: "Border Security and Immigration 

Enforcement Improvements," January 25,2017, text available at 

https://www. whitehouse.gov /the-press-office/20 1 7/0 I /25/executive-order-bordersecurity-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements 

c. Executive Order: "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United 

States," January 27,2017, text available at 

https://\\Ww.nvtimes.com/20 1 7/0 I 127 /us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-ordertrump.html 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): No. 

2. According to press reports, the Executive Orders referenced in Question I were drafted 

primarily by your longtime aide Stephen Miller and by White House advisor Steve 

Bannon. Please describe in detail (including dates) any communications, correspondence, 

or discussions you had with Mr. Miller, Mr. Bannon, or any other White House official 

relating to each of the orders listed above. 

RESPONSE: I have had no such communications. 

3. During the 2016 presidential campaign, did you participate in creating documents that 

resembled or served as the basis for the Executive Orders listed in Question I? If so, 

please provide copies of those documents. 
739 

RESPONSE: No. 

4. The Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC's) website states that: "All executive orders and 

proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal 

Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's 

fonnal approval." However, the Justice Department has declined to comment officially as 

to whether OLC reviewed the Executive Orders listed in Question 1. 

a. Did OLC review the orders before they were issued? 

b. If OLC reviewed the orders before they were issued, who specifically 

reviewed them? 

c. If not, what officials or attorneys within the executive branch reviewed the 

executive order to evaluate their form or legality? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I have no knowledge regarding this matter. 

5. Executive Order 11030 states in part: 

Sec. 2. Routing and approval of drafis 

(a) A proposed Executive Order or proclamation shall.first be submitted ... to the Director 

of the ()ffice of Management and Budget ... 

(b) If the Director of the Office of Management and Budget approves the proposed 

Executive Order or proclamation, he shall transmit it to the Attorney General for his 

consideration as to its form and legality. 

(c) I( the Attornel' General approves the proposed Executive Order or proclamation, he 

shall transmit it to the Director (){the Office of the Federal Register, National 

Archives and Records Administration: Provided, that in cases of sufficient urgency 

the Attorney General may transmit it directly to the President; and providedfurther, 

that the authority vested in the Attorney General by this section may be delegated to 

him. in whole or in part, to the Deputy Attorney General, Solicitor General, or to 

such AssisTant Attorney General as he may designate. 

And 28 C.F.R. § 0.25 states "The.ftJllowing-described matters are assigned to. and shall 

be conducted. handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General. ()ffice of Legal 

Counsel: 

(a} Preparing the formal opinions (){the Attorney General; rendering informal opinions 

and legal advice to the various agencies of the Government; and assisting the 

Attorney General in the pa{ormance (){hisfunctions as legal adviser to the President 

and as a memher (f, and legal adviser to. the Cabinet. 

2 
740 

(b) Preparing and making necessary revisions o(proposed Executive orders and 

procfumations, and advising as to their (orm and fegafitv prior to their transmission 

to the President; and performing like .functions wilh re;,pectto regulations and other 

similar matters which require the approval t!f'the President or the Allorney General." 

Based on these documents: 

a. What is your understanding ofOLC's role in reviewing and approving 

Executive Orders? 

b. Do you agree that OLC has, by law, been delegated the authority to review 

virtually all Executive Orders? 

e. If President Trump issued an Executive Order without allowing OLC to review 

its form and legality, would the Department of Justice, under your leadership, 

continue to defend the legality of that Executive Order? 

d. If President Trump attempted to circumvent OLC's role when issuing Executive 

Orders, how would you respond? Would you resign? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (d): My understanding is that Office of Legal Counsel does play an 

important role in reviewing Executive Orders. If I am confirmed, I would insist that the proper 

and independent role that OLC has traditionally played in vetting Executive Orders be respected. 

6. Before the Executive Orders listed above were issued, were they distributed to, or vetted 

by, the agencies that will be asked to interpret and enforce them? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I have no knowledge regarding this matter. 

7. A news report 1 has stated that not only was the January 27 Executive Order not reviewed 

by the Office of Legal Counsel, but in fact, lawyers in other Departments who were 

concerned about the breadth of the Executive Order were overruled by non-lawyers at the 

White House: 

"Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order 

restrictions applying to seven countries-- Iran. Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, 

Sudan and Yemen-- did not apply to people with lm;ful permanent residence, 

generally referred to as green card holders. 

The White House overruled that guidance overnight. according to officials 

familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by 

Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon Their decision held that, on a case by case 

basis. DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US " 

1 See: http:. 'ww11 .cnn.com 20 17,01/28/po/itics/donald-trump-travel-bani. 

3 
741 

a. To the best of your knowledge, is this description of the process that led to the 

issuance of the January 27 Executive Order correct? 

b. If you do not have personal knowledge of that process: Do you believe that such 

a process, if correctly described, is appropriate? 

c. What is the legal basis for applying the Executive Order's restrictions to Lawful 

Permanent Residents ("green card holders") from the seven affected countries? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): As a United States Senator,! have no knowledge regarding this matter. 

It is also my understanding that there may be ongoing litigation regarding this Executive Order 

involving the Department and therefore I cannot comment. This standard-refusing to opine on 

pending legal matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I 

believe it is wise to follow this precedent. 

8. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: Is there any legal justification for 

denying entry to Iraqis who risked their lives serving as translators for U.S. 

servicemembers? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I have no knowledge regarding this matter. It is also 

my understanding that there may be ongoing litigation regarding this Executive Order involving 

the Department and therefore I cannot comment. This standard-refusing to opine on pending 

legal matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is 

wise to follow this precedent. 

9. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: Is there any legal justification for 

preventing lawful permanent residents of the United States from travelling home because 

they are nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya or Yemen? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I have no knowledge regarding this matter. It is also 

my understanding that there may be ongoing litigation regarding this Executive Order involving 

the Department and therefore I cannot comment. This standard-refusing to opine on pending 

legal matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is 

wise to follow this precedent. 

10. With respect to the January 27 Executive Order: There have been reports that the 

Executive Order is being applied to dual citizens ofthe seven listed countries, many of 

whom are also citizens of the United States' closest allies. What is the legal basis for 

applying the Executive Order's restrictions to dual citizens? 

RESPONSE: As I am not cun·ently the Attomey General, I have no knowledge regarding this 

matter. It would be inappropriate for me to provide a legal opinion simply relying on unverified 

reporting and without knowing the facts. It is also my understanding that there may be ongoing 

litigation regarding this Executive Order involving the Department and therefore I cannot 

comment. This standard-refusing to opine on pending legal matters-has been adopted by 

previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is wise to follow this precedent. 

4 
742 

II. Senators McCain and Graham stated on January 29, 2017 that they believed that 

President Trump's January 27 Executive Order "was not properly vetted,'' Do you agree 

or disagree with that statement? 

RESPONSE: Senators are certainly entitled to their opinions and to voice them. It is my 

understanding that there may be ongoing litigation regarding this Executive Order involving the 

Department and therefore I cannot comment, This standard-refusing to opine on pending legal 

matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is wise to 

follow this precedent, 

12. You have been nominated to be the nation's chief law enforcement official. Senators 

McCain and Graham have expressed their concern that the Executive Order "may do 

more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security." Do you agree or disagree 

with that statement? 

RESPONSE: Senators are certainly entitled to their opinions and to voice them. It is my 

understanding that there may be ongoing litigation regarding this Executive Order involving the 

Department and therefore I cannot comment, This standard-refusing to opine on pending legal 

matters-has been adopted by previous nominees for Attorney General and I believe it is wise to 

follow this precedent, 

5 
743 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FLAKE 

I. Historically, the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue entities that commit 

serious fraud against the government. However, under President Obama, the Department of 

Justice for the first time used the Act to bring claims against lenders for technical violations 

of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guidelines. In many cases, these actions were 

based on finding minor documentation or processing errors that did not cause Joan defaults or 

otherwise impact loan quality or performance. Many lenders have been forced to settle these 

allegations for billions of dollars to mitigate reputational harm and legal costs. As a result of 

these risks, many lenders have scaled back or left the FHA program altogether, limiting 

access to credit for working families that rely on FHA for financing their first home. 

a. Under your leadership, will the Justice Department only pursue False Claims Act 

cases in which the individual knowingly uses a false record or knowingly makes a 

false statement that is material to a false claim? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully 

enforce 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rei. Escobar, 

136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), the most recent False Claims Act decision issued by the U.S. Supreme 

Court implicated by this question. 

b. During your confirmation hearing, Senator Grassley asked that you regularly 

report to Congress on the status of False Claims Act cases. 

i. Will you commit to reporting on outstanding False Claims Act cases? 

REPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will make every effort to respond to all Congressional reporting 

requirements. 

ii. If so, will you identify in these reports to Congress which False Claims 

Act cases rely on a false-certification theory? 

RESPONSE: If Congress so requires, yes. 
744 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FRANKEN 

Question 1. During my time in the Senate, one of the issues I've focused on is advancing 

equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. For me, that means 

making sure that our federal civil rights laws protect LGBT kids from discrimination and 

harassment in school. It means making clear that in this country, no one should be fired because 

they're gay or trans gender. And generally, it means making sure that LGBT people are treated 

with the same dignity and respect afforded to everyone else under the law. So I was heartened to 

see you acknowledge LGBT people in your hearing testimony, where you stated that you 

"understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community." 

However, I have trouble reconciling that claim with your record on LGBT issues. You voted 

against prohibiting job discrimination against LGBT people. You voted against ending "Don't 

Ask, Don't Tell." You argued that expanding our hate crimes law to protect LGBT people would 

"cheapen the civil rights movement." And you described the Supreme Court decision granting 

same-sex couples the right to marry as "part of a continuing effort to secularize, by force and 

intimidation, a society that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people to sail across 

unknown waters." 

• Give your past record with regard to LGBT issues, how can you assure the LGBT 

community that you truly understand their demands for justice and, if confirmed, that you 

will work in their best interests? 

RESPONSE: I firmly believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the 

law, no matter their background, and if I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will work to 

ensure that our laws are enforced efficiently and effectively on behalf of all. While as 

Senators we may have disagreed about the most effective ways to address the challenges 

facing our country, my duty as Attorney General, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, 

would be to enforce the laws passed by Congress. I would endeavor to direct and utilize the 

resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure full enforcement 

of federal laws and the protections inherent in them. And I will work with our law 

enforcement professionals to tailor our efforts to ensure the safety of all of our communities. 

• In your testimony, you stated that you "will ensure that the statutes protecting their rights 

and their safety are fully enforced." Under Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the 

Department's work to protect and advance the rights ofLGBT people was an integral part 

of DOJ' s civil rights enforcement. If confirmed, can Americans expect the same from 

you? 

RESPONSE: The Civil Rights Division has a historic and proud record of defending the 

civil rights of all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable. That will certainly continue 

under my leadership, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. 
745 

Question 2. For the majority of Americans, requiring that LGBT people are treated equally does 

not come at the expense of protecting other people's rights. Nor do most people believe that 

treating LGBT people equally is incompatible with respecting the religion of people who don't 

necessarily share our beliefs. However, you are a supporter of the deceptively named First 

Amendment Defense Act (F ADA), a bill that would allow people and some institutions, even 

those that receive taxpayer dollars, to ignore laws that require them to recognize marriage 

equality if doing so is contrary to their religious beliefs. If enacted, this bill would prevent the 

federal government from enforcing laws and regulations that require federal benefits for samesex spouses, and that prevent commercial landlords and even homeless shelters from turning 

away married same-sex couples, among other laws. 

Some have argued that F ADA is necessary to protect pastors, ministers, and churches who fear 

that they'll be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples. But the First Amendment already 

prevents clergy or churches from being forced to marry a couple if doing so is contrary to their 

beliefs. It always has. The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized 

that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states, did not change that. 

• Why do you believe that a bill like FADA is necessary? And how do you reconcile your 

support for FADA, which would sanction discrimination against lawfully married gay 

and lesbian couples, with your claim to "understand the demands for justice and fairness 

made by the LGBT community?" 

RESPONSE: First, I reject the characterization of the First Amendment Defense Act as 

"deceptively named." During the oral argument in Obergefell, Justice Alito asked former 

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a private university or college could lose its taxexempt status if it opposed same-sex marriage. General Verrilli responded: "it's certainly 

going to be an issue. I don't deny that." Thus, the purpose of the legislation was to prohibit 

the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their 

belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction. I supported this 

legislation because I believe that we can, and should, protect the rights of all citizensincluding LGBT individuals and those with traditional views of marriage. I do not see 

freedom as a zero-sum game. I understand the critical and historic role of Department of 

Justice in upholding our nation's civil rights laws. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will enforce those laws to the letter. 

Question 3. You strongly opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act of2009, which extended federal hate crimes protections to victims who were 

targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such crimes have an 

especially pernicious impact on members of the LGBT community. As FBI Director Corney 

explained, "[h]ate crimes are different from other crimes. They strike at the heart of one's 

identity. They strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is loss: loss of 

trust, loss of dignity ahd, in the worst case, loss of life." 

In November, the FBI released its annual report on hate crime statistics, which relies upon data 

gathered and reported by state and local law enforcement agencies. According to the report, 

7,121 people were victims of hate crimes in 2015. Ofthose 7,121 victims, 17.7 percent were 

2 
746 

targeted because of their sexual orientation and 1.7 percent were targeted because of their gender 

identity. However, during a 2009 hearing on the bill that extended protections to the LGBT 

community, you stated that "I'm not sure women or people with different sexual orientations 

face that kind of discrimination. !just don't see it." 

• In light of the data gathered by the FBI, do you still hold the view that LGBT people do 

not experience that kind of discrimination? If so, why? 

RESPONSE: Any statement I made during debate over the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 reflected an opinion that I reached based on 

information available to me at the time. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will work diligently to ensure that all Americans receive equal protection 

under our laws. 

Although the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act enables the 

Department to prosecute crimes motivated by the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation 

or gender identity, and to provide assistance to state and local authorities in the investigation and 

prosecution of hate crimes, federal law does not require state or local law enforcement to report 

such incidents. As a result, Director Corney acknowledged, "[t]here are jurisdictions that fail to 

report hate crime statistics. Other jurisdictions claim there were no hate crimes in their 

community, a fact that would be welcome iftrue." 

• In recognition of this fact, the FBI has worked with advocacy and law enforcement 

organizations to improve the investigation of hate crimes and to develop a standard for 

collecting, analyzing, and reporting hate crime incidents. Do you agree that 

underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local law enforcement remains an 

obstacle to combatting hate crimes? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with Director Corney's concerns about 

underreporting, but am unable to thoroughly evaluate his assertion or offer an opinion as I 

have not been presented with information necessary to do so. However, if! am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would expect to learn more about this issue 

and give it my careful consideration. 

• What steps will you take to encourage greater participation in hate crimes reporting by 

state and local law enforcement agencies? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Department 

will be vigilant in the full enforcement of all federal laws. I will endeavor to direct and 

utilize the resources ofthe Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the 

enforcement of federal law. The specific steps I will take to ensure the enforcement of any 

particular law will be decided after careful evaluation of any current practices of the 

Department and the effectiveness ofthose practices. 

Question 4. A number of organizations and individuals have voiced support for your nomination 

or submitted letters praising your suitability for the post. On the day your nomination was 

3 
747 

announced, the antiabortion group Operation Rescue issued a press release in which its president, 

Troy Newman wrote quote, "[w]e could not be happier about the selection of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

as the next Attorney General. I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past and know 

him to be an experienced prosecutor and principled pro-life advocate with a reputation for 

honesty." 

• What projects did you work on with Mr. Newman? Please list each project separately and 

describe your level of involvement in each. 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any such projects. 

The title of the above Operation Rescue press release is "We Stand Ready to Assist Attorney 

General-Designate Sessions in Prosecuting Planned Parenthood." In the release, Mr. Newman 

said "a new sheriff is coming to town" and that Planned Parenthood would no longer be 

protected. 

• Have you made a commitment to Mr. Newman or to Operation Rescue to prosecute 

Planned Parenthood? If so, please describe any discussions you have had with Mr. 

Newman or his associates regarding the prosecution of Planned Parenthood or other 

reproductive health providers. 

RESPONSE: I have made no commitments to any individual, including Mr. Newman, nor 

have I engaged in discussions about specific legal action the Department might take if I am 

fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General. It would be highly inappropriate to 

do so. 

In 1994, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. FACE 

prohibits threatening or intimidating women seeking reproductive health services and the doctors 

who provide them. It prohibits physically interfering with or injuring patients and clinicians. It 

prohibits damaging clinic property. And the Department of Justice enforces the FACE Act. 

• It is critically important, especially in light of your support from radical elements within 

the antiabortion movement, that patients and women's health providers not doubt the 

Department's willingness to enforce the law and guard against threats. How can you 

reassure abortion providers and women seeking health care services that you will strictly 

enforce the FACE Act, if confirmed? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, these providers are entitled to the 

protection of relevant federal law. lfl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, 1 will faithfully follow and enforce the law as defined by the courts, including the 

FACE Act and all other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to enforce. 

Question 5. In September 2015, the Department of Justice released policy guidance on the use of 

cell-site simulators-portable surveillance devices that collect cell phone identification and 

location information by mimicking cell phone towers. The guidance was released after I wrote to 

the Department raising concerns about the use of these systems. 

4 
748 

Cell-site simulators, known as International Mobile Subscriber Identity Catcher devices (IMSIcatchers), "DRTBoxes, "dirtboxes," or "Stingrays," have the ability to compel affected mobile 

phones to reveal their location and users' registration information. Recent complaints filed with 

the FCC have also alleged that cell-site simulators can disrupt cellular service and may interfere 

with calls for emergency assistance. As such, I believe that the devices must be used with great 

care and only in limited circumstances. In my view, the need for Jaw enforcement to monitor and 

apprehend criminal suspects should not come at the expense of innocent Americans' privacy. 

In order to ensure that the Department uses cell-site simulators in a manner that is consistent with 

the Constitution, the Department's 2015 guidance provides that law enforcement agencies must 

first obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before deploying cell-site simulators. 

However, this guidance could be repealed at any time. 

• The 2015 policy provides a critical protection for Americans' privacy. If you are 

confirmed, will you continue to require a warrant before authorizing the use of cell-site 

simulators? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with this policy, I am not privy to any internal 

Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness of the policy in balancing the interests 

of law enforcement and public safety with protection of civil liberties. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully review and evaluate this policy, 

including any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or how they may 

change in the future. 

• The 2015 guidance also sets forth practices concerning the collection and retention of 

data. If confirmed, will you commit to keeping the guidance's data retention and 

transparency provisions in place? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with this policy, I am not privy to any internal 

Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness of the policy in balancing the interests 

oflaw enforcement and public safety with protection of civil liberties. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully review and evaluate this policy, 

including any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or how they may 

change in the future. 

• If confirmed, will you commit to preventing the Department from using cell-site 

simulators to surveil individuals participating in First Amendment-protected activities, 

such as attending political protests or religious ceremonies? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carry out 

my duty to enforce the laws and will do so with unreserved fidelity to the Constitution, 

including the First Amendment. 

Question 6. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, I 

have watched the proliferation of body-worn cameras with cautious optimism. Body cameras 

have the potential to help build trust between law enforcement and the community, and reduce 

uncertainty in the courtroom. At the same time, body cameras collect incredibly sensitive 

5 
749 

information, and it is essential that law enforcement agencies develop privacy and data 

protection policies to address how data captured by body cameras is collected and used. 

In September 2015, the Department of Justice awarded more than $23 million in grants to local 

and tribal law enforcement agencies to expand the use of body-worn cameras. The grants support 

the purchase of cameras, training and technical assistance, and efforts to catalog and examine the 

impact oftheir use. The Department also created a body-worn camera toolkit, which includes 

model policies that grantee agencies may reference in setting up their own programs. Under the 

current program, grantees are required to develop and articulate policies on privacy and data 

retention, but the Department does not require that grantee policies meet any one standard. 

In my view, it's essential that the public and law enforcement have a clear understanding of how 

the sensitive information captured by body cameras is handled. So long as the Department of 

Justice is supporting the purchase of body-worn cameras by state and local law enforcement 

agencies, I think it's important that DOJ make sure departments who purchase body cameras 

with federal funds have a meaningful policy in place guiding their use, including a privacy 

policy. 

• If confirmed, will you commit to working with me to ensure that grantees develop strong 

policies to protect the integrity ofthe data and the privacy of both police and the public? 

If not, why? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would 

commit to working with you and any other member of Congress on policies to protect the 

integrity of the data and the privacy of both police and the public. 

Question 7. Senator Hatch asked you about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 

Act (RLUIPA), which is enforced by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. You told 

Senator Hatch that "religious freedom is a great heritage of America. We respect people's 

religion .... It's mandated in the Constitution." 

• In a 2016 report on the Department's RLUIPA work, the Department noted that the 

number of RLUIPA investigations involving mosques or Islamic schools had risen 

dramatically from 2000 to 2006. In December 2016, for example, the Department filed a 

lawsuit against Culpeper County, Virginia, alleging that the county violated RLUIP A 

when it denied a sewage permit application to the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC), 

effectively preventing the ICC from building a mosque. The complaint alleges that since 

1992, the county had considered 26 applications and never denied the permit for a 

commercial or religious use prior to ICC's application. Do you agree that enforcement of 

RLUIPA--on behalf of all religious faiths-is critically important? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

• Will you commit to defending the rights of Muslim Americans-as strenuously as those 

of any other faith-to be free from unduly burdensome, unreasonable or discriminatory 

zoning, landmarking, and other land use regulations? 

6 
750 

RESPONSE: RLUIPA is federal law and, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I would ensure its even-handed enforcement when the facts and 

circumstances of a case dictate Department action. 

• The 2016 report by the Department also contained this finding: "Another troubling 

statistic that emerges from the last five-and-a-halfyears reinforces the conclusion that 

there is particularly severe discrimination faced by Muslims in land use: While 84% of 

non-Muslim investigations opened by the Department resulted in a positive resolution 

without the United States or private parties filing suit, in mosque and Islamic school 

cases, only 20% have resulted in a positive resolution without the filing of a RLUIP A 

suit." Will you commit that the Department will maintain the same resources for its 

RLUIPA work, including work on behalf of Muslim Americans? 

RESPONSE: Ifi am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will endeavor 

to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to 

ensure the enforcement offederallaw and the protections inherent therein. I will carefully 

evaluate any current departmental practices and the effectiveness of those practices to aid in 

the administration of justice. 

• You are reported as having said, that the true threat confronting the United States is "the 

toxic ideology of Islam." How can you assure an asylum applicant claiming persecution 

based on their Islamic faith will receive a fair hearing in the immigration courts, if you 

are confirmed? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed, asylum applicants claiming persecution in the immigration 

courts will have an equal opportunity to qualify for asylum consistent with the our dulyenacted immigration Jaws. 

Question 8. I am concerned about further consolidation in the media and telecommunications 

markets because it often leads to higher prices, fewer choices, and even worse service for 

consumers. Furthermore, when you have a small group controlling what Americans can watch, 

the risk of private censorship over political content grows. 

In a speech in October, President-elect Trump announced his opposition to AT &T's proposed 

acquisition of Time Warner, saying that his administration would not approve the deal. He also 

stated that his administration would revisit Com cast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal, suggesting 

that it never should have been approved in the first place. 

• At a time when a typical American household spends on average about $2,700 annually 

on telephone, video, and broadband services, do you agree with the president-elect that 

consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries is a problem? 

RESPONSE: The antitrust division at the Department of Justice plays a vital role in keeping 

our markets competitive and protecting consumers. The media and telecommunications 

markets are no exception. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, the antitrust division will 

play a central role in protecting consumers in these particular markets and will not hesitate to 

7 
751 

take action against violations of law. I look forward to working with you and other members 

of Congress to learn more about the specific issues facing the media and telecommunications 

marketplaces and to ensure that the Department has the information and tools it needs to 

carry out its duties in antitrust enforcement. 

• Should you be confirmed as attorney general, how will an Antitrust Division under your 

supervision evaluate AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner? Will it revisit 

Comcast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, the antitrust division will conduct a 

thorough evaluation, consistent with federal law, of all proposed mergers and acquisitions to 

determine whether they violate federal antitrust law and policies. 

Question 9: In December, President-elect Trump met with Masayoshi Son, chief executive of 

Softbank, which owns Sprint. Mr. Son has allegedly long sought for his company to acquire TMobile, which would collapse the U.S. wireless market from four major nationwide carriers to 

three. Following the meeting, Mr. Son reportedly committed to investing $50 billion in the 

United States and creating 50,000 new jobs. What Mr. Son will receive in return for these 

investments is unclear. 

• Have you discussed the meeting between Mr. Son and the president-elect with Mr. 

Trump? If so, what promises were made to Mr. Son in exchange for his commitments to 

invest in the United States? 

RESPONSE: No. 

• What role will an Antitrust Division under your supervision play in the new 

administration? Should companies seeking regulatory approval of their mergers and 

acquisitions plan to communicate with the president-elect directly prior to -or duringthe Department of Justice review process? How will you ensure an impartial review? 

RESPONSE: The antitrust policies of the United States must be consistent and as clear as 

possible, and ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will not hesitate to enforce antitrust 

law to protect against anti-competitive transactions. Though I am not thoroughly familiar 

with the precise processes currently employed by the Department, antitrust review under my 

leadership will be consistent with federal antitrust law, objective, independent, and based on 

sound economic analysis. 

Question 10: I am increasingly concerned about internet companies that can use their positions 

as dominant media platforms to stifle competition and inhibit the free flow of information. In 

recent years, we've heard allegations of online intermediaries leveraging their market dominance 

to the detriment of content creators and il'lnovative startups. For example, Google has given 

preference to its own products and services in search results while downgrading competitors' 

products and services. I've also heard from photographers in my home state that Google is taking 

original content from photographers' distributors' websites without appropriate compensation or 

attribution. Apple is preventing its competitors in the music streaming market from promoting 

8 
752 

lower prices to consumers on Apple iOS. And Amazon is using its dominance in the book 

market to impose unfair contractual terms on publishers and authors. 

• What will an Antitrust Division under your supervision do to address allegations that 

these dominant platforms' unilateral behavior is anticompetitive and may ultimately harm 

the free flow of ideas and content? 

RESPONSE: Ensuring competition on the internet is of vital importance in our modem, 

digital economy. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, the antitrust division will look at all 

markets to ensure compliance with federal antitrust law. It will conduct a thorough 

evaluation, consistent with federal law, of all proposed mergers and acquisitions to determine 

whether they violate federal antitrust law and policies. I look forward to working with you 

and other members of Congress to learn more about these particular issues and to ensure that 

the Department has the information and tools it needs to carry out its duties in antitrust 

enforcement. 

In recent years, antitrust investigations against Google and Apple for alleged anti-competitive 

conduct have taken place at the Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust enforcement 

authority with the Department of Justice. However, this does not preclude the Justice Department 

from asserting jurisdiction over these issues in the new administration. 

• As Attorney General, would you be open to examining allegations of anti-competitive 

conduct by some of these dominant platforms at the Department of Justice? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, the antitrust policies of the United States 

have to be as consistent and as clear as possible to protect against anti-competitive 

transactions in any industry or marketplace. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will not 

hesitate to enforce antitrust law to protect against anti-competitive transactions. 

Question 11: As we saw following Comcast's acquisition ofNBCUniversal, conditions that are 

placed on deals that are approved can be difficult to enforce and are not always reliable. Another 

major problem is that those conditions expire. 

• How do you believe the Department of Justice can ensure that merger conditions actually 

have enough teeth to protect consumers in the long term? 

RESPONSE: Federal antitrust laws are in place to protect consumers and to ensure a 

competitive marketplace. Ifl am confinned as Attorney General, the antitrust division will 

not hesitate to enforce such laws and impose appropriate conditions to protect consumers, as 

necessary. 

• There is increasing evidence that other types of merger remedies, including divestitures, 

aren't sufficient in protecting consumers from harm. Do you agree that in cases such as 

those, the DOJ should be more willing to challenge these deals in court, as it was slated 

to do in the case ofComcast-Time Warner Cable? 

9 
753 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, the antitrust division will examine each 

transaction on the merits and will not hesitate to challenge transactions or impose conditions 

or other remedies as necessary to protect consumers. 

Question 12: Four years ago, as the Supreme Court was considering American Express v. Italian 

Colors, I asked Assistant Attorney General William Baer about the importance of private 

antitrust enforcement. He has since told me that the Supreme Court's decision in that case made 

it much harder for small businesses to file private antitrust enforcement actions and instead they 

are forced to arbitrate their claims. 

• Do you agree that antitrust enforcement has changed since that decision? Do you 

currently have concerns about small business' ability to bring antitrust claims to a public 

court oflaw? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied the Court's decision or its implications for small businesses. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I expect to learn more about 

this issue. 

Question 13: Since entering the Senate, I have made it a priority to combat the widespread and 

harmful impact of forced arbitration. These clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by 

stripping consumers and workers oftheir legal rights and insulating corporations from any 

accountability. 

I have a letter that you sent on June 10, 1999 to one of your constituents. Y au write, "thank you 

for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about the Federal Arbitration Act and 

consumer transactions. I appreciate the reality that in many cases, arbitration clauses in contracts 

for sales of consumer goods limit a person's right to sue in state or federal court." 

• Do you still believe that arbitration clauses often limit Americans' right to sue in a public 

court of law? 

RESPONSE: I have no reason to disagree with the sentiment expressed in the letter. 

I do not oppose the use of arbitration when it is voluntarily agreed to by both parties after a 

dispute has arisen. But consumers and workers have a right to a meaningful choice about where 

to enforce important state and federal laws. Forced arbitration clauses, by their very nature, 

effectively deny Americans ofthis choice. In 2012, in response to President Obama's weekly 

address, you stated that "before entering politics, I was a federal prosecutor. I tried many cases 

and spoke to many juries. The brilliance of our legal system is that it places judgment in the 

hands of everyday citizens. Twelve complete strangers, from all walks of life, sit in a jury box, 

carefully weigh the evidence, and then reach an impartial verdict." Despite the praise you have 

offered for our nation's public courts and justice system, you have consistently defended forced 

arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts. 

• Why should any American be forcibly denied the fundamental rights and protections 

inherent in the "brilliance of our legal system" as you so aptly recognized in 2012? 

10 
754 

RESPONSE: I do not believe any American should be forcibly denied the fundamental 

rights and protections inherent in the brilliance of our legal system. 

One very public example of mandatory arbitration is former Fox News anchor Gretchen 

Carlson's lawsuit alleging that she'd been sexually harassed by her boss Roger Ailes, the 

founder, and former CEO and chairman of the network. Ailes' lawyers tried to force her case 

into private arbitration, arguing that Ms. Carlson had breached the terms of her employment 

contract, which included a forced arbitration clause. The arbitration clause in Ms. Carlson's 

contract also prohibited her from speaking out about the claims- as is the case in most forced 

arbitration agreements. Had Roger Ailes and Fox News been successful in forcing Ms. Carlson 

into arbitration and abiding by those terms, her colleagues at Fox News, many of whom were 

also victims of sexual harassment, would have been left in the dark about her case and may never 

have come forward with their own claims. 

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at least 25% of American 

women say they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. 

• Do you agree that women with claims of sexual harassment and employment 

discrimination deserve access to the courts and an impartial jury verdict? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: Yes. All victims of sexual harassment and employment discrimination should 

have the ability to obtain justice and seek appropriate recourse against the perpetrator. 

• Do you believe it is it fair for corporations and employers to force consumers and 

workers to surrender their fundamental legal rights before a dispute has even arisen? If 

so, why? 

RESPONSE: Arbitration in intended to avoid the formalities, expense, and delay of formal 

dispute resolution before courts. It is one of the most cost-effective means of resolving 

disputes. Unlike businesses, consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of 

lawyers to represent them. Furthermore, consumers, employees, and small businesses that 

enter into contracts covered by the Federal Arbitration Act is entitled to have their disputes 

resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and costeffective manner. 

• In light of the fact that arbitration proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and have the 

ability to cover up discriminatory patterns and practices, why should they not be subject 

to the same transparency afforded participants in the civil justice system you praised in 

2012? 

RESPONSE: Consumers, employees, and small businesses that enter into contracts covered 

by the Federal Arbitration Act is entitled to have their disputes resolved in accordance with 

fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner. 

Forced arbitration also impacts servicemembers who are trying to enforce the legal rights they 

fight to protect. Take the case of Kevin Ziober, a Navy Reservist who, after informing his 

II 
755 

company he was being deployed to fight for his country in Afghanistan, was thrown a farewell 

party with an American-flag shaped cake, and then summarily dismissed by his employer in 

violation of a federal law called the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act. After returning from active duty, Kevin filed suit against his former employer, and has been 

fighting for years for the right to enforce congressionally mandated protections for 

servicemembers in a public court of law. 

• Do you agree that we should afford the same protections inherent in our civil justice 

system to everyone, especially our men and women in uniform? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with the above-mentioned case. Regardless, anyone, 

including our men and women in uniform, who enters into a contract covered by the Federal 

Arbitration Act is entitled to have their disputes resolved in accordance with fundamental 

principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner. 

Question 14: In recent years, the growing use of so-called stalking apps, which allow users to 

track someone's location- or even listen to their phone calls and read their text messageswithout their knowledge or consent, has raised serious concerns. Federal law does not currently 

prohibit developers from creating apps that surreptitiously track geo-location data. This loophole 

in the law grants stalkers and domestic abusers access to a powerful tool enabling increased 

violence against women. 

• Do you agree that location data can be highly personal information and is deserving of 

privacy protections? 

RESPONSE: Your tireless efforts to shed light on this very important issue, particularly as 

it relates to victims of domestic violence, have been admirable. If I am fortunate enough to 

be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that the Department continues to prosecute 

these matters, and will be happy to work with you and other members of Congress to 

advance policies that protect victims. 

Last year, I reintroduced legislation- the Location Privacy Protection Act- that would, among 

other things, amend the federal wiretap statute to explicitly include the interception of location 

data and allow for the forfeiture of proceeds from the sale of smartphone tracking apps. 

• Should you be confirmed as Attorney General, will you work with me on this legislation 

to ensure that the federal government has all the tools necessary to protect women from 

stalking apps and their attendant violence and abuse? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will be happy 

to work with you to ensure that federal prosecutors have all the tools needed to protect 

victims from stalking, violence, and abuse. 

DOJ has the authority under existing wiretap laws to prosecute creators of apps that allow 

stalkers to listen to victims' phone calls, intercept text messages, or otherwise intercept content 

from victims' phones. In response to my request, which was joined by Senators Grassley, 

12 
756 

Cornyn, and Graham, the DOJ exercised this authority and began taking criminal action against 

the creators of these stalking apps within the last few years. Although this is a positive 

development in the enforcement of our nation's laws, there is more that DOJ can do to protect 

the victims of stalking apps. 

• What will you do to ensure DOJ continues taking such action against the creators of 

stalking apps? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I am happy to 

work with you and other members of Congress to advance policies that protect victims of 

domestic violence and stalking by pursuing appropriate criminal actions. 

Question 15: In our courtesy visit, we discussed violence against Native women, and I told you 

how important the issue is to me. When I provided you with a statistic demonstrating just how 

prevalent violence against Native women is and at the hands of non-Indians you expressed 

shock and said that you didn't realize the extent ofthe problem. 

Over 84% of Native women experience domestic or sexual violence. And over 97% of them are 

victimized by non-Indians. That's a recent stat. But in 2012, all you had to do was talk to one 

tribe, and you would have learned that women in Indian Country are regularly abused by nonIndians who go unprosecuted and unpunished. 

During the hearing you told me you would spend a little time with the Poarch Band of Creek 

Indians in Alabama to better understand how the issue of domestic and sexual violence is 

affecting Indian Country. I also think it is necessary to visit at least one tribe where the special 

domestic violence jurisdiction is being exercised. Tribes are using that authority to secure long 

overdue justice for victims and are doing so with care and deliberation and in a manner that 

protects defendants' rights. 

• During the hearing you also told Senator Hirano that you can't commit to not challenging 

VA W A on these grounds. But you also admitted to not understanding the gravity of the 

problem of violence against native women when you voted on it in 2013. Now that you 

are better informed on the issue, will you commit to enforcing and defending this very 

important provision? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, 

including the 2013 reauthorization of VA WA. I understand that a pilot program has been 

initiated that seeks to conform tribes' exercise of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the 

requirements of the Sixth Amendment. I will carefully study this program before reaching 

any legal conclusions about the VA WA tribal jurisdiction provision. 

Sexual assault and other violent crime on Indian reservations are very serious problems-in 

some places, the problem has reached epidemic proportions. The Federal government 

exercises criminal jurisdiction over many Indian reservations. If I am confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will be committed to ensuring that federal law enforcement resources are fully 

deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on Federal reservations, and will request 

13 
757 

additional resources where existing resources are inadequate. Finally, I would note that on 

many Indian reservations, state and local authorities exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and 

local law enforcement resources greatly exceed those of Federal and tribal governments 

combined. On the exclusively Federal reservations where federal law enforcement has 

proved to be inadequate to reduce high levels of violent crime, Congress may consider 

allowing state and local authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and local law 

enforcement has proven effective on many existing Indian reservations, and the extension of 

such criminal jurisdiction to both Indians and non-Indians in Indian country does not offend 

constitutional guarantees. 

Question 16: In 201 I, the Office for Victims of Crime established the National Coordination 

Committee on the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Sexual Assault Nurse ExaminerSexual Assault Response Team (SANE-SART) Initiative. The Committee has since issued a 

report with specific recommendations for the Department of Justice on improving the federal 

government's response to adult and child victims of sexual violence in tribal nations, and the 

Obama Administration has implemented many of these recommendations. 

• As attorney general, will you commit to continuing these policies to further address 

sexual violence in Indian Country? If not, why? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with this report, however, if I am confirmed as Attorney 

General I will certainly review it and its recommendations. I will implement 

recommendations that improve the Federal government's fulfillment of its role in enforcing 

criminal laws on Federal reservations. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that 

federal law enforcement resources are fully deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on 

Federal reservations, and will request additional resources where existing resources are 

inadequate. 

Question 17: The Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for investigating and 

prosecuting crime in much oflndian country. The rates of violent victimization on many Indian 

reservations are the highest in the nation, but crimes in Indian country still largely go 

unprosecuted and unpunished. 

• What will be your approach to addressing crime in Indian country? What steps will you 

take to reduce crime in Indian country? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will be committed to ensuring that 

federal law enforcement resources are fully deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on 

Federal reservations, and will request additional resources where existing resources are 

inadequate. 

Question 18: In recent years the media has increasingly highlighted the tragic prevalence of 

sexual assault in our country- whether it be on our military bases, on our college campuses, or at 

the hands of once-beloved public figures. In response, most of us in Congress have publicly 

committed to doing whatever is necessary to combat such violence and ensure that victims have 

14 
758 

access to justice. But critical to that effort is also our willingness- as the nation's leaders- to 

speak openly and honestly about the systemic barriers to addressing the problem. 

• As attorney general- and the nation's top victim advocate- what would you say to the 

hundreds of thousands of survivors of sexual violence who may be unwilling to report 

their abuse for fear of retaliation or concern that they will not be believed? 

RESPONSE: I would urge victims to report all incidents of sexual assault to law 

enforcement authorities, and would assure them that federal authorities (which, for example, 

typically have jurisdiction over military bases) will take all reports seriously and will 

investigate and prosecute all appropriate cases to the fullest extent of the law. 

• What steps do you think our law enforcement can take to address a culture that often fails 

to hold perpetrators accountable and instead blames the victims? 

RESPONSE: Law enforcement authorities can best "address" such a culture by 

aggressively investigating sexual assault offenses and vigorously prosecuting them to the 

fullest extent of the law. 

Question 19: As we've explored previously in the Judiciary Committee and as research 

continues to demonstrate- runaway and homeless youth are particularly vulnerable to trafficking 

and exploitation. Covenant House New York's 2013 survey found that youth involved in 

commercial sexual activity frequently reported exchanging sexual acts for basic necessities like 

food or a place to sleep. And a more recent study by Covenant House New Orleans found that a 

quarter of the homeless youth they interviewed had been victims of trafficking or sexual labor. 

Finally, according to the Human Rights Campaign, of the nearly 2 million young people who are 

affected by homelessness each year, research shows that up to 40 percent of homeless youth 

identify as LGBT. 

• You were one of three senators who opposed the effort to reauthorize the Runaway and 

Homeless Youth Act in the Judiciary Committee in the ll3'h Congress. Why exactly did 

you oppose? 

RESPONSE: I was concerned with what I believed to be overly broad and vague language 

in the bill that could have discriminated against faith-based organizations that help form the 

fabric of the United States' social services, and would have undermined the goal of the bill 

by making it more difficult to protect and provide services for at-risk individuals. 

• Should you be confirmed as attorney general, how can I trust that you will work to ensure 

that all kids, including LGBT youth and those that need it the most, have access to shelter 

and other necessary services to prevent them from becoming a victim of trafficking? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I was a cosponsor and strong supporter of the 

Adam Walsh Act of2006, which imposed tough, mandatory penalties for sex trafficking of 

minors, child pornography, and federal sexual assault offenses. I also have supported 

reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, and have supported other legislation 

15 
759 

that has done much to prevent sexual assault and other violence, including trafficking. 

Additionally, I worked to add an amendment to the 2005 Violence Against Women Act that 

expanded DNA sampling and has prevented many of these types of crimes over the past 

decade. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue in my 

commitment to strongly address these types of terrible crimes, and to protect and ensure 

justice for their victims. 

Question 20: As the Department of Housing and Urban Development has frequently recognized, 

survivors of domestic violence face unique challenges in securing and maintaining adequate 

housing. Indeed, according to the Department of Justice, one-in-four homeless women in the 

United States is a survivor of domestic violence. And not surprisingly, once a woman becomes 

homeless, she becomes more vulnerable to violence and exploitation. In fact, nine-in-ten 

homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse. 

• The Department of Justice is charged with protecting Americans' right to access housing 

free from discrimination. Should you be confirmed as Attorney General, what will you do 

to address the link between homelessness and domestic violence? How will you work 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to accomplish these goals? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will fully enforce all existing laws relating to sexual 

assault, and all non-discrimination laws. I assume that the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development refers cases of potential violation of the laws to the Justice Department for 

prosecution, and I would expect to continue such cooperation. 

16 
760 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 23, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FRANKEN 

Question 1. In my original questions for the record, I asked what assurances you could provide 

the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans gender (LGBT) community that you would work to protect 

their rights. I also noted that under both Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the Department of 

Justice made protecting and advancing the rights of LGBT people an integral part of the 

Department's civil rights enforcement. You responded that "(t]he Civil Rights Division has a 

historic and proud record of defending the civil rights of all Americans, particularly the most 

vulnerable. That will certainly continue under my leadership, ifl am fortunate to be confirmed as 

Attorney General." 

As a part of the Civil Rights Division's efforts to combat discrimination against LGBT people, 

attorneys, staff, and members of the Division's leadership participate in the LGBTI Working 

Group. The Working Group advises the Division's leadership and sections on legal and policy 

issues relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, and 

HIV/AIDS status. In addition to exploring how existing federal civil rights laws can address 

discrimination against LGBT people, the Group also identifies appropriate matters and cases for 

the Division. 

• In acknowledgement of your commitment to continue the Civil Rights Division's 

"'historic and proud record of defending the civil rights of all Americans, particularly the 

most vulnerable," will you commit to allowing the LGBTI Working Group to continue 

its work within the Division? 

RESPONSE: In response to a similar question from Senator Blumenthal, I explained that I 

am not familiar with this working group. I have been cautious not to make any such 

commitments without a proper evaluation which, of course, l have not been able to undertake 

as a Senator. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will evaluate any current practices 

ofthe Department or its partnerships as to their effectiveness in the enforcement of federal 

law and the protections therein. 

Question 2, In my original questions for the record, I raised the issue of your opposition to the 

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of2009, which extended 

federal hate crimes protections to victims targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or 

gender identity. During a 2009 hearing on that bill, you stated that "I'm not sure that women or 

people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." 

In my question, I provided you with data from the FBI's annual report on hate crime statistics, 

which documented that of the 7,121 victims of hate crimes in 2015, 17.7 percent were targeted 

due to their sexual orientation and 1.7 percent because oftheir gender identity (see U.S. DEP'TOF 

JUSTICE, FED. BUREAU OF lNVESTIGA TION, THE UN!F. CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM, HATE CRIME 

STATISTICS, 2015 (20 17), available at https:/ /ucr.tbi.gov/hatc-crime/20 15). I asked you whether 
761 

you still hold the view that LGBT people do not "face that kind of discrimination." In response, 

you wrote that your 2009 statement "reflected an opinion that I reached based on information 

available to me at the time" and you committed to "work diligently to ensure that all Americans 

receive equal protection under our laws." You did not, however, answer the question. 

• In light of the data gathered by the FBI, do you still hold the view that LGBT people do 

not experience that kind of discrimination? If so, why? 

RESPONSE: I respect the findings of the FBI report and have no reason to question the 

accuracy of this data. 

• The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act requires that the 

attorney general or a designee authorize all criminal prosecutions brought under the Act. 

Given your opposition to the Act, will you commit to signing off on charges brought 

pursuant to the Act, including for crimes targeting members of the LGBT community? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Justice 

Department will be guided by the applicable facts and law in each individual case, together 

with appropriate Justice Department guidelines, in determining which charges to file. I will 

not hesitate to approve charges in appropriate cases. 

Question 3. In my original questions for the record, I explained that federal law does not require 

state or local law enforcement to report hate crime incidents to the federal government, and I 

drew your attention to FBI Director Corney's statements acknowledging that underreporting of 

hate crimes remains a challenge (see James B. Corney, Director, Fed. Bureau oflnvestigation, 

Address at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit (April28, 2014), available 

at https :I lw11W. fbi. gov /new s1speeches/the-lbi-and -thc-adl-workin g-t011 ard-a-11 orld-withouthate). I asked whether you agreed that underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local 

law enforcement remains an obstacle to combatting hate crimes. You responded that you had 

"not been presented with the information necessary" to form an opinion or to evaluate Director 

Corney's assertion. 

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) issued a report that 

analyzed data from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which documented that 

while 46 percent of hate crime incidents were reported to police for years 2003-2006, that 

number dropped to 35 percent for years 2007-2011 (see U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF 

JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, NCJ 241291, SPECIAL REPORT: HATE 

CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003-2011 (2013), available at 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf!hcv031 !.pdf). 

Of the 14,997law enforcement agencies that participated in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program in 2015, 88.4 percent of agencies reported that no hate crimes occurred in their 

jurisdictions (see U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNIFORM CRIME 

REPORT, HATE CRIME STATISTICS, 2015, HATE CRIME BY JURISDICTION (2016), available at 

httos://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crimc/2015/topic-pagcs/jurisdiction final). Moreover, according to an 

Anti-Defamation League analysis of the FBI's 2015 hate crime statistics, 87 American cities 

2 
762 

with populations over 100,000 either failed to report any information at all or reported zero biasmotivated crimes. 

• Having now been presented with Justice Department and FBI data, as well as FBI 

Director Corney's views on underreporting, are you able to evaluate his assertion or offer 

an opinion as to whether underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local law 

enforcement remains a problem? 

RESPONSE: It would be difficult to draw sound conclusions, relying solely on the 

information provided. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

evaluate the data using personnel with specific experience on this issue to more thoroughly 

consider the possibility of underreporting. 

Question 4. During your hearing, I expressed an interest in better understanding why you listed 

four civil rights cases among the top ten "most significant litigated matters which you personally 

handled" on your questionnaire. In light of your answers, I would like to further explore the role 

you played in these cases. 

RESPONSE: My role in non-criminal civil rights cases, as the local U.S. Attorney and as the 

senior Department of Justice official in the Southern District of Alabama, was not to prepare 

the individual filings or make appellate arguments in these historically significant cases from 

30 years ago. Question 15 of the Committee's Questionnaire states: "Describe the ten (10) 

most significant litigated matters which you personally handled, whether or not you were the 

attorney of record." As I said in my responses to the Committee's Questionnaire: "For the 

cases described in 2 [Conecuh County], 4 [Davis], 8 [Dallas County] and 9 [Marengo 

County], my role, like most U.S. Attorneys in the nation with non-criminal civil rights cases, 

was to provide support for the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, attorneys. I 

reviewed, supported and co-signed complaints, motions, and other pleadings and briefs that 

were filed during my tenure as U.S. Attorney. I provided assistance and guidance to the 

Civil Rights Division attorneys, had an open-door policy with them, and cooperated with 

them on these cases." 

As Gerry Hebert, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, testified: 

"We have had difficulty with several U.S. attorneys in cases we have wanted to bring. We 

have not experienced that difficulty in the cases that I have handled with Mr. Sessions. In 

fact, quite the contrary." [1986 Hr'g Tr. 58.] 

"I have needed Mr. Sessions' help in those cases and he has provided that help every step of 

the way. In fact, I would say that my experience with Mr. Sessions has led me to believe that 

I have received more cooperation from him, more active involvement from him, because I 

have called upon him." [/d. at 56.] 

"I have had occasion numerous times to ask for his assistance and guidance. I have been able 

to go to him; he has had an open-door policy and I have taken advantage of that and found 

him cooperative." [/d. at 57.] 

3 
763 

"I have worked side by side with him on some cases in the sense that I have had to go to him 

for some advice." [!d. at 62.] 

Davis v. Board of School Commi~sioners o(Mobile Countv 

The Davis school desegregation case listed on your questionnaire was filed in 1963, long before 

you became U.S. Attorney. 

• Is it correct that your name and signature are not on the complaint? Yes or no. 

RESPONSE: My name and signature are not on the first complaint filed in 1963, but the 

historically significant Davis case continued for decades and included my tenure as U.S. 

Attorney, and my name was listed on pleadings when I was U.S. Attorney. 

• Did you prepare any legal brief or other filing in this case? Yes or no. If yes, please 

provide all such filings. 

RESPONSE: See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you appear in any court hearing in this case? Yes or no. 

RESPONSE: I do not recall appearing at a hearing. My role, as the local U.S. Attorney, was 

not to argue the case at hearings, but to provide assistance and guidance. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• In your questionnaire entry for this case, you listed as co-counsel Joseph D. Rich and 

Angela Schmidt. Did you supervise either of them on this case? Yes or no. 

RESPONSE: My role, as the local U.S. Attorney, was not to supervise the Civil Rights 

Division attorneys from Washington, D.C, but to provide assistance and guidance. See 

response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

Did any Assistant United States Attorney in your office personally litigate this case 

along with Joseph D. Rich or Angela Schmidt? Yes or no. If yes, please provide that 

Assistant U.S. Attorney's name for the record. 

RESPONSE: I do not recall. Often, Civil Rights Division attorneys work with Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys on cases throughout the country. For example, when I was an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney in the late 1970s, I provided support to Dan Bell of the Civil Rights Division. He 

described that case as follows: "As a matter of fact, my impression of Mr. Sessions is that he 

is very eager to pursue criminal civil rights cases and he certainly was at the beginning of my 

acquaintance with him. The particular case I tried, the government had indicted the sheriff of 

Mobile County and eight of his deputies for deliberately setting up an ambush and murdering 

a black inmate, an extremely unpopular case in Mobile, and there were a number of people 

even in the United States Attorney's office who were not too eager to be that friendly to the 

prosecution, especially a couple of Washington-based lawyers. And Mr. Sessions and the 

4 
764 

then U.S. Attorney, Charles Whitespunner, and his successor, William K[imbrough], were all 

very helpful to the prosecution." [1986 Hr'g Tr. 133-134.] Additionally, when I was U.S. 

Attorney, my staff would, when needed, consult with Civil Rights Division attorneys and file 

pleadings for them. 

Various court filings from the mid-1980s in this case are signed solely by attorneys for the Civil 

Rights Division. Many do not list your name. Some list your name without a signature. Examples 

are below. For each one, please describe, if you recall, your substantive involvement in any of 

these filings and state whether you believe they were prepared primarily by attorneys from the 

Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division based in Washington, DC. 

• One filing dated August 26, 1986, is signed by Angela Schmidt. Then-Assistant Attorney 

General William Bradford Reynolds and Joseph D. Rich are also listed. Your name is 

not listed. 

• Another filing, from July 21, 1986 is signed by Joseph D. Rich. Then-Assistant Attorney 

General for Civil Rights William Bradford Reynolds and Angela Schmidt are also listed. 

Your name is not listed. 

• Another filing, dated August 21, 1985, is signed by Joseph D. Rich. Then-Assistant 

Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, H. Joseph Beard, Jr., and Angela Schmidt 

are also listed. Your name is not listed. 

• Another filing, dated October 16, 1981, is signed by Myron S. Lehtman of the Civil 

Rights Division. Then-Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, Walter 

Gorman, and Kenneth Barnes ofthe Civil Rights Division are also listed. Your name is 

listed as United States Attorney. 

RESPONSE: Of the numerous filings in the Davis case, I do not recall my involvement for 

each specific filing, just my responsibility for the litigation and support thereof. See response 

to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

United States v. Conecuh County 

The Conecuh County case was filed while you were United States Attorney. 

The docket sheet in this case lists Mr. Jones, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Tanner, and you as attorneys. 

It states that, on November 2, 1983, a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction was held in Selma, Alabama and denied by the court. 

• Did you appear at that hearing? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall any specific hearings in this historically significant case from 30 

years ago. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

5 
765 

• Did any Assistant United States Attorney under your supervision appear at that hearing? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall. Often, Civil Rights Division attorneys work with Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys on cases throughout the country. For example, when I was an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney in the late 1970s, I provided support to Dan Bell of the Civil Rights Division. He 

described that case as follows: "As a matter of fact, my impression of Mr. Sessions is that he 

is very eager to pursue criminal civil rights cases and he certainly was at the beginning of my 

acquaintance with him. The particular case I tried, the government had indicted the sheriff of 

Mobile County and eight of his deputies for deliberately setting up an ambush and murdering 

a black inmate, an extremely unpopular case in Mobile, and there were a number of people 

even in the United States Attorney's office who were not too eager to be that friendly to the 

prosecution, especially a couple of Washington-based lawyers. And Mr. Sessions and the 

then U.S. Attorney, Charles Whitespunner, and his successor, William K[imbrough], were all 

very helpful to the prosecution." [1986 Hr'g Tr. 133-134.] Additionally, when I was U.S. 

Attorney, my staff would, when needed, consult with Civil Rights Division attorneys and file 

pleadings for them. 

• Was this hearing primarily handled by attorneys from the Department of Justice's Civil 

Rights Division based in Washington? 

RESPONSE: While I do not specifically recall, it would be the usual practice for hearings to 

be handled primarily by the Civil Rights Division attorneys from Washington, D.C., with the 

local U.S. Attorney providing assistance and guidance. 

The consent decree in the Conecuh County case is signed by: Judge W.B. Hand; John K. Tanner 

of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division; and attorneys for the defendants (Robert G. 

Kendall; J.B. Nix; EdwardS. Allen; and Carroll H. Sullivan). Steven H. Rosenbaum is also 

listed, from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. Your name is not listed. 

• Please describe in detail the nature of your participation in the preparation or negotiation 

ofthis consent decree. 

RESPONSE: I do not recall specific negotiations in this case from over 30 years ago, but 

my general role in these cases was to provide assistance and guidance. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Was this consent decree primarily negotiated by attorneys from the Department of 

Justice's Civil Rights Division based in Washington? Yes or no. 

RESPONSE: While I do not specifically recall, it would be the usual practice for 

negotiations to be handled primarily by the Civil Rights Division attorneys from Washington, 

D.C., with the local U.S. Attorney providing assistance and guidance. I do recall a Civil 

Rights Division attorney discussing this settlement with me. The attorney was pleased, and I 

was pleased, with the result. 

6 
766 

• Did any Assistant United States Attorney under your supervision substantively participate 

in the negotiation or preparation ofthis consent decree? Yes or no. If yes, please identify 

that Assistant United States Attorney. 

RESPONSE: I do not recall. Often, Civil Rights Division attorneys work with Assistant. U.S. 

Attorneys on cases throughout the country. For example, when I was an Assistant U.S. 

Attorney in the late 1970s, I provided support to Dan Bell of the Civil Rights Division. He 

described that case as follows: "As a matter of fact, my impression of Mr. Sessions is that he 

is very eager to pursue criminal civil rights cases and he certainly was at the beginning of my 

acquaintance with him. The particular case I tried, the government had indicted the sheriff of 

Mobile County and eight of his deputies for deliberately setting up an ambush and murdering 

a black inmate, an extremely unpopular case in Mobile, and there were a number of people 

even in the United States Attorney's office who were not too eager to be that friendly to the 

prosecution, especially a couple of Washington-based lawyers. And Mr. Sessions and the 

then U.S. Attorney, Charles Whitespunner, and his successor, William K[imbrough], were all 

very helpful to the prosecution." [1986 Hr'g Tr. 133-134.] Additionally, when I was U.S. 

Attorney, my staff would, when needed, consult with Civil Rights Division attorneys and file 

pleadings for them. 

United States v. Dallas Countv Commission 

As you state, United States v. Dallas County Commission was filed in 1978, and the first trial in 

this case took place in 1979 and 1980-all before you became U.S. Attorney. The post-trial 

decision issued by the district court in 1982. 

Following the first trial, the district court concluded that the government had not proven vote 

dilution. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded in 1984. See United States v. Dallas 

County Commission, 739 F.2d 1529 (II th Cir. 1984). 

The 1984 appellate decision in this case, as available on an online search database (LexisNexis ), 

lists the following as counsel from the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC: William 

Bradford Reynolds; Jessica Silver; and Irving Gornstein. It also lists Thomas H. Figures, an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney in Mobile, Alabama, who was under your supervision. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

case? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

7 
767 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, following a remand from the 1984 appellate decision, "The 

district court conducted a hearing with regard to elections for County Commission, and on 

March 6, 1986 it issued a preliminary injunction against at-large voting in Commission races in 

the June 1986 Democratic Primary." United States v. Dallas County Commission, 791 F.2d 831, 

832 (lith Cir. 1986). 

• Did you draft any brief or motion seeking this preliminary injunction? 

RESPONSE: While I do not recall the preparation of specific briefs and motions in this case 

from over 30 years ago, my role, as the U.S. Attorney, was not to draft briefs, but to provide 

assistance and guidance. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. I do recall the Proposed 

Findings of Fact in this case, which set forth the history of blatant voter discrimination dating 

back to the late 1800s that had effectively disenfranchised African-American voters. 

• Did you otherwise participate in the briefing on this motion for a preliminary injunction? 

If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall particular briefs or hearings in this case from over 30 years ago. 

In general, however, my role as the U.S. Attorney was to provide assistance and guidance. 

See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the preliminary injunction hearing discussed in this quotation? If 

so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall particular briefs or hearings in this case from over 30 years ago. 

In general, however, my role as the U.S. Attorney was to provide assistance and guidance. 

See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the district court after the 1984 remand denied a motion for 

preliminary injunction against the Dallas County School Board-and the United States appealed. 

Dallas County, 791 F.2d at 831-33. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and ordered the district court 

to grant the preliminary injunction. !d. at 833. 

The 1986 appellate decision in this case, as available on an online search database (LexisNexis), 

lists the following as counsel from the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC: Gerald W. 

Jones, Paul F. Hancock; J. Gerald Hebert. It also lists you as U.S. Attorney. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

case? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

8 
768 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

Following the remand of the school board case, the district court entered orders approving 

remedial plans for the County Commission and School Board over the objections of the United 

States. See United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1433, 1436 (lith Cir. 1988) 

(school board); United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430 (lith Cir. 1988) 

(county commission). In both cases, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the remedial 

plans approved by the district court did not cure the violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

The 1988 appellate decision in the Dallas County Commission case (850 F.2d 1430) as available 

on an online search database (LexisNexis) lists the following as attorneys for the United States in 

the appeal: "Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Washington, District of Columbia, Jessica Dunsay Silver"; and "Wm. Bradford Reynolds, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, For U.S.A." It 

does not Jist your name. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in the 

Dallas County Commission appeal that resulted in the 1988 decision? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

The 1988 appellate decision in the Dallas County School Board case (850 F.2d 1433) as 

available on an online search database (LexisNexis) lists the following as attorneys for the 

United States in the appeal: "Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jessica Dunsay 

Silver, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, J. Gerald Hebert, U.S. Dept. of 

Justice, William Bradford Reynolds, Voting Section, Gerald W. Jones, Civil Rights Division, 

Paul F. Hancock, Washington, District of Columbia, J.B. Sessions U.S. Attorney, Mobile, 

Alabama." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in the 

Dallas County School Board appeal that resulted in the 1988 decision? If so, what was 

the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

9 
769 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

Following the 1988 Eleventh Circuit decisions, the district court entered an order finding that 

commissioners elected in 1988 were only to serve two-year terms, instead of four-year terms. 

This was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed. United States v. Dallas County 

Commission, 904 F.2d 26 (11th Cir. 1990). 

The 1990 appellate decision in this case as available on an online search database (LexisNexis) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States in the appeal: "John R. Dunne, Asst. 

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Irving Gornstein, Washington, 

District of Columbia for plaintiff." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

The 1988 appellate decision in the Dallas County School Board case (850 F.2d 1433) as 

available on an online search database (LexisNexis) lists the following as attorneys for the 

United States in the appeal: "Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jessica Dunsay 

Silver, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, J. Gerald Hebert, U.S. Dept. of 

Justice, William Bradford Reynolds, Voting Section, Gerald W. Jones, Civil Rights Division, 

Paul F. Hancock, Washington, District of Columbia, J.B. Sessions U.S. Attorney, Mobile, 

Alabama." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in the 

Dallas County School Board appeal that resulted in the 1988 decision? If so, what was 

the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

10 
770 

RESPONSE: Nonnally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

Following the 1988 Eleventh Circuit decisions, the district court entered an order finding that 

commissioners elected in 1988 were only to serve two-year tenns, instead of four-year tenns. 

This was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed. United States v. Dallas County 

Commission, 904 F.2d 26 (11th Cir. 1990). 

The 1990 appellate decision in this case as available on an online search database (LexisNexis) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States in the appeal: "John R. Dunne, Asst. 

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Irving Gornstein, Washington, 

District of Columbia for plaintiff." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation ofthe appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Nonnally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Nonnally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

United States v. Marengo Coun(V Commission 

The Department of Justice's complaint in United States v. Marengo County Commission was 

filed in 1978, and the first trial in this case was conducted in Selma, Alabama on October 23, 

1978 and January 4, 1979. See Clarkv. Marengo County, 469 F. Supp. 1150, 1154 (S.D. Ala. 

1979). The post-trial decision issued on April23, 1979 (469 F. Supp. 1150). All of these actions 

took place before you became U.S. Attorney. 

The Eleventh Circuit in 1984 noted that the 1979 decision found that the "at-large system for 

electing the Marengo County, Alabama county commission and school board" did not violate the 

Constitution, Civil Rights Act of 1870, or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. United States v. 

Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1984). 

In that appellate decision, the court noted that, since the 1979 decision, the court had "remanded 

this case once" already. The decision later notes that, following the Supreme Court's decision in 

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), the appeals court remanded the case to the district 

court for presentation of additional evidence. Marengo County, 731 F .2d at 1552. 

The appeals court decision then notes: "On July 30, 1981, the district court in the present case 

again ordered judgment for defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs had not established 

unresponsiveness. The court rejected the United States' offer to present additional evidence." !d. 

II 
771 

• Any proceedings leading up to this July 30, 1981 order occurred prior to your becoming 

the U.S. Attorney, correct? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

The United States appealed the July 30, 1981 order. The Eleventh Circuit then granted the 

United States' motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of the Supreme 

Court's review of Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982). See Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 

1552. 

Following the Rogers decision and the 1982 amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 

the Eleventh Circuit in !984 "remand[ ed] this case to the district court to allow the parties a 

limited opportunity to update the record and, in the event that the court finds a continuing 

violation of the Voting Rights Act, to allow the court to devise an appropriate remedy." 

The 1984 appellate decision in this case as available on an online search database (LexisNexis) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States in the appeal: "William F. Smith, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, District of Columbia, 

William B. Reynolds, Asst. AG, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, 

District of Columbia, Joan A. Magagna, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Washington, District of Columbia, Brian K. Landsberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights 

Division, Washington, D.C., William R. Favre, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Mobile, Alabama, Thomas H. 

Figures Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant." Your name does not appear. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any motions in this appeal? If 

so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Nonnally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

The Eleventh Circuit's 1984 decision notes, "The purpose of the remand is to allow the parties to 

update the record and to supplement the record with evidence that might tend to affect our 

finding of discriminatory results. In view of the evidence already in the record, the defendants 

12 
772 

bear the burden of establishing that circumstances have changed sufficiently to make our finding 

of discriminatory results in 1978 inapplicable in 1984." Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 1574-75. 

The district court held a post-remand hearing in March 1985 in the Northern Division (Selma). 

See Clark v. Marengo County, 623 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Ala. 1985). The district court found "no 

significant changes have occurred since 1978 that affect the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' 

finding of a Section 2 violation." !d. at 34. The Court says that the Eleventh Circuit's mandate 

essentially made the district court's role "merely ministerial." !d. 

The 1985 district court decision as available on an online search database (Westlaw) lists the 

following as attorneys for the United States: "J. Gerald Hebert, Christopher G. Lehmann, Dept. 

of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for United States." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings leading up to the 

March 1985 post-remand hearing in this case? If so, how? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the preparation of specific filings in this case. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the March 1985 post-remand hearing? If so, how? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the particular hearings in this case. See response to Question 4, 

pp. 3-4. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any motions in this appeal? If 

so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

The Eleventh Circuit's 1984 decision notes, "The purpose of the remand is to allow the parties to 

update the record and to supplement the record with evidence that might tend to affect our 

finding of discriminatory results. In view of the evidence already in the record, the defendants 

bear the burden of establishing that circumstances have changed sufficiently to make our finding 

of discriminatory results in 1978 inapplicable in 1984." Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 1574-75. 

The district court held a post-remand hearing in March 1985 in the Northern Division (Selma). 

See Clark v. Marengo County, 623 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Ala. 1985). The district court found "no 

significant changes have occurred since 1978 that affect the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' 

13 
773 

finding of a Section 2 violation." !d. at 34. The Court says that the Eleventh Circuit's mandate 

essentially made the district court's role "merely ministerial." ld. 

The 1985 district court decision as available on an online search database (Westlaw) lists the 

following as attorneys for the United States: "J. Gerald Hebert, Christopher G. Lehmann, Dept. 

of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for United States." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings leading up to the 

March 1985 post-remand hearing in this case? If so, how? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the preparation of specific filings in this case. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the March 1985 post-remand hearing? If so, how? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the specific hearings in this case. See response to Question 4, 

pp. 3-4. 

On August 8, 1986, the District Court issued another order, which is cited in your questionnaire. 

Clark v. Marengo County, 643 F. Supp. 232 (S.D. Ala. 1986). The decision notes that there had 

been a hearing "on July 29, 1986 for the purpose of addressing the parties' objections to the 

Court's June 23, 1986 districting plan and determining whether said plan complies with Section 

2 of the Voting Rights Act." !d. at 233. 

The 1986 district court decision in this case as available on an online search database (Westlaw) 

lists the following as attorneys for the United States: "Jefferson B. Sessions, III, W.A. 

Kimbrough, Jr., U.S. Attys., Mobile, Ala., J. Gerald Hebert, Voting Section, Civil Rights Div., 

Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S." 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings (including 

proposed districting plans) leading up to the July 29, 1986 hearing? If so, what was the 

nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the preparation of specific filings in this case. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of any filings (including 

proposed districting plans) filed with the court in 1985 or 1986 prior to the Court's 

issuance of the June 23, 1986 districting plan? 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the preparation of specific filings in this case. See response to 

Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in the July 29, 1986 hearing? If so, what was the nature of your 

participation? 

14 
774 

RESPONSE: I do not recall the specific hearings in this case. See response to Question 4, 

pp. 3-4. 

As you note, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the districting plan. Clark v. Marengo 

County, 811 F.2d 610 (11th Cir. 1987) (table). 

As U.S. Attorney, did you participate in the preparation of the appellate briefs in this 

appeal? If so, what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

• Did you participate in any oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit in this appeal? If so, 

what was the nature of your participation? 

RESPONSE: Normally, the Civil Rights Division attorneys would handle the appeals in 

these cases. See response to Question 4, pp. 3-4. 

Question 5. After you admitted to not understanding the gravity of the problem of violence 

against native women when you voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act (VAWA) in 2013, I asked you on the record about your willingness to defend the 

special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) provision. Your response stated, "I 

understand that a pilot program has been initiated that seeks to conform tribes' exercise of 

criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. 1 will 

carefully study this program before reaching any legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal 

jurisdiction provision." 

VA W A 2013, which was enacted on March 7, 2013, recognizes tribes' inherent power to 

exercise SDVCJ over non-Indians who commit acts of domestic violence and amends the Indian 

Civil Rights Act to require due process protections before a tribe can exercise SDVCJ. Congress 

recognized that it may take time for many tribes to get these protections in place and set the 

effective date for the provision two years after passage of the law. Congress also created the Pilot 

Project, which you reference in your response, to allow for accelerated implementation for those 

tribes who demonstrated to the attorney general's satisfaction that the tribe's criminal justice 

system had adequate safeguards in place to protect defendants' rights. The Pilot Project ended 

nearly two years ago, in March 2015. It has been widely hailed as a success for holding domestic 

violence offenders accountable while also protecting their fundamental right to due process. It 

has been the subject of DOJ reports, Congressional briefings, law review articles, and dozens of 

newspaper articles and conference sessions. Two bills have since been introduced to build on the 

success of the Pilot Project and further strengthen tribal authority. 

• When did you learn about the SDVCJ pilot program, which was a key provision of the 

law you opposed in 2013? Was it before or after your nomination hearing, during which 

you stated that your opposition to VA W A rested on your concerns surrounding the 

SDVCJ provision? 

15 
775 

RESPONSE: The pilot program was enacted by Congress. Therefore, as Attorney General, 

it would be my duty to review the program's findings as would be necessary to enforce the 

2013 law, regardless of past opinions I may have held. As a Senator, however, I have not 

had an occasion to conduct an evaluation of the pilot program. 

• In the two weeks since your hearing, during which your familiarity with SDVCJ was 

raised several times, what efforts have you undertaken to learn more about how tribes are 

exercising this jurisdiction? Have you spoken with any tribal governments exercising 

SDVCJ? 

RESPONSE: While I am still currently charged with carrying out my duties as a Senator 

from Alabama, I would undertake these efforts if confirmed as Attorney General. While I do 

not have these resources available to me at present, as Attorney General, I would have two 

specific agencies within the Justice Department at my disposal that maintain substantial 

expertise on tribal matters and jurisdiction. 

Question 6: In response to my question about how you would address the high rates of violent 

crime in Indian country you stated, "I will be committed to ensuring that federal law enforcement 

resources are fully deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on Federal reservations, and will 

request additional resources where existing resources are inadequate." Thank you for your 

commitment. I look forward to working with you to ensure the federal government fulfills its 

responsibilities to investigate and prosecute crime on reservations. 

In response to my question about violence against Native women, however, you stated that 

"State and local law enforcement resources greatly exceed those of Federal and tribal 

governments combined. On the exclusively Federal reservations where federal law enforcement 

has proved to be inadequate to reduce high levels of violent crime, Congress may consider 

allowing state and local authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and local law 

enforcement has proven effective on many existing Indian reservations, and the extension of 

such criminal jurisdiction to both Indians and non-Indians in Indian country does not offend 

constitutional guarantees." 

Your suggestion to empower state law enforcement on reservations is not new. It was first 

enacted by Congress in 1953 as Public Law 83-280 (PL 280). Initially enacted in six states, PL 

280 authorized state jurisdiction on Indian reservations and eliminated federal jurisdiction over 

major crimes committed in Indian country, but it also allowed other states to acquire jurisdiction 

at their option. At first, PL 280 was forced on tribes without their consent. President Nixon 

disavowed it, calling it a "policy of forced termination", in favor of a policy that acknowledged 

that tribal governments are best positioned to exercise authority to govern their lands and people. 

Since amendments to PL 280 in 1968, tribal consent is required before a state can acquire 

jurisdiction and states are permitted to cede jurisdiction back to the federal government. 

Importantly, since 1968, no tribe has consented to state jurisdiction, and many states have ceded 

jurisdiction back to the federal government, often citing their view that PL 280 is largely an 

unfunded mandate to police lands that they cannot tax. 

16 
776 

Finally, the bipartisan Indian Law & Order Commission concluded in its recent report- A 

R0admap for Making Native America Safer- that "While problems associated with institutional 

illegitimacy and jurisdictional complexities occur across the board in Indian country, the 

Commission found them to be especially prevalent among Tribes subject to P.L. 83-280 or 

similar types of State jurisdiction. Distrust between Tribal communities and criminal justice 

authorities leads to communication failures, conflict, and diminished respect." 

• What is the basis for your recommendation that Congress should consider allowing state 

and local authorities to exercise greater jurisdiction on tribal lands? 

RESPONSE: The vast majority of the nation's criminal law-enforcement resources, i.e., 

police officers and prosecutors, belong to state and local governments. In many cases, these 

state and local authorities will have a proximity to a reservation, and manpower-something 

that a U.S. Attorney's Office cannot match. Because both Indians and non-Indians alike vote 

in elections and serve on juries of the state, county, and municipal governments where they 

are residents, allowing these authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction over them does not 

offend constitutional guarantees. Thus, to the extent that Congress is concerned about the 

high level of crime on Indian reservations under exclusively federal jurisdiction, extending 

state and local law-enforcement jurisdiction to such reservations appears to be an obvious 

solution. 

• Have you reviewed the effectiveness ofPL 280, the Indian Law & Order Commission's 

report on the issue, or gathered the views of tribal governments about an expansion of 

state jurisdiction on their lands? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the occasion to review this report. However, as I have stated 

many times, this is an issue I look forward to learning more about if I am so fortunate as to 

be confirmed. 

Question 7: During your hearing, I asked you about a claim made by the then-president-elect. In 

late November, he tweeted that "In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won 

the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." As you know, 

President Trump lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. And as you know, state officials 

have found virtually no credible reports offraud, and no sign of widespread fraud. 

So I asked you whether you agreed with the president-elect that millions of fraudulent votes had 

been cast, and you responded, "I don't know what the President-elect meant or was thinking 

when he made that comment, or what facts he may have had to justify his statement." I also 

asked you whether you had talked to the president-elect about the issue. You replied, "I have not 

talked to him about that in any depth." 

Yesterday, January 24, 2017, President Trump welcomed House and Senate leaders to the White 

House for their first official meeting, where the president reportedly again claimed that he lost 

the popular vote because millions of undocumented immigrants cast illegal votes. Only this time 

he provided a slightly more specific number, saying it was somewhere between 3 million and 5 

million fraudulent votes. These were the headlines in two of our nation's leading papers in 

17 
777 

response to his claim: "Trump Repeals Lie About Popular Vote in Mectin11 With Lawmakers," 

the New York Times said. "Without evidence. Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million 

illegal ballots cost him tht popular vote," reported the Washington Post. 

• Yes or no, do you agree with the president that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 

the presidential election? If not, why? Do you anticipate that he will request that the 

Department investigate once you are confirmed? 

RESPONSE: I have not been privy to any information that might have been relied upon in 

making this assertion, nor have I discussed this with the President. I have no basis on which 

to opine as to whether or not an investigation will be requested. 

• If somewhere between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes were cast in the presidential 

election, where do you believe such votes were cast? Please identify the states and 

precincts where the criminal activity is alleged to have taken place. 

RESPONSE: I have not been provided with any information on this matter. 

• In what way are the 3 million to 5 million votes believed to be illegal? 

RESPONSE: I have not been provided with any information on this matter. 

• Since your hearing, have you spoken with the president about his claims that millions of 

illegal ballots were cast? Have you asked the president why he continues to believe that 

there was widespread voter fraud in the presidential election? If so, when? And please 

describe your conversation. 

RESPONSE: No. 

Question 8: I asked you what steps law enforcement can take to address a culture that often fails 

to hold perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and instead blames the victims. You replied, 

"Law enforcement authorities can best 'address' such a culture by aggressively investigating 

sexual assault offenses and vigorously prosecuting them to the fullest extent ofthe law." 

In December 2015, the Department of Justice issued guidance "Identifying and Preventing 

Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence"- that 

examined how gender bias can undermine the response of law enforcement agencies to sexual 

and domestic violence and provided a basic set of recommendations for law enforcement to help 

address that gender bias. The guidance, which was designed in collaboration with law 

enforcement leaders and advocates, found that gender biases can affect law enforcement officers' 

perceptions of crimes committed against members of certain populations and prevent them from 

effectively handling allegations of such crimes, which could ultimately amount to unlawful 

discrimination. For example, if a police officer believes a sexual assault to be less severe because 

the victim was assaulted by an acquaintance or was intoxicated when the assault occurred, that 

constitutes gender bias and could impact whether the officer fully investigates the claim or 

prioritizes a swift response. The guidance also found that eliminating gender bias in policing 

18 
778 

practices is integral to combatting sexual and domestic violence and preventing future 

victimization because an appropriate law enforcement response fosters victim confidence and 

makes victims more likely to report future incidents. On the other hand, if law enforcement does 

not respond effectively to an incident of sexual assault or domestic violence, the guidance found 

that victims are less likely to participate in the investigation and prosecution of their case or seek 

police assistance in the future. 

• Are you familiar with this guidance? If not, will you commit to reviewing it to better 

understand some of the system barriers to addressing sexual violence? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the occasion to review the Department's guidance on this issue. 

However, as I have stated, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will evaluate any current practices of the Department-including this particular guidance-as 

to its effectiveness in furthering the enforcement of federal law and the protections therein. 

• Do you agree that this guidance demonstrates that addressing sexual violence in our 

country requires more than simply "aggressively investigating and vigorously 

prosecuting" sexual assault offenses? Will you work with me to address these systemic 

barriers? 

RESPONSE: As stated above, I have not yet had the occasion to review the Department's 

guidance on this issue. However, if I am confirmed, I would be happy to work with you and 

other members of Congress to find ways to further the enforcement of federal law and the 

protections therein, particularly as it pertains to sexual assault. 

19 
779 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR GRAHAM 

I. Along with Senator Donnelly, I introduced at the end of last Congress the INVEST to 

Prevent Crime Act. The Act authorizes for five years a grant program focused on 

neighborhoods struggling to address persistent crime. Grantees will develop cross-sector 

partnerships between residents, local law enforcement, a research entity, and community and 

business partners. The partnerships will plan and implement strategies to address specific 

drivers of crime in their target neighborhoods. The program builds on DOJ's Byrne Criminal 

Justice Innovation Program, which has been appropriated between $1 0.5M and $18M since 

FY2013, and has shown very promising results in reducing crime rates. 

Do you agree that building structured partnerships between community members and local 

police agencies could help reduce crime? 

RESPONSE: Yes. As I noted in my written testimony, positive relations and great 

communication between the people and the police are essential for any good police department to 

be effective in reducing crime. We must re-establish and strengthen the partnership between 

federal and local officers to enhance a common and unified effort to reverse the current rising 

crime trends. 

Do you plan to continue DOJ's support for grant programs like the Byrne Criminal Justice 

Innovation Program, which are designed to reduce crime in our country's most challenging 

neighborhoods while improving community-police relations? 

RESPONSE: I believe these programs serve important purposes, particularly given the increase 

in violent crime across the country and the challenges facing state and local law enforcement and 

the communities they protect and serve. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will seek to best use the resources available to the Department of Justice to address 

violent and other crimes throughout the country, and to partner with state and local law 

enforcement agencies to help them address these issues. I will make funding decisions only after 

a careful evaluation of any current practice or program administered by the Department and the 

effectiveness of those practices to aid in the administration of justice. Resources are limited, 

however, and it would be unwise to commit to indefinitely providing a particular amount of to a 

single jurisdiction or for individual purposes without knowing how circumstances might change 

the needs or priorities in the future. 
780 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY 

Sue-and-Settle and Settlement Slush Funds 

Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department arranged for settling defendants to donate 

money to non-victim third-parties, including politically favored groups. This was simply another 

tool by which the Obama Justice Department would pick winners and losers based on a politicallydriven agenda. Payments ordered by settlements with the Department of Justice should only be 

used to punish the defendant and to make actual victims whole again, not to benefit favored 

groups. 

The Obama Justice Department also abused its settlement authority by signing off on settlements 

and consent decrees with interest groups that committed agencies to fast-track new regulations. 

This practice, known as sue-and-settle, undermines transparency and accountability in the 

rulemaking process and offends the intent of Congress. 

As Attorney General, will you commit to working with Congress and this Committee to ensure 

that settlements entered into by the Department, and any payments derived from them, are used 

appropriately for punishment of defendants and redress of actual victims? Will you likewise 

commit to working with Congress and this Committee to end abusive sue-and-settle tactics? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

The Obama administration promised a new era of open government. President Obama even called 

his administration the most transparent in history. But the facts demonstrate otherwise. Under 

President Obama, FOIA lawsuits and FOIA request denials reached record highs. And it's no 

secret that some of his top officials used methods that totally circumvented transparency and 

accountability protections. 

With a new administration comes an opportunity to set a new standard for transparency. And the 

Justice Department plays a central role in ensuring government-wide compliance with FOIA, our 

nation's premier transparency law. Accordingly, as Attorney General, will you commit to working 

with Congress and this Committee to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of FO IA are carried 

out? 

RESPONSE: The Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) is an important law that has played in 

integral role in helping the public hold the government accountable by rooting out waste, fraud, 

and abuse. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department and the Executive Branch 

appropriately complies with FOIA, as well as works with you and this Committee to ensure that 

FOIA is carried out as intended. 
781 

Prescription Drug Prices 

As you know, the high cost of prescription drugs is an increasing concern for American consumers. 

President-Elect Trump agrees and has pledged to "bring down drug prices." Do you believe that 

the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department has a role to play with respect to these 

concerns? Can you assure me that drug competition issues will be a priority for the Justice 

Department, if you are confirmed to be U.S. Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: I agree that the high cost of prescription drugs is a concern for the American 

consumer. The Justice Department's antitrust division enforces the antitrust laws to ensure 

competition in the marketplace and to protect consumers from anti-competitive action. If 

confirmed as Attorney General, the antitrust division will be vigilant in evaluating drug 

competition issues to determine whether they constitute a violation of federal antitrust law and 

harm consumers. 

Bankruptcy 

I believe the bankruptcy system has been made much better and fairer thanks to the enactment of 

comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation in 2005. Nevertheless, critics desire to weaken the 

statute. 

I. Will you commit to actively supporting, defending, and making enforcement of the 

bankruptcy laws a priority for the U.S. Trustee Program? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

2. Will you support and encourage greater enforcement actions by the U.S. Trustee Program 

to prevent abusive or fraudulent bankruptcy filings, including vigorous review of attorney 

fee applications in large Chapter II bankruptcy cases? 

RESPONSE: Yes, I will support the U.S. Trustee Program's efforts to prevent abusive or 

fraudulent bankruptcy filings. This program could indeed be an important factor in eliminating 

bankruptcy fraud. I would also consider pursuing more prosecutions of fraud. 

3. Will you assist in efforts to fight attempts to undermine the bankruptcy reform law? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

Juvenile Justice System 

I. A significant number of girls in the juvenile justice system are actually victims of human 

trafficking. What efforts will the Attorney General make to promote the identification of 

these victims and help ensure their needs are better met? 

RESPONSE: As a United States Senator, I was a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Adam 

Walsh Act of2006, which imposed tough, mandatory penalties for sex trafficking of minors, 

2 
782 

child pornography, and federal sexual assault offenses. I also have supported reauthorizations of 

the Violence Against Women Act, and have supported other legislation that has done much to 

prevent sexual assault and other violence, including trafficking. Additionally, I worked to add an 

amendment to the 2005 Violence Against Women Act that expanded DNA sampling and has 

prevented many of these types of crimes over the past decade. If I am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue to pursue and support solutions to the problem of 

human trafficking, including vigorous prosecution of human traffickers and improved forensic 

science efforts to identifY victims and serve justice. 

2. The programs authorized under the 1974 Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act 

are long overdue for reauthorization. There was broad bipartisan support for these 

programs' reauthorization in the !14th Congress (as evidenced by the Senate Judiciary 

Committee's unanimous approval of a reauthorization bill in 2015 and the House of 

Representatives' 2016 passage of a companion bill by a vote of 382-29). JJDPA 

reauthorization remains a top priority for this Committee in the !15th Congress. 

Alabama in recent years has embraced the importance of juvenile justice reforms. 

(Research indicates that such reforms not only conserve taxpayer resources but also 

promote better outcomes for the nation's at-risk youth.) Given Alabama's recent success in 

juvenile justice reform and the federal taxpayers' 40-year investment in JJDPA 

implementation, will you encourage the rest of the nation to adopt similar reforms and 

engage in a robust implementation ofthe JJDPA? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will encourage 

jurisdictions to continue to study and implement reforms of their juvenile justice systems, 

including utilizing best practices from around the country while also finding what works best in 

their particular jurisdiction. 

Scope of Executive Privilege 

For the past five years, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform (HOGR) has sought subpoenaed documents from the Department of Justice 

related to Operation Fast and Furious.Pl Originally, the Department failed to produce any 

documents responsive to the October 2011 subpoena despite failing to formally assert a legally 

recognized privilege. In fact, only a feeble attempt to rely on "confidentiality interests" and 

"separation of powers" was proffered.l2l Eventually the Department asserted executive privilege 

over the majority of relevant documents, and shortly thereafter, the Committee voted to hold 

Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. 

In August 2012, HOGR filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

seeking to enforce its subpoena of documents, including those created after a February 4, 2011 

[IJ Stephen Dinan, Election eve surprise: DOJ belatedly releases Fast & Furious documents, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 4, 

2014, available at http://www, washingtontimcs.com'nc\'.'S/20 14/nov/4-/justice-dept-submits-64k-pages-fast-furiousdocs/?page=al!. 

[ll Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 21, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House 

of Representatives v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-5078 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 2016) ["HOGR Brief']. 

3 
783 

letter to me which falsely claimed the Department had not been walking guns, to understand how 

the Department came to know the letter was false.f3l In August 2014, after years of litigation, the 

court ordered the Department to produce a privilege log. However, the court also held that the 

deliberative process privilege "could be invoked in response to a congressional subpoena."l4

l 

In response to the order, the Department produced an incomplete "list" of a subset of documents, 

along with about two thirds of those documents which it had previously unlawfully withheld, given 

that it had a legal obligation to comply with the subpoena and given that even the Department did 

not take the position that those documents were privileged. The remaining documents on the 

Department's "list" were categorically withheld on deliberative process grounds as well as five 

other claims of "privilege" never previously asserted. 

HOGR then filed a motion to compel production of all documents, without redactions, created 

following the Department's false and misleading February 20 II letter to CongressYl On January 

19, 20 16, the district court granted the Committee's motion in part and denied it in part. The court 

ordered the Department to produce all documents from its 2014 "set" that it had withheld on 

deliberative process grounds, but denied the Committee's motion to compel remaining responsive 

documents.f6

1 

HOGR appealed on October 2016 to seek production of all other documents responsive to the 

subpoena.[7J Among other things, the appeal also generally challenges the district's court's holding 

that the common law "deliberative process" privilege can form a valid basis for denying access to 

information regarding Executive Branch misconduct sought by a congressional subpoena. The 

appeal is currently pending. 

The most problematic aspect of the long negotiation and litigation over the Fast and Furious 

documents is the Department's continued insistence, and the district court's assent to the 

Department's position, that the constitutionally based Executive Privilege extends far below the 

President to shield the "deliberative process" of lower-level, unelected bureaucrats. The 

deliberative process privilege is a common law doctrine and a basis for a Freedom of Information 

Act exemption. It is not a Constitutional privilege of equal standing with the inherent power of 

Congress to conduct oversight inquiries. Deliberative process also traditionally applies only to 

content that is deliberative and pre-decisionalJ8

l It does not shield material created after a decision 

is made, or that is purely factual. 

Worse, the Department has even used this exceedingly broad view of Executive Privilege to shield 

production of documents the former Attorney General himself admitted were not actually 

privileged at al!Pl The Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion on the President's assertion 

i'l Complaint available at http: /lc"altimcs.tvpcpad.com/files.'complaint·l3.pdf. 

1

4

1 HOGR brief at 9. 

fSJ Available at http>'/oyersight.house.gov, v-.p-contenfuploads :::0 14ill /Cover~Letter.pd[ 

1

6

1 HOGR brief at 25. 

[7) !d. 

[SJ In reSealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 

1

9

1 Def.'s Mot. For Certification of Sept. 30, 2013 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)at 

8-9, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives v. Holder, 1: 12-cv-1332 

(D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2013). 

4 
784 

of Executive Privilege further suggests inexplicably that the privilege applies to a document, 

"regardless of whether a given document contains deliberative material."[lOJ 

Moreover, in a very troubling trend, the Department and other Executive Branch agencies also 

have relied on the district court's opinion in their refusal to produce a vast array of information to 

Congress in response to subpoenas, claiming broadly not only a dubious "deliberative process" 

privilege but also general, unarticulated "confidentiality" interests and other vague concepts. 

Many of those examples are featured in an amicus brief that I and several other congressional 

committee chairmen in the House and the Senate filed in the HOGR appeal.P IJ The brief challenges 

the attempts by the Obama administration to stretch the Executive Privilege beyond its 

constitutional boundaries to shield from congressional review documents it claims are 

"deliberative" or even merely "confidential." The brief asserts that the administration's overbroad 

privilege claims, including in response to congressional subpoenas, serve only to thwart legitimate 

congressional oversight. 1

121 

I. What is the scope of executive privilege, particularly over agency documents unrelated to 

the President? 

RESPONSE: The practice of the political branches and the courts have recognized that the 

following types of information may be protected by executive privilege: state secrets relating to 

foreign relations and military affairs; certain sensitive information relating to law enforcement 

investigations; presidential communications-including not only communications to and from 

the President but also, in some cases, communications made or solicited and received by White 

House staff in the course of preparing advice for the President; and information that reflects the 

internal, pre-decisional deliberations of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck 

& Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151 (1975); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974); Senate 

Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1974) 

(en bane). 

Courts have recognized the deliberative process privilege to apply to deliberative agency 

documents that do not relate to presidential decisions, and the contours and limits of that 

privilege have been described in case law. See, e.g .. In reSealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. 

Cir. 1997). If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would, of course, 

follow the applicable case law and seek the legal guidance of attorneys within the Department of 

Justice regarding the applicability of any privilege claim. 

2. Does the President have an executive privilege to withhold documents subpoenaed by 

Congress that have nothing to do with advice or communications involving the White 

House? If so, what is the legal basis for that claim? 

[Jo]36 Op. O.L.C. I, 3 (June 19, 2012). 

[lll Brief of Amici Curiae Chairmen of Certain House and Senate Oversight Committees in Support of Appellant, 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives v. Loretta Lynch, 

No. 16-5078 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 13, 2016). 

l"l "[T]he power of inquiry-with the process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the 

legislative function." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). 

5 
785 

RESPONSE: Each claim of executive privilege must be carefully evaluated and determined 

individually based upon the specific nature and contents of the documents or communications at 

issue. Although I am aware that past administrations have asserted executive privilege over, for 

example, pre-decisional deliberative materials in response to congressional inquiries, I have not 

studied the specific legal bases for those claims. 

As noted above, the contours and limits ofthe deliberative process privilege has been discussed 

in case Jaw. Additionally, case law indicates that, where practicable, the Executive Branch and 

Congress should try in good faith to resolve inter-branch disputes regarding executive privilege 

through negotiation and accommodation. 

3. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will personally review and examine the expansive 

claims of Executive Privilege asserted by the Department in this long running litigation 

with Congress under its previous leadership and decide whether it is proper and consistent 

with the Jaw to continue litigating them? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will review these 

matters. 

Whistleblowers 

On December 16,2016, President Obama signed into law the Grassley-Leahy FBI Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act. The Act clarifies, once and for all, that FBI employees are protected 

for making disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse within their chains of command-just like every 

other federal government employee. The Department of Justice should work swiftly to update its 

current regulations in accordance with the new statuteliJJ and ensure FBI employees are fully 

apprised of their protections. 

Unfortunately, the version of the FBI WPEA-which unanimously passed the Judiciary 

Committee early in 2016---did not become Jaw. This version sought to improve the investigative 

and adjudicative procedures for FBI reprisal claims to address significant deficiencies noted by the 

Government Accountability Office and the Department of Justice in their respective reports on the 

FBI whistle blower program. 

For example, that version of the bill would have addressed lengthy delays in the investigations and 

adjudications procedures for FBI whistle blower claims. Among other things, the bill provided for 

the ability of the Department to utilize more experienced administrative law judges to evaluate 

cases and allowed for interim relief for whistleblowers where the Office of the Inspector General 

finds a reasonable basis to believe reprisal occurred. The bill also would have required the 

Department to meet its obligations under FOIA and follow the example of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board in publicizing its opinions. The Department has promised to consider doing so, 

!!3128 C.F.R. Part 27. The current regulations limit the individuals to whom FBI employees may make protected 

disclosures to nine specifically designated entities or individuals. In establishing such a limited group, the 

Department ignored the central purpose ofwhistleblower protection laws, which is to encourage disclosures and 

protect employees from the individuals or entities most likely to reprise against them. 

6 
786 

but in nearly two years has failed to publicize a single FBI whistleblower case. The result is that 

the FBI has access to case precedent, but potential whistleblowers do not. 

Notably, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved these key reforms in early 2016. 

However, the Department of Justice and the FBI objected to these improvements-behind the 

scenes-without ever providing any official written comment on the bill. 

1. If confirmed, how will you ensure that FBI employees are fully apprised of their new 

protections from reprisal committed by their supervisors? 

RESPONSE: Strong protections for whistle blowers are important to ensure that governmental 

misconduct is investigated and appropriately addressed. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will endeavor to make certain that employees of the Department of Justice 

and its components are informed of their rights and protections from reprisal when they help 

appropriate individuals identify and prevent misconduct, including through regular review of, 

and if necessary, updates to the policies and procedures of the Department. 

2. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Department and the FBI work with this 

Committee to continue to improve protections for whistleblowers at the FBI? 

RESPONSE: Strong protections for whistleblowers are important to ensure that governmental 

misconduct is investigated and appropriately addressed. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will direct the Department to conduct regular review of its policies and 

procedures related to whistleblower protections, and will work with Congress and with this 

Committee whenever new authorities or changes to the law are necessary to protect 

whistle blowers and prevent governmental misconduct. 

3. If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing any changes the Department makes to its 

policies and procedures in handling FBI whistle blower complaints? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

4. If confirmed, will you provide this committee with regular updates on the Department's 

progress in improving the effectiveness and timeliness of its policies and procedures for 

addressing these claims? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

Improper Handling Restrictions on Committee Documents 

During the course of the Clinton investigation, the FBI provided a document production that was 

largely unclassified but contained some classified material. The production included "handling 

restrictions" on all the unclassified material which prevented necessary staff without a clearance 

from reviewing the unclassified material. These restrictions were never negotiated for, rather the 

FBI unilaterally used them. 

7 
787 

The FBI's action is entirely contrary to the executive order and regulations governing the handling 

of classified information. Under the law, the unclassified material should have been produced 

directly to the Committee, with only a classified addendum submitted to the Office of Senate 

Security. Executive Order 13526 states: 

The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, use a classified addendum 

whenever classified information constitutes a small portion of an otherwise 

unclassified document or prepare a product to allow for dissemination at the lowest level 

of classification possible or in unclassified form. 

Moreover, Section 1.7(a) of Executive order 13526 specifically states: 

In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as 

classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: 

(I) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative 

error; 

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or 

agency; 

(3) prevent or delay the release of information that 

does not require protection in the interest of national 

security. 

Importantly, by definition, unclassified information does not require protection in the interest of 

the national security. And Executive Order 13526 mandates that "in no case" shall it "be 

maintained as classified," which accordingly prohibits FBI's attempt to require the unclassified 

materials to be treated as classified and stored in a SCIF. 

The FBI's actions raise serious Constitutional separation of powers issues when the imposition of 

such document controls interferes with the independent oversight function of the Judiciary 

Committee. 

I. Do you agree that the Legislative Branch has independent and constitutionally based 

oversight powers that provide it the authority to oversee the Executive Branch? 

RESPONSE: Yes. Your continued work to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions 

regardless of party is very important. Ifl am confirmed, I can assure you that the Department 

will respect your constitutional oversight role and the separation of powers between the 

Executive and Legislative branches. 

2. Do you agree that unilateral document controls by the Executive Branch undermine the 

independent and constitutionally based oversight powers of the Legislative Branch? If not, 

why not? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: As a Senator, I understand the important role that congressional oversight plays in 

our system of government. At the same time, the President and his senior officers have a vital 

8 
788 

need to receive candid and confidential advice from those within the Executive Branch, as well 

as to protect other confidential information such as national security and law enforcement 

information from public disclosure. For this reason, both the courts and the political branches 

have recognized that some Executive Branch documents may be privileged from disclosure to 

Congress. Each claim of executive privilege must be carefully evaluated and determined 

individually based upon the specific nature and contents of the documents or communications at 

issue. Although I am aware that past administrations have asserted executive privilege over, for 

example, pre-decisional deliberative materials in response to congressional inquiries, I have not 

studied the specific legal bases for those claims. Where practicable, and as they have many 

times in the past, the Executive Branch and Congress should try in good faith to resolve interbranch disputes regarding executive privilege through negotiation and accommodation. 

3. If confirmed, will you instruct Justice Department employees and its components to 

negotiate in good faith any handling restrictions with the Committee before production? If 

not, why not? 

RESPONSE: Yes, I agree that the Executive Branch and Congress should try in good faith to 

resolve inter-branch disputes regarding handling restrictions through negotiation and 

accommodation, and I would act accordingly. 

9 
789 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HIRONO 

I. During the hearing I asked Senator Sessions whether he would implement the Freedom of 

Access to Clinic Entrances act. He said, "I don't know exactly how threats are worded but if 

it is improperly done, they can be subject to criminal prosecutions and they would be 

evaluated properly in my administration." 

a. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that WANTED posters targeting abortion 

providers, as well as websites listing the addresses and telephone numbers of abortion 

providers and declaring them guilty of crimes against humanity, constitute actionable threats 

under the FACE Act. Do you agree with this ruling by the Ninth Circuit'? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, these providers are entitled to the protection 

of relevant federal law. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

faithfully follow and enforce the law as defined by the courts, including the FACE Act and all 

other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to enforce. 

2. During the hearing I asked Senator Sessions whether he supported "enhanced vetting" of 

people with "extreme views." 

a. How would you characterize what constitutes an extreme view? 

RESPONSE: An example of an extreme view would include those that call for the harming or 

killing those who do not share your religious beliefs. 

b. Do you believe certain religions are more prone to extreme views than others? And if so, 

which ones? 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that individuals across the world in every religion have 

adopted views that could be described as extreme and there are periods in which some religions 

exhibit more extreme and dangerous views than others. 

3. At the hearing I asked if Senator Sessions would commit to maintaining and enforcing the 

consent decrees that the Justice Department has negotiated during the Obama administration. 

You said "those consent decrees remain in force until and if they are changed." You also 

stated" .. .I just wouldn't commit that there would never be any changes in them. And if 

departments have complied or reached other developments that could justifY the withdrawal 

or modification of the consent decree, of course I would do that." 

a. In light of ample empirical evidence showing that consent decrees have been an effective tool 

in addressing police misconduct, do you plan to instruct the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice to continue issuing them?' 
790 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, consent decrees themselves are not 

necessarily bad things, but there are also concerns with the use or overuse of them, and the 

ramifications are deserving of caution. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will exercise caution and my best judgment in determining how and when to use that 

tool. 

b. Absent a showing that a police department has actually achieved full compliance with 

specific provisions of a consent decree or the entirety of a previously-negotiated consent 

decree, will the Department of Justice under your leadership maintain, enforce, and defend 

against proposed changes to that consent decree? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I would not pre-judge a specific case, nor 

would I commit that there would never be any changes to consent decrees that have been entered 

into, particularly if departments have either complied or have made other improvements that 

might justify the withdrawal or modification of the consent decree. 

c. If your answer to the prior question was anything other than yes, please identify all criteria 

you will use to determine whether to maintain, enforce, and defend against changes to an 

existing consent decree entered into between a police department and the Justice Department. 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I would not pre-judge a specific case. If 

departments have either complied or have made other improvements that might justify the 

withdrawal or modification ofthe consent decree, then I would carefully evaluate all of the 

relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether action needs to be taken. 

d. What did you mean by "And if departments have ... reached other developments that could 

justify the withdrawal or modification of the consent decree, of course I would do that"? 

What "other developments could justify the withdrawal or modification" of a consent decree? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I would not pre-judge a specific case. Just as 

each consent decree is unique to each jurisdiction, each case necessarily differs in what 

developments or improvements might justify withdrawal or modification of the consent decree. 

4. During the hearing I cited the current Wells Fargo investigation and asked whether Senator 

Sessions would instruct the Department of Justice to pursue and hold accountable individual 

and corporate wrongdoers who defraud the American consumer. 

a. Do you believe that any financial institutions have a large enough financial impact that the 

Department of Justice would be hindered in any way from holding those institutions and/or 

their executives fully accountable in any case of lawbreaking? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, the duty ofthe Attorney General is to ensure 

that the law is properly and fairly enforced. No matter how wealthy or well-connected, no 

individual or institution is above the law. 

2 
791 

b. If confirmed, if you determine that the size or interconnectedness of any financial institution 

hinders the Department of Justice's ability to hold a bank or its executives accountable, will 

you work with banking regulators to take any necessary remedial action, including requiring 

the institution to divest assets, to ensure that the institution and its executives can be held 

accountable to the full extent of the law? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

c. As you know, many of Wells Fargo's consumer contracts contain provisions that require 

consumers to adjudicate disputes through arbitration, rather than in the court system. Wells 

Fargo has argued for dismissal of numerous consumer lawsuits over the fake account scandal 

based on these provisions. Y au have strongly defended the use of "forced arbitration" 

clauses during your time in the Senate. 1 If confirmed, will you defend rules enacted by 

banking regulators that limit the use of forced arbitration in consumer banking contracts to 

the full extent of the law? 

RESPONSE: I have not devoted significant study to this issue. However, ifi am confirmed, if 

such matters come before the Department of Justice, I will carefully and objectively evaluate the 

facts and circumstances of each case and endeavor to uphold and defend the Constitution in the 

pursuit of justice. 

1 See e.g., https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2000/J/28/senate-section/article/sl81 0-

2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22financial%22%5D%7D&r~5, 

https://www.cuna.org/uploadedFiles/CUNA/Legislative And Regulatory Advocacy/Track Regulatory Issues/Pen 

ding Regulatory Changes/20 16/Congressi on a I %20 Letter"/o20to%20Cordray%20re%20arbitration5b25 d%20( I). pdf 

3 
792 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 24, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HIRONO 

I. In your response to my written question Ia., you indicated that you would "follow and 

enforce the law as defined by the courts, including the FACE Act". The question was 

whether you agree with the 2002 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Planned 

Parenthood of the Columbia!Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F .3d 

I 058, I 062-66 (9th Cir.2002) (en bane)) that "WANTED posters targeting abortion 

providers" constitute actionable threats under the FACE Act. Your position on this 

would be important in jurisdictions where the courts have not made a determination about 

this type of actionable threat against abortion providers, and the Department of Justice 

would have to decide whether to bring an action under the FACE Act. 

a. Do you agree with the decision in the Ninth Circuit? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the opportunity to study this case. Ifi am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will conduct a thorough review of departmental matters 

pending in the courts to ensure the fair administration of justice. I will follow the law and the 

Constitution as defined by the courts. 

b. Would you direct prosecutors to pursue cases under the FACE Act against this type of 

threat jurisdictions where the Ninth Circuit decision is not controlling? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will faithfully follow and enforce federal laws as defined by the courts, 

including the FACE Act and all other federal laws that the Attorney General is authorized to 

enforce. 

2. In your response to my written question 2a., you stated that "An example of an extreme view 

would include those that call for the harming or killing those who do not share your religious 

beliefs." This seems to indicate that there are other views that might also be considered 

"extreme" for the purpose of "enhanced vetting." 

a. Are there other religious views that you would consider extreme? 

RESPONSE: Question 2a. asked "how would you characterize what constitutes an extreme 

view," in the context of"extreme vetting." My answer, which is restated above, merely provided 

an example. I have nothing further to add. 

3. In your response to my written question 2b., you suggested that there is a historical context as 

to whether one religion is more likely to "exhibit more extreme and dangerous views than 

others." 
793 

a. Which U.S. Government official(s) would properly determine whether a view is 

"extreme" or "dangerous" for the purpose of extreme vetting? 

RESPONSE: The administration of our various immigration and visa programs are largely 

within the purview of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. If! 

am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, my role in determining the ability of 

certain individuals to enter the United States will be limited. But in that capacity, I would ensure 

that adequate Department of Justice resources and assets are devoted to supporting the critical 

mission of determining who among the millions who seek to enter the United States pose a threat 

to our safety and security. 

b. How would you ensure that enhanced vetting would not result in impermissible 

profiling or discrimination based on religious views? 

RESPONSE: As I indicated above, the administration of our various immigration and visa 

programs are largely within the purview of the Department of State and the Department of 

Homeland Security. If a question of law arose regarding vetting policies, the Department of 

Justice would provide guidance as to any relevant law or constitutional provision. 

4. In response to my written question 3b., you wrote, "[a]s I testified before the Committee, I 

would not pre-judge a specific case, nor would I commit that there would never be any 

changes to consent decrees that have been entered into, particularly if departments have 

either complied or have made other improvements that might justify the withdrawal or 

modification ofthe consent decree." 

a. In the absence of compliance or improvements made on the part of the parties bound 

by the consent decree, will the Department of Justice under your leadership maintain, 

enforce, and defend against proposed changes to that consent decree? 

RESPONSE: Such determinations would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of 

each case. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions 

regarding any potential changes based upon the facts and the law. That is what I always did as a 

United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General. 

b. In 2008, you wrote that consent decrees "constitute an end run around the democratic 

process."1 Given your hostility to consent decrees and your refusal to provide 

assurances that you will maintain, enforce, and defend against changes to an existing 

consent decree entered into between a police department and the Justice Department, 

how can this Committee be confident that those decrees are safe from premature 

changes? 

RESPONSE: I reject the assertion that I am hostile to consent decrees. The foreword I penned 

clearly states that "consent decrees are, and will remain, an important part ofthe settlement of 

litigation in America." It continues: "important improvements ... can be made to the process." 

1 http://www .alabamapolicy .orglwp-content/up loads/ API-Research-Consent-Decrees. pdf 

2 
794 

As I have not studied any of the consent decrees to which the Department is currently a party, 

nor have I been privy to the negotiations, and because the facts and circumstances of each vary 

dramatically, I cannot offer further comment. 

c. During the hearing, you said that consent decrees are "not necessarily a bad 

thing." Can you please provide a situation in which you would consider a consent 

decree a "bad thing"? 

RESPONSE: I provided an example in the foreword referenced here. When I became Attorney 

General, the State was bound by a consent decree because my predecessor entered into an 

agreement, which I believed violated the state constitution. I opposed this action, and my 

position was ultimately approved by the Eleventh Circuit. 

d. Under what circumstances would you oppose a consent decree regarding allegations 

of police misconduct? 

RESPONSE: Such determinations would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of 

each case. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions 

regarding any potential changes based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with established 

procedures of the Department. That is what I always did as a United States Attorney, and it is 

what I will insist upon if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. 

5. In response to my written question 4c., you responded, "I have not devoted significant 

study to this issue. However, if! am confirmed, if such matters come before the 

Department of Justice, I will carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and 

circumstances of each case and endeavor to uphold and defend the Constitution in the 

pursuit of justice." 

a. As I noted in written question 4c., you strongly defended the use of "forced 

arbitration" clauses during your time in the Senate, including in a statement on the 

floor of the Senate.2 Please provide any sources you relied upon in preparing 

your remarks on the Senate floor. 

RESPONSE: While I cannot recall the sources relied on in the 17 -year-old speech referenced in 

the above question-which were likely relied on by staff-! would note that the text of the 

speech references an Alabama law firm's newsletter and also mentions that a number of groups 

had raised concerns about the legislation mentioned in the speech, which I said should be 

"explored more fully." I also noted that "the arbitration process must be fair." In fact, I proposed 

and filed legislation to ensure the arbitration process was fair for all. 

6. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has studied the issue of forced arbitration in 

an extensive report to congress. The report is available here: 

http:/ifiles.consumerfinance.gov/f/20 1503 cfpb arbitration-studv-report-to-congress2015.pdf 

2 https://www .congress.gov /congressional-record/2000/3/28/senate-section/article/s 181 0-

2?q~% 7B%22search%22%3A %5B%22financial%22%5D%7D&r=5 

3 
795 

a. Given the information in this report, does that change your response to question 

4c: "If confirmed, will you defend rules enacted by banking regulators that limit 

the use of forced arbitration in consumer banking contracts to the full extent of the 

law? 

RESPONSE: In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in 

the contract document, including an arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the 

basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years. If the contract was obtained 

through exploitation, fraud or coercion, then the consequences of those actions, whether 

under contract law or criminal law, would apply. Acceptable arbitration provisions in 

contracts should be conducted fairly and, in the past, I have offered detailed legislation to 

ensure fairness. 

4 
796 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR 

Synthetic Drugs 

Synthetic drugs continue to be a major nationwide problem. Part of the problem is that sellers of 

these dangerous drugs have managed to find loopholes in the law, often avoiding detection by 

disguising their products and labeling them as "not for human consumption." 

• Can you comment on this issue, and will you commit to addressing the sale and 

distribution of synthetic drugs as Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: You raise an important point about a very serious problem facing our country. 

Synthetic versions of illicit drugs are often used as a way to circumvent drug laws and 

enforcement efforts, and many of these synthetics are marketed directly to young people, 

sometimes in colorful packaging and offered for sale in legitimate businesses. Synthetic or 

not, the addiction and adverse health effects caused by these drugs are real. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully execute the laws of the United 

States, and I will work with Congress to find solutions to these problems and loopholes. 

High Intensitv Drug Trafficking Area (HIDT A) Designation for Five Minnesota Counties 

The deadly opioid abuse and heroin epidemic has devastated communities in Minnesota and 

across the country. Until recently, Minnesota was one of the only states without a designated 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDT A). This program, which was established in 1988, is 

intended to reduce drug trafficking by facilitating cooperation and information sharing among 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Although the HIDT A program is administered 

by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) plays an active role in supporting the program. 

• As Attorney General, would you continue to support the important work being done by 

the HIDT A program? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

• After I wrote a letter to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in August 

2016, five Minnesota counties (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Dakota, and Washington) 

were included in the Wisconsin HIDT A designation. It is important to me that the five 

Minnesota counties receive meaningful funding through this designation. If you are 

confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to looking into this issue? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 
797 

Drug Courts 

Drug courts are a proven and effective tool to help non-violent offenders receive the treatment 

they need, while also saving taxpayers money and reducing crime. I have led efforts to advocate 

for funding for these important programs in the Senate. I understand that you brought the first 

expert on drug courts to Alabama in the early 1980s in an effort that led to the establishment of 

the Mobile County Drug Court. 

• Will you commit to continuing your support of drug courts if you are confirmed as 

Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: Drug courts can be a very effective tool for helping non-violent drug users 

receive treatment that they need, and I am proud of my work in this area. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, 1 will continue to support the appropriate use of 

drug courts. 

Antitrust: Platform Competition 

As Ranking Member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have heard complaints that the internet is 

now dominated by a small number of companies that serve as platforms for the digital economy 

similar to the way railroads did a century ago. Others argue that these companies remain 

integral to creating opportunities for start-up businesses to grow and succeed. 

• What should the Antitrust Division be doing to ensure that digital markets remain open 

and competitive? 

RESPONSE: It is important that the Antitrust Division have a thorough understanding of 

emerging markets and new technologies. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, the 

Antitrust Division will not hesitate to enforce federal antitrust law to protect competition in 

these markets. 

Antitrust: Anheuser-Busch 1nBev's Acquisition of SABMiller 

Recently, the Department of Justice filed its consent decree regarding Anheuser-Busch's 

acquisition of SABMiller. Conditions that protect beer wholesaler independence and that require 

Anheuser-Busch to report its acquisitions of craft brewers are critical to protecting the vital 

competition and innovation that craft brewers have provided the market 

• Will you commit to vigorously enforcing the terms of the consent decree to protect 

competition and to carefully review any additional consolidation in the beer industry, 

including the acquisition of craft brewers by large national or international competitors? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, if I am confirmed, I would have no 

hesitation enforcing antitrust laws to protect against anti-competitive transactions. The 

Antitrust Division will look at all markets to ensure compliance with federal antitrust law. It 

will conduct a thorough evaluation of proposed mergers and acquisitions to determine 

2 
798 

whether they violate federal antitrust law. I look forward to working with you and other 

members of Congress to learn more about these particular issues and to ensure that the 

Department has the information and tools it needs to carry out its duties in antitrust 

enforcement. 

Antitrust: Agricultural Consolidation 

Currently, both E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company merger with the Dow Chemical 

Company and Bayer AG's acquisition of Monsanto Company, Inc., are under review by the 

Department of Justice. Minnesota is the nation's fifth-largest agricultural producing state, and 

our farmers contribute nearly $21 billion to Minnesota's economy each year. I have heard 

concerns that each merger could undermine incentives to develop new traits and to license 

technology, that the Dow-DuPont merger could increase prices for corn seeds and soybean seeds, 

and that Bayer's acquisition of Monsanto could excessively increase concentration for certain 

types of herbicides. 

• Will you commit to closely examining these transactions to make sure they do not harm 

farmers, limit innovation, or increase seed prices? 

RESPONSE: While it would be premature to comment or commit specifically on any 

matters currently being reviewed by the Department, if I am confirmed as Attorney General, 

the Antitrust Division will conduct a thorough evaluation, consistent with federal law, of all 

proposed mergers and acquisitions to determine whether they violate federal antitrust law and 

policies. The agricultural sector of our nation's economy is of vital importance, and I look 

forward to working with you and other members of Congress to learn more about these 

particular issues and to ensure that the Department has the information and tools it needs to 

carry out its duties in antitrust enforcement. 

National Voter Registration Act CNVRA) 

Another responsibility of DOl's Voting Section is to enforce the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA), or the "motor voter law." Many states do not comply with the voter access provisions 

ofthe bipartisan NVRA, and, to date, DOJ has not been particularly active in enforcing these 

provisions. 

• If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to active enforcement of 

Sections 5 and 7 of the NVRA, which, respectively, require states to provide voter 

registration opportunities at DMVs and at state public assistance and disability offices? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, 

including the National Voter Registration Act. 

• Another important section of the NVRA is Section 8, which sets requirements for how 

states maintain voter registration lists for federal elections. What role, if any, do you 

believe DOJ has in enforcing Section 8 of the NVRA, to purge duplicate registrations or 

3 
799 

registrations of deceased voters from the rolls? What protections do you believe are 

required to ensure that legitimate voters are not inappropriately purged from the rolls? 

RESPONSE: As 1 testified before the Committee, the intensity of every election must be 

monitored and it is a responsibility of the government to ensure its integrity. This includes 

the Department of Justice's responsibility to enforce all federal voting laws, including all 

sections of the national Voter Registration Act. 

Freedom of the Press 

In your hearing, I asked you if you would commit to following the standards now in place at the 

Justice Department to not put reporters in jail for doing their jobs. You responded that you did 

not know and "had not studied those regulations." 

• Upon further consideration, will you commit to not putting reporters in jail for doing their 

jobs? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the occasion to study the outgoing Administration's regulations 

on this matter. If 1 am confirmed as Attorney General, I would discuss this matter with the 

Justice Department's career experts before making any decision to maintain or modify the 

current regulations. I would note, however, that the existing regulations did not prevent the 

outgoing Administration from aggressively investigating and prosecuting a larger-thannormal number of leak cases. Leaks of classified information can be damaging to U.S. 

national security, and can also violate the federally-protected rights of other federal 

employees-for example, in cases where restricted information from an individual's 

personnel file is leaked to the press. In some cases, the only way to investigate wrongdoing 

is by subpoena. Such subpoenas to reporters, however, raise concerns about intimidation or 

restriction of the press. A free press plays a vital role in ensuring the accountability of 

powerful institutions in our society. For these reasons, I support Justice Department caution 

when contemplating the use of a subpoena to obtain material from a journalist. 

Immigration 

Research has shown that not only do immigrants already help grow the size of the economy for 

all Americans, but, according to one study, immigration reform would increase the wages of all 

Americans by $625 billion over a decade and create on average 145,000 new jobs each year. 

According to another recent study, immigrants contributed $22.4 billion to Minnesota's GDP, 

totaling 7.5 percent of the state's GOP in 2012. Immigrants also own 8.5 percent of businesses in 

the Minneapolis-St. Paul region alone. 

• When I raised the issue of the economic benefits of immigration in your hearing, you 

said, "I think as a nation, we should evaluate immigration on whether or not it serves and 

advances the national interest, not the corporate interest." Can you elaborate on this 

statement? Do you believe that immigration benefits the U.S. economy? 

4 
800 

RESPONSE: Immigration can benefit the U.S. economy; but excessive labor flow will 

depress wages and job prospects of U.S. workers. 

National Security I Extremist Activities 

Protecting national security should always be a top priority of the Justice Department. ln the 

Twin Cities, extremist recruitment has been a particular challenge. I was pleased that, in 2014, 

the Twin Cities were among three metropolitan areas selected for a pilot program to counter 

violent extremism run by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Our local 

community groups, faith leaders, U.S. Attorney, and law enforcement have partnered together to 

create a program called Building Community Resilience. I have repeatedly asked for the 

strongest possible level of funding for these efforts. 

• While much of the funding made available to this program has been through the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ) has also 

provided funding in the past. Will you commit to supporting efforts like this to counter 

extremist recruitment as Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I would be pleased to receive and 

review information concerning efforts that are effective at steering individuals away from 

extremist ideologies that have led to acts of terrorism. It will ensure that the resources of the 

Department of Justice and our partnerships with state and local law enforcement are utilized in 

a way that will ensure public safety and full enforcement ofthe law while being effectively 

managed. 

In Minnesota, we know that law enforcement must partner with community leaders to build trust 

and put in place the programs that can guard against extremist recruiting efforts. Our U.S. 

Attorney Andy Luger has prosecuted dozens ofterrorism cases and brought together community 

leaders working to address extremism. In addition, community groups are engaging populations 

that ISIS seeks to exploit and providing much-needed social services to communities that are 

underserved. 

• If you are confirmed, how would you work to support programs like the one in Minnesota 

that seek to strengthen trust between law enforcement and communities? 

RESPONSE: Effective engagement of state and local law enforcement, and supporting their 

outreach efforts in communities, is absolutely critical to protecting all Americans. If I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that the resources of the 

Department of Justice and our partnerships with state and local law enforcement are utilized in 

a way that will ensure public safety and full enforcement of the law. 

5 
801 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEAHY 

1. At your hearing, I asked you several questions about your opposition to these two bills. 

With respect to VA W A, you stated "a number of people opposed some of the provisions in 

that bill." You mentioned specifically the tribal victims provision. 

a. Did you also oppose the new protections for LGBT Americans? 

RESPONSE: My principal concerns about the 2013 VA W A reauthorization centered on the 

tribal jurisdiction provision. The 2013 Act also includes a provision that prohibits recipients 

of federal grants (such as women's domestic-violence shelters) from discriminating on the 

basis of, among other things, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This provision 

includes an exception that a grantee may carry out sex segregation or sex-specific 

programming if it can show that such programming is "necessary to the essential operation 

of a program," and if it provides comparable services to individuals who cannot be provided 

with sex-segregated or sex-specific programming. My and other Senators' concerns about 

this provision centered on the fact that, on its face, its broad prohibition would appear to 

preclude operation of a women-only (or women and children-only) domestic violence 

shelter, and the Act's exception to this prohibition appears narrow and is unclear. Although 

a woman who has been the victim of violence at the hands of a husband or boyfriend may be 

better served by services that are provided outside the presence of men, it is unclear whether 

a women's domestic-violence shelter would be able to meet the Act's requirement that it 

show that providing women-only services is "necessary to the essential operation" ofthe 

shelter. I believe that, in some circumstances, it is appropriate for VA W A grant recipients to 

provide services that are limited to women. To the extent that VA WA 2013's new antidiscrimination provision is construed to, for example, prevent or make it difficult for a 

women's domestic violence shelter to provide services that it believes should be limited only 

to women, I continue to have serious reservations about that provision. In the past, I have 

received strong objections from a respected women and children's shelter on this very issue. 

I asked if you would defend the law's constitutionality, and you did not provide a full answer. 

You said only that you would "if it is reasonably defensible." 

b. Do you believe the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VA W A Reauthorization, including its LGBT 

and tribal victims' provisions, is "reasonably defensible"? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, 

including the 20 13 reauthorization of VA W A. I understand that a pilot program has been 

initiated that seeks to conform tribes' exercise of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the 

requirements of the Sixth Amendment. I will carefully study this program before reaching 

any final legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal jurisdiction provision. 
802 

Sexual assault and other violent crime on Indian reservations are very serious problems-in 

some places, the problem has reached epidemic proportions. The federal government 

exercises criminal jurisdiction over many Indian reservations. If I am confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will be committed to ensuring that federal law-enforcement resources are fully 

deployed to investigate and prosecute crime on federal reservations, and will request 

additional resources where existing resources are inadequate. Finally, I would note that on 

many Indian reservations, state and local authorities exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and 

local law-enforcement resources greatly exceed those of federal and tribal governments 

combined. On the exclusively federal reservations where federal law enforcement has 

proved to be inadequate to reduce high levels of violent crime, Congress may consider 

allowing state and local authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction. State and local law 

enforcement has proven effective on many existing Indian reservations, and the extension of 

such criminal jurisdiction to both Indians and non-Indians in Indian country does not offend 

constitutional guarantees. 

At your hearing, I asked about your statement that my hate crimes amendment "has been said 

to cheapen the civil rights movement." 

c. What did you mean by that? Do you believe that the Matthew Shepard and James 

Bvrd Jr. Hate Crimes Preyention Act "cheapen[ed] the civil rights movement"? 

RESPONSE: In a statement on the Senate floor on July 20, 2009, I outlined my opposition 

to the Act. Early in the speech, I stated that "the hate crimes amendment ... has been said 

to cheapen the civil rights movement." Those were not my words. However, I did note 

concerns about the variances in approach to the historic civil rights laws and the hate crimes 

legislation, and went on to outline those concerns. Regardless of my position then, the Act 

is now federal law and if! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

enforce it and all other federal laws. 

2. As Attorney General you would be charged with overseeing the Office of Violence Against 

Women. This Office is a component of the Justice Department, and was developed to reduce 

violence against women by prosecuting acts of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 

assault, and stalking. This office provides 24 separate grant programs that support law 

enforcement, state and tribal coalitions, non-profit organizations, and institutions of higher 

education to serve survivors and hold offenders accountable. 

Will you commit to preserving these critical grant programs and to ensure they receive 

the funding they need so that the Office can effectively carry out its mission? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will ensure that these programs, and the funds made 

available by Congress, are fully employed in the most effective manner possible in 

furtherance of their stated missions. 

3. The Attorney General has delegated authority to the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, which oversees our country's immigration courts and the Board of Immigration 

2 
803 

Appeals. In recent years, developments in immigration law have led to a recognition that 

domestic violence can serve as the basis for an asylum claim. These cases often involve 

immigrant women who have endured severe abuse at the hands oftheir partner and would be 

placed in danger if returned to their home country. But asylum continues to be denied to 

many of them. 

If confirmed as Attorney General, will you commit to protecting victims of domestic 

violence who fear being returned to their home countries? 

RESPONSE: Should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully enforce all federal 

laws, including those regarding domestic violence. It is my understanding is that if an 

individual receives relief from removal under the laws of the United States, then they will not 

be removed from the United States. 

4. We have heard a lot in the last two months about the President-elect's business and 

financial holdings, and how he and his family might personally benefit from his decisions as 

President. This raises extremely troubling issues with respect to conflicts of interest, the 

STOCK Act, and the Emoluments Clause ofthe Constitution. 

I understand that you plan to divest some of your holdings if you are confirmed to be Attorney 

General. You also stated in your questionnaire that you have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and "will follow their guidance" on conflicts of interest. 

a. Should the President-elect follow your example and heed the Office of Government 

Ethics' guidance and divest from assets that might create a conflict of interest? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied the issue in this context and am not familiar with the 

details of the President's business and financial holdings as they relate to these issues. 

Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If confirmed as 

Attorney General, I would provide legal advice on such matters only after examining the 

relevant facts and circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of Legal 

Counsel and any other component of the Department having expertise bearing on such 

matters. 

b. If President-elect Trump does not follow the guidance of the Office of Government 

Ethics, what steps will you take to ensure that the new administration eliminates its 

conflicts of interest? Will you recuse yourself from conflicts of interest charges against 

the President-elect or members of his family? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide legal advice on such matters 

only after examining the relevant facts and circumstances presented, and consulting with the 

Office of Legal Counsel and any other component ofthe Department having expertise bearing 

on such matters. I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific 

matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

3 
804 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

In a hearing early last year, Senator Tillis raised a question about the Emoluments Clause, 

which states that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States] shall, 

without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title ... from 

any king, prince, or foreign state." He and Chairman Grassley both followed up with Attorney 

General Lynch on the issue. The question was whether the receipt of any payment "from a 

foreign government or an instrumentality of a foreign government" by a spouse of an executive 

branch officer violated the Constitution. Such questions are even more pressing when it is the 

constitutional officer himself who is receiving such payments. 

c. If the President-elect does not fully divest, does the rent paid by the Industrial and 

Commercial Bank of China to the President-elect for space at Trump Tower in New York 

raise concerns vis a vis the Emoluments Clause? The Bank, which is owned by the 

Chinese government, is according to news reports the largest tenant in Trump Tower. 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and the 

answer would depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances. I am not aware of the 

details of any of the arrangements in the case of Trump Tower and the lease in question. 

Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion. 

d. If the President-elect does not fully divest, does money paid by the embassies of various 

foreign governments for the use of event space or lodging at the President-elect's hotel here 

in Washington raise concerns vis a vis the Emoluments Clause? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and the 

answer would depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances. Therefore, I am not 

in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If confirmed as Attorney General, I 

would provide legal advice on such matters only after examining the relevant facts and 

circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel and any other 

component of the Department having expertise bearing on such matters. 

A 2009 Office of Legal Counsel opinion found that the Emoluments Clause "surely" applies to 

the president. As Justice Alito explained when he served in that office in 1986, the Clause is 

intended to minimize "the potential for 'corruption and foreign influence."' It was good to hear 

you state at your hearing, in response to Senator Blumenthal, that the Clause does apply to the 

President. 

e. What is the Justice Department's role in enforcing the Emoluments Clause? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I will take all appropriate actions in the 

course of my duties, including providing legal advice upon request, to ensure that office 

holders comply with their constitutional obligations. While I am not aware of a federal law 

that directly charges the Department of Justice with enforcing the Emoluments Clause, the 

4 
805 

Department is charged with enforcing conflicts of interest provisions under the U.S. Code, 

such as those under 18 U.S.C. § 207, and I will enforce the laws that demand my action. 

f. Who would have standing to bring a case regarding the Emoluments Clause? Do states 

have standing to enforce it? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of any cases in which the Foreign Emoluments Clause has 

presented a justiciable issue, and I am unable to answer that question in the abstract. The 

Supreme Court has set forth the test for Article III standing in Lujan v. Defonders of Wildlife, 

504 U.S. 555 (1992), and subsequent cases. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, and a 

case presents itself involving the Emoluments Clause, the Department of Justice would, I 

believe, apply that test in connection with the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 

The President-elect has tried to minimize the potential conflicts of interest presented by his 

business interests by stating that his children will run the Trump Organization. Yet he has 

refused to give up his stake in the company, which does business with countless organizations 

and individuals tied to foreign governments. Ethics experts have declared that these conflicts of 

interest will not be resolved as long as the President-elect maintains a financial stake in his 

companies. 

g. When the President bas a personal financial stake in the policies and trade deals his 

administration pursues, doesn't that pose a conflict of interest? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, and the 

answer would depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances, which do not exist at 

this time. Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If 

confirmed as Attorney General, I would provide legal advice on such matters only after 

examining the relevant facts and circumstances presented, and consulting with the Office of 

Legal Counsel and any other component of the Department having expertise bearing on such 

matters. 

h. If President-elect Trump fails to fully divest, how will the American public know if the 

President is making a decision to benefit America, or to make himself or his family more 

money? 

RESPONSE: The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study. Therefore, 

I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. However, President Trump has 

stated that he will comply with his legal ethical obligations, and in fact, that he will take 

additional steps beyond what may be required under the Constitution. 

i. Doesn't the public interest demand full financial disclosure and divestment? 

RESPONSE: As required by law, President Trump released a financial disclosure form that 

is available to the public, which I have not studied. It is also my understanding that 

President Trump has taken steps to isolate himself from his business interests and to devote 

5 
806 

himself fully to the duties of the presidential office. 

Even if Mr. Trump fully divests himself from the Trump Organization and his children take full 

control of it, the problems do not go away. His children have taken an active role in the 

transition, and anything that benefits them will of course benefit their father. 

k. Should President-elect Trump's children participate in government policy discussions 

or meetings with foreign governments while they are also running or maintaining a stake 

in the Trump Organization? Does participation by President-elect Trump's children or 

other family members in his administration raise concerns about possible violations of 

anti-nepotism laws? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied this issue and am unable to provide even an informal legal 

opinion regarding a hypothetical situation involving the prudence or legality of a family 

member's participation in discussions or meetings. The answer to that question would 

depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances, which do not exist at this time. 

Last month former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued that "traditional rules don't work" and 

that Congress should change existing ethics laws in order to accommodate the incoming 

President. These laws exist to ensure that public officials are focused on serving the public, and 

not on enriching themselves. 

I. Do you agree with Speaker Gingrich that we should weaken our ethics laws to 

accommodate the President-elect? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with Speaker Gingrich's comments or the context in which 

they were made and am unable to comment on this. 

5. While serving as Attorney General of Alabama, you attempted to vacate a consent decree 

that successfully reformed Alabama's child welfare system, turning it from "dysfunctional" to a 

national model, according to the New York Times. When you filed your motion to vacate the 

decree, you alleged that your predecessor and the client agency had colluded and engaged in 

"fraud upon the court." I am troubled that you made this allegation when the court "found no 

evidence" that "any party actively misled or deceived the Court." If confirmed as Attorney 

General, you will be tasked with representing the federal government in court, and you will have 

to defend not only laws you voted against, but administrative actions taken by prior 

administrations that you disagree with. 

a. Is it common for an attorney to accuse their client of collusion and fraud? Do you 

believe that such accusations are consistent with an attorney's obligation to provide 

zealous advocacy on behalf of his or her client? 

RESPONSE: As the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, I represented the Executive 

branch of the State government. However, I had a duty to the people of the State to uphold 

and defend the State Constitution and the laws of the State. The duties of the Attorney 

6 
807 

General require that settlements and decrees are properly entered into and are not violative of 

law. I would also note that it is common for a successor administration to have a different 

view from the preceding administration on whether agreements to settle cases should have 

been made and whether they should be continued. 

b. Is it appropriate for an attorney, let alone an Attorney General, to make accusations 

of fraud in court without evidence to support the claim? 

RESPONSE: As the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, I believed then and I believe 

now that all applications to courts by my office were made on the basis of evidence. A trier 

of fact or law can, and often does, come to different conclusions based upon the set of facts 

presented by both sides in a dispute. 

Even the judge in this case said, "If the Court were to speculate, it would guess that political 

gamesmanship played perhaps the biggest role in determining the timing of this challenge. What 

was convenient and beneficial for one administration has saddled its successor with serious 

obligations with which it would rather not comply." 

c. Given this criticism, what steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that you make 

decisions as Attorney General only on the basis of law rather than your own ideology? 

RESPONSE: If I am confirmed, I will enforce the laws as passed by Congress. 

6. In the past year, four people, including a newborn baby, have died in the jail run by 

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, and according to news reports the Department of Justice is 

considering opening an investigation into that jail. The Sheriff's office issued a statement that 

essentially says he is counting on you as Attorney General to quash any investigation into the 

conditions at the jail. 

Did you campaign for Mr. Trump with Sheriff Clarke, or have any other interaction with 

him in the last year? If so, please describe them. If so, will you recuse yourself from any 

Justice Department investigation of that jail or of Sheriff Clarke? 

RESPONSE: Yes, Sheriff Clarke and I crossed paths on the campaign trail from time to 

time. I have no knowledge of any such investigations. If a specific matter arose where I 

believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department 

ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. 

7. Traditionally, the Attorney General and the Department's Office of Legal Policy have 

had a significant role in the selection of judicial nominees. Unprecedented obstruction in 

the Senate has resulted in 108 current vacancies, including the vacancy on the Supreme 

Court to which Merrick Garland was nominated and should have been confirmed last year. 

a. What will be your role in the Trump administration with respect to judicial 

nominations? 

7 
808 

RESPONSE: Although I have not discussed this with the President, I expect that, consistent 

with prior Administrations, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy will provide 

support to the President in his selection of judicial nominees and will assist in shepherding 

them through the nomination process. 

I am concerned that your record on nominations does not indicate any efforts at diversity. You 

failed to return the blue slip for Kenneth Simon, and failed to return the blue slip for Judge 

Kallon, who would have been the first African American judge to fill an Alabama seat on the 

Eleventh Circuit. Moreover, each of the ten Bush-nominated judges confirmed to seats in 

Alabama was white. Just three African Americans have ever served on the federal bench in 

Alabama. Over the past eight years, President Obama has made judicial diversity a priority, and 

has made significant progress in ensuring the federal bench reflects the Nation it serves. 

b. If confirmed, will you and the incoming administration commit to continuing this 

work, and putting forward nominees who represent a breadth of racial, religious, and 

professional backgrounds? 

RESPONSE: I expect the President to nominate qualified individuals who will apply the 

laws as written and adhere to the Constitution. 

I supported Judge Kallon's nomination to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Alabama in 2009 and worked to assist his confirmation. As you know, Senators 

exercise a more exacting review for nominees to the circuit courts, which I never had the 

opportunity to do in this case. I participated in negotiations with Senator Shelby and the 

White House in an attempt to move a diverse group of nominations for Alabama but those 

negotiations did not conclude. 

As you may recall, ten of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees were not 

confirmed and were returned at the end of his Administration. Of note, Judge William Smith 

was nominated to the First Circuit on December 6, 2007, and was rated "Well Qualified" by 

the American Bar Association (ABA), but neither Senator Reed nor Senator Whitehouse 

returned blue slips on his nomination, citing the need to conduct a "through and independent 

review" of his record and stating: "Before giving someone a lifetime appointment to the 

federal bench we need to carefully review their record." 1 Previously, Senator Whitehouse 

had suggested in September 2007 that it was too late in the president's term to consider a 

nomination to the First Circuit. Also notable is the nomination of Mr. Shalom Stone to the 

Third Circuit on July 17, 2007. He was rated "Substantial Majority Qualified/Minority Well 

Qualified" by the ABA, but neither Senator Lautenberg nor Senator Menendez returned blue 

slips on his nomination. Similarly, U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein was nominated to the 

Fourth Circuit on November 15, 2007, and was rated "Unanimous Well Qualified" by the 

ABA, but neither Senator Cardin nor Senator Mikulski returned blue slips on his nomination. 

1 John Mulligan and G. Wayne Miller, "Bush selects Smith for U.S. appeals court," The Providence Journal, Dec. 7, 

2007. 

8 
809 

As a Senator and a member of this Committee for 20 years, you are very familiar with the blue 

slip and the role that home state Senators play in judicial selection. You used the blue slip to 

block the nominations of Kenneth Simon and Abdul Kallon. But the blue slip also guarantees 

the constitutional role of advise and consent as a check against presidential power, and ensure 

that the Senate is not a mere rubber stamp. Chairman Grass ley recently reiterated his support for 

the blue slip and his intent to keep the current policy- that nominees will not move forward 

without two positive blue slips- in place. 

c. If confirmed, will you continue to support this policy, even if it means nominations 

made by the President-elect do not receive a hearing? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, my role will be different than has been as a 

U.S. Senator serving on the Judiciary Committee. Decisions on committee and Senate 

process will be the responsibility of members of the Senate. 

During the previous Republican administration, many Senators were concerned that the 

administration circumvented its traditional role of making recommendations for judgeships and 

instead effectively outsourced the process to right-wing legal groups. 

d. Will you and the incoming administration commit to preserving the rights of home 

state Senators, and work with alllOO of us to find consensus nominees to serve on our 

independent judiciary? 

RESPONSE: I expect the President to nominate qualified individuals who will apply the 

laws properly and adhere to the Constitution. I have no reason to expect that the Trump 

Administration will deviate from precedent set by prior administrations in consulting with 

home state Senators when selecting judicial nominees. 

8. When evaluating President Clinton and President Obama's judicial and executive branch 

nominees, you often asked questions based on nominees' associations with particular groups 

and organizations, particularly if nominees had been members of organizations such as the 

ACLU. For example, when opposing Judge Susan Mollway, you said: 

"I know all of us are active in various activities. And I think it is appropriate that we be asked 

about those activities when we are nominated for a position like this ... I am certain that as a 

board member she did not sign those pleadings, and maybe did not personally conduct in-depth 

research. In fact, I think she suggested she has not researched each one of these issues. But I 

think it is appropriate for us to ask about those positions" 

You concluded that this organization held views that were "outside the mainstream." You noted 

that "when asked at our confirmation hearing ifthere were any policy positions of the Hawaii 

ACLU that she disagreed with" this nominee did not name any, and you argued this was "a 

sufficient basis ... to have a serious concern" about the nomination. 

I have grave concerns regarding organizations with which you have been involved. 

9 
810 

In 20\4, you accepted the "Daring the Odds" award from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called David Horowitz an "anti-Muslim 

extremist" and has an extensive and detailed profile of Mr. Horowitz's racist and repugnant 

remarks against Muslims, Arabs, and African-Americans. 

In your hearing, you stated to Senator Blumenthal with regard to Mr. Horowitz that"! am not 

aware of everything he has ever said or not." You also defended your association with him by 

saying "I am not aware of those comments, and I do not believe David Horowitz is a racist or a 

person that would treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge." Now you have had the 

opportunity to learn more about the extremist remarks Mr. Horowitz has made. 

For example, Mr. Horowitz has repeatedly claimed that the United States government has been 

infiltrated by Muslims. He has referred to Muslims as "Islamic Nazis" who "want to kill Jews, 

that's their agenda." 

a. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has said "Obama is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, 

he certainly isn't a Christian .... He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend 

American." 

b. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has even claimed that Muslims have "infiltrated" the Republican Party, and that 

"Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim." 

c. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Given statements like those, it's not shocking that Mr. Horowitz was cited in the manifesto 

written by Norway terrorist Andres Breivik. Mr. Breivik killed 77 people in a 20 II attack that 

was inspired by his belief that Muslims were taking over Europe. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): First, I am not a board member or even a member of this 

organization. The judicial nominees I questioned were active members of the ACLU and 

some held offices such as chair of a litigation committee. I then respectfully asked the 

nominee if they shared the ACLU's position, the organization of which they were a member 

or officer, on issues such as drug legislation, child pornography, and the like. As I recall, I 

have voted for many nominees who were affiliated with the ACLU. I believe that all of us 

have a responsibility to work for harmony and not discord. While I do not hold the views that 

these questions attribute to Mr. Horowitz, I have no knowledge of whether he actually said the 

remarks or in what context. 

d. Other than that award, have you had any involvement with that organization? Has all 

such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

10 
811 

RESPONSE: The Annie Taylor "Daring the Odds" award to which this question refers was 

listed on my original Questionnaire on page 4, fifth from the bottom of the page. My limited 

involvement with the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Restoration Weekend is disclosed 

in my Questionnaire. A number of prominent people have received that award or spoken at 

events sponsored by Mr. Horowitz, including Senators Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Joe 

Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham, former Mayor of Washington D.C. Adrian Fenty, women's 

rights advocate Gloria Allred, civil rights activist and president of Operation Hope, John 

Bryant, and Governors George W. Bush, George Voinovich, Tim Pawlenty, and Sam 

Brownback. I have spoken at the Weekend or participated in several panel discussions over 

the years. I am not aware of any other involvement with the Freedom Center. 

In 2015, you received the "Keeper of the Flame" award from the Center for Security Policy. The 

Center for Security Policy has been strongly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, and is 

considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

In 2011, its founder, Frank Gaffney, was banned from the Conservative Political Action 

Conference (CPAC) because, in the words of one board member, "they didn't want to be 

associated with a crazy bigot." Among his disgraceful statements, Mr. Gaffney has said that the 

two Muslims in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, have "longstanding 

Muslim Brotherhood ties." 

e. CP AC did not want to be associated with a "crazy bigot," but you accepted an award 

from him in 2015. Do you condemn Mr. Gaffney's remarks and his insinuation that the 

two Muslim Congressmen are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? 

RESPONSE: I have not and will not associate myself with any racially insensitive or 

discriminatory remarks made by anyone. I have no knowledge of the information on which 

CP AC relied in forming their opinion of the gentleman in question. 

f. Do you believe it is acceptable for the Attorney General to associate with Mr. Gaffney 

and his extremist organization? 

RESPONSE: No government official should lend the prestige of his or her office to any 

individual or organization that does not reflect American values. 

g. Mr. Gaffney has complained about Somali refugees holding jobs in the meat processing 

industry, saying "it kind of creeps me out that they are getting jobs in the food supply of 

the United States." Do you condemn that statement? 

h. Mr. Gaffney argued that a Muslim member of Congress should not be allowed to serve 

on the House Intelligence Committee because of his "extensive personal and political 

associations with ... jihadist infrastrncture in America." Do you condemn that remark? 

i. Mr. Gaffney has said of President Obama that it is an "increasingly indisputable fact 

that this president is providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And that is 

II 
812 

the definition, as you know, of treason." Do you condemn the offensive allegation that 

President Obama is a traitor? 

RESPONSE to (g)- (i): While I do not hold the views that this question attributes to Mr. 

Gaffney, I have no knowledge of whether he actually said these remarks or in what context. 

j. Other than that award, have you had any involvement with that organization or with 

Mr. Gaffney? Has all such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

RESPONSE: My involvement has been disclosed in my Questionnaire to the best of my 

recollection. In addition, my staff and I conducted a review of my own files, searches of 

publicly available electronic databases, and consultation with the Senate Library, the 

Congressional Research Service, and relevant committee libraries and historical offices 

within the Senate. In an effort to be as responsive as possible, my staff also conducted 

further review of existing files from the era, including historical archives maintained in 

electronic research databases such as LexisNexis, WestLaw, and ProQuest, public search 

engines, and Internet archive services that maintain records ofwebsites that no longer exist. 

Additionally, as records from my time as United States Attorney and Attorney General of the 

State of Alabama existed before the proliferation ofthe Internet and before electronic storage 

was as readily available as it is today, most of those records do not exist in any electronic 

databases of which I am aware, and my staff and I consulted with the Alabama Attorney 

General's Office and with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 

Alabama to locate archived files from my time in those offices. All responsive records 

identified or located as a result of these searches were submitted to the Committee. 

President-elect Trump has appointed Michael Flynn to be his National Security Advisor. The 

National Security Advisor has typically been the President's principal advisor on national 

security matters, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. 

Mr. Flynn serves on the board of advisors for an organization called ACT for America. The 

Southern Poverty Law Center has called this organization "far and away the largest grassroots 

anti-Muslim group in America." In August 2016- less than six months ago- Mr. Flynn 

spoke at an event for this group. He is on video saying that Islam "is a political ideology. It 

definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion." He also added that Islam is "like a 

malignant cancer." 

k. Do you disavow and condemn Mr. Flynn's remarks? 

RESPONSE: I have not made such a statement and will not associate myself with any 

racially or religiously insensitive or discriminatory remarks. I have no knowledge whether the 

gentleman referred to in this question actually said the remarks that the question attributes to 

him or in what context. 

I. Do you believe that the President's national security advisor should refer to Islam as a 

"malignant cancer"? 

12 
813 

RESPONSE: I have not made such a statement and will not associate myself with any 

racially or religiously insensitive or discriminatory remarks. I have no knowledge whether 

the gentleman referred to in this question actually said the remarks that the question 

attributes to him or in what context. 

m. Do you believe the National Security Advisor should be associated with organizations 

that promote anti-Islamic bigotry and conspiracy theories? 

RESPONSE: I have not made such a statement and will not associate myself with any 

racially or religiously insensitive or discriminatory remarks. I have no knowledge whether 

the gentleman referred to in this question actually said the remarks that the question 

attributes to him or in what context. 

In the unclassified Intelligence Community Assessment on "Assessing Russian Activities and 

Intentions in Recent US Elections" released on January 6, 2017. there are seven pages describing 

the activities ofRT America TV. The report notes that the network's "Leadership [is] closely 

tied to, controlled by Kremlin.'' Mr. Flynn has given a paid speech to RT, and attended a dinner 

celebrating the network's anniversary, where he sat at the same table as Vladimir Putin. 

n. What legal issues does the relationship between the incoming National Security Advisor 

and the Russian government raise? 

RESPONSE: As with any case, any legal issues raised would depend on the actual facts of 

any such relationship. 

In 2015, you received an award from the Eagle Forum for "Excellence in Leadership.'' The late 

founder of that organization has a long history of controversial remarks. That includes 

advocating for "railroad cars full of illegals going south" and increasing the pay gap between 

men and women. and arguing that married women by definition cannot be raped by their 

husbands. 

o. Do you agree that there should be "railroad cars full of illegals going south"? Do you 

condemn that remark? 

p. Do you agree that married women by definition cannot be raped by their husbands? Do 

you condemn that remark? 

q. Do you agree that the pay gap between men and women should be increased, rather 

than diminished? 

r. Ms. Schlafly also claimed "it would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on DoAmerican Activities" to target Muslims. Do you agree with that statement? 

RESPONSE to (o)- (r): While I do not hold the views that this question attributes to the 

deceased woman referred to in this question, I have no knowledge of whether she actually said 

13 
814 

these remarks or in what context. 

s. Other than that award, have you bad any involvement with that organization? Has all 

such involvement been disclosed in your Questionnaire? 

RESPONSE: I have been friends with some of the members of the local organization 

over the years and I have attended a few events, to my recollection. My involvement has 

been disclosed in my Questionnaire to the best of my recollection. In addition, my staff 

and I conducted a review of my own files, searches of publicly available electronic 

databases, and consultation with the Senate Library, the Congressional Research Service, 

and relevant committee libraries and historical offices within the Senate. In an effort to 

be as responsive as possible, my staff also conducted further review of existing files from 

the era, including historical archives maintained in electronic research databases such as 

LexisNexis, WestLaw, and ProQuest, public search engines, and Internet archive services 

that maintain records ofwebsites that no longer exist. Additionally, as records from my 

time as United States Attorney and Attorney General of the State of Alabama existed 

before the proliferation of the Internet and before electronic storage was as readily 

available as it is today, most of those records do not exist in any electronic databases of 

which I am aware, and my staff and I consulted with the Alabama Attorney General's 

Office and with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Alabama 

to locate archived files from my time in those offices. All responsive records identified or 

located as a result of these searches were submitted to the Committee. 

9. Over the course of the 2016 campaign, you offered extensive criticisms of the power that 

elites and special interests have in our politics. Even after Citizens United unleashed a massive 

flow of money into our elections, there are still laws that regulate political spending and 

coordination between campaigns and PACs. Under the leadership of Eric Holder, the 

Department of Justice in 2015 successfully prosecuted illegal coordination between a campaign 

and a PAC. This was the first prosecution of its kind. The lead prosecutor on the case stated: 

"The Department of Justice is fully committed to addressing the threat posed to the integrity of 

federal primary and general elections by coordinated campaign contributions, and will 

aggressively pursue coordination offenses at every appropriate opportunity." 

If confirmed, you will be joining an administration that has pledged to "drain the swamp" in 

Washington. In order to ensure that our government is open responsive to its citizens, it is 

critical that Americans know who is lobbying their representatives. The Lobbying Disclosure 

Act created a registration requirement for lobbyists which is enforced by the Department of 

Justice through the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC. Will you ensure that the 

Lobbying Disclosure Act and its reporting requirements are fully enforced, and that the 

President-elect's choice for U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC, makes it a priority? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will enforce the law. U.S. 

Attorneys are presidentially-appointed subject to confirmation by the Senate and report to the 

Attorney General. The Attorney General outlines the enforcement priorities for the 

Department and may set rules for how cases are handled. 

14 
815 

10. The President-Elect has proposed that to fight terrorists, the United States should "take out 

their families." Intentionally killing the family members of a terrorist would violate any number 

of laws, including the Geneva Conventions as well as U.S. statutes. 

If you are confirmed, would you advise the President that targeting and killing family 

members ofterrorists is not a legal option? 

RESPONSE: Yes, intentionally targeting and killing family members of terrorists would not 

be a legal option. 

11. Too often, deportation cases are brought against immigrant children who do not have 

lawyers. Last year, I was appalled when I heard that an immigration judge stated it is possible to 

teach immigration law to three- and four-year olds. That is outrageous. These vulnerable 

children have often fled horrific violence in their home countries. Then they are expected to 

navigate our complex immigration laws on their own, without counsel. That hardly constitutes 

justice. The least we can do is give these children a fair day in court. 

When Senator Coons asked you about this issue, you deflected, saying only that "I do not believe 

we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lawyers for everybody that enters the 

country unlawfully." You added simply that "Congress would need to decide what to do about 

it." If confirmed as Attorney General, you will have broad discretion over the immigration 

courts system, including the appointment of immigration judges, and so I am asking about your 

personal views. 

a. Do you believe that unaccompanied minors in immigration court should receive access 

to counsel? Do you agree that toddlers can learn immigration law sufficiently to 

understand the consequences they are facing and meet the requirements of due process? 

RESPONSE: My understanding is that immigration laws of the United States provide all 

aliens with the privilege of being represented by the counsel of their choosing in civil 

immigration proceedings. It is also my understanding that Congress has specified that, while 

an alien retains such a privilege, any such representation must occur at no expense to the 

government. The sole exception to this is codified in section 1232(a)(S)(C) of Title 8, which 

charges the Department of Health and Human Services with ensuring: 

to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with section 292 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have 

been in the custody of the Secretary or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and who are 

not described in subsection (a)(2)(A), have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings 

or matters and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. To the 

greatest extent practicable, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make every 

effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide representation to 

such children without charge. 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, how will you ensure that these vulnerable children 

15 
816 

receive due process? 

RESPONSE: If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully 

enforce the duly-enacted immigration laws of the United States, which are determined by 

Congress. 

12. The First Amendment and a free and vibrant press are at the heart of our democracy. As the 

President-elect takes office, conscientious whistleblowers may seek to provide the press with 

vital information about abuses. Too often, when the government or private litigants are unhappy 

with leaks, they seek to punish the journalists for doing their job. Given that the incoming White 

House Press Secretary has demanded a journalist apologize for attempting to ask the Presidentelect a question, and threatened to have him removed from future press conferences, I am deeply 

concerned about the incoming administration's commitment to bedrock First Amendment 

principles. 

This Committee twice approved bipartisan federal media shield legislation that would establish a 

qualified privilege for journalists to protect their sources and the public's right to know. On both 

occasions, you voted against the shield bill. 

a. Will you maintain existing Department regulations restricting subpoenas issued to the 

news media (28 CFR 50.10)? 

RESPONSE: I have not had the occasion to study the outgoing Administration's regulations 

on this matter. If I am confinned as Attorney General. I would discuss this matter with the 

Justice Department's career experts before making any decision to maintain or modify the 

current regulations. I would note. however, that the existing regulations did not prevent the 

outgoing Administration from aggressively investigating and prosecuting a larger-thannonnal number of leak cases. Leaks of classified information can be damaging to U.S. 

national security, and can also violate the federally-protected rights of other federal 

employees-for example, in cases where restricted information from an individual's 

personnel file is leaked to the press. In some cases, the only way to investigate wrongdoing 

is by subpoena. Such subpoenas to reporters, however. raise concerns about intimidation or 

restriction of the press. A free press plays a vital role in ensuring the accountability of 

powerful institutions in our society. For these reasons, I support Justice Department caution 

when contemplating the use of a subpoena to obtain material from a journalist. 

b. What limits do you believe the First Amendment places on attempts to stifle the free 

press? What role should the Justice Department play to protect journalists? 

RESPONSE: The First Amendment generally proscribes governmental efforts to "stifle" a 

free press. In addition to being careful with the use of subpoenas against journalists, I 

believe that the Justice Department protects journalists by enforcing the criminal laws when a 

journalist is the target of threats or extortion. 

13. We are grappling with a new wave of drug abuse, this time to powerful prescription opioids 

16 
817 

and heroin. Rural states, like my home state of Vermont, have been particularly hard-hit. You 

have said that "The best way for us to improve our pressure from the law enforcement end on 

drug trafficking in America is to increase prosecutions and investigations." Enforcement will 

always play a role, and the Justice Department's Drug Enforcement Administration plays a 

critical role in preventing the diversion and over-prescription of opioid painkillers. But at the 

root of every drug crisis is addiction. And we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. One 

important lesson from the failed war on drugs is that supply will relentlessly chase demand 

fueled by addiction regardless of the penalties. We must confront addiction like we do any 

other public health crisis: through evidence-based prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. 

a. If you are confirmed, what will your strategy be to confront addiction to prescription 

painkillers? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work with 

law enforcement partners to enforce the law, reduce the availability of illicit drugs that cause 

addiction, and support treatment and recovery efforts to help addicted individuals overcome 

their addiction. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported that the heroin surge is a 

result of more availability, higher purity and lower price. Enforcement impacts these factors. 

b. The Justice Department currently supports numerous diversion programs to keep 

certain offenders with addiction issues out of the criminal justice system, and naloxone 

programs to save addicts' lives. Would you continue both the diversion programs and the 

naloxone programs? 

RESPONSE: Many diversion programs, such as drug courts, have proven to be effective 

solutions for some offenders. I have been a strong supporter of drug courts. Naloxone, 

likewise, has shown promise as a way to help save lives of some individuals who have 

overdosed on heroin and other opioids. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, I will support efforts to provide appropriate opportunities and support to drug users 

looking to turn their lives around, as well as efforts to ensure first responders are able to 

assist in saving lives destroyed by addiction. To date, treatment has not proven universally 

successful. Prevention of use and addiction is critical, also. 

14. John Yoo's 2002 OLC memo justifying torture stated that: "Any effort by Congress to 

regulate the interrogation of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting 

of the Commander-in-Chief in the President." 

a. You voted against both of Senator McCain's amendments to ban torture and other 

cruel treatment by U.S. officials, first in 2005 and again last year. Do you agree with John 

Y oo that congressional regulation of torture is unconstitutional? 

b. Will you commit that you will not reinstate that OLC opinion, or any of the other OLC 

opinions justifying torture that were later rescinded? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Federal law is clear that it is unlawful for either the military or our 

17 
818 

intelligence agencies to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and that 

it is illegal to use interrogation techniques that are not prescribed by the Army Field Manual. 

I believe that this statute is constitutional, and thus do not anticipate issuing any opinion that 

does not require compliance with this statute. 

c. Is John Yoo participating in any capacity on the new administration's transition team? 

What role is he playing? Have you been in contact with him in the last year? 

RESPONSE: I have not been in contact with Mr. Yoo within the last year, and do not know 

of any work that he has done for the transition team. 

During the Bush Administration, John Y oo and Jay Bybee wrote OLC opinions stating that the 

President has the power, as Commander-in-Chief, to violate acts of Congress- both the criminal 

prohibition on torture, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That dangerous theory has 

been largely repudiated. Many of the memos they drafted or signed have been rescinded. 

d. Do you believe that the President has the authority under any circumstances to exercise 

a "commander-in-chief override" to violate acts of Congress? 

RESPONSE: The President does have some constitutionally assigned powers that cannot 

constitutionally be rescinded by Congress. I have no reason to believe that the existing law 

referred to above contravenes these constitutional limits. 

15. The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA), which sets forth certain voter registration requirements in connection with federal 

elections, including at Department of Motor Vehicle offices (the "motor-voter" registration 

process). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a Kansas law requiring that 

voter registration applicants provide documentary proof of citizenship would cause a "mass 

denial of a fundamental constitutional right," and enjoined the Kansas law from being enforced 

because it conflicts with the NVRA's federal voter registration form. As a result, the Court held 

that the Kansas law was preempted by the NVRA and could not be enforced with respect to 

motor-voter applicants. Alabama has a similar law, but the secretary of state has not enforced it. 

If confirmed as Attorney General, you would be responsible for making decisions regarding 

enforcement of the NVRA and to following court decisions on the NVRA. 

If confirmed, will your Justice Department take positions that are contrary to the Tenth 

Circuit's ruling on the NVRA by asserting that a state may require Americans to submit 

proof of citizenship papers to register to vote at a DMV office? 

RESPONSE: I believe the case referred to in the above question is Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 

710 (lOth Cir. 2016). As the timeline for U.S. Supreme Court review has not yet terminated, 

and because the Department of Justice may wish to enter an appearance in the case if U.S. 

Supreme Court review is sought or granted, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on 

future plans with respect to enforcement of the panel decision at this time. If I am 

confirmed, I will carefully and objectively evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case 

18 
819 

and endeavor to uphold and defend the Constitution in the pursuit of justice. 

16. American consumers and employees are increasingly waiving their legal rights by agreeing 

to forced arbitration clauses. These are often slipped into a contract and written in legal jargon. 

Through hearings in this Committee and other efforts, we have learned that the arbitration 

process has none of the safeguards of our court system. There is no rule oflaw or precedent. No 

transparency. No way to appeal an adverse judgment. 

The secrecy of the arbitration process allows wrongdoing to go undiscovered and unpunished for 

years. Recent examples include Wells Fargo's forced arbitration over millions of sham accounts, 

and Gretchen Carlson's fight against sexual harassment at Fox News. 

a. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Justice Department pursues 

and prosecutes companies who try to exploit consumers and employees by hiding behind 

one-sided arbitration agreements? 

RESPONSE: In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in 

the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the 

basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years. If the contract was obtained 

through exploitation, fraud or coercion, then the consequences of those actions, whether 

under contract law or the criminal law, will apply. Acceptable arbitration provisions in 

contracts should be conducted fairly and, in the past, I have offered detailed legislation to 

ensure fairness. 

On January 13, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related employment arbitration 

cases and consolidated them for argument. In one ofthose cases, NLRB v. Murphy Oil, the 

Justice Department argued in its petition for certiorari that arbitration agreements that bar workrelated class actions by employees violate the National Labor Relations Act and are therefore 

unenforceable. 

b. If confirmed, do you commit that you will not change the government's position in this 

case in any way? 

RESPONSE: Because this case involves pending litigation in which the Department is a 

party, it would be unwise for me to comment further. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will thoroughly review this case in conjunction with the expert and 

career attorneys in the Department of Justice to make a decision about how best to proceed. 

17. When opposing many of President Obama's nominees, you argued that some were simply 

too political to be trusted in leadership positions at the Department of Justice. You complained 

that one nominee "has a record of and a reputation for very strong political activity" and that "I 

am concerned whether he is capable of putting aside partisan beliefs." You also stated that "The 

Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country. This is not traditionally a 

political position. It is a law position." I agree with you on that. 

19 
820 

I don't think that there is any doubt you are a conservative Republican politician. You have also 

been a loyal advocate for Donald Trump over the past year. 

If we adopt your standard in opposing Justice Department nominees with "very strong 

political activity," how can we support your nomination, or those of other potential Trump 

nominees? 

RESPONSE: You and I agree that the key qualifications for someone wishing to occupy the 

office of the Attorney General is a commitment to the rule of law, independence, and 

integrity. If confirmed, I will enforce and defend the law and the Constitution, regardless of 

my own personal and philosophical views. 

18. Last August, the Department of Justice announced that the Bureau of Prisons would begin 

to phase out its use of private prisons. In her memo ordering the phase-out, Deputy Attorney 

General Yates wrote that private prisons "simply do not provide the same level of correctional 

services, programs, and resources; they do not save substantially on costs; and as noted in a 

recent report by the Department's Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same 

level of safety and security." I strongly oppose the use of for-profit prison companies for 

detention purposes and believe this was a positive step toward ending the government's 

reliance on such facilities. 

a. Do you believe that detention should be a for-profit business? 

RESPONSE: I believe that detention facilities should be safe, secure, and humane, both for 

inmates and for correctional staff, regardless of whether the facilities are publicly or privately 

operated. They should fulfill their role in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

b. In the interests of better serving the goals of the Justice Department and reducing 

costs to the American taxpayer, will you continue this phase-out of for-profit prisons? 

RESPONSE: I am generally aware of concerns regarding Deputy Attorney General Yates' 

memorandum, and whether its conclusions are fully supported by the evidence. If I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully evaluate the relevant 

evidence and the Department of Justice's policies to ensure that its detention facilities are 

safe, secure, humane, and represent an effective use of resources. 

19. You have been a strong and consistent proponent of the theory that the United States should 

treat terrorism suspects as so-called "enemy combatants." You have argued that we should 

subject them to mandatory military custody and interrogation, without access to lawyers, and 

that we should try them by military commission if at all. You have argued that this should apply 

even to individuals picked up inside the United States, as this country is included in the 

"battlefield" in the war with al Qaeda. 

a. Do you believe this war framework should apply to American citizens picked up in the 

United States? 

20 
821 

RESPONSE: Under the historic rules of war and U.S. law, the United States may detain an 

active member of a] Qaeda or other enemy combatants for as long as the conflict persists. As 

you know, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a plurality of the Supreme Court 

stated that "[t]here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy 

combatant." The plurality relied in part on Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. I ( 1942), in which the 

Court held that Congress authorized the military trial of a U.S. citizen who entered the 

country with orders from the Nazis to blow up domestic war facilities, but was captured 

before he could execute them. See also Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005); AlMarri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008). Captured citizens who are at war with the 

U.S., can of course, contest their detention in federal court by writ of habeas corpus. 

b. Should Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, have 

been placed in military custody and treated as a wartime enemy? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied this case in any depth and would want to consult with legal 

experts in this field before reaching a definitive opinion on such matters. It does appear that 

McVeigh's actions, while a heinous act ofterrorism, would not have constituted part of a 

campaign of war against the United States. 

c. If we are at war withal Qaeda, and if you believe the battlefield includes the United 

States, can we also use lethal force against al Qaeda suspects jn the Unjted States? 

RESPONSE: Law enforcement officers may, even in non-terrorism criminal cases, use 

lethal force to defend themselves and others. Congress has declared that the U.S. may use 

lethal force against al Qaeda and associated forces, but great care should be taken before 

using lethal force in the U.S. 

20. In 2000, you described the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the "single 

greatest obstacle our educators face." You then stated it creates "lawsuit after lawsuit, special 

treatment for certain children." You said it is "a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility 

and discipline in classrooms all over America." 

a. Do you still hold believe that mainstreaming causes a "decline in civility and discipline 

in classrooms all over America?" 

RESPONSE: The phrases cited derive from a speech I gave on the Senate floor during the 

last reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I believe it is 

important that those phrases be looked at in context, so I have provided the passages from the 

speech in which those phrases were used. 

In addition, I would note that the issues I raised were very real problems that Senators on 

both sides of the aisle, including Senator Kennedy, understood the importance of addressing, 

which is why we developed a solution that passed into law with bipartisan support. Indeed, 

during a July 17, 1997, Judiciary Committee markup on another bill, while debating an 

amendment, Senator Feinstein offered to clarify the IDEA to ensure that all students who 

21 
822 

bring a dangerous weapon to school would be subject to the same discipline, l said: 

"I will really tell you what I think happened from what I understand is that the 

Disabilities Act made it much more difficult for schools to discipline those who have 

disabilities. And they felt like they wanted clear language that said if they brought a 

dangerous weapon to school, they wouldn't have to be subjected to many of the 

protections that the Disabilities Act provides." 

In response to my statement, Senator Feinstein said: "That is absolutely correct. Well said." 

My concern was that the legal promises the set forth under the IDEA created confusion, 

discord, and difficulties for teachers and principals. My legislation, carefully drafted, 

received strong bipartisan support and improved the IDEA, not harmed it. Any suggestion 

that I somehow oppose special-needs children receiving the education they deserve is simply 

false. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will be committed to 

ensuring the equal protection of the law for all Americans and the protections inherent 

therein. 

Floor Remarks, May 2000: 

"Over 25 years ago, for example, we passed a federal disabilities act. It was designed to 

mandate to school systems and require that they not shut out disabled kids from the 

classroom and that they be involved in the classroom. lfthey have a hearing loss, or a 

sight loss, or if they have difficulty moving around, in a wheelchair, or whatever, the 

school system must make accommodations for them. They would be mainstreamed. They 

would not be treated separately. 

That was a good goal, a goal from which we should not retreat. I hope no one interprets 

what I say today as a retreat from that goal. But in the course of that time, we have 

created a complex system of Federal regulations and laws that have created lawsuit after 

lawsuit, special treatment for certain children, and that are a big factor in accelerating the 

decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America. l say that very sincerely. 

It was really brought to my attention a little over a year ago when a long-time friend, 

District Attorney David Whetstone, in Baldwin County, AL, called me about a youngster 

in the school system classified as having a disability. It is called "emotional conflict." He 

was emotionally conflicted. He could not, or would not, behave. An aide would meet him 

in the morning at his home, get on the bus with him, and go to school, sit through the 

class all day, and ride home on the school bus with him. This student was known to curse 

principals and teachers openly in the classroom. Because he was a disabled student, he 

could not be disciplined in the normal way. The maximum 10-day suspension rule-and 

45 days is the maximum a child can be disciplined under this federal law and then they 

are back in the classroom. One day, he attacked the school bus driver on the way home. 

22 
823 

The aide tried to restrain him. He then attacked the aide. District Attorney Whetstone told 

me, 'I was never more stunned when I talked to school officials and they told me this is 

common in our county.' 

We have children we cannot control because ofthis federal law. He came to Washington, 

and we sat up in the gallery and talked about it. I respect David Whetstone and his views. 

He said this cannot be. I began to ask around, is this true? As a matter of fact, this very 

incident was focused on in Time magazine. There was a full-page story about it called 

'The Meanest Kid in Alabama,' and '60 Minutes' did a story about it because it is, 

unfortunately, so common around the country. 

What can we do about it? I began to ask leaders in education around the State. The State 

superintendent: 'Absolutely, it is one of the biggest problems we have.' I talked to Paul 

Hubbard, head of the teachers union in Alabama: 'Absolutely, it is a big problem.' 'I am 

tired,' he said in the newspaper recently, 'of children cursing my teachers in the 

classroom and nothing being done about it.' 

Then we began to talk to teachers, principals, and school board superintendents. They 

talked about the lawyers and the complicated regulations with which they deal. It is really 

unacceptable. Teachers who have been trained with masters' degrees in special education 

to deal with these children have also overwhelmingly told me this is not a healthy thing, 

that we are telling special children with physical disabilities, or disabilities as defined by 

the federal law, that they don't have to adhere to the same standards other children do. 

Right in the classroom, we create, by federal law, two separate standards for American 

citizens. You can say to one child: You can't do this, you are out of school. But we can 

say to another children: You can do it, and you are only out 10 days, or maybe 45 days, 

and then you are back in the classroom. That is not defensible." 

Last year, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Georgia alleging that its segregation of 

students with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). You have 

previously argued in favor of such segregation and expressed skepticism of mainstream in g. In 

this lawsuit, the Justice Department noted that some of the facilities used by students with 

disabilities "are located in poor-quality buildings that formerly served as schools for black 

students during de jure segregation." 

b. If confirmed, will you continue to pursue this case, and bring others where students 

with disabilities are being segregated from their peers in violation of the ADA? 

RESPONSE: Because this case involves pending litigation in which the Department is a 

party, it would be unwise for me to comment further. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed 

as Attorney General, I will thoroughly review this case in conjunction with the expert and 

career attorneys in the Department of Justice to make a decision about how best to proceed. 

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School 

District. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing that 

23 
824 

the IDEA requires states to provide more than de minimis educational benefits and in fact "give 

eligible children with disabilities an opportunity to make significant educational progress." 

c. If you are confirmed, will the Department of Justice maintain its position in this case? 

The ADA contains, at 42 U.S.C. § 12202, a waiver of state sovereign immunity. Twice during 

the Bush administration, in Tennessee v. Lane (2004) and U.S. v. Georgia (2006), the Justice 

Department argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the waiver was a valid exercise of 

Congressional power under Section V of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that this case remains as pending litigation in which the 

Department is a party, and for that reason, I cannot comment further. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will thoroughly review this case in 

conjunction with the expert and career attorneys in the Department of Justice and make a 

decision about how best to proceed. 

d. If confirmed, will you commit to defending the constitutionality of this exercise of 

Congress's Section V power? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will 

vigorously defend the laws passed by Congress for which a reasonable defense can be made. 

That is a vitally important principle and a longstanding tradition of the Department of Justice, 

which affords appropriate respect to Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and I 

fully subscribe to it. 

The voting rights of Americans with disabilities are protected by the ADA, the Voting Rights 

Act, and several other statutes. But several studies have found individuals with disabilities face 

barriers to the franchise that are exacerbated by voter ID requirements. 

e. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the voting rights of Americans 

with disabilities are protected? 

RESPONSE: As you note, the voting rights of Americans with disabilities are protected by 

federal law, including the ADA and the Voting Rights Act, among others. The Supreme 

Court held in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that voter identification laws are 

neither per se unconstitutional, nor do the necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. The 

analysis of such laws are specific to the particular law, the jurisdiction, and a wide range of 

factors that Congress has identified as relevant to determining whether a particular voting 

practice comports with the Voting Rights Act. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I am 

committed to enforcing all of the federal laws within the Department's jurisdiction, 

including investigating alleged violations of the federal voting rights laws in a fair and 

even-handed manner. 

21. You claim to be a champion of the Voting Rights Act because you voted for VRA's 

reauthorization in 2006. But aside from this single vote, you have consistently criticized the 

VRA. You have called it an "intrusive piece of legislation" and have questioned its 

24 
825 

constitutionality based on your belief that there is "relatively little present-day evidence" of voter 

discrimination. When the 2013 Shelby County decision struck down a central provision of the 

VRA, you argued that the decision was "good news ... for the South" and observed that "Shelby 

County never had a history of denying the vote." 

a. Since the Shelby County decision, some individuals have argued that there is no need to 

restore the protections of Section 5 because the Justice Department can still use Section 2 to 

bring lawsuits against states and localities that are discriminating against voters. But at 

the same time, some of these same individuals have argued that Section 2 might also be 

unconstitutional. Do you believe that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is 

unconstitutional? 

RESPONSE: First, the above question does not provide a full accounting of my statement, 

so I will complete it for the record. Over 30 years ago, I said that the VRA "is an intrusive 

piece of legislation, but I do not believe-and I have seen, and I am absolutely certain of this, 

that racial progress could not have been made in the South without the power of the federal 

courts and the federal Government." When I testified before the Committee, I added that 

"[t]he Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 was one of the most important Acts to deal with 

racial difficulties that we face. And it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the 

South." Second, and to your direct question, the Supreme Court has concluded that Section 2 

is constitutional, and if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, I will enforce this important 

section and others. 

The current Justice Department is involved in several suits against states that have enacted 

severe voting restrictions that disproportionately harm minority voters. In two of these cases, 

courts of appeals found that voter lD laws in North Carolina and Texas were discriminatory and 

violated the VRA. 

b. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department maintain its current position in these 

cases- especially since federal appeals courts have found these voter ID laws to be 

discriminatory? 

RESPONSE: Because this case involves pending litigation in which the Department is a 

party, it would be unwise for me to comment further. If! am fortunate enough to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, I will thoroughly review this case in conjunction with the 

expert and career attorneys in the Department of Justice to make a decision about how best to 

proceed. 

22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in an 

effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ 

documents!ICA_2017 _Ol.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate 

or political party. This is about protecting our democracy. 

a. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia was responsible 

for the hack of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign chair? 

25 
826 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the report, but I have no reason not to accept the 

intelligence community's conclusion(s) as contained in the report. 

b. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia provided to 

Wikileaks the information that it stole? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the report, but I have no reason not to accept the 

intelligence community's conclusion(s) as contained in the report. 

c. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia engaged in 

these activities in order to interfere with the election in Donald Trump's favor? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the report, but I have no reason not to accept the 

intelligence community's conclusion(s) as contained in the report. 

d. Do you consider this to be illegal behavior, and a threat to our democratic process? 

RESPONSE: I have not reviewed the matter in any detail; therefore, I am not in a position to 

opine on it. 

e. Several of the President-Elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have 

IW~..been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about 

the 2016 election, either before or after election day? 

RESPONSE: No. 

f. Attorney General Lynch has confirmed that career officials are investigating Russian 

interference in the 2016 elections. If confirmed, will you commit to allowing this 

investigation to move forward? What will you do if the White House directs you to end the 

investigation? 

RESPONSE: I am unaware of any investigations beyond what is contained in public 

reporting. As such, I am unable to comment on the status of any such investigations except 

to say that I believe all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and 

conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside 

influence. The Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and make decisions 

regarding any potential charges based upon the facts and the law, and consistent with 

established procedures of the Department. That is what I always did as a United States 

Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon if! am confirmed as Attorney General. 

23. I am greatly concerned about racial disparities within our criminal justice system. In 20 I 0, 

you agreed to reduce the dramatic disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine 

offenses, but you refused to eliminate the disparity altogether or to allow the changes in the Fair 

Sentencing Act to be retroactive. 

26 
827 

But our justice system is full of disparities. Racial minorities still receive nearly 80 percent of all 

mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. For years I have worked with a bipartisan 

group of senators on this Committee to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. 

This bipartisan effort has had the strong support of the Justice Department and many others in 

law enforcement. 

You were the most vocal opponent of those efforts on this Committee. That concerns me. 

a. If you are confirmed to be the next Attorney General, what do you plan to do to reduce 

racial disparities in our criminal justice system? 

RESPONSE: Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will faithfully 

enforce the law equally to all persons and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our 

laws, including our drug laws, should be enforced as written, with no special or harsher 

treatment given to anyone on account of their race. That is how I would direct the 

Department of Justice to proceed. I would note that as a Senator, I offered legislation to 

reduce mandatory sentences in 200 I for crack cocaine and my legislation was opposed by the 

Bush Administration. 

In 2013, the Justice Department established a policy to reserve the most severe mandatory 

minimum sentences for high-level or violent drug traffickers. This was after the Sentencing 

Commission found that nearly half of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases were 

imposed on lower-level offenders, not managers and importers. That is not what Congress 

intended. The often used I 0- and 5-year minimums, for example, were intended to capture only 

serious traffickers- not low-level offenders like couriers. 

b. If confirmed as Attorney General, would you leave the 2013 policy in place to focus 

these mandatory minimum penalties on high-level and violent offenders, consistent with 

the Justice Department's current policy? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully 

evaluate any current practices or policies in place by the Department and the effectiveness of 

those practices to aid in the administration of justice. 

24. When you were Attorney General of Alabama, your office was reprimanded for prosecutorial 

misconduct in a case against a Birmingham-based company called TIECO. The judge in that 

case found "extensive evidence of serious and wholesale prosecutorial misconduct by the Office 

of the Attorney General." While you were investigating TIECO, your office seized TIECO's 

business records, and then made those confidential records available to another company, which 

then sued TIECO. 

Ultimately, the criminal case against TIECO was thrown out because of the prosecutorial 

misconduct findings against your office. These findings are deeply troubling. 

I understand that your deputy Attorney General, Bill Pryor, took over for you, and was heading 

27 
828 

up the office when the criminal case against TIECO was dismissed. But the misconduct 

occurred when the office was under your watch. And Attorney General Pryor did not appeal the 

dismissal. 

a. Why do you think that the office you bad led decided against appealing the misconduct 

order in that case? It was not just a reflection on you, but the entire office. Do you agree 

that your office mishandled the case? 

RESPONSE: First, much of the language and the entire statement of facts in the county 

judge's order were adopted from Tieco's motion to dismiss. Second, the Alabama Ethics 

Commission addressed the sharing of investigatory materials with the alleged victims of 

Tieco's conduct and unanimously exonerated me. Third, the Alabama State Bar received the 

criminal court's order and a bar complaint filed against me by one ofTieco's lawyers. After 

reviewing over 20 ethics charges, the State Bar took no action on the complaint. Fourth, the 

Eleventh Circuit reviewed the county judge's order that had been used to support Tieco's 

counterclaims for a violation of its constitutional rights and malicious prosecution in a civil 

case between U.S. Steel and Tieco. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the criminal court's 

order was "particularly unreliable and misleading," and that the statement of facts was "self 

serving," as it was drafted by Tieco's defense counsel. Without the misleading order, the 

Eleventh Circuit concluded there was "no evidence" that Tieco's constitutional rights were 

violated and that there was probable cause to support an indictment as a matter of law; thus, 

Tieco's malicious prosecution claim failed. 

After the Attorney General's office dismissed many of the counts of the indictment, the 

county judge dismissed the remaining counts. It is unclear why my successor decided not to 

appeal that judge's adoption ofTieco's motion to dismiss, as I am not aware of any statement 

or press release made about the decision not to appeal. As for whether my office mishandled 

the case, the decisions of the Ethics Commission, the State Bar, and the Eleventh Circuit in 

reviewing the conduct underlying the county judge's order speak for themselves. 

b. The judge said "[T]he misconduct ofthe Attorney General in this case far surpasses in 

both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever 

previously presented to or witnessed by this court." How would you conduct the case 

differently, if you were able to do it over again? 

RESPONSE: The sentence referenced in the above question is taken from Tieco's motion to 

dismiss, which the state judge made a part of his order, and which the Eleventh Circuit 

characterized as self-serving, misleading, and unreliable. Ifl could go back in time and re-do 

the litigation, I may have realized more quickly that the multi-pronged attack on my office by 

Tieco might have been partially related to my first run for the Senate. See "Democrats Level 

Guns at Sessions as Senatorial Rhetoric Picks Up," The Birmingham News, 4C, April 2, 1996 

("The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is focusing on Sessions because he 

appears to be the front runner, said committee spokeswoman Kate Jeffrey in Washington .... 

The Democratic committee has touted an ethics complaint filed against Sessions, alleging he 

has allegedly gave records seized from the Birmingham-based Tieco Inc. to that company's 

28 
829 

competitor, USX Corp."). 

These findings also suggest a lack of understanding that sensitive documents collected by law 

enforcement officials must not be handed over to political allies. In the past year, DOJ and FBI 

have been involved in some very sensitive investigations, with very high stakes and a profound 

impact on our nation. 

c. If confirmed, what steps would you take to guard against prosecutorial misconduct in 

the Justice Department? 

RESPONSE: It is my understanding that the Department currently provides guidance and 

training opportunities to its attorneys that are aimed at preventing misconduct. Ifl am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully evaluate this training 

and guidance and the effectiveness of it in guarding against prosecutorial misconduct. I will 

likewise assess the strength of the Department's current procedures for managing complaints 

of misconduct and handling disciplinary decisions. 

I believe it must be the highest priority of the head of a large office to provide strong 

leadership to ensure problems do not arise in cases and to devise mechanisms to deal with 

them when they arise. I have had a long career in personally prosecuting complex cases and 

supervising cases of all kinds. I am very proud of the professionalism and integrity of that 

work. 

25. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld marriage equality, Alabama Supreme Court Justice 

Roy Moore effectively ordered the probate judges in Alabama to refuse marriage licenses to gay 

couples. He was later suspended by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for "disregard for 

binding federal law." 

a. Do you agree with the Alabama court's decision to suspend Justice Moore for his 

actions? 

RESPONSE: I have had no involvement in or briefings on this matter, as the events unfolded 

at the state level without input from my office; therefore, I have no opinion as to the 

appropriateness of what took place. 

b. If confirmed, what actions would you take if any official refuses to issue a marriage 

license to a same-sex couple? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce 

the law and adhere to Supreme Court precedent. Without having the facts of a specific case 

before me, it would be difficult to comment on any actions that I might take in order to carry 

out this duty. 

c. When is it appropriate for a judge or other public official to disregard a Supreme 

Court decision? 

29 
830 

RESPONSE: It is never appropriate for a judge or other public official to disregard a 

Supreme Court decision. 

26. Last year, we enacted the most sweeping reforms to the Freedom of Information Act in 

decades. Our bill codified the "presumption of openness," requiring all administrations to 

operate with transparency as their default setting. The DOJ Office of Information Policy is 

responsible for enforcing compliance with FOIA across the federal government. President-elect 

Trump has a demonstrably poor record on transparency. He has still refused to release his tax 

returns. He has even denied press credentials to reporters who criticize him. 

If confirmed, you will be FOIA's chief enforcer in the federal government. How will you 

enforce the "presumption of openness" in the face of the President-elect's resistance to 

transparency? 

RESPONSE: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is an important law that has played an 

integral role in providing the public with the tools necessary to oversee their government. If 

confirmed, I will ensure that the Department and the Executive Branch appropriately comply 

with FOIA, as well as work with you and this Committee to make sure that the letter and the 

spirit of FOIA is carried out. 

27. I am very concerned about the abuse of administrative civil asset forfeiture Jaws, which are 

not overseen by a judge. As a former prosecutor, I believe that if there is a crime, you prove it. 

You do not Jet the suspect go and simply keep their cash because the seizure is protected by a 

low standard of proof and a labyrinth of administrative hurdles for the property owner. In a 

column criticizing your support for civil asset forfeiture, conservative columnist George Will 

compared this to "Alice in Wonderland" where the queen says "Sentence first-verdict 

afterwards." Chairman Grassley and I have worked on a bill to ensure that this Jaw enforcement 

tool does not devolve into a mere fundraising tool. 

The Justice Department recently took some very modest steps to guard against 

questionable seizures of cash during road-side stops, and seizures of bank accounts where 

there is little evidence of a crime. If you are confirmed, will you commit to maintaining 

these limited protections for innocent property owners? 

RESPONSE: Individuals are certainly justified in wanting to ensure that law enforcement is 

focused on enforcing the law and that corruption is not incentivized. My understanding is 

that the changes announced by Attorney General Holder at the beginning of2015, that 

greatly curtailed the adoption program, were in direct response to these kinds of concerns. If 

I am confirmed, I will review the Department of Justice's policies to ensure that these 

changes have adequately addressed any such issues and have not created new issues or 

complications. The seizure of the proceeds of illegal activity, especially drugs, is an 

effective way to deter drug dealing, but must be done according to law. 

28. In your testimony you said "I deeply understand the history of civil rights in our country" and 

that "We must continue to move forward and never back." One of the witnesses who testified in 

30 
831 

support of your nomination described you as "A son of the South who has had up-close 

experiences with our great civil rights movement" 

a. Please describe your "up-close experiences" with the Civil Rights Movement. 

RESPONSE: Most of us who grew up in Alabama during the struggle for civil rights can 

truthfully say that we had a number of up-close experiences with the movement. I saw and 

experienced segregation as well as a number of other forms of arbitrary discrimination 

against African-Americans. In later years, as a federal prosecutor, I had a very up-close 

experience with the KKK as I oversaw the investigation and prosecution of a Klansman who 

murdered a young African-American teenager. I experienced the segregated public school 

system and how separate was absolutely not equal. I have observed employment 

discrimination. I have seen systematic and sustained actions of white officials to deny voting 

rights to African-Americans. I am deeply aware of this blatant discrimination and have 

learned more as civil rights cases were filed to attack these discriminatory actions. The 

"white power" establishment worked, with only a few exceptions, to resist changes that law, 

morality, and decency demanded. I saw the resistance, often fierce, and my experience has 

caused me to more fully understand it than would someone who did not live amongst it. I 

can see clearly the power of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s moral leadership and how that 

peaceful, courageous and relentless campaign achieved historic results and laid the 

foundation for reconciliation, integration and progress. As an adult, I have shared in many 

conversations with African-American friends and colleagues who lived through the very real 

oppression that existed. These unique experiences with the Civil Rights Movement have 

provided me with insight into the challenges we have overcome and the ones we still face. 

probably would not have this same appreciation had I grown up in another part of the 

country. 

That witness also stated, "Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do 

in the area of racial equality." 

b. In what areas do racial inequalities persist? What, specifically, are the appropriate 

remedies for these inequalities? 

RESPONSE: Where inequality is found in the enforcement of Jaws, the Department of 

Justice and the Civil Rights Division certainly have a clear role to play in remedying 

disparities. Inequalities that persist outside of the enforcement oflaws and their 

inherent protections, perhaps stemming from bias or divisive rhetoric, present a more 

difficult question that the citizens of this country must continue to work to correct. By 

engaging with state and local law enforcement and communities around the country, the 

Department of Justice undoubtedly has opportunities to contribute to improved race relations. 

Good law enforcement is essential for the safety of our minority communities but we must 

work constantly to ensure those communities are part of the solution and see it as fair. 

This past weekend, the President -elect tweeted criticisms of Congressman John Lewis. He said: 

"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in 

31 
832 

horrible shape and falling apart (not to ...... mention crime infested) rather than falsely 

complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk -no action or results. Sad!" 

c. Do you agree with President-elect Trump that John Lewis is "All talk, talk, talk?" 

RESPONSE: Congressman Lewis was a key figure in the civil rights movement and has 

my utmost respect. Though I am disappointed to learn of his concerns about my 

nomination, if confirmed, I hope that he will be willing to work with me in the 

Department's ongoing efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans. I was proud to 

co-sponsor with Senator Booker the Congressional Gold Medal for the Selma to 

Montgomery marchers and to be with Congressman Lewis on that bridge where that 

historic event occurred 50 years before. 

29. While your hearing was happening, Congressman Brooks stated "in a radio interview on 

Tuesday that criticism of Alabama Sen. JeffSessions ... is part of an ongoing 'war on whites' by 

Democrats." 

Do you agree that Democrats are waging "war on whites?" 

RESPONSE: I did not hear the interview and will not speculate on what Congressman 

Brooks meant in his statement. I do have concerns about the growing frequency with which 

those who disagree with a number of conservative policies use that as a basis to loosely 

accuse conservatives of bigotry and racial animus. I would not label these tactics as a "war 

on whites," however. 

30. According to several news reports, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will hold a position 

in the Trump administration. In 2013, while Bondi's office was considering joining a lawsuit 

against Trump University for fraud (which was settled two months ago for $25 million), Mr. 

Trump donated $25,000 to a group supporting Bondi. The donation was made illegally from Mr. 

Trump's foundation, and he was forced to reimburse the foundation and to pay a penalty to the 

IRS. One month after the donation was received, Bondi's office decided not to join the lawsuit 

against Mr. Trump. 

Do you believe that the decision not to join the lawsuit against Trump University, following 

Mr. Trump's illegal donation, raises concerns questions about a quid pro quo? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of facts that would support the assertions made in the above 

question and an unable to opine on this matter. 

31. In 2015, after Chairman Grassley and I wrote several letters expressing concerns about the 

use of cell-site simulators (sometimes called "Stingrays"), which can sweep up cell signals 

indiscriminately from cell phones in their vicinity, the Justice Department issued new policy 

guidance governing their use. 

Will you commit to keeping that policy in place? 

32 
833 

RESPONSE: While I am generally familiar with this policy, I am not privy to any internal 

Department of Justice data regarding the effectiveness ofthe policy in balancing the interests 

of law enforcement and public safety with protection of civil liberties. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully review and evaluate this policy, 

including any relevant data and how circumstances may have changed or how they may 

change in the future and wiii be prepared to listen to members of Congress and their 

concerns. 

32. In 2010, the Antitrust Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture held five joint public 

workshops to explore competition issues affecting the agricultural sector and the appropriate role 

for antitrust and regulatory enforcement. Many in agriculture were very frustrated that those ' 

workshops, although they highlighted many concerns and antitrust problems in agriculture, did 

not appear to lead to any new enforcement or stricter actions by the Department of Justice in the 

agriculture sector. 

a. In your opinion, are there areas within the agriculture sector where the Department 

should take a stronger look at competition affecting agriculture? 

RESPONSE: I know that several members of this Committee have particular concern about 

ensuring competition in the agricultural sector of our economy. If I am confirmed as 

Attorney General, the Antitrust Division will conduct a thorough evaluation, consistent with 

federal law, of proposed mergers and acquisitions to determine whether they violate federal 

antitrust law and policies. I look forward to working with you and this Committee to learn 

more about these particular issues and to ensure that the Department has the information and 

tools it needs to carry out its duties in antitrust enforcement, particularly in this vitally 

important sector of our economy. 

b. Do you believe that there are actions that the Department should take regarding 

consolidation and the conduct of dominant players in the dairy industry? If confirmed, 

what will you do to address the long-standing concerns to make sure that dairy farmers, 

small processors, and consumers are treated fairly in the marketplace? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust 

law to protect against anti-competitive transactions and behavior. Ifl am confirmed as 

Attorney General, the Antitrust Division will look at all markets to ensure compliance with 

federal antitrust law. 

In the last quarter-century, as highlighted in the Judiciary Committee hearing on September 20, 

2016, the agricultural industry has consolidated dramatically into what many refer to as the 

"Big Six" companies that now control the market for seeds and agrochemicals. Due to several 

mergers proposed last year, the market may soon shift to the "Big Four." Many concerns have 

been raised in the agriculture industry that this will raise barriers to entry for new innovators 

and increase the prices that farmers pay. 

c. How will the proposed agriculture mergers involving Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Bayer, 

33 
834 

and Syngenta affect small businesses and the prices our farmers pay? 

RESPONSE: I cannot at this time comment or commit specifically on any ongoing 

investigations by the Department, but if I am confirmed as Attorney General, the Antitrust 

Division will conduct a thorough evaluation, consistent with federal law, of proposed 

mergers and acquisitions to determine whether they violate federal antitrust law and policies. 

The agricultural sector of our Nation's economy is of vital importance, and I look forward to 

working with you and this Committee to learn more about these particular issues and to 

ensure that the Department has the information and tools it needs to carry out its duties in 

antitrust enforcement. 

d. How should the Justice Department evaluate these proposed agriculture mergers? Do 

you believe that the effects of these mergers on American farmers and consumers should be 

reviewed collectively? 

RESPONSE: I understand that the Department of Justice is currently reviewing a number of 

mergers in the agricultural sector of our economy, and I understand your concerns about the 

cumulative impacts of these transactions. While I cannot at this time comment or commit 

specifically on any ongoing investigations, if I am confirmed as Attorney General, the 

Antitrust Division will conduct a thorough evaluation, consistent with federal law, of 

proposed mergers and acquisitions to determine whether they violate federal antitrust law and 

policies. 

Last year the French-Multinational food-products corporation Danone proposed to acquire 

White Wave Foods, Inc. ("White Wave"), which many in the organic dairy sector fear could 

lessen producers' leverage in any contract negotiations on pay price and contractual obligations, 

effectively creating a monopsony. 

e. If confirmed, what will you do to scrutinize this proposed acquisition and ensure that 

the Department applies conditions to this merger to alleviate the very real monopsony 

concerns that have been raised? 

RESPONSE: I cannot at this time comment or commit specifically on any matter currently 

being reviewed by the Department, but if I am confirmed as Attorney General, the Antitrust 

Division will conduct a thorough evaluation, consistent with federal law, of proposed mergers 

and acquisitions to determine whether they violate federal antitrust law and policies. 

According to reports you have accepted contributions from Monsanto and Bayer, two 

companies with mergers currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice. I have seen 

reports that President-elect Trump also holds stock in Monsanto. 

f. If confirmed, how will you ensure. that you and the Department of Justice will remain 

objective in any review and scrutiny of these mergers? Will you recuse yourselffrom 

reviews of mergers involving companies from which you have received campaign 

contributions? 

34 
835 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific 

matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

g. If confirmed, will you ensure that the President-elect provides solid evidence to 

substantiate the claims made by his Transition Team that he sold off all of his investments 

in the stock market last year, to ensure that he does not have a financial interest in the 

mergers and acquisitions that the Department of Justice reviews? 

RESPONSE: If! am confirmed as Attorney General, I will take whatever steps are 

necessary to ensure that the Department of Justice represents the interests of the American 

people in the impartial enforcement of the law, including its review of mergers and 

acquisitions. At this point, and without the resources of the Department of Justice at my 

disposal, it would be premature to announce specific steps to mitigate a hypothetical conflict 

of interest. 

I am deeply concerned by reports that "Top executives of Bayer AG and Monsanto Co. met with 

President-elect Donald Trump ... to pitch the benefits of their planned deal." 

h. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that reviews of proposed mergers are 

free of political considerations? 

RESPONSE: While lam not familiar with the Department's specific procedures for the 

review of proposed mergers, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I will ensure that proper safeguards are in 

place and, assuming they are already in place, that they are followed to the letter to guard 

against political influence in these decisions. 

33. If confirmed, you will be the first Attorney General in 12 years to have previously been an 

elected official, which raises concerns about decisions the Justice Department may make 

regarding your campaign contributors. The Project on Government Oversight has found that 

approximately one-third of your top donors have "current, known matters involving the 

Department of Justice." As others have noted, you were also a strong supporter and surrogate of 

the President-elect, which raises concerns about how you would handle Department actions 

against Mr. Trump or businesses to which he is connected. In a November 5, 2016, op-ed, you 

and several other prominent Trump supporters harshly criticized Attorney General Lynch for not 

recusing herself from matters involving Hillary Clinton because Lynch had had a "39-minute 

conversation" with President Bill Clinton. 

a. By the recusal standard that you put forth in that op-ed, is it fair to expect you to recuse 

yourself from any matters regarding Mr. Trump or his finances? 

RESPONSE: There are significant differences between the issue discussed in the op-ed 

35 
836 

referenced above and the broad hypothetical presented regarding an investigation into the 

President. Secretary Clinton was under investigation at the time Attorney General Lynch met 

with President Clinton. If merely being a supporter ofthe President's during the campaign 

warranted recusal from involvement in any matter involving him, then most typical 

presidential appointees would be unable to conduct their duties. I am not aware of a basis to 

recuse myself from such matters. If a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding 

the most appropriate way to proceed. As I made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will 

always be fair and work within the law and the established procedures of the Department. 

b. In cases or investigations involving Mr. Trump or your own campaign contributors, 

what will your recusal standard be, if not the standard articulated in the op-ed? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such matters. If a specific 

matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confinnation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

34. At a Senate Judiciary Committee executive business meeting on March 26, 2015, you voted 

against reporting my Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act, which 

reauthorized a grant program that has helped state and local law enforcement agencies to 

purchase more than 1.2 million protective vests. This program's reauthorization will ensure that 

more than 200,000 more officers receive such vests. You also voted against reporting the Rafael 

Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act, which created a national alert system for law 

enforcement officers who are missing, killed, or seriously injured in the line of duty. The bills 

were reported by voice vote, but you requested to be recorded as a "nay" to both. Despite your 

opposition in Committee, both bills ultimately passed and are now law. These bills will save 

officers' lives, and both received enthusiastic support from the law enforcement community. 

Why did you vote against my Bulletproof Vest Partnership reauthorization? Why did 

you vote against Blue Alert? 

RESPONSE: With respect to both, my concerns with the legislation were fiscally-related and 

shared by several of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Since that time, the bills 

were passed and signed into law by the President. Ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will seek to ensure that these programs are properly administered and 

implemented by the Department in a manner that achieves the stated objective ofthe law. 

35. At your confirmation hearing, in response to a question of mine on whether you would use 

our limited federal resources to prosecute sick people who followed their state laws with regards 

to medical marijuana, you said "I won't commit to never enforcing federal law, Senator Leahy, 

but absolutely it's a problem of resources for the federal government." 

a. Does this mean you would consider arresting and prosecuting patients who follow their 

36 
837 

state medical marijuana laws? 

RESPONSE: As I testified before the Committee, I will not commit to never enforcing 

Federal law. Whether an arrest and investigation of an individual who may be violating the 

law is appropriate is a determination made in individual cases based on the sometimes unique 

circumstances surrounding those cases, as well as the resources available at the time. 

Congress, through an appropriations amendment, has decided the federal government should not 

dismantle state medical marijuana programs. Since 2014, the Justice Department cannot 

"prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, 

possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." Last August, in United States v. Mcintosh, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "at a minimum, [this amendment] prohibits 

DOl from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals 

who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied 

with such laws." 

b. Would this congressional prohibition prevent the DEA from raiding medical marijuana 

dispensaries that are compliant with state law, or from shutting down banks or other 

businesses that work with dispensaries? 

RESPONSE: The Ninth Circuit case you referenced is relatively recent, and I am not 

familiar with how other courts may have interpreted the relevant appropriations language or 

the Ninth Circuit's opinion. As an emerging issue, that is one that will need to be closely 

evaluated in light of all relevant law and facts. I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will conduct such a review. Of course, medical marijuana use is a small 

part of the growing commercial marijuana industry. 

36. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) requires parties to the 

treaty, including the United States, to promptly inform, upon arrest, nationals of signatory 

nations, that they have the right to meet with consular officials. Thousands of Americans are 

arrested in foreign countries every year, sometimes on questionable charges. The right to visit 

with U.S. consular officials provides U.S. nationals the ability to communicate with their 

families, retain competent legal counsel, and receive assistance from the U.S. Government. To 

help ensure domestic compliance with Article 36, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an 

amendment to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandating that a judge 

presiding at the defendant's initial appearance inform "a defendant who is not a United States 

citizen [that he or she] may request that an attorney for the government or a federal law 

enforcement official notify a consular officer from the defendant's country of nationality that the 

defendant has been arrested." 

a. Do you agree that this amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is a 

helpful change that will ensure Article 36 compliance at the Federal level? What other 

steps would you take to ensure compliance with Article 36? 

RESPONSE: The United States is a signatory to the VCCR, and the amendment is helpful in 

37 
838 

ensuring that foreign nationals are informed that they may ask for consular notification. The 

Committee Notes on that particular amendment recognize that certain questions remain 

unresolved by the courts concerning Article 36. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General, I will review those unresolved questions and determine whether additional 

changes or steps are necessary. 

There are a number of well documented cases in which the U.S. is not in compliance with our 

Article 36 obligations, and that noncompliance has strained our relationships with a number of 

important allies including Great Britain and Mexico. President Bush attempted to remedy one 

set of cases in 2008 through Executive Memorandum. However, the Supreme Court in Medellin 

v. Texas recognized the obligation but instructed that Congress must pass legislation to provide a 

remedy in these cases. 

b. In order to meet our legal obligations and protect the interests of U.S. national traveling 

abroad, would you work with the Congress to enact legislation that provides a mechanism 

to redress failures to provide the legally required VCCR notifications? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would be glad 

to work with Congress to ensure that the United States meets its international legal 

obligations and protects the interests of U.S. citizens. 

37. At a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2016, the Director of 

the National Security Agency and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command Admiral Mike 

Rogers testified that "[e]ncryption is foundational to the future. And anyone who thinks we are 

just going to walk away from that, I think, is totally unrealistic." Secretary of Defense Ash 

Carter has similarly stated that "encryption is a necessary part of data security and strong 

encryption is a good thing .... [W]e need our data security and encryption to be as strong as 

possible." 

In addition to Admiral Rogers and Secretary Carter, countless other national security experts 

have emphasized that strong encryption is vital to our national security and that any attempt to 

weaken encryption only makes Americans less secure- particularly when the United States and 

the American people face increased threats of cyberattack from hostile nation-states and 

cybercriminals. 

Do you agree with NSA Director Rogers, Secretary of Defense Carter, and other national 

security experts that strong encryption helps protect this country from cyberattack and is 

beneficial to the American peoples' digital seeurity? 

RESPONSE: Encryption serves many valuable and important purposes. It is also critical, 

however, that national security and criminal investigators be able to overcome encryption, 

under lawful authority, when necessary to the furtherance of national-security and criminal 

investigations. 

38 
839 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of tbe United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 25, 2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEAHY 

Many answers to my written questions were non-responsive. While some answers quoted 

statutes and cases to support your position (e.g. Questions 4b, !Ia, 15, !9a), in other responses 

you professed a complete lack of knowledge, even on topics that have dominated the news in 

recent months. You acknowledged in one response that you believe a statute is constitutional, 

but in others you refused even to say whether you considered a law to be "reasonably 

defensible." When responding to these follow up questions, please review any necessary 

materials to provide substantive answers to my questions. 

I also was troubled by your responses to questions 8 and 22, in which you consistently did not 

answer the question directly and stated that you had "no knowledge of whether [an individual] 

actually said [remarks relevant to the question] or in what context." Yet you omitted in your 

response footnotes that I included, which provided the relevant source material. I am re-asking 

those questions here and, for your convenience, I am appending these source materials to this 

document. 

RESPONSE: I reject the contention that my answers were non-responsive. I received over 

550 follow-up questions, many of which would be impossible or inappropriate for me to 

answer prior to taking office, should I be confirmed. Nevertheless, I made a good faith effort 

to do so in a timely manner, answering each question to the best of my knowledge and 

without the vast resources of the Department of Justice at my disposal. 

Questions 8 and 22 

8. In 2014, you accepted the "Daring the Odds" award from the David Horowitz Freedom 

Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called David Horowitz an "antiMuslim extremist" and has an extensive and detailed profile of Mr. Horowitz's racist and 

repugnant remarks against Muslims, Arabs, and African-Americans. 

In your hearing, you stated to Senator Blumenthal with regard to Mr. Horowitz, "I am not aware 

of everything he has ever said or not." You also defended your association with him by saying 

"I am not aware of those comments, and I do not believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person 

that would treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge." Now you have had the 

opportunity to learn more about the extremist remarks Mr. Horowitz has made. 

For example, Mr. Horowitz has repeatedly claimed that the United States government has been 

infiltrated by Muslims. He has referred to Muslims as "Islamic Nazis" who "want to kill Jews, 

that's their agenda." 1 

a. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 
840 

Mr. Horowitz has said "Obama is an anti-American radical and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, 

he certainly isn't a Christian .... He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend 

Atnerican."2 

b. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

Mr. Horowitz has even claimed that Muslims have "infiltrated" the Republican Party, and that 

"Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim."3 

c. Do you disavow and condemn that remark? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): As I said in my original response, I do not hold tbe views tbat these 

questions attribute to Mr. Horowitz. 

In 2015, you received the "Keeper oftbe Flame" award from the Center for Security Policy. The 

Center for Security Policy has been strongly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, and is 

considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

In 20 II, its founder, Frank Gaffney, was banned from tbe Conservative Political Action 

Conference (CPAC) because, in the words of one board member, "they didn't want to be 

associated with a crazy bigot."4 Among his disgraceful statements, Mr. Gaffney has said that the 

two Muslims in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, have "longstanding 

Muslim Brotherhood ties.''5 

e. CPAC did not want to be associated with a "crazy bigot," but you accepted an award from 

him in 2015. Do you condemn Mr. Gaffney's remarks and his insinuation that the two 

Muslim Congressmen are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? 

RESPONSE: As I said in my original response, I have not and will not associate myselfwitb 

any racially insensitive or discriminatory remarks made by anyone. 

f. Do you believe it is acceptable for the Attorney General to associate with Mr. Gaffney and 

his extremist organization? 

RESPONSE: As I said in my original response, no government official should lend the 

prestige of his or her office to any individual or organization that does not reflect American 

values. 

g. Mr. Gaffney has complained about Somali refugees holding jobs in the meat processing 

industry, saying "it kind of creeps me out that they are getting jobs in the food supply of 

the United States."6 Do you condemn that statement? 

h. Mr. Gaffney argued that a Muslim member of Congress should not be allowed to serve on 

the House Intelligence Committee because of his "extensive personal and political 

associations with ••. jihadist infrastructure in America."7 Do you condemn that remark? 

i. Mr. Gaffney has said of President Obama that it is an "increasingly indisputable fact that 

this president is providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And that is the 

definition, as you know, oftreason."8 Do you condemn the offensive allegation that 

President Obama is a traitor? 

2 
841 

RESPONSE to (g)- (i): As I said in my original response, I do not hold the views that these 

questions attribute to Mr. Gaffney. 

President-elect Trump has appointed Michael Flynn to be his National Security Advisor. The 

National Security Advisor has typically been the President's principal advisor on national 

security matters, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. 

Mr. Flynn serves on the board of advisors for an organization called ACT for America. The 

Southern Poverty Law Center has called this organization "far and away the largest grassroots 

anti-Muslim group in America." In August 2016 -less than six months ago- Mr. Flynn spoke 

at an event for this group. He is on video saying that Islam "is a political ideology. It definitely 

hides behind this notion of it being a religion." He also added that Islam is "like a malignant 

cancer."9 

k. Do you disavow and condemn Mr. Flynn's remarks? 

I. Do you believe that the President's national security advisor should refer to Islam as a 

"malignant cancer"? 

m. Do you believe the National Security Advisor should be associated with organizations that 

promote anti-Islamic bigotry and conspiracy theories? 

RESPONSE to (k)- (m): As I said in my original responses to each of these questions, I will 

not associate myself with any racially or religiously insensitive or discriminatory remarks. 

In the unclassified Intelligence Community Assessment on ''Assessing Russian Activities and 

Intentions in Recent US Elections'' released on January 6, 2017, there are seven pages describing 

the activities of RT America TV. The report notes that the network's "Leadership [is] closely 

tied to, controlled by Kremlin.'' Mr. Flynn has given a paid speech toRT, and attended a dinner 

celebrating the network's anniversary, where he sat at the same table as Vladimir Putin. 10 

n. Given the facts presented here, what legal issues does the relationship between the 

National Security Advisor and the Russian government raise? 

RESPONSE: I am not privy to the facts or details other than what is contained in public 

reporting, so I do not know what the appropriate response should be in this particular case. 

In 2015, you received an award from the Eagle Forum for''Excellence in Leadership." The late 

founder of that organization has a long history of controversial remarks. That includes 

advocating for ·•railroad cars full ofillegals going south" 11 and increasing the pay gap between 

men and women, 12 and arguing that married women by definition cannot be raped by their 

husbands. 13 

o. Do you agree that there should be "railroad cars full of illegals going south"? Do you 

condemn that remark? 

p. Do you agree that married women by definition cannot be raped by their husbands? Do 

you condemn that remark? 

3 
842 

q. Do you agree that the pay gap between men and women should be increased, rdther than 

diminished? 

r. Ms. Schlafly also claimed "it would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities" to target Muslims. 14 Do you agree with that statement? 

RESPONSE to (o)- (r): As I said in my original response,! do not hold the views that these 

questions attribute to the deceased woman referenced therein. 

22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in 

an effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ 

documents/ICA 2017 Ol.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate 

or political partY. Thi~ is about protecting our democracy. Please review this report and respond 

to the following questions. 

a. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia was responsible for 

the hack of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign chair? 

b. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia provided to 

Wikileaks the information that it stole? 

c. Do you accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia engaged in these 

activities in order to interfere with the election in Donald Trump's favor? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will have the vast resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my 

disposal to rely on before forming opinions on matters of this significance. Without those 

resources available to me, and because some aspect of this matter may come before the 

Department, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment. 

Additional follow-up questions 

1. You previously responded to questions 22a-c that you "have no reason not to accept the 

intelligence community's conclusion(s) as contained in the report." Given that response, I was 

surprised that when I then asked you if Russia's behavior, which was detailed in the report, was 

illegal and a threat to our democracy, your response was only, "I have not reviewed the matter in 

any detail; therefore, I am not in a position to opine on it." 

This issue has received significant news coverage, has been the subject of the DNI report 

provided with these questions, and will be the subject of an investigation by the Intelligence 

Committee (https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/joint-statement-on-committee-inquiryinto-russian-intelligence-activities). Senators McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed previously 

called for an investigation by a select bipartisan committee 

(https :/ /www. washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/20 16/12/ 18/mccain-calls-for-committee-toinvestigate-russia-hacking-theres-no-doubt-of-interference/?utm_term=.36d83eddfc08). 

Please read the appended report before responding. 

4 
843 

a. Given the information presented in the DNI report, do the Russian attempts to interfere in 

the 2016 election, including its hacks of the Democratic National Committee and of "some 

Republican-affiliated targets" (Report 3), constitute illegal behavior? If your answer is 

anything other than an unambiguous "yes," please explain how this hacking might possibly 

be legal. 

b. The report states on page one: 

"We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of 

which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary 

Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." 

Given these conclusions and the entirety of the report, do you believe the Russian attempts 

to interfere in the 2016 election constitute a threat to our democratic process? If your 

answer is anything other than an unambiguous "yes," please explain why such foreign 

interference in the American electoral process-seeking to "undermine public faith in the 

US democratic process"- is acceptable. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will have the vast resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my 

disposal to rely on before forming opinions on matters of this significance. Without those 

resources available to me, and because some aspect of this matter may come before the 

Department, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment at this time on any 

conclusion I may have reached. 

2. I previously asked you about the propriety of President Trump giving a White House 

position to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. I noted, "In 2013, while Bondi's office was 

considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University for fraud (which was settled two months 

ago for $25 million), Mr. Trump donated $25,000 to a group supporting Bondi. The donation 

was made illegally from Mr. Trump's foundation, and he was forced to reimburse and to pay a 

penalty to the IRS once the illegal payment became public. One month after the donation was 

received, Bondi's office decided not to join the lawsuit against Mr. Trump." I asked whether 

these facts, and the reported White House job for Attorney General Bondi, raised concerns about 

a quid pro quo. 

You responded, "! am not aware of facts that would support the assertions made in the above 

question and am unable to opine on this matter." I have appended to these questions a New York 

Times article from last year, titled "New Records Shed Light on Donald Trump's $25,000 Gift to 

Florida Official." Please review the article, which provides the factual predicate for the question. 

Do the facts of Mr. Trump's illegal donation, Ms. Bondi's ensuing decision not to join the 

lawsuit, and now the White House job for Ms. Bondi raise any concerns about a quid pro 

quo? 

RESPONSE: It would be unwise for me to rely solely on an article to offer an opinion as to 

5 
844 

the legitimacy of the facts contained in it, or the implications of it. While I have no 

knowledge on which to evaluate the truthfulness of the article you have asked me to review, it 

is well-known that the New York Times was regularly critical of the Trump campaign and 

sometimes less than objective. 

3. When I asked what your recusal standard will be, if confirmed, your responses were not 

satisfactory. You argued in an op-ed that Attorney General Lynch should have recused herself 

from matters involving Secretary Hillary Clinton because Lynch had had a single conversation 

with President Bill Clinton while the investigation was ongoing 

(http://www. foxnews.com/opinion/2 0 16/ II /05 I giuliani-sessions-keating-et -a)-time-for-lorettalynch-to-appoint-special-counsel.html). I asked whether you would apply the same standard to 

yourself regarding President Trump. 

You argued that it would be unfair to expect you to recuse yourself for "merely being a supporter 

of the President's during the campaign." I fear you are selling yourself short. ABC News 

referred to you as "Top Trump foreign policy adviser Sen. Jeff Sessions" 

(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-trump-adviser-jeff-sessions-trumpcampaign/story?id=41358247). The Washington Post said, "In Donald Trump's world, most 

roads, it seems, lead back to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Aia.), President-elect Trump's pick for 

attorney general. After Sessions became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump 

this February, he became an adviser on almost every major decision and policy proposal Trump 

made during the campaign" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/20 16/11/18110-

things-to-know -about -sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general). Your 

relationship with President Trump went beyond mere support. 

Your response to my recusal questions was that you would consult with Justice Department 

ethics officials in cases where you "believed [your] impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned." Justice Department recusal standards are codified at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (see 

appended). In relevant part, the regulations state: 

... no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or 

political relationship with: 

(I) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of 

the investigation or prosecution; or 

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest 

that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. 

"Political relationship" is defined as "a close identification with an elected official. .. arising from 

service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof." 

Under the definition in 28 C.F.R. § 45.2(c), did you have a "political relationship" with 

President Trump before you were nominated to be Attorney General? Please answer yes 

or no. 

RESPONSE: As I previously stated, if a matter arose in which I believed my impartiality 

6 
845 

might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding 

the most appropriate way to proceed. Such a consultation would necessarily include careful 

evaluation of the statute in question, in light of relevant facts and circumstances. I will not 

make this determination in a vacuum and without the expertise of Department attorneys. 

4. In my first round of written questions I asked you whether, when opposing the 2013 

Leahy-Crapo VA W A reauthorization, you opposed its new protections for LGBT Americans. 

Your response was nearly 300 words, but it did not directly answer the question, so I will ask 

again. 

Did you oppose the new protections for LGBT Americans in the 2013 VA WA 

reauthorization? Please answer yes or no. 

RESPONSE: As I noted in my original response, on its face, the broad prohibition in this 

provision 

"would appear to preclude operation of a women-only (or women and children-only) 

domestic violence shelter, and the Act's exception to this prohibition appears narrow and 

is unclear. I believe that, in some circumstances, it is appropriate for VA W A grant 

recipients to provide services that are limited to women. To the extent that VA W A 

2013's new anti-discrimination provision is construed to, for example, prevent or make it 

difficult for a women's domestic violence shelter to provide services that it believes 

should be limited only to women, I continue to have serious reservations about that 

provision. In the past, I have received strong objections from a respected women and 

children's shelter on this very issue." 

5. I asked at your hearing whether you would defend VA W A's constitutionality, and you 

said only "if it is reasonably defensible." I then asked in my written questions whether you 

believed "the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VA W A Reauthorization, including its LGBT and tribal victims' 

provisions, is 'reasonably defensible."' You answered only that you "will carefully study this 

program before reaching any final legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal jurisdiction 

provision." 

Based on your strong opposition to the law, as well as your thorough preparation for this 

nomination process, I find it difficult to believe you have not "carefully stud[ied)" it. Moreover, 

you did assert that particular laws were constitutional in other responses. In your response to 

14a-b, you wrote, "!believe that this statute is constitutional." Here, I am not asking for such an 

endorsement of a law's constitutionality, I am just asking whether you believe it is "reasonably 

defensible." 

Do you believe the 2013 Leahy-Crapo VAWA Reauthorization, including its LGBT and 

tribal victims' provisions, is "reasonably defensible"? Please answer yes or no. 

RESPONSE: As I said in my original response, 

"[i)f I am confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, including the 

7 
846 

2013 reauthorization of VA W A. I understand that a pilot program has been initiated that 

seeks to conform tribes• exercise of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians to the 

requirements of the Sixth Amendment. I will carefully study this program before 

reaching any legal conclusions about the VA W A tribal jurisdiction provision." 

I am not aware of any other provision of the law that raises constitutional concerns. 

Furthermore, as Attorney General, it would be my duty to review these provisions as would 

be necessary to enforce the 2013 law, regardless of past opinions I may have held. While I 

do not have these resources available to me at present, as Attorney General, I would have 

agencies within the Department with substantial expertise on tribal matters and jurisdiction 

to assist me in these matters. 

6. In response to question 37, on encryption, you wrote "It is also critical, however, that 

national security and criminal investigators be able to overcome encryption." 

a. Please explain what you mean by this. 

b. Do you believe that all encryption should provide a "back door" for law enforcement 

officials? Please answer yes or no. 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Encryption is part of many quickly-developing technologies, and 

it would be imprudent to guess at what an appropriate categorical rule should be for all of 

those technologies without first undertaking extensive review or without considering the 

possibility of adequate tailoring of those rules based on the particular technology in question, 

especially when encryption is likely to undergo exponential development and expansion in 

the next few years, just as it has recently. Encryption serves many valuable and important 

purposes, but it is also important that national security and law enforcement investigators be 

able to continue use lawful authorities to prevent, investigate, and respond to threats. 

7. In response to Question 19(c), you said the United States should take "great care" before 

using lethal force in the United States in the armed conflict against al Qaeda and associated 

forces. 

a. Aside from circumstances such as self-defense when law enforcement officials are permitted 

to lawfully use lethal force, what circumstances could justify the use of lethal force on U.S. 

soil? 

RESPONSE: Examples would include law enforcement's response to the San Bernardino 

and Orlando terror attacks. 

In 2013, Senator Rand Paul wrote to former Attorney General Eric Holder asking, "Does the 

President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in 

combat on American soil?" Former Attorney General Holder responded categorially, "The 

answer to that question is no." 

b. Do you agree with former Attorney General Holder? Please answer yes or no. 

8 
847 

RESPONSE: Lethal force cannot be used against Americans without lawful justification. 

8. I asked in my first round of written questions about your comment that the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act "has been said to cheapen the civil rights 

movement." You emphasized, "Those were not my words." 1 recognize that. 

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the U.S. Attorney in Idaho has used the Act to bring 

federal hate crimes charges against a man who murdered a gay man by "push[ing] [the victim] to 

the ground and kick[ing] him at least 30 times with steel-toed boots while [the victim] begged for 

his life." The Post noted, "The fatal beating of the openly gay man has been compared by some 

in the community to the murder of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student from Wyoming 

whose torture and subsequent death set off a nationwide debate about hate crimes and 

homophobia and led to the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 

Act." The article is appended and can be found at 

https :/ /www. washingtonpost.com/news/moming-mix/wp/20 17/0 1/2 4/idahoan-admits-to-brutalmurder-of-gay-man-as-he-pleaded-for-his-life-now-faces-hate-charge. 

While you emphasized that you were not speaking in your own words when you said that my 

hate crimes amendment "has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement," l would still like 

to know whether you agree with that statement. 

When you said in 2009 that "the hate crimes amendment ... has been said to cheapen the 

civil rights movement," did you agree with that viewpoint? Do you agree with it now? 

Please answer yes or no. 

RESPONSE: Hate crimes legislation deals with serious and important issues and it is not 

correct to say it cheapens our commitment to civil rights. 

9. At your hearing, Senator Franken asked you about President Trump's claims that there 

were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 election. You responded, "I don't know what the 

President-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment, or what facts he may have 

had to justifY his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and 

we need to ensure that there is integrity in it, and 1 do believe we regularly have fraudulent 

activities occur during election cycles." 

Earlier this week, President Trump reportedly "surprised the top Republicans and Democrats in 

Congress on Monday when, during a dinner at the White House, he repeated his claim that 

millions of undocumented immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton." 

(http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/wh-trump-believes-millions-voted-illegally.) In a 

press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded to a question about that 

erroneous claim by saying, "The President does believe that, 1 think he's stated that before, and 

stated his concern of voter fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign and continues 

to maintain that belief based on studies and evidence people have brought to him." Again, as 

Senator Franken noted at your hearing, there is zero evidence to support this outlandish claim. 

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker Recidivism Watch" stated: 

9 
848 

Despite Trump's repeated claims, his attorneys stated there was no evidence of voter fraud in the 

2016 election. In a court filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount petition, 

lawyers for Trump and his campaign wrote: 'All available evidence suggests that the 2016 

general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.' 

When we debunked this claim on Nov. 29,2016, we implored Trump's staff members to please 

drop this talking point- as we are tired of telling them it is false. We can't emphasize this 

point enough. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact- checker/wp/2017/01/24/recidivismwatch-spicer-uses-repeatedly-debunked-citations-for- trumps-voter-fraudclaims/?utm_term=.8975 I bee5353.) 

Speaker Paul Ryan evidently agreed with President Trump's attorneys and is quoted by Fox 

News saying, "I've seen no evidence to that effect. I've made that very, very clear." 

(http://www .foxnews.com/po liti cs/20 I 7/01/24/ spicer-digs-in-on-trumps-illegal-voting-claim-asryan-distances.html.) 

Senator Lindsey Graham also evidently agreed with President Trump's attorneys, and argued, 

"To continue to suggest that the 2016 election was conducted in a fashion that millions of people 

voted illegally undermines faith in our democracy." (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20!6-

election!gop-senator-president-trump-stop-claiming-illegals-cost-you-popular-n711386.) 

Press Secretary Spicer stated that President Trump believes these claims, even though the 

president's lawyers do not. I am not asking you to explain the President's beliefs; I would like to 

know whether you share that belief. 

Do you share President Trump's belief that "millions of undocumented immigrants voted 

for Hillary Clinton" in the 2016 election? Please answer yes or no. If your answer is 

anything other than an unambiguous "no," please provide evidence to support the claim 

that millions of votes were cast illegally. 

RESPONSE: I have not studied any data that the President might have relied upon in 

making this assertion, nor have I discussed this with him. At this time I do not know how 

many people illegally voted. 

10. On Wednesday President Trump announced several executive orders involving 

immigration, including an order involving constructing a border wall and others targeting 

immigrants. Additional executive orders, targeting refugees, are expected on Thursday. 

What role did you or your staff have in formulating and drafting these executive orders? 

RESPONSE: None. Neither I, nor any of my current staff, had such a role. During the 

campaign, President Trump sought my and my staff's input on a number of matters on which 

I have taken very public positions as a Senator; however, it would be impossible for me to 

know the degree to which that input was relied upon in formulating or drafting the Executive 

Orders in question. 

11. The New York Times reported this morning that President Trump is preparing an 

10 
849 

executive order that would expand the use of the ineffective military commission system, allow 

individuals to be transferred to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and allow the CIA to 

reopen secret "black sites," among other things. 

a. Do you believe international law prohibits U.S. officials from engaging in torture or cruel, 

inhuman or degrading treatment? If so, what is the source of that prohibition? 

RESPONSE: While I have not studied the relevant international law on this question, as I 

have previously stated, U.S. federal law deems it unlawful for either the military or our 

intelligence agencies to subject detainees to torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading 

treatment. 

b. Do you believe, as a matter of law, that we are in an armed conflict with those who 

"harbor" AI Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces? What constitutes "harboring"? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will have the 

vast resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my disposal to rely on 

before forming opinions on matters of this significance. Without those resources available to 

me, and because some aspect of this matter may come before the Department, I do not 

believe it would be appropriate for me to comment. 

c. Do you believe, as a matter oflaw, that we are in an armed conflict with those who provide 

"substantial support" to AI Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces? What constitutes 

"substantial support"? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will have the 

vast resources of the Department, including experienced personnel, at my disposal to rely on 

before forming opinions on matters of this significance. Without those resources available to 

me, and because some aspect of this matter may come before the Department, I do not 

believe it would be appropriate for me to comment. 

d. What limits does the U.S. Constitution set on placing U.S. citizens in military custody on 

U.S. soil? 

RESPONSE: As I have previously stated, under the historic rules of war and U.S.law, the 

United States may detain an active member of a! Qaeda or other enemy combatants for the 

duration of the hostilities. As you know, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), a 

plurality of the Supreme Court stated that "[t]here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its 

own citizens as an enemy combatant." The plurality relied in part on Ex Parte Quirin, 317 

U.S. I (1942), in which the Court held that Congress authorized the military trial of a U.S. 

citizen who entered the country with orders from the Nazis to blow up domestic war 

facilities, but was captured before he could execute them. See also Padilla v. Hanft, 423 

F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005); Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008). Captured 

citizens who are at war with the U.S., can of course, contest their detention in federal court 

by writ of habeas corpus. 

II 
850 

e. Do you believe the United States is in an armed conflict with all "violent Islamic 

extremists"? How would you define a "violent Islamic extremist?" 

RESPONSE: The United States is currently in an armed conflict with a number of violent 

Islamic extremist groups that are named in the AUMF (including associated forces). Of 

course we are in a state of conflict and hostility with all those who carry out violent attacks 

against us. 

12 
851 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR TILLIS 

1. At your hearing, I mentioned a report published in December of20l4 by the Government 

Accountability Office entitled, "Department of Justice Could Strengthen Procedures for 

Disciplining Its Attorneys." 1 This report concluded that the Department of Justice had not 

appropriately addressed concerns regarding how it implements discipline for attorney 

professional misconduct. Will you commit to reviewing the report and reevaluating the 

procedures for addressing attorney professional misconduct? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

2. Our immigration system needs reform. One issue that I am particularly concerned with is the 

backlog in our immigration courts. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b) (1), Congress gave 

immigration judges the authority during removal proceedings to sanction by penalty any 

action or inaction that is in contempt of the judge's orders under regulations prescribed by 

the Attorney General. To my knowledge, the Attorney General has never promulgated these 

regulations. As Attorney General, will you evaluate whether giving immigration judges the 

authority to hold individuals in contempt will help improve efficiency and reduce the backlog 

in our immigration courts? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

1 http:l/www.gao.gov/products/GA0-15-156 
852 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted January 17,2017 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WHITEHOUSE 

I) During your hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked you about comments 

you made in November, 2016 in an interview with American Family Radio with respect to 

"secular, progressive liberals" and the "secular Left" making the Department of Justice 

"unlawful" and "less traditional." In your response, you stated that you were "not sure" 

whether a secular person has as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is 

religious. In addition to your comments to American Family Radio and your response to me, 

you have previously stated the following: 

• "I really believe that this whole court system is really important and the real value and battle 

that we're engaged in here is one to reaffirm that there is objective truth, it's not all relative. 

And that means some things are right and some things are wrong, and we're getting too far 

away from that in my opinion and it's not healthy for any country and it's really not healthy 

for a democracy like ours that's built on the rule of law" (Faith and Freedom Coalition event, 

2016). 

• And if you don't believe there's a truth, if you don't believe in truth, if you're a secularist, 

then how do we operate this government? How can we form a democracy ofthe kind that I 

think you and I believe in? ... I do believe we are a nation that, without God, there is no truth 

and it's all about power, ideology, advancement and agenda, not doing the public service" 

(Upon receipt of David Horowitz Freedom Center Award, 2014). 

a) Could you elaborate on your view that secular lawyers have contributed to "unlawfulness" 

at the Department of Justice? 

RESPONSE: These comments were made in response to my perception that individuals within 

the Department were using their own opinions of"truth" to decide when particular laws ought to 

be enforced, rather than consulting federal statute or the Constitution. Abdicating a duty to 

enforce the law based on one's personal belief that an act clearly prohibited by law is nonetheless 

acceptable would fit my definition of "unlawfulness." 

b) Do practicing Christians have access to the "objective truth?" 

c) Do practicing Jews have access to the "objective truth?" 

d) Do practicing Muslims have access to the "objective truth?" 

e) Do practicing Hindus have access to the "objective truth?" 

RESPONSE: My personal philosophy on objective truth is immaterial to my duty to enforce the 

law and would not hinder me from doing so, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General. 

f) Could you elaborate on your statement at the hearing that a secular attorney may not have 
853 

as good a claim to understanding the truth as a religious one? 

RESPONSE: My personal philosophy on objective truth is immaterial to my duty to enforce the 

law and would not hinder me from doing so, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

Attorney General. Justice Department attorneys, secular or religious, must likewise carry out the 

duties ofthe office with fidelity to federal law and the Constitution, regardless of their personal 

philosophies. 

2) Sections 208 and 216, 18 U .S.C. provide civil and criminal penalties for "an officer or 

employee of the executive branch of the United States Government ... [who] participates 

personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, 

approval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial 

or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, 

controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, 

he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, 

director, trustee, general partner or employee ... has a financial interest. ... " 

a) Can you provide anurances that you will vigorously enforce 18 U.S. C.§§ 208 and 216, as 

well as other laws and policies relating to executive branch conflicts of interest? 

RESPONSE: Yes. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, including 

18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 216, as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

b) What specific policies will you put in place to ensure that referrals to the Department of 

Justice regarding potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and/or 216 by political 

appointees are fully and fairly investigated? 

RESPONSE: The Department of Justice has discretion to bring civil suits for penalties and 

injunctions for violations of this statute. Ifl am confirmed, I will carefully review any referrals 

regarding potential violations of this statute and prosecute meritorious cases. At this point and 

without the resources of the Department of Justice at my disposal, it would be premature to 

announce specific policies to process hypothetical referrals. 

3) Does the President have the authority to fire the Director of the Office of Government 

Ethics (OGE)? 

RESPONSE: I have not studied this question. However, it is my understanding that the Director 

of the Office of Government Ethics, by statute, is appointed to a five-year term by the President 

and confirmed by the Senate. It is also my understanding that the current director has not 

completed his five-year term. While some fixed-term appointees can be released only for cause, 

as specified in statute, there is no such provision in place for the Director of the Office of 

Government Ethics. lfl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, and the 

President asked me to advise him on this question, I would consult with the attorneys at the 

Justice Department to ensure that the law is faithfully followed in reaching a decision. 

4) Terror organizations, drug cartels, human traffickers, and other criminal enterprises abuse 

2 
854 

United States incorporation laws to establish shell companies designed to hide assets and 

launder money. The law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police, 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; National Association of Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys; and National District Attorneys Association, have all called on Congress to pass 

legislation to help law enforcement identify the beneficial owners behind these shell 

companies. Chuck Canterbury, President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, explains, 

"When we are able to expose the link between shell companies and drug trafficking, 

corruption, organized crime and terrorist finance, the law enforcement community is better 

able to keep America safe from these illegal activities and keep the proceeds of these crimes 

out of the U.S. financial system." 

a) Do you agree that allowing law enforcement to obtain the identities of the beneficial 

owners ofshell companies would help law enforcement to uncover and dismantle criminal 

networks? 

RESPONSE: While I have not studied this issue in depth, it is important and one which I expect 

to learn more about should I be confirmed. I look forward to working with you and other 

members of Congress to find ways to improve prosecutions in these areas. 

b) Will you commit to working with Congress on legislation to give law enforcement the tools 

needed to more effectively untangle the complex web of shell companies criminals use to 

hide assets and Iauder money in the United States? 

RESPONSE: Yes. 

c) Under current law, banks are required to undertake due diligence to ensure that their 

customers are not laundering funds. No similar anti-money-laundering standards apply to 

the attorneys who help set up the shell companies integral to criminal enterprises. Do you 

support extending anti-money-laundering due diligence requirements to attorneys? 

RESPONSE: While I have not studied this issue in depth, it is important and one which I expect 

to learn more about should I be confirmed. I look forward to working with you and other 

members of Congress on proposals such as this in order to increase public safety and the 

administration of justice. 

5) As you know, U.S. intelligence agencies are unanimous in their conclusion that Russia 

interfered in the 2016 elections through a campaign of computer hacking, propaganda, and 

fake news. 

a) Are you prepared to use the full resources of the Department of Justice to investigate 

violations of law related to Russian interference, even if such an investigation could prove 

politically damaging to Donald Trump? 

RESPONSE: Any investigation by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in 

a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence. The 

Department must follow the facts wherever they lead, and decisions must be based solely upon 

3 
855 

the facts and the law, and consistent with established procedures of the Department. That is the 

process I followed as United States Attorney, and it is what I will insist upon if I am confirmed 

as Attorney General. 

b) Will you recuse yourself and appoint special counsel to look into the matter further? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

6) Several Trump campaign staff and advisors have close ties to Russia. Most notably, before he 

resigned, former campaign manager Paul Manafort was exposed to have received $12.7 

million in illegal cash payments from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's proRussian political party between 2007 and 2012. Manafort even broke red a deal to sell 

Ukrainian cable TV assets to a partnership he put together with a close ally of Putin. Are you 

prepared to recuse yourself and appoint special counsel to investigate any possible 

involvement of Trump campaign staff or advisors in the Russian election interference or 

any other illegal transactions with Russia that may have occurred? 

RESPONSE: I am not aware of a basis to recuse myself from such investigations. However, if a 

specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would 

consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. As I 

made clear at my confirmation hearing, I will always be fair and work within the law and the 

established procedures of the Department. 

7) Earlier this month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CS IS) Cyber Policy 

Task Force issued a report announcing recommendations to the 45th President for 

strengthening the nation's cybersecurity. Can you provide your assurances that, as 

Attorney General, you will familiarize yourself with these recommendations and others 

and equip the Department of Justice to play a strong role in deterring and combating 

cybercrime and holding those responsible accountable? 

RESPONSE: Yes. If! am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I anticipate 

that I and those in the Justice Department who lead its efforts on cybersecurity issues will be 

briefed on the recommendations of the report. 

8) Referring to the "alt right," White House strategist Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart 

News, has called you "one ofthe intellectual, moral leaders of this populist, nationalist 

movement [alt right] in this country." In February 2015, you told Bannon that "Breitbart has 

been the absolute bright spot in this whole debate. You get it, your writers get it, every day 

they find new information that I use repeatedly in debate on the floor of the Senate because 

it's highlighting the kind of problems that we have. And nobody else is doing it effectively, 

it's just not happening, so to me it's like a source." 

Under Mr. Bannon's leadership, Breitbart News ran the articles with the following headlines: 

4 
856 

• Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy 

• The Solution to Online "Harassment" is Simple: Women Should Log Off 

There's No Bias Against Women in Tech, They Just Suck at Interviews 

• Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield 

• Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed 

• Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew 

• Trannies Whine About Hilarious Bruce Jenner Billboard 

a) Do you continue to believe that Breitbart News is a "bright spot"? 

b) Do you believe Breitbart News is a reliable source of information? 

c) Do you believe it would be appropriate to rely on Breitbart as a source in your role as 

Attorney General, should you be confirmed? Why or why not? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with the articles referenced above. I believe a number of media 

sources contain useful information. Of course, I would not rely on any information from any 

media source without verification. 

9) Jurisdictions across the country, from South Carolina to California and Ohio to New 

Hampshire, are investing in a range of treatment alternatives to incarceration for low-level 

drug offenders. These programs are designed to shift the emphasis oflaw enforcement 

intervention toward the delivery of drug treatment and other services. In addition to drug 

courts, what treatment alternatives to incarceration models do you support and why? 

RESPONSE: Under the right circumstances, treatment alternatives to incarceration can be part 

of an effective law enforcement strategy to get people off the cycle of crime and drugs. Ifused, 

treatment alternatives should be in sync with traditional law enforcement, and be carefully 

implemented on a case-by-case basis. My support for treatment alternatives will be guided by 

many factors, including a rigorous examination of the rate of success and the effect on deterrence 

of criminal activity. 

I 0) There is an emerging consensus in Congress, as well as the addiction field, and even in the law 

enforcement community that we can't arrest our way out of the drug problem and that the 

emphasis should be on directing people who struggle with addiction into treatment and away 

from the criminal justice system. 

a) Do you agree with this view? 

RESPONSE: Treatment alternatives can be one part of an effective and comprehensive law 

enforcement response to the spread of dangerous drugs. When I was a United States Attorney, 

my office spent significant resources combating narcotics. I have also been a strong supporter of 

drug courts. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would carefully 

analyze the benefits that could be realized by alternatives to law enforcement and weigh them 

carefully against the costs. However, traditional law enforcement approaches have succeeded in 

lowering the prevalence of illegal drugs in the past, and I believe those tools should remain at the 

forefront of our approach. To date, treatment has not proven universally successful. Prevention 

of use and addiction is critical, also. 

5 
857 

b) What steps would you consider taking as Attorney General to support this goal? 

RESPONSE: See response to 1 O(a). 

11 )Do you intend to dismantle or keep intact the Department of Justice's Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Working Group? 

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with this working group. However, ifl am fortunate enough to 

be confirmed as Attorney General, I will carefully evaluate any current practices of the 

Department as to their effectiveness in the enforcement of federal law and the protections 

inherent therein. 

12) In January 20 I 0, DOJ attorney David Margolis issued a memorandum suggesting that 

attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel may owe a duty of candor to their clients that is less 

than the duty owed by workaday litigators to their clients. Since that time, I have been 

informed that the Department no longer allows this loophole in ethical guidance it provides 

its attorneys. What is your view with respect to the duty of candor that OLC attorneys owe 

their clients? 

RESPONSE: The Office of Legal Counsel is a critical component within the Department of 

Justice. I would expect OLC to provide candid, independent, and principled advice. It is 

essential that OLC's lawyers be of extraordinary legal ability in order that they be able to provide 

strongly reasoned analysis that is clear and accurate. 

13) President Trump has called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a "terrible law." But the Act, 

as amended by the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998, is the cornerstone of federal 

efforts to prevent and prosecute bribery of foreign officials by U.S. corporations, and to 

maintain a fair and level playing field for small and mid-size corporations doing business 

overseas. Since 2008, the federal government-DOJ, SEC, and the FBI-have maintained 

about 150 active investigations at any given time, resulting in $1.56 billion in fines in 2014. 

Will you commit to continued vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and 

the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998? 

RESPONSE: Yes, if confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce all federal laws, including 

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998, as appropriate 

based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

14)Is it still your view that broad mens rea reform, such as that encompassed in the Mens Rea 

Reform Act of 2015 (S. 2298) would hamper the ability of prosecutors to prosecute a wide 

array of federal crimes? 

RESPONSE: Changes to mens rea requirements could have a significant impact on the ability 

ofthe Justice Department to combat crime in the United States. However, I recognize that 

Congress may determine to enact change to law. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as 

6 
858 

Attorney General, I will enforce the laws that Congress passes. 

15) In recently criticizing commutations granted by President Obama, you remarked, "So-called 

low-level, non-violent offenders simply do not exist in the Federal system." 

a) Do you believe this is a true statement? 

RESPONSE: This quote is taken out-of-context from a longer statement against President 

Obama's commutations of214 drug-traffickers and firearms felons. I believe it to be a true 

statement. 

b) What evidence do you have to support it? 

RESPONSE: The lowering of the crack cocaine sentencing disparity that I spearheaded with 

Senator Durbin in the Senate, as well as changes in sentencing law and practice by the 

Sentencing Commission and the Supreme Court, have substantially curtailed the number of lowlevel, non-violent offenders in the federal system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps detailed 

information on the federal criminal justice system, as does the federal Bureau of Prisons. 

16) At your hearing, you testified: "The guidelines have been either made voluntary by the 

sentencing commission in the courts and the policies of the attorney general." Are you 

aware that the Sentencing Guidelines were made voluntary because of a Supreme Court 

decision, not because of the Department of Justice or the Sentencing Commission? 

RESPONSE: I was talking about unilateral actions by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to make 

changes to the sentencing guidelines, with the full support of the Obama Administration, 

resulting in the release of tens of thousands of federal drug offenders, many of whom are violent 

offenders and/or have serious criminal histories. I have often discussed the impact ofthe 

Supreme Court's decision in United Stales v. Booker and my views in that regard are wellknown. 

17) At your hearing, you testified: "The Justice Department now allows a prosecutor to present a 

case to the judge that doesn't fully reflect the evidence that they have in their files about a 

case. That's a problematic thing. You shouldn't charge, I think it's problematic and difficult to 

justify a prosecutor charging five kilos of heroin when the actual amount was 10 to get a 

lower sentence." 

a) From where do you derive the idea that a prosecutor must charge the maximum charge in 

every case? 

b) Do you hold this view consistently across all federal criminal statutes and civil charges? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): Prosecutors retain discretion in the application of law enforcement 

resources available to them. Generally speaking, prosecutors evaluate the evidence available in a 

case as a major factor in determining what to charge. 

7 
859 

c) The United States Attorney's Manual clearly disagrees with your narrow view of 

prosecutorial discretion. It states: "Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor 

has wide latitude in detennining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for 

apparent violations of Federal criminal law. The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas 

as initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and 

terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous 

occasions by the courts." Please explain how your testimony fits with the substantial 

discretion retained by prosecutors to determine which specific charges should be filed in a 

given case. 

RESPONSE: The United States Attorney's Manual sets forth that discretion "should be read in 

the broader context of the basic responsibilities of Federal prosecutors: assurance of warranted 

punishment, deterrence of further criminal conduct, protection ofthe public from dangerous 

offenders, and rehabilitation of offenders ... while making certain also that the rights of 

individuals are scrupulously protected." If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney 

General, the Justice Department will be mindful of these basic responsibilities. 

d) The American Bar Association states one ofthe duties of a prosecutor is to "seek justice, not 

merely to convict," and another as, "the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the 

perfonnance of his or her functions." How is it consistent with those obligations to always 

charge the maximum charge or charges in a given case? 

RESPONSE: As set forth in the United States Attorney's Manual, a prosecutor's discretion 

should be read in the broader context of the basic responsibilities of federal prosecutors. lfl am 

fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General, the Justice Department will be mindful of 

these basic responsibilities. 

e) If you believe there are any considerations that counsel against levying the maximum 

charges in a given case, what are those considerations? Please list all of them. 

RESPONSE: See response to 17( c). 

18) In the context of hate crimes prosecutions, you agreed with Senator Graham's statement as 

follows: "When the state's doing its job, the federal government should let the states do their 

job." You then said it is a "general principle." Your testimony here seems inconsistent with 

your view of other prosecutions, particularly drug prosecutions. 

a) Why in some contexts do you think the federal government should step in and file 

maximum charges, but in other where federal charges are available you nevertheless 

believe the states should take the lead? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: Whether the Federal government should step into an area where States have 

traditional jurisdiction should be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts and 

applicable law in each individual case. 

b) Do you believe the federal government must always file maximum charges under the 

8 
860 

federal hate crimes law when the facts support such charges? Please explain. 

c) Do you believe the federal government must always file maximum charges under the civil 

rights laws when the fads support such charges? Please explain. 

RESPONSE to (b)- (c): lfl am so fortunate as to be confinned as Attorney General, the Justice 

Department will be guided by the applicable facts and law in each individual case, together with 

appropriate Justice Department guidelines, in determining which charges to file. 

d) Do you believe the federal government must always bring the most civil claims supportable 

by the fads under the civil rights laws? Please explain. 

e) Do you believe the federal government must always bring the most civil claims supportable 

by the facts under the voting rights laws? Please explain. 

RESPONSE to (d)- (e): If I am so fortunate as to be confinned as Attorney General, the Justice 

Department will be guided by the applicable facts and law in each individual case, together with 

appropriate Justice Department guidelines, in detennining which claims to file. 

19) You opposed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, explaining that there was 

not sufficient evidence that crimes against the LGBT community were being underprosecuted 

at the state level. How many underprosecuted crimes are necessary to justifY federal 

intervention? 

RESPONSE: Any statement I made during debate over the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, 

Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of2009 reflected an opinion that I reached based on infonnation 

available to me at the time. If I am fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General, I will 

work diligently to ensure that all Americans receive equal protection under our laws. 

20) The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations both 

reported a sharp increase in hate crimes following the election. 

a) Do you have an opinion on the reason for cause this increase? 

RESPONSE: I am unable to thoroughly evaluate this assertion or offer an opinion, as I have not 

been presented with information necessary to do so. However, ifl am fortunate enough to be 

confinned as Attorney General, I would expect to learn more about this issue and give it my 

careful consideration. 

b) What steps will you take to investigate this trend? 

RESPONSE: If I am fortunate enough to be confinned as Attorney General, I will endeavor to 

direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure 

the enforcement of federal law and the protections inherent therein. Any specific steps I will 

take to this end will be decided after careful evaluation of any current practices of the 

Department and the effectiveness of those practices. 

9 
861 

c) What steps will you take to work with minority communities to build trust and open lines of 

communication with the Department of Justice? 

RESPONSE: Effective engagement of state and local law enforcement, and supporting their 

outreach efforts in communities, is absolutely critical to protecting all Americans. If I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that the resources of the 

Department of Justice and our partnerships with state and local law enforcement are utilized in a 

way that will ensure public safety and full enforcement of the law. 

d) What is the federal role in preventing and prosecuting crimes directed against racial, 

ethnic, and religious minority groups? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed, it will be my duty to ensure that all Americans receive equal 

protection under our laws. This will necessarily entail strong communication and partnerships 

with state and local law enforcement. From time to time, federal involvement might be necessary 

where federal law is not being followed or where equal justice under the law is not being 

administered. Decisions to intervene must only be reached after careful consideration of the facts 

and applicable law. 

21) Will the Civil Rights Division continue to investigate disparate impact discrimination 

claims? 

RESPONSE: The Civil Rights Division was established to ensure equal protection of the law, 

particularly for the vulnerable, and to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws. This will continue 

to be the mission of the Division, ifl am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General. 

22) In 2003, former Attorney General John Ashcroft directed prosecutors to charge the "most 

serious, readily provable offense" available. You appeared to criticize any changes in policy 

to the Ashcroft memo instituted by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013. What are 

the substantive changes, if any, you intend to make as Attorney General to the Holder 2013 

memo on "Department Policy on Charging and Sentencing"? Please outline the rationale 

for the changes that you would propose. 

RESPONSE: I was not asked specifically for my position on the Ashcroft memo. Substantive 

changes, if any, to the Holder memo would be made after internal discussions with Justice 

Department staff, and consultation with law enforcement agencies. 

23)In !996, as Alabama Attorney General, you told the Crime Subcommittee of the House 

Judiciary Committee that "[w]e must end this separation of the irrational and artificial wall 

between [the adult and juvenile] justice systems." You also lauded your office's push to 

remove the ability of a juvenile to immediately appeal his transfer to adult court and 

lamented the "red tape" associated with transfer hearings. 

a) Do you still believe that the division between the criminal and juvenile justice systems in 

this country is inappropriate? 

10 
862 

RESPONSE: I have spoken many times of the need to address the problem of juvenile crime in 

the United States. In some instances, outmoded juvenile justice systems failed to adequately 

address violent crime among juveniles. Division between juvenile and adult treatment is 

appropriate, as with misdemeanor offenders. However, in some cases it is appropriate for 

serious violent crime to be handled by the criminal justice system. 

b) Do you believe that youth who are detained should be separated from adults? 

RESPONSE: It is certainly appropriate, where possible, for juveniles to be separated from adult 

criminals, if sufficient facilities and resources are available to law enforcement. 

24) In 1997, you introduced a bill in this chamber that would allow states to jail juveniles as 

young as 13 with adults, prior even to conviction, would cut funding for juvenile crime 

prevention while increasing funding for new detention centers, and would allow states to 

expel children school for six months for "offenses" such as smoking cigarettes. Does the 

Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offenders Act of 1997 still reflect your views with respect to 

juvenile justice? 

RESPONSE: I introduced the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offenders Act in the Senate to 

address a set of conditions that existed in this country 20 years ago. Since then, we have made 

tremendous progress in law enforcement and reduction of crime nationwide. I have not studied 

the provisions of that legislation in the context of present-day circumstances of juvenile crime. 

25) Under President Bush, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

suffered a severe loss of morale and the desertion of numerous career civil servants. 

Administrator Flores left the Office under a cloud of corruption and mismanagement. 

a) Can you assure the Senate that you will take the responsibility of this Office seriously and 

ensure, to the extent that you are able, its capable and competent leadership? 

RESPONSE: It is important that grant programs be run efficiently and effectively. We must 

ensure that we eliminate waste, fraud and mismanagement in all grant programs. To accomplish 

this, we need capable and competent leadership so that the money that is appropriated by 

Congress is used as efficiently as possible in accomplishing the ends identified in such 

appropriations. 

b) As far as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), do we have your 

assurances that you will empower OJJDP to effectively monitor states' compliance with its 

core protections for youth? 

RESPONSE: As Attorney General, I will diligently monitor compliance with any statutory 

requirements ofthe Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or any other Act of 

Congress, so long as they are lawful and consistent with the Constitution. 

26) In a 1999 floor speech, you decried the lack of enforcement of campaign finance laws and 

called for increased disclosure of outside spending. You stated: 

11 
863 

Frankly, we ought to start enforcing the law. I spent 15 years as a Federal prosecutor. We 

are not doing a very good job, in my view, of finding people who violate existing laws and 

seeing that people are held accountable. There are going to be mistakes, and I am not 

talking about witch hunts and trying to disturb honest and decent candidates who have done 

their best to comply with many regulations, but we really need to watch those cases where we 

have serious enforcement problems. 

Will you commit to vigorously enforcing existing campaign finance laws, including 

prosecuting individuals that opening flaunt campaign finance disclosure laws, in your role as 

Attorney General? 

RESPONSE: Yes, I will vigorously enforce all federal laws, including campaign finance laws, 

as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

27) Social welfare groups, organized under section 50l(c)(4) of the Tax Code, are required to 

report political spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Social Welfare 

Organizations are also required to file reports with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

detailing the groups' actual or expected political activity. 

• Question 15 on IRS Form 1024 (application for recognition of tax exemption) asks, "Has the 

organization spent or does it plan to spend any money attempting to influence the selection, 

nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office 

... ?" 

• Question 3 on IRS Form 990 (annual return of exempt organization) asks, "Did the 

organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in 

opposition to candidates for public office? If'Yes,' complete Schedule C, Part 1." 

Both IRS Forms 1024 and 990 are signed under penalty of perjury. Section 1001 ofthe U.S. 

criminal code, makes it a criminal offense to make 'any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent 

statement or representation' in official business with the government; and section 7206 of the 

Internal Revenue Code, makes it a crime to willfully make a false material statement on a tax 

document filed under penalty of perjury. 

a) In your view, if an organization files inconsistent statements regarding their political 

activity with the FEC and the IRS, can the group be liable under section 11 OJ or 7206? 

b) Will you commit to investigating any such inconsistent statements of which the 

Department of Justice becomes aware? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (b): The question posited is not one on which I have devoted any study, 

and would depend on a number of facts and specific circumstances which do not exist at this 

time. Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion on it. If I am confirmed 

as Attorney General, I would consult with career prosecutors at the Department before reaching a 

decision. 

28) At your confirmation hearing, you stated "I would just say that every election needs to be 

12 
864 

managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we 

regularly have fraudulent activities occur during election cycles." 

a) How did you reach the conclusion that "fraudulent activities" occur regularly during 

election cycles? 

b) What types of"fraudulent activities" occur during election cycles? 

c) Are you aware of any evidence of widespread voter fraud? 

RESPONSE to (a)- (c): As I testified before the Committee, I believe that fraudulent activities 

regularly occur during election cycles. There is no reason to believe that this election is any 

exception. I would also note that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission report, "Building 

Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform," found 

that "there is no doubt" that voter fraud occurs, that "a good ID system could deter, detect, or 

eliminate several potential avenues of fraud- such as multiple voting or voting by individuals 

using the identities of others or those who are deceased- and thus it can enhance confidence," 

and that "most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their 

democracies remain strong." 

d) Does the Department of Justice have sufficient tools to combat voter fraud? 

RESPONSE: The Department of Justice has a number of important responsibilities in this area, 

including investigating and prosecuting election fraud that violates the federal criminal statutes, 

as well as investigating and bringing suit to prevent violations of the federal voting rights laws. 

Ifl am confirmed as Attorney General, I am committed to enforcing all of the federal laws 

within the Department's jurisdiction, including the laws regarding voting, in a fair and evenhanded manner. Any specific enforcement decisions or actions would depend upon the facts and 

circumstances of each case. 

29) As discussed at your confirmation hearing, the Department of Justice has, at various points 

and under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, adopted procedures governing 

communications between the White House and DOJ in order to prevent political interference. 

Such efforts were documented, in the Clinton Administration, in correspondence between the 

Reno Justice Department and Senator Hatch. Several years later, following the hiring and 

personnel scandals under Attorney General Gonzales, Attorney General Michael Mukasey 

wrote that, "Communications [between the White House and DOJ] with respect to pending 

criminal or civil-enforcement matters ... must be limited" in order to ensure "that there is 

public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an 

impartial manner." 

a) Will you commit to implementing a policy limiting contacts and channels of 

communication between the White House and the Department of Justice based on the 

principles articulated in correspondence between the Clinton DOJ and White House as 

well as in the Mukasey letter? 

13 
865 

b) If so, will you commit to making this policy available to the Senate Judiciary Committee? 

RESPONSE (a)- (b): As I testified before the Committee, I will maintain Department of Justice 

policies and procedures governing communications between the White House and the 

Department, including the Mukasey memorandum. 

c) With resped to the Civil Rights Division, can you provide your assurances that you will 

follow the "Experienced Attorney and Attorney Manager Hiring Policy," which outlines a 

detailed and transparent process that minimizes undue political interference when new 

attorneys are hired? 

RESPONSE: The Hatch Act prohibits partisan politics from being considered in making career 

hires. Except for the very small number of political appointees in the Justice Department, partisan 

politics is irrelevant in hiring and I will ensure that all managers and supervisors are trained in 

these requirements when they are hired. 

30) Subject to certain limitations, the United States Attorneys Manual authorizes the Deputy 

Assistant Attorneys General in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, with 

respect to matters assigned to the Environment and Natural Resources Division, the 

"authority to compromise, dismiss or close cases." Do you commit to report to this 

Committee every instance in which the ENRD Assistant Attorney General makes a 

determination to close or settle a case (i.e., in which such decisions are made without 

relying on the delegation authority outlined above and in USAM 5-5.220)? 

RESPONSE: It is important to have open channels of communication between the Department 

of Justice and Congress, particularly with respect to oversight. I am unfamiliar with the 

provision referenced in the question; however, if confirmed, I look forward to examining this 

issue more closely. 

31) Do you commit to report to this Committee each instance in which DOJ declines to initiate 

a case referred by the Environmental Protection Agency? 

RESPONSE: I appreciate the important role Congress plays in conducting oversight of federal 

departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice, and the enforcement activities 

that are taken to execute our nation's environmental laws. If confirmed as Attorney General, I 

will follow applicable laws, regulations, and Department policies to ensure lawful and 

appropriate responses to congressional requests for this kind of information. 

32) Do you commit to report to this Committee every instance in which the Civil Rights 

Division Assistant Attorney General makes a determination to close or settle a case? 

RESPONSE: If confirmed as Attorney General, I will follow applicable laws, regulations, and 

Department policies to ensure lawful and appropriate responses to congressional requests for this 

kind of information. 

33) Should you be confirmed as the lead law enforcement official for the United States, you 

14 
866 

would be responsible for the faithful execution of the Clean Air Act and other important 

environmental statutes. With respect to the Clean Air Act specifically, the Supreme Court 

found in its 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency decision that there was 

insufficient uncertainty regarding the factual basis of manmade global climate change to 

permit the EPA to justify not regulating carbon dioxide (and greenhouse gas) as an air 

pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As Attorney General, would you ensure that EPA 

remains true to the letter of the law and that decision? 

RESPONSE: I understand the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental 

Protection Agency that greenhouse gases are considered "air pollutants" for purposes of the 

Clean Air Act. As Attorney General, my responsibility would be to enforce federal law as 

interpreted by the Supreme Court. 

15 
867 

PUBLIC INTEREST 

--LEGAL FOUNDATION--

January 5, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grass ley 

Chainnan 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Nomination of the Honorable Jeff Sessions to the Office of Attorney General of the 

United States; Deval Patrick Letter of January 3, 2017. 

Dear Chairman Grass ley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

There were a number of significant legal and factual errors in a January 3, 2017 Jetter from Mr. 

Deval L. Patrick to your Committee. The letter related to the nomination of Senator Jeff 

Sessions to the office of Attorney General of the United States. It would be unfortunate if 

Committee members were to rely on the representations in the letter when deciding on this 

nomination. Because the letter touched on matters about which I have some close familiarity, 

and matters that relate to the Public Interest Legal Foundation's mission of protecting election 

integrity, it is important to understand the errors in Mr. Patrick's letter. 

Most notably, Mr. Patrick's recitation of the legal and factual circumstances ofthe prosecutions 

for improperly assisting the casting of ballots widely misses the mark. Mr. Patrick characterizes 

the prosecution in the 1980's of individuals in Perry County, Alabama, who were harvesting and 

often casting absentee ballots on behalf of African-American voters, as if it were a noble civil 

rights endeavor. This characterization could not be farther from the truth. 

While I was an attorney at the Voting Section at the United States Department of Justice Civil 

Rights Division, I brought what are likely the only two voter intimidation cases filed by the 

United States under Section 11 ofthe Voting Rights Act in at least three decades. One went to 

trial and involved corrupt behavior strikingly similar to that which Mr. Sessions prosecuted at the 

time. The opinion by the United States District Court in that case both defines what is actual 

voter "intimidation" prohibited by federal law and catalogs the corrupt and criminal methods 

used by vote harvesters in the South to exploit African-American voters. Far from being some 

noble endeavor couched in civil rights, these absentee ballot activities steal votes by stripping the 

will of the voter away and giving it to a corrupt political enterprise. Far from being an exercise 

in voter intimidation, prosecution of these crimes by federal officials is essential to preserving 
868 

the right to vote and the integrity of our elections. Mr. Patrick is squarely wrong when he says 

otherwise. 

The right to vote means the right to vote of the voter, not the right of a political machine to force 

assistance on voters or mark the ballot for them without the voter's input. And it certainly does 

not mean the right to alter the ballot of a voter against the will of the voter, which was the central 

charge brought by Mr. Sessions in the Perry County case. Mr. Sessions should be praised for 

pressing these prosecutions--not criticized. Indeed, you will see below that after Mr. Sessions' 

prosecutorial efforts in the 1980's, criminality surrounding elections in this part of Alabama only 

grew worse- and with it the wholesale disenfranchisement of African-American voters by a 

corrupt political machine. 

Legal Errors in Mr. Patrick's Letter 

Mr. Patrick makes the implausible clam that the "theory of Mr. Sessions' case was that it was 

a federal crime for someone to help someone else vote or to advise them how to vote." Mr. 

Patrick may not have read the actual indictment very carefully in the case against his client, 

Spencer Hogue, Jr., and Albert and Evelyn Turner. The indictment alleged two different 

statutory charges- a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -essentially a mail fraud statute- and a 

violation of42 U.S.C. § I973i(e) (since recodified at 52 U.S.C. § 10307(e)) which bans voting 

more than once in a federal election. Mr. Patrick erroneously alludes to the right of voters to 

receive assistance (found in Section 208 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965). 

But the United States has never considered the right of voters to receive assistance to extend to 

the right of a political machine to corruptly harvest and cast absentee ballots without the input of 

the voters. Perhaps Mr. Patrick holds the view that since the voters and the harvesters were 

merely of the same race, no crime occurred because the harvesters knew who the voters should 

(or would) support. While this excuse might seem outlandish to sensible people, it was an 

excuse which I encountered frequently while I investigated these types of cases at the 

Department of Justice Voting Section. It is not an excuse with a basis in law. 

The United States District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi confronted nearly 

identical behavior from a region not far from Perry County in the case of United States v. Ike 

Brown. (Attached and found at 494 F.Supp.2d 440 (S.D.Miss. 2007)). I served on the trial team 

in that case and spent a number of years investigating behavior nearly identical to what was 

alleged in Mr. Sessions' prosecution. Some portions of the District Court's opinion in that case 

are worth highlighting: 

The Government also presented direct evidence of fraud in the collection of 

absentee ballots by one notary in particular, Carrie Kate Windham .... Another 

black voter, Nikki Nicole Halbert, testified at trial that Windham came to her 

home and recruited her and her mother to vote absentee, telling them all they had 

to do in order to vote absentee was to let Windham know. Although Halbert never 

requested an absent ballot application, a ballot came in the mail. Not long after, 

Windham came by Halbert's house to pick up the ballots. Halbert had already 

voted her ballot. Halbert handed Windham the envelope and ballot and Windham 
869 

left without signing or sealing it. When shown the application form and envelope 

at trial, Halbert maintained that the signatures on the application and ballot 

envelope were not hers, and that whoever had filled out the application had 

checked the box indicating Halbert was voting absentee because she had a 

temporary or permanent disability, which was untrue. 

US. v. Brown, 459-60. The quoted example is but one of many instances of similar absentee 

ballot fraud described in the opinion of the District Court. Contrary to Mr. Patrick's letter, 

prosecuting this sort of absentee ballot behavior is not based on an outlandish theory that anyone, 

including Mr. Sessions, believes it violates federal law to assist someone to vote. Federal law is 

violated when absentee ballot harvesters cast multiple ballots without the input or against the 

will of the voters. Section 208's promise of the right of assistance is not a federal right to have 

your vote stolen. 

Mr. Sessions should be praised, not criticized, for bringing cases that protect the sanctity of the 

vote and the individual dignity of the voters in Perry County who had their vote stolen. Mr. 

Patrick should reacquaint himself with the indictment because the victims of the criminal 

enterprise in Perry County were named individually. These victims, all of whom were black, had 

their votes stolen when someone else voted for them. 

I would urge members ofthe Committee to read the full opinion in US. v. Brown to enjoy a 

complete understanding of the pervasive, insidious and immoral violation of voting rights which 

occurred in that case through the imposition of a scheme strikingly similar to the one which Mr. 

Sessions prosecuted. Members will see that Section 208's right to receive assistance has nothing 

to do with criminals forcing assistance on them in an absentee ballot fraud scheme. 

Lastly, Mr. Patrick's most incendiary and unfair allegation is that it constitutes voter 

intimidation to prosecute voter fraud. Voter intimidation is prohibited by Section 11 of the 

Voting Rights Act. The United States brought, and lost, a voter intimidation claim in US. v. 

Brown. 

Members ofthe Committee are free to read the facts the United States alleged in that case, and 

that the District Court found insufficient to establish intimidation, and thereafter judge whether 

Mr. Patrick's claims are credible. In sum, they are not. The process of producing witnesses for 

trial in an absentee ballot fraud case is not easy- especially when the fraud is as pervasive as it 

was in Perry and Noxubee Counties. Mr. Patrick surely understands the enormously complex 

task to subpoena and produce dozens of witnesses, all governed by rules of procedure and ethical 

cannons, and should not so lightly mischaracterize those efforts as "a concerted campaign to 

intimidate susceptible witnesses." His letter said "many observers" held this view. He never 

says he holds this view and one can only hope and presume a former Department of Justice 

official familiar with the complexities of producing large numbers of witnesses in a criminal case 

would not share such an incendiary and unfair opinion. 

Factual Errors in Mr. Patrick's letter 

Mr. Patrick's letter has a number of important factual errors. 
870 

Contrary to the assumptions in his letter, the prosecution brought by Mr. Sessions was not 

initiated only on his own motion but was approved by the Public Integrity Section at the 

Justice Department. Any election crimes prosecution at the Justice Department undergoes 

multiple layers of review and oversight. For example, the Public Integrity Section, Election 

Crimes Branch, would conduct an independent review of the merits of the case. This unit would 

be required to approve any proposed prosecution as being in the interests of justice and provable 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The Public Integrity Section is independent and would have vetoed 

and stopped any case as preposterous as the one characterized by Mr. Patrick. You will note Mr. 

Patrick entirely omits any mention of the Public Integrity Section's review in his letter- an 

omission which is most unfortunate because he certainly knew it occurred from his own time 

spent at the Justice Department supervising such matters. 

Contrary to the assumptions in his letter, the prosecution brought by Mr. Sessions was 

overseen by officials in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Patrick 

surely understands that the Criminal Division supervised the prosecution. The prosecution was 

not "led" by Mr. Sessions as Mr. Patrick claims in his letter. Prosecutions of election-related 

crimes are "supervised" by Criminal Division officials in Washington D.C. at Main Justice. 

"The Section has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of 

federal judges and also supervises the nationwide investigation and prosecution of election 

crimes." (emphasis added)(found at https://wllw.justice.gov/criminal!pin). "The Department of 

Justice has a longstanding consultation policy for election crimes investigations involving 

violations of the statutes discussed in this chapter [including casting of multiple ballots]. The 

policy is set forth in Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. DEP'TOF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEYS' MANUAL (USAM)." FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES, Seventh 

Edition, 2007. As Mr. John Keeney, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal 

Division of the Justice Department, testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in Mr. Sessions' 

1986 confirmation hearing, the Public Integrity Section was closely involved in the prosecution 

"at every stage of the process." 

Contrary to the statements in his letter, the federal court overseeing the prosecution found 

the theories plausible. Mr. Patrick did not inform this Committee in his letter that United States 

District Judge Emmett Cox (later elevated to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) 

found the evidence submitted to the jury to be sufficient to support convictions on legal theories 

brought in the prosecution, which he found to be perfectly plausible. On July 3, 1985, he very 

specifically denied motions for judgments of acquittal on many ofthe criminal counts brought in 

the case. This finding by the District Court that the prosecution presented plausible claims 

included the charges that the defendants actively altered the votes cast by certain voters without 

their consent and that the defendants were voting multiple absentee ballots. (Specifically Counts 

28 and 29 of the indictment.) 

Mr. Patrick's letter omits the fact that the defendants offered to plead guilty to 

misdemeanor election crimes. Certainly if the prosecution's case were as outlandish as Mr. 

Patrick portrays it to be, no attorney would have properly and ethically advised his client to plead 

guilty. As Mr. Patrick represented one of the defendants, perhaps he can explain this conundrum 

to the Committee. 
871 

Since Mr. Sessions brought the case in question, the disturbing pattern of absentee ballot fraud 

has continued to plague this part of Alabama. As I note in my book Injustice: 

By 2004 and 2005, elections in Hale and Perry Counties featured open 

lawlessness both in the polls and in the collection of absentee ballots. Cochran 

and others discovered false voting registration addresses, including abandoned 

houses with trees growing through them and vacant lots sporting only a fire 

hydrant. Meanwhile, teams of notaries swarmed the counties collecting absentee 

ballots from black voters. After questionable absentee ballots were seized and 

placed in a bank vault to await further scrutiny, the bank was burned to the 

ground overnight, destroying the evidence. 

The criminal absentee ballot harvesters apparently learned that a jury trial is not the only way to 

escape justice. In August 2009, multiple individuals entered guilty pleas for possessing forged 

absentee ballots in this same part of Alabama, including Gay Nell Tinker, Rosie Lyles and 

Valada Paige Banks. Despite her absentee ballot fraud convictions, Tinker (now named 

Singleton) presently serves on the bench as the appointed municipal magistrate in Greensboro, 

Alabama. 

Mr. Sessions should be applauded for his efforts to combat voter fraud in Alabama. Mr. 

Patrick's letter misses the mark and should not be given credible consideration. Lawlessness in 

elections is a pervasive and ongoing problem in Perry County, Alabama. When political 

machines steal the votes of the most vulnerable, everyone should be outraged. All sides of the 

election law debate recognize that absentee ballot fraud is a serious problem. On National 

Public Radio, one law professor even noted "The most common kind of voter fraud we see, 

usually in a local election where maybe dozens or 100 ballots could make a difference, involving 

absentee ballots. Usually, it's absentee ballots that are bought or sold." (Found at 

http:/.\, 1\ \\· .nrr.Lm;/20 16/1 W25/-!9927-!789/ri~ging-an-election-its-not-so-easY-\ oting-lmYexpert-saYs). 

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 50l(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to 

election integrity. PILF exists to assist states and other in aiding the cause of election integrity 

and fighting against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the 

field, PILF protects the right to vote and preserves the Constitutional framework of American 

elections. 

Thank you for your attention, 

Respectfully, 

·. t,'l r<[ ."' ' LA:Jvr !J.k"------

Christian Adams, President 

Public Interest Legal Foundation attachment 
872 

~~ .. ) Advocates 

'ii;;;;;:P for Youth Rrghts RE?-spect Respons1b1hty 

Board of Directors 

OFFICERS 

Robin Brand Cha1r 

Jamila B. Perritt. MD, MPH V1ce Cha•r 

D<1v1dson 

Fred Shr•rman, CPA Treasurer 

Kathleen Adams. 

Debowh Arnndell 

Glenn1.1 R Ci'lmpbel!, JD 

Daniel p_ Dozier, V 

Sll<:~ron L Edwards 

Shere0n El Feki. PhD 

Robm E!l1ott 

Robert Gurofalo, MD, MPH 

Enca J. Gib"on. MD 

Klfln Gupta 

Sarah Htgdon·Sudow 

M1nam ·'Mimi" Madrid 

Curly Manes 

Karla Barrios Murcelo 

Gilrrett M1ze 

Suzanne Petrom, PhD 

H0ctor Sanche<:>Fiores 

Judy SendetoW1tz 

Vi'l!erw Turteo. PhD 

Rich Thomas. JD 

Debra Hauser. MPH President 

January 13, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Re: Testimony on the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as 

United States Attorney General 

Dear Chairman Grass!ey and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

Advocates for Youth ("Advocates") is a national nonprofit organization that 

partners with youth leaders, adult allies, and youth-serving organizations to 

advocate for policies and champion programs that recognize young people's 

rights to honest sexual health information; accessible, confidential, and 

affordable sexual health services; and the resources and opportunities 

necessary to create equity for all youth, We urge the Senate Judiciary 

Committee ("Committee'? to reject Senator Jeff Sessionl'' nomination for 

Attorney General. 

Young people, particularly !ow-income youth, young people of color, 

immigrant youth and LGBT young people, face significant barriers to 

accessing safe community environments, and information and care related to 

their own health and well-being, We believe the potential nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions will do nothing but exacerbate obstacles for young 

people in the United States and we urge the Committee to oppose his 

nomination. 

Advocates partners with youth activists from across the country on a number of reproductive and 

sexual health/rights issues. The following are testimonies from our youth activists stating the 

reasons why they urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Senator Jeff Sessions' 

nomination. 

Youth Testimony 

Sam St. John, age 16, Birmingham. Alabama: 

I am a high school student and a current constituent of Senator Jeff Sessions, I am also a member 

of the Alabama Alliance for Healthy Youth. As an advocate for the LGBT + community in 

particular, and the promotion of sexual health and reproductive rights for all people, I doubt 

Senator Sessions' past actions and statements display a regard for the protection of civil and 

human rights and individuals' bodily autonomy. Sessions, in fact, dismisses those who work to 

protect these rights: as Attorney General of Alabama, Senator Sessions attempted to bar the 

Rights. Respect. Responstbiltty. 2000 M STREET NW. SUITE 750 WASHINGTON DC 20036 USA 

T:202 419.3420 F. 202 4191448 www.advocate.sforyouth.org 
873 

Page 2 

Southern LGBT College Conference from meeting at the University of Alabama on the basis of a 

defunct and discriminatory anti~LGBT law that was later ruled unconstitutional by the United 

States Supreme Court. i I do not trust Senator Sessions to support such safe spaces, institutions, or 

even laws protecting young people, especially LGBT young people. 

In my opinion, a candidate with no experience whatsoever would be far preferable to hold the 

venerable office of the Attorney General than Senator Jeff Sessions, a man with a long career 

founded upon the repression of civil liberties. After the 2015 Supreme Court Decision in 

Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court Case establishing the right of same-sex couples to 

marry, Senator Sessions stated that the case was '"part of a continuing effort to secularize, by 

force and intimidation, a society that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people to 

sail across unknown waters:di This type of negative rhetoric has very serious implications on 

the lives of those in my community. 

There are few places more historically infamous for oppression de jure than Alabama. As a 

person born in Northport and raised in Birmingham, I feel that this affiliation grants me a great 

opportunity to comment on the state of civil liberties in Alabama. People in Alabama have not 

forgotten Senator Sessions' actions, such as his opposition to a lawsuit brought by the poorest, 

most marginalized schools in Alabama for receiving unequal funding.iii Actions like this make 

me feel that Senator Sessions does not have the interest of the most marginalized young people at 

heart. 

Sessions has done all that he can to prevent institutions including schools, ACLU, Southern 

Poverty Law Center, and the state government from protecting these liberties and will almost 

certainly subject LGBT+ people, people of color, and women to discrimination. Therefore, I 

cannot, and do not, support the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. I urge the 

Senate Judiciary Committee to consider my testimony and the impact of this nomination on the 

lives of people like me and ultimately reject this nomination. 

Kristen Marion, age 20, High Point, North Carolina: 

My name is Kristen Marion. I am a youth advocate from North Carolina with Advocates for 

Youth. Because of my love for politics and my concern for the current state that our country is 

in, J am very anxious about Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to the Attorney General position. 

If Senator Sessions becomes the Attorney General, as an African American woman, I am afraid 

that everything my parents and ancestors have worked for in the civil rights realm will be 

disregarded. We know that in 1986, testimonies given by Senator Sessions' own colleagues 

recalled his use of "hate speech," against the African American community, and this is one 

example of why Senator Sessions is not fit for the role of Attorney generaJ.iV 

Senator Sessions has continually opposed the rights of African Americans in our country. He has 

claimed that organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU were forcing civil rights "down 

the throats of pcople."V Yet, these are the types of organizations that protect the rights of my 

community. However, if that is not enough, his attempts to prosecute activists that have tried to 

register black voters in response to changes in the Voting Rights Act are absolutely 

Rights. Respect. Responsibility. 2000 M STREET NW, SUITE 750 WASHINGTON DC 20036 USA 

T.202 419 3420 F 202 4191448 www.advocatesforyouth.org 

1j1 Advocates ~forYouth 
874 

Page 3 

unacceptable.Vi Any government official who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge 

statistically proven disenfranchisement should not be awarded the responsibility of overseeing 

the proceedings of justice for the entire country. 

I feel very strongly that to appoint this man to Attorney General is to ignore the needs of an 

entire demographic of people who have been fighting for freedom and acknowledgement for a 

very long time. We are paying attention; and we wi1l remember the political decisions that are 

made by this Congress today. More than anything, what this country needs right now is to focus 

on unity. Appointing a man who has a record of singling out African Americans and denying 

them their rights will only succeed in causing more friction and polarization. I do not support the 

nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to 

consider my testimony and the impact of this nomination on the lives of people like me and 

ultimately reject this nomination. 

Winnie Ye. age 22, Brooklyn, New York: 

My name is Winnie Ye and I am a youth advocate with Advocates for Youth. The Attorney 

General is an increasingly important position given rising threats in the United States, and I do 

not believe Senator Jeff Sessions is qualified to protect citizens like me given his anti-women's 

health views. 

Senator Sessions openly opposes women's health protections and could follow previous 

administrations in refusing to enforce critical protections, endangering the life of providers, and 

patients like me. Senator Sessions has stated his strong opposition to abortion rights in the U.S. 

by repeatedly voting against resolutions that support abortion rights and for anti-choice 

legislation such as the so called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that creates legal rights 

for pregnancies. vii He has also voted to defund Planned Parenthood, a healthcare center that is 

frequently utilized by young people, particularly low-income young people and young people of 

color. Senator Sessions has also voted to limit the rights of young people from crossing state 

lines to receive abortion services, which is necessary when clinics in their communities are too 

dangerous or too far to reach because of unnecessary restrictions. viii Young women access these 

clinics every day, but because of heightened security issues, we often feel unsafe. The 

Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal protections for 

abortion providers against clinic violence, and based on his record, I do not feel that Senator 

Sessions will ensure these federal protections. 

For the reasons stated above~ I do not support the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney 

General and I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider my testimony and the impact of 

this nomination on the lives of people like me and ultimately reject this nomination. 

Discrimination against young people has tangible consequences. We are concerned that the 

nomination of Senator Sessions for the position of Attorney General would make civil rights 

protections harder to attain for young people, particularly young people most at risk. 

Rights Respect. Responsibility. 2000 ~1 STREET NW, SUITE 750 WASHINGTON DC 20036 USA 

T 202 '-119 3420 F 202 4191448 www,aclvocatesforyouth org 

(JI Advocates ~for Youth 
875 

Page 4 

We know harms from discrimination are even greater for LGBTQ young people, who may face 

violence at school or in their homes, may avoid seeking treatment for physical or mental health 

concerns, and may attempt self-harm or suicide at alarmingly high rates due to discrimination 

because of their identity.ix Yet, Senator Sessions has opposed legislation that would extend 

federal hate crime protections to LGBT individuals because he does not see the need for such 

protections.x 

The U,S. Attorney General has a duty to enforce federal laws that protect the rights of 

Americans, yet Senator Sessions' record against equity in schools and racial justice, opposition 

to LGBT protections and civil rights, and disapproval of women's aeeess to healthcare, are only 

a few reasons why we believe he is unfit to serve as the Attorney General. 

Advocates for Youth, along with our youth activists, strongly urge you to oppose the nomination 

of Senator Jeff Sessions as U,S, Attorney General. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Rhodes 

Director of Public Policy 

Advocates for Youth 

i Andrew Kaczynski, Jeff Sessions fought as Ala. attorney gen. to keep an LGBTconferencefrom meeting on a pub. 

campus, CNN, http:i/www.cnn.com/2016/J 2/01/po!itics/kfile~jelT~sessions-!gbt~conference/ (Dec. 2016). 

ii Jeff Sessions for United States Senator for Alabama, Sessions: The Supreme Court Has Become A Supreme 

Legislature, h!!n.;//www.sessions.senate.(Tov/pub!ic/index.efm/news-re!eases?ID=85FA3DD5-8679-437D~9F52-

C4448505D84A (Jun. 20 15), 

iliThomas J. Sugrue, Je,ffSession's Other Civil Rights Problem, The New York Times, 

https:/!www.n\:1imes.com/20 16/11/21 /opinion/ieff-ses~ions-other-civil-rights-prob!em.html'? r··t (Nov. 2016). 

iv Scott Zamost, Sessions dogged by old allegations of racism, CNN, Yvww.cnn.comi20 16/11/17/politics/jefTsessions-racism-al!eoations/ (Nov. 2016). 

v !d. 

vi Ari Berman, Je;ffSessions, Trump's Pickfor Attorney Gen .. Is a Fierce Opponent of Civil Rights, The Nation, 

https:// WWW. thenatiO!l. CO 111 I arti cl e/i e rf-SeSS io llS·t!'Utn QS· piCk- r Of -attornev ·genera!~ i S~a~ fi ere CwOppone nt -0 f-ci viJ-

~(Nov.20J6). 

vii Unborn Victims of Violence Aet, H.R.1997, 3/25/04. 

viii U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes l09th Congress, United States Senate, 

wv.'w.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll~ call_Jists/roll _call_ vote_ cfm.cfin?congress"" 1 09&session=2&vote""002l6 

(July, 2006), 

Rtghts. Respect. Respons1b11ity. 2000 M STREET 

www.advocates.foryouth.org 

1~, Advocates ~forYouth 
876 

Page 5 

"'Laura Davis and Urooj Arshad, Adolescent Sexual Health and the Dynamics of Oppression A Call for Cultural 

Competency, Advocates for Youth, 

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/storage/advfy/documents/adolescent_ sexual_health _and _the_ dynamics. pdf (Aug. 

2010). 

x Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Part 1 on hate crime bill, https;//www.youtube.com!watch?v=Xczq5NLgZAo (Jul. 

2009). 

Rights. Respect. Responsibility. 2000 M STREET SUITE 750 WASHINGTON DC 20036 USA 

T 202 <119 3420 419.1448 www.advoc:atesforyoutM.org 

~~~Advocates Vi;;;:!/ for Youth 
877 

January 9, 2017 

Senator Chuck Grassley 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Concerns over Senator Sessions' Confirmation Hearing Due to his Incomplete 

Questionnaire Responses 

Dear Senator Grassley: 

On behalf of the undersigned affinity bar associations, we write to express our deep concerns 

over the confirmation process for Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to be the next Attorney 

General of the United States. It has come to our attention that Senator Sessions has failed to 

§cjeg_Lj<JJ~y r!l§JJgnci to the standard Senate Judiciary Questionnaire (SJQ) in preparation for his 

scheduled hearing on January 10-11, 2016. 

We strongly urge you to seriously consider delaying the confirmation hearing until Senator 

Sessions has sufficiently answered all the requests in the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire. Civil 

rights organizations and Senators on your Committee have pointed out that despite providing a 

supplement to his SJQ on December 23, 2016, Senator Sessions continues to omit important 

information about his record in elected and appointed office, including: 

Information on media interviews conducted, op-eds published, and speeches given 

during his time as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama (1981-1993), 

Attorney General of Alabama (1995-1997), and his first term as U.S. Senator (1997-

2002) 

Information on any candidate questionnaires he may have completed for third parties 

during any of his elections 

Information on awards he has received from outside organizations 

It appears Senator Sessions is unwilling or unable to make a comprehensive effort and provide 

a completed questionnaire to the committee. As organizations that represent the interests of a 

diverse group of attorneys, we are incredibly troubled by What appears to be a lack of 

transparency to this process on the part of the candidate. Moreover, we are concerned about 

the short time allotted for these hearings. If we consider that Mr. Sessions' 1986 confirmation 

hearings lasted four days, allotting half that time for a review of an additional thirty years' worth 

of records and experience seems grossly inadequate. 

There is precedent during your chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee for delaying a 

confirmation hearing because of concerns over an incomplete record. In January 2015, your 

committee delayed the hearing date for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch until you had 

acquired complete information from Ms. Lynch. Although she had submitted her SJQ on 

December 1, 2014, more than a month passed before Ms. Lynch's confirmation hearing was 

scheduled and finally held on Jan 28-29, 2014. Even after your Committee voted to move 

forward on her nomination, her final Senate confirmation vote was delayed for several months, 

until she was finally confirmed on April 23. 

Given the recent history of delays with Attorney General Lynch's nomination, we urge you to 

avoid the appearance of a double standard and heed the calls of members of your own 
878 

Committee to give them sufficient time to review Senator Sessions' extensive record, once 

completed. 

We share your desire to have a full and fair hearing of Senator Sessions' record as you weigh 

his qualifications to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer. A delay of his January 10 

confirmation hearing would signal that you are committed to such a process. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Respectfully, 

Pedro J. Torres-Diaz 

President 

Hispanic National Bar Association 

/1 . ~·.· ···. 

'-·J"---j f l~/~ J 

Cyndie M. Chang 

President 

National Asian Pacific American Bar 

Association 

Kevin Judd 

President 

National Bar Association 

Eduardo Juarez 

President 

National LGBT Bar Association 
879 

AFL-CIO 

January 13, 2017 

Dear Senator Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I am writing on behalf of the AFL-CIO to express our opposition to the confirmation of Senator 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Ill (R-AL) as the 84th Attorney General of the United States. Our 

opposition is based upon a review of the testimony provided during his confirmation hearing and of his 

record as a U.S. Senator, Alabama Attorney General, and U.S. attorney. 

The objectivity of the attorney general should not be in question. Yet throughout his decades-long 

career, Senator Sessions has expressed policy positions that demonstrate a troubling pattern of hostility 

toward legal protections depended upon by working families. His 20-year Senate record includes 

opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, and the 

Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act. As a Senator, he has denounced the individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act provisions that cover students with social, learning, and emotional difficulties. Though he 

was one of the 98 Senators who voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006, Senator Sessions 

applauded the Supreme Court's 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder decision-halting the pre-clearance 

requirements protetjting voters in states with the worst histories of racial discrimination in voting. 

Senator Sessions testified that he would enforce federal laws as attorney general despite his past 

opposition to their enactment. However, other troubling aspects of his record suggest the values he would 

bring to the role of our nation's chieflaw enforcement officer. As a Senator, he: 

supported a federal voter ID requirement; 

challenged the 14th Amendment principle that all persons born in the United States are 

U.S. citizens; 

criticized Department of Justice consent decrees; 

opposed bipartisan criminal justice reform efforts; and 

made statements suggesting that he considers any history of civil rights work enough to 

render a nominee unfit for government service. 

We are alarmed by the nomination of Senator Sessions for attorney general and the testimony 

provided during his confirmation hearing has failed to allay the AFL-CIO's concerns. I urge you to 

oppose the confirmation of Jefferson Beauregard Session III as Attorney General of the United States. 

WS/CC/Ikr 

Sincerely, 

U!lLn;=<m 

Government Affairs Department 

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations 

815 16th St, N.W • Wil\hmglon, 0 C 20006 • 202 637 5000 • www ,ltlcm.arg 

J:I'ICHAAD L TIWMKA 

'' ,v,· 
880 

AAMIA 

AFRICAN AMERICAN MINISTERS IN ACTION A Project of P~opf(o> For th.e Amerk:on Woy 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

US Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

US Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Senator Feinstein: 

We, the undersigned group of over l 00 African American faith leaders, come together to urge you to 

vote against the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as the next U.S. attorney general. With his long 

and troubling history of attacks on civil rights, Sen. Sessions simply cannot be relied on to protect the 

rights of all Americans-a critical responsibility of our nation's attorney general. 

While seiVing as a U.S. attorney in the 1980s, Sen. Sessions unsuccessfully prosecuted multiple 

African American voting rights advocates, including a trusted advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 

who had worked to register rural, elderly African Americans in Alabama. With his actions, Mr. 

Sessions sent a chilling message to those working to ensure African Americans were able to exercise 

their constitutionally-protected right to vote. 

When Mr. Sessions was being considered for a position as a U.S. District Court judge, a federal 

prosecutor testified that Sessions had agreed with a comment that a white attorney representing 

African American clients may be a "disgrace to his race." The prosecutor also reported that Mr. 

Sessions had called the NAACP "un-American," and a Black attorney testified that Mr. Sessions had 

referred to him as "boy." 

But our concern is aroused not only by these previous actions, but also by his current record. As a 

senator, Mr. Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, legislation 

designed to fight sexual and domestic violence, and against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a 

proposal to help address the gender pay gap. He applauded the 2013 Supreme Court Shelby County 

v. Holder decision that gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and has since opposed efforts 

to modernize and restore these crucial protections against racial discrimination in voting. 

It is not an overstatement to say that Sen. Sessions' nomination is a grave threat to the civil rights of 

the communities we seJVe as faith leaders. 

Ensuring the enforcement of our country's civil rights laws is, as the NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund's Sherrilyn Ifill aptly calls it, a "sacred duty." It is the way we protect the steady but 

fragile progress made towards the vision of a country where justice is applied fairly across all people, 

where all people can work without harassment or discrimination, and where all of us can exercise the 

franchise free from barriers or intimidation. 

Sen. Sessions' record as a civil rights opponent, his unsweiVing hostility to the very rights he would 

be tasked with protecting, makes him categorically unfit to take up this sacred work. We urge you in 

II 0 I I5'h Street, NW • Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone 202.467.4999 • Fax 202.293.2672 • E-mail pfaw@pfaw.org • Web site http://www.pfaw.org 
881 

the strongest possible tenns to heed the concerns of African American faith leaders, and many other 

communities, and to reject Sen. Sessions' nomination for attorney general. 

Signed, 

I. African American Episcopal Church 

2. Reverend Charles Adams, Detroit, MI 

3. Reverend Terry Alexander, Florence, SC 

4. Minister Dr. James Allen, Virginia Beach, VA 

5. Reverend William C. Bailey, Baltimore, MD 

6. Reverend Dr. Kip Banks, Washington, DC 

7. Reverend Dr. Steve Bland, Jr., Detroit, MI 

8. Reverend Brendolyn Boseman, Aiken, SC 

9. Reverend DeLishia Boykin, Burke, VA 

10. Reverend Dr. Paul Brown, Sr., Atlanta, GA 

II. Reverend Herbert Bruce, Forestville, MD 

12. Reverend Paul Bush, Aiken, SC 

13. Mother Merceil Burkhalter, Minneapolis, MN 

14. Reverend Dr. William C. Calhoun, Baltimore, MD 

15. Reverend Dr. Carolyn Clark Carlisle, Columbia, SC 

16. Bishop Kenneth Carter, Atlanta, GA 

17. Minister Dorothy Chaney, Miami, FL 

18. Pastor H.L Chaney, Cairo, GA 

19. Dr. Nesa Chappelle, Upper Marlboro, MD 

20. Dr. Pernella Chubbs-Wilson, Roanoke, VA 

21. Reverend Levi Combs, Ill, Camden, NJ 

22. Dr. Christopher Cockrell, Meridian, MS 

23. Dr. Veronica R. Coleman, Virginia Beach, VA 

24. Bishop Victor Couzens, Cincinnati, OH 

25. Reverend Fred Crawford, New York City, NY 

26. Reverend Jeffrey Dove, New Smyrna Beach, FL 

27. Darryl E. Edwards 11, Jacksonville, FL 

28. Reverend Susie Elliott, Brooklyn, NY 

29. Reverend Dr. Willie Gable, New Orleans, LA 

30. Apostle Martella Gantt, Philadelphia, PA 

31. Reverend Jimmy Gates, Cleveland, OH 

32. Bishop AD Givens, Camden, SC 

33. Reverend Johnnie Green, New York City, NY 

34. Pastor Reginald Gundy, Jacksonville, FL 

35. Reverend Barry Hargrove, Baltimore, MD 

36. Reverend Sekinah Hamlin, Greensboro, NC 

37. Reverend Barry Hargrove, Baltimore, MD 

38. Reverend Sedrick Hamner, Atlanta, GA 

39. Elder Lee Harris, Jacksonville, FL 

40. Minister Bessie R. Hayes, Kensington, MD 

41. Reverend Carolyn Henry-Hurst, MD, Cleveland, OH 

42. Pastor Jerome Hurst, Cleveland, OH 

43. Deacon Bobbi VL Jackson, Winnsboro, SC 

44. Rev. Leonard B. Jackson, Las Vegas, NV 

-2-
882 

45. Sister Carrie Johnson, Longwood, FL 

46. Reverend Cathy C. Jones, Charlotte, NC 

47. Reverend Louis B. Jones, II, Washington, DC 

48. Reverend Greg King, Richmond, VA 

49. Dr. Terence K. Leathers, Clayton, NC 

50. Reverend A. Faye London, Memphis, TN 

51. Reverend Alvin Love, Chicago, IL 

52. Dr. Lester A. McCom, Baltimore, MD 

53. Sister Glenda McCullough, Jacksonville, FL 

54. Reverend Isaac C. McCullough, Jacksonville, FL 

55. Reverend Timothy McDonald, III, Atlanta, GA 

56. Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, Waldorf, MD 

57. Reverend Dr. Tony Minor, Cleveland, OH 

58. Reverend Dr. Susan Newman Moore, Washington, DC 

59. Reverend Robert Nicolas, Washington, DC 

60. Reverend Wanda C. Outlaw, Suitland, MD 

61. Minister Jabari Paul, Tallahassee, FL 

62. Reverend Dr. Clarence Pemberton, Philadelphia, PA 

63. Reverend Dr. Geraldine Pemberton, Philadelphia, PA 

64. Dr. Leenette Morse Pennington, Cocoa Beach, FL 

65. Reverend Gilbert Pickett, New York City, NY 

66. Minister Tammy Pink, Los Angeles, CA 

67. Elder Terry Price, Tallahassee, FL 

68. Reverend Frank Raines, III, Buffalo, NY 

69. Reverend Calvin Rice, New York City, NY 

70. Pastor Jason Ridley, Columbus, OH 

71. Deacon Marva Riley, Cheverly, MD 

72. Sister Catherine Jackson-Roberts, Washington, DC 

73. Sister Melba Salter, Denver, CO 

74. Reverend Dr. Kenneth Samuel, Stone Mountain, GA 

75. Reverend Dr. Robert Shine, Philadelphia, PA 

76. Reverend Madison Shockley, Los Angeles, CA 

77. Reverend Lavee Sims, Hattiesburg, MS 

78. Rev. Lester A. Smalls, Aiken, SC 

79. Sister Beverly C. Smith, Catonsville, MD 

80. Reverend Dr. Susan Smith, Columbus, OH 

81. Reverend T. Anthony Spearman, Greensboro, NC 

82. Rev. Dr. Rebecca Stitt, Cleveland, OH 

83. Reverend L. Charles Stovall, Dallas, TX 

84. Bishop Mitchell Taylor, New York City, NY 

85. Presiding Elder Jane E. Thomas, Perry, GA 

86. Reverend Dr. Jackie Thompson, Oakland, CA 

87. Reverend James Thompson, North Charleston, SC 

88. Reverend Da'Henri Thurmond, Sr., Savannah, Georgia 

89. Reverend Ezra Tillman, Flint, MI 

90. Pastor Bertie Vereen, Jacksonville, FL 

91. Sister Jackie DuPont Walker, Los Angeles, CA 

92. Reverend Carl Washington, New York City, NY 

93. Reverend Mark Whitlock, Los Angeles, CA 

-3-
883 

94. Reverend Dr. Dennis Wiley, Washington, DC 

95. Reverend Dr. Christine Wiley, Washington, DC 

96. Dr. Merchuria Chase Williams, Atlanta, GA 

97. Elder Willie Wiley, Augusta, GA 

98. Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, Eastern Shore, MD 

99. Reverend Charles Williams, Detroit, Ml 

100. Reverend Lavisha S. Williams, Raleigh, NC 

101. Presiding Elder Melvin E. Wilson, Brooklyn-Westchester District, NY 

102. Reverend Patrick Young, E. Elmhurst, NY 

-4-
884 

AFSCME ~ 

We Make America Happen January 13,2017 

~Sawrden 

h~tt&nt 

l;oul'lll\eyu 

\i•c.-en'l'Tr.•a>uiN 

Se'~K.aro.m 

.~',. :v.,p il 

fl.1c:NrdLUponl 

p,,~b>vg" .. l'" 

SQeyC!umberialn ,· •• ,~,,;:< 014. 

Col!nleDm-r 

''i:O<>wwthlt,h'f,\ 

Gres;D-~ 

o-,.,..,1'.~ \'.<,1 

Oannrtlont)hue 

';·'"'·'' 

~DU<lan 

1.•:::-••"-;C'. 

DWic!R..R!Irr!al1 

""'"'b"rt,PA 

Henr')'A.Gamda N~"' lr·• ..,.,. 

JoMnraoPimoH_,. 

"•'><o,~.u, 

Dlnnyj.HOI>Illl1 

'J~sAbt-«\ lA 

N;~-,~-~;,~~m 

W....mmLudano 

c 

JohnAL)'all 

W,;.<Fl.~J:!U,0,-.1 

l(.athrynlfb:arpr !;.;;~ico;i;:J 

"'-IR~Lyndl 

c,c,,r.o.:. 

ChrluopherMI.be 

><.int~·v;lef, )'-{ 

Vl~r"IIIE.Mitd!ell 

'./~•;Y(,•i<.,NY 

Dalolllul'1o<>r,.Jr. s,··i>cro.o 

Fro.nlr.MOI'Ufley 

ilo""·""''"' 

""""'""""'"' ::'•cor 

HenryNidlll~ 

l'i·,·o·do'pl·~ ·' 

s.c-nQulckSr. 

'"'''"''?;,,, 

~eA.."'-thr11 

·,.,.>;c'•'• 

}t>sephi!Rutola 

(')!,;-:·,";>'• 

Abnf.ShanN1111 

~roe> (J. 

P,uiSplM 

C.l,i,'"'<~"•W' 

MllrtESuiUIIlln 

'i9·;·., .. '.r 

BnulioTO!T'I!3 

''oo'•P 

And.anr\Moll$ 

,\"'w'c.),',' 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

charr 

Committee on Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chainnan Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy: 

On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, 

County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong 

opposition to the nomination of Senator Jefferson "Jeff" Sessions to be Attorney 

General (AG) of the United States. Sen. Sessions' record on civil rights and 

immigration are inconsistent with the critical mission of the Department of Justice, and 

we cannot support his nomination to be chief law enforcement officer of our nation. 

His nomination should be rejected. 

The U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ) has the responsibility to uphold the laws 

of the land, particularly those laws supporting the civil rights of all Americans. 

AFSCME, as an organization, has a rich history in this struggle and is compelled to 

support only those leaders who will enforce laws farrly, without personal bias, and who 

will defend the constitutional freedoms of all American citizens regardless of race, 

religion, class, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin. Senator Sessions' 

record is unsettling on key civil rights issues like voting rights, immigration, and 

protections for our brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ community. 

1broughout his service in Congress Sen. Sessions has consistently voted 

against key civil rights refonns. He has made no secret of his personal views, which 

nrises serious questions about his ability to remain an impartial steward of the law on 

many pressing civil rights questions, including those dealing with voting rights, racial 

justice and other issues. ln particular, he has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

"intrusive" and has been accused of failing to protect voting rights of advocates who 

were working to register minority voters. 

Comprehensive immigration refonn (CIR) is one of the most important civil 

rights challenges in our country today. In 2010 when he had an opportunity to show 

his leadership, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, he voted against the 

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act that protects 

children and provides a pathway for legal status for the thousands who were brought 

to this country at no fault of their own. Sen. Sessions has repeatedly voted again CIR 

-in 2006, 2007, and in 2013. At DOJ, he would be in a position to shape the character 

of the next admimstration's approach to what should be equality and civil justice to 

undocumented persons. However, we share with many in our nation, legitimate anxiety 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFl-CIO TEl (202) 429·1000 FAX (lOl) 4l9-ll9l TOO (202.) 65'11·0446 WEB afscme.OI'J 1625 l Sueet.NW. Y'll'uhlnpm, DC 20036-5687 
885 

that Iris views on immigration may further inflame growing hostility toward those 

seeking legal status based on country of origin and race. This issue is particularly 

important to AFSCME members who are either immigrants themselves or who have 

family members who are immigrants. The AG should have a strong demonstrated 

public support for pathways to citizenship for undocumented people of diverse 

backgrounds. 

Finally, Sen. Sessions has a checkered civil rights record on LGBTQ matters. 

Senator Sessions opposed inclusion of LGBTQ people in the Matthew Shepard and 

James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and in the Violence Against Women Act 

reauthorization. Hate crimes against many groups seem to be increasing across the 

nation especially targeted toward persons identified with the LGBTQ community. 

Again, Sen. Sessions' views on these core issues are out of step with many 

Americans, and inconsistent with the mission of the Department of Justice. We ask 

you to oppose his nomination. 

Scott Frey 

Director of Federal Government Affairs 

SF:KLS:mc 
886 

~ 

~ ALLIANCEJUSTICE 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SENATE 

January 9, 2017 

NANAAON 

CHAIR 

KEN GAOSSINGEA 

The Alliance for Justice Urges Senators to Reject the Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions for U.S. 

Attorney General 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking 

Member Feinstein: 

On behalf of The Alliance for Justice, a national association of over 100 organizations representing a 

broad array of groups committed to the creation of an equitable, just, and free society, I write to urge you 

to reject the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions for the position of U.S. Attorney General. 

The U.S. Attorney General is responsible for the enforcement of some of our nation's most critical 

statutes. S/he is responsible for independently enforcing the law consistent with essential constitutional 

values and the rule of law. Unfortunately, Sen. Sessions, throughout his career, has demonstrated that he 

is unqualified for and incapable of perfonning the duties of this important role. 

The Alliance for Justice was a strong opponent of Sen. Sessions' nomination for a federal judgeship in 

1986. At that time, his pattern of egregious behavior toward African Americans came to light and the 

Senate, on a bipartisan basis, rightly rejected his nomination to be a federal district court judge. Today 

we expect to hear from some quarters that the events of thirty years ago are irrelevant. Unfortunately, we 

need not look that far back to conclude that Sen. Sessions is a person who is uniquely hos!ile to so many 

vulnerable populations in this country. 

In short, we believe the burden of proof on Sen. Sessions, to demonstrate that he can lead a 

Department of Justice that fairly and equitably serves all Americans, is unattainable. We believe 

that Senators who study his record, highlighted below, and consult their consciences on this matter 

will reach the same conclusion that Sen. Sessions cannot be confirmed to serve as Attorney General 

of the United States. 

Record as Prosecutor 

As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions became known for his animus toward 

African Americans. Numerous lawyers testified at his 1986 confirmation hearing for a federal judgeship 

that Sessions had made racist remarks. The Justice Department's J. Gerald Hebert testified that Sessions 

claimed the NAACP and the ACLU were "communist inspired" and "un-American" organizations 

"because they forced Civil Rights down the throats of people." 

Thomas Figures, a black prosecutor who worked under Sessions, testified that Sessions said the Ku Klux 

Klan was "okay" until he found out they smoked marijuana. Figures also testified that Sessions called 

him "boy" and told him to "be careful what vou say to white folks:· Alarmingly, Figures was prosecuted 

after his testimony in what has been characterized as an act of revenge; Figures was acquitted of any 

wrongdoing at trial. 

Eleven Dupont Circle NW. Second Floor l wa.~hingtnn, DC 20036 I \\"1-\'W.allianccf{njusticc.org I t: 202~K22~6070 I f: 202-822-6068 

Field Offices 

Oa.~land, ('A I Los Angeles, CA j Dallas. TX 
887 

As U.S. Attorney, Sessions prosecuted civil rights activists in Alabama for allegedly committing voter 

fraud while assisting African-American voters complete absentee ballots. A jury, in deliberations that 

lasted only a few hours, acquitted the voting-rights activists, although the prosecution chilled votingrights activities in the state. 

Record as Senator 

During his 20 years in the Senate, Sen. Sessions has repeatedly voted against legislation that wonld 

safeguard eqnality and liberty; statutes that as Attorney General he would be responsible for enforcing. 

Sen. Sessions has failed to demonstrate how, given his vocal opposition to their passage, he would ensure 

proper enforcement of these critical statutes. If he is confirmed, we will see a reversal of decades' worth 

of progress on the advancement of equality for millions of Americans. The following examples are 

illustrative of his contempt for civil rights and equality: 

Senator Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act, a "piece of intrusive legislation." When the 

Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, making it 

easier for states and localities to erect barriers to voting, Sen. Sessions applauded the ruling. He also 

opposed efforts to update the law. 

In 2013, Sen. Sessions voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which 

protects women from domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault. He also dismissed the 

controversy over Donald Trump's comments about assaulting women as overblown because 

"everybody knows that Trump likes women." When he we was asked, "so if you grab a woman by 

the genitals, that's not sexual assault," he responded, "I don't know." 

He voted against the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Act, a bill that enables broader federal prosecution of 

hate crimes. He said providing civil rights protections to LGBTQ citizens as part of the Act would 

"cheapen the civil rights movement." 

Sessions has opposed critical laws that protect persons with disabilities, including criticizing the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and blaming federal protections for children with 

disabilities for "accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America." 

Sessions said that federal laws that are designed to ensure children with disabilities can receive an 

equal education "may be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today." 

He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which seeks to ensure equal pay for equal work for 

women. 

In addition, Senator Sessions has consistently fought workers' rights and regularly opposed efforts to 

protect our environment. He has also vigorously opposed efforts to make our criminal justice system 

fairer and more just, including a bipatiisan proposal spearheaded by Judiciary Committee Chairman 

Grassley and Senator Dick Durbin. He has defended a proposed ban on all Muslim immigrants. He 

voted against Senator John McCain's bipartisan amendment reaffirming our nation's prohibition on 

torture. He has even challenged the basic Constitutional principle enshrined in the Fourteenth 

Amendment that all persons born in the United States are citizens of this country. 

It is almost impossible to overstate how wrong, in both substance and symbol, Senator Sessions' 

confirmation would be. On substance, Sen. Sessions has long taken positions hostile to the rights of all 

Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Second Floor I Washington, DC 20036 1 w""w.a!lianccrorjustice.org I t: 202-821-6070 I r: 202-S22-6068 

Fiddq[/ices 

Oakland, CA ! Lo:; Ang.c!~s. CA j Dallas, TX 
888 

Americans. It is not surprising that countless civil rights groups immediatelv condemned his nomination 

In addition, his confirmation would send the wrong message regarding our nation's commitment to the 

principle of equal justice under the law, particularly at a time of heightened awareness of injustices that 

impact so many communities throughout our country. 

The Alliance for Justice respectfully urges the Senate to make the only moral and defensible choice and 

reject the nomination of a candidate who is wholly unfit for the role of Attorney General. 

The members of the Alliance for Justice are grateful for the opportunity to share this information with 

you. The President of the Alliance, Nan Aron, is available in our Washington, D.C., office at 202-822-

6070 to answer any questions you may have. 

Sincerely, 

Nan Aron 

Fleven Dupont Circle NW, Second Floor I Wa!>hington, DC 20036 I www.a!lianccforjusticc,org I t: 202~822~6070 I f: 202-822-6068 

Field Offices 

Oakland, CA J Los Angeles, CA I Dallas, TX 
889 

January 9, 2017 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 

Association of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Diversity Professionals 

Opposes the Confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions Ill for 

Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and 

Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED) respectfully urges the United States 

Senate to reject the nomination of Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Ill for the position of Attorney 

General of the United States. Upon reviewing the voting record of Senator Sessions, which is replete 

with evidence of a bias against efforts to promote equal opportunity for women, minorities, persons 

with disabilities and the LGBT community, the association finds that Senator Sessions lacks the 

fundamental qualification for Attorney General: the demonstrated ability to serve as the chief legal 

enforcer of rights for all including the historically disadvantaged.' 

Founded in 1974 as the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), AAAED is a national not-forprofit association of professionals working in the areas of equal opportunity, compliance and diversity. 

AAAED has more than 40 years of leadership in providing professional training to members, enabling 

them to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and 

advocacy of affirmative action and other equal opportunity laws to enhance the tenets of access, 

inclusion and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities. 

We do not take this position lightly and without due consideration. After a review of the voting record 

of Senator Sessions, in addition to his many statements and actions as reported by the press and 

recounted by civil rights and government leaders, we cannot in good conscience remain silent. 

His votes not to confirm many nominees of color and women who are champions of equal opportunity 

in their chosen fields also raise serious concerns about bias against persons who support the principles 

of access, equity and diversity. 

1 See the December 1, 2016 letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which AMED cosigned. http:/ /www.civilrights.o rg/advocacy /letters/20 16/ civil-and-hum an-rights. h tml 

liP age AAAED Open letter on Sen. Jeffersnn Sessions for Attorney General 
890 

Senator Sessions reportedly stated that he believes that Race and Civil Rights is a "very, very difficult 

subject." We do not. In 1997 Sessions said: 

"I think it has, in fact, been a cause of irritation and perhaps has delayed the kind of movement 

to racial harmony we ought to be going forward (with] today. I think it makes people unhappy if 

they lost a contract or a right to go to a school or a privilege to attend a university simply 

because of their race." 

Laws intended to promote equal opportunity through affirmative action bar making selections in 

employment, education or contracts solely on the basis of race. They are designed to prevent 

discrimination and to promote opportunities for all who are qualified to compete regardless of their 

race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disability, veteran's status, gender identity or sexual orientation. An 

attorney of the stature and experience of Senator Sessions should know that. 

In addition, we take note of the following aspects of the Senator's legislative record: 

Senator Sessions supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs 

in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it). 2 

Sessions scores 7% by the NAACP on affirmative action, indicating an anti-affirmative-action 

stance. "Strongly opposes affirmative action." 3 

Sessions voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Vote on an 

amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual 

orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias. 4 

Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities and women. 5 

Voted YES on ending special funding for minority and women-owned business. This legislation 

would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete 

for federally funded transportation.' 

Moreover, Senator Sessions Voted "Nay'' on the following legislation: 

Paycheck Fairness Act, 2012 and 2014 

Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 

Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Treaty Ratification 2012 

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act 2012 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 

Equal Pay Bill of 2008 

Hate Crimes Amendment, 2000 

2 Closed Session," New Republic, Sarah Wildman, December 30, 2002, 

https:/ /n ewrepublic. com/a rti cle/61363/ closed-sessions. 3 http://www .onth eissues. org/Dom estic/ Jeff_ Sessions_ Civil_ Rights. htm 4 Reference: Bill S.2549; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000 5 Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] Program, which 

requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to 

'disadvantaged business enterprises.' Reference: Bill S.1173; vote number 1998-23 on Mar 6, 1998. 5 Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y) 48; N) 52. 

ZIP age AAAEO Open letter on Sen. Jefferson Ses.s.inns for Attorney General 
891 

Senator Sessions voted "Yea" on a controversial bill to exempt religiously affiliated employers from rules 

prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (Exempts Religiously 

Affiliated Employers from the Prohibition on Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation 

and Gender Identity, 2013)7 

Lastly, Senator Sessions voted to oppose the confirmations of the following Obama nominees of color 

and women, especially those who had strong records in support of affirmative action and equal 

opportunity. This we find equally troubling: 

Loretta E. Lynch to be Attorney General 

Wilhelmina Wright to Be U.S. District Judge 

Julian Castro to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court 

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court 

David Satcher, Surgeon General of the Public Health Service 

Debo P. Adegbile, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights 

Tom Perez, Secretary of Labor 

On the matter of the confirmation of Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Nominee Goodwin Liu, Senator 

Sessions stated: 

7 Source: 

"I am very disappointed by President Obama's nomination of Professor Goodwin Uu to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--already an activist court that has handed down decisions 

striking "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and finding Megan's Law to be 

unconstitutional. I fear that Professor Liu will be an activist judge in this same mold. 

"Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to 

following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far 

outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Professor Liu believes that judges should 

look to "evolving norms and social understandings" in interpreting the Constitution, he has a 

history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the 

ACLU. (Emphasis added) 

"Professor Uu's record will be examined carefully and fairly, and I will withhold final judgment 

until after his hearing. But it seems to me that his judicial philosophy does not respect the 

American ideal of judges as neutral arbiters of the law. I hope my initial impressions are wrong." 

http:/ I sessions.senate .gov /p u blic/i nd ex.cfm ?FuseAction=PressShop. NewsReleases&ContentRecord _id=Obb 94ad bedcd-bc3d-6Sd7-4306b54d8556&Region_id=&lssue_id= 

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/486784/sessions-expresses-concerns-with-appeals-courtnominee#.WGlD_EfgSlw 

31Page AAAEO DpBn lEltter nn Sen. Jefferson Sessions for Attorney General 
892 

Goodwin Liu withdrew his name after the Senate failed to overcome a filibuster of his nomination.• 

AAAED is mindful of the fact that the President deserves the right to nominate individuals who, in his 

judgment, will faithfully execute the laws and policies entrusted to his stewardship on behalf of the 

American people. We are also mindful, however, of the essential role that the United States Attorney 

General plays in enforcing the laws in a way that will mete out justice for all, including women, 

minorities, persons with disabilities, religious minorities and members of the LGBT community. It is the 

historically disadvantaged that depend most upon the vigilance and even-handedness of the Attorney 

General. 

We are particularly concerned that, given his views on affirmative action, diversity and related matters, 

Senator Sessions will not be a vigorous defender of matters before the federal courts, including the U.S. 

Supreme Court as in the case of Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. Too much progress has been 

made in the past fifty years for this nation to retreat now. 

We therefore, cannot conclude, from a review of Senator Sessions' record, that he is the best qualified 

person for this august position. 

Thank you for your kind attention to our concerns. If you would like to discuss the matter further, 

please contact Shirley J. Wilcher, AAAED Executive Director, at 202-349-9855; execdir@aaaed.org. 

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 206 • Washington, DC 20006 • Phone: 800-252-8952 

202-349-9855 • Fax: 202-355-1399 • execdir@aaaed.org • www.aaaed.org 

8 ttp :/I a rticles.latimes. com/2011/ may /2 5/n ation/la-n a-05 26-goodwin-li u-20 1105 26 

•!Page AAAED llpen letter on Sen. Jefferson Sessions fnr Attorney General 
893 

.. "'.,.. 

~-?~ 

ACLJ 

December 19. 2016 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

American Center 

;<'r Law & Justice 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Otlice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Patrick .1. Leahy 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grass ley and Ranking Member Leahy: 

RECEIVED JAN 0 3 1017 

By way of introduction. the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is an organization 

dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law. ACLJ attorneys have argued 

before the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal and state courts in a number of 

significant cases involving the freedoms of speech and religion. The ACLJ and its international 

affiliates defend human rights and religious liberty around the world. 

We are writing to express the ACLJ's views about the requirements for holding the position of 

Attorney General of the United States. We also write to express our view that the current 

nominee for the post, Senator Jeff Sessions. meets and even exceeds those requirements. 

First, any prospective Attorney General must have a long and proven record of commitment to 

the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law it undergirds. This concept is foundational to the 

American form of government and the law enforcement structure on which the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) rests. Unfortunately, recent years have demonstrated that fidelity to this concept is 

woefully lacking within the current DOJ. 

We are heartened that Senator Sessions has not only repeatedly expressed his dedication to the 

Constitution and the rule of!aw, but has also spent his life putting that commitment into practice. 

As a private attorney. U.S. attorney, Attorney General of Alabama. and U.S. Senator. Senator 

Sessions has consistently applied the law enforcement principles set forth in the U.S. 
894 

Constitution. These varied experiences will allow him to bring a much-needed multi-faceted 

perspective to the DOJ. 

Next we believe it is particularly important at this time in our history that the next Attorney 

General be equipped to repair the damaged reputation of the DOJ. With no ill will toward the 

many dedicated employees of the DO.l. the recently-concluded election cycle and the track 

record of the last few years have caused the American People to be less than fully confident in 

the neutrality of its top law enforcement agency. Some may quibble with whether that lack of 

conlidence is justified. but everyone should acknowledge that it is critical to regain that 

confidence. The American People deserve a judicial system that can be trusted to act free of 

partisan influence. 

Senator Sessions is supremely equipped to meet this challenge on two main levels. First he has 

the administrative experience from his time as the Attorney General of Alabama to conduct a top 

to bottom review of the DOJ and make needed improvements. Next. Senator Sessions· long track 

record of working across lines~be they political. racial. or socioeconomic lines~is exemplary. 

His professionalism and proven record make him uniquely qualified for this challenge. 

Finally. we expect any prospective nominee for this post to be forthcoming with the Committee. 

and expect the Committee to respectfully but thoroughly examine the nominee"s qualifications. 

This is a model that Senator Sessions himself followed as a member of the Committee. Maybe 

the most notable example of this practice occurred in 2009 when Senator Session respectfully 

explored a number of areas in which he and the then-nominee for Attomey General Eric Holder 

disagreed. Upon completing the review process. Senator Sessions voted to confirm Mr. llolder 

despite the sustained policy differences. We respectfully ask the Committee to now return the 

same cmuiesy of a thorough. fair, and respectful confirmation process to Senator Sessions. 

In our view, the end result will clearly reflect that Senator Sessions is supremely and uniquely 

qualified to be the 841

h Attomey General of the United States. 

We stand ready to assist you as you fulfill your advice and consent duties under Article II. 

Section 2. Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. 

Sincerely. 

aa~~ 

Jay J\. Sckulow 

Chief Counsel 

Jordan Sekulow 

Executive Director 

CC: Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
895 

A:-.H:RICA:\ 

GA:-.11:\G 

AS:;OCIATICl:\ 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grass ley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

799 9t" r~w 700 

w,.shmgton, DC 

202 552 2675 

202 552 2676 

www amencang,1rn,•1g org 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

As the Committee on the Judiciary considers the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be the next 

Attorney General of the United States, the American Gaming Association (AGA) requests that 

you bear in mind the importance of the Department of Justice in cracking down on illegal 

gambling activities across the country. 

Illegal gambling takes many forms: illicit machines, Internet sweepstakes cafes, online and often 

offshore wagering, and animal betting. A recent report by a Virginia Commonwealth University 

criminologist details the strong ties between illegal gambling operations and organized crime 

organizations in the U.S. The prevalence of illegal gambling has been so significant that, in 2014 

alone, 80 operators in 23 states were convicted of running illegal gambling businesses. In 

working with state and local law enforcement, the next attorney general can make significant 

progress in these areas through enforcement action. 

The most prevalent form of illegal betting, however, is sports betting, and requires a different 

approach. Today, the I 992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (P ASPA) bans sports 

betting outside of Nevada. But instead of restricting betting, the federal ban has only fueled a 

growing $150 billion illegal market with no consumer protections, no tax benefits for 

communities and no safeguards for sport integrity. The past 25 years and society's evolving 

attitudes have proven that enforcement is very unlikely to work, which is why we are focused on 

regulation- which the incoming president appears to support. 

As Americans prepare to illegally wager in excess of$4 billion on next month's Super Bowl, 

President-elect Donald Trump has recognized the reality ofthe current state of affairs. In a 2015 

interview, he seemed to agree with many law enforcement officials who prefer a regulated 

market. "I'm OK with it because it's happening anyway. Whether you have it (PASPA) or you 

don't have it, you have it (sports betting)," said the President-elect. 

Further, a September report authored by the AGA's Illegal Gambling Advisory Boat·d 

concluded that "the current approach to sports betting in the United States is not working; 

instead, it's fueling criminal enterprises. The time has come to repeal the current sports betting 

ban and replace it with rigorous regulations that benefit states, protect consumers and maintain 

the integrity of the games." 
896 

The next attorney general will be forced to use limited resources in the most effective manner. 

We encourage a new legal approach that would dramatically reduce the illegal sports betting 

market and allow law enforcement at every level to focus on other pressing matters. In the 

meantime, continued vigilance, focus and resources are required to combat other forms of illegal 

gambling and, until the federal ban is lifted, illicit sports betting. 

We hope the next attorney general will welcome opportunities to work with Congress to 

effectively address illegal gambling. In doing so, the AGA stands ready as a willing partner to 

work with you, and with members of the Committee, on this and other issues in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Geoff Freeman 

President and CEO 

A:-.IERICAT\ 

GA\11:\G 

ASSOCI:\ TlO:\ 

799 9th Stre<?t NW. Su.te 700 

Wa;,twt9t0n, DC 20001 

202 552 2675 

202 552 2576 

WW>'< drner1cang;lrn>ng on.; 
897 

A\J 

AMERICANS 

UNITED 

FOR SEPA~ATfON OF 

1310 L Street NW, 

Suite 200 

Washington. DC 20005 

www.au.org 

(202) 466-3234 

CHURCH AND STATE -----------------------------------

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

On behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, representing members and 

supporters in all SO states and the District of Columbia, we write to voice our strong opposition to the 

confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. 

Our opposition is based on actions Sen. Sessions has taken and statements he has made throughout his 

career that contravene the dearly held constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. 

Lack of Respect for the Constitutional Protections for Religious Freedom 

The separation of church and state guarantees religious freedom by allowing everyone to freely choose 

their beliefs without government intrusion. The government may not tax its people to fund religion, 

nor may it promote one religion over another or religion over non-religion. This is the foundation of 

religious freedom in our country and protects the integrity of both religion and the government. 

Sen. Sessions, however, has claimed the uwaH of separation" is 11 not constitutional and is not 

historicaL"' 

This disquieting view is reflected in his support for prayers at public schools' and by a judge in the 

courtroom,3 as well as his support for the government display of the Christian cross• and the Ten 

Commandments,' all of which violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

1 Religious Liberty Protection Act: Hearing on S. 2148 Before the Senate Comm. On the judiciary, 105th Cong. 40 

(Stotement of Sen. Sessions). 2 E.g., Sen. Sessions, Floor Statement (June 26, 2002). 3 See Alabama ex rel. Fabjames&]ef!Sessionsv. ACLU of Ala., 711 So. 2d 952 (1998) (filing lawsuit while Alabama 

Attorney General claiming that judge's practice of praying and displaying Ten Commandments in courtroom was 

constitutional). 

• Bill to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, S. 3683, 109th Cong. (enacted as Pub. L. No. 109-272). The 

cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity and it is not a universal symbol used by other faiths, like judaism, 

or by those who are non-believers. Nonetheless, the bill's findings state that there are many veterans' memorials 

with crosses. This is incorrect. The cross does not represent all members ofthe Armed Forces; indeed, almost 

one~third of members of the Armed Forces arc non~Christians. 

s E.g., S. Con. Res. 13, 105th Cong. (1997). 
898 

Bias Against Muslims and Support for Anti-Muslim Groups 

The United States has a proud history of religious liberty and of providing safe harbor for members 

of communities fleeing persecution and seeking a better life. Sen. Sessions has made statements 

that demean this proud tradition. 

For example, Sen. Sessions opposed legislation that supported barring religious litmus tests for 

people entering the country. He argued that the government should pick and choose among 

religions, explaining he believed the provision would be a move to prohibit "favor[ing] or 

disfavor[ing] any interpretation of a religion" or favoring a "moderate" religious leader over a 

"radical" one.6 

In addition, Sen. Sessions has suggested that Muslims follow "an ideology that is dangerous"7 and 

has spoken to and received awards from notorious anti-Muslim groups that have flamed antiMuslim bigotry." 

Sen. Sessions has demonstrated that he believes the government should prefer some religions over 

others and that Muslims can be singled out for disparate treatment and aversion. The Attorney 

General, however, should believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of religion. 

Support for a Religious Test 

Sen. Sessions's statements indicate that he thinks belief in God is prerequisite to understanding the 

truth, telling the truth, and making legal judgments. 

He criticized then-nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who is Catholic, suggesting 

that because he believed she is not religious, she could not see objective truth. He said, "If you ... 

don't believe in a higher being, maybe you don't believe there is any truth." 9 He also rebuked thenChairman of the judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy because he swore in witnesses without 

requiring them to say "So help me, God." Sen. Sessions remarked, "Ninety-five percent of the people 

believe in God. An invocation of His name, in conjunction with the seriousness of telling the truth, 

has an importance beyond mere legal requirement."1D 

In these statements, Sen. Sessions has effectively argued for a religious test for judges and those 

who testify. Article VI of the Constitution, however, explicitly forbids this. 

6 Press release Sen. Sessions, Sessions Delivers Remarks In Opposition To Global "Right To Migrate" 

Amendment (Dec. 10, 2015). 

7 Sam Kestenbaum, Trump~< Muslim Ban /las an ,1dvocute in Attornev General Pick /effScssions, Forward, Nov. 

18,2016. 

8 Miranda Blue, le([Sessions and the Extreme Anti-lmmiarant Anti-Muslim Lohbv, Right Wing Watch, Jan. 4, 

2017. 

9 Susan Beck, Iones Dm• Panel on ludiciarv Plavs to Republican CrOlvd, Nat'! Law J., July 20, 2016. 10 Senator Demands Restoration a["So 1/elv Me God" Oath Church & State (Sept. 2001). Close to 25% of the 

Americans who have no religious affiliation and some religions, including some Christian denominations, 

forbid oaths. 

2 
899 

Use of Religion as an Excuse to Harm Others 

Sen. Sessions has co-sponsored two bills that were aimed at sanctioning discrimination against 

LGBTQ people in the name of religion. 

The deceptively named First Amendment Defense Actll would allow individuals, government 

employees, government-funded employees, and businesses to cite religion as an excuse to ignore all 

laws that recognize and protect same-sex couples. And, the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act12 

would allow child welfare service providers to refuse to provide any service that violates their 

religious beliefs-even if they get federal funding-regardless of the best interest of the child. 

These two bills are troubling because they would allow federal employees to refuse to serve all 

citizens equally and federally funded social service providers to discriminate, under the guise of 

religious freedom. As enshrined in the Constitution, however, religious freedom guarantees the 

freedom to believe according to the dictates of one's conscience, and to practice that faith-but it 

does not allow anyone to ignore laws that protect others or to take away the rights of others even if 

motivated by religious beliefs. 

* • • 

For these reasons, Americans United opposes the confirmation of Sen. Sessions as Attorney General. 

Please contact Maggie Garrett, (202) 466-3234 x. 226, garrett@au.org, or Dena Sher, (202) 466-

3234 x. 281, sher@au.org, if you have questions or would like further information on our position. 

Sincerely, 

Maggie Garrett 

Legislative Director 

Dena Sher 

Assistant Legislative Director 

11 First Amendment Defense Act, S. 1598, 114th Cong. (2015). He also co-sponsored the prior version of this 

legislation, the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, S. 1808, 113th Cong. (2013). 12 Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, S. 667, 114th Cong. (2015) &5. 2706, 113th Cong. (2014). 

3 
900 

O!fker5<JIIIl< 

NMi~n~!Commtnlor 

Nar•()r,!O"''' M~•~,. D tJo~LI>;)r 

CEO ... N!J~on~!DI<l!CIO 

Jc~~~'i!'l A. Greenbl~l' ABL 

Anti~Defamation League® 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chair 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

M'""' ,'::;::~;;; Washington, DC 20510 ArnS!<JntTr,.s<J<e 

!')wmPu~<l 

";::;;:;;.;'-;:;;;,: Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, Sl'clt'IJW 

Tl!oro~sc Hombu'!Jtl' 

k~mlar:tSecro/ary 

SWllordS3rat~ 

o,.,~~n! 

!l<!!lS..' 

M"'am~~= 

1'/(11'111<1~ 

MdmnS 5chne•!!e• 

DUPU!l'N8l!O!>t!D>rt!J:1Dt 

Kflflt>e\h JO<=OO~or 

Clliel0pe•atmg0fficll!l 

Cl!fi<>WSche.t:hle> 

O..born;;:;l ~~~~ -' 

thna f.l;!na~ 

Ld1!>21w.-

D...,.odS !/Jam~ 

Ft>km<·e&A::Inurost<al"'' 

M<cllaeiA Kellma~ 

Mi!rlet.og&Co~m•<:'ll•l)lll 

Toct:fGU!N<'.l' 

Re()f¢na/D{rera/I(V10 

Rob9rtW<:'II!:oo 

Toll~n~~-;,K~=:~ 

NatlaMlOire~h>rEm&riiU! 

A!<rlll>~mH Fo>.m!l" 

1\nto.O~l•rnalion League 

Faundatlon 

l"ri!Sdc'!! 

Glen 5 l1l'~Y 

In advance of the upcoming confirmation hearings on the nomination of United States 

Senator Jeff Sessions to the position of Attorney General of the United States, the AntiDefamation League ("ADL") urges you and your colleagues on the Judiciary 

Committee to closely examine Senator Sessions' views on the role of the Attorney 

General and the Justice Department in interpreting and enforcing provisions in the 

United States Constitution and federal law that guarantee and protect fundan1ental civil 

rights and individual liberties. 

Specifically, we believe there are seven main areas which deserve the Com!llittee's 

special attention, These include Senator Sessions' position on the First Amendment's 

religious liberty clauses, the enforcement of federal civil rights and hate crime laws, the 

protection of voting rights, criminal justice reform and law enforcement training, LGBT 

rights, immigration enforcement, and reproductive health, 

Separation of Church and State 

ADL believes deeply in the importance of preserving and safeguarding freedom of 

religion in our increasingly pluralistic nation. We strongly believe that govenm1ent 

should neither promote nor be hostile to religion. This position reflects a profound 

respect for religious freedom and recognition of the extraordinary diversity of religions 

represented in the United States, l3oth as a matter of law and as a matter of good public 

policy, the First Amendment should be read to protect minority religious groups from 

being subject to the coercion and pressure of state-instituted religion. 

Imagine a World Without HaW 

Ant,·Defamatron League, 605Third Avenue, NewYork, NY 10158-3560 T212,885,7700 F212,8670779 www,adLorg 
901 

ADL opposes effmis to post the Ten Commandments in schools, government buildings, and 

courthouses. While often well-intentioned, we believe that these activities are both 

unconstitutional and bad policy. Governmental posting of the Ten Conunandments ilies in the 

face of the Constitution's guarantee of separation of church and state and may lead to the kind of 

divisive religious debate that the First Amendment was designed to prevent. l.ndeed. there is no 

one version of the Ten Commandments. Rather, there are multiple forms of it within the 

Christian and Jewish traditions. Therefore, any official posting of the Ten Commandments 

inevitably prefers one faith to the exclusion of all others within and outside the Clll'istian and 

Jewish traditions. 

In 1997 Sen. Sessions introduced a resolution after Alabama Supreme Comi Judge Roy Moore 

had been ordered to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments that he had posted in his 

courtroom. The proposed resolution stated that "(l) the Ten Commandments are a declaration of 

fw1damental principles that are the comerstones of a fair and just society; and (2) the public 

display, including display in government offices and cowihouses. of the Ten Commandments 

should be pern1itted." 1 In the speech he gave on the Senate iloor, Sen. Sessions said, "The Ten 

Commandments represent a key part of the foundation of western civilization of our legal system 

in America. To exclude a display of the Ten Commandments because it suggests an 

establislunent of religion is not consistent with our national history, let alone common sense 

itself. This Nation was founded on religious traditions that are an integral part of the fabric of 

American cultural, political, and societallife."2 

We urge Committee members to ask the nominee questions on these issues: 

:?- Do you support calls for the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, 

public buildings, and public schools? 

:» If you support posting the Ten Commandments in public schools, on what basis do 

you do so, in light of the Supreme Court's clear guidance for public schools in 

Stone v, Graham, 449 U.S, 39 (1980)? 

It is well-settled that government-sponsored prayer in the public school setting, whether in the , 

classroom or at a school event, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.' 

Indeed, the only type of prayer that is constitutionally permissible is private and voluntary 

student prayer. Prayers at athletic events, graduation ceremonies, and even school board 

meetings send an exclusionary message to students and community members of favoring one 

religion over others. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Sessions said, "We take a minute, and 

somebody says a little prayer that acknowledges something more important than who is the 

1 Jeff Sessions, Display of the Ten Commandmems, Floor Statements (Mar. 19, 1997). 

htip:l/www .sess ions.se nate. gov/publ i c/index. cfmif].QQr -statcmen ts? I D= ad b9120e-7 e9c-9af9-7 ebe-048 5 6d3 9 3 I c6 

'!d. 

3 See, e.g., Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 

203 (1963), Santa Pe lndep.School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). 

2 
902 

toughest football player on the field. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't 

believe it violates anybody's rights."4 

In a Senate Judiciary Committee heating on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998, Sen. 

Sessions said, "This wall of separation, this obsession with eliminating every expression of 

religious faith in the public sphere is not constitutional and is not histmical."5 

We urge Committee members to ask the nominee questions on these issues: 

~ What is your position on the constitutional breadth and parameters of the 

separation between church and state? 

';> Do you support prayer at public school events, including athletic events? 

> If so, on what basis do you do so, given the U.S. Supreme Court's clear guidance in 

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)? 

Hate Crimes Prevention and Prosecution 

For more than three decades, ADL has spearheaded the drafting, enactment, and implementation 

of hate crimes laws, working in patinership with other civil rights and religious organizations, 

law enforcement groups, civic agencies, and business leaders. Hate crimes merit a priority 

response because of their special impact on the victim and the victim's community. Failure to 

address this unique type of crime could cause an isolated incident to explode into widespread 

community tension. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in tenns of 

physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the 

victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable, and unprotected by the law. 

Because hate crimes often render members of minority communities fearful, angry, and/or 

suspicious of other groups- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them- these 

incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities. 

Criminal activity motivated by bias is distinct and different from other criminal conduct. These 

crimes occur because of the perpetrator's bias or animus against the victim on the basis of actual 

or perceived status- the victim's race, color, religion. national origin, sexual orientation, gender, 

gender identity, or disability is the reason for the crime. In the vast majority of these incidents, 

no crime would have occuned at all were it not for the victim's personal characteristic, Statistics 

recently released by the FBI6 show that in 2015 the nation's law enforcement agencies reported 

that there were 5,850 hate crimes in the United States, which reflects a 7% increase from 2014. 

4 Jeff Sessions, Under God, Floor Statements (Jun. 26, 2002), 

http :1/www .sess ions.senate. gov /pub I ic/index.cfmlfloor -statements? I D~ A3 A F724 3-7 E9C-9 A F9-784 DC587FDF755E7. 

5 Religious Liberty Protection Act of I 998: Hearings on S. 2148 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm .. 1 0511' Con g. 40 

(1998). 

6 2015 Hate Crimes Statistics, FBI: Uniform Crime Reponing (2016), http;:l/ucr. fbi.gov/lwte-crime/20 15. 

3 
903 

In2015, as in every year over the past 25 years, race was the most frequent hate crime-2,754 

incidents (more than 47% of the total). Crimes against African-Americans made up the vast 

majority ofthat category, 1,745 incidents {almost 30%). Crimes directed against individuals and 

institutions on the basis of religion were second most frequent ( 1,244, over 21 %). Crimes against 

Jews and Jewish institutions accounted for more than 50% of the religion category and there was 

a substantial increase in anti-Muslim crimes- from !54 in2014 to 257 in2015. In addition, 

1.053 {18%) of the victims were targeted because of their sexual orientation and another 114 

(about 2%) were targeted because of their gender identity. 

The FBI has been collecting this hate crime data from law enforcement authorities across the 

country since 1991 under the Hate Crime Statistics Act. 7 ln2015, the most recent data available, 

87 cities over 100,000 in population either did not repmt any data to the FBI or affim1atively 

reported zero (0) hate crimes. The state of Alabama reported ten hate crimes. By contrast, in 

2015, the city of Phoenix, Arizona repmied 231 hate crimes, the city of Columbus, Ohio reported 

137 hate crimes, and the city of Boston, Massachusetts reported 139 hate crimes. 

We respectfully request that the Committee question the nominee with respect to the following: 

~ What steps would you take as Attorney General to ensure that police departments 

are well trained to identify, report, and respond to hate crimes that occur in their 

jurisdictions? 

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), signed into law 

on October 28, 2009, is the most important, comprehensive, and inclusive hate crime 

enforcement law enacted in the past 40 years. 8 Among other things, the HCP A extended federal 

hate crimes protections to victims targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender or gender 

identity, or disability. It also closed gaps in federal enforcement authority, encouraged 

partnerships between state and federal law enforcement officials to address hate violence more 

effectively, and provided limited expanded authority for federal hate crime investigations and 

prosecutions when local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. 

Under the HCPA, the Attomey General or a designee must sign off on all criminal prosecutions 

brought under the Act. Federal hate crimes cases have significant national import. Hate crimes 

charges filed by the Department of Justice in recent years include cases involving organized hate 

groups, cases with special community or national impact, and cases in which local authorities 

lacked the resources, or the will, to vindicate justice. 

In addition, since passage of the HCPA, lawyers at the Department of Justice have worked with 

FBI officials, U.S. Attorneys, and professionals from the Community Relations Service to 

organize a series of dozens of training progran1s on the tools the Act provides, enforcement 

strategies, and communiV engagement including training programs in each of the five states 

with no hate crime laws. Several thousand state and local law enforcement officials have been 

trained at these sessions. In addition, the Justice Department, in coordination with several lead 

1 28 u.s.c. § 534. 

'Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of2009, 18 U.S.C. § 249 (2009). 9 The five states without hate crimes laws are Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wyoming. 

4 
904 

U.S. Attorneys, has vigorously defended the HCPA in both facial and as applied constitutional 

challenges. 

Sen. Sessions ardently opposed passage of the HCPA. 10 In 2009 Senator Sessions condenmed the 

Act as "a broad power that we give to the Attorney General and a broad statute I don't believe is 

compelled by the facts [about hate crime) that are happening in America today.'' 11 After the law 

had passed, he said, "The hate crimes amendment is unwan·anted, possibly lUlConstitutionalcertainly, I believe it is unconstitutional in certain parts-and it violates the basic principle of 

equal justice under the law. The hate crimes amendment to this bill has been said to cheapen the 

civil rights movement.''JZ 

Given Sen. Sessions' opposition to the HCP A. and the fact that as Attomey General he would be 

required to sign off on all federal hate crimes prosecutions, we believe it is imperative to ask the 

nominee about his positions on hate crimes prosecutions and hate crimes laws. We respectfully 

request that the Committee question the nominee with respect to the following: 

? Will you sign off on charges brought pursuant to the HCP A, including for crimes 

targeting members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) 

community? 

> Will you continue the Department of Justice's training programs, including in the 

five states that have no hate crimes laws, and ensure that U.S. Attorneys, FBI 

agents, and local law enforcement agents all have the tools they need to prevent bias 

crimes and to prosecute them diligently and effectively? 

Y In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1993 Wisconsill v. Mite/tell decision 

upholding a similar state hate crimes law against a First Amendment challenge, will 

you defend the constitutionality of the HCP A in court should it be challenged, as the 

current Justice Department has done on several occasions 13? 

Voting Rights 

Voting rights are the keystone of our democracy, and ADL believes that the necessity of securing 

and safeguarding the right to vote for all eligible Americans cannot be underscored enough. 

Recognizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) as one of the most important and most 

effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted, the League has strongly supported the 

VRA and its extensions since its passage almost 50 years ago. ADL has consistently filed briefs 

before the U.S. SuRreme Coun suppmting the constitutionality of the VRA, including in Shelby 

County v. Holder. 4 

JO Brandon Ellington Patterson, JeflSessiuns Fought Against Hate Crime Protections for LGBT Victims, Mother 

Jones (Nov. 22, 201 6), http:/iwww.motherjanes.comlpolitics/2016/llljefT-sessions-hate·crime-law. 11 Brian Levin. Jeff Sessions Will Be fn Charge of Enforcing the Federal Hate Crime Lmv He Vehemently Opposed. 

Buffington Post (Nov. 18, 2016), hup:i/www.huffingtonpost.com/hrian-kvin-jdltmJlli1Ntttomev-general-nominecwas b 13080004.html. 

"Jeff Sessions, Sessions Expresses Concern Aboulthe Hate Crimes Act, Floor Statements (Jul. 20. 2009), 

http:/iw_ww.sessions.senote.gov/public/index.ctin/7009/7/sessions-expresses-concern-about-the-ha:e-crimes-act. 

"Hate Crimes, Depmtment of Justice, https:/iwww.justice.gov/cru'hate-crimes-0. 14She/by Cozmty v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). 

5 
905 

Sen. Sessions' record on voting rights can be described. at best. as deeply concerning. In 1985, 

when Mr. Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, he brought a case 

against Albert Turner leader of the Perry Com1ty Civic League and a voting rights advocate 

who had walked directly behind Representative John Lewis during the Bloody Sunday march in 

Selma- and two others who had helped elderly black voters in Alabama with their absentee 

ballots. Mr. Sessions charged the "Marion Three" with 29 counts of mail fraud, altering absentee 

ballots, and conspiracy to vote more than once. The defendants faced more than I 00 years in 

prison on criminal charges, including violations of the VRA that had seldom been used even to 

prosecute white officials who had systematically disenfranchised black voters for decades. 

Evidence showed that the defendants were helping elderly black voters complete mail-in ballots. 

The jury deliberated for less than three hours before returning not guilty verdicts on all counts. 15 

The following year, during his confirmation hearings for a federal judgeship in 1986, the thennominee told the Senate that he had considered the VRA a ''piece of intrusive legislation." 16 At 

those same hearings J. Gerald Hebert, who worked in the Department ofJustice's Voting 

Section, testified that, when a federal judge called James Blacksher, who is white, "a disgrace to 

his race'' for representing black clients in voting rights cases, Sessions responded, "Well, maybe 

he is.''17 

Sen. Sessions' opposition to the VRA and troublesome record on voting rights did not end in the 

1980s. Before running for a U.S. Senate seat, in 1996 Mr. Sessions argued that the VRA was a 

tool to engineer particular political outcomes, not to protect access to the ballot box. Sen. 

Sessions voted for the extension of the VRAin 2006, but he later said he had misgivings: "I 

wanted to vote for it, but at the very last minute I was very uneasy, because all of a sudden they 

expanded it to 25 years, and that probably wasn'tjustified." After the Supreme Court's decision 

in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which essentially gutted the heart of the Act, Sen. Sessions 

called it, "Good news, I think, for the South." 18 

In the role of Attorney General, the nominee would be tasked with protecting the right to vote for 

all Americans. We would urge the Committee to ask the nominee questions in this area: 

> Do you believe you made a mistake in prosecuting the Marion Three? 

15 Robe1i Pear, Judge Nomination Stirs Opposition, New York Times (Dec. I, I 985), 

http://www .nytimes.com/1985/1? 10 1/us/judge-nomination-slirs-opposilion.html; Ari Berman, J~ff'Sessions, Trump's 

Pick for Attorn~y General, Is a Fierce Opponelll q{Civil Rights, The Nation (Nov. 18, 20 16), 

https:/lwww.thenation.com/alticleljeff-sessions-trumps-pick-for-attornev-£eneml-is-a-fierce-opponent-of-civilrights/. 

16 Osita Nwanevu, Jeff Sessions, Defender qfthe Muslim Ban, Is Trump's Pick for Attomey General, Slate (Nov. 18, 

2016), 

!Htp:ilwww.slate.com/blogs/the slatest/20 16/ll/lS/jeff sessions is trump s pick for attorney general.himl. 17 Mary Troyman and Brian Lyman, Black Belt Voter Fraud Case in Alabama Shaped Sen. JejfSessions' Career, 

USA Today (Nov. 18, 2016), hltp:l/www,usatoday.comlstory/news/politics/20 16/ll/18/black-belt-voter-fraud-casealabama-shaped·sen-jeff-sessions-career/94088186/. 

18 Tierney Sneed, Why Jeff Sessions as Attorney General Horrifies Voting Rights Advocates, Talking Points Memo 

(Nov. 18, 20 16), http://talkingpointsmemo comldc/whv-trump-s-choice-ol~jeff~sessions-as-ag-is-alarmin!!-VOtingrights-advocates. 

6 
906 

);- Given your history of prosecuting African-American voting rights advocates while 

you were U.S. Attorney, what 1·eassurance can you provide that you will fairly 

enforce the Voting Rights Act? 

);- You have expressed support for the Shelby County v. Holder decision. How broad 

do you believe the Justice Department's authority is now to enforce the Voting 

Rights Act? 

);- Why do you support voter ID requirements when the overwhelming evidence is that 

in-person voter impersonation is almost non-existent, and clear evidence exists that 

these restrictions limit access for minority, poor, old, disabled, and young voters? 

Criminal Justice Reform and Law Enforcement Training 

In recent years, there have been multiple proposals at the federal and state levels to refonn 

criminal justice and police policies, including refonning pretrial detention; adopting alternatives 

to arrest and incarceration for minor, non-violent offenses; appointing special prosecutors in 

cases of police involvement in fatalities of unanned civilians and allegations of serious police 

misconduct; requiring law enforcement officers to wear body cameras; expanding FBI and 

Justice Depatiment data collection on police use oflethal force; providing treatment, rather than 

incarceration, for substance abuse and mental health; limiting mandatory minimum sentences to 

the most serious offenses; ensuring faimess in the selection of jurors and grand jurors; focusing 

prisons on rehabilitation efforts; and promoting best practices to ease reentry and reduce 

recidivism. 

ADL supported the Sentencing Refonn and Corrections Act of 2015, as well as other reform 

effm1s designed to reduce mass incarceration, oppose racism, reform practices that 

disproportionately impact conununities of color, create safe environments for all communities, 

and build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect. 

ADL is the largest non-goverrunental provider in the United States for law enforcement training 

on hate crimes, extremism and ten·orism. In recent years, we have welcomed a number of wellcrafted police reform initiatives, including the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 19 

The League has strongly supported the work of the Task Force and an ADL representative 

presented testimony before the Task Force focused on our flagship Law Enforcement and 

Society (LEAS) core values program and a range of other policing practices designed to promote 

effective crime reduction while building public trust and collaborative relationships between law 

enforcement officials and the communities they serve and protect.''' 

The Department of Justice has also engaged in leadership work to accomplish police reform and 

promote improved police-community relations and trust through the Civil Rights Division's 

19 President's Task Force on 21" Century Policing 2015, Final Report of the Task Force on 21" CenliiiJ' Policing, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (May 20 15). 

https:l/cops.usdoj.govlpdf/taskforce/taskforce tinalrepmt.pdf. 20 Press Release, Anti-Defamation League, President Obama's Task Force on 21" Century Policing Consults with 

ADL on Law Enforcement Training (Feb. 14, 2015), http:llwww.adl.orglpress-center/pressreleases/miscellaneouslpresi dents-task-forcc-21 st -century-poI icing-consultsadl.html?refetTer;https:llwww.google.cotni#.WG-EvCMrKM4. 

7 
907 

active enforcement of its civil "pattem or practice'' authority to address policing that violates the 

Constitution or other federal laws. According to a repmt released earlier this month, the 

Division has opened 11 new pattern or practice investigations and negotiated 19 new refom1 

agreements since 2012, often with the substantial assistance of the local U.S. Attomey's 

Offices?' 

These cases focus on systemic police misconduct and involve very substantial investigations. If 

the Department does find a pattem or practice of police misconduct, it works with local 

govemment and police authorities to address and remedy the situation, usually through a consent 

decree overseen by a federal court and an independent monitoring team. 

In June, 2016 the Justice Department mmounced that every federal law enforcement official and 

every federal prosecutor would participate in implicit bias training in the coming months. ADL 

applauded this announcement;22 the League had recommended such core values training 

initiatives in its submissions to the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 

Sen. Sessions has disregarded evidence about diminishing crime rates23 and has strongly opposed 

bipartisan criminal justice reform efforts.24 In another context, Sen. Sessions has harshly 

criticized consent decrees as "m1 end mn around the democratic process."25 

We would urge the Committee to probe the nominee's views on criminal justice issues. 

:>- What is your view on efforts to address mass incarceration? 

>- Do you support the use of consent decrees and settlement agreement~ to address a 

pattern and practice of police misconduct? Are there specific police misconduct 

consent decrees entered into by the Obama Justice Department with which you 

disagree? 

~ Would you commit to continuing the Justice Department's important implicit bias 

training initiative? 

21 Civil Rights Division U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Civil Rights Division's Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work: 

1994-Present (Jan. 2017), https:/lwww.justice.gov/crtlfllel92242lidownload. 22 Press Release, Anti-Defamation League, ADL Applauds Department of Justice Commitment at Implicit Bias 

Training (Jun. 27, 20 !6 ), http://www. ad l.org/press-center/press-releaseslcivil-rights/justice-dept -applaudedcommitment-to-implicit-bias-training.html?referrer=https:l/www.google.comi#.WG-JbiMrKM4. 

13 News Releases, Jeff Sessions, Sessions: Don't Weaken Criminal Law in Middle of Crime Wave (Oct. 13, 2015), 

http:/iwww .sessions .senate. gov/pub lic/i ndcx. cfm/20 1 5/1 0/sessions-don-t -weaken-crimina 1-law-in-m i dd le-af-crimewave. 

24 Carl Hulse, Why the Senate Couldn't Pass a Crime /Jill Both Parties Backed, New York Times (Sept. 16, 20 16). 

http://www .nyti mes.com/20 I 6/09/ I 7 /us/politi cslsen ate-d vsfun cti on-b locks-bipmtisan-crim i nal-j usticeoverhaul.html? r=O. 15 Jeff Sessions, Foreword to Consent Decrees in institutional R~form Litigation: 

Strategies for State Legislatures (Michael E. DeBow, Gary J. Palmer. and John J. Park, Jr.)(2008), 

http:/lwww.alabarnapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads!APl-Research-Consent-Decrees.pdf 

8 
908 

LGBT Equality 

In recent years, the Justice Department has been a powerful voice in support ofLGBT equality 

and it was a strong supporter of the constitutionalit/" and importance2 of the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), legislation that, among other things, 

provided authority for FBI investigations and Justice Department prosecutions of certain biasmotivated crimes, including crimes directed at individuals because of their sexual orientation or 

gender identity. The FBI updated its excellent Hate Crime Training Manual with thoughtful 

definitions and scenarios to aid police in w1derstanding hate crimes directed against members of 

LGBT communities.28 As previously mentioned, Sen. Sessions voted against the HCPA. 

In 2011, then-Attomey General Eric Holder announced that the Department would no longer 

support the constitutionality29 of the ill-conceived Defense of Marriage Act. 30 Sen. Sessions 

strongly disagreed with that decision, saying he was "very troubled" by the step and calling it 

"unacceptable."31 He has supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.32 

The Justice Department has strongly supported33 the Employment Non-Discrimination Act 

(ENDA), legislation designed to ensure workplace anti-discrimination protections for LGBT 

people. In 2013, Sen. Sessions voted against Senate consideration ofENDA.34 Ii1 addition, Sen. 

Sessions is a cosponsor of the misnamed "First Amendment Defense Act, "35 legislation which 

'·'Robert Raben, Constillltionali(v of the Mall hew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevelllion Act: Memorandum Opinion for 

the Assistant Attorney General Office of Legislative Affairs {Jun. 16, 2009), 

https:/lwww. j ustice.govlsites/ default!fi les/a lclopinion s/1009/06/3 I /shepard-hate-crimes O.pdf. 27 Eric Holder, Attorney General Eric Holder Before the Committee on the Judicimy United States Senate a/ a 

Hearing Entitled, 'The Matthew Shepard Hare Crimes Prevemion Act of2009, ·(Jun. 25, 2009), 

https:l/www.justice.gov/ag/jusrice-news-3. 

"Law Enforcement Suppm1 Section, Hate Cl'ime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual (Feb. 27, 2016), 

https:/lucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime-data-ca!lection-guidelines-and-training-manual.pdf. 

29 Press Release, Department of Justice, Statement ofihe Attorney General on Litigalionlnvolving the Defense of 

Marriage Act (Feb. 23, 20 II), lmps://www.justice.goviopa/pr/statement-attornev-general-litigation-involvingdefense~marriage~act. 

30 Defense of Marriage Act, I U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738c (1996), https:/!www.gpo.govifdws/pkg/PLAW104publl991lltmi/PLA W-104publl99 htm. 31 Senator Sessions Sharply Questions Nominee for Solicitor General (Mar. 30, 2011). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v·""-LRSxOnmo lk&feature=voutu.be, 320n the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration ofS.J. Res. 1), 

U.S. Roll Call Votes 109'' Congress-2'' Session (Jun. 7, 2006). 

http:l/www.seJtute.gov/legi>lative/LJS/roll call lists/roll call vote cfm.ctrn?conaress= I 09&session~2&vote=OO 16 

;L 

13 Thomas E. Perez, Stateme/11 of Thomas E. Perez. Assistant Attomey General, Departme/11 of Justice, Before the 

Committee on Health, Education. Labor and Pensions, US. Senate, Emitled "Emp/oyme/11 Non-Discrimination Act: 

Ensuring Opportunity for All Americans, "Dept. of Justice (Nov. 5, 2009), 

httPs://www.justice.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/crtllmcy/2009/ll/05/perez testimony 1!509.pdf. 340n the Cloture Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 815), U.S. Senate 

Roll Call Votes 113°' Congress-!" Session (Nov. 4, 2013), 

i)ttp:l/www.senate.Jwv/legislative/LIS/roll call lists/roll call vote cfm.cfm?congress~ ll3&session=l &vote=0022 

9. 

ll First Amendment Defense Acr, S. 1594, 114'" Cong. (2015), bttps://www.congress.govlbill/ll4thcongresslsenatebill/1598/cosponsors?g~% 7B%22search%22%3A %5 B%22first+amendment+defense+act% )2%50% 7 D&r=2 

9 
909 

would prevent the government from taking action against businesses that discriminate against 

LGBT people based on their "religious belief or moral conviction." 

In light of this consistent record of opposition to LGBT equality, we would urge Committee 

members to question Sen. Sessions on the following: 

:o> Do you believe same-sex marriage equality is the settled law of the land? 

Y Do you believe that individuals should be able to violate federal civil rights laws if 

their non-compliance is grounded in religious or moral objections? 

);;- Will you enforce existing protections against transgender discrimination? 

Immigration 

ADL has advocated for fair and humane immigration policies since its founding in 1913. The 

League has helped expose anti-inm1igrant hate that has been a tixture of the recent inunigration 

debate, and has called for a responsible public discourse that will honor America's history as a 

nation of immigrants. 

The Attorney General and the Department of Justice have tremendous power over immigration 

law. The Department of Justice has the power to prosecute immigration violations and the 

responsibility to administer immigration courts. As head of the Depat1ment of Justice, the 

Attorney General oversees the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Board of 

Inm1igration Appeals, giving him or her broad authority over the enforcement of immigration 

laws and the fate of asylum seekers, which are often life-and-death decisions. The nominee's 

views on inunigration, therefore, are exceptionally consequential and deserve in-depth 

questioning. 

During his time in the Senate, Sen. Sessions has led efforts to defeat inunigration reform and 

bills that would include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, has championed 

the creation of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and has supported zero-tolerance policies 

for unlawfully crossing the border, advocating for more aggressive prosecution. He has 

consistently voted to restrict immigration, increase funding for border patrol, and expand border 

batTiers. Sen. Sessions has suppotied legislation that would require local Jaw enforcement to 

report "any undocumented immigrants to the Depattment of Homeland Security"36 and has 

insisted that it is "a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally." He introduced a 

bill that would make unlawful presence in the United States a crime, mandating jail time for 

people who overstayed their visa, 37 and voted to invoke cloture on a bill that would increase 

36 Mary Troyan, J~f!Sessions, a Deficit Hm1•k, MGJ' Need to Spend Big on Immigration, USA Today (Dec. 6, 20 16). 

!J!!n.:ilwww .usatoda y .com/storvlnewslpo I itics/20 16/12/06/j eff-sessions-deficit-hawk -mav-need-spend-b i~­

immigration/94 756084/. 37 Carolyn Lochhead, Republicans Hardening Stance on Immigration. San Francisco Gate (Aug. 4, 2007), 

http://www .ill@~.com/pol itics/article/Republicam-hardening-stance-on-immi£ralion-3416!15 .php. 

10 
910 

penalties for those who unlawfully reentered the United States after removaL38 A memo that Sen. 

Sessions wrote in 20 I 5 outlined his thoughts on immigration. Among other things, he argued in 

favor of cancelling federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities,'' establishing criminal penalties 

for visa overstays, and "ending catch-and-release on the border with mandatory detention and 

expedited depmtations. ''39 

Sen. Sessions has also supported legal changes to the 141

h Amendment to deny citizenship to 

American-hom children of undocumented immigrants. In 20IO he called for hearings on whether 

the I 4'h Amendment should be amended to deny birthright citizenship to children of 

undocumented immigrants40 and said that birthright citizenship has been "clearly abused.''41 The 

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in 

the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the 

state in which they reside."42 Section 30I(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act similarly 

codifies that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." is a 

national and citizen of the United States at bizth.43 It is long-settled law that ''the Fourteenth 

Amendment affinns the fundamental rule of citizenship by bizth within the territory, in the 

allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident 

aliens."44 The right, commonly referred to as "bi1thright citizenship,'' extends equally to all 

persons born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. 

The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly overturned the tragic and infamous Dred 

Scott decision, widely regarded as among "our most shameful failures to discharge our duty of 

defending constitutional eivillibe11ies against the popular hue and cry that would have us abridge 

them."45 In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court had held that ''a negro, whose ancestors were 

imported into this country and sold as salves [sic]" was "not intended to be included, under the 

word 'citizens' in the Constitution, andean therefore claim none of the rights and privileges 

which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."46 At least in part, 

Dred Scott has been so reviled in the history books because it created an underclass of people 

born in the United States but unable to gain full and equal access to the rights to "Life, Liberty 

38 United States Roll Call Votes 114'" Congress-2'' Edition (Jul. 6, 2016), 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll call lists/roll call vote cfin.cfm?congress~ ll4&sessionc:J§.:_yQ!.e=OO 12 

Q. 

39 Jeff Sessions, Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority (Jan. 2015), 

http://www .sessions.senate.govfpublicl cachelfilesi67ae7163-66!6-4023-a5c4-534c53e6fc 76/imm igration-primerfor-the-l14th-con•ress.pdf. 

40 Louis Jacobson, Fact-checking the Claims About 'Anchor Babies' and Whether !IIegal!mmigrants 'Drop and 

Le{{Ve,' Politifuct (Aug. 6, 20 10), http://www.po1itifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/20 I 0/aug/06/lindseygraham/illegal-immi~rants-anchor-babies-birthrit!.htl. 

41 Devin Dwyer and Jonathan Karl, Republicans Eye Change 10 Birthright Citizenship, ABC News (Aug. 3, 2010), 

hnp://abcnews.[o.com/Politicsfbirthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-reQ.!llJ]ican-senators-explorechangelstory?id; 11313973 

"U.S. Canst. amend. XIV,§ I. 

"8 U.S.C. §1401 (a). 44 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) 

'

5 United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 223 F.Jd 281,282 (5"' Cir, 2000). 

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393,403, 404 (1857). 

]] 
911 

and the pursuit of Happiness" boldly set forth as a guarantee in the Declaration of 

Independence. 47 

In December 2015, after President-elect Trump proposed a "total and complete shutdown of 

Muslims" entering the United States. Sen. Sessions said, "It's time for us to think this through 

and the classical, internal American religious principles I don't think apply providing 

constitutional protections to persons not citizens who want to come here.''48 Soon thereafter Sen. 

Patrick Leahy introduced a "sense ofthe Senate" resolution to reaffirm that the United States 

should not bar people from this country because of their religion. Sen. Sessions voted against the 

resolution, giving a 30-minute speech about why others should reject it. 49 In addition to his 

apparent support for a ban on Muslim immigration, Sen. Sessions has made derogatory 

comments about immigrants from the Dominican Republic. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. 

Sessions said, "Almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is 

coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and !hat would indicate their likely 

success in our society. " 50 

Given the Attorney General's power over immigration and Sen. Sessions' record on the issues, 

ADL believes it would be appropriate to question the nominee in-depth about his intentions. In 

pan:icular, we respectfully request that the Committee question him with regard to the following: 

);.- How-and to what extent-do you intend to use Depm·tment of .Justice resources to 

prosecute immigration cases? 

);.- Are there any cases f1·om the Board of Immigration Appeals that you have flagged 

for reconsideration? 

);.- Do you believe that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have due 

process rights? Do you believe that people who have overstayed their visas should 

be prosecuted and sentenced to time in jail or prison? Do you believe that people 

who reenter the country unlawfully after a removal should be prosecuted and 

sentenced to time in jail or prison? 

);.- What is your position regarding the status of people who received Deferred Action 

for Childhood Arrivals? 

"The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. J 776). 

"Jennifer Jacobs and Steven T Dennis, Trump Names Senator Jqf!Sessions to Be His A/forney General. Bloomberg 

Politics (Nov. I 8, 20 16), https://www.bloombem.com/politics/m1iclesf2Q!ii-11·18/n:ymp:2aid-to-pick-senator-jeff. 

sessions-for·attorney-general. 

40 Sari Horwitz and Ellen Nakashima, Jef!Sessions Is Expected to Bring .S\veeping Changes to the Justice 

Deparhnenl, The Wa~hington Post (Nov. 18, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-securitv!jeffsessions-is-expected-to-bring-sweeping-changes-tcHhe-justice-departmenti20 16111 il8/f4800 I 9c-ad93-I I e6-8b4 5-

f8e493Rl6fcd story.html?utm term=.e6a9Q4b69430. 50 Jeff Sessions, Sen. Sessions on lmmigralion, Floor Statements (May 22, 2006), 

http:i/www .sessions.senate .gov /public/index. c Fmllloor -statements?! D=ee49e505-7 e9c-9af9· 73 I c-006d27095 5 30. 

12 
912 

P If the federal government were to pass a law withholding federal funding from socalled "sanctuary cities," how would you prioritize Department of Justice resources 

to file charges against cities that did not comply? 

:» Would you defend the civil rights of people with undocumented parents who had 

received citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States? If so, would that 

include the rights of those children to attend public schools? If not, on what basis 

do you hold that view, given the Supreme Court's clear guidance in Plyler v. Doe, 

457 u.s. 202 (1982)? 

:» Do you believe that banning entry of Muslims into the United States would be 

constitutional? Would you defend an Executive Order to that effect if the President 

were to promulgate one? 

Reproductive Health 

As a national Jewish civil rights and human relations organization dedicated to principles of 

religious and individual liberty, including the right to privacy, ADL views reproductive choice as 

an issue of personal and religious freedom. Accordingly, we believe that govemment should not 

unnecessarily intmde on a woman's decision about abortion. Rather, the decision should be 

made in consultation with a doctor and in accordance with a woman's own religious and moral 

convictions. 

Sen. Sessions has consistently opposed abortion access. In 2003, for example, Sen. Sessions 

voted for the Partial-Birth Abmiion Ban Act, which created a fine and up to two years' 

imprisonment for physicians who knowingly performed such an abortion. 5

1 The following year, 

he voted in favor of the Unbom Victims of Violence Act. 5

2 In 2008, he voted yes on an 

an1endment that would have removed pregnant women's health insurance coverage on the State 

Children's Health Insurance Program and instead provide coverage to the unborn fetus. 5

3 He also 

voted to make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines in order to obtain an 

abortion to circumvent parentalnotificationlaws54 and to bar the use of funds or facilities of the 

Indian Health Services to provide abortions or cover costs of health plans that included abortion 

51 United States Roll Call Votes l08'h Congress-!" Edition (Mar. 13,2003). 

http:llwww .senate.govl1egislative1L!Siroll call lists/roll call vote cfm.cl'nl'?coneress= 1 08&session= I &vote=0005 

lllstate. 

51 United States Roll Call Votes I08'h Congress-2"' Edition (Mar. 25, 2004), 

http:l/www.senate.gov/leeislative/L!S/roll call I ists/roll call vote cfm.ctin''congress= 1 08&scssion=2&vote=0006 

3. 

;; Perna Levy, This Is the Only Recent Time Jeff Sessions Voted Ia Expa11d Health Care Coverage, Mother Jones 

(Nov. 19, 20 16), http:ltwww .mothcrjones.comlpolitics/20 1611 1 /senator-sessions-voted-expand-heallh-carccoverae:e~fetuses. 

"United States Senate Roll Call Votes 109'" Congress-2"' Edition (Sept. 29, 2006), 

bttp:J.Iwww.senate.gov/JegislativeiL!Siroll call lists/roll call vote cfm.ctin°congress= 1 09&session=2&vote"'0026 

1 

13 
913 

access.55Sen. Sessions has voted to defunct Planned Parenthood and called on Attorney General 

Loretta Lynch to open an investigation about Planned Parenthood.% 

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (commonly refen·ed to as the ''FACE Act'') 

protects access to reproductive health services and criminalizes acts of physical force, threats of 

physical force, or physical obstructions to block access to reproductive health services as well as 

intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health facility. 57 The Attomey General has 

the right and the responsibility to initiate federal criminal prosecutions under the FACE Act, as 

well as civil actions. 58 

In light of Sen. Sessions' positions on abortion access and the responsibilities of the Attorney 

General, we respectfully urge the Conm1ittee to question Sen. Sessions with regard to the 

following: 

:>- Will you comply with the FACE Act and protect access to reproductive health 

facilities? Will you protect the safety of the clinics? 

:>- Do you intend to use the resources of the Department of .Justice to initiate an 

investigation of Planned Parenthood? 

:>- Given longstanding Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of abortion as 

defined by Roe v. Wade and continuing through Whole Woman's Healtli v. 

Hellerstellt, would you defend the constitutionality of abortions? 

The Role ofthe Attomey General and the Department of .Justice 

In addition to the specific issue areas enumerated above, we believe it is appropriate to probe the 

nominee's views on how the Attorney General should make decisions and exercise prosecutorial 

discretion. We respectfully request that members of the Committee question the nominee with 

respect to the following: 

First, on July 21, 2009 Sen. Sessions published an op-ed in the For/ Wayne Journal Gazette 

entitled "Supreme Court Must Not Show Empathy in Rulings.'' In it he wrote, "Empathy-based 

mlings, no matter how well-intentioned, do not help society but imperil the legal system that has 

been so essential to our liberties and so fundamental to our way of life." As the nation's top law 

enforcement officer and as the head of the Department of Justice, the Attomey General has the 

authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion. 

);. Do you believe that empathy has a role in determining which cases to bring, and 

which laws to enforce zealously? 

55 United States Senate Roll Call Votes 110"' Congress-2"d Edition (Feb. 26, 2008), 

hUp:/lwww.senate.gov/le£islativeiLISiroll call lists/roll call vote cfin.cfm?con~ress;JI0&5ession=2&vote=0003 

Q, 

56 Bradford Richardson, Sessions Urged to Investigate Planned Parenthood if He Succeeds Lynch as Attorney 

General. Washington Times (Nov. 22, 2016), !Lttp;ibyww.washingtontimes.com/news/10 16IJ1QYD~:~ssionsplanned-parenthood-investigation-urgi. 

51 18 U.S.C. §248 (1994). 

"!d. 

14 
914 

Second, in a speech Sen. Sessions gave on the Senate floor, he quoted Professor Van Alstyne of 

Duke University, who said of the Constitution, "If you respect the document, you will enforce it, 

the good and bad parts. You will enforce the parts you do not agree with. if you love. respect and 

revere the Constitution.''59 

;... Are there parts of the Constitution with which you disagree? Are there parts of the 

Constitution with which you disagree that you would refuse to enforce as Attorney 

General? 

We know you share our view of the importance of the Senate's "advise and consent" role in the 

nomination process and we very much appreciate your leadership in promoting the important 

views expressed in this letter. We trust that the nominee's answers to Committee members' 

questions on these areas of interest and concern will help in the Conm1ittee's overall evaluation 

of Sen. Sessions for the important position of United States Attorney General. 

Marvin D. Nathan 

National Chair 

Sincerely, 

59 Jeff Sessions, "Under God," Floor Statements (Jun. 26, 2002), 

Jonathan 

~~ A. Greenblatt 

CEO and National Director 

http://www .sessions.senate.gov/pub I iclindex.c fmlfloor-slatem ents? I D= AJ AF72 4 3-7 E9C-9 A F9-7 84 DC587FDF755E7. 

15 
915 

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ran king Member 

73415 1"' Street, NW • Suhe 500 • WASHINGTON} DC 20005 

(202) 393-3434 • FAX: (202) 638-4904 • "ww,aaainc.org 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy: 

As you prepare to consider the nomination of your colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions, to serve as the Attorney 

General of the United States, we would like to call your attention to several issues of concern, particularly 

as it relates to the undue influence of foreign governments on America's democratic institutions and the 

need to fully enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act {FCPA) and ensure compliance of the Foreign Agents 

Registration Act {FARA). 

As highlighted in a January 3, 2017 Bloomberg News article entitled "Azeri Oil Money Got a Pass From This 

Ethics Committee," the columnist writes: "In May and June, 2013, a delegation of 11 U.S. Congress 

members and 32 congressional staff members visited Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, to attend a 

conference called 'U.S.-Azerbaijan: Vision forthe Future.' It was ostensibly funded by two non-profit groups, 

from which the U.S. legislators and their staff were allowed to accept travel. The OCE [Office of 

Congressional Ethics} found, however, that the nonprofits received the money for the trip from the 

Azerbaijani state-owned oil company, Socar, and one of the groups-- paid $750,000 by Socar -- had been 

set up just one month prior to the conference. While in Baku, all the U.S. legislators received 'rugs of various 

sizes and value' as gifts, and some legislators and staffers also got crystal tea sets and silk scarves." 

All Americans are deeply troubled by such reported activities, which constitute a flagrant disregard for the 

law and strike at the core of our constitutional government through blatant foreign influence peddling. This 

is especially disconcerting given that Azerbaijan's President II ham Aliyev is the recipient of the Organized 

Crime and Corruption Reporting Project's first ever "Person of the Year" award. 

A crude recent example of Azerbaijan's strategy to influence United States policy was its attempt to buy 

influence through the Azerbaijan Embassy hosting a Hanukkah event at the Trump Hotel in Washington, 

DC, which many organizations boycotted. The Aliyev regime is also engaged in this type of foreign influence 

buying to distract from its efforts to continue violating its ceasefire agreements with the Republics of 

Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh - to avoid democracy and human rights issues there by eliminating the 

Christian Armenians. Azerbaijan's activities in the United States come at a time when the Aliyev regime 

continues to deprive its citizens of basic human rights and freedoms. Last fall, Human Rights Watch 

reported that the Azerbaijani government has renewed its vicious crackdown on critics and independent 
916 

groups. Per this report, "Arrests in Azerbaijan increased sharply as activists and other citizens spoke out 

about the economic downturn, currency devaluation, and inflation in early 2016, and ahead of a September 

constitutional referendum that expanded presidential powers, Human Rights Watch found." 

Azerbaijan, rather than relent, continued to repress freedoms through changes to its criminal code, of 

which then Helsinki Commission Chairman Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) stated last month, "Make no 

mistake, anyone imprisoned under the new provisions of Azerbaijan's criminal code- which make online 

'insults' of the president a punishable offense- will be a political prisoner. These new provisions clearly 

violate international human rights standards and Azerbaijan's OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] commitments." 

Azerbaijan's caviar diplomacy is also amply documented in the December 2016 European Stability Initiative 

(ESI) report, wherein expensive watches, jewelry, computers, and large sums of money, among other gifts, 

were provided to several politicians from a number of countries in Europe. ESI states that "the ease with 

which democratic institutions and safeguards can be undermined has emerged as a fundamental threat to 

European democracy." 

At a time when the U.S. is investigating Russia's attempts to influence America's election process, we must 

do all we can to safeguard America. As such, we are also concerned about emails discovered on Wikileaks 

in which there is correspondence among campaign staffers discussing the legality of accepting donations 

from foreign governments, such as Azerbaijan, by FARA registrants. Such revelations are deeply troubling. 

The Justice Department has brought some cases involving Azerbaijan through the FCPA, but much more is 

needed. According to the "Azeri Oil Money Got a Pass From This Ethics Committee" article in Bloomberg 

News, Azerbaijan continues to shell out over $45,000 monthly to the Podesta Group, of which the columnist 

states "It's hard to tell whether it's this creativity and generosity or any real U.S. strategic interest that 

makes the U.S. overlook the country's brutal dictatorship. A combination of both is likely: Without the 

'caviar diplomacy,' Azerbaijan might be considered too small to defy declared U.S. values and principles for 

its sake." 

We prefer not to think that Azerbaijan's retention of the Podesta Group at hundreds of thousands of dollars 

per year to lobby for Azerbaijan is preventing such investigations. When it comes to the integrity of 

America's Constitution, the rule of law and our governance process, we must ensure that the law is duly 

enforced and that any attempt by foreign governments and their agents are roundly condemned and 

promptly prosecuted. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Anthony Barsamian Van Z. Krikorian 

Co- Chair, Board ofTrustees Co- Chair, Board ofTrustees 

\\\~:;.n.·rn Reg:ion < HTicc: 450 ~h>rrh Hntnd BlnL, S1.Jite 600, Gl{_'rHh.lc, CA. 91203"' (626) .)77-0025 • F\n: {(12()) ?iT'-0026 

.\mwni:1 ()ffi((': -,:! l;lnrapenHyan ~1rec!, ~ui!(· 101, ti(\J(J 1-"cn.'van, .-\nnmi-a • 37+ (10) 5()-!)6 7+ •l;ax 37-l {1!1) 5.2-70 52 
917 

AFNA 

Association of Federal Narcotics Agents 

www .affna.org 

The Hon. Charles Grassley 

Chainnan 

Conm1ittee on the Judiciary 

Washington DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley: 

January 16, 2017 

On behalf of the Association of Federal Narcotics Agents, representing approximately 1300 

former Drug Enforcement Administration Agents, Task Force Officers, Diwrsion Investigators, 

Analysts and employees, we are writing to support the swift confirmation of Senator Jeff 

Sessions as the next Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has an exemplary 

record of service while serving as the U.S. Attorney and as the State Attorney General for 

Alabama. His accomplishments as a prosecutor have repeatedly demonstrated his commitment 

to law enforcement and public safety. His political experience will allow him to gain bipartisan 

support to forge agreements to curb drug trafficking, drug abuse, phannaceutical diversion, 

violent crime and drug legalization. American law enforcement is looking for leadership from 

Washington, and we turn to you for that leadership by moving Senator Sessions' nomination 

swiftly through the confirmation process. 

Sincerely, 

:4JF / [~ (Jim Craig 

President, Association of Federal Narcotics Agents 
918 

~' BILL of & DEFENDING 

't} RIGHTS DISSENT !#.~l~r DEFENSE COMMITTEE fOUNDATION 2

\._ 

1100 G Street NW. Suite 500 1 Washington. DC 200051 202.529A225 1 bordc.org I info@bordc.org 

January 9, 2016 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation is a national civil liberties 

organization dedicated to fulfilling the promise of the Bill of Rights for all people, with a special 

emphasis on protecting the right of political expression in order to create a participatory 

democracy. We are writing to urge you to reject Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for 

Attorney General. 

The Attorney General is the nation's most powerful law enforcement official, responsible for 

overseeing the protection of federal civil and Constitutional rights of everyone in the United 

States. Unfortunately, Senator Sessions has a decades long track record of disregard for civil 

liberties and the rights of people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people as a US Senator, 

Alabama Attorney General, and Assistant United States Attorney. 

Throughout his career, Mr Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that the 

promise of the Bill of Rights is fulfilled for everyone in America. He has consistently proved 

himself unwilling to support essential Constitutional protections, and has instead worked to deny 

fundamental rights to whole swaths of Americans based on their identities .. 

We strongly urge you to reject Mr. Sessions' nomination. 

This Committee Rejected Mr Sessions Nomination to the Federal Judiciary, All of Those 

Reasons Similarly Disqualify Him From Serving as Attorney General 
919 

In 1986, this committee considered Mr. Sessions' nomination for federal District Court judge. His 

nomination was rejected in part due to a number of troubling and racially insensitive comments. 

These include a statement that Sessions had been ok with the Ku Klux Klan until he discovered 

that its members "smoked pot." Sessions freely conceded to making this statement, but stated 

that it was a joke. Sessions also was reported to have made statements about the American 

Civil Liberties Union and NAACP for being "un-American" and "communist inspired" for having 

tried to force "civil rights down the throats of the people." 

While these statements were uttered over thirty years ago, Mr. Session's "has fought against 

civil rights at every turn" in the intervening years, according to former Justice Department Civil 

Rights Division lawyers. Barring clear evidence that Sessions has truly reversed these 

problematic views, any issues that precluded him from being confirmed to the federal judiciary 

precludes his confirmation as Attorney General. 

As no such evidence exists, we urge you to reject Mr. Sessions 

As an Assistant US Attorney Mr. Sessions Was Involved in Troubling Prosecution of 

Three Civil Rights Activists 

Mr. Sessions' prosecution in 1985 of three civil rights workers helping African Americans in 

Alabama register to vote raises alarms. His role in this prosecution is one of many reasons he 

was rejected by the Judiciary Committee in 1986, but we believe this incident warrants special 

attention. 

Before the Voting Rights Act, in many parts of the southern United States few, if any, 

African-Americans were registered voters due to racially motivated barriers erected to their 

registration. This dramatically changed after Congress enacted new federal legislation 

dedicated to protecting the right to vote. As a result, not only did many African-Americans 

become voters, but African-Americans were elected to office and for the first time majority 

African-Americans communities were able to elect their own representatives. 

Vital to this was the role of civil rights activists, both those who organized for voting rights, and 

those who subsequently helped the Voting Rights Act have meaning by actively registering 

voters. One such activist was Albert Turner, who had worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther 

King, marched for voting rights in Selma, and then became well known for registering voters and 

helping elderly voters file absentee ballots. 

In 1984, FBI agents hid behind bushes at a post office and waited for Turner to drop off 

absentee ballots, which they then seized. FBI agents also rounded up a number of elderly, 

African-American voters interrogating them and calling them to testify before a grand jury. 

Mr. Sessions brought 29 charges against Turner, his wife, Evelyn Turner, and a third activist 

named Spencer Hogue. Of these charges, nearly half of them were dismissed by a judge for 
920 

lack of evidence. The jury took less than three hours to acquit the civil rights workers of the 

charges not dismissed by the presiding judge. 

This baseless prosecution of civil rights activists is deeply troubling. Law enforcement should 

never be used to carry out political retaliation nor should public officials engage in racially based 

voter suppression. The prosecution of three civil rights workers in Marion County, Alabama has 

elements of both and thus we urge this committee to reject Mr. Sessions nomination. 

As Alabama Attorney General, Mr. Sessions Violated the First Amendment Rights of 

Students, Both Because of the Viewpoints They Espoused and their Perceived Sexual 

Orientation 

As Alabama Attorney General, Mr. Sessions authored an opinion barring student organizations 

focused on LGBTQ issues, such as the Gay Straight Alliance or Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance, 

from receiving state funding. Mr. Sessions opinion stated, "an organization that professes to be 

comprised of homosexuals and/or lesbians may not receive state funding or use 

state-supported facilities to foster or promote those illegal, sexually deviate activities defined in 

the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws." 

Shortly after Mr. Sessions issued his opinion, the Alabama state legislature passed a statute 

with the same intent. After the statute passed, Session issued a "letter opinion" to the University 

of South Alabama informing them that the relevant statute prohibited them from providing 

funding to the student group Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance. The Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance 

filed a lawsuit and a federal judge found both the Alabama statute and its application by 

Sessions to the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance violated the First Amendment. 

While Mr. Sessions was not responsible for the Alabama state legislature passing an 

unconstitutional statute, but he did apply it in an unconstitutional way to the Gay Lesbian 

Bisexual Alliance and he did issue an opinion reaching the same general conclusions prior to 

the enactment of the statute. 

These actions show a deep lack of reverence for the First Amendment. It is a well established 

part of First Amendment jurisprudence that the government cannot seek to penalize individuals 

or groups because of the viewpoint of their speech. Mr. Sessions, using his authority as 

Alabama Attorney General not only deprived LGBTQ student organizations of their First 

Amendment rights because of their political viewpoint, he also did so due to the perceived 

sexual orientation of the student club members. 

Mr. Sessions has throughout his career been an opponet of LGBTQ rights, which in and of itself 

is enough to disqualify him as Attorney General. But, the fact that he used his authority as 

Alabama Attorney General to deny LGBTQ individuals their First Amendment rights shows an 

even deeper antipathy to civil liberties. For this reason, we urge this committee to reject Mr. 

Sessions' nomination. 
921 

As a Senator, Mr. Sessions Has Supported some of the Worst Deprivations of Civil 

Liberties Associated with the War on Terror and the War on Drugs 

Mr. Sessions' time in the Senate continues the pattern he established as a US Assistant 

Attorney and Alabama Attorney General, in that he has continued to show a deep hostility to 

civil liberties. While Mr. Sessions' legislative record includes a number of troubling votes, we are 

deeply concerned by his failure to oppose torture. He was one of only nine members of the US 

Senate to vote against a 2005 amendment barring cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of 

detainees in US custody. In, 2015 Sen. Sessions again voted against torture prohibitions, when 

he voted against holding agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central 

Intelligence Agency to the same standards of interrogation laid out in the US Army Field 

Manual. 

Torture is one of the most severe deprivations of civil liberties imaginable. It violates the 

Constitution, as well as, the laws of armed conflict, which have been incorporated into US 

domestic law. Federal statutory law explicitly criminalizes and provides punishment for torture in 

violation of the laws of international armed conflict. It is unacceptable for the country's chief law 

enforcement officer, who not only oversees the FBI which conducts interrogations, but also 

would be responsible for prosecuting violations of federal law, such as torture, to not have a 

strong stance in opposition to torture. Furthermore, it is unfathomable for anyone to suggest that 

a law enforcement agency, like the FBI, should have lower standards for the safeguarding of 

civil liberties in interrogations than the United States Armed Forces. 

In addition to staking out an extreme position in failing to rigorously oppose torture, Senator 

Sessions has always taken extreme positions on surveillance. He has expressed the point of 

view that library records do not require special privacy protections from the government and has 

rigorously opposed safeguarding other types of private information held by third parties, such as 

banking records, from unjustified law enforcement surveillance. 

Mr. Sessions also continues to embrace a number of antiquated views about the War on Drugs. 

Republican and Democrat, right and left, lawmaker and citizen alike are starting to question both 

the futility and the pernicious effects of the War on Drugs. Mr. Sessions, however, has largely 

remained out of step with the times and continues to cling to policies recognized as relics of a 

bygone era. 

In 32 states, citizens have exercised the sovereignty that is granted them under a democracy by 

casting their ballots in favor of decriminalization or legalization of medical or recreational 

marijuana. Mr. Sessions has made it clear that he opposes such moves and has in the past, 

and he has called for the vigorous enforcement of federal marijuana laws. He has voted against 

reducing the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders and has continued to support civil asset 

forfeiture. It is the Attorney General's duty to enforce the nation's law and determine the 

priorities for federal law enforcement. As a result it is not appropriate to confirm an Attorney 
922 

General who rejects the bipartisan consensus about reforming our drug laws to make them 

more just and to prevent the abuse of civil liberties. 

Mr. Sessions has staked out a number of extreme positions on both the War on Terror and War 

on Drugs, positions that not only run afoul of the Constitution's protections of civil liberties, but 

put him at odds with members of both parties. As a result, we urge to you to reject Mr. Sessions' 

nomination. 

Mr. Sessions' Nomination Must Be Rejected 

Our Constitutional system of government recognizes that robust protection of civil liberties is 

essential to defending democracy at home. The Attorney General of the United States is both 

the chief law enforcement officer of the country, a position of authority that has a tremendous 

capability to impact civil liberties, and is responsible for enforcing laws protecting the rights of all 

Americans. Mr. Sessions' position on civil liberties is not a mystery, he has a decades long 

record of both opposing measures to safeguard civil liberties and actively violating them himself. 

Equally disturbing, Mr. Sessions has demonstrated an unwillingness to support the 

Constitutional rights of all Americans. 

For all the reasons outlined above, we strongly urge you to reject Mr. Sessions as Attorney 

General. 

Sincerely, 

Sue Udry 

Executive Director 

Bill of Rights Defense Committee 

& Defending Dissent Foundation 

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Chip Gibbons 

Policy & Legislative Counsel 

Bill of Rights Defense Committee 

& Defending Dissent Foundation 
923 

November 18, 2016 

Senator JetT Sessions 

J26 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Sessions, 

Sheriffs' Association 

As Vice President of Government Affairs tor the Major County Sheri!Ts' (MCSA), l would like to 

congratulate you on your selection to be the 84'h Attorney General of the States. Your service and 

knowledgeable experience within the field of criminal justice makes you a uniquely qualified candidate and will 

undoubtedly serve you well. 

Expected to lead the U.S. Department of Justice on issues from 

threats. to sophisticated !l·aud and terrorism, the General 

command of all justice concerns, but the 

law enforcement and leaders across 

organized crime and cybernot only a strong 

community of 

~'cmuu"uauu1t, there has been a 

continued pattern critical decisions 

stakeholder consultation. Issues range from the 

law enforcement community without adequate 

of military surplus equipment to immigration 

enforcement and asset forfeiture. 

You have continued to be a strong advocate for law enfi:wcement and \VC sincerely thank you for your hard work 

and commitment to public safety. As an association of elected sheriffs representing our nation's largest counties 

with populations of 500,000 people or l 00 million Americans, we seck to be a positive 

source of ideas and solutions and you have and valuable partner of the MCSA. 

Again, congratulations. I look forward to engaging with you as we work collectively to protect our communities 

and follow the rule of law. 

Very Respectfully, 

Michael J. Bouchard, Sheriff, Oakland County (lvll) 

Vice President- Govemment Aftairs. Major County Sheriffs' Association 
924 

BOYS & GIRLS CWBS OF AMERICA 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 224 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

Boys & Girls Clubs of America would like to share its commendation _of Senator Jeff Sessions. 

Senator Sessions' relationship with the Boys & Girls Clubs transcends his political career and 

he has consistently demonstrated the importance of mentoring at-risk youth. Before becoming 

Senator, Jeff Sessions served on the board of the Mobile, Alabama Boys & Girls Club. In 

Alabama, Boys & Girls Clubs of America serves 42,850 youth at 76 Club sites and plays a key 

role helping those at greatest risk. In 1999, Senator Sessions hosted then-Attorney General 

Ashcroft at an Alabama club highlighting for the Attorney General the critical role Clubs play 

through the Department of Justice's youth mentoring program. Together with Senator Sessions, 

we have advocated for the importance of youth development programs focused on at-risk 

youth. 

For more than 155 years, Boys & Girls Clubs have served young people from challenging 

circumstances- in every State- helping them develop the skills and abilities to become 

productive, caring, and responsible citizens. As part of our mission, Boys & Girls Clubs annually 

serve nearly 4 million kids at over 4,200 Clubs nationwide and around the world on U.S. military 

installations. We achieve our mission through innovative Club programming that focuses on 

Academic Success, Good Character and Citizenship, and Healthy Lifestyles. 

As our National Youth Outcomes Initiative Report has found, 85% of our Club members, in the 

9th through 12th grades, abstain from using alcohol compared to the national average of 65%. 

Additionally, Club members in 5th through 12th grades who attend a Club at least once a week, 

the study found that bulling occurs 10% below the national average given the Clubs' safe 

environment. Though much remains to be done to address the needs of the Nation's at-riskyouth, our results demonstrate the positive impacts Clubs make in the lives of its members. 

When these impacts are combined with the fact that, for every $1 invested, Boys & Girls Clubs 

return $9.60 in current and future earnings, it is a powerful combination. 

We appreciate your consideration of our views. 

Sincerely, 

James L. Clark 

President and CEO 

Office of Governmant Relations • 1707 L Street, NW, Suite 670 • Washington, DC 20036 • Tel202 507-6670 • Fax 202 507~6667 
925 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

Washington DC 20510 

january 2, 2017 

Dear Senators Feinstein and Harris, 

The Honorable Kamala Harris 

United States Senate 

Washington DC 20510 

The California Down Syndrome Advocacy Coalition (CDAC) would like to share with you 

our concerns about President-elect Trump's proposed Attorney General, Senator jeff 

Sessions. CDAC is a partnership of parents and active Down syndrome organizations across 

the state of California who advocate on behalf of people with Down syndrome and their 

families. 

One of our main goals is to promote meaningful access to educational opportunities for 

people with Down syndrome. Thanks to the hard work of many passionate advocatesparents, educators, legislators, and other stakeholders-the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) protects vulnerable students such as those with Down syndrome by 

ensuring that they have the right to a free and appropriate public education in the least 

restrictive environment, which is presumed to be a general education setting with 

appropriate supports. Based on remarks Sessions made on the Senate floor in 2000, we are 

concerned that as Attorney General, Senator Sessions might not support IDEA in the way 

that Congress intended it. 

In his May 18, 2000, speech, Sessions indicated support for children who "have a hearing 

loss, or a sight loss, or if they have difficulty moving around, in a wheelchair, or whatever" 

being accommodated in a mainstream classroom. However, he went on to share numerous 

examples of students with emotional or behavioral challenges, who he claimed could not be 

disciplined because they were "special ed." Sessions expressed at that time his feeling that 

IDEA made the jobs of teachers and administrators difficult by providing loopholes by 

which students with IEPs could not be disciplined in the same way as students without 

IEPs-in fact, he called it the "single most irritating problem for teachers throughout 

America today." 

While we certainly understand the need for teachers and administrators to be able to 

maintain an effective teaching environment, we are concerned that Sessions may be 

painting with a very broad brush and unnecessarily discounting an incredibly important 

piece of disability law. A great many students with IEPs do not have significant emotional 

or behavioral challenges-no more so than any typically developing child. And for all 

students with disabilities, it is clearly stated in the most recent text of IDEA that Congress 

found "almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of 

children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... having high expectations for such 

children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular 

classroom, to the maximum extent possible ... [and] providing ... aides and supports in the 

regular classroom, to such children, whenever appropriate ... [ and] providing incentives 

1 
926 

for ... positive behavioral interventions and supports ... to address the learning and 

behavioral needs of such children." 

Further, the text of IDEA goes on to say that if a child's behavior is determined not to be a 

manifestation of that child's disability, "the relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to 

children without disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner and for the 

same duration in which the procedures would be applied to children without disabilities." 

In cases in which the behavior is found to be a manifestation of the disability, IDEA 

discusses how the student's educational team can best address the concerns and what 

steps may be taken to remedy the problem. 

In short, Sessions' argument appears to have taken a relatively small subset of studentsthose with disabilities who also happen to have significant behavior challenges-and used 

that population segment to argue against a law that actually does account for such 

circumstances and, perhaps even more importantly, protects the rights of approximately 

6.5 million students in America's public schools-about 13 percent of all public school 

students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Sessions' remarks were made more than a decade ago, and we certainly recognize that his 

views on education may have evolved over the years. But we humbly ask that you please 

consider his historical views on students with disabilities when deciding whether to 

confirm his appointment as Attorney General. Please ask Senator Sessions about his 

current views on IDEA and other disability-related legislation. Ask him if he's aware of the 

vast body of research indicating the success of IDEA since its inception in 1975. Ask him 

how he plans to use his position as Attorney General to uphold the rights of vulnerable 

student populations served under our nation's federal disability laws. 

We have made so much progress in disability law over the past decades, and none of us 

wants to see students' disability rights lessened or stripped away under an Attorney 

General for whom they are not a priority. 

With respect and thanks, 

Kelly Kulzer-Reyes and Cathleen Small, co-chairs of the California Down Syndrome 

Advocacy Coalition 

Equality. Access. Inclusion. 

2 
927 

Officers 

Dav1d Robinson 

,\h<'r!ff Amg<( <lllllf.l 

Shcr•ft .. ·lm<ldnr('oun(l 

Directors 

Tom Allman 

TomBosenko 

SteveDurfor 

She•·:!/ 'iuh,;l'mmll 

Sandra Hutchens Shcl'i[!,ilrun<;c('mmfl 

Ian Parkinson 

.\hadt ·''"'''"'(ihllpa('tmlll) 

Presidents' Counsel 

Ed Bonner ~·!i,·nff. f'!llcc'l"(.omiiJ 

Robert Doyle 

:--.1 CannenGrecn FVtU/I'"e!Jm•c!or 

NtckWamer 

f'nh<) Jl,rvdor 

California State Sheriffs' Association Orr.am::afw11Founded/Jythe:C.11er({lim!f)9.; 

December 20, 2016 

The Honornble Jeff Sessions 

United States Senator 

326 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Fax: 202-224-3149 

Subject: CSSA Support of Nomination and Confirmation as 

United States Attorney General 

Dear Senator Sessions: 

On behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association (CSSA), which represents the 58 elected 

Sheriffs of California, we write to convey our support of your nomination and confinnation as 

United States Attorney General. 

It is clear from your service in the U.S. Senate that you place a high priority on upholding the 

rule of law, supporting our nation's military and law enforcement, and requiring the utmost 

integrity of yourself and those that serve with you. The Sheriffs of California anticipate that 

your experience will be an effective asset for our country as United States Attorney General. 

Thank you and please don't hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance to you 

regarding this matter. 

Respectfully, 

(S:2 GA-tf'7~ (t"bu 

Donny Youngblood, CSSA President Gregory J. Ahem, Chair-CSSA Political Action Committee 

Sheriff, Kern County Sheriff, Alameda County 

DHY/GJNcmc 

cc: Vice President-Elect Michael Pence, President-Elect's Transition Team 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator 

Jonathan Thompson, Executive Director- National Sheriffs' Association 

Michael Ferrence, Executive Director- Major County Sheriffs' Association 

California Sheriffs 

Carmen Green, CSSA Executive Director 

Cory M. Salzillo, CSSA Legislative Director 

Nick Wamer, CSSA Policy Director 

Usha Mutschler, CSSA Legislative Representative 

!231 I Street Ste 200 * Sacramento, Cahfornia 95814 

Telephone 916/375-8000 *Fa-: 916/375-8017 * Websl!e www calsheriffs org *Email cssa:<{calshcntfs org 
928 

CALM 

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana 

December 9, 2016 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

RECEIVED DEC 1 8 2016 

Washington, DC 20510 Re: Nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the U.S. 

Dear Senator Leahy, 

Congress will soon be addressing the nominations of President-Elect Trump. One will be that of 

Attorney General. We write to express our strong support for Senator Jeff Sessions for that position. 

Senator Sessions' exemplary record during his long career in public service speaks to the leadership and 

steadfast dedication he would bring to the Department of Justice. 

CALM is an all-volunteer citizen group whose goal is to prevent the legalization of marijuana because of 

the damage it is causing to our children and communities. Our representatives in more than 50 cities in 

California have been stymied by the current Administration which has chosen not to enforce existing 

federal drug laws. This defiance offederallaw has led to expanded growing, transporting and 

distribution of the highly potent, long acting, mind altering, addictive drug in the guise of"medicine.'' 

In our work with local law enforcement in communities throughout California to address the myriad 

problems that commercialization of marijuana has created, we see and hear their frustration with the 

lack of support from the federal level. We need this support to defeat those who are spending millions 

of dollars promoting the illegal use of marijuana solely for huge profits at the expense of our children, 

communities and Country. 

We desperately need a strong voice from the Attorney General, and commensurate action from the 

Department of Justice, to stop and reverse this currently out of control situation in California. Recently 

twenty-five million dollars from out-of-state drug promoters was spent to pass Proposition 64 that 

further legalizes marijuana. The Statewide effort to defeat Prop 64 led by Jaw enforcement, was only 

able to raise 2 million dollars to try to counteract the lies of the legalizers. Huge money bought the vote. 

There is no doubt that Senator Sessions would be that voice. He knows the damage the drug culture has 

inflicted on our Country, and he has the skills and passion to lead this monumental effort that will once 

again put us in conformance with Federal Law and International Drug Treaties. 

Most sincerely, 

)J/ 

/ l I 

Carla Lowe i i ~/ 

Founder, Co-chair 

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana 

P.O. Box 2995 Carmichael CA 95608 Phones: Northern CA 916 708 4111 Southern CA 619 990 7480 

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, (CALM). is an all-volunteer Political Action Committee 

dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize marijuana in California. 

Campaign ID# 1326759 
929 

CITYH!IlJ. 

8300 SAt.. "To'\ MON1CA BT:vo. 

WFST liouYWOOO. CA 

90069-62lfi. 

TEt.: (323) 848-6460 

FAX; (323) 84f!..6~ 

I m": For hearing ll'!1Jlai~ l 

(323) ~-6496 ! 

tiTY mtli\II:IL 

LAUREN MElSTER 

Mayor 

JOHN HEILMAN 

MtJyor Pm T!mpore 

JoHN D' AMTCO 

Councilmember 

LlNDSEYP.HoRVATH 

Cocmrilm.ember 

CITY Of 

WfST HOllYWOOD 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley, Chair 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Via Fax: (202) 225-9102 

CONCERNS OVER THE NOMINATION OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS, (R-ALABAMA) 

Dear Chair Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I write to you on behalf of the City Co until of the City of West Hollywood and the 

West Hollywood community to express our serious concerns about the 

nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions, (R-Aiabama). Our City Council has been 

entrusted by our community members to preserve the City's core values and 

principles of equality, respect and support for people, and responsibility for the 

environment. 

Senator Sessions' nomination to lead the United States Department of Justice 

(USDOJ) is particularly disturbing. A!; you know, Senator Sessions has been 

accused of cultural insensitivity against African American people, and these 

allegations proved to be of considerable weight that prevented him from being 

appointed as a federal judge. In addition, Senator Sessions has demonstrated 

contempt for undocumented and skilled immigrants. 

The City Council is also concerned about Mr. Sessions' past and current stances as 

it relates to equal treatment under the law of the LGBT community. Senator 

Sessions voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENOAiegislation to end workplace discrimination against LGBT people. Not only has 

Sessions opposed laws barring anti-LGBT employment discrimination, he even 

refused to adopt a voluntary nondiscrimination pledge saying his office would not 

discriminate against LGBT Senate staffers. 

0 
930 

CITY Of 

Wm HOllYWOOD 

The Honorable Charles Grassley, Ch~ir 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United St~tes Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

January 9, 2017 

Page Two of Two 

Senator Sessions strongly opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act, which extended federal hate crimes protections to people 

who are attacked because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. 

LGBT people, especially transgender women of color, are the most likely targets of 

hate violence in America today; yet Senator Sessions argued on the floor that 

there was no need for the federal government to prosecute perpetrators. The bill 

passed despite his opposition, but Sessions would be in charge of enforcing it as 

attorney general. If he fails to pursue charges for h<1te crimes against LGBT people, 

he could deny vulnerable victims their rights, effectively nullifying the law. 

The West Hollywood City Council respectfully calls on you and your colleagues to 

properly and carefully weigh in on Senator Sessions' qualifications and 

background. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to 

contact me. 

Very truly yours, 

Lauren Meister, 

MAYOR 

cc: Members ofthe United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hon. Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator (CA) 

Hon. Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA·281

h District 

Members of the California Congressional Delegation 

Hon. Jerry Brown 

Hon. Richard Bloom, AD-50 

Hon. Ben Allen, SD-26 

Honorable members of the West Hollywood City Council 
931 

January 5, 2017 

The Honorable 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator, 

On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Americans we represent, we ask that you vote to confirm Senator 

Jeff Sessions as the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Sen. Sessions is a man of integrity with years of experience serving the American people. His impartial 

application of the law makes Sen. Sessions a champion of unbiased justice. His defense of civil rights, 

criminal justice reform, and general promotion of the fair rule of law has earned him bipartisan political 

support as well as endorsements from multiple national law enforcement organizations for his nomination to 

Attorney General. Sen. Sessions is more than qualified to ensure justice for all Americans. 

40 years of public service 

Defender of civil rights and criminal 

justice reform 

Years of Service 

Endorsed by nine national law 

enforcement associations 

Bipartisan support for his confirmation 

Sen. Sessions has faithfully served his country throughout his life, ranging from military to civil service. 

After graduating from law school, he spent 13 years in the Army Reserves, where he attained the rank of 

Captain during a time he describes as one of the most rewarding of his life. While serving in the reserves, 

Sen. Sessions also began serving in a civil capacity as the appointed Assistant United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of Alabama. He later served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama and the Attorney General of Alabama. 

Since being elected to the Senate, Sen. Sessions has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 20 

years. 

With over 18 years of prosecutorial experience, Sen. Sessions has the practical legal experience crucial to 

successfully serving as Attorney General. 

Defender of Civil Rights 

Sen. Sessions repeatedly demonstrates his firm belief in equal justice under the law. He oversaw and 

personally contributed to the investigation, prosecution, and execution of Henry Hays, the son of the head of 

the Alabama KKK, for murdering Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American man. 

Hays is the only known member of the KKK to be executed in the 201

h century for murdering an AfricanAmerican.1 

As United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sen. Sessions was instrumental in ensuring 

the case stayed in state instead of taking it up as a federal case, because Alabama had the death penalty. Sen. 
932 

Sessions' involvement in carrying out justice for Michael Donald came full circle when, as Attorney General 

of Alabama, he defeated Hays's final appeal ensuring he would receive the death penalty. 

This was not the only time Sen. Sessions made history defending civil rights. As U.S. Attorney for 

Alabama's Southern District, he brought the first anti-voter suppression lawsuit in the history of the 

Department of Justice in U.S. v Conecuh County.' He also worked on litigation in multiple Alabama counties 

to switch their electoral system for county commission and local board of education from at-large elections 

to a district-based system that strengthened the voice of African-Americans in those counties3 

Sen. Sessions went beyond fighting for equality on the school boards to promoting the full integration of 

schools in Mobile I 0 years after the county had consented to desegregate schools. Acting on behalf of the 

United States and with the support of the NAACP, Sen. Sessions took this issue to court and won.< 

Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform 

Sen. Sessions' equal application of the law has earned him respect from people on both sides of the political 

aisle. He is known for working with members of the Democratic Party on legislation, including criminal 

justice reform. Sessions worked alongside Sen. Ted Kennedy CD-Massachusetts) to confront the problem of 

prison rape. Sen. Sessions stated, "We both agree that punishment for a criminal defendant should be set by a 

judge and should not include sexual assault."5 He also worked with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-lllinois) to pass the 

Crack-Cocaine Fair Sentencing Act of2010 that sought to balance the disparity between penalties for crack 

cocaine versus powder cocaine. 

This legislation unanimously passed the Senate. 

Protector of Everyday Americans 

Sen. Sessions has gone toe-to-toe against special interests, scorning the political pressure, to protect everyday 

Americans. Rather than making headlines, Sessions has taken the political risk to ensure women and children 

who are victims of domestic violence are helped and protected. He opposed legislation that purported to help 

victims of domestic violence, because in reality, much of the money never left the big organizations that 

were supposed to help the women and children across America who need protection. Instead, he supported 

the Hutchison-Grassley substitute amendment, which would have increased oversight on the grant money 

and allocated more money to go directly to helping victims6 

Sen. Sessions believes it is more important to solve problems than to close your eyes and write a check. 

Justice is blind. It does not weigh money or political capital when making a decision. 

Sen. Sessions has demonstrated a clear ability to address the core of a problem and only accept solutions that 

go to the root cause, instead of dealing out political platitudes. 

Equal Justice under the Law 

People who get to know or work with Sen. Sessions recognize he is, as the late Sen. Arlen Specter (DPennsylvania) described, "egalitarian" in his application of the rule of law. Alabama Democratic state 

senator for Montgomery, Quinton Ross, Jr., has worked with Sen. Sessions for over 20 years. He issued a 

press release stating his belief that, as Attorney General, Sen. Sessions would be unbiased in his application 
933 

of the law and accessible to his constituents. Sen. Ross stated, "We've spoken about everything from Civil 

Rights to race relations, and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right 

by all people."7 

The execution of justice requires trust among all parties involved in protecting the rule of law. At least nine 

national law enforcement organizations have endorsed the nomination of Sen. Sessions to be the next 

Attorney General of the United States. America should take note when groups such as the Fraternal Order of 

Police, the AFL-CIO International Union of Police Association, and National Sheriffs Association, among 

others, voice full-throated support for Sen. Sessions' nomination. 

The American people deserve an Attorney General who will fight for justice for everyone, who has a proven 

track record of not just defending, but promoting equal protection under the law. 

Sen. Sessions has that trust and support; he is more than qualified to serve the American people as Attorney 

General. Vote "yes" for Sen. Sessions' confirmation, and give the people the Attorney General they deserve. 

Sincerely, 

Penny Young Nance 

CEO and President 

Concerned Women for America Legislative 

Action Committee 

Andrea Lafferty 

President 

Traditional Values Coalition 

Eunie Smith 

Acting President 

Eagle Forum 

President, Eagle Forum of Alabama 

Gary L. Bauer 

President 

American Values 

Susan A. Carleson 

Chairman/CEO 

American Civil Rights Union 

Morton Blackwell 

Chairman 

The Weyrich Lunch 

Dan Schneider 

Executive Director 

American Conservative Union 

Gerrye Johnston 

Founder/CEO 

Women for Democracy in America, Inc. 

Mat Staver, Esq. 

Founder and Chairman 

Liberty Council 

Elaine Donnelly 

President 

Center for Military Readiness 

Lewis K. Uhler 

President 

National Tax Limitation Committee 

WillesK. Lee 

President 

National Federation of Republican Assemblies 
934 

Judson Phillips 

Founder 

Tea Party Nation 

TPNNews 

Tom Kilgannon 

President 

Freedom Alliance 

Steven W. Mosher 

President 

Population Research Institute 

Timothy Head 

Executive Director 

Faith and Freedom Coalition 

Larry Cirignano 

Children First Foundation 

Rick Manning 

President 

Americans for Limited 

Tom McClusky 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

March for Life Action 

Frank J. Gaffney, 

President and CEO, 

Center tor Security Policy 

The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell 

Distinguished Fellow 

American Civil Rights Union 

Allen Roth 

President 

Secure America Now 

Stephen Stone 

President 

Renew America 

Editor 

RenewAmerica.com 

Dick Patten 

President 

American Business Defense Council 

Congressman Steve Stockman 

Former U.S. Representative 

Texas 9th District 

Michael J. Bowen 

CEO 

Coalition for a Strong America 

Phillip L. Jauregui 

President 

Judicial Action Group 

Robert K. Fischer 

Meeting Coordinator 

Conservatives of Faith 

E. Everett Bartlett 

President 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments 

Ron Robinson 

President 

Young America's Foundation 

Ron Pearson 

President 

Pearson & Pipkin 

Nadine Maenza 

Executive Director 

Patriot Voices 
935 

James L. Martin 

Founder/Chairman 

60 Plus Association 

Ryan Bomberger 

Chief Creative Otlicer 

The Radiance Foundation 

ENDNOTES 

Terry T. Campo, Esq. 

YR Alumni Network, Inc 

Curt Levey 

President 

Committee for Justice 

1 "Sessions broke the back of the KKK in Alabama .. " Yellowhammer News, November 20, 2016, accessed at 

http://yellowhammemews.com/politics-2/sessions-broke-buck-kkk-alabama-now-media-wants-think-hes-racist/ on December 8, 2016. 2 United States v. Conecuh County. 3 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama- 667 F. Supp. 786 (S.D. Ala. 1987) 

August 13, 1987. 4 Davis v. Board ofSch. Comm'rs of Mobile County. 

402 u.s. 33 (1971) 5 ''President Bush Signs Legislation Sponsored By U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions to Reduce Prison Rape," Press Release, September 4, 2003, 

accessed at bttp://wv.'W.scssions.senatc.gov/publidindex.cfm/news-releases?ID=89BF93FD-7E9C-9 AF9-7B EE-CA9F2EA6B 128 on 

December 16. 2016. 6 On the Hutchison Amendment (No. 2095) to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of201 Las accessed at 

http:/ /""v.w.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ call _lists/roll_ call~ vote_ cfm.cfin?congress= ll2&session=2&vote=00086#position 7

" Democratic leader in Alabama Senate praises JefTSessions,"ALcom, December 7, 2016, accessed at 

http://www .al.com/news/birmingham/index.ss£120 16/12/democratic _leader _in_ alabama_ s.html on December 16. 20 16. 
936 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chair, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: 

On behalf of the Coalition on Human Needs, I am writing to express our opposition to the 

nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions for Attorney General. The mission of the Coalition on 

Human Needs is to advocate to meet the needs of low-income and vulnerable people. African 

Americans, Latinos, immigrants, people with disabilities, ex-offenders, LGBTQ people, and 

single mothers are among those disproportionately likely to be poor. In addition, certain 

religious minorities, most recently including Muslims, are vulnerable to illegal discrimination 

and exclusion. The Attorney General of the United States must enforce the Constitution and the 

laws of this nation to ensure that those among us with the least power and money, and who may 

be most likely to experience discrimination and crimes of hate, are protected. We regret that 

Senator Sessions' long record includes repeated examples of his willingness to target rather than 

protect the most vulnerable. 

Voting Rights: The Attorney General must vigorously enforce our laws to protect the right to 

vote. Senator Sessions instead, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama in the 

mid-1980's, brought to trial an unsupportable case against three African American community 

activists for voter fraud, which was quickly rejected by jurors. The prosecution targeted 

members of the Perry County Civic League, a nonprofit organization that assisted poor, rural, 

and elderly residents with food, medical, education and other needs. The voting assistance 

provided by the defendants was authoritatively judged to be legal. Attorney Sessions instead 

asserted that assistance to voters, despite being voluntarily sought, was illegal. In the words of 

then defense-team member Deval Patrick, the presiding Judge in the trial, Emmett Cox, at the 
937 

2 

outset " ... rejected that theory as contrary to settled law and the Constitution." The power of the 

federal government must not be used to intimidate low-income communities of color or anyone 

else seeking to exercise their right to vote through unwarranted prosecution, but that is exactly 

what then U.S. Attorney Sessions did. His more recent comments that the Voting Rights Act is 

"intrusive" suggest a continued unwillingness to enforce the laws to protect our most sacred 

right. 

Disability Rights: We ally ourselves with the letter from members of the advocacy community 

on behalf of people with disabilities recently sent to you, which detailed nominee Sessions' 

history in opposing protections and services for people with disabilities. As Alabama's Attorney 

General, he fought to eliminate consent decrees related to Alabama's treatment of children with 

mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities within its child welfare and mental 

health/developmental disabilities systems. As Senator, he has criticized the implementation of 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), voted against ratification ofthe 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (strongly supported by former Senator 

Bob Dole) and against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 

(which included crimes motivated by the victim's disability as hate crimes). 

Criminal Justice Reform: There is now growing bipartisan support for reducing sentences, in 

particular for drug offenses, and for providing more supports and assistance for those returning 

to communities from the criminal justice system. Senator Sessions has opposed initiatives to 

shorten sentences, including a thus far successful effort to block the Sentencing Reform and 

Corrections Act, sponsored by Senators Grassley, Lee, and Cornyn, among others. We urge you 

to study the report released by the Brennan Center: Analysis: Sen. Jeff Sessions's Record on 

Criminal Justice for much documentation. The report details his shifting ofprosecutorial 

resources away from violent crime and towards drug offenses while U.S. Attorney. The nation 

needs a significant commitment to expanded treatment for substance use, not a return to costly 

and ineffectual prosecution and incarceration. 

A critical part of criminal justice reform is better oversight of police practices. The Brennan 

report cites the Justice Department's report last August on Baltimore, MD's police department, 

which found "a pattern of violations of residents' rights, particularly in poor, predominantly 

black neighborhoods." Similarly, the Justice Department has investigated the police in 

Ferguson, Missouri and found patterns of bias, leading to a consent decree with the department 

for training of its officers to avoid the use of force and to overhaul the municipal court system to 

reduce the use of municipal criminal justice fines. Senator Sessions has been highly critical of 

consent decrees, calling them "one ofthe most dangerous, and rarely discussed, exercises of raw 

power" in a forward to a 2008 Alabama Policy Institute paper. The Justice Department ought to 

be a force to redress the unjust exercises of raw power within police departments against 

vulnerable communities. Senator Sessions appears to be intent on rolling back the positive role 

the Justice Department has recently played. 
938 

3 

Immigration Reform: Senator Sessions has opposed bipartisan efforts to enact immigration 

reforms. The Attorney General above all should recognize that justice suffers in this country if 

immigrant members of our community are denied reasonable access to the protections of law. 

The Attorney General should vigorously enforce laws protecting workers and protecting against 

municipal targeting of immigrants for minor violations in order to collect fees and fines. Instead 

of seeking a reasonable solution, Senator Sessions would leave immigrants vulnerable and would 

in so doing compromise the rights of all workers. 

The Attorney General of the United States, in order to ensure that all Americans enjoy equal 

treatment and protection under the law, must be forceful and affirmative in combatting 

discrimination by race, gender, religion, immigrant status, disability, or poverty. As noted, 

Senator Sessions has instead throughout his career sought to deny protections to these vulnerable 

groups. He has in addition appeared to support a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., has even 

questioned whether grabbing a woman's private parts would be considered sexual assault and 

opposed the 2014 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 

We respectfully urge you to consider these and more disturbing aspects of Senator Sessions' 

record and hope that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate will oppose his nomination. 

Sincerely yours, 

Deborah Weinstein 

Executive Director 
939 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washin&>ton, D.C. 20510 

January 9, 2017 

Communications Workers of America 

Chris Shelton I President 

legislative Department 

Shane larson I Director 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chainnan Grass ley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

On behalfofthe 700,000 members and officers of the Communications Workers of America 

(CWA). I am writing you in strong opposition to the confinnation of Sen. Jeff Sessions to serve 

as Attorney General of the United States. 

Sen. Sessions's lengthy public record is totally inconsistent with the qualities that are needed in 

the Attorney General. The Department of Justice's mission is to enforce the laws of the United 

States in a way that protects the rights of all people without prejudice or discrimination, yet Sen. 

Sessions has a demonstrated record of unfair treatment on the basis of race, national origin, 

gender. and sexual orientation. all while showing a complete disinterest in protecting the rights 

of working people. 

Sen. Sessions's outright hostility toward voting rights alone renders him unfit to serve as 

Attorney General. In patiicular. as U.S. Attorney, Sen. Sessions attempted to prosecute voting 

rights activists working to increase African-American registration and turnout. He has 

subsequently voiced strong support for discriminatory voter lD laws and for the Supreme Court's 

2013 ruling in Shelby Countyv. Holder that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Monumental work has 

been done to combat our nation's history of discrimination regarding the right to vote, and we 

need an Attorney General who will build on those efforts, not one who will make it even harder 

for Americans to exercise this fundamental constitutional right. 

More generally, Sen. Sessions has endorsed views that show that he believes certain groups are 

not entitled to equal protection under the law. For instance, he suppotied a constitutional 

amendment banning same-sex marriage, opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act in 2013, proposed legislation effectively denying unaccompanied minors access to 

legal counsel in our immigration courts, and made positive statements about the Ku Klux Klan. 

Additionally, Sen. Sessions has repeatedly shown a willingness to deny workers and consumers 

their day in court so as to protect too-big-to-fail banks and other large corporations, raising 

significant concerns about his commitment to equal access to our justice system. For example, he 

has been a longtime advocate for the use of "forced arbitration," in which companies include 

policies in employment and consumer contracts that prevent workers and consumers from 

contesting contractual breaches in court. In fact, in 2000, Sen. Sessions argued against the 

proposed Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, which would have barred forced arbitration 

S01 Third Street, NW I Washington, DC 20001 I 202·434-1315 I 202-434·1318 (fax) I www.cwa-union.org 
940 

clauses in cases concerning employment discrimination, by saying that it "could expose 

businesses to large jury verdicts." 

Meanwhile. as a member of Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sessions has shown exceedingly little 

interest in addressing financial fraud committed by large banks, as he skipped hearings in 20 I 0 

and 2011 on financial fraud, as well as a hearing in 2012 on lending discrimination and 

foreclosure abuses. Instead. Sen. Sessions has focused on maintaining draconian sentencing 

policies for petty crimes and opposed meaningful overhaul of the criminal justice system. 

In short. it is clear that Sen. Sessions does not believe in equal justice under the law. Therefore. I 

ask that you oppose his nomination for Attorney General. Thank you in advance for your 

consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Shane Larson 

Legislative Director 

Communications Workers of America (CW A) 

501 Third Street, NW I Washington, DC 200011 202-434-1315 I 202-434-1318 (fax) 1 www.cwa-union.org 
941 

¥-~CADC~ 

December 21,2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chainnan 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chainnan Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

On behalf of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) and our more 

than 5,000 coalition members, of which 18 are in the state of Alabama, I would like to 

express how extremely pleased we are that Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III has 

been nominated by the Trump administration to be the next Attorney General, and chief 

law enforcement official for our country. 

CADCA supports Senator Sessions nomination because he has been a strong proponent 

of a balanced approach to drug policy across the supply/demand reduction split. Senator 

Sessions understands the importance of a comprehensive response to the drug issues 

facing our nation, that includes education, prevention, intervention, treatment, recovery 

support, as well as effective law enforcement and interdiction strategies. As the leading 

prevention organization in the country, CADCA has seen this firsthand, working v..ith 

Senator Sessions to support the Drug-Free Communities Program, a critical component of 

our country's drug prevention infrastructure that utilizes local communities to solve local 

problems. 

CADCA believes Senator Sessions knowledge, expertise, and experience dealing with the 

complex issues facing our country will serve him well as the United States' chief!aw 

enforcement official. CADCA looks forward to working alongside the President and 

Senator Sessions to protect and build safe, healthy and drug-free communities throughout 

America. We thank you for scheduling a confinnation hearing for Senator Sessions' 

nomination and urge a swift vote as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

~ Major General, U.S. Anny, Retired 

Chainnan and CEO 

Building Drug-Free Communities 

SueR. Thau 

Public Policy Consultant 

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 

625 S!aters lane, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314 

P 703-706-0560 F 703-706-0565 1-800-54-CADCA cadca.org 
942 

C!rnngress nf tqe Unite~ §fates 

lBilslfingtnn, tlfr 2051.5 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chainnan 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

437 Russell Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chainnan Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy: 

As the Chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus composed of the Congressional Black Caucus, 

the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus- we 

write to express our deep concerns about the nomination and possible confinnation of Senator 

Jeff Sessions to serve as the 841

h Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has an 

alanning record that is of great concern to the communities of color we represent, from his views 

on race issues to his resistance towards improving our broken immigration system and restoring 

the right to vote, 

In I 986, President Reagan nominated Sessions, then a young U.S. attorney from Mobile, 

Alabama, as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama. Due to serious concerns 

regarding his insensitivity on issues of race, Sessions ultimately became only the second 

nominee in 50 years to be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite the fact that a 

Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee deemed Sessions too regressive on issues of race 

and civil rights to serve as a district court judge, President-elect Trump has nominated Sessions 

to serve as Attorney General. The nomination of Sessions as the top law enforcement official in 

the country makes it clear that the concerns expressed by communities of color have not been 

heard. 

Throughout his decades-long career in public service, Senator Sessions has found himself on the 

wrong side of countless issues that are vital to the well-being ofthe people and communities we 

represent. He has opposed essential components of the Voting Rights Act. He has served as an 

obstacle to criminal justice refonn and a vocal proponent of the disastrous War on Drugs. He has 

also led the charge to deny equitable funding to public schools in Alabama, and demonstrated his 

resistance to advancing LGBTQ rights and women's rights by opposing the repeal of"Don't Ask 

Don't Tell" as well as efforts to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. He has 

opposed both our current legal immigration laws and efforts to refonn our broken immigration 

system. On immigration, Senator Sessions does not only support a ban on Muslim immigrants, 

but opposes even our legal immigration system. He has implied that Syrian refugees fleeing war 

are "terrorists", and has also attacked policies that support limited English proficient Americans. 

Even more concerning is the fact that Sessions does not even believe in upholding the concept of 

birthright citizenship, which is ingrained in our 14th Amendment. 

F>R:INHD OU A;:CVCt£0 PAPEF\ 

~" 
943 

As Senator Sessions moves through the confirmation process, much will be made of his track 

record ~ssues of justice, equality, and civil rights. Many will debate the question of whether 

Sessions is or is not a racist. While this is a very important question that warrants consideration, 

it is ultimately a question for which there will be no definitive answer. What can be said 

definitively is that Senator Sessions, in a career spanning more than three decades in public 

service, has advocated for and in some cases implemented policies that are in direct conflict with 

the values of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, its members, and the people we represent. There is 

no doubt that Senator Jeff Sessions is unfit to lead a department he has long railed against, and 

that he will advance an agenda that will do great harm to citizens, immigrant communities, and 

people of color. We strongly urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote no on his nomination 

and instead advance an Attorney General who champions civil rights protections for all 

Americans. 

Sincerely, 

Lt 

CEDRICRICHMdl'fD 

/. ~~~.&.1-.- J DY CHU MICHELLE LUJAN 

Member of Congress Member of Congress GRISHAM 

Chair, Congressional Black Chair, Congressional Asian Member of Congress 

Caucus Pacific American Caucus Chair, Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus 
944 

JUDICIARY COMMITIEE JERROLD NADLER 10TCJ 0!STRJC1.NEVVYORK 

RANKING MEMBER 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITIEE 

ASSISTANT WHIP 

(!Congress of tbe W:niteb .~Mates 

j!Jouse of l\eprtsentatibes 

M!asf)inuton, lJQJ; 20515 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members oftbe Senate Judiciary 

Committee: 

Even before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, he has become embroiled in 

numerous scandals involving conflicts of interest stemming from his personal and familyassociated business ties. 1 Mr. Trump's continued refusal to divest his assets and place them in a 

blind trust, or even completely disclose them, means tbat nearly every official and unofficial 

action he or his family takes will be tainted with suspicion. We face a situation where, without 

Mr. Trump addressing his conflicts of interest or taking the necessary steps to provide 

transparency and separate himself from any potential ethical misconduct, we cannot be certain 

that American interests are safe from subjugation or subversion. It is, therefore, vital that we can 

be assured tbe Department of Justice, which is charged with investigating conflicts of interest 

and enforcing tbe laws that prohibit them, has complete independence in this matter, and is able 

and willing to be aggressive in rooting-out any such conuption. 

As you consider the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, I strongly 

urge you to raise these important questions regarding Mr. Trump's conflicts of interest and 

ascertain how Senator Sessions, as our country's top law enforcement officer and head oftbe 

Justice Department, intends to address these outstanding concerns and guarantee compliance 

with the law. If his responses fail to satisfY these concerns, I hope you will reject his 

nomination. 

1 See, e.g., Larry Buchanan & Karen Yourish, The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency, N.Y. 

TIMES (Dec. 14, 2016), h!!.P: ',:W\\'\\'.ll\1111'),.1.':-.,comiintcnh:tJ\ r:'(l! fl,' 1 ~ tl I :'us'poll!!L':o., tl'lJ!llfh.'onl1iL~!.:::Et~i.Dlt;,[!::'~iliJ.H!Jl!; 

Jeremy Venook, Donald Trump Wan 't Divest From His Business Before Entering Office, THE ATLANTIC (Dec. 16, 

2016); Jill Disis, Three Ways Donald Trnmp Already Faces a Conflict of Interest, CNNMONEY (Dec. 15, 2016); 

Drew Harwell, On the day Trump said he'd clarifY his business dealings, hL< conflicts of interest look thornier than 

ever, WASH. POST (Dec. 15, 2016). 
945 

Ethics experts from both sides of the political aisle agree: without complete disclosure 

and divestiture, Mr. Trump's administration will be ethically compromised from the start.2 His 

foreign entanglements alone present a particularly grave danger to the nation,3 not to mention the 

potential for Mr. Trump and his associates to use, or appear to use, the Presidency for their own 

personal gain. While he has taken modest steps in recent weeks attempting to resolve certain 

conflicts, including closing his charitable foundation and tenninating projects in several foreign 

countries,4 these half-measures cannot solve the fundamental conflict posed by his continued 

ownership interest in his businesses, or his children's management of those businesses. As noted 

in a recent letter to Mr. Trump from 29 scholars, good-government organizations, and tenner 

elected officials from across the ideological spectrum, he "cannot serve the country as president 

and also own a world-wide business enterprise, without seriously damaging the presidency."5 

From the moment he takes the Oath of Office, President-elect Trump will likely be in 

violation of numerous federal conflict-of-interest laws, as well as of the emoluments clause of 

the U.S. Constitution.6 That is why it is vital that any nominee for Attorney General, commit to 

an independent investigation of Mr. Trump's conflicts, as well as the enforcement of whatever 

Jaws are determined to be violated. 

Senator Sessions has recognized the need to eliminate his own financial conflicts of 

interest, and, reportedly, is taking steps to divest from certain assets.7 He must, in turn, demand 

a similar degree of accountability from the President of the United States, who, at minimum, 

should adhere to similar ethical and transparent standards. 

Senator Sessions' nomination raises many other important concems, including his 

troubling history with race8 and his extreme views on immigration/ among others. All of these 

should be thoroughly explored. However, I hope you will also rigorously question him about the 

enforcement of our Jaws and the need to protect the integrity of our public institutions. Does 

Senator Sessions intend to investigate President-elect Trump's many conflicts of interest, and 

will he enforce the law as appropriate? 

2 Richard Painter & Norman Eisen, A Trump presidency would be ethically compromised, Wash. Post (Sept. 20, 

2016) 

3 Nomwn L. Ec<en, Richard Painter, & Laurence H. Tribe, THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE: ITS TEXT, MEANING, AND 

APPLICATION TO DONALD J. TRUMP, The Brookings Institution (Dec. 16, 2016). 

' See Eric Lipton and Maggie Habennan, Denying Conflict, Trump Family Tries to Resolve Potential Problems, 

N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 24, 2016). 5 Letter from Ambassador (ret.) Nonn Eisen. chief White House ethics lawyer, 2009-2011, Richard Painter, chief 

White House ethics lawyer, 2005-2007, et alto President-elect Donald J. Trump (Jan. 2, 2017), available at 

tillP~.~lt.lY,~!ill.Do..:_m~:.L:_L.i:i.¥~1?.:-~~US:!.tt.llPhl~Jd:'l ~I)J1J111slh~r:::W- ,1-n:tmp-c()nllkt..;:of-itl!r..~t-c:-;~-l-:,:~--- J.7 -rtlf. 6 See id.; Memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American 

Law Division, Conflict of Interest and "Ethics" Provisions That May Apply to the President (Nov. 22, 2016 ), 

available at llttp:f.L,I<;]ngg~l!;: 

l!lS-!i(li!DJ1'c~tl:".l'.,~~~"!_iJ.r~jjcl1JPLT~~;._J.th-li .... :illLLl!011~~-JL~:!.\_flk~ .. ~~~·>l\_D:g_u_lll<\:ltil'~ CR_S '1,2t~M_l:lllO.Pi_\~~-i!it·tJ_t~'-(,1!~:;_(•.llf 

llct%20provislons.pdf. 

7 Todd Ruger, Sessions Plans to Divest Some Investments as AG, ROLLCALL (Dec. 14, 2016). 8 Matt Apuzzo, Specter of Race Shadows Jeff Sessions, Potential Trump Nominee for Cabinet, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 16, 

2016). 

9 Seung Min Kim, Immigration hard-liner Sessions could execute crackdown as AG, POLITICO (Nov. 29, 2016). 
946 

The Department of Justice has a long and distinguished history of independence from the 

President, and adherence to the rule oflaw. As you consider Senator Sessions' nomination to 

lead the Department, you will have the unique opportunity to detennine if he is truly committed 

to these values. Unless he makes clear that he will order a thorough and independent 

investigation of Mr. Trump's conflicts of interest, and commits to pursuing any violations oflaw 

that are uncovered, he should be deemed unfit for the office of Attorney General, and his 

nomination should be rejected. 

Despite requests from Democrats on both the House Judiciary Committee and the House 

Oversight and Government Refonn Committee to investigate President-elect Trump's financial 

conflicts of interest, 10 the House of Representatives has taken no action on this matter. I hope 

you will take the opportunity presented from Senator Sessions' confirmation hearings to begin 

the process of ensuring that Mr. Trump's finances are transparent and adhere to the highest 

ethical standards. 

As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I look forward to working with 

you on a bicameral and bipartisan basis to ensure that the president is beholden only to the 

American people. 

Sincerely, 

Member of Congress 

10 Letter from House Committee on the Judiciary Democrats to the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chainnan, House 

Committee on the Judiciary (Nov. 30, 2016), available at httns://democratsnl.l! h: iarv. lwu:-.c !..,i}\ 1~,~~i!~":.J.I~JU~}c r;l!~J.~!~H,: !Jl.rY~twm~~:g~.\::.D k'i \\'\~~~Up,lnmk'd Prc~idcni'''<·.:!Ol ~(mil ic ts 0 '!,](! Let tct~ 

ru!f; letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the Honorable Jason Chaffetz, 

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Nov. 28, 2016), available at 

htJp..;: .. , wW\\ ._\\:..Q_::.hln£1: !!Jl)l!.:"... .. s~:ULLI\:'\\ ~~~!I!.0:'t '\\ l~_:_',;j_~ _ _mt:'nl::~~Pl~H•J~ -~]II;':::_A.li2\ lli'_L 1/20 16~ 11-28 .EEC-ct-al-to~ 

Chaffotz-re-Trump-Conflict-of-Interests O.pdf!tid--a in!. 
947 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grass ley 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

1200 18''' STREET NW, SUITE 501 • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

PHONE: 202-296-6889 • FAX: 202-296-6895 • www.theusconstitution.org 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

"The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its 

citizens." ··Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by the United States Department of Justice 

In the description of its history, the Department of Justice ("Department" or "DOJ") explains to 

America that it views as its "guiding principle" the responsibility, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, to "do 

equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." As "the world's largest law office and the chief enforcer of 

federal laws," the Department plays a critical role in our nation's ongoing progress toward equal and 

impartial justice, helping to realize principles embedded in the U.S. Constitution and reflected in a long 

list offederallaws that help enforce constitutional guarantees. 

DOJ executes this charge through its 60 agencies and components, including such notable 

divisions as the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Violence Against Women, the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Legal Counsel. In order to 

carry out the Department's critical mission, it is axiomatic that the Attorney General-the head of DOJmust have a deep commitment to the principles of liberty, equality, and fairness at the Constitution's 

core, a history of respecting substantive fundamental rights, and a demonstrated willingness to respect 

the Constitution and its values, whatever his or her own policy preferences, or those of the President. 

These values are important, as they will guide the Attorney General in exercising one of his greatest 

powers-determining what issues, laws, regulations, and policies will receive the attention and support 

of the Department of Justice. As "the People's lawyer," the Attorney General must rise above partisan 

politics and, with independent fortitude and objectivity, enforce the Constitution and the rule of law 

fairly, even if that means standing up to the President himself. 

President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Senator Jefferson 

Sessions of Alabama as Attorney General. Senator Sessions's long record, however, demonstrates that 

he is not fit for this position and cannot be trusted to execute the mission of the Department of Justice. 

His extreme views, at times defying the fundamental protections written in the text and underscored by 

the history of the Constitution, demonstrate an unwillingness to respect the rights of all persons as 

guaranteed by our national charter and run counter to the important mission of the Department of 

Justice. We focus here on six of the areas in which Sessions's record is particularly troubling: civil rights, 

women's rights, immigrants' rights, criminal justice, national security, and independence and executive 

accountability to the rule of law. In each of these areas, Senator Sessions has turned a blind eye to 

fundamental constitutional principles that ensure liberty and equality for all and prevent abuse of power 

by the government. 

1 
948 

1. CIVIL RIGHTS 

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is one of our nation's most powerful 

governmental entities responsible for combating discrimination in all walks of life and ensuring our 

Constitution's promise of equality for all. The Division is charged with enforcing federal statutes that 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin.' This includes 

investigating abuses and seeking relief in cases involving discrimination in the areas of education, credit, 

employment, housing, public accommodations and facilities, federally funded programs, and voting. It 

also includes protecting the rights of prisoners, mentally and physically disabled persons, and senior 

citizens. Notably, the Division recommends observer and examiner activities, and reviews and approves 

regulatory changes proposed by all federal executive branch agencies as they pertain to civil rights. For 

women, people of color, people with disabilities, low income people, incarcerated people, abortion 

providers, victims of police brutality, and immigrants, the Civil Rights Division is of critical importance. 

Given his record, Senator Sessions is the wrong person to be put in charge of an agency that is 

responsible for working to end discrimination; indeed, if confirmed, he would be far more likely to 

further entrench discrimination in America by ignoring systemic examples of it and by undercutting laws 

enacted and programs put into place to fight it. Sessions has a long, public record of hostility to the 

Constitution's protections of liberty and equality for all. In 1986, a Republican-dominated Senate 

Judiciary Committee rejected President Reagan's nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal district 

court judge-an extremely rare rejection-because of Sessions's history of racial insensitivity-a history 

underscored by witnesses who gave direct testimony to the Committee. Alabama Senator Howell 

Heflin, who had initially strongly backed Sessions's nomination, eventually voted against Sessions's 

confirmation because he had "reasonable doubts" Sessions could be "fair and impartial" on the bench. 

While the actions at the center of those events took place several decades ago, Sessions's 

record since then, examples of which are discussed below, indicates that he is not now qualified to be 

put in charge of enforcing our country's civil rights laws, laws enacted to reinforce the Reconstruction 

Amendments that, among other things, wrote guarantees of equality for all persons into our 

Constitution. When Sessions became a U.S. Senator, representing the people of Alabama, he swore to 

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the 

same." Yet, over the course of his Senate career, Sessions has taken actions that would undermine our 

enduring charter; he has denied that racial discrimination in voting exists in the South, voted to limit 

democratic participation, voted to deny civil rights to members of the LGBTQ community, and voted to 

undercut efforts to empower people with disabilities. Sessions has a long record of hostility toward 

voting rights, and a DOJ led by an Attorney General Jeff Sessions could not be counted on to ensure that 

the right to vote-a right protected by more parts of the Constitution than any other right-is actually 

enjoyed by all citizens. 

1 The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces the Civil Rights Acts of 1957,1960,1964, and 1968, 

as amended; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as amended; the Fair 

Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; Executive Order 12250 (inter alia, Title VI, Title 

IX, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended); the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act; 

the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; the Police Misconduct Provision of the Violent Crime Control and 

Law Enforcement Act of 1994; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000; and Section 102 of the Immigration 

Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended. In addition, the Division is charged with all departmental 

responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

2 
949 

While U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions displayed a lack of willingness 

to protect the rights of all as required by the Constitution. During his district court nomination 

hearings in 1986, then-U.S. Attorney Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the 

Voting Rights Act was "a piece of intrusive legislation." In fact, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

made the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to vote regardless 

of "race, color, or previous servitude," tangible for many African Americans living in the Jim 

Crow South. Also during the hearings, it came to light that Sessions had called an African 

American colleague "QQy," while calling civil rights organizations like the NAACP "un-American" 

and "Communist-inspired," claiming that they were trying to "force civil rights down the throats 

of people who were trving to put problems behind them." Sessions also called Jim Blacksher, a 

white civil rights lawyer who had filed many voting rights and other civil rights suits, a "disgrace 

to his race." In 1985, U.S. Attorney Sessions brought fraud and conspiracy charges against civil 

rights activists-including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., who was 

known as "Mr. Voter Registration" -who had lawfully mailed absentee ballots on behalf of 

elderly African American voters. Sessions's investigators hid behind bushes to monitor the civil 

rights activists, seized the ballots from the mail, and then forced elderly African American voters 

to travel hundreds of miles to testify before a grand jury. Following a criminal trial, the jury 

quickly acquitted all the defendants of the charges brought by Sessions. 

In the years since his failed district court nomination, Sessions has impeded efforts to eradicate 

discriminatory policies that make voting difficult for non-white citizens. In 2006, Sessions was 

one of the Republican Senators who, despite voting to renew the preclearance requirement of 

the Voting Rights Act, signed an unusual Senate Judiciary Committee report (published after the 

vote in the Senate) strongly suggesting that the Act was unconstitutional. In 2013, Sessions 

cheered the Supreme Court's S-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting a key provision of 

the Voting Rights Act, calling it "good news, I think, for the South." He further claimed that 

"Shelby County never had a history of denying the vote, certainly not now. There is racial 

discrimination in the country, but I don't think in Shelby County, Alabama, anyone is being 

denied the right to vote because of the color of their skin. It would be much more likely to have 

those things occur in Philadelphia, Chicago, or Boston." Likewise, Sessions claimed that "if you 

go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the 

color of their skin." In 2014, Sessions opposed efforts to modernize the Voting Rights Act's 

coverage formula struck down in Shelby County. Sessions claimed that "[t]o pass a law in the 

U.S. Congress that provides penalties only to some states and not to others can only be justified 

for the most extraordinary circumstances. And the justification no longer exists." 

While denying that racial discrimination in voting still exists in the South, Sessions maintains 

that in-person voter fraud is a serious problem that requires states to be able to make it harder 

for people to vote, despite the overwhelming evidence showing how rare in-person voter fraud 

is. 

Sessions has also supported policies that limit access to voting. In 2007, Sessions voted to 

require voters nationwide to present photo identification in order to cast their ballot, despite 

the fact that voter ID laws make it harder for the poor, the elderly, and people of color to be 

able to vote. In 2002, he opposed legislation that would have granted ex-felons the right to 

vote, arguing that "I don't think American policy is going to be better informed if we have a 

bunch of felons in the process." 

3 
950 

Harkening back to Sessions's statement revealed at his 1986 hearing that the NAACP was "unAmerican," Sessions in 201S made the astonishing statement that those working to take down 

public displays of the Confederate battle flag were seeking to "delegitimize the fabulous 

accomplishments of our country." 

As a Senator, Sessions has advocated for positions that would have denied members of the 

LGBTQ community equal citizenship status on various fronts. In 2006, he voted to invoke cloture 

and move to a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In 2009, he 

opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which among 

other things extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized because of their 

sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. In 2010, he voted against the repeal of 

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the policy that banned gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the 

military. In 2013, Sessions voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would 

prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In 

201S, Sessions voted against an amendment that ensures same-sex couples have access to 

Social Security and veterans benefits. Later that year, he also voted against an amendment that 

would have prohibited public schools from discriminating against any student on the basis of 

sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Sessions's record reflects a lack of commitment to equal access to education. As a Senator, he 

has criticized federal laws providing special education for students with disabilities, calling them 

perhaps the "single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today," and "very 

sincerely" suggested that accommodations for students with disabilities are "a big factor in 

accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America." In 2003, 

Sessions voted against an amendment attempting to increase funding for Hispanic education 

programs. A year later, Sessions voted against an amendment that would increase funding for 

educating students with disabilities. 

During the 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to 

the U.S. Supreme Court, Sessions "seemed to question whether Hispanics were overrepresented 

among judges." In fact, Hispanics and other people of color are woefully underrepresented in 

the federal judiciary. Additionally, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions has 

repeatedly attacked federal judicial nominees who have been affiliated with or worked for the 

American Civil Liberties Union, claiming they have an "ACLU gene" that disqualifies them, for 

"[t]he ACLU is not mainstream in its positions." In fact, the ACLU works to defend and preserve 

the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

2. WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM 

The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing several laws that protect the rights of 

women and guarantee that they are treated as equal citizens, as the Constitution requires. The Civil 

Rights Division, for example, enforces anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sex, including laws 

prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. Also, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights 

Division enforces the civil protections of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE), 

which protects abortion clinics, places of worship, their staff, and visitors from harassment and/or 

violence. FACE authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties 

against those who violate that statute. Abortion clinic violence remains a threat across the country, and 

women continue to rely on law enforcement to keep clinics accessible so they can obtain necessary 

health care. In addition, DOJ has a component dedicated to reducing violence against women-the 

4 
951 

Office on Violence Against Women-which develops policy, protocols, and guidelines to strengthen 

services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

Senator Sessions's record demonstrates his clear opposition to protecting women's 

fundamental rights and equal citizenship. As shown below, he has opposed legislative efforts that would 

help end pay discrimination, support women's bodily autonomy, and support survivors of violence. 

Sessions's consistently extreme views and actions related to women and women's rights indicate that he 

cannot be trusted to lead an agency responsible for the enforcement of laws vindicating women's equal 

citizenship. 

Sessions voted in 2009 against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which amended Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 to help ensure that women who are paid less than men for the same 

work can obtain legal remedies for this discrimination. 

In 2000 and again in 2005, Sessions voted to allow perpetrators of violence or harassment at 

reproductive health clinics to evade financial responsibility for their illegal activities. He also 

voted in 2015 against a measure establishing a fund for clinic security and women's health 

services. 

Even though the right to an abortion is, as the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized, 

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Sessions is a fierce opponent of that right. If he were to be 

confirmed as Attorney General, the right to access abortion and abortion clinics would be 

imperiled. Sessions has said "that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of the worse, 

colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time" and that "sanctity of life begins at 

conception." Sessions twice voted against resolutions in support of Roe v. Wade and in 1997, 

1998, 1999, and 2003, he voted in favor ofthe Federal Abortion Ban (also known as the socalled Partial-Birth Abortion Ban), which criminalized some abortion services, penalizing doctors 

with up to two years in prison. In 2004, Sessions voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 

which grants legal status to an embryo or fetus. In 2015, he voted for cloture to proceed with a 

vote on a nationwide ban on abortion at 20 weeks. And in 2007,2008, and 2009, Sessions voted 

to codify the "unborn child" regulation that allows states to make an embryo or fetus-but not a 

pregnant woman-eligible for health care coverage. 

Sessions has voted consistently to make accessing abortion all but impossible for low-income 

people. In 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002. and 2003, he voted to deny servicewomen in our 

Armed Forces the right to use their own private funds for abortion care at military treatment 

facilities. In 1997 and 1999, he voted to ban federal employees from choosing health insurance 

that includes coverage of abortion care. In 1997 he voted to block low-income people from 

getting abortion care in most cases. In 2011 he voted to prevent the District of Columbia from 

using its own tax revenues to provide funding for abortion care to Medicaid-eligible recipients. 

In 2008, he voted to recodify the Hyde Amendment for all Indian Health Service clinics. In 2015, 

Sessions voted to impose the Hyde Amendment on human-trafficking survivors and voted to 

reiterate the Amendment in a bill reforming Medicare and reauthorizing the Children's Health 

Insurance Program. And in 2009, he voted to deny abortion coverage to women under the 

Affordable Care Act. In keeping with his goal of making it difficult, if not impossible, for people 

to access abortion, Sessions voted in 1998, 2006, 2008, and 2013 in favor of imposing a complex 

national patchwork of parental-notification of abortion laws. Also, in 2009, he supported 

making anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers, which mislead, misinform, harass, and intimidate 

pregnant people, expressly eligible for federal funding. The discriminatory funding of other 

5 
952 

methods of family planning to the exclusion of abortion has the practical effect of taking this 

fundamental right away from significant classes of people in a manner that cannot be squared 

with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and citizenship. 

In 2013, Sessions voted against reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In 2014, he 

voted against a bill that would have provided more protection to military personnel who have 

been sexually assaulted, removing prosecution of such crimes from the military chain of 

command. Considering such votes, it may not be surprising that during the recent presidential 

election campaign, Sessions expressed doubt that the disgusting act described in Trump's 

comments about women (that he can "Grab them by the p---y") constitutes sexual assault. 

Understanding the basic definition of sexual assault is deeply disqualifying in a candidate to lead 

the Department of Justice. 

3. IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS 

The Justice Department plays an important role in our country's immigration system, and the 

Attorney General has considerable influence over how the government's power to detain and charge 

undocumented immigrants is exercised. 

The Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) administers our nation's 

immigration courts by conducting immigration court proceedings, reviewing immigration court 

proceedings, and holding administrative hearings. Immigration judges determine whether individuals 

the government is trying to deport have a legal basis to remain in the country. Administrative hearings 

involve employer sanctions, anti-discrimination provisions, and document fraud under the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. EOIR appoints the judges who preside over immigration and administrative cases, 

and overseas appeals of deportation orders. The Attorney General may fire sitting immigration judges 

and replace them with judges he finds more suitable. As a result, the Attorney General has great power 

over how our nation's immigration laws are interpreted and are enforced. For example, who qualifies 

for asylum under U.S. law is a determination over which the Attorney General and the judges he 

appoints have purview. 

The Department's Office of Immigration litigation (OIL) oversees all civil immigration litigation 

and coordinates national immigration matters before the federal district and circuit courts. Such 

matters may include detention, employment-based immigration, denaturalization, or terrorism-related 

immigration issues. OIL can influence how the government handles appeals of its actions, and it 

represents and advises government agencies on a wide range of matters related to the immigration 

system. Through OIL, the Attorney General determines the government's willingness to defend 

challenges to its interpretations of immigration law. For example, during the Administration of President 

George W. Bush, the "expedited removal" of undocumented immigrants decreased dramatically after 

the Justice Department "became frustrated with having to defend the government from charges that 

immigration enforcement officers were abusing their authority." Given his record, an Attorney General 

Sessions might be willing to dedicate OIL's time to defending such a policy and reviving this problematic 

practice. 

Other divisions of DOJ can also play an important role in ensuring the fair application of our 

nation's immigration laws. For example, the Civil Division successfully sued the state of Arizona when 

the state passed S.B. 1070, which attempted to preempt the federal government's jurisdiction over 

immigration policy, disrupted federal enforcement priorities and resources, and ignored some of the 

humanitarian concerns oft he Obama Justice Department. And the Civil Rights Division won a civil rights 

6 
953 

lawsuit against former-Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. An Attorney General who 

supports worksite raids might be less inclined to act as a check against members of local law 

enforcement who carry out their duties with the same anti-immigrant zeal as Sheriff Arpaio did. 

It is apparent from Sessions's record that he would be that sort of Attorney General who would 

set civil liberties aside to execute an anti-immigrant agenda. As Chair of the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, Sessions has long enjoyed a platform from 

which to spout his extreme views on immigration. His record is firmly anti-immigrant, and particularly 

anti-immigrants of color. As Attorney General, Sessions would be able to effectuate many of his policy 

positions through the Attorney General's power to appoint immigration judges and power to modify, 

adjust, and decide how our immigration law is implemented. Sessions's consistent and extreme views 

suggest he would be neither fair nor impartial regarding our nation's immigrants, legally present or 

otherwise. For example: 

Sessions has called for the end of birthright citizenship. in direct contradiction to the plain text 

of the U.S. Constitution. Sessions has spoken out against immigrants of all kinds: he wrote an 

op-ed in The Washington Post decrying skilled immigration, has consistently spoken out against 

accepting refugees from war zones, and supports the President-elect's proposal to impose a 

"temporary" ban on immigration from majority-Muslim countries. Sessions has attempted to 

justify a ban on Muslim immigrants by claiming they "don't have a constitutional right to come 

to America" and the President may deny "any class of persons who may pose a threat to us." 

Sessions has supported "vetting" prospective immigrants by asking questions about their 

religion, claiming. "We need to use common sense with the who-what-where of the threat. It is 

the toxic ideology of Islam." In 2015, Sessions was one of only four Senators on the Senate 

Judiciary Committee to vote against a symbolic measure expressing the sense of the Senate that 

"the United States must not bar individuals from entering the United States based on their 

religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation 

was founded." Sessions rejected the idea that immigrants have rights at all, describing those 

rights as "so-called." 

In 2013, Sessions voted against the Senate's bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have 

toughened border security while giving more protections to undocumented individuals already 

in the country. After the measure passed in the Senate, Sessions published the "Immigration 

Handbook for the New Republican Majority" to aid House colleagues in defeating the House 

version. 

Sessions has threatened sanctuary cities with prosecution, a promise on which he could make 

good if he were confirmed as Attorney General. 

Sessions also has "longstanding and extensive ties to both anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim 

extremist groups." 

One of these groups, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has been 

named as a hate group by the Southern Poverty law Center since 2007. Sessions 

regularly attends an annual FAIR event and in 2007 was the keynote speaker at an 

advisory board meeting where he was awarded FAIR's Franklin Society award. 

7 
954 

Another such group, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), has called immigrants 

"Third-World gold-diggers," postulated that Haiti is "so screwed up because it wasn't 

colonized long enough," and that "being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too 

good for [President Barack Obama]." Sessions participated in a CIS panel discussion in 

2006, spoke at one of its teleconferences in 2013, and spoke at one of its 2016 

receptions. 

In 2012, Sessions put into the Congressional Record a congratulations on the 15th 

anniversary of NumbersUSA, a xenophobic organization dedicated to keeping 

immigration to the U.S. as low as possible, claiming it saves the environment and 

combats poverty. Roy Beck, the founder and executive director of that organization, has 

spoken twice to the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens, whose online 

propaganda influenced Charleston shooter Dylann Roof, and has referred to Black 

people as a "retrograde species of humanity." 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center attempts to "combat[] the efforts of the radical left 

and its lslamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts 

to defend itself in a time of terror." In 2014, the Center~ Sessions its Daring the 

Odds: The Annie Taylor Award. Sessions also attended the Center's "Restoration 

Weekend" in 2003 and 2013. 

In 2015, the anti-Muslim hate group, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), awarded 

Sessions its Keeper of the Flame award. CSP released a report last year calling for a ban 

on Muslim immigration. 

4. CRIMINALJUSTICE 

The Department of Justice plays an extremely broad and critical role in our nation's criminal 

justice system. Among other things, it is responsible for enforcing more than 5000 federal laws dealing 

with such varied problems as organized crime, drug trafficking, white-collar crime, cybercrime, and 

much more. At the heart of this work are the Department's Criminal Division and the 93 United States 

Attorneys throughout the country, appointed by the President. Among their responsibilities, these 

attorneys prosecute criminal cases brought by the federal government. Together, the Criminal Division 

and U.S. Attorneys determine who will be charged for federal crimes and face the full power oft he U.S. 

government in court. They can also recommend to judges the length of sentences guilty defendants 

should serve. The Attorney General plays an important role here through "charging memos," which set 

the guidelines that federal prosecutors follow in deciding what charges to bring and the length of 

sentences for which to advocate. 

In addition to prosecuting federal offenders, DOJ also has the power to investigate local law 

enforcement agencies accused of a "pattern or practice" of violating civil rights. Among its other 

responsibilities, the Special Litigation Section oft he Civil Rights Division (SLS) helps protect the civil 

rights of the institutionalized and the rights of people who interact with local law enforcement-both 

prisoners and communities at large. Recently, SLS found that the Baltimore Police Department has 

engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful stops, searches, and arrests that disproportionately harm 

African Americans and that it has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force and discrimination 

against people with mental health disabilities. In 2015, SLS issued a report regarding the Ferguson, 

Missouri Police Department, finding that both the "police and municipal court practices systematically 

violate[d] the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." Especially in the wake of high-profile 

8 
955 

shootings and killings of unarmed Black people by local police, it is imperative that the Department 

continue to use its power to investigate law enforcement in order to help determine how to address 

police brutality. Senator Sessions, however, has made clear that he believes such much-needed 

investigations are an abuse of federal authority. 

For this and other reasons, including Senator Sessions's disrespect for basic constitutional principles of 

due process and equality, he is the wrong person to be put in charge of and set priorities for a 

Department charged with bringing to bear the awesome power of the federal government to prosecute 

and punish. For example, 

In 2016, Sessions mocked efforts to reform the criminal justice system, particularly the Obama 

Administration's clemency toward federal prisoners serving excessively long sentences, as well 

as DOJ's role in the reforms. He has frequently cited a rise in crime for his positions, though the 

crime rate is actually down. Sessions is a vocal opponent of the bipartisan effort to end 

mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes, a practice that disproportionately harms 

African Americans. Sessions has been a vocal skeptic of recent DOJ efforts to make the criminal 

justice system less punitive, especially toward people accused of violating drug laws that have a 

disproportionate impact on people of color. 

During a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture," 

Sessions made clear his disregard for procedural due process, arguing the process "is not 

wrong," especially since, he claimed, the program mostly takes money from people who have 

"done nothing in their lives but sell dope." 

In 2008, Sessions described DOJ consent decrees, which provide an efficient and effective means 

of achieving long-term reform of institutions that have been engaging in illegal, often 

discriminatory, practices as "an end run around the democratic process." Consent decrees have 

been particularly helpful in fighting systemic discrimination perpetrated by local police 

departments. 

Sessions doubted the impartiality of a 2015 federal judicial nominee, P.aula Xinis, insinuating 

that she would not be sufficiently pro-police because she was a Public Defender, representing 

indigent clients, and particularly because her firm represented Freddie Gray's family in a 

wrongful death civil suit against the City of Baltimore. She was not involved in the case. 

In August 2016, DOJ announced that the Bureau of Prisons, a subdivision responsible for the 

administration of the federal prison system, would phase out the use of private, for-profit 

prisons, after an inspector-general report found deficiencies in safety, security, and the 

protection of inmates' rights. While campaigning in June, Trump~ "I do think we can do a lot 

of privatizations and private prisons. It seems to work a lot better." POLITICO Influence 

reported in October that GEO Group, one of the largest private prison corporations, hired two 

former aides to Sessions to "to advocate on federal government use of contract correctional 

facilities." Since the increase in privatized prisons in the 1980's, the constitutionality of such 

prisons has come into question. Sessions's judgment regarding prison administration is suspect, 

given his blessing the use of chain gangs while Attorney General of Alabama. 

5. NATIONAL SECURITY 

The Department of Justice also plays a role in promoting our nation's security. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), whose director reports to the Attorney General, conducts domestic 

9 
956 

surveillance as part of carrying out its law enforcement responsibilities. The National Security Division 

("NSD") combats domestic and international terrorism and other threats to national security, such as 

espionage and sabotage. Of note, the Oversight Section of NSD oversees the foreign intelligence, 

counterintelligence and other national security activities of the United States intelligence community to 

ensure compliance with the Constitution, statutes and Executive Branch policies. 

Courts have identified potential constitutional infirmities in some of the government's use of 

electronic surveillance methods in criminal investigations. As a Senator, Sessions has supported broad 

surveillance powers for use by both domestic law enforcement agencies and U.S. intelligence services; 

as Attorney General, Sessions would be able to roll back several of the restrictions on surveillance 

imposed by the Obama Administration. Sessions's record indicates that he cannot be trusted to respect 

constitutional limits on abuse of power by the government. For example: 

In 2015, Sessions voted against Senator John McCain's bipartisan amendment reaffirming the 

prohibition of torture. 

In 2006 and 2010, Sessions voted to extend the Patriot Act's roving wiretaps to remove the need 

to obtain a court warrant for wiretapping abroad. 

Sessions has claimed that the President has the authority to allow the NSA to wiretap 

conversations involving foreign countries in order to protect national security and that there 

should be no restrictions on that power. 

In 2013, Sessions opposed reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which included 

increasing transparency in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and halting bulk metadata 

collection. 

In 2016, Sessions unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act that would have required technology companies to turn over sought-after data 

without a warrant if federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies merely declared than an 

emergency existed. 

6. MAINTAINING INDEPENDENCE AND HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RULE OF 

LAW 

One of the most important components of the Department of Justice is the Office of Legal 

Counsel ("OLC"), which provides legal advice to the Executive Branch on constitutional and other legal 

questions, and reviews all proposed executive orders to ensure that they comply with existing law. 

Therefore, it is critically important that OLC, and DOJ as a whole, have leaders who not only have 

respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, but also the independence to stand up to the President 

if he or another Executive Branch official is contemplating engaging in unconstitutional or illegal activity. 

As Senator Sessions himself said during the Judiciary Committee's hearings on the nomination of Judge 

Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General: 

"[T]he Attorney General has got to say no to the President if he wants to do something, just like 

a good corporate lawyer has to tell the CEO sometimes, 'We can't do it that way, Mr. CEO' or 

'Mr. President, you can do it this way, but you can't do it that way.' And then you've got to be 

able to articulate and defend the legitimate actions of your President, the head of the executive 

branch." 

10 
957 

Senator Sessions's record indicates that he would fail his own test for Attorney General. Among 

other things, he lacks the necessary respect for fundamental constitutional principles to be trusted to 

serve as a check against any President, let alone one who, as a candidate, proposed if elected to engage 

in conduct that would violate the Constitution and has thus far proven unwilling to take steps to address 

the constitutional violations posed by his business holdings. His record raises serious concerns that 

Sessions would be willing to set the Constitution aside in order to rubber stamp unconstitutional 

proposals that further the Administration's agenda, regardless oft heir legal compliance. 

These serious concerns are further heightened by Sessions's extremely close ties to the 

President-elect, which provide reason to doubt that he would bring the necessary impartiality to the job 

of Attorney General. Notably, Sessions was the first sitting U.S. Senator to endorse the President-elect; 

he was brought into the campaign, stumped for Trump before the election, served as a close advisor 

throughout, and was a co-chair of the transition team. It is not a leap to fear that Sessions would be 

unable or unwilling to distance himself from the President in order to provide dispassionate and 

independent counsel should the President propose to violate the law. Indeed, Sessions chose to side 

with the President-elect over the rule of law when Sessions claimed it was "a stretch" to call Trump's 

"grab them by the p---y" claims sexual assault. 

Additionally, Sessions's disturbing silence in the face of extremely troubling aspects of Trump's 

candidacy, such as Trump's promises to take actions that would violate the civil liberties of American 

Muslims, and his silence about the fact that Trump is on a collision course with the Emoluments Clauses, 

cast a further doubt on his independence, and whether he would place his loyalty to Trump over the 

rule of law. 

CONCLUSION 

Senator Sessions himself, during the confirmation hearing for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 

stated that: 

'The Senate must never confirm an individual to {Attorney General] who will support and 

advance ... scheme[s] that violate{] our Constitution and eviscerate{] established law and 

Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don't need 

to be apologetic abaut it. ... We have a duty to this institution, and to the American people not to 

confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue to 

violate them." 

We agree with that test for confirmation. And applying that test to Senator Sessions, it is clear 

that he does not satisfy it. Sessions's record over the span of decades flies in the face of the critical 

mission of the Department of Justice-to ensure "fair and impartial administration of justice for all 

Americans." Over the course of his career, Sessions has worked to obstruct civil and human rights, deny 

women their autonomy and dignity, limit immigration through a racial or religious test, advance criminal 

justice policies that negatively affect communities of color, and support security measures that would 

violate civil liberties. 

The Constitution must be the Attorney General's guide as he advises the President and enforces 

federal law, and he must read and apply it in whole to ensure its promises reach everyone in America, 

regardless of income, complexion, gender, or status. It is the responsibility ofthe Department of Justice 

to ensure that the Constitution's guarantees are upheld and enjoyed equally by all persons. Sessions's 

positions on a range of issues-positions that have been consistent over decades-make clear that he is 

not qualified to lead the Department in fulfilling those responsibilities. 

11 
958 

We realize that when the Committee is considering one of its own colleagues, there may be a 

tendency to engage in some amount of senatorial courtesy. But that tradition cannot substitute for the 

careful and objective scrutiny required of the record of anyone nominated to the position of United 

States Attorney General. For the reasons stated herein, upon such review, the Committee should 

conclude that Senator Sessions is not fit to hold that position, and should not forward his nomination to 

the full Senate. 

cc: All Members, Senate Judiciary Committee 

12 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth B. Wydra 

President 
959 

U.S. Senate 

COUNCIL/or 

CITIZENS 

AGAINST 

GOVERNMENT 

WASTE 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirkson Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grass ley, 

Thomas A. Schatz, President 

1100 Connf't'tictlt 1\ve., N.\N., Suite 650 

We1shington, D.C. 20036 

ccagw.org 

January9, 2017 

Your committee will soon consider the nomination of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III 

(R-Aia.) to become Attorney General of the United States. On behalf of the more than one 

million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste 

(CCAGW), I strongly support Sen. Sessions' confirmation to this post. 

Sen. Sessions has long been an advocate for combatting waste, fraud, abuse, and 

mismanagement in the federal government. Since he first took office in 1997, Sen. Sessions has 

achieved a lifetime rating of97 percent with CCAGW. More impressively, he was a "Taxpayer 

Super Hero" in 2014, when he achieved a perfect 100 percent voting record. Sen. Sessions is a 

learned constitutional scholar, with a profound understanding of the proper role of the federal 

government and the limits by which it should be bound. 

Sen. Sessions, a leader with great integrity, is the right choice to lead the U.S. Department of 

Justice, and I urge you to vote for his confirmation. All votes on Sen. Sessions' nomination will 

be among those considered for CCAGW's 2017 Congressional Ratings. 

Sincerely, 

-,-;:_s~ 
960 

COPAA The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. 

,__- ISi4 Protecting the Ci1•ilRights ofStudellts with Disabilities and tlzeir Families 

January 5, 2017 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Dear Senator: 

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) writes today to express our strong opposition 

to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as the U.S. Attorney General (AG). COPAA' s opposition is 

rooted in Senator Sessions' 30-year track record in the U.S. Senate, as Attorney General for the state of 

Alabama, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He has compiled a longstanding and consistent record, 

including public statements, policy proposals, and other various actions that serve to discriminate against 

the rights and dignity of children and adults with disabilities. We urge you reject this nomination. 

The Attorney General must be a fair arbiter of justice and enforce the nation's laws without prejudice. 

Equal educational opportunity is a cornerstone of democracy, and our laws confer important rights to 

students with disabilities to assure that each child can succeed. We oppose the confirmation of Senator 

Sessions as Attorney General because his record is rife with: 

Scapegoating children with disabilities. Senator Sessions has erroneously blamed children with 

disabilities as the cause for the lack of funding and inadequate teacher training in public schools 

by stating on the Floor of the Senate that "the special treatment for certain children [with 

disabilities] area big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all 

over America."1 

Criticizing the need to provide resources to students with disabilities. He has called it "sad" 

that schools "have to obey" Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that outline the goals, 

supports, services and accommodations that are intended to help students with disabilities achieve 

alongside their peers." 

Stereotyping students with disabilities. Senator Sessions has labeled students with disabilities as 

"the most dangerous ones ... ""' when in fact, children and adults with disabilities are far more 

likely than their non-disabled peers to be victims of violence. Today, children with disabilities 

represent 12 percent of the student population (age 6-21), yet 67 percent of students with 

disabilities are subjected to physical restraint in school.'' 

Promoting segregation of children with disabilities. Senator Sessions has said, "these children 

should be put in an alternative setting where the disability could be dealt with."' He made this 

statement at a time when the State of Alabama was under a federal consent decree requiring the 

state to address significant disparities in the identification and placement of students of color with 

disabilities in separate classrooms serving only students with disabilities.'' 

Fighting against community integration. As Alabama Attorney General, Jeff Sessions fought 

against a consent decree that committed the State of Alabama to community integration and 

independence for children and adults with disabilities. Because of Sessions' actions, Alabama 

significantly retreated in providing treatment to children and adults with mental health needs, 

hindering the ability of these individuals to live in the community and in the cases of children, to 

live with their families."' 

The Attorney General has the duty to enforce the law and, as head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 

responsibility to guide the administration of justice across the United States. For children with disabilities 

in our nation's public schools, the role of the AG and the actions of the DOJ are critical to ensuring that 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individuals with 
961 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are fully complied with by states, private entities, and school districts. 

Since 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has required schools to provide a free 

appropriation public education in the least restrictive environment to children with disabilities. Because of 

the IDEA and its many important protections, along with the bipartisan support of the federal general 

education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 now known as The Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA), more students with disabilities than ever are graduating high school."" 

Attached to this letter are a small sampling of stories we have collected from our members demonstrating 

the impact the IDEA has had on the lives of children with disabilities throughout the nation. What these 

stories show is that the IDEA has worked effectively in two ways. First, it has led to more fulfilled, more 

meaningful lives for thousands of students. Second, it has enabled thousands of individuals to live and 

work independently, thereby reducing the level of public resources needed to support them as adults. The 

monies we spend on special education are repaid many times over by substantially reducing the amount of 

demand for governmental support of adults with disabilities. 

Senator Sessions' disdain for special education and opposition to community integration of individuals 

with disabilities is at odds with the laws, inconsistent with our nation's commitment to supporting 

individuals with disabilities, and will lead to far higher societal costs in the future. Because of this, 

COPAA asks the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote to reject this nominee and, thereby, signal to the 

country that now is the time to eradicate systemic oppression for students with disabilities, their families 

and for our society and economy. 

Thank you for consideration of our request and recommendation. 

Sincerely, 

~"' wi()_~~io..~ 

Denise Marshall 

Executive Director 

cc: Chairman Lamar Alexander, 

Ranking Member Patty Murray 

COPAA is an independent, nonprofit organization of parents, attorneys, advocates, and related professionals. COPAA 

members nationwide work to protect the civil rights and secure excellence in education on behalf of the 6.5 million 

children with disabilities in America. COPAA 's mission is to serve as a national voice for special education rights and 

is grounded in the belief that every child deserves the right to a quality education that prepares him or her for 

meaningful employment, higher education and lifelong learning, as well as full participation in his or her community. 

### 

1 Floor Statement, Education Discipline and IDEA (2000), available at http /hnvw sess10ns senate gov/puhhc/inde:x cfm/1000/5/education-dtscmhne-and-ldea-

" 146 Cong. Rec. 6997 (2000) 

'" 145 Cong. Rec. 10,154 (1999) 

"Civil Rights Data Col!ectton 2013~2014, U.S. Department of Education, retrieved at http //m\"\\2.ed. <>m/aboulioffiees/listfocr/docs/20! 3-14-first-look.nQ.f 

'"147 Cong. Rec. 21,895 (2001). 

'"'.See· Consent Decree, Lee v. Macon, Civil Action No. 70-T854, Doc. ~o. 127 (Aug. 30,2000 MD. Ala.) 

'"' See· R.C. v. Hornsby and Wyatt By & Through Rawlins v. Poundstone 

,., 63% of students with disabilities graduate from high school as compared to 82 percent of students -without disabilities, .National Center on Education 

Statistics, 2013-2014, at http //nces ed gov:ccd;tables/ACGR RE and characteristics 2013 ]..1. asn 
962 

Bruce, 19 and from South Carolina struggled, suffered and was bullied relentlessly throughout 

school. When Bruce was unable to keep up at school, he suffered trauma and self-esteem issues 

from low expectations due to his inability to read. The fact is that Bruce is incredibly bright, and 

with persistence, relentless efforts of his parents and educators, and the right services and supports 

for his dyslexia- he graduated high school and has entered college this past fall. 

Mariano from California has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and is working hard in 

high school to fulfill his goal to play and conduct for the New York Philharmonic Orchestra-- and 

to be a Music and History Professor. 

Dennis, a student in Georgia, was failing most of his classes year after year, yet the district 

determined he did not qualify for special education, It was not until Dennis was 18 years 

old that anything changed because his parents filed for due process. The settlement 

agreement, which enabled Dennis to learn to read and to learn a trade, led to gainful 

employment after graduation. Due process protections enabled Dennis to have educational 

success as well as function independently in our society as an employed adult. 

Isabel, a student in Iowa with multiple disabilities and significant social and emotional 

needs, was making progress in a regular classroom with supplementary services and a 

Behavior Intervention Plan.v•i• Upon moving to a new state, the new school district placed 

her in a segregated special education classroom, despite her parents' requests for more 

integration. Additionally, school personnel used physical force, restraint, and prolonged 

periods of isolation and seclusion to address her behavioral issues in violation of her IEP 

and Behavior Intervention Plan. A federal judge found that the school violated her rights. 

By the time the case was decided, Isabel and her family had moved to California. Isabel 

did very well in the new general education environment with the proper related services 

and supports. Initially, traumatized from the seclusion and restraint, she was very timid and 

afraid. It took quite some time to get Isabel to come out of her shell and be able to learn 

and benefit from her education. 

Blair, a young woman from Pennsylvania, who with accommodations and the support of 

her service dog, graduated high school and is currently a junior at York College. She is a 

Public Relations major with a minor in Nonprofit Management. 
963 

January 9, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Demos 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Grass ley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

Demos, a national, non-partisan public policy organization working for an America where we all 

have an equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy, submits this letter in 

strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th 

Attorney General ofthe United States. 

Demos' name means "the people." It is the root word of democracy, and it reminds us that in 

America, the true source of our greatness is the diversity of our people. Our nation's highest 

challenge is to create a democracy that truly empowers people of all backgrounds, so that we all 

have a say in setting the policies that shape opportunity and provide for our common 

future. Examination of Senator Sessions' decades-long record in public life reveals a pattern of 

hostility to these values and to the very civil rights laws that he would be responsible for 

enforcing which disqualifies him from serving in the office of Attorney General. 

As the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has written: 

Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, 

disregard for the rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights that makes him 

unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. In our democracy, the 

Attorney General is charged with enforcing our nation's laws without prejudice and with 

an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the Attorney General has to be seen by the 

public every member of the public, from every community- as a fair arbiter of justice. 

Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' record that demonstrates that he would 

meet such a standard. 1 

The Senate's rejection ofthen-U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions for an appointment as a United States 

District Judge for Alabama in 1986 creates a heavy presumption against Senator Sessions' 

fitness to serve in the much more important post of Attorney General of the United States. The 

evidence of Mr. Sessions' hostility to civil rights at that time included his criticism of groups 

such as the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as "un-American" for "trying to force 

1 Open Letter To The United States Senate, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, December I, 2016 

(available at http://www.civilrights.ondpress/20 16/coalition-opposes-sessions.html). 
964 

Demos 

civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them." When 

asked about rumors that a federal judge in Alabama had referred to a white lawyer as a ''traitor to 

his race" because of his representation of black clients, Mr. Sessions responded "Well, maybe he 

is"- as confirmed by testimony before the Senate by J. Gerald Hebert, then an attorney in the 

Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, to whom Mr. Sessions made these 

remarks? 

As U.S. Attorney in Alabama, Mr. Sessions also improperly sought to prosecute three AfricanAmerican voting rights activists, including Albert Turner, who risked his life on the Edmund 

Pettus Bridge with John Lewis on the infamous Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, which 

directly led to the passage ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965.3 Mr: Sessions abused his powers as 

a U.S. Attorney in Alabama to charge Mr. Turner and his colleagues with multiple counts of 

federal crimes, every one of which was rejected by the jury that heard the case, resulting in 

complete acquittal on all charges. The evidence heard by the Senate in 1986 -which was 

Republican-controlled- resulted in Mr. Sessions' being turned down by the Senate Judiciary 

Committee. This was only the second instance of such a rejection in nearly 50 years.4 

Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, instead of overcoming the record of his hostility to 

civil rights and voting rights protections, Senator Sessions has unfortunately continued to 

reinforce it. As Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has observed: 

When I pushed in 2009 to advance the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act, a bill championed by [then-Senator Edward M.] Kennedy, it was 

Sessions who sought to derail it. He asserted at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill 

that he was 'not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of 

discrimination. '

5 

By opposing this critical law for fighting hate crimes, and also denying the very reality of such 

discrimination and hate crimes, Senator Sessions has disqualified himself from serving in the 

office that bears the chief responsibility for protecting our most vulnerable citizens from such 

crimes. This aspect of his record should be particularly disqualifying in light of the fact that over 

2 1. Gerald Hebert, "Why I told the Senate that Jeff Sessions thought civil rights groups were 'Un-American"', 

Washington Post, November 22,2016 (available at 

https :/ /V\crww. wash in gtonpost.com/posteveryth in glwp/20 16/1 l/22/mv -testimony-about-j eff-sess ionss-rac i st-remarkskept-him-from-becoming-a-judge/?utm tenn-.21Db290d3ca9). 3 Ari Berman, "The first senator to endorse Donald Trump is a longtime opponent of civil rights," The Nation, 

February 29, 2016 (available at https:/iwww.thenation.com/article/the-first-senalor-to-endorse-donald-trump-is-alongtime-opponent-of-civil-rights/). 

4 See supra n. 2. 5 Senator Patrick Leahy, "Jeff Sessions: An Extremist Then and Now," Boston Globe, January 8, 2017 (available at 

https://www. bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/20 17/0 1/08/jeff-sessions-extremist-then-andnow/PAuCCurFRbxoQipHEGgTQL/story.html). 
965 

Demos 

I ,000 new hate incidents have been reported in our country in the month following the 

November election.6 

Senator Sessions also has maligned the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -the passage of which cost 

the lives and bodies of countless of our nation's heroes- people such as James Chaney, Andrew 

Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, who were murdered in Mississippi for their work on behalf 

of voting rights for African Americans in Mississippi, and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), 

whose head still bears the scars of the beating he received at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965, 

in a non-violent march to ask for the right to vote for blacks in Alabama and across the South. 

In callous disregard of this history, and what it cost to achieve the right to vote for African 

Americans and other dispossessed people in our country, Senator Sessions praised the Supreme 

Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965- consistent with his long-held view that the Voting Rights Act is "intrusive" in its efforts 

to protect eligible voters of color.7 

Because of our mission to create a democracy that truly empowers people of all backgrounds, 

Demos is also particularly troubled by Senator Sessions' record on immigrants and immigration, 

and his stated desire to defy the U.S. Constitution in order to carry out his anti-immigrant 

agenda. The Attorney General of the United States has a key role in immigration enforcement 

and adjudication. Senator Sessions has a record that displays unacceptable bias against 

immigrants which disqualifies him from serving as Attorney General. 

One clear example of this is Senator Sessions' public position questioning the Constitution's 

protection of birthright citizenship. He has suggested that people who are born in the United 

States should not be considered U.S. citizens if their parents were citizens of another country at 

the time.8 

This position directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, which the Attorney General is 

uniquely responsible for obeying and enforcing. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment 

states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction 

thereof, are citizens ofthe United States and of the State wherein they reside." 9 Senator 

Sessions' position questioning this clear constitutional command directly undermines his fitness 

to serve as Attorney General. 

6 Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate watch: Update: I 094 Bias-related Incidents in the Month Following the 

Election, December 16, 2016 (available at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/20 16112116/update-1 094-biasrelated-incidents-month-foil ow in g-e I ection) 7 See supra n. 3. 8 Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

U.S. Senate, January 10, 2017 (available at http://www.aila.org/advo-media/whats-happening-incongress/congrcssional-updates/aila-statement-for-scnatc-iudiciary-hcaring-

?framed parent url=http://www.aila.org/takeaction&frame is rcsponsive=true). 9 U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, Sec. I. 

3 
966 

Demos 

As noted by the American Association of Immigration Lawyers: 

The Citizenship Clause makes clear that citizenship based on place of birth is a 

fundamental right inextricably tied to our liberty and equal rights, and that each person is 

born equal with no disadvantage or exalted status arising from the circumstance of their 

parentage. Any restrictions on the rights of citizenship guaranteed in the 14th 

Amendment would offend this country's most sacred values and Constitutional 

principles. Sen. Sessions has proposed re-establishing the very same discriminatory 

exclusion that the 14th Amendment was intended to remedy[.] 10 

Senator Sessions also has articulated anti-immigrant bias in many other ways. As noted by 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), "Senator Sessions has emerged as the lead antiimmigration voice in the United States Senate over the course of his 20-year tenure." 11 He has 

supported President-elect Trump's proposal to ban people from entering the United States based 

on their religious affiliations as Muslims and has received awards from anti-Muslim 

organizations and spoken at their events, including the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the 

Center for Security Policy. 12 AAJC also reports that Senator Sessions has maintained a close 

relationship with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which is labeled a 

hate group, and has received FAIR's Franklin Society award for his anti-immigrant leadership. 13 

In addition, a critically important function of the Attorney General is to ensure that everyone in 

the Administration, from the president on down, is abiding by the rule of law. President-elect 

Donald J. Trump has authoritarian tendencies, a troubling array of conflicts of interest, 

and according to experts, will be in violation of the U.S. Constitution the moment he assumes 

office, 14 which makes the role of the Attorney General as the top enforcer of the law even more 

important. The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice' Office of Legal Counsel, 

which is supposed to provide the President with independent legal advice and hold the 

Administration accountable by enforcing laws against government abuse, including appointing a 

special prosecutor if necessary. Senator Sessions is not the right person to carry out those 

responsibilities. As People for the American Way has pointed out: 

10 !d. 

Sessions was the first U.S. Senator to back Trump in his bid for the presidency and 

bought into the campaign whole hog. He served as a close advisor, coached Trump on his 

VP pick, used a top aid to help craft Trump's stance on immigration, and took the public 

"Asian Americans Advancing Justice, "The Facts on Senator Jeff Sessions," January 2017 (available at 

http:/ /advancin gj ustice-aaj c.org/ sites/ default/ fi lcs/20 I 7-0 I /Session s%20 Fact%20 Sheet%20 Aftili ation%20-

%20Final.pd!). 

12/d. 

lJ !d. 

14 Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe, "The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning and 

Application to Donald J. Trump," December 16, 2016 (available at https://www.brookings.edu/research/theemoluments-clause-its-text-meaning-and-application-to-donald-j-trump/). 

4 
967 

Demos 

position that grabbing a woman's genitals is not sexual assault .... Session's political 

loyalty to Trump and his insider status with the campaign raise serious questions about 

whether he can faithfully serve as "the people's lawyer," not Trump's, in the face of 

thorny and inevitable ethics issues. 15 

In sum, Senator Sessions' record opposing civil rights and expressing deep insensitivity on issues 

of racial justice, civil rights and immigrant rights, including his rejection of constitutional and 

legal requirements for which he would bear enforcement responsibility as Attorney General, 

disqualifies him from confirmation to this critical position. His hostility to civil rights, voting 

rights, racial justice and immigrant inclusion are not a distant relic of his past but have continued 

to mark his public record up to the present day. In addition, there are serious doubts that Senator 

Sessions will exercise the independent judgment that is needed in the role of Attorney General of 

the United States. Demos strongly urges the Committee to oppose Senator Jeff Sessions for 

Attorney General of the United States. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Brenda Wright 

Vice President, Policy and Legal Strategies 

Demos 

1340 Centre Street, Suite 209 

Newton, MA 02459 

(617) 232 5885 ext 13 

bwrightraJDemos.org 

15 Am Pearson, "Will Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice Drain Donald Trump's 

Swamp?" Salon, December 15,2016 (available at http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/will-attomey-general-jeffsessions-and-the-department-of-justice-drain-donald-trumps-swamp/). 

5 
968 

The Honorable Charles Grass ley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 9, 2017 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

My name is Denisse Rojas Marquez and I am one of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in 

the United States. I am also a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I am writing 

in strong opposition of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the position of Attorney General of the United 

States. I would like to share with you my personal story to demonstrate why Mr. Sessions' nomination would be 

detrimental to hard-working immigrants like myself. 

I consider myself an "undocumented American"; the United States has been my home for over twenty-six years. I 

am also a proud Mexican, Californian, and now New Yorker. I am currently studying medicine at the lcahn School 

of Medicine at Mount Sinai (one of the premier medical schools in the country) and two and a half years away 

from becoming an MD, after which I intend to work as a doctor in underserved communities here in the United 

States. As you can imagine, my journey hasn't been easy: paying for college with no access to government financial 

aid, commuting over an hour each way to school, and the emotional tolls of feeling invisible, living in fear, and an 

extreme sense of isolation were just some of the obstacles I faced on a daily basis. However, with my family's 

unwavering support, trusted mentors, and scholarship and academic programs, I earned my Bachelor of Arts 

degree in Biology and Sociology from UC Berkeley in 2012. Among my proudest achievements in college was 

participating in a genetics lab where my research team and I discovered a molecular process in plants not 

previously identified which earned us publication in Science, one of the world's top academic journals. 

After college, I yearned to realize my dreams of becoming a physician, to be a healer for my community. The path 

to how I would get there was unclear, and so, with much creativity and community support, I co-founded a 

national organization, called Pre-Health Dreamers, to support other undocumented students like myself that have 

aspirations of becoming health professionals. Among our successes was engaging with dozens of medical schools 

and health professional programs to open their doors to undocumented students, and co-sponsoring legislation in 

California to expand eligibility for professional licenses to individuals regardless of their immigration status. For 

three years after college I was advocating, lobbying, and writing in support of undocumented students through 

Pre-Health Dreamers. A personal triumph arrived when I became the first of two undocumented students to 

attend the lcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and received a $100,000 scholarship for my personal and 

academic achievements. For my successes as a New American and potential to make distinctive contributions to 

American society, I was awarded the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans for up to $90,000 for 

graduate study in April of 2016. And just last week, I was selected from among 1S,OOO applicants for the Forbes '30 

Under 30' list in the Education category for being co-founder of Pre-Health Dreamers and creating more equity in 

education. After my departure to medical school, Pre-Health Dreamers continues to help over 700 undocumented 

students across the country under new leadership. 
969 

When DACA arrived in 2012, it was a relief to so many, like myself, who could continue their educational 

endeavors, resume their careers or even let themselves dream of becoming health professionals. It felt surreal 

when my DACA approval came in the mail. Needless to say, without DACA, I would not have been able to enter 

medical school nor been able to receive my numerous awards and distinctions. Though I have devoted myself to 

my studies and activities outside the classroom, DACA was the answer that lifted the ceiling to my educational and 

career ambitions. I can now truly amount to anything I set myself to do. But without DACA or a long-term 

immigration remedy, I will not be able to practice as a doctor. DACA has allowed for the significant economic and 

social incorporation of undocumented persons into American society and has only served to benefit communities 

nationwide. 

My successes are rooted in the values my family instilled in me growing up. Leaving Mexico with less than a high 

school education, my mother, in America, discovered that education was the key to prosperity and thus learned 

English, attained a high school equivalency diploma, and eventually, a nursing degree. Watching her study 

chemistry into the night while providing for my siblings and me and balancing many other responsibilities taught 

me hard work, determination, and resiliency. My father, who has worked in a variety of trades from the service 

industry to manufacturing and construction, taught me that the two most important ingredients for success are 

humility and creativity. My father also taught me devotion to community: as a truck driver for over 10 years, he 

has developed new infrastructure for communities by helping create roads, bridges, and buildings; he loves 

America more than anyone I know. My older brother, eight years my senior, has torn down walls for me to pursue 

my own education. He graduated from San Jose State University as a computer software engineer in 2003 at a time 

when attending college as an undocumented person was nearly impossible. He has taught me to think outside the 

box, to take the road less traveled, and to never take no for an answer. My older sister, my other half, has paved 

my path. She always pushed herself in school, and I followed her example. She aspired to attend UC Berkeley, it 

became my goal as well. She dreamed of becoming a doctor, I made it my own dream. She is now a researcher at 

UC Berkeley, with a Master of Public Health degree from UC Davis, and conducts research to combat obesity in 

Latino communities and other public health crises. Her view of the world has transformed my own, and inspires 

me to better the health of communities in need. 

Unfortunately, my family and I have been tangled in an immigration system that has led to the separation of my 

family. In 1996, an attorney mishandled our immigration case, which resulted in a deportation order in 2001. We 

waited many years for an immigration reform to pass and fix our situation, but having lost hope, my brother in 

2007 and later my mother in 2012 and father in 2014, left the U.S. to immigrate to Canada for a secure life where 

they could be fully incorporated as citizens. My mother, in particular, was in urgent need of medical attention and 

was denied health insurance in the United States. In Canada, my mother eventually received the surgery she 

needed. Though it was the hardest decision my mother ever made, leaving her two daughters not knowing when 

we would reunite again, the decision was clear: staying in U.S. would essentially have meant being denied the 

opportunity to live. I have decided to stay in this country because my dreams and aspirations continue to be in the 

United States and are made possible with the benefits DACA confers. I desire to transform healthcare systems and 

make quality healthcare available to all persons. There is no other place I call "home." 

My family's experiences highlight the need for an immigration system that is just and humane for all hard-working 

families like my own. In many instances, Senator Jeff Sessions has expressed extreme anti-immigrant sentiments. 

His appointment as Attorney General would be devastating to millions of individuals like myself, who only desire to 

be fully participating members of society. Without fair and just solutions to our immigration system, my future as a 

physician and the aspirations and livelihood of millions of undocumented immigrants are in jeopardy. For these 

reasons, I strongly urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the 

position of Attorney General of the United States. 

Respectfully, 

Denisse Rojas Marquez 
970 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chair 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: 

On behalf of the undersigned national advocacy organizations representing the interests of 

millions of people with disabilities, we write to express our strong opposition to the nomination 

of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. Based on our review of 

Senator Sessions' record throughout his career, we have serious reservations about his 

commitment to adequately and fairly protect the rights of all Americans, including people with 

disabilities. As such, we ask that you and the other Committee members vote against his 

confirmation. 

Senator Sessions' record reveals an alarming and consistent opposition to protection ofthe rights 

of people with disabilities. His apparent hostility to disability rights is especially concerning 

given the Justice Department's critical role in protecting the rights of people with disabilities 

through its enforcement ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and its work with the Department of Education to enforce the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In recent years, the Department's enforcement ofthe 

ADA's integration mandate has dramatically improved lives by ending the needless 

institutionalization oftens of thousands of people with disabilities and providing them the chance 

to live and receive services in their own homes and communities and to obtain competitive 

integrated employment through supported employment services rather than languishing in 

sheltered workshops. The Department's Disability Rights Section has also ensured that people 

with disabilities have access to governmental and recreational facilities and services across the 

country; receive instruction, services, and accommodations needed for equal educational 

opportunity in both K-12 and higher education; are able to vote at accessible polling places; and 

fully enjoy their parental and family rights. 

Before his election to the Senate, during his two years as Alabama's Attorney General, Senator 

Sessions fought to eliminate two historic consent decrees protecting people with disabilities. 

These decrees, entered by Alabama following litigation challenging the state's child welfare 

system and its system of services for people with mental illness and intellectual and 
971 

developmental disabilities, each reformed a major service delivery system for people with 

disabilities. One reformed the state's child welfare system, which too often removed children 

with mental disabilities from their parents and placed them in institutional settings instead of 

providing effective services enabling them to stay in their homes and communities.1 The other 

reformed state's mental health and developmental disabilities services agency, which needlessly 

placed thousands of individuals with mental illness and intellectual and developmental 

disabilities in institutions rather than in community settings.2 In addition, Sessions challenged a 

court order finding that the state's school funding system violated the state constitution in part 

because it deprived students with disabilities who lived in poor districts of the services and 

supports they needed to succeed in school, such as ramps allowing physical access to school 

buildings and sufficient numbers of qualified special education teachers.3 

As a Senator, Sessions has made statements suggesting a lack of commitment to protecting the 

rights of children with disabilities. Senator Sessions said that implementation of the IDEA, 

which requires schools to provide a free appropriate public education to students with 

disabilities, is "hurting public education," is "the single most irritating problem for teachers 

throughout America today," and is "a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and 

discipline in classrooms all over America."4 He has also endorsed the segregation of students 

with disabilities, stating that many of these children should be "put in an alternative setting 

where the disability could be dealt with."5 And he has promoted troubling and unfounded 

stereotypes about people with disabilities, stating that students with mental disabilities "may 

often be the most dangerous ones, the ones most likely to come back in, say, six months from 

now and kill some innocent child in a classroom or shoot their teacher."6 

Senator Sessions also suggested that Congress lacked the authority to lift states' sovereign 

immunity to lawsuits under the ADA, leaving victims of state-sponsored discrimination on the 

basis of their disabilities without full remedies.7 

More recently, he voted against ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities, rejecting the plea of former Senator Bob Dole to approve this treaty that ensures 

basic protections for people with disabilities around the world. 8 He also voted against the 

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the federal 

hate crime law to include crimes motivated by the victim's disability.9 As last week's brutal 

1 See R.C. v. Nachman, 969 F. Supp. 682 (M.D. Ala. 1997). 2 See Wyatt v. Poundstone, 892 F. Supp. 1410 (M.D. Ala. 1995). 3 See Brief and Argument of Appellants, James v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Nos. 1950240, 1950241 (Ala. Oct. 

6, 1995), 1995 WL 17961142; Opinion of the Justices, 624 So. 2d 107, 142 (Ala. 1993). 4 146 Cong. Rec. 6995-97 (2000). 5 147 Cong. Rec. 21,895 (2001). 6 145 Cong. Rec. 10,154 (1999). 7 See 151 Cong. Rec. 56250 (daily ed. June 9, 2005); Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, 

Jr. to Be Chief Justice of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 218 (2005), 

http>:i W\\W.con"r""·"o' I 08ichrg shrQ8032~/CHRG- 108shrg89324.htm. During Justice Roberts' confirmation 

hearing, Sessions also praised "healthy trends in re-establishing that there's some limit to the reach of the commerce 

clause," raising additional concerns about his views on the scope of Congress's authority to enact civil rights 

legislation. Id 8 !58 Cong. Rec. S7379 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2012). 9 155 Cong. Rec. S10,669 (daily ed. Oct. 22, 2009). 

2 
972 

attack of a man with a mental disability in Chicago demonstrates, 10 people with disabilities often 

face devastating violence, perpetrated upon them because they have a disability. Senator 

Sessions' opposition to protections from such violence is disturbing. 

Senator Sessions' record could not be clearer, and supports our fears that, if confirmed as 

Attorney General, he would set back the Department's progress in protecting the rights of 

individuals with disabilities. Thus, we urge you to vote against his confirmation as Attorney 

General. 

Sincerely, 

American Association of People with Disabilities 

Association of University Centers on Disabilities 

Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

Center for Public Representation 

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund 

Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy 

National Council on Independent Living 

United Spinal Association 

10 See Mark Bennan & Derek Hawkins, Hate Crime Chw-ges Filed After "Reprehensible" Video Shows Attack on 

Mentally Ill Man in Chicago, Wash. Post (Jan. 5, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/momingmix/wp/2017/0l/05/4-in-custody-after-group-beats-disabled-man-on-facebook-live-while-shouting-anti-trumpprofanities-chicago-pol ice-say /?utm _term= .2cf7 d45 9c3 7b. 

3 
973 

January 9, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

• 

• . 

The Drug Policy Alliance urges you to reject the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. His 

record suggests he will use his power as Attorney General to undermine state marijuana laws he 

disagrees with, including undermining the laws of 15 states represented by members of the Judiciary 

Committee, Sessions also strongly opposes criminal justice refonn, and if confinned as Attorney 

General would likely be a major obstacle to passing bipartisan sentencing reform and civil asset 

forfeiture reform. 

29 states have enacted a medical marijuana law (including ten states represented by members of the 

Judiciary Committee).1 An additional16 states, including six states represented by members of the 

Judiciary Committee, have legalized CBD oils,2 a non-psychotropic component of marijuana that has 

shown effectiveness in managing epileptic seizures that afflict children. Eight states have voted to 

legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana like alcohol, including California.3 

Jeff Sessions has said "good people don't smoke marijuana", disparaging the tens of millions of 

Americans who have used marijuana, including the last three presidents. He has criticized the Justice 

Department's guidance respecting state marijuana laws, and even opposes marijuana for medical use. 

If confirmed as Attorney General Sessions could increase marijuana arrests and prosecutions, threaten 

state officials, and undermine the ability of local agencies to regulate marijuana. 

While Senator Sessions played a significant role in passing the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act (and we 

praised his role at the time) Sessions usuallv opposes sentencing and criminal justice reform. flc \\as 

the chief opponent of 2016 bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for drug otl'cnses. He has been critical 

of the Justice Depa11menfs guidelines around sentencing that were designed to limit harsh sentencing 

and reserve mandatory minimums for major offenders. 

1 Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, lllinois, Louisiana Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New 

York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. 

2 Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. 

3 Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. 
974 

Sessions also opposes "any" reform of civil asset forfeiture, a process that allows government agencies 

to seize money and property without having to charge anyone with a crime. The proceeds usually line 

the agency's budget. It is very likely that forfeiture reform would have passed Congress last year if it 

wasn't for behind-the-scenes opposition from the Obama Justice Department. The Obama Justice 

Department also tried to lobby state legislatures not to pass forfeiture reform (most notably California). 

Sessions would likely continue DOJ opposition to sensible reform. 

Over the last decade a bipartisan consensus has emerged that drug use should be treated more as a 

health issue and less as a criminal justice issue. Unfortunately, Sessions still favors hard line drug law 

enforcement approaches over emphasizing treatment and rehabilitation. He will likely escalate the 

failed war on drugs. at the expense of sensible reforms. 

In recent years, dozens of states have reformed their marijuana laws. Dozens of states have also 

enacted sentencing reforms, including California, Delaware, lllinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. In the last year alone, California, Florida, Montana and 

New Mexico reformed their asset forfeiture laws. Jeff Sessions is a threat to this progress. 

The power of the Attorney General is vast, and largely unchecked. The Attorney General sets the 

Justice Department's priorities, influences the type of cases U.S. Attorneys bring and don't bring, 

controls the flow of grants and forfeiture revenue to local and state law enforcement agencies, and puts 

pressure on policymakers. Jeff Sessions could use this power to undermine state authority and oppose 

federal reforms. The Judiciary Committee should reject him. 

Sincerely, 

Bill Piper 

Senior Director, Office of National Affairs 
975 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

SenateJudicimy Committee 

SH-331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 2051"0" · 

·Dear Senator Feinst:ein: 

Pat Edington 

551 Church Street 

Mobile, AL 36602 

Cell Phone: 251.554..2880 

january 6, 2017 

I am writing to you in support of Senator .J eo.'T Sessions for the position of Attorney GeneraL 

Though]dfand I have usually been on opposite sides of the political divide, l have known him for 

approximately 4.0 years, and while we have had our policy differences, llmow his instinct• are 

fundamentlily humane and just Indicative of.) cfPs basic instinct•, he participaled in last year's so• 

anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery March. In fact, l marched next to him over the Selma bridge 

during that commemoration. Similarly, he led the elfort to desegregate the Mobile Lions Club in the mid-

!980s, well before he had any political aspirations. As I say,.we don't always agree, but he is a decent 

.hUman being who acts on his conscience. 

\VIrile we luwe peen together on a number· of occasions, I doubt you would recall, given how many 

people you meet con.st:ml:ly. In way of background, I served on the DNC for thirteen years, as well as 

serving as the Democratic Party's Vice-Chair b Alabama. In fact, 1 recall very vividly your kind hospitality 

when I was serving on the 1984. site selection committee for the Democratic Convention. You were most 

gracious in hosting us at your house. You were particularly kind to my then thirteen year old daughter. 

Most recently, in terms of my political activity, I worked ou the Clinton campaign, and I was Hillary's largest. 

Alaha1na fundraiser. In otJ:.~.er \Yords> I tun not. a DemocJ·at in name. only. 

I truly hope our Party will not make lhis vote on party lines, but instead vote on the man. If so, I 

wanted you to be aware of what tl10se who know him best think, even U1osc on our side of the political 

_divide. 

cc: 

I very much appreciate your consideration of my views. 

With continued good wishes, 1 remain 

Senatoi· PatrickJ. LeM)' 

Senator Hichard J, Durbin 

Senator Sheldon "Whitehouse 

Senator kmy Klobuchar 

Senator Al Franken 

Senator Christopher A. Coons 

Senalor Hiehard Blumentl1al 

Senator Mazie K. Hirono 
976 

epic.org ELECTRONIC PRIVACY 

INFORMATION CENTER 

January 9, 2017 

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We write to you regarding the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to become the next 

Attorney General of the United States. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) was 

established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. 1 Over 

the years, EPIC has pursued a wide range of matters with Attorneys General of both Democratic 

and Republican administrations and we have frequently submitted statements to this Committee.2 

Although EPIC takes no position for or against the nominee, a careful examination of 

Senator Sessions' record regarding the privacy rights of Americans raises serious questions about 

his selection as Attorney General. 

Senator Sessions has Supported the Warrantless Surveillance of the American People. 

Senator Sessions has consistently supported warrantless surveillance of the American 

people, which is contrary to our Constitutional heritage and the plain text of the Fourth 

Amendment. He called President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program "a 

reasonable assertion of executive power.''3 He voted against the 2015 USA FREEDOM Act,4 

1 EPIC, About EPIC (20\6), https://epic.org/epic/about.html. 2 See. e.g., EPIC v. FBI, 865 F. Supp. I (D.D.C. 1994) (concerning FBI director wiretapping surveys); 

EPIC v. DOD, 241 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003) (concerning the Total Information Awareness program); 

EPIC v. FBI, 72 F. Supp. 3d 338 (D.D.C. 2014) (concerning the agency's "Next Generation 

Identification" program); The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy 

Considerations: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, !13th Cong. 7-8 (2013) (statement of 

Amie Stepanovich, EPIC); Letter from EPIC to the S. Comm. on Judiciary (Sept. 9, 2005), 

https://www.epic.org/privacy/justiccs/roberts/0905letter.pdf (concerning the nomination of Roberts, J., to 

the Supreme Court). 3 http :I lwww .sessions.senatc.gov/pu bli c/index. cfm/ncws-releases ?ID=EF OE3 EF 3-7E 9C-9 AF9-792 9-

CE644CD56A2E. 

4 161 Cong. Rec. S3444 (daily ed. June 2, 2015). 

Nomination of Senator Sessions 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

EPIC 

January 9, 2017 
977 

which was broadly supported by the Senate and which ended the NSA's bulk collection of the 

domestic telephone records of American telephone customers.5 He opposed Apple in its dispute 

with the FBI over forced iPhone decryption. 6 He supported the use of secret National Security 

Letters (NSLs) in the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization, saying that the NSL standard, which 

requires no judicial approval, was actually "too high."7 This raises troubling concerns about his 

willingness to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and ensure adequate 

oversight for the extraordinary surveillance powers of the federal government. 

Senator Sessions failed to support bipartisan efforts to modernize the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). In fact, he sought to amend ECPA to require internet 

service providers and telephone companies to monitor the contents of their subscribers' 

communications. Under existing law, service providers are allowed to disclose the contents of 

communications to law enforcement in emergency situations.8 Senator Sessions argued in 2013 

that these disclosures should be mandatory-a standard that could create an affirmative duty for 

service providers to monitor communications or risk liability.9 

Senator Sessions has also promoted measures that would make it easier to track 

Americans within the United States. In 1996, Senator Sessions co-sponsored an amendment to 

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act "to facilitate information 

sharing between federal and local law enforcement officials related to an individual's 

immigration status."10 He also supported measures to expand the collection of the unique 

biometric identifiers of Americans. Senator Sessions proposed amendments to the 2004 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) that would have removed the sunset 

provisions in the Patriot Act and required fingerprints to be included on all U.S. passports. 11 

Senator Sessions has favored methods of mass surveillance that have since been 

discredited. He wrote in 2006 that the Section 215 bulk metadata program, now discontinued, 

"yielded invaluable intelligence that has helped prevent attacks and uncovered terrorist plots."12 

But the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that "the Section 215 

program has shown minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism."13 The PCLOB 

5 EPIC, Senate Passes FREEDOM Act, Ends NSA Bulk Collection (June 2, 2015), 

https :/I epic.org/2 0 15/06/ senate-passes-freedom-act -ends. html. 6 Chris Strohm, Apple-FBI Row Spurs Senate Bill on Encrypted Data Access, Bloomberg (Feb. 23, 2016), 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-23/apple-fbi-row-spurs-senate-move-to-forceencrypted-data-access. 

7 USA Patriot And Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of2005-Confercnce Report, 151 Cong. 

Rec. Sl3560 (Dec. 14, 2005). 8 18 u.s.c. § 2702(b)(8). 9 S. Rep. No. 113-34, at 12-19 (2013). 10 I 08 S. Arndt 1138, https://www.congress.gov/amendment/ll Olh-congress/senate-amendment/1158. 11 103 Cong. Rep. Sl0239-41 (daily ed. Oct 1, 2004) (proposing S. Amdts. 3780,3871, 3872). 12 http://www .nationalreview. com/ article/ 41 867 5/why-should -terrorists-be-harder-investigate-routinecriminals-jeff-sessions. 

13 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted 

Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence 

Nomination of Senator Sessions 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

2 EPIC 

January 9, 2017 
978 

could not identifY "a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program 

made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation." 

Senator Sessions has shown a Disregard for Privacy and Free Speech Rights. 

The freedom of Americans to explore a wide range of political, religious, and cultural 

views is central to our Constitutional heritage. Yet, in 2005 hearings on oversight of the Patriot 

Act, Senator Sessions mocked the concerns oflibrarians who opposed government access to 

library borrower records, calling their views "almost amusing" and comparing them to 

"Woodstock myths": 

Now, they complain, and [Attorney] General Gonzales notes that perhaps the 

most controversial part is the part about the libraries. That is almost amusing. I 

mean, some of the things that have come out of the national Library Association, 

in my view, have been utterly extreme. It sounds like Woodstock myths, out of 

Woodstock or something. 14 

In the same hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller correctly stated, "We are sensitive to 

the concerns of the Library Association .... And so the balance is fairly struck, I believe, in 

terms of the desire oflibrarians and others to protect the sanctity of the library." Yet Senator 

Sessions made it clear that he had a different opinion about the privacy of Americans who obtain 

information from public libraries: 

Senator SESSIONS. A library does not have any sanctity. Why does a library 

have sanctity that your medical records do not have? 

Director MUELLER Well, a number of areas have been looked upon as being 

special. 

Senator SESSIONS. They think it is sanctified, I will admit. I just disagree that it 

deserves special protection. 15 

To be clear about the significance of this exchange: this was the nominee to be the next 

Attorney General of the United States telling the Director of the FBI that he was wrong to be 

concerned about the privacy of Americans who seek information from libraries. 

Senator Sessions has Opposed Oversight of Government Surveillance. 

Contrary to the essence of balance of powers, Senator Sessions has sought to limit 

oversight of the surveillance programs that he simultaneously seeks to expand. For example, he 

Surveillance Court 15 (2014), https://www.pclob.gov/library/215-

Rcport _on_ the_ Telephone_ Records _Program. pdf. 14 Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act: Hearings before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, I 09th Con g. 27 

(2005). 

15 !d. at 28. 

Nomination of Senator Sessions 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

3 EPIC 

January 9, 2017 
979 

sought to strip out key oversight provisions in the law that created the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence and the PCLOB. Those recommendations were made specifically by the 

9/11 Commission and anticipated the problems that would subsequently emerge. Senator 

Sessions sought to eliminate privacy and civil liberties officers from intelligence community 

agencics. 16 Senator Sessions also tried to strip the PCLOB of subpoena power and the authority 

to supervise agency programs, effectively hamstringing the Board's ability to conduct effective 

oversight. 17 

It is vital that the nominee make clear his support for effective oversight across the 

federal government. 

Senator Sessions Opposes Government Transparency. 

Our democratic form of government relies on transparency and the ability of citizens to 

understand the decisions that the government takes on our behalf. As James Madison once said: 

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, 

is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will 

forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, 

must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. 18 

This year open government advocates celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Freedom of 

Information Act with passage of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The FOIA Improvement 

Act "ensurc[s] that future administrations place an emphasis on openness and transparency.,~ 9 

One of the Act's hallmarks is a sunset provision that limits the government's ability to withhold 

draft documents. 

Senator Sessions questioned the sunset provision out of a concern "that 'full and frank 

communication' may be chilled by the knowledge that all such communications could become a 

matter of public record."20 It is clear, however, that the Justice Department has cited FOIA 

exemptions to withhold legal memos21 that should never be kept secret. The Committee should 

determine whether Senator Sessions still favors this form of"sccret law." Also concerning is 

16 108 S. Arndt. 3801, https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1 08th-congress/senateamendment/3801/text. 

17 108 Cong. Rec. S10047-48 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 2004) (statement of Sen. Dick Durbin). 18 Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 The Writings of James Madison 103 

(Gaillard Hunt, ed. 1910). 19 Patrick Leahy, Leahy, Cornyn Bill Strengthening FOIA Passes Senate Unanimously (Mar. 15, 2016), 

https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-comyn-bill-strengthening-foia-passes-senate-unanimous1y. 

20 S. Rep. No. 114-4, at 16 (2015). 21 Brief of Amici Curiae EPIC and Seven Open Government Organizations in Support of Appellants and 

Urging Reversal, N.Y. Times v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 756 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. Apr. 22, 2013) (No. 13-

0422-cv), https://epic.org/amicus/foia/new-york-times/EPIC-ct-al-Amici-Briefpdf. 

Nomination of Senator Sessions 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

4 EPIC 

January 9, 2017 
980 

Senator Sessions' 2004 proposed amendment that sought to eliminate the PCLOB's public 

reporting and public hearing requirements. 22 

In the years ahead, Americans will face growing threats to their privacy rights, their civil 

rights, and the freedoms established in the Constitution of the United States. The Attorney 

General of the United States must safeguard the public in a manner consistent with the rule of 

law and our Constitutional heritage. 

We are not certain that Senator Sessions is the right person to be next Attorney General 

of the United States. His support for government surveillance of the American people and his 

opposition to oversight of the government are at odds with our country's longstanding 

commitments to privacy, civil liberties, and open government. Especially at a time when 

Americans have opposed the expansion of warrantless surveillanee,23 we ask the Senate 

Judiciary Committee to exercise great care in ensuring that the next Attorney General will 

safeguard the freedoms valued by the American people. 

We appreciate your consideration of EPIC's views, and we would welcome the 

opportunity to provide additional information to the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

Marc Rotenberg 

EPIC President and Executive Director 

Alan Butler 

EPIC Senior Counsel 

Catriona Fitzgerald 

EPIC Policy Director 

James T. Graves 

EPIC Law and Technology Fellow 

22 108 S. Arndt. 3801, https://www.congress.gov/amendmcnt!108th-congress/senateamendment!380 II text. 23 George Gao, What Americans Think About NSA Surveillance, National Security and Privacy, PEW 

RESEARCH CTR. (May 29, 2015), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tankJ20 15/05/29/what-americansthink-about-nsa-survcillance-national-security-and-privacy/. 

Nomination of Senator Sessions 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

5 EPIC 

January 9, 2017 
981 

ADVANCING FAITH, FAMILY AND FREEDOM 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Feinstein, 

January 10,2017 

On behalf of the Family Research Counc~il (FRC) and the hundreds of thousands of families we 

represent, r trrge yo11 to supp0.1t the nomination of Alabama ,~kn.ato.r Jeff Sessions for the position 

of Attorney General of the United Stares of America. 

Senator Sessions has a record that rtltlects an understanding and respect for the rule of law and 

the God-given, government··secured rights of all Americans. Senator Sessions' experience as U.S. 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. Attorney General for the State of Alabama, and a 

United Statt)S Senator wirh key roles on various commirtees, including the Senate Judiciary 

Committe<!., will be invaluable at the Departmllnt of Justice. 

The Department of Justice has a recent history of disregard and selective enforcement of the law. 

wasteful. politically-motivated litigation, and undermining states' rights and responsibilities 

under the Constitution. Senator Sessions will restom at the Department of Justice a respect for 

the ,~onstimtional and proper mle of the fedf~al government and a respect for the rule of law. We 

believe Senator Sessions will work to enforct: the law as it is written ~nd apply it even-handedly 

to ensure justice for all. 

Senators Sessions' nomination has garnered biprutisan support from diverse backgrounds 

includi11g many of his colleagues in the Senare, key African--American leaders, like Gt)!ald 

Reynolds and Quinton Ross, the Fraternal Order of Police, multiple former U.S. Attorneys 

General and Dt~puty Atto.meys Gent:ral, the National Distdct Attorneys Association, and others. 

Family Research Council joins in this supporr. and we respectfully urge you to work toward the 

confirmation of Senator Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. 

Sincerely, 

~f2~ David Christensen 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

FAMILY RESEARCH C::OIJNC::!L 

.:;t;! r: $'~REET NW, WA~H!N~'rON, l'I.C, 2tXI~~1 ~ l:0<1·'$~3,.;;n~o • 20<1·~5J~ .. 2Y.f4 F!AX ~ {11Q(,\) .i!2S·,r;~~o;~~ I'J!~t.'IEl~ i.INE ~ ~~\\',f.~l~$ 
982 

Socc,•to" 

f'-'IDfFBt<; 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer: 

On behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), I am 

\Vfiting to you in support of the anticipated nomination of the Honorable Jeff Sessions 

for the position of United States Attorney GeneraL As the president of the largest nonpartisan professional association representing federal officers, lam confident that any 

non-partisan evaluation of Senator Sessions' credentials will yield unanimous 

favorable results. 

It is critically important that the Attorney General serve as the unwavering guardian of 

the rule of law, and I can't think of a finer candidate than Senator Sessions to fulfill 

that position. Contrary to any critical utterances regarding an alJeged comment made 

by Senator Sessions in the past, his actions have defined him as a principled man of 

honor. He has served with distinction as a United States Attorney, and has honored the 

principles of our founding fathers through his service on the Senate Judiciary 

Committee. Senator Sessions has earned the respect and confidence of law 

enforcement nationwide, and he is the right leader to serve as our nation's top law 

enforcement officer. 

Senator Sessions has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting both those who 

serve in law enforcement and the American citizenry. His work on critical legislation 

such as the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act, and the 

Electronic Communications Privacy Act demonstrate Senator Session' commitment to 

keeping all Americans safe. FLEOA completely concurs with the views expressed by 

Senator Sessions regarding the mythology of sentencing reform. His methodical 

approach of following the rule oflaw and not the trumpet of bluster is truly 

commendable. 

In the spirit of unity, and in recognition of the volatile threats our country faces, we 

hope the Senate can rise above any partisan bickering and come together in support of 

the anticipated nomination of Senator Sessions as the next Attorney GeneraL He is a 

true patriot and legal scholar, and the right person to lead our nations' law enforcement 

components. 

Should you desire additional input or testimony from FLEOA, we stand ready to 

support Senator Sessions and aid you in your deliberations. 

Respectfully, 

Nathan Catura 

FLEOA National President 
983 

PRESIDENT 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

BOARD OF OIRECTORS 

NATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS 

FAIR is a nonprofit pubfic interest 

orgamzat1on 

Jmmtgra!ton 

t11e nat1onal inrerest 

FAIR FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM 

january 5, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

United States Senate 

Judiciary Committee 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Judiciary Committee 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

On behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) 

and its nearly 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide, I am 

writing to express my unconditional support for Senator Jeff Sessions's 

candidacy for Attorney General and urge the Judiciary Committee to 

advance his nomination for full Senate confirmation. Senator Sessions 

has a solid understanding of the Constitution and has spent his entire 

career fighting for and defending the rule of law. I cannot imagine a 

better pick for Attorney General. 

As you know, the Attorney General is our country's top attorney that 

carries the important task of upholding the rule of law and 

administering justice in a fair and impartial manner. The most 

important issue the next Attorney General needs to address is 

combatting the nearly 300 sanctuary cities who defy federal 

immigration law by shielding dangerous criminal aliens. Inexcusably, 

both of President Obama's Attorneys General have refused to use their 

authority to hold these jurisdictions accountable. 

Tragically, the cost of inaction has been the senseless deaths of innocent 

Americans, incJuding most notably Kate Steinle. The continued presence 

of sanctuary jurisdictions is a clear threat to national security, public 

safety, and the rule of law. As Attorney General, Senator Sessions would 

put an end to the flagrant violation of federal immigration law by these 

sanctuary jurisdictions across the nation. 

With nearly two decades of leadership on immigration, Senator 

Sessions's expertise in this area is unmatched. As a Senator, he has 

ardently supported immigration reform that serves our national 

interests and protects the American people. In particular, Senator 

Sessions has been a consistent protector of aU American workers, 

2fi Massachusetts A11enuP. NW, Swte 330 • Washmgton. DC 20001 • {202) 326-7004 • (202) 387-3447 fax 

www.FAIRus.org 
984 

including poor, minority, and white co1lar, championing policies that focus on American 

jobs. 

Clearly, if confirmed, Senator Sessions would be one of the most qualified Attorneys General 

our country has ever had. His emphasis on law and order will restore the American people's 

confidence in the Department of Justice. The American people deserve an Attorney General 

like Senator Sessions that will enforce our laws. I urge the judiciary Committee to quickly 

pass his nomination out of Committee so that the Senate can promptly vote to confirm 

Senator Sessions as the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Sincerely, 

~<=£( Dan Stein 

President 
985 

v'licDS'!C 

f.: _ _:tw"-!l._':lf..:.§l.Q:E 

FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION 

Working for Women's Equality 

January 6, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

On behalf of the Feminist Majority Foundation, a national organization dedicated to 

women's equality, reproductive health, and non-violence, I write to express strong 

opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United 

States. Senator Sessions' long and concerning record in public life demonstrates that he 

is both unqualified and unfit to serve as the chief enforcement officer of the nation's civil 

rights, criminal justice, and anti-discrimination laws. 

As the head of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney General is charged with 

ensuring that our nation's laws are enforced and applied fairly to protect the rights and 

dignity of all people. The position requires not only legal expertise, but also the 

unwavering ability to enforce the laws with integrity and impartiality, free from 

extremism, bias, and prejudice. The ability of an Attorney General to be fair-minded and 

to understand the impact of discrimination on the daily lives of ordinary people is 

especially important for those individuals and communities who face discrimination 

because of their sex, race, religion, gender 1dentity1 sexual orientation, disability, or other 

identities. 

Unfortunately, Senator Jeff Sessions' record on women's and civil rights illustrates that 

he does not possess these qualifications and is therefore unfit to serve as Attorney 

GeneraL In particular, the Feminist Majority Foundation has serious concerns regarding 

Senator Sessions' record with respect to violence against women, reproductive rights, 

anti-abortion violence, racial justice~ and immigrant rights. 

Violence against Women 

Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the first piece of federal 

legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to 

provide federal funding to improve local responses to violence against women, including 

training and resources for law enforcement and judges. Congress has reauthorized VAWA 

three times: in 2000, 2005, and 2013, when provisions were added to ensure that all 

survivors, including Native American women and college students, could access services, 

regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status. 

Page 1 
986 

VAWA was groundbreaking in its unequivocal recognition of gender-based violence as a crime, 

and the law has undoubtedly saved lives. Since 1994, yearly domestic violence rates have 

dropped, the number of people killed by intimate partner violence has gone down, and 

survivors of gender-based violence, including sexual assault, have had better access to services, 

including legal assistance, crisis intervention, shelter, and support.' . 

Still, there is more to do. Recent data shows that one in five women in the U.S. has been raped 

ln her lifetime, including one in five college students,i1 and one in three women has been a 

victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner."' Women in the U.S. are also 

more vulnerable to stalking. Over 19 million women in the U.S. have been stalked in their 

lifetime, the majority (60.8 percent) by current or former intimate partners." 

The Department of Justice has sole jurisdiction over enforcing federal statutes criminalizing 

violence against women and other forms of gender-based violence. In order to protect the right 

of all people to be free from this type of violence, the Department must engage in vigorous 

enforcement of the law. Yet, Senator Jeff Sessions has not been steadfast in condemning 

violence against women. Only months ago, when it was politically expedient, Senator Sessions 

called it "a stretch" to characterize then-candidate Donald Trump's comments about grabbing 

women1s genitals without their consent as sexual assault.v Sessions' failure to identify nonconsensuat abusive sexual touching as assault, at least when committed by a powerful man, 

raises grave concerns about his ability to apply the law impartially. Sessions' remark also calls 

into question his willingness to be a champion against the continuing epidemic of violence 

against women in this country. 

In addition to enforcing federal criminal laws, the Department of Justice, through its Office on 

Violence Against Women, also administers critically needed programs to strengthen state and 

local law enforcement efforts to address gender-based violence and funds programs for 

survivors. Yet, in 2013, Senator Jeff Sessions voted against reauthorizing and expanding the 

Violence Against Women Act to immigrant women, Native American women, and college 

students. That year, VAWA reauthorization passed in the Senate by a 78-22 vote, with 

bipartisan support.v1 Senator Sessions was in the dear minority of legislators who voted to 

prevent survivors from accessing services and to make it easier for perpetrators of violence to 

avoid justice. 

Reproductive Rights 

Senator Sessions has unfailingly opposed women's reproductive health and rights for the 

entirety of his career in the Senate. With respect to the constitutionally protected right to 

abortion, Sessions called Roe v. Wade a 11Colossally erroneous" decision, and has repeatedly 

and unsuccessfully tried to undermine the right to abortion through legislation.''' Sessions 

voted multiple times in support of fetal rights legislation designed to further restrict women's 

ability to access abortion. He also supported legislation that would ban abortion at 20-weeks, a 

policy numerous federal courts have blocked for being unconstitutional.''" 

Page 2 
987 

Sessions' contempt for women's reproductive health and rights, however, is not limited to 

abortion. Sessions has voted repeatedly to eliminate Title X family planning funding, which 

provides birth control, cancer screenings, and other healthcare services to millions of women, 

and has voted consistently to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. 

Senator Sessions' position on women's reproductive health and rights puts him well outside 

of the mainstream as evidenced by the support Sessions has received from anti-abortion 

extremist Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. In a press release, Newman said that 

Operation Rescue "could not be happier about the selection of Sen. Jeff Sessions as the next 

Attorney General."ix 

Under Newman's leadership, Operation Rescue engaged in a seven-year campaign of 

intimidation and harassment against Wichita, Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, who 

was murdered-in his church-in 2009 by a self-proclaimed Operation Rescue participant Scott 

Roeder. Newman has publically disavowed violence against abortion providers and claims not 

to know Roeder, but Operation Rescue continues to employ Cheryl Sullenger as its Senior Vice 

President. Sullenger previously served two years in prison for conspiring to bomb an abortion 

clinic in San Diego. Her name and phone number were found on the dashboard of Roeder's car 

when police arrested Roeder for the murder of Dr. Tiller. 

Newman was also a founding board member of the anti-abortion group Center for Medical 

Progress and reportedly served as an advisor to the group's deceptive and malicious video 

campaign against Planned Parenthood. The false and derogatory claims made against Planned 

Parenthood were roundly debunked by investigations in twelve states that found no evidence 

of wrongdoing by the health care provider. 

Sessions' positions on abortion and birth control do not reflect either our constitutional 

principles or prevailing public opinion. His dogged attempts to gut Roe v. Wade and restrict 

access to reproductive health care raise serious concerns about his ability to separate personal 

ideology from the job at hand. That Sessions may be aligned with Newman only raises further 

concerns about Sessions' willingness and desire to defend and uphold the constitutional right to 

abortion and the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). 

Anti-Abortion Violence 

More specifically, the Feminist Majority Foundation has concerns regarding Sessions' 

commitment to protecting abortion providers, patients, and others from anti-abortion violence. 

Since 1977, there have been at least 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 185 

arsons, and thousands of crimina! activities directed at abortion providers.x In 2014, one in five 

women's health clinics in the United States experiences severe anti-abortion violence, including 

blockades, clinic invasions, bombings, arson, chemical attacks, physical violence, stalking, 

gunfire, bomb threats, arson threats, or death threats:'(1 Reports of threats and violence against 

abortion providers, however, have increased since then.'" In the first half of 2016, the number 

Page 3 
988 

of clinics experiencing severe violence and threats increased to 34.2 percent.xili The need for an 

Attorney General who will prioritize holding individuals who commit these acts of violence 

accountable is therefore extremely critical. 

The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act (FACE), 18 U.S.C. § 248, which prohibits individuals from using violence and 

intimidation to prevent individuals from accessing reproductive health services. In addition, the 

Department houses the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, which 

has played an important role in addressing and preventing anti-abortion violence. 

Sessions' record, however, does not demonstrate that he would prioritize the Task Force, even 

with the increase in anti-abortion violence, or that he would work to vigorously prosecute antiabortion crime and hold perpetrators accountable. For example, Sessions has voted against 

legislation designed to promote clinic safety:'' and has repeatedly voted against a measure 

to prevent convicted perpetrators of violent crimes against abortion providers from filing for 

bankruptcy to avoid paying resulting fines." 

Racial Justice 

In 1986, a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee rejected then-U.S. Attorney 

Sessions' nomination to be a federal district court judge after hearing evidence concerning 

Sessions' alarming civil rights record and history of making racially-charged statements. This 

record included the misguided prosecution of three African-American voting rights activists on 

numerous charges, all of which were promptly rejected by a jury, as well as statements calling 

the NAACP "un-American" and warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what 

he said "to white folks.""' 

Sessions' record on civil rights since 1986 continues to be alarming. Sessions has called the 

Voting Rights Act, passed to protect African-Americans' right to vote, "a piece of intrusive 

legislation," and he has continued to minimize voter suppression tactics in the South, saying in 

2013, "if you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't denied the vote because of 

the color of their skin."xvit Yet, a panel oft he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found 

in 2016 that provisions of North Carolina's 2013 voter identification laws were designed to do 

just that.xvi!t Sessions1 flippant attitude concerning the voting rights of African-Americans 

continues to pose grave concerns for his ability to defend against voter suppression efforts, 

whether directed specifically at African-Americans or other groups. 

The Department of Justice also plays an important role in helping to ensure that law 

enforcement agencies respect the nation's civil rights laws. This role is especially critical at this 

time in our nation's history when we are actively grappling with high levels of police violence 

against African-Americans and poor relationships between certain minority communities and 

police. It is imperative that the Department of Justice continue to prioritize its work to promote 

better community policing strategies and hold law enforcement agencies accountable for civil 

rights violations. Sessions, however, has been critical of the Department for investigating law 

Page 4 
989 

enforcement agencies accused of misconduct and a "pattern or practice" of violating civil rights, 

condemning consent decrees that mandate police reform.xtx 

LGBTQ Rights 

Sessions also has a troubling record on protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals. Sessions 

supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and opposed repeal of 11Don't 

Ask Don't TelL" He was also an original co-sponsor of a bill, introduced last year, that would 

allow individuals, businesses and nonprofit organizations to circumvent federal protections for 

LGBTQ couples and families under the guise of protecting religious liberty." 

The Department of Justice is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes, including those against 

LGBTQ people, yet Senator Sessions did not feel LGBTQ individuals needed this protection. 

Instead, Sessions vigorously opposed the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act. His opposition is particularly concerning given that the Attorney 

General must sign off on all criminal hate crimes prosecutions, and LGBTQ individuals are more 

likely to experience hate crimes than individuals from any other group."' 

Immigration 

The Department of Justice is responsible for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which 

adjudicates immigration cases, as well as the Office of Immigration litigation and the Office of 

Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices, which investigates and 

prosecutes certain forms of employment discrimination based on nationality or citizenship 

status. 

The public must be able to count on the Attorney General to treat immigrants to the United 

States fairly under the law, yet Senator Sessions has long associated with advocacy groups 

that promote anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric, calling into question his ability to carry 

out this role effectively. In particular, the Feminist Majority Foundation shares concerns raised 

by several immigrant rights groups about Senator Sessions' relationship with David Horowitz, of 

whom he has spoken favorably, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a group designated 

an anti-Muslim extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We also share concerns 

regarding Sessions' relationship to several anti-immigration groups founded by John Tanton, an 

activist who has promoted white nationalist ideas.l(xli 

The Attorney General of the United States plays a special role in advancing civil rights and 

ensuring access to justice. Thirty years ago, then-U.S. Attorney Sessions failed as a nominee for 

a federal district judgeship because of concerns regarding his ability to protect civil rights and 

apply the law fairly, without personal or political bias. As the Judiciary Committee considers his 

nomination of now-Senator Jeff Sessions to take on the responsibility of the Attorney General, 

each Committee member must ask what, in Sessions' long record of public life, suggests that he 

Page 5 
990 

is now prepared to enforce our nation's civil rights laws. A review of his record demonstrates 

that on the core issues of women's rights, reproductive health and rights, racial justice, and 

immigration, Senator Sessions' views have not changed. The Feminist Majority Foundation 

must therefore object to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General. 

Sincerely, 

Eleanor Smeal 

President 

'Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, Jn US A Decline in Domestic Violence .. Christian Science Monitor, (Aug. 26, 2014), 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Wor!d/Progress-Watch/2014/0826/ln-US-a-dedine-in-domestic-violence 

"National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Statistics About Sexual Violence, 

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/defau!t/fi!es/pub!ications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexua!-

violence_O.pdf 

'"National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Statistics, http://ncadv.org/!earn-more/statistics 

!V Ibid. 

v Laura Bassett, GOP Senate Says Grabbing a Woman's Genitals Is Not Sexual Assault. HuffingtDn Post, (Oct. 11, 

2016), http://www .h uffingtonpost.com/ entry /jeff -sessions-trum p-sexua!-assault_ us_57fbb902e4 b068ecb5 e0698B 

~·Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 47, 2/12/13. 

viL Steven Ertelt, President-Elect Donald Trump Names Pro-Life Sen. Jeff Sessions His Attorney General, 

LifeNews.com, {Nov. 18, 2016L http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/18/president~elect-donald-trump-names~pro­

!ife-sen-jeff -sessions-his-attorney-genera 1/ 

~'~" !mani Gandi, 20-Week Abortion Bans: StH! Unconstitutional After All These Years Rewire, (May 12, 2015), 

https://rewire.news/artlde/2015/05/12/20-week-abortion-bans-stil!-unconstitutional-years/ 

~Operation Rescue, We Stand Ready to Assist Attorney General-Designate Sessions in Prosecuting Planned 

Parenthood 11/18/16. 

'National Abortion Federation, 2015 Violence and Disruption Statistics (Apr!l2016L http://prochoice.org/wpco n tent/ u pl o ads/20 15-NAF-Vi o I ence~Di sru p tfo n-S tats. pdf 

"'Feminist Majority Foundation, 2014 National Clinic Violence Survey {Jan. 2015), 

http://www.feminist.org/rrights/pdf/2015NCAPsurvey.pdf 

x" See i!:l.Q@, note viii. 

x ,; Feminist Majority Foundation, 2016 National Clinic Violence Survey (to be released in late January 2017). 

xlv Motion to table Murray amendment to H.R. 3762, 12/3/15. 

w Schumer amendment to Bankruptcy Reform Act, S. 265, 2/2/00; Bankruptcy Reform Act, H.R. 2415, 12/7/00; 

Schumer amendment to Bankruptcy Reform Act, S. 256, 3/8/05. 

xv, Ari Berman, L~ff.S~ssions Trump's Pick for Attorney General, Is a Fierce Opponent of Civil Rights The Nation, 

(Nov. 18, 2016), https:/ /www. thenation .com/article/jeff-sessions-trumps- pick-for -attorney-general-is-a-fierceopponent -of-civil-rights/ 

"""Ibid. 

"'"''North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (July 29, 2016). 

~~x Eli Hager, Alysia Santo and Simone Weichse!baum, B Ways Jeff Sessions Could Change Criminal Justice. The 

Marshall Project, (Nov. 18, 2016), https:/fwww.themarshallproject.org/2016/ll/18/8-ways-jeff-sessions-cou!d~ 

change-criminal-justlce?ref=hp-1-122#.j2Jlxp21N 

""First Amendment Defense Act, S. 1598,6/17/15. 

"'" Haeyoun Park & !aryna Mykhya!yshyn, _l§.JLT. P~_QP..Le Are More Likely to be Targets of Hate Crimes Than Any 

Other Minority Group, The New York Times (Jun, 16, 2016), 

http://www .nytimes.com/intera ctive/20 16/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html? _r=O 

Page 6 
991 

January 6, 20 1 7 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

On behalf of the members Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I 

am writing to express our absolute opposition to the President-elect's nomination of Senator Jeff 

Sessions (R-AL) to be the Attorney General ofthe United States. Based off of Sen. Sessions' 

racially insensitive public statements and opposition to restoration of the Voting Rights Act, we 

strongly urge you to vote against Mr. Sessions' nomination when the matter comes before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1151

h Congress. 

The task of the Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice and chief law 

enforcement officer of the Federal Government--Mr. Sessions' history of racial insensitivity 

makes him unfit to serve as Attorney General. In 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was 

nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for 

the Southern District of Alabama, the Republican-controlled Senate was presented with 

compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as an 

opponent of civil rights enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics targeting African 

Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive statements. Senator Sessions' record 

included warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what he said "to white 

folks," and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as his prosecution of three 

African-American voting rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly r~jected by a 

jury. 1 

Senator Sessions has also closely aligned himself with groups such as NumbersUSA, the 

Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Center for Immigration Studies, all three 

of which were founded by John Tanton, who held white nationalist beliefs and called for the 

preservation of a "European-American majority." Senator Sessions has also received awards 

from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, two 

organizations designated as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Such 

associations with white-nationalist groups and anti-Muslim groups raise serious concerns about 

potential biases with Sessions possibly at the helm of the Justice Department. Americans should 

be protected by their government, not threatened by it, and Senator Sessions' nomination only 

makes communities of color feel further isolated by the incoming administration. 

1 Lena Williams, "Senate Panel Hands Reagan First Defeat on Nominee for Judgeship," New York Times, June 6, 

1986, at http://·www.nytimes.com/1986/06/06/us/senate-panel-hands-reagan-first-defeat-on-nominee-forjudgeship.html 

https:l/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/23/the-gops-stunningly-rapid-political-shift-on-theconfederate-flag/). 
992 

When it comes to voting rights, Senator Sessions has been a vocal opponent of the expansion of 

voting rights in states, and has fought against attempts to increase turnout in minority 

communities. In 1985, he tried but failed to prosecute three voting rights activists who were 

working to increase African-American registration and turnout. Senator Sessions has also voiced 

strong support for restrictive voter ID laws that have disenfranchised many otherwise eligible 

voters, even continuing to support such laws after his own state shut down locations where voters 

of color could get identification cards. He has also called the Voting Rights Act "intrusive" as it 

seeks to protect eligible minority voters, and praised the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County 

v. Holder (20 13) that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act of I 965 which protected voters 

in states like his from laws that would restrict their access to the polls. Senator Sessions does not 

have the record of someone to be entrusted with the protection of voting rights for all Americans. 

In conclusion, Senator Sessions' publicly documented remarks and associations, as well as his 

stance on voting rights, prove he is unfit to be the top law enforcement official in the nation. 

Confirming Senator Sessions as Attorney General would be counter to the goals and purpose of 

the Department of Justice, and would stoke fear in the hearts of many Americans he'd be sworn 

to protect. 

We therefore respectfully ask that you reject Senator Sessions' nomination for Attorney General 

of the United States, and instead call upon the President-elect to put forth a nominee that values 

Americans from all backgrounds and will protect their rights as citizens ofthe United States. 

Sincerely, 

Hector Figueroa 

President, 32BJ SEIU 
993 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee Nomination Hearing -January 10, 2017 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF 

MAJOR IAN FISHBACK, US ARMY (RET.) 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITIEE 

JANUARY 10,2017 

THE IMPERATIVE TO PREVENT DETAINEE TORTURE 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to share my views with you. 

I am writing regarding Senator Sessions' record on torture and other detainee abuse and mistreatment. 

I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. From 2001-2010 I served as an 

officer in the paratroopers and Special Forces. From 2012-2015 I served as an instructor at West Point 

and I am currently completing a PhD in Political Science at the University of Michigan. 

In September 2005, while serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry, I sent a letter to Senator John 

McCain, asking him to provide our men and women in uniform with clear standards for the lawful and 

humane treatment of detainees captured in what was then being called the "Global War on Terror." I 

only wrote to the Senator after I had spent 17 months seeking clarification of these standards through 

my chain of command and had come up short. 

As I mentioned in my letter, during my time serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I and troops under my 

command witnessed numerous instances of prisoner abuse including death threats, beatings, 

interrogators breaking detainees' bones, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, 

hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation, degrading treatment, and even murder. 

This treatment ran contrary to the training I received at West Point, which made it clear that such 

practices are clearly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. The lack of clear standards for our troops in 

the field on the proper treatment of detainees in U.S. control had left the door open for these violations 

to occur and even more worryingly, to continue. 

I am extremely grateful to Senator McCain for responding to my appeal for specific guidelines for 

detainee treatment by sponsoring the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. This measure explicitly barred 

cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody and required all military 

interrogations to follow the protocols of the Army Field Manual. It was passed by this chamber in an 

unprecedented show of bipartisan support, with a vote of 90-9. 

When I fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, I fought for a country that has deeply rooted values and ideals 

that have shaped this nation and positioned it as a global leader on human rights and the rule of law. 

These values and ideals, which are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, 

are ones that this nation should steadfastly abide by and wield as our most powerful weapon in the fight 

against terrorists. 

1 
994 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee Nomination Hearing -January 10, 2017 

I have heard it said that given ISIS does terrible things to the people it captures, the United States should 

similarly be permitted to mistreat detainees in our custody. The same things were said of al Qaeda over 

a decade ago and my response to these claims remains the same: When did ISIS and al Qaeda become 

any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? 

To say that the United States should be held to a higher standard than ISIS and al Qaeda is undeniable. 

We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard with pride. 

The thought that Senator Sessions might once again sanction the un-American, immoral, and illegal 

treatment of detainees if he were to become Attorney General, shakes me to my core. 

Senator Sessions was one of the nine senators who voted against the Detainee Treatment Act. He has 

also publicly defended waterboarding, saying in 2008 that it would be "unwise" to "say [waterboarding] 

would never be done again." 

In 2015 Senator Sessions was one of only 21 senators to vote against the McCain-Feinstein anti-torture 

amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2016. This legislation extended 

the reach of Senator McCain's 2005 Detainee Treatment Act by requiring all U.S. government 

departments and agencies to comply with the interrogation guidelines in the Army Field Manual. 

Senator Sessions' record on the issue of humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and his 

consistent opposition to efforts to stem abuse are deeply concerning. 

In closing, I wish to repeat something I said in my letter to Senator McCain in 2005: If we abandon our 

ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I 

would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America." 

I still hold true to those words. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you. 

Enclosure: Copy of letter to Senator John McCain dated September 16, 2005 

2 
995 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee Nomination Hearing -January 10,2017 

Dear Senator McCain: 

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have 

served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me 

to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in 

Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United 

States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in 

Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to 

determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of 

command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and 

Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple 

government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional 

interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for 

teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as 

honorable and intelligent men. 

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply 

troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my 

leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that 

this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken 

bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, 

sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of 

these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq. 

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men 

would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It 

absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard. 

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our 

mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; 

eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion 

over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than 

this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation. 

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying 

as AI Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did AI Qaeda become any type of standard by 

which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be 

held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of 

Independence and the Constitution. 

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. 

Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that 

supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is 

morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable. 

3 
996 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Judiciary Committee Nomination Hearing -January 10,2017 

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this 

generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism 

inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed 

by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in 

order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at 

the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of 

adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather 

die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America." 

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them 

clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for. 

With the Utmost Respect, 

--Capt. Ian Fishback 

1st Battalion, 

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 

82nd Airborne Division, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

4 
997 

0 N E HUNDRED 

The Voice of a Nation: 

Every State United for Equal Justice 

"In Memory of Victims Everywhere" 

27552 Rolling Wood Lane 

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 

(949) 496-464 7 (949) 496-5100 

December 9, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Supporting Senator Jeff Sessions for Confirmation as 84th 

Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Senators Grassley and Leahy: 

Representing MOVE (Memory of Victims Everywhere) and FORCE 100, we are 

writing to express our endorsement of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our next 

U.S. Attorney General. We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to promptly 

confirm the nomination. 

Our organizations were founded in 1989 as a grass-roots organization working to 

ensure that existing victims' rights laws are enforced and encourage new 

legislation to further protect the rights of crime victims and improve public safety, 

with emphasis on what takes place on the state and national levels. The 

organizations are made up of members who are champions for the rule oflaw and 

fight for the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our efforts are to support victims of 

violent crime, in court and out, and to ensure passage of laws that will strengthen 

the position of victims in the eyes of the law. FORCE 100 was brought into 

existence for the purpose of pursuing a U.S. Constitutional Amendment and is 

made up of a Chairman. Co-Chairman and volunteers from every state. 
998 

Our personal experience of enduring the murders of our only son Scott in 1982, 

followed by the murders of our brother and sister-in-law, auto racing legend, 

Mickey Thompson and his wife Trudy, in 1988, taught us that victims are forever 

damaged by our justice system. 

We believe Mr. Sessions would bring his work of more than 40 years in public 

service and his long and distinguished career in the criminal justice field, to the 

position of U.S. Attorney General. He was a prosecutor for nearly 15 years and 

has worked with Democrats and Republicans to support criminal justice reform 

legislation. Mr. Sessions is committed to the rule oflaw, which is important to an 

organization such as ours. He has fought for the rights of those who are the 

innocent victims of violent crime. Senator Sessions has a stellar career, academic 

credentials and achievements which make him the best person to serve as our next 

Attorney General. 

Our organizations seek to bring equal justice for all Americans who may become 

and are victims of crime. We enthusiastically endorse Mr. Sessions for Attorney 

General of the United States. In addition, our members are diverse and from all 

walks oflife. We have fought for tough-on-crime measures, regardless ofrace, 

and seek to bring justice to all individuals who are victims of crime. 

MOVE and FORCE 100 support and endorse Mr. Sessions' confirmation without 

reservation as our next U.S. Attorney General. 

Sincerely, 
999 

December 12,2016 

The Honorable Charles Grass ley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Senator Jeff Sessions 

Dear Senators Grassley, Leahy, and Feinstein: 

We are former Assistant Attorneys General ofthe Department of Justice. We write in strong 

support of the nomination of Jeff Sessions to serve as the Attorney General ofthe United States. 

We have interacted with Senator Sessions in his role as a member of the Judiciary Committee 

and/or are otherwise familiar with his reputation within the law enforcement community. 

Senator Sessions has a long and distinguished record of experience within law enforcement. 

Senator Sessions served for twelve years as the United States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Alabama, for two years as the Attorney General of Alabama, and for two years as an 

Assistant United States Attorney. 

In his tenure as both a Senator and a United States Attorney, Senator Sessions has demonstrated 

a commitment to the rule of law, and to the even-handed administration ofjustice. Senator 

Sessions was a co-sponsor of the Fair Sentencing Act, which aimed to reduce racial disparity in 

sentencing, as well as a bill to award Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal. As United 

States Attorney, Senator Sessions worked to obtain the successful capital prosecution ofthe head 

of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan for the 1981 murder of Michael Donald, an African-American 

teenager. 
1000 

December 12, 2016 

Page 2 

The career prosecutor sent from the Civil Rights Division ofthe Department of Justice in 

Washington to Alabama to try the case against Donald's killers, Barry Kowalski (who also 

successfully prosecuted the Rodney King case), was quoted recently about the level of support 

he received from then United States Attorney Sessions in prosecuting the case. Kowalski said 

that United States Attorney Sessions '\:ouldn't have been more supportive of making sure we got 

convicted the murderers of the last black man who was lynched by the Klan.'' Kowalski added 

that "[a]t a time when many U.S. Attorneys in the South were not always welcoming to the Civil 

Rights Division, Jeff Sessions was. Jeff had the vision and the courage and the desire to do 

right." 

We believe that Senator Sessions, if confirmed, will bring this same courage and desire to do 

right to his tenure as Attorney General. We are pleased to endorse his nomination and do so 

without reservation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS HAVE SIGNED THIS LETTER IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL 

CAPACITIES- PRIOR LISTED AFFILIATIONS ARE NOTED SOLELY FOR THE 

PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THEIR RELEVANT BACKGROUND OR PROFESSIONAL 

EXPERIENCE 

R. Alexander Acosta 

Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division (2003-2005) 

Grace Chung Becker 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division (2007-2008) 

Steven G. Bradbury 

Acting Assistant Attorney General and 

Principal Deputy 

Office of Legal Counsel (2005-2009) 

Daniel J. Bryant 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Legislative Affairs (2001-2003) 

Office of Legal Policy (2003-2005) 

Charles J. Cooper 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Legal Counsel (1985-1988) 

Viet D. Dinh 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Legal Policy (2001-2003) 

Alice S. Fisher 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division (2005-2008) 

Matthew W. Friedrich 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division (2008-2009) 

Nathan J. Hochman 

Assistant Attorney General 

Tax Division (2008-2009) 

Charles A. James 

Assistant Attorney General 

Antitrust Division (200 1-2002) 
1001 

December 12,2016 

Page 3 

Kelly A, Johnson 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division (2005) 

Gregory G. Katsas 

Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division (2008-2009) 

WanJ. Kim 

Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division (2005-2007) 

William E. Moschella 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Legislative Affairs (2003-2006) 

Eileen J. O'Connor 

Assistant Attorney General 

Tax Division (2001-2007) 

Theodore B. Olson 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office ofLegal Counsel (1981-1984) 

R. Hewitt Pate 

Assistant Attorney General 

Antitrust Division (2003-2005) 

James F. Rill 

Assistant Attorney General 

Antitrust Division (1989-1992) 

J. Patrick Rowan 

Assistant Attorney General 

National Security Division (2008-2009) 

Thomas L. Sansonetti 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division (200 1-2005) 

Ronald J. Tenpas 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

Division (2007-2009) 

Kenneth L. Wainstein 

Assistant Attorney General 

National Security Division (2006-2008) 

Christopher A. Wray 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division (2003-2005) 

Cc: The Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader 

The Hon. Charles Schumer 
1002 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Diane G. Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

December 5, 2016 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The signers of this letter served in the Department of Justice in the positions listed next to their 

nan1es and, in connection with that service, came to know Senator Jeff Sessions through his 

oversight of the Department as a member of the Judiciary Committee or in his work as U.S. 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. All of us worked with him; several of us testified 

before him during his service on your Committee. All of us know him as a person of honesty and 

integrity, who has held himself to the highest ethical standards throughout his career, and is guided 

always by a deep and abiding sense of duty to this nation and its founding charter. 

Based on our collective and extensive experience, we also know him to be a person of unwavering 

dedication to the mission of the Department-to assure that our country is governed by the fair and 

even-handed rule of law. For example, Senator Sessions has been intimately involved in assuring 

that even as the Department combats the scourge of illegal drugs, the penalties imposed on 

defendants do not unfairly impact minority communities. He has worked diligently to empower the 

Department to do its part in defending the nation against those intent on destroying our way of life, 

adhering throughout to bedrock legal principles and common sense. 

Senator Sessions' career as a federal prosecutor also has provided him with the necessary 

institutional knowledge, expertise, and deep familiarity with the issues that confront the 

Department, insofar as it is an army in the field. As the United States Attorney for the Southern 

District of Alabama, Senator Sessions worked hard to protect vulnerable victims, particularly 

children. He carried this commitment to the Senate, where he championed legislation to provide the 

Department with the tools it needs to fight online child pornography, to close rogue internet 

pharmacies that have contributed to the opioid epidemic, and to end sexual assault in prison. 

Senator Sessions' career, both as a United States Attorney and as a Senator, well prepares him for 

the role of Attorney General. In sum, Senator Sessions is superbly qualified by temperament, 
1003 

intellect, and experience, to serve as this nation's chief law enforcement officer. We urge his swift 

confirmation. 

John D. Ashcroft 

Attorney General, 2001-2005 

Alberto R. Gonzales 

Attorney General, 2005-2007 

Michael B. Mukasey 

Attorney General, 2007-2009 

Mark R. Filip 

Sincerely, 

Deputy Attorney General 2008-2009 

Paul J. McNulty 

Deputy Attorney General 2006-2007 

Larry D. Thompson 

Deputy Attorney General, 2001-2003 

William P. Barr 

Attorney General, 1991-1993 

Deputy Attorney General, 1990-91 

Edwin Meese, III 

Attorney General, 1985-1988 

Craig S. Morford 

Deputy Attorney General, 2007-2008 (Acting) 

George J. Terwilliger III 

Deputy Attorney General1991-1993 

CC: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

317 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer 

322 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

2 
1004 

December 5, 2016 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader, 115'h Congress 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer, Chairman Grass ley, and Ranking Member Leahy: 

As you prepare for the upcoming Congress and for the impending nominations of President-elect 

Trump's Cabinet members, we write to express our strong support for the nomination of Senator 

Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions' exemplary record 

during his long career in public service speaks to the leadership and sober dedication he would 

bring to the Department of Justice, 

As former government officials involved in the development and administration of the United 

States' drug policies, we understand the importance of a Department of Justice that is committed 

to the just and fair enforcement of the laws that Congress has written, In this respect, Senator 

Sessions would make an excellent Attorney GeneraL His distinguished career as a prosecutor, 

including as the Reagan-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as 

Attorney General of Alabama, earned him a reputation as a tough, determined professional who 

has been dedicated to the appropriate enforcement of the rule of law. His exemplary record of 

service in law enforcement demonstrates that he is a protector of civil rights and defender of crime 

victims. 

Senator Sessions brought that same dedication to his service in the Senate. As an example of his 

fair-minded approach to tough Jaw enforcement, he, together with Senator Durbin, passed the 

bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act, which increased fairness in sentencing by reducing the disparity in 

crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences, while also strengthening penalties for serious drug 

traffickers. His prudent and responsible approach is exactly what the Department of Justice needs 

to enforce the law, restore confidence in the United States' justice system, and keep the American 

people safe. We support the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United 

States, and we ask you to do the same. 
1005 

Respectfully, 

William J. Bennett 

Director of National Drug Control Policy 

March 1989 - December 1990 

Robert Martinez 

Director of National Drug Control Policy 

March 1991 -January 1993 

John P. Walters 

Director of National Drug Control Policy 

December 2001- January 2009 

/~&~r 

Peter B. Bensinger 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

February 1976-July 1981 

John C. Lawn 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

July 1985 -March 1990 

J;l, ..a/] ..-.;! ' -Jtt/4-r e'.;SJ/1?/d·L 

Robert C. Bonner 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

August 1990 - October 1993 

Karen Tandy 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

July 2003- November 2007 

Michele Leonhart 

Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

December 2010- May 2015 
1006 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman, United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attomey General of the United States 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We write in our individual capacities, as former staff members of the U.S. Senate Committee on 

the Judiciary, to express our strong support for Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to be the 84th Attorney 

General of the United States. 

While serving together on the Committee, we often clashed with one another on policy issues of 

national importance. Today, however, we are united in our agreement that Senator Sessions is a man of 

great character, integrity, and fidelity to our nation who is worthy of your affirmative vote and a swift 

confirmation. 

We were privileged to witness firsthand the operations of the Committee over the past two decades, 

during some of the Senate's most consequential debates. We observed Senator Sessions up close, behind 

closed doors, and when no cameras were present. In those moments, we came to know Senator Sessions 

as a gentleman and a dedicated public servant. The man we proudly worked alongside always displayed 

kindness, decency, and humility. He has been a credit to the greatest traditions of the Senate and the 

Judiciary Committee, and we have no doubt he will bring this same strength of character to the Otlice of 

the Attorney General. 

We can further attest that his commitment to the rule of law is unwavering and his patriotism 

unquestionable. Through his words and deeds, Senator Sessions has demonstrated a deep respect for the 

United States Department of Justice, its mission, and its people. We are confident that, as Attorney 

General, he will maintain independence from political influence and seek justice on behalf of all citizens, 

without fear or favor. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we can affirm that Senator Sessions displays an unfailing 

allegiance to the Constitution. He understands the significance of the structural safeguards in our founding 

charter, including the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government. We trust 

that, once confirmed, Senator Sessions will direct the Justice Department to exhibit the appropriate respect 

for the legislative branch and its constitutional responsibilities. 

Thank you for considering our views and for your own dedication to the Senate and to the 

Committee we had the distinct honor of serving. 

Sincerely, 
1007 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 2 of II 

Kimberly K. Anderson 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Brooke Jones Bacak 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Wendy F. Baig 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

M. Miller Baker 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Zina Bash 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Amy Blankenship 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Sam Brown back (R-KS) 

Matthew Boyden 

Fmr. Counsei-Detailee to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Nicholas Bruno 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Tiffany A. Cissna 

Fmr. Legal Assistant to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Tyler S. Clarkson 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Manus Cooney 

Fmr. Staff Director & Chief Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 
1008 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 201 7 

Page 3 of 11 

Catherine Crane 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Randy Cubriel 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Jared Culver 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Alexander Dahl 

Fmr. Deputy Staff Director & Senior Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

James A. D'Cruz 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Makan Delrahim 

Fmr. Staff Director & Chief Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Suzzette R. H. DeMers 

Fmr. Counsel to U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Mark Disler 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Michael Dougherty 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 

Steven J. Duffield 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), 

Republican Policy Committee 

Louis Dupart 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Mike De Wine (R-OH) 
1009 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6. 2017 

Page 4 of II 

Chase T. Espy 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions {R-AL) 

Gustav William Eyler 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. John Cornyn {R-TX) 

Russ Ferguson 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Tom Coburn {R-OK) 

Daniel B. Fisher 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-P A) 

Brian Fitzpatrick 

Fmr. Special Counsel to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Ysmael D. Fonseca 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Scott Frick 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) 

Rebecca Furdek 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

James D. Galyean 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 

Eric M. George 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

David M. Glaccurn 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Lindsey Graham {R-SC) 
1010 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 5 of 11 

Chadwick L. Groover 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 

Ed R. Haden 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

William A. Hall, Jr. 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Cindy Hayden 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Bradley Hayes 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Mary Harned 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Julia K. Henninghausen 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Amanda Hinson 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

James C. Ho 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Anne L. ldsal 

Fmr. Legal Assistant to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Joe Jacquot 

Fmr. Deputy Chief Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) 
1011 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 6 of II 

Sara Beth Groshart Jansen 

Fmr. General Counsel to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) 

Marissa Johannes 

Fmr. Constituent Services Representative for Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Matthew Johnson 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Brian W. Jones 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Janice Kephart 

Fmr. Special Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 

Harold H. Kim 

Fmr. Deputy Chief Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Fmr. Senior Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Kate M. LaBorde 

Fmr. Legislative Correspondent to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Fmr. Legislative Assistant to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) 

Kenneth Kiyal Lee 

Fmr. Special Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

William R. Levi 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) 

Andrea S. Loving 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 
1012 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 7 of ll 

Maris a Maleck 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Joe Matal 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 

John McMickle 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) 

Lynden Melmed 

Fmr. Special Counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Christopher R. Mills 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Fmr. Professional Staff Member to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Sarah T. Mills 

Fmr. Legislative Aide to Sen. Charles Grass ley (R-IA) 

Fmr. Legislative Aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Fmr. Legislative Aide to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Patrick Murphy 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Gregg Nunziata 

Fmr. ChiefNomination Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Stuart G. Nash 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Michael O'Neill 

Fmr. Chief Counsel & Staff Director to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Fmr. Special Counsel & General Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 
1013 

The Honorable Charles E. Grass ley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 8 of II 

AveryL. Org 

Frnr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Kevin O'Scannlain 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Lee Liberman Otis 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Spence Abraham (R-MI) 

AjitV. Pai 

Frnr. Deputy Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Frnr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Sam Brown back (R-KS) 

Marissa Patton 

Fmr. Legal Assistant to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Lauren Petron 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Sam Brov.nback (R-KS) 

Robert R. Porter 

Frnr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) 

Sam Romero Ramer 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

J. Evans Rice 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Katherine (Green) Robertson 

Frnr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

Amanda B. Robinson (nee DeVuono) 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 
1014 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 9 of! I 

Galen Roehl 

Fmr. Senior Policy Advisor to Sen. Sam Brown back (R-KS) 

Chip Roy 

Fmr. Counsel & Senior Counsel to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

D. Kyle Sampson 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Kevin Sanchez 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Frank J. Scaturro 

Fmr. Counsel for the Constitution to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Frankie M. Shulkin 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Kenneth R. Simon, Jr. 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

William Smith 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

John Smithee, Jr. 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Robert Steinbuch 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Mike De Wine (R-OH) 

Tim Strachan 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 
1015 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page 10 of 11 

Thaddeus E. Strom 

Fmr. Chief Counsel & Staff Director to Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) 

Elizabeth Hays Taylor 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) 

Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) 

Fmr. Chief Nominations Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Jeffrey A. Taylor 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Christopher P. Tosetti 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Ryan Triplette 

Fmr. Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Rachael Tucker 

Fmr. Counsel & Deputy Chief Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 

C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. 

Fmr. Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Valera Vollor 

Fmr. Legal Assistant to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Mattew B. Welling 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Comyn (R-TX) 

Bradley James Watts 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 
1016 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Page II of II 

Ed Whelan 

Fmr. General Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 

Lee Whitesell 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Beth A. Williams 

Fmr. Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Kristina M. Williams (nee Campbell) 

Fmr. Law Clerk to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 

Craig Wolf 

Fmr. Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Philip Zimmerly 

Fmr. Legislative Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 
1017 

December 16,2016 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

United States Senator, United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

43 7 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and Senator Feinstein: 

We, the signatories below, are all former United States Attorneys serving under Presidents 

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama - who write to support the confirmation of Senator Jeff 

Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. 

As former U.S. Attorneys, we are in a unique position to evaluate the qualifications of 

Senator Sessions to serve as our nation's Attorney General. United States Attorneys are the topranking federal law-enforcement officials of their jurisdictions, tasked with setting enforcement 

priorities, building trust with the communities they serve, and protecting the public while 

respecting federalism, the separation of powers, and the individual rights enshrined in the 

Constitution. It is not an easy job, but it is one in which Senator Sessions excelled. 

Senator Sessions' record reflects his priorities clearly, and none of his work as U.S. 

Attorney was more impactful than his sustained effort to eliminate segregation in rural Alabama 

and break the back of the Alabama Klan. In addition to bringing and supporting civil rights cases 

to fight against voter suppression and school segregation, Senator Sessions supported the 

investigation into the brutal murder of an African American teenager, Michael Donald. His efforts, 

in coordination with state authorities, ensured that the perpetrator- the son ofthe Alabama Klan's 

leader- received a capital sentence. Sessions' office also prosecuted an accomplice in that case, 

who pled guilty and received a life sentence, the maximum penalty available in federal court at the 

time. These successful prosecutions helped the victim's mother win a $7 million lawsuit against 

the Klan, effectively crippling it as a political organization within Alabama. 

Senator Sessions served for a remarkable twelve years as U.S. Attorney. His lengthy tenure 

alone is impressive given the burdens of the job, which we well know. Senator Sessions' 

conspicuous service to the law and all citizens has continued as a United States Senator. In his 

work as a leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has espoused a consistent understanding 

of the Constitution, a commitment to the rule of law, and an unwavering respect for the mission of 

the Department of Justice. 

During his 41 years of public service, Senator Sessions has proved to be a leader of strong 

principles and firm beliefs. His support for the 25-year extension of the Civil Rights Act in 2006 
1018 

The Honorable Charles Grass ley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 2 of 10 

is evidence of this. He also has proved to be a leader who appreciates positions that differ from 

his own and who learns from the scrutiny that comes with public life. His openness to different 

thinking and other worldviews is evidenced by the recent statements in support ofhis nomination 

from colleagues across the political spectrum and his support for Eric Holder's nomination as 

Attorney General in 2009. 

As former U.S. Attorneys, we worked with and for many Attorneys General, each different, 

each with his or her own unique strengths. We have no doubt that Senator Sessions can do the job 

well, bringing to this critically important office his own unique and extraordinary strengths of 

courage, humility, experience, and an inviolable promise to treat all people equally under the law. 

We strongly urge you to support his confirmation. 

Honorable R. Alexander Acosta 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida 

2005-2009 

Honorable Tom Ashcraft 

United States Attorney, Western District of North 

Carolina 

1987-1993 

Honorable Robert Balfe 

United States Attorney, Western District of Arkansas 

2004-2009 

Honorable David B. Barlow 

United States Attorney, District of Utah 

2011-2014 

Honorable Steven Michael Biskupic 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin 

2002-2009 

2 

Honorable A. Brian Albritton 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Florida 

2008-2010 

Honorable John Malcolm Bales 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Texas 

2009-2016 

Honorable Stanford 0. Bardwell, Jr. 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Louisiana 

1981-1986 

Honorable Michael A. Battle 

United States Attorney, Western District of New York 

2005-2007 

Honorable John L. Brownlee 

United States Attorney, Western District of Virginia 

2001-2008 
1019 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16, 2016 

Page 3 of 10 

Honorable Jose A. Canales 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas 

1977-1980 

Honorable Michael W. Carey 

United States Attorney, Southern District of West 

Virginia 

1987-1993 

Honorable John E. Clark 

United States Attorney, Western District of Texas 

1975-1977 

Honorable Colm F. Connolly 

United States Attorney, District of Delaware 

2001-2009 

Honorable Richard Cullen 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia 

1991-1993 

Honorable Margaret Person Currin 

United States Attorney, Eastern District ofNorth Carolina 

1988-1993 

Honorable Leura Garrett Canary 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama 

2001-2011 

Honorable James C. Cissell 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Ohio 

1978-1982 

Honorable Thomas Colantuono 

United States Attorney, District of New Hampshire 

2001-2009 

Honorable D. Michael Crites 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Ohio 

1986-1993 

Honorable Bud Cummins 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas 

2001-2006 

Honorable E. Bart Daniel 

United States Attorney, District of South Carolina 

1989-1992 
1020 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 4 of 10 

Honorable Deborah J. Daniels 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Indiana 

1988-1993 

Honorable James W. Diehm 

United States Attorney, District of Virgin Islands 

1983-1987 

Honorable Ronald F. Ederer 

United States Attorney, Western District of Texas 

1989-1993 

Honorable W. Hickman Ewing 

United States Attorney, Western District of Tennessee 

1981-1991 

Honorable Fred Foreman 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois 

1990-1993 

Honorable Catherine L. Hanaway 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri 

2005-2009 

4 

Honorable James R. Dedrick 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Tennessee 

2005,2007-2010 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina 

1993 

Honorable Stephen D. Easton 

United States Attorney, District of North Dakota 

1990-1993 

Honorable Troy A. Eid 

United States Attorney, District of Colorado 

2006-2009 

Lawrence D. Finder 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas 

1993 

Honorable H.S. Garcia 

United States Attorney, District of Puerto Rico 

2002-2006 

Honorable Rodger A. Heaton 

United States Attorney, Central District of Illinois 

2005-2009 
1021 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16, 2016 

Page 5 of 10 

Honorable Daniel K. Hedges 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas 

1981-1985 

Herbert H. Henry 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Alabama 

2001-2001 

Honorable Philip N. Hogen 

United States Attorney, District of South Dakota 

1981-1991 

Honorable Roscoe C. Howard, Jr 

United States Attorney, District of Columbia 

2001-2004 

Honorable David C. Iglesias 

United States Attorney, District of New Mexico 

2001-2007 

Daniel G. Knauss 

United States Attorney, District of Arizona 

1993,2007 

Honorable P. Raymond Lamonica 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Louisiana 

1986-1994 

Honorable Thomas B. Heffelfinger 

United States Attorney, District of Minnesota 

1991-1993, 2001-2006 

Honorable Stephen B. Higgins 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri 

1990-1993 

Honorable George Holding 

United States Attorney, Eastem District of North Carolina 

2006-2011 

Honorable William D. Hyslop 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Washington 

1991-1993 

Honorable Frank Keating 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Oklahoma 

1981-1983 

Honorable William A. Kolibash 

United States Attorney, Northern District of West Virginia 

1981-1993 

Honorable John Earnest Lamp 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Washington 

1981-1991 
1022 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 6 of 10 

Honorable Charles W. Larson, Sr. 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Iowa 

1986-1993, 2001-2006 

Honorable Jim Letten 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana 

2001-2012 

Honorable William L. Lutz 

United States Attorney, District of New Mexico 

1982-1991 

Honorable Alice Howze Martin 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Alabama 

2001-2009 

Honorable Robert G. McCampbell 

United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma 

2001-2005 

Honorable James A. McDevitt 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Washington 

2001-2010 

Honorable Patrick M. McLaughlin 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio 

1984-1988 

6 

Honorable William J. Leone 

United States Attorney, District of Colorado 

2004-2006 

Honorable Daniel F. Lopez-Ramo 

United States Attorney, District of Puerto Rico 

1982-1993 

Honorable James J. Marquez 

United States Attorney, District of Kansas 

1981-1983 

Honorable Kenneth W. McAllister 

United States Attorney, Middle District of North Carolina 

1981-1986 

J. Douglas McCullough 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina 

1988-89, 1993-1994 

Honorable Michael D. McKay 

United States Attorney, Western District of Washington 

1989-1993 

Honorable William W. Mercer 

United States Attorney, District of Montana 

2001-2009 
1023 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 7 of 10 

Charles T. Miller 

United States Attorney, Southern District of West 

Virginia 

2006-2009 

Mr. Paul B, Murphy 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Georgia 

2004 

Honorable Kevin J. O'Connor 

United States Attorney, District of Connecticut 

2002-2008 

Honorable P. Michael Patterson 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Florida 

1993-2001 

Honorable Deborah J. Rhodes 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Alabama 

2005-2009 

Honorable James G. Richmond 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Indiana 

1985-1991 

Honorable J. William Roberts 

United States Attorney, Central District of lllinois 

1986-1993 

7 

Honorable Robert N. Miller 

United States Attorney, District of Colorado 

1981-1988 

Honorable Peter Nunez 

United States Attorney, Southern District of California 

1982-1988 

Honorable Victor R. Ortega 

United States Attorney, District of New Mexico 

1969-1978 

Honorable Ira Raphaelson 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois 

1989-1990 

Wayne A. Rich, Jr. 

United States Attorney, Southern District of West Virginia 

1981-1982, 1986 

Honorable John Charles Richter 

United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma 

2005-2009 

Honorable James A. Rolfe 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas 

1981-1985 
1024 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 8 of I 0 

Honorable Richard B. Roper 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas 

2004-2009 

Honorable McGregor W. Scott 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of California 

2003-2009 

Honorable John S. Simmons 

United States Attorney, District of South Carolina 

1992-1993 

Honorable Richard A. Stacy 

United States Attorney, District of Wyoming 

1981-1994 

Honorable Jay B. Stephens 

United States Attorney, District of Columbia 

1988-1993 

Honorable Michael James Sullivan 

United States Attorney, District of Massachusetts 

2001-2009 

Honorable Don J. Svet 

United States Attorney, District ofNew Mexico 

1992-1993 

Honorable Joseph P. Russoniello 

United States Attorney, Northern District of California 

1982-1990, 2008-2010 

Morgan E. Scott, Jr. 

United States Attorney, Western District of Virginia 

1993 

Honorable John A. Smietanka 

United States Attorney, Western District of Michigan 

1981-1993 

Honorable R. Lawrence Steele 

United States Attorney, Northern District oflndiana 

1981-1985 

Honorable Herbert J. Stem 

United States Attorney, District ofNew Jersey 

1971-1974 

Honorable Johnny Sutton 

United States Attorney, Western District of Texas 

2001-2009 

Honorable Jeffrey A. Taylor 

United States Attorney, District of Columbia 

2006-2009 
1025 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16, 2016 

Page 9 of 10 

Honorable Paul R. Thomson 

United States Attorney, Western District of Virginia 

1975-1979 

Honorable Brett L. Tolman 

United States Attorney, District of Utah 

2006-2009 

Honorable Charles H. Turner 

United States Attorney, District of Oregon 

1982-1993 

Honorable Anna Mills Wagoner 

United States Attorney, Middle District ofNorth Carolina 

2001-2010 

Honorable Donald W. Washington 

United States Attorney, Western District of Louisiana 

2001-2010 

Benjamin H. White, Jr. 

United States Attorney, Middle District of North Carolina 

1977,1981,1993-1994,2001 

9 

Honorable Strom Thurmond, Jr. 

United States Attorney, District of South Carolina 

2001-2004 

James B. Tucker 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Mississippi 

2001 

Honorable Stanley A. Twardy 

United States Attorney, District of Connecticut 

1985-1991 

Honorable Kenneth L. Wainstein 

United States Attorney, District of Columbia 

2004-2006 

Honorable Daniel E. Wherry 

United States Attorney, Nebraska 

1975-1977 

Honorable Joe D. Whitley 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Georgia 

1990-1993 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Georgia 

1981-1986 
1026 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 16,2016 

Page 10 of 10 

Honorable Robert Q. Whitwell 

United States Attorney, Northern District of Mississippi 

1985-1993 

Honorable Ronald G. Woods 

United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas 

1990-1993 

Honorable Drew H. Wrigley 

United States Attorney, District of North Dakota 

2001-2009 

10 

Honorable Frank Maxwell Wood 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Georgia 

2001-2009 

Honorable Debra Wong Yang 

United States Attorney, Central District of California 

2002-2006 

Honorable Edward Meacham Yarbrough 

United States Attorney, Middle District of Tennessee 

2007-2010 
1027 

n 

u 

Friends Committee on 

National Legislation 

A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest 

January 6, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

As you prepare the confirmation hearings for the nomination of Senator Sessions to serve as 

the next Attorney General of the United States, I write to express the concerns of our nonpartisan, 74-year-old Quaker lobby in the public interest. We are particularly eager to 

understand how Senator Sessions will carry out the responsibilities of the nation's top law 

enforcement officer given the policy positions he has expressed and supported in the past. To 

assist you and your staff in preparing for these hearings, we've outlined three specific areas we 

hope you will explore with Senator Sessions. 

Religious Freedom and Refugees 

As a faith community, we are very concerned that Senator Sessions' past statements suggest a 

troubling disregard for religious freedom and a high tolerance for religious discrimination. 

Working against the peaceful coexistence of all faiths in this country, Senator Sessions has 

promoted fear of Muslims through broad generalizations, false accusations, and misleading 

statements. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, he has repeatedly perpetuated the my1h 

that refugees from Muslim-majority nations are likely to commit acts of terrorism in the United 

States.' He has also implied-without evidence of any kind- that refugees' "cultural 

background" makes them prone to committing honor killings. He has even indicated that young 

Muslim children- including both immigrants and US-born citizens- should be viewed as 

potential terrorist threats 2 

1 http://www .judiciary .senate .gov/meetings/oversight-of-the-administrations-fy-2017 -refugee-resettlementprogram 

2 http://www. sessions. senate. gov/publiclindex.cfm/2015/12/sessions-cruz-to-obama-adm in-releaseimmigration-history-of-san-bernardino-attackers 

FRIENDS COM'.11TTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 

FCNL.ORG 
1028 

Underscoring these statements, Mr. Sessions has also fostered close ties with the Center for 

Security Policy' and the David Horowitz Freedom Center', both of which spread hateful 

misinformation about the Muslim faith. Baseless generalizations about diverse groups of people 

fuel fear, discrimination, and hatred; support the notion that an entire people or culture should 

be held liable for individuals' crimes; and go against the fundamental principles that our nation's 

highest legal officer is bound to protect. Given the clearly-documented rise in anti-Muslim hate 

crimes in this country over the past year, this kind of rhetoric should be considered a potential 

incitement to violence and hateful criminal activity. 5 

Senator Sessions has also used false claims and unfounded generalizations to bolster his 

criticisms of the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program, an essential program through which our 

government responds to humanitarian obligations by welcoming refugees fleeing violence and 

persecution. Senator Sessions has argued for a shutdown or a substantial reduction of refugee 

resettlement in the United States. He also supports factoring refugees' religious identity into 

decisions about their admissions, particularly in the case of Muslims coming from the Middle 

East and has expressed openness to barring the entry of all Muslims to the United States. 6 

Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System and Voting Rights 

Racial inequity runs through the entirety of the criminal justice system and access to the ballot 

box. Those strains present themselves through disproportionate use of force and deadly force 

nationally by police in communities of color; state legislatures creating barriers to citizen access 

to the constitutional right to vote; and excessive mandatory minimum sentencing laws that 

shatter the lives of millions and their families. Senator Sessions has been a staunch opponent to 

reforms to the criminal justice system to correct these deep systemic inequities. 

Senator Sessions is on record saying that the work of enforcing the Voting Rights Act is 

"intrusive." Investigating discriminatory voting laws and gerrymandering by state legislatures is 

an important function of the Attorney General's office. The Fourth Circuit has called a recent 

package of bills enacted in North Carolina as targeting minorities with almost surgical precision. 

Defending access to the right to vote is an essential position for the Attorney General. Ensuring 

that we protect access to the ballot box is not only pivotal to upholding the Constitution, but 

inherent to our very democracy. 

3 http://www. centerforsecu ritypolicy.org/20 15/1 0/22/center -celebrates-sen-jeff-sessions-and-ad m-jamesace-lyons/ 

4 http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.tv/2013/02/22/senator-jeff-sessions/ 5 https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/14/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-surged-last-year-fueledhateful-campaign 

6 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/watch?hearingid=869072F5-5056-A066-6038-

B6AABBA33C07 

2 of 411/7/2017) 

F R I E N D 5 C 0 N1 'vl I T T E E 0 N N A T I 0 N A L L E G I 5 L A T I 0 N 
1029 

There have been nearly 1,000 instances of police-involved shootings resulting in death 

nationwide last year alone. Many more cases of excessive force and profiling by police exist 

throughout communities of color in the United States. There are over 18,000 police jurisdictions 

and creating fair reforms to address the complex problems of implicit bias and use of force 

policies demands concerted attention. The office of the Attorney General has been engaged 

with many police departments in vitally important pattern and practice investigations as well as 

consent decrees to commit to the long and arduous work of correcting these systemic flaws. 

Senator Sessions has called these investigations anti-democratic and "a violation of civil rights" 

indicating that the efforts to reduce and eliminate bias and inappropriate use of force across law 

enforcement will not be a high priority. 

Senator Sessions would also have power to set agency policy over hundreds of federal 

prosecutors' offices. The nominee for Attorney General has expressed moral judgements 

against the people most harmed by the public health crisis of drug addiction. Most troubling for 

us has been Senator Sessions' opposition and active work against modest reforms to excessive 

mandatory minimum sentences focused on these very same low-level nonviolent drug 

offenders. Given Senator Sessions' past positions advocating for the expansion of mandatory 

minimums for low-level drug offenses and non-criminal immigration violations, we encourage 

Senators to ask how the nominee will be able to oversee the integrity of our justice system. A 

one-size-fits-all approach to punishment does not seiVe our communities well. 

Immigration 

Senator Sessions has consistently advocated for a wholesale reduction of lawful immigration 

and suggested that immigrants, new Americans, and limited-English speakers are unable to 

fully integrate into American communities. In his tenure in Congress, he has voted against 

legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship or lawful status, or would increase certain 

visas. The Attorney General has broad powers over how to enforce and uplift existing 

immigration laws to best seiVe American communities. Given his past opposition to immigration, 

we are concerned that Senator Sessions will have difficulty implementing immigration laws and 

overseeing immigration courts in a fair and balanced way. 

In past statements, Senator Sessions has also consistently advocated a "narrowing of the 

conditions of asylum" and introduced legislation that proposed to curtail rights for individuals 

who express a credible fear of persecution, particularly children. The U.S. has an international 

human rights obligation to protect individual migrants who have a well-founded fear of 

persecution if they return to their home country, and it is imperative that the incoming Attorney 

General defend this protection. 

In February 2016, Senator Sessions proposed legislation to "close a loophole that allows 

[children] to have their asylum claim heard twice, instead of just once," despite current 

legislation providing children a non-adversarial adjudication of their asylum claim by an asylum 

3 of 4 (1/7/2017) 

FRIENDS COJ\1~!1TTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 

\;;_ ii :: (!; 1 i.~~J FCNL.ORG 
1030 

officer prior to review by an immigration judge. As Attorney General how would he ensure the 

sanctity of due process for asylum seekers? 

The Attorney General should be dedicated to the proper use of prosecutorial and judicial 

discretion for all individuals navigating the justice system, citizens and noncitizens alike. The 

Senate has a duty to ensure that our nation's next Attorney General intends to discharge his or 

her duties in accordance with the law, our Constitution, and the core principles of freedom, 

equal protection, and justice. We expect Senators to bear this responsibility in mind while 

considering the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions. 

Thank you for your attention to these concerns about justice and equality. 

Sincerely, 

Diane Randall 

Executive Secretary 

4of 4(1/7/2017) 

FRIE:\DS CO!VI\IITTEE 01\ NATIONAL LEGlSLAT!Ol\ 

FCNL.ORG 
1031 

E:\\TPOR: l s·l RA ITC!L~! L( 

January l 0. 2017 

llonorahl.: Charl.:s E. Urusslcy 

l'nited States S.:nate Committee on the Judiciary 

22-1 Dirben Senate Ol1ice Building 

Washington. DC 2051 0-60:'0 

Dear 1\k Chainnan: 

Jose A. Fuentes 

Eastport Strategies. l.I.C 

750 9'11 Sl!wt. KW Suite 750 

\Vashington. DC 200() l 

Ph: 202-.'\70-6-118 

Commencing in !997 l had the honor of serving as Allonwy General for the 

(io\ernment of Puerto Rico. In the same y.:ar Alabama 1\ttornc'~ General Jeff Sessions 

began his career in the l i.S. Scnak. 

As the chid. law ent(m.:emcnt ot'!icer of a domestic .\m.:rican jurisdictilln with 

over 3.5 million t:.s. citi,.:cns. l coordinated local and ti:'dcral ci,il and criminal justice 

polici>.?s. programs< litigation. prosecutions :.md investigations with the L:. S. Dcp:lrlmcnt 

('f Justice and Ihc: U.S. Congress. At the time Puerto Rico was a { l.S. jurisdiction "·itb a 

larger pupulati,:n mme heavily impacted than mmc than half the ~0 >!ales by 

imcrnational and domestic drug and human trafficking. unlawful migration by l;.S, 

border violators. as wdl as the entire host nf interstate ciYil and criminal maners. For 

I\\o y.:ars. I chaired our local HlDTA with wry pnsitive succr;,s in limiting criminal drug 

acri\ ity in the Caribbean. 

During that period and later l kamed again and again that Jeff Sessions may he a 

hmncr ~ ;.s. Attorney and Attomcy Gcn~ral lfom Alabama. but he ha:; '" tml~ 

comprehensive and all-inclusiYc national vision of an American justice system that better 

,;en es all people in all communities in .cvcrv comer of our gn;at count!'). !lis intdkctual 

honesty and moral integrity was demonstrated c\wy time he applied his unsurpassed 

mastery legal and gmcrning principles to fi,dcral legal issues in L>r relating to his tdlow 

Atncricans in Pu-:rto Rico, 

\Vhether the parties were the powerli.ll or the \\eak. the wealthy or the poor. those 

acwseJ of crimes or the ,·ictimc; of crime. from the beginning and in the y.:ars since. as I 

have worked l\Jr .iusticc in kdcral relations with Pul!rtO Rico- as :\merica'c; last large and 

populous territor> - without exception '' e knO\\ him to he a man of good \\ill. good 
1032 

conscience and total d~\c)\ion to liberty and justice !t)l' all under the Constitution and ruh: 

oflm\. 

Senator Sc5Si\l!1S has shown mon: interest. concern. compassion and leadership 

regarding the well-being or 3.5 million I !ispank Americans in Puerto Rko. who remain 

discnfranchiscd and without <::qual participation in CCO!l('ll1il: rccowry due to territorial 

>latus. than man: ,.,r those \\hn Culscly ace usc him of iailurc to recognize the diversity of 

America. llc ah,ays tn:ated us as if we were neighbors from Alabama. and we look 

torward to wckoming him as /\ttorncy General back !wme in Pueno Rico. In this ne"· 

and import am rnk he will be chargL'd with approving any dclinitions that will be includcd 

in Puerto Rico's upcoming Jcwloni:ting status rcf~rcndumunder P.L 113-76. and insure 

that the IU\\S and l\>mtituti<ll1 orthc l 1S are faithfully adhered to. 

Withom rcscn ation I support his contirmatio1L without delay. so he can begin 

I\ hat I know \I ill be Olll' or tlK' most distinguished tenures or U!l\' Auorney General in our 

nation's hiswry. 

'STREET, 

NASl-i:NGTC~, 

Cordially. 

Jpsc A,.rt'ucnks 

C:·ha!nnan 

l;astport Strategies. LLC 
1033 

STEPHEN GILLERS 

Elihu Root Professor of Law 

New York University School of Law 

40 Washington Square South 

New York, NY 10012 

212 998 6264 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: 

In connection with the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney 

General of the United States, I have been asked to address the factual findings of 

Alabama State Judge James S. Garrett, dated July 16, 1997, in the case of State of 

Alabama v. TIECO, Inc. I have also been asked to explain the effect of United States 

Steel, LLC ["USX''} v. TIECO, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275 (ll'h Cir. 2001), on the credibility of 

Judge Garrett's findings. 

Since 1978, I have taught both legal ethics and evidence at New York University 

School of Law and am qualified to speak about doctrines in both fields. My resume can 

be found on the law school's website. 

In sum, the Garrett opinion is the most scathing criticism of a prosecutorial office 

I have read in the nearly 40 years I have been teaching legal ethics. It describes an office 

that is oblivious to the constitutional and ethical rules that govern prosecutors. I also 

conclude that the subsequent Eleventh Circuit's opinion has no effect on the credibility of 

Judge Garrett's factual findings about the behavior of the office of the Alabama Attorney 

General. 

In my academic life, especially in conjunction with the publication of my 

casebook on legal ethics, now in its tenth edition, I have read many court opinions 

criticizing lawyers or law firms. Conservatively, I would say that I have read more than 

2000 such opinions since 1978, probably closer to 2500 opinions. The vast majority of 
1034 

these opinions criticize individual lawyers. Occasionally, a court will criticize a private 

law finn. Rarely will a court criticize an entire prosecutorial office. I have never read an 

opinion critical of any law office that is as harsh as Judge Garrett's opinion censuring the 

office of the Attorney General of Alabama. I quote his findings in part: 

Based on the totality of circumstances in this case including; I) the Attorney 

General's repeated refusals and failures to produce exculpatory evidence; 2) the 

Attorney General's repeated denials of the very existence of exculpatory evidence 

subsequently discovered by the Defendants; 3) the flagrant disregard of the 

constitutional rights of those accused; 4) the completely incredible and deceptive 

testimony of so many witnesses this Court treated as officers of the court (some of 

whom were either assistants or agents for the Attorney General); and 5) the very 

patterns of prosecutorial misconduct which exist in this case, this Court can only 

conclude it is dealing with either intentional and deliberate misconduct or conduct 

so reckless and improper as to constitute conscious disregard for the lawful duties 

of the Attorney General and the integrity and dignity of this Court and this Judge. 

Senator Sessions was Alabama's Attorney General when all or nearly all of the 

underlying events took place. The man who headed the office described in the Garrett 

opinion is unqualified to be United States Attorney General. 

What effect did the Eleventh Circuit's opinion have on the credibility of the 

Garrett opinion? None. The claim that the Circuit Court's ruling means that Judge 

Garrett's factual findings are unreliable misreads the Circuit Court's ruling and 

misunderstands the law of evidence and the rule against hearsay. 

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court for its truth. Historically, all 

hearsay has been "presumed unreliable" (as the USX court noted) and therefore 

inadmissible unless there is an exception to the hearsay rule for the particular statement. 

The presumption of unreliability says nothing at all about the credibility of any particular 

hearsay statement. Some hearsay statements are highly credible but nonetheless 

inadmissible against a party who has not had a chance to confront them. It is a matter of 

fairness to that party. By presuming that a hearsay statement is unreliable and, therefore, 

inadmissible, we protect the interest of a party who will never have had a chance to crossexamine the statement. 

The Garrett opinion referred to factual allegations contained in a memorandum 

submitted by TIECO's counsel. It "incorporates [the memorandum's] statement of facts 

as a basis for the findings and conclusions as contained in this order" dismissing the 

prosecution. It is common for a trial judge to request proposed findings of fact from 

counsel and to adopt them as the judge deems appropriate in light of the record. 

In the subsequent federal litigation between TIECO and USX, the district court 

admitted Judge Garrett's opinion and the memorandum ofTIECO's counsel against USX. 
1035 

Judge Garrett's opinion was hearsay when admitted in the federal case against 

USX. The memorandum of TIECO'S counsel was also hearsay. So USX faced hearsay 

within hearsay. There was no hearsay exception that would have allowed the admission 

of this evidence in the federal case. So the historical presumption of unreliability was not 

overcome. USX was not a party in State of Alabama v. TIE CO. So it never had a chance 

to contest this proof there. If in the federal case USX's lawyers had objected to the 

admission of Judge Garrett's opinion on hearsay grounds, their objection would have 

been upheld. 

But USX's lawyers did not object on hearsay grounds. As a result, they waived a 

hearsay objection. They did object on another ground. They asked the trial judge to 

exclude Judge Garrett's opinion (and the incorporated memorandum ofTIECO's 

counsel) as unfairly prejudicial to USX and misleading to the jury. A trial judge is 

empowered to exclude even relevant evidence for these reasons, but the trial judge here 

declined to do so. The Circuit Court held that this was an abuse of discretion. It held that 

although the Garrett opinion could not be excluded on hearsay grounds -because there 

was no hearsay objection- the presumed unreliability of all hearsay also made the 

evidence unfairly prejudicial and misleading in TIECO'S case against USX. 

It is important to understand what the Eleventh Circuit did not say. It did not say 

that Judge Garrett's findings of fact, incorporating counsel's memorandum, were 

inaccurate or unreliable as against the State of Alabama. It did not question the record 

support for Judge Garrett's factual findings. Unlike USX, the State of Alabama did have 

the opportunity to challenge the evidence before Judge Garrett and had failed to do so. 

Judge Garrett's findings were and still are reliable against the office about which they 

were made- the office of the Attorney General of Alabama, which prosecuted the case 

against TIECO. Nothing in the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit changes that. 

Sincerely yours, 

Stephen Gillers 
1036 

• 

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 

CAMBRIDGE· MASSACHUSETTS· 02138 

H.~USER HALL 300 

1575 MAsSACHUSEITS A VENUE 

LAN! GUIN!ER 

Bennett Borkry Profmor of Law 

January 11,2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

phone: 617496-1913 

{guinier@/aw.harv4rd. edu 

RE: Nomination ofHon. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Ill as Attorney General 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I am submitting the attached chapter (ch. 7 of my book Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights 

Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice) in connection with the nomination of Senator Jeff 

Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. I ask that this chapter be entered into the 

Senate Judiciary Committee's official record. I write to share my perspective on an important 

aspect of Senator Sessions's background, based on my direct experience with him when he was 

the U.S. Attorney for Alabama's Southern District. 

From 1981 to 1988 I served as an Assistant Counsel and head of the Voting Rights Program at 

the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and in 1985 I was on the team, together with Deval Patrick and 

others, that represented Spencer Hogue and Albert and Evelyn Turner in Mr. Sessions's 

prosecution of the so-called Perry County Three. This is a case that was brought in the wake of 

the historic Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, a time when black voter activism had been 

rapidly increasing, in a place that had a tragic history of voter suppression and exclusion. This 

context would have been evident to anyone who lived in Alabama at that time. I wrote the 

attached chapter in 1995 from my recollections of the case, my notes on that time period, and 

conversations with Individuals who had been present in Alabama at that time. The description of 

the events in my book is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate portrayal of what occurred. 

While this case is now more than thirty years in the past, it continues to be foundationally 

important for understanding the challenges facing rural black voters in Alabama. Mr. Sessions's 

attempted prosecution of the Perry County Three contributed to an atmosphere of voter 

intimidation in Alabama, effectively continuing the disenfranchisement of many rural black 
1037 

voters. Mr. Sessions's decision to prosecute this case in the first place reveals, at the very least, a 

failure to respect the voting rights of black people, which is deeply inappropriate in a nominee 

for such an important position. 

2m~ Lani Guinier 

Bennett Boskey Professor of Law 

En c. 
1038 

January 9, 2017 

Senator Chuck Grassley 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20510-6050 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: 

HOOVER 

INSTITUTION 

lduu Drfinirr.g A Free Saday 

Condoieez7.a Rice 

I am sorry that I cannot be with you today but thank you for allowing me join Senator Shelby in the 

introduction of Senator Jeff Sessions who has been nominated by the President-Elect to serve as 

our nation's next Attorney General. It is a great honor to put this statement before you on behalf 

of Senator Sessions, a fellow Alabaman and a person who I admire greatly. 

I have known Senator Sessions since the early days of the Bush Administration and he has been a 

friend ever since. His character and leadership are reinforced by his respect for the extraordianry 

Constitutuion handed down to us by our Founders. He is a man who is committed to justice and 

knows that law and order are necessary to guarantee freedom and liberty. 

Senator Sessions has been a tireless champion for the people of Alabama serving as one of it's 

Senators for over 20 years. He has also served as a federal prosecutor, the Alabama State 

Attorney General, and as a member of your distinguished Committee. 

Honorable Senators, one of the orignial four cabinet positions created by our Founders was that of 

Attorney General. They believed that those who governed would value justice. But they also knew 

that justice would prevail because Americans could exercise and secure their rights through the 

judicial system. Protection of the rule of law and reigning in the arbitrary power of the State is at 

the core of democratic stability. And there is no more important role than Attorney General in 

assuring fealty to those principles. Senator Sessions has devoted his life to public service and to 

the protection of our core vlues. He will be dilligent on behalf of all Americans and their rights. 

I would like to close on a personal note. Senator Sessions and I were born not too many years 

apart in the state of Alabama at a time when America was not living up to its high-minded 

principles. Our state was a place of prejudice and injustice against the decendants of slaves. We, 

as a country, have worked hard and long to deal with our original birth defect of slavery and its 

aftermath. We have made progress but there is more to do, I respectfully say to you that those of 

us who lived through that dark time are among those most committed in deep and fundamental 

ways to overcoming it. 

HOOVER INSTITUTION STANFORD UNIVERSITY 
1039 

Senator Chuck Grassley 

January 9, 2017 

Page 2 

l'~'' HOOVER ~rrr~ INSTITUTION 

ldtas Defining A Frn Socirt;• 

Senator Sessions has worked hard to heal those wounds. He spearheaded the effort to award the 

Congressional Gold Medal to one of my personal heroes, Rosa Parks; he worked with Senator 

Booker to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement 

in Selma; and he continually supports the commemoration of the 1961 Freedom Riders. 

I know that Senator Sessions will uphold the laws of our great country and will work to ensure that 

every person here in the United States is given the voice that is deserved. 

I am honored to support Senator Sessions today. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for holding today's confirmation hearing 

and thank you for your continued service to our great country. 

Sincerely, 

~~-

HOOVER INSTITUTION I STANFORD UNIVERSITY 
1040 

January 9, 2017 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I write to highlight for the committee Sen. Jeff Sessions' indispensable role in working 

with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MD), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), and me to pass the landmark 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003. With his leadership and support, the bill passed 

both the Senate and House without objection and was signed into law by President George W. 

Bush. PREA stands as a testament to Sen. Sessions' commitment to justice for all Americans, 

and advocacy for the "least of these." 

I believe that Sen. Sessions, like me, was moved by the passionate advocacy of the late 

Chuck Colson in support of this effort. In his capacity providing prison ministry in the years 

following his own federal sentence, Colson understood the devastating impact of sexual 

assaults against women, men and children in detention. Thanks to his efforts and a coalition of 

advocacy organizations on the right and left, Sen. Sessions was able to author this bill and 

secure Senate support and passage. 

Nearly 15 years since its enactment, the standards established under PREA and the 

resources provided to state and local systems to support the implementation of the standards 

are changing lives and preventing an untold number of sexual assault in jails, prisons, and other 

confinement facilities at the federal, state and local levels. Today, 11 states are in full 

compliance with the standards, and another 41 states and territories are working towards 

successful implementation. This is a remarkable step forward in the effort to end the scourge 

of sexual assault in prisons. 

As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions will enter office at an important moment where 

most states are on the cusp of coming into compliance with the law he authored. I can think of 

no better example to highlight his commitment to justice and his capacity to better protect all 

Americans. 

Sincerely, 

Congressman Frank R. Wolf (ret.) 

1981-2014 
1041 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019·6799 

.JLIEBERMAN(iilKASOWITZ.COM 

ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT' AND NEW YORK 

Jlonorablc Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen OHlce Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Onice Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chuck and Dianne, 

Tu~:<-; HoN. ~JosEPH I. l.IEDERMAN 

January 6, 20 [ 7 

HOUSTON 

MIAMI 

NEWARK 

SAN FRANCISCO 

SILICON VALLEY 

WASHINGTON, DC 

LOS ANGE:LES 

First, let me wish you both a Happy New Year and a productive First Session of the 115'h 

Congress. 

I am writing in regards to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General 

of the United States which is now before your Committee. 

Jell and I served togethct· in the U.S. Senate for sixteen years. A review of our voting 

records will show that he and I disagreed on many issues, but that did not stop us from working 

together when we agreed, nor did it get in the way of us becoming personal friends. 

One of the most important collaborations, Je!Tand I had was on the Heroes Act (Public 

Law No. I 09- 13) which expanded death henclits for the families of !allen combat personnel 

li·om $12,000 to $100.000 and increased the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) tl'om 

$250,000 to $400,000. 
1042 

KAsowrTz, BENSON, ToRRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 

In the many convel'sations and interactions we had over the years, I always found JeiT to 

be an honorable and trustworthy person, a smart and good lawyer, and a thoughtful and open 

minded listener. 

Do l agree with everything he has ever said or done? Of course not. But f don't agree 

with everything anyone f know has ever said or done, including myself Most people change 

during their lives, learning Ji·om experience, and thercfi.1re deserve to be judged on the totality of 

their liiC's work, with greater weight given to more recent behavior. 

During my twenty-lour years in the Senate, when I had to decide whether to advise and 

consent to a controvcrsinl Presidential nomination, I tried to remember that the question was not 

whether I would nominate that person, because that is the President's singular right and 

responsibility. The question is whether I could conclude that the nominee would carry out the 

responsibilities of the particular office for which he was nominated al that particular lime. 

Perhaps, .felT applied similar standards when in 2009 he decided to vote to conllrm President 

Obama's nomination of Erie Holder to be Attorney General. 

Senator Jeff Sessions has now been nominated by President-elect Trump to be our next 

Attorney General. Based on my personal knowledge of the nominee, I believe that he will be a 

principled, lair, and capable Attomey General. lf I were in the Senate today, I would vote "aye" 

on his nomination. 

With every good, personal wish. 

. Lieberman 

Se1 · r Counsel 

Un ed States Senator, Retired 
1043 

Judge Louis J. Freeh, Former Director 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

December 20, 2016 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Senator Feinstein: 

I am very delighted to add my strong recommendation in support of my friend and former 

colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions, who has been designated by President-Elect Donald Trump 

to be Attorney General of the United States. I have known Jeff since 1989 when we worked 

together as fellow prosecutors on one of the most important civil rights cases investigated and 

prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice, in conjunction with the State of 

Alabama. Our paths crossed again when I served as director of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (1993-2001), and Senator Sessions continued his distinguished public service in 

Washington, DC, and as a member of your Judiciary Committee. 

I have served and interacted with Senator Sessions for over 25 years, and have always been 

greatly impressed with his commitment to the rule of law, his fair and balanced prosecutorial 

judgment, and his personal dedication to protecting civil rights. Most importantly, I can attest to 

his unwavering personal integrity and devotion to public service. As a federal and state 

prosecutor for over 17 years, with hands-on experience gained only on the 'front lines' by career 

professionals, combined with his fair and balanced good judgment and integrity, I believe that 

Jeff will be an outstanding Attorney General for the Nation. 

In 1989, federal Judge Robert Vance of the Eleventh Circuit and NAACP leader Robbie 

Robinson were murdered by separate mail bombings in Alabama and Georgia, respectively. 

These horrific assassinations, together with additional attempted bombings and racist letter 

threats of more killings and mayhem, had a devastating impact on the entire administration of 

justice across the country, particularly in Alabama and Georgia. Every federal judge in the 

Circuit received death threats from the bomber and all were placed under US Marshal 

protection. Similarly, the entire civil rights leadership in the southeast United States was 

victimized by fear of more threatened, terrorist attacks. Then Attorney General Richard 

Thornburg assigned me to the case and one of the first fellow prosecutors I met was then US 

Attorney Jeff Sessions, serving in the Southern District of Alabama. Jeff and his office were key 

decision-makers in formulating and implementing the investigative strategy which ultimately led 

to the arrest and conviction of Walter Moody for these murders. Throughout our work together, 1 

was struck with Jeff's fierce determination to solve these civil rights murders, which so gravely 

impacted the rule of law and the guarantee of civil rights in America. After I became FBI director 

and Jeff was the Alabama Attorney General, we again collaborated together and Moody was 

tried and sentenced under the Alabama capital offense statues for murder. 
1044 

As FBI director, I was later privileged to work with you and your Senate colleagues, including 

Senator Sessions. As I observed and worked with Jeff on a broad variety of justice-related 

matters (both criminal and civil), he was always totally prepared, accessible and willing to 

consider all aspects of a complicated issue before deciding. When he did make decisions, they 

were always fair and clearly the product of much thought and reflection. In sum, it was a 

privilege to work with Senator Sessions and his Senate staff during my 8 years as director. I 

have great respect and affection for him. Very importantly, I can also say that the men and 

women (AUSAs, FBI Agents, Alabama State Troopers and Sheriffs) who served with Jeff during 

his 17 -year career as a prosecutor, share my feelings of respect and admiration. 

I am very pleased to give the Committee my very highest personal and profession 

recommendations for Jeff's confirmation as Attorney General. 

Respectfully, 

Louis J. Freeh 

CC: Senator Jeff Sessions 
1045 

Sue Bell Cobb 

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice (Ret.) 

837 Williamsburg Drive 

Pike Road, Alabama 36064 

The Hon. Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary ll 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Dear Chairman Grassley: 

In 1981, I became one of the youngest judges in the State of Alabama at the age 

of 25. That same year, Deputy U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions became the U.S. 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, having been appointed by 

President Reagan. Not long after my appointment and election to a full term as 

the District Judge of Conecuh County, I mel Jeff Sessions. 

I was honored to be invited by Jeff to speak at the educational seminars that he 

hosted for all law enforcement in the Southern District of Alabama. Although it 

has now been decades since those conferences, I believe my assigned topic was 

domestic violence or juvenile justice. Thus began a lifetime of interaction with my 

friend, Jeff Sessions. 

Having served as a trial judge for 12 years, I decided to run my first statewide 

race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. As the Democrat 

Party's nominee, I found myself on the campaign trail with the Republican 

nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. We were then as we are now, 

members of different parties, but always willing to assist each other as we 

attempted to constantly do the right thing for the people of our beloved state. 
1046 

As a result of our elections in 1994, we both moved to Montgomery. General 

Sessions' job was to run the People's law firm, the Attorney General's Office of 

Alabama. I was elected as one of five criminal appellate judges who reviewed the 

appeals and filings in criminal cases of The Allomey General's Office. This was 

work in which he was able to apply his extensive experience as the Southern 

District 's top prosecutor and I drew upon my years spent on the trial bench. 

Timeliness of rulings is important in the justice system, but it is essential in 

criminal cases. Huge backlogs in our slate's forensics department had become a 

major factor in delay in the resolution of criminal charges. These delays injured 

both the State and individual defendants. Senator Sessions responded to this 

important issue by authoring the Paul Coverdell National Forensics Sciences 

Improvement Act of 2000. Sen. Sessions proved that he understood that "justice 

delayed is justice denied". 

I was honored to be the first woman elected as Chief Justice of the Alabama 

Supreme Court in 2006. One of my major priorities during my tenure as Chief 

Justice was reform of our sentencing laws and practices. This emphasis was due 

to our unfortunate standing as the state with the most overcrowded and least 

funded prison system in the nation. Expansion of Model Drug Courts became a 

major focus. Sen. Sessions has continually demonstrated his understanding of the 

need for and his support for these data driven sentencing options which save 

lives and tax dollars. He has always responded when I called; party boundaries 

were never a consideration or factor in his decision. 

It is for these reasons and many more that I write to offer my endorsement and 

support of the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of The 

United States. 

With warmest regards, I am 

Most Sincerely, 

Sue Bell Cobb 
1047 

MICHAEL HOROWITZ 

1205 CREST LANE 

McLEAN, VIRGINIAI!21Ul21 AHII~ 19 

Re: Sessions Confirmation Hearings 

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: 

~~~\'!;l,~~iJ1H~t1 EkN "'~.Jj .i.\ 1

.J f'mt rt~ 

Intense disagreement is a hallmark of vibrant democracies, all the more so 

after elections as passionate as the one we've just had. For this reason, and at 

times like now in particular, democracies must take special care to avoid the use of 

character assassination and misinformation in place of meaningful policy debate. 

I am writing to the Committee because the line between debate and slander 

is being grievously crossed in the case of the Sessions nomination. 

My name is Michael Horowitz and I currently serve as President of 21st 

Century Initiatives, a think tank focused on the promotion of domestic and 

international human rights. As such, I have played leadership roles in the drafting, 

left-right coalition building and passage of such laws as the International Religious 

Freedom Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the North Korea Human 

Rights Act, the Sudan Peace Act and, of special importance to this letter, the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act. I have also engaged in a lifetime of active opposition to 

racial discrimination in all of its forms -- an effort including time spent teaching the 

first racially integrated classes at the University of Mississippi Law School. 

(While there, I taught a civil rights law course and actively recruited students from 

all-black colleges, and was attacked and threatened by the state's most virulent 

racists, including such Klan activists as Byron de Ia Beckwith, the murderer of 

Medgar Evers.) 
1048 

From these and similar experiences, I have developed a useful sensitivity to 

bigotries and bigots, to racism and racists, and to people who genuinely care about 

the vulnerable and oppressed and those who offer them little but lip service. 

From my time in Mississippi and during my service as OMB General 

Counsel during the Reagan administration, I have also had much experience with 

persons willing to subordinate rule of law principles to policy and political 

preferences, and leaders commited to rule-of-law governance. 

Based on that background, and based on having worked with Senator 

Sessions during the time it took to enact and enforce the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act -legislation for which he was the prime Senate sponsor-- I can unqualifiedly 

state that any charges against him of racism or indifference to the needs of the 

vulnerable are maliciously or, at best, blindly false. 

How lucky our prison reform coalition was to have Senator Sessions as our 

leader: 

• He played a key role in crafting a strong bill able to bypasss the 

politicallandmines which had long blocked the passage of all 

prison reform legislation- doing so, I saw, out of deep concern 

about the evils and effects of prison rape and violence; 

• Despite the fact that Senator Ted Kennedy led the fight against 

his confirmation as a Federal Circuit judge, Senator Sessions 

enthusiatically embraced him as the prime cosponsor of his bill, 

and worked to pass it in cordial, respectful and effective 

partnership with Senator Kennedy; 

• Senator Sessions was implacable in taking on and overriding the 

Bush Justice Department's opposition to the bill; 

• He likewise took on the Obama Justice Department's failure to 

issue timely prison rape elimination standards, and its effort to 

construe a Sessions provision barring the issuance of prison 

performance standards that imposed substantial costs as barring 

standards that imposed nominal costs-- a construction that would 

have gutted the bill; 

• He took on strong criticism from many conservatives, and from 

nearly all state prison officials, who alleged that his bill was an 

intrusive Federal intervention in state affairs- a charge first 
1049 

negated by his bill's focus on effective reform strategies that 

imposed no significant costs and created no bureaucracies; 

• Of special significance, Senator Sessions cited the Supreme 

Court's decision Farmer v. Brennan to critics who argued that his 

bill was inconsistent with his strongly professed belief in 

principles of federalism. He noted Farmer's holding that 

deliberate indifference to the rape of a transsexual prisoner 

violated the Cruel and Inhuman Punishment provision of the 

Constitution, thus creating a constitutional right and a Federal 

duty to see that Farmer-like conduct was eliminated. In so 

doing, Senator Sessions displayed a strong determination to 

follow the law wherever it led and to take political heat from his 

supporters for doing so. (I predict that, in the tradition of our best 

Attorneys General, Senator Sessions will at times disappoint his 

Executive Branch colleagues by ruling that the law does not 

permit them to engage in policy actions that they and hewould otherwise favor); 

• By his concern for the well-being of vulnerable prisoners and his 

attentiveness to the concerns of all coaJtion members, Senator 

Sessions played a key role in keeping our broad coalition 

together. The remarkable character of that coalition is indicated a 

partial list of its members: 

Amnesty International 

Concerned Women for America 

Focus on Family 

Human Rights Watch 

Institute for Religion and Democracy 

LaRaza 

Mennonite Church 

NAACP 

National Association of Evangelicals 

Open Society Forum of the Soros Foundation 

Penal Reform International 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 

Salvation Army 

Southern Baptist Convention 

Stop Prison Rape 

United Methodist Church 
1050 

• Senator Sessions' leadership helped create previously nonexistent bipartisan, religious-secular trust on prison reform issues 

and has played a key role in making possible the left/right prison 

reform alliances that now exist; 

• Critically, and as time has told, Senator Sessions' PREA bill has 

been extraordinarily effective in bringing about prison reform 

and in holding federal, state and local prison officials accountable 

for failures to take significant steps to eliminate prison rape. 

Based on my experience with human rights issues and as an life-long 

opponent of racial discrimination -- and having seen Senator Sessions in action -- I 

believe it clear that: 

• there is not a racially biased bone in his body; 

• he respects and complies with the law, wherever it leads; 

• political pressure will not cause him to do otherwise; and that 

• his personable manner and respect for those he disagrees with is 

joined with a principled determination to make the law an instrument 

that serves persons who badly need its protections. 

Senator Sessions is a political conservative with whose policy views many 

can honorably disagree. At the same time, any attempt to describe him as in any 

way biased against any minority group disserves the country and should discredit 

those who say so. I therefor hope that Senator Sessions' decency and integrity will 

make his confirmation hearings a turning point event that produces bipartisan 

condemnation of "basket of deplorables" efforts to substitute character 

assassination for the merits-based policy debates that the country- and its minority 

members most of all so badly need. 

cc: Senator Jeff Sessions 
1051 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

El 

HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

CAMPAIGN@ 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign's more than 1.5 million members and supporters 

nationwide, I write to express our strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to 

serve as the United States Attorney General. As the nation's largest organization advocating for 

the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans gender, and queer (LGBTQ) people, we are deeply 

concerned by Senator Sessions' lengthy record of promoting discrimination and marginalization 

of LGBTQ people and his consistent disregard for Constitutional principles protecting our 

community. Over more than three decades in public life, Senator Sessions has unapologetically 

used his position of power to target LGBTQ people and to deny our right to equal justice under 

the law. 

As Attorney General, Senator Sessions would be charged with enforcing some ofthe nation's 

most critical civil rights laws protecting the LGBTQ community including the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While in Congress, Senator Sessions worked 

to defeat passage of this law, arguing that the bill would merely prosecute "thought crimes." In 

the face of rising violence against LGBTQ people, Senator Sessions consistently argued that 

LGBTQ people should be denied protection under federal hate crimes laws. Senator Sessions 

also opposed expanding protections under the Violence Against Women Act to protect LGBTQ 

victims of violence under the most recent VA WA reauthorization. Given Senator Sessions' 

longstanding hostility towards federal actions to protect and prevent violence against LGBTQ 

people, we are deeply troubled that he would be in the position to enforce these laws that he 

committed years of his life to defeating. 
1052 

In addition to enforcing these laws that explicitly protect LGBTQ people from violence, the 

Office of Attorney General plays a critical role in the enforcement of other civil rights laws that 

many LGBTQ people have come to rely upon including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972, and the Affordable Care Act. Numerous 

federal courts and agencies including the Department of Justice have concluded that in many 

circumstances LGBTQ people should receive protection from discrimination under the sex 

discrimination provisions included in these laws. These protections have proven to be an 

essential tool in combatting the invidious discrimination in employment, education, and 

health care that continue to plague our community. 

In enforcing these laws the Department of Justice has not only provided increased protection for 

LGBTQ people, but has held states violating federal law accountable- an essential role of the 

federal government. For example, the Department brought a lawsuit against the state of North 

Carolina following passage of House Bill2, charging violations of federal laws including the 

Violence Against Women Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972. It is imperative that the incoming Attorney General exhibit a 

sincere commitment to full enforcement of these laws and to maintaining this interpretation in all 

Departmental litigation. Senator Sessions' longstanding opposition to federal nondiscrimination 

provisions designed to provide legal protections for LGBTQ people including the Employment 

Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) raise serious concerns regarding his willingness to continue 

comprehensive enforcement of existing statutes. 

We are also concerned by Senator Sessions' public dismissal of the use of consent decrees by the 

Department of Justice to enforce civil rights laws and to ensure access to justice for vulnerable 

communities. For the LGBTQ community, consent decrees have served as a valuable tool to 

address harassment and discrimination of LGBTQ children and youth in schools. In partnership 

with the Department of Education, the Department of Justice has worked collaboratively with 

school districts to address school environments or policies that violate the law. One ofthe most 

notable examples of the use of consent decrees on behalf of LGBTQ students is in the AnokaHennepin School District in Minnesota. The Department of Justice pursued this consent decree 

after federal investigation revealed unchecked bullying, harassment, and intimidation of students 

perceived to be LGBTQ and at least 8 suicides of bullied students. 

In addition to consent decrees, the Department of Justice has been committed to serving 

vulnerable LGBTQ youth and has taken tangible steps to ensure all students have access to an 

equal education free from bullying or violence. In May of this year the Department of Justice 

joined the Department of Education in publishing guidance for school districts to ensure that 

transgender students will be treated with dignity in public and federally funded schools. A 

federal judge issued an injunction in August halting enforcement of this guidance after a number 

of states- including Senator Sessions' state of Alabama filed a suit challenging it. It is critical 

that the Department of Justice continue to defend this much needed guidance and continue to 

provide information to schools and administrators on the front lines. Senator Sessions record of 

2 
1053 

attacking and demeaning LGBTQ people, including students while Attorney General of 

Alabama, is truly alarming. He has done nothing to show that he will be the true defender that 

vulnerable LGBTQ students need and deserve. 

Throughout his lifetime in public service, Senator Sessions has repeatedly attacked the LGBTQ 

community at every opportunity. He has not only voted against critical civil rights victories for 

our community including the repeal of"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and VA W A reauthorization, but has devoted significant 

portions of his career to ensuring that LGBTQ people are denied equal rights and are publicly 

characterized as "dangerous" and as "threats" to the American way of life. 

In Congress, Senator Sessions refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. 

Texas, which found that state laws criminalizing same-sex relationships violated the U.S. 

Constitution. In fact, he used this foundational civil rights decision as evidence for the need for 

an amendment that would enshrine discrimination into the Constitution itself. He co-sponsored 

the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have created a federal definition of marriage 

excluding same-sex couples and prohibiting any state from legalizing same-sex marriages. 

Given this unchallenged record of opposition to any law designed to protect LGBTQ Americans, 

Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as our Attorney General and the Senate should reject his 

nomination. He has not proven that he can be trusted to enforce our nation's civil rights laws 

faithfully and fully. The Office of Attorney General is too critical to our community and to our 

nation to hand its leadership over to someone who has committed his life to dismantling the very 

principles of equal justice and fairness that serve as its foundation. 

Sincerely, 

Chad Griffin 

President 

3 
1054 

Darlene Hutchinson P.O. 240624 I Montgomery, AL I 36124 334.450.585 I 

DFWeditor@aol.com 

January 8, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General 

Dear Senators Grassley & Leahy: 

I write today to express my wholehearted support for Senator Jeff Sessions as our nation's next Attorney General. 

I have been a volunteer crime victims' advocate nearly 25 years, including 15 years in the State of Alabama. In 

1995, while Senator Sessions served as our state's Attorney General, we were successful in passing a landmark 

Crime Victims' Rights Act, a complex piece of legislation that outlines numerous rights granted to victims in 

Alabama. This legislative victory followed the ratification in November 1994 of a state Constitutional Amendment 

guaranteeing crime victims the right to be informed, present and heard at all crucial stages of criminal 

proceedings. I was deeply involved in these initiatives, and we were pleased that more than 80% of Alabama 

voters approved the Victims' Constitutional Amendment. 

The early and mid-1990s were pivotal years in the evolution of victims' rights and victims' services nationwide, 

and Alabama was among the states waking up to the realization that victims should matter in the criminal justice 

system. Senator Sessions has been supportive of these efforts, as well as assuring the rights of crime victims on a 

federal level. 

I'm am too familiar with how victims were once neglected by the criminal justice system. On Thanksgiving Day 

1987, my life changed in an instant when a man I had never seen before abducted me at gunpoint from a smalltown post office in south Alabama. I was a 20-year-<:>ld college student 400 miles from my parents in Florida, and 

I was absolutely horrified. The kidnapper tied and blindfolded me and took me to a residence. I was certain he 

would eventually kill me. But by the grace of God, I was able to escape on the second day. 

He was arrested within 6 days, and 10 months later the local prosecutor decided to plea the case down to one 

charge of kidnapping and one charge of rape and offer a 20-year sentence -the minimum in Alabama for a crime 

of this nature. Later, lleamed the offender would be eligible for parole in 7 years. It was a crime that would 

affect me the rest of my life- one that could have potentially ended my life if I had not escaped- and the 

punishment was far too lenient. I had no say in the matter. To add insult to injury, the prosecutor and judge 

handled the plea and sentencing 4 hours before the set time to apparently accommodate the schedule of the 

defense attorney.! had spent 16 terrorizing hours with this criminal and I wanted to hear him admit his guilt. 

But the victim's role was insignificant in 1987-88, and the court system re-victimized me that day. 

Soon, I developed a determination to do my part to fix a broken, callous system. 

Page 1 of2 
1055 

Senators Grassley & Leahy 

January 8, 2017 

Page2 of 2 

In 1989, I completed my degree in journalism, and have enjoyed a rewarding career in publishing and 

communications, but I am committed to helping victims understand the criminal justice system into which they 

are thrown, and I strive to fix the inadequacies that still exist. It is important that victims know their rights, and be 

involved in the criminal proceedings on the level they choose. As a U.S. Senator, Jeff Sessions has supported 

funding that provides essential services to victims of crime, and protects the rights of these survivors, and he's 

been an advocate on restitution issues to help make victims more whole. 

Some years I have donated 1,000 volunteer hours to assist victims of violent crime -as I accompany survivors to 

court and/or hearings, research and improve policy and legislation, speak publicly on issues related to the 

criminal justice system, and organize support groups and events. Over the years, I have helped hundreds of 

survivors affected by homicide, child abuse, robbery, burglary, assault and many other crimes. For 10 years I was 

a trained/certified advocate for 2 rape crisis centers (one in Alabama, and one in Texas). As a former prosecutor, 

Senator Sessions understands how important it is for investigators and prosecutors to have the tools necessary to 

seekjustice, and he has led the charge to improve forensics testing and help reduce the backlogs at crime labs 

nationwide. 

And Senator Sessions has consistently stood in the gap to support our most vulnerable victims, as he's advocated 

for the reauthorization of the Victims of Child Abuse Act to fund children's advocacy centers across the country. 

Additionally, he's fought to protect children from internet pornography, and track down fugitive sex offenders. 

Further, he was among the supporters of the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 to help those affected by sexual 

assault. 

A Task Force commissioned by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 traveled from state to state, interviewing 

survivors of violence, as well as criminal justice professionals and service providers. In their final report, the Task 

Force concluded that the justice system quite often overlooked and neglected victims. While we have made great 

strides since 1982, I believe we can accomplish so much more for survivors of violence and to ensure public safety 

with Senator Jeff Sessions as our Attorney General. 

In his many years of public service, he has demonstrated integrity, fairness and leadership, as well as a dedication 

to the rule of law and the pursuit of justice. 

We need a bold Attorney General in 2017 who will stand with victims, law enforcement and prosecutors across 

the United States to make our land a safer place for everyone. We need an Attorney General who will expand on 

the accomplishments of President Reagan's 1982 Task Force. I believe that man is Senator Jeff Sessions and 1 

support his nomination without reservation. 

Best regards, 

jlt"-'-

Darlene Hutchinson 
1056 

Barry C. Scheck, Esq. 

Peter J. Neufeld, Esq. 

Directors 

Maddy deLone, Esq. 

Executive Director 

Innocence Project 

40 Worth Street, Suite 701 

NewYorl<, NY 10013 

Tel212.364.5340 

Fax 212.364.5341 

www.innocenceproject.org 

January 17, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne G. Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Innocence Project Statement Opposing the Nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions for 

Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Chainnan Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The Attorney General of the United States is the nation's highest ranking law enforcement officer and 

as the leader of the Department of Justice is responsible for dozens of agencies charged with enforcing 

and protecting civil rights and liberties. To succeed in this important role, the Attorney General must 

put partisan views aside and commit to upholding the Constitution while also respecting all 

stakeholders in the legal system including prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement, victims, and 

defendants alike. To be qualified to be the Attorney General, regardless of his or her political 

orientation, the nominee must have a record of public service that demonstrates fair and equal 

consideration for all Americans. 

Mr. Sessions' record as a State Attorney General, United States Attorney, and Senator in dealing with 

the problem of wrongful conviction is troubling and we fear that the important progress that the nation 

has made in addressing this problem will be lost. For the past twenty-five years, in both Republican 

and Democratic administrations, while there might have been differences in emphasis, the Justice 

Department has supported programs that recognize the right to post conviction DNA testing, reform of 

police practices that contribute to wrongful conviction, and the need to improve the forensic sciences. 

Mr. Sessions has consistently evaluated innocence protections through a narrow lens advocating for 

efficiency at the expense of the wrongfully convicted and finality at the expense of safety and justice. 

While his voting record includes ultimate support for innocence legislation, he has fought to limit the 

breadth of innocence protections in those bills. More telling, his public statements suggest he is 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University 
1057 

Innocence Project, Inc. 

January 17, 2017 

Page 2 

INNOCENCE PROJECT 

1111 I I II I II 'I 

distrustful of the motives of defense attorneys, offended by judges who call attention to prosecutorial 

misconduct, and seemingly unmoved by the fact that forensic evidence traditionally used by 

prosecutors could be, based on new scientific developments, inaccurate. We believe these views are 

outside the mainstream. 

Wrongful convictions reveal the flaws in the criminal justice system, including a range of human 

causes and systemic failures, from false confessions to prosecutorial misconduct to the reliance on 

forensic techniques that have not been proven reliable. Similarly, the 349 DNA exonerations show 

that black people are far more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted, exposing the same 

racial inequality that permeates the criminal justice system. 

Reforming the system to protect against future injustices is core to our mission. This nation needs an 

Attorney General who is willing to see each of these errors as an opportunity for improvement and 

who will support reforms to prevent future wrongful convictions, thereby enhancing public safety. The 

criminal justice system is complex and its challenges are many. In our nation's constant struggle to 

achieve a fairer, more accurate, and more effective system of justice, the next Attorney General must 

recognize these challenges and be prepared to take them on with an open mind, a commitment to 

scientific principles, and a proven record for treating everyone fairly and equally. Senator Sessions' 

troubling record on innocence, criminal justice and civil rights and liberties suggests that he will not. 

For these reasons, we oppose his nomination as Attorney General of the United States and urge the 

Senate not to confirm. 

Sincerely, 

Peter J. Neufeld 

Co-Founder & Co-Director 

Barry C. Scheck 

Co-Founder & Co-Director 

Meryl Schwartz 

Deputy Executive Director 
1058 

International Association of 

Chiefs of Police 

44Cana!CenterPiaza, Suite200 

Alexandna, VA 22314-2357 

Phone. 703-836--6767; 1-800-THE IACP 

Fax 703-836-4543 

Web www.theiacporg 

December 29,2016 

Immediate Past President 

Term<JceM O.nmngham 

ChielofPollce 

Wellesley Police Department 

Weilesley,MA 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

VJcePresldentatlarge 

Wade Carpenter 

ChlefofPoiJce 

ParkC1tyPo!oceDepartroont 

ParkCrty.UT 

lnternationalVicePres;dent 

PatnckStevens 

Dlrectoro!CounterTerronsm 

INTERPOL 

Lyon, France 

VlcePresideni·Trea'lurnr 

Dw1ghtE Hennmger 

Ch•efofPollce 

VeiiPolrceDepartment 

VaiL CO 

GeneraiCtlalrDlvislonofState 

AuociatkmsofChiefsofPotic.e 

TrmothylOW€!'j 

ChrelofPoiEce 

FlonssantPolrceDepartment 

Ftonssant, MO 

Genera!ChalrOIVlslonofState 

andProvlnciafPoHce 

TracyTmtt 

Colonel 

TermesseeH,ghwayPatrol 

Nashville, TN 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

Genero.IChairoftheMidslzeAgencles 

Division 

Paullf./ill1ams 

SpnngfleldPoJ<ceDepartment 

Spnngfr~(j,MO 

ExecutiV1!Diree-tor/ChiefExeculive 

Alexandna,VA 

On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am pleased to inform you of our support 

for the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States. The IACP 

believes that Senator Sessions' years of service have clearly proven that he has the qualifications and experience 

necessary to be an effective leader of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Throughout his career, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an unyielding commitment to justice and to 

upholding the rule of law. His experience as a United States Attorney, the Alabama Attorney General, and a 

United States senator have provided him with opportunities to work closely with law enforcement agencies and 

gain a unique understanding of the challenges and the complexities agencies face daily in safeguarding the 

citizens they are sworn to protect. 

The IACP has interacted with Senator Sessions on several criminal justice-related issues over the years, 

particularly in his roles as senator and as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Senator 

Sessions has always conducted himself in a professional manner, making a point to listen to all sides of an issue 

to ensure a careful, thorough understanding. 

The IACP recently had the opportunity to meet with Senator Sessions after his nomination was announced to 

gain a better understanding of the law enforcement and criminal justice priorities that he would hope to 

accomplish as the next Attorney General. This meeting clearly demonstrated Senator Sessions' qualifications, 

and his commitment and dedication to successfully fostering and enhancing crucial partnerships across the 

criminal justice spectrum. 

Serving tlte Leaders of Today, Developing tlte Leaders of Tomorrow® 
1059 

The IACP urges the Judiciary Committee and the members ofthe United States Senate to confirm Senator 

Sessions' nomination in a timely fashion. 

Sincerely, 

Donald W. De Lucca 

President 

Serving tlte Leaders of Today, Developing tlte Leaders of TomortOJ"-'® 
1060 

8 ,.:_c4,,,,,.~,"''"" 0 Q EG )U\ TICE ;~Responsible lnveslment global witness rc•iYAR!) "J< '~T 

te Coalition 

'I?~ 'I-- firlh 

. . 

1\Mi\ZON Wi\TCH 

january 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

Committee on the judiciary 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the judiciary 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee on the 

judiciary, 

We, the undersigned organizations, write concerning the nomination of Senator Jefferson 

Sessions as the United States Attorney General. We urge you to use the confirmation 

hearings to clarify Senator Sessions' commitment to upholding rule of law, including by 

supporting and enforcing anti-corruption measures, and measures to ensure accountability 

for human rights harms, including those committed by corporations. 

The U.S. government has a longstanding commitment to promoting and protecting human 

rights, including through its membership in the UN Human Rights Council in 20161 and its 

1 United States Election to the Human Rights Council, U.S. DEP'T OF STATE (Oct. 28, 2016), 

https:l lwww.state.gov I secretary lremarksl2 016 I 10126 3798.htm. 
1061 

endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), a 

seminal development in recognizing corporations' human rights responsibilities. The 

Department of justice plays a crucial role in ensuring the realization of such commitments 

by enforcing existing laws and administering justice fairly and impartially, however 

powerful and wealthy the defendant may be. 

When corporations commit wrongdoings that have human rights impacts, they very rarely 

are held to account. Such corporate impunity has a pernicious effect on our society as it 

denies justice to victims of the crime, weakens the rule of law, and creates an uneven 

playing field for law-abiding businesses. The Department of justice is tasked with "seek[ing] 

just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior."Z This should include prosecution of 

human rights crimes, including when such violations of law are committed by corporations. 

Eradicating corrupt businesses practices abroad is an essential step to protecting human 

rights and ensuring corporate accountability. Experts have recognized that where 

corruption is widespread, human rights are subject to abuse.3 One of the key laws in 

combatting corruption abroad is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) which bars 

American businesses from making corrupt payments to foreign officials and engaging in 

financial fraud. Unlike other areas of the law, FCPA enforcement has been rigorous and 

proven effective in punishing corrupt business actors while promoting economic growth by 

ensuring a fair and competitive business environment. 

Senator Sessions has recognized the need for corporate accountability and the current 

prosecution gap. He has made comments expressing a desire for ending corporate impunity. 

During a 2010 confirmation hearing for the U.S. deputy attorney general, james Cole, 

Senator Sessions identified Cole's prosecution record on corporate crimes as one of his 

main areas of concern. Senator Sessions raised doubts on the "dangerous" philosophy of not 

charging companies criminally out of the concern for collateral damage to the shareholders 

and employees. He said, "Normally, I was taught if they violated a law, you charge them. If 

they didn't violate the law, you don't charge them."4 

It is critical for the United States to maintain a leadership role on human rights and the 

Attorney General to commit to upholding such principles. 

As such, we urge you to use the confirmation process to clarify Senator Sessions' views and 

commitments to the following: 

2 About DO], U.S. DEP'T OF jUST., h!:!:P,,d/J<V~,.justice.goyfa!;lOut (last visited jan. 8, 20 17). 3 See International Council on Human Rights Policy, Corruption and Human Rights: Making the 

Connection, 23 fn. 33 (2009) (quoting Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as stating 

that "states face serious problems of corruption, which have negative effects on the full exercise of 

rights covered by the ... [!CESCR]" and quoting the Committee on the Rights of the Child as stating 

that it "remains concerned at the negative impact corruption may have on the allocation of already 

limited resources to effectively improve the promotion and protection of children's rights, including 

their right to education and health") (internal citations omitted). 4 Hearing, Nomination Of] ames Michael Cole, Nominee To Be Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department 

Ofjustice, U.S. SENATE jUDICIARY CoMMITTEE 98-99 (Jun. 15, 2010), 

https: //www.judicim,senate.gov limo /med@/Q<2,<Jj:J:!RG-111shrg64EL!l_c!f. 
1062 

If confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General, 

1) Will Senator Session.s ensure effective prosecution of corporate human rights 

abuses as a key priority of the Department of justice, and ensure U.S. compliance 

with international obligations? What steps will he take to ensure that law 

enforcement have sufficient resources, training. and political support to take on 

corporate wrongdoers? 

2) Will Senator Sessions continue rigorous enforcement of the FCPA and dedicate the 

same or even elevated resources to this area oflaw? Through which steps? 

3) The Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) within the Department 

of justice was established in 2010 to investigate and prosecute cases against human 

rights violators and other international criminals. Will Senator Sessions continue to 

support, with resources, time, and commitment, the HRSP? Through which steps? 

We are thankful for your consideration, and look to you to safeguard the United States' 

commitment to upholding rule of law, including by supporting and enforcing anticorruption measures, and measures to ensure accountability for human rights harms, 

including those committed by corporations. 

Sincerely, 

Amazon Watch 

Coalition of Immokalee Workers 

EG justice 

FIDH 

Global Witness 

Greenpeace USA 

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (!CAR) 

International Rights Advocates 

Mercy Investment Services 

Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment 

Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER) 

Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment 
1063 

INTERNATIONAL UNION 

OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS 

AFL-CIO 

Ti-lE ONLY UNiON .coq U:W ENFORCEMFNT OFFICERS 

..,.he Hororable Jeff Sessions 

U"'lited States Sen<:lte 

Washington, D.C 20510 

Dear Senator Sessions: 

SAM ?-. CADR<\L 

lr><e.·''!Sioo.-;e!P;'J:;':;~· 

HUGH CAMEF\CN 

''it~·m.:nnnai S~r.ef.."i'":,_.;r.~;-as!I'C · 

First, congratulations on yocr nomination to be our next Attornev Genera!. You can CO:Jnl on the men 

an :::I women of :he International Union of Police P..ssociations. AFl-CIO, to be :;olidly in support of you. 

\Ve are well aware of your long hi5;tory of supporti:1g the fine men .and \vomen who provide for the 

public's safety. Your mili!<H)' history .along with your tenure as ar, Alabama State's Attorney and State 

Attorney Generaf give us great confidence in your proven judgment and integ'"ity so dema'lded for this 

august position of public tn .• .st. We are a!:so awa:--e of a1d g:-atefu! for your leadership L'1 the Senate. We 

know that you have a long history of S!.-'Pporting the !?.WS that both protect t.,e <lation's pollee, and 

those tl<at a:b~ov them to be:':ter protec;: and serve the public. 

We know that )HJU ~·i!i demand e)(cellencc _and professionalism frorn America's iaw enforc~~~ent 

cornmunities, while at the sane time, we .are conf1dent that yo-1 will he soiid:v ~ehind them as. they fne 

ever i:"'lcte.asing dangers from the Lnhir,gerl few. 

We look forv.!ard to working with you and yollr s:aff in your new position and also ar'ltkip.ate 

partklpat:ng .n the efforts to confirm your ncminat1on. 

Vr::ry Respectfu!lv, 

Sa:nuet A. Cabra! 

Jnternat:onal President 

irr'.ema:icra! Heacquarters • 1543 FlhgliPg Blvd • G1n r!oor • Saraso:a, Flonda 342:35-6772 • :941) 487~2560 • Fa;oc: (941) 487~2570 

L3g1slative Affairs if-ice • ~va.o;.hrngtcn. DC 
1064 

::LIGHTFOOT LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN WHITE LLC 

December 13,2016 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate. Office Building 

Washington; I?.l: .. 20~10-6050 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member FeinStein: 

J. Gorman Houston, Jr. 

Writer's Direct Dial: 334-834-4414 

11 JM~ \2 r~ z: 41 

uH5H:.:~ 

'V);\sh\ttGTON. O.C. 

I ~te in support of the nomi~~tici~ of Senator Jeff Sessions to the office of Attorney 

General of the United States. I have heell.p1e~~dJ.i.\%9~.~enator Se,s~~~~~fof.;W,~y' years as a 

friend, lawyer, Alabama Attorney Gene~ai,_l\fld q*.i_te,tl.~~~~~~-~.~F!afq~,-.fl.e is iui 6ulstanding, 

honorable and most qualified individUlil. · ' · ' · ·· ..... 

On November 21, 2016, Thomas J. Sugrue published an op-ed styled, "Jeff Sessions' 

Other Civil Rights Problem," in the New York Times that I believe unfairly criticized Senator 

Sessions regarding the so-called "equity funding" case. Before my retirement, I served as an 

associate justice on the Alabama Supreme Court that decided four appellate matters arising from 

that case. I also served as Senior Associate Justice and then Chief Justice when the Chief Justice 

was removed for not following a federal court order. In my decades of public service, I have 

seen public officials who did and who did not adhere to the rule oflaw . 

. \'vith respect to the,~.~ity fundi1,1g case, public sc.hools are often funded with local 

property taxes, leaving poorer counii~s.'ljifh,les.~,f1uiding than more affiuerit counties. Numerous 

groups filed lawsuits throughout the. United' States to _ask courts to raise taxes or change spending 

to provide poorer schools with more funds. · · '· · 

: · .. :U~~~ti~D.~ i~·Mr: s~gfU~ii m1ic1e ish~~ Often these equity funding lawsuits were lost 

and why. Champions of judicial taxing and spending first tried the U.S. Supreme Court. They 

lost in,SanAntoniolndependent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), which held that 

reliance' o~'.pi:o~~rtY.twces t~_f'und public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of 
1065 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 13,2016 

Page2 

the U.S. Constitution even if it causes disparities in funding between districts. Encouraging local 

control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. 

Next, the equity funding advocates filed suits in state court systems. Of the States that 

did not settle, a number held that taxing and spending questioi:Js were for the legislatures to 

decide, not the courts. See Marrero v. Commonwealth, 709 A.2d 956, 965-66 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 

1998) ("These are matters which are exclusively within the purview of the General Assembly's 

powers, and they are not subject to intervention by the judicial branch of our government."), 

ajfd, Pennsylvania Ass'n of Rural and Small Schools v. Ridge, 737 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1999); 

Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178, 1196 (Ill. 1996) ("[T]he process 

of [school funding] reform must be undertaken in a legislative forum rather than the courts."); 

Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Fundingv. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400,408 (Fla. 

1996) (holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "an appropriate standard for determining 

'adequacy' that would not present a substantial risk of judicial intrusion into the powers and 

responsibilities of the legislature."); School Administrative District No. 1 v. Commissioner, 659 

A.2d 854 (Maine 1995) (rejecting argument that disparities in school funding resulted in an 

inadequate education); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlin, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995) (holding school 

funding statutes did not violate state constitution); Coalition/or Equitable School Funding v. 

State, 811 P.2d 116 (Ore. 1991) (rejecting equity funding arguments based on state constitution); 

Kukor v. Grover, 436 N. W.2d 568 (Wis. 1989) (holding state education funding system did not 

violate state constitution); see generally Joy Chia & Sarah A. Seo, Battle of the Branches: The 

Separation of Powers Doctrine in State Education Funding Suits, 41 Columbia J. L. & Social 

Problems 125 (2007). 

In this legal environment, two lawsuits were filed in Montgomery County, Alabama, in 

1990, to challenge the legality of Alabama's property tax funding system for local schools. On 

March 31, 1993, the trial court ruled that Alabama's school funding violated the State 

Constitution. The trial court's order generated three appeals and an advisory opinion request to 

the Supreme Court of Alabama. Jeff Sessions became Attorney General of Alabama in 1995 and 

filed briefs in the case that was decided in 1997. Ultimately, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed 

with Attorney General Sessions' arguments in Ex parte James, 836 So. 2d 813 (Ala. 2002), when 

it dismissed the equity funding case, explaining: 

This Court "shall never exercise the legislative and executive power, or either of 

them; to the end that it may be a government oflaws and not of men." Ala. 

Const. 1901, § 43 (emphasis added). In Alabama, separation of powers is not 

merely an implicit "doctrine" but rather an express command; a command stated 

with a forcefulness rivaled by few, if any similar provisions in constitutions of 

other sovereigns. Amendment 582 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 reflects 

this State's adherence to this command by effectively nullifying any "order of a 

state court, which requires disbursement of state funds, ... until the order has 

been approved by a simple majority of both houses of the Legislature." 

Compelled by the weight of this command and a concern for judicial restraint, we 
1066 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

December 13,2016 

Page3 

hold (1) that this court's review of the merits of the still pending cases commonly 

and collectively known in this State, and hereinafter referred to, as the "Equity 

FlUlding Case," has reached its end, and (2) that, because the duty to fund 

Alabama's public schools is a duty that- for over 125 years -the people of this 

State have rested squarely on the shoulders of the Legislature, it is the Legislature, 

not the courts, from which any further redress should be sought. Accordingly, we 

hold that the Equity Funding Case is due to be dismissed. 

Ex parte James, 836 So. 2d 813, 815 (Ala. 2002). In short, Attorney General Sessions' legal 

argwnent for his client, the State, rested on the bedrock legal principle, consistent with the U.S. 

Supreme Court and the courts of numerous other States, that taxing and spending are the powers 

vested in the legislature, not in the courts. 

As an aside, the trial judge who entered the March 31, 1993 order ran for the Alabama 

Supreme Court and "appearing at an event to be publicly honored by a party to the pending 

litigation. In April1993, prior to the Remedy Plan [the trial judge] attended the State [Parents 

Teachers Association ('PTA')]1993 annual convention in Huntsville, Alabama ... a party 

plaintiff/defendant and State Superintendent ofEducation, introduced [the trial judge], read 

excerpts from his Liability Order, .. to the standing ovation of the crowd .... [The] Association 

actively campaigned for the proposed remedy plan to be implemented." Ex parte James, 713 So. 

2d 869, 875 (Ala. 1997). The trial judge recused himself before the Court entered its 1997 

decision. 

Mr. Sugrue might be right in stating that Alabama's schools have funding problems. 

Many state school systems do. But he is wrong in his critique of Jeff Sessions. Attorney 

General Sessions did his duty by defending his State, advocating consistent with the binding 

Constitution of his State, and arguing for the basic American proposition that elected legislators 

levy taxes and spend tax revenues, not courts. That dedication to the rule oflaw will serve him 

well as the Attorney General of the United States. 

Sincerely, 

J. Gorman Houston, Jr. 
1067 

Nov. 20, 2016 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein and Honorable Members: 

I am writing to ask you to support the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as 84th 

Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has served on the U.S. Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary for 20 years, and has one of the strongest historical understandings 

of how the Department of Justice works, its jurisdiction, its challenges and issues to date. When 

I was working as a Senate counsel for the Judiciary Committee from 1996-1998 for Sen. Jon Kyl 

(R-AZ), Sen. Sessions was a junior member of the Judiciary Committee. 

It would not be until 2013 I would have the honor of working with Sen. Sessions as a Special 

Counsel, and it is about that experience I wish to inform you. In short, it was an honor and 

privilege serving Sen. Sessions. I believe his deep experience, commitment to public service 

and the rule of law, honesty, fortitude, and willingness to stand for what he believes best serves 

the American people and institutions of government, make him an unparalleled candidate for 

Attorney General. These subsequent paragraphs will explain why. 

When the Senate Judiciary Committee began consideration of the Border Security, Economic 

Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), Sen. Sessions and Sen. 

Grassley jointly requested I testify to the national and border security implications (Title I) of the 

bill based upon my extensive history of providing policy guidance on border, counterterrorism 

and identity security to Congress as a former 9/11 Commission counsel. Upon conclusion of 

that testimony in April 2013, Sen. Sessions asked that I join his staff temporarily as a Special 

Counsel during consideration of S. 744. I did so, and it is based on that 2013 experience that I 

write in support of the nomination of Sen. Sessions for Attorney General. 

S. 744 was a colossal and complex bill, with 1,200 pages and over 270 sections, all implicating 

different facets of immigration law. Staff had less than two weeks for full review and analysis of 

the legislation prior to the beginning of the full Senate Judiciary markup. In addition to the actual 

bill itself, there were dozens of proposed amendments that also required analysis as well as 

proposed amendments by Sen. Sessions. As staff, we were hard pressed to provide all we 

needed to Sen. Sessions in a timely manner; there were to be no shortcuts nor political 

expediency. 

The result was that Sen. Sessions became the spearhead for judicious, conscientious review of 

every single provision of the proposed bill. He required understanding of not only the language 

but the ramifications of sections of the provisions. Behind closed doors, there was no hint of 

political obstructionism, playing the party line, nor glossing over important details to make a 

political point. Instead, Sen. Sessions sought to understand simply (1) the proposed language; 

and (2) what the effect of that language would be on the American worker, on immigration law, 

and on national security. On a personal level, Sen. Sessions treated all his staff, and me, with 

the utmost kindness and respect. Sen. Sessions delved deep, he asked good questions, and he 
1068 

required of his staff that they be objective and thorough in their responses. Sen. Sessions 

expected alot from his staff, but only because he worked harder than we did. 

I believe that Sen. Sessions is a truly honorable man who has only the public service of his 

country at heart, and has the experience and dedication to our justice system as few do today. 

Sen. Sessions has done everything it takes to be qualified for the position of Attorney General; 

he deserves your support. 

Sincerely, 

Janice L. Kephart 

Former Counsel to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senate Judiciary Committee 

Former Counsel, 9/11 Commission 

Former Special Counsel to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Senate Judicairy Committee 
1069 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Members of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Senator Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: 

I am writing to urge you, out of respect for the American values enshrined in the Constitution, not to confirm 

Sen. Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I am also well aware of the fact that the 

Republican Majority of this honorable Committee may confirm Sen. Sessions after an incomplete and less 

than thorough hearing which will compromise its moral authority in our legislative system. 

But as a grateful patriot citizen I must voice my concerns, timely and loudly, on behalf of our beloved nation 

that the Civil Rights progress we have made thus far is threatened by this nominee for the office of the chief 

law enforcement officer of our nation. 

I also write to you as a citizen of the United States of America, a country that welcomed me when I chose to 

make it my home. I love this country deeply and am grateful for the freedom and opportunities it has given to 

me and my family. I am also an attorney who reveres the rule of law, and most especially the United States 

Constitution. It is out of respect for our constitutional values, and not out of any personal disrespect for Sen. 

Jeff Sessions, that I am urging you not to confirm Mr. Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. 

People around the world look to our Constitution with envy. They are inspired by its promise of equal 

protection of the law to everyone - not just people from powerful families, or a favored ethnic group or 

religious community. During the past 50 years, the United States has taken many significant steps to make 

sure that equal protection of the law is not just a promise, but a reality. That is especially true for one of the 

most cherished rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens, the right to vote. Protecting this sacred right is one of the 

most important responsibilities of the Attorney General, and that is one reason this position cannot be 

entrusted to Mr. Sessions. 

I wish to say emphatically that this is about a principle that, like the Constitution, is bigger than politics and 

partisanship. The last time Mr. Sessions was before the Senate as a nominee- in that case to be a federal 

judge Republicans held the majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. They rejected Mr. 

Sessions in part because he used the power of his office as a U.S. Attorney to prosecute community activists 

who helped poor and elderly people exercise their right to vote. Fortunately, the courts rejected Mr. Sessions' 

efforts, but it is hard to understand, much less accept, his actions. 

Sadly, Mr. Sessions has not demonstrated a greater understanding that the right to vote should transcend 

partisan interests. He has harshly criticized the national Voting Rights Act, which as Attorney General he 

would be charged with enforcing, and supported states that have done away with procedures designed to help 

people vote. There is no constitutional principle or American value that is strengthened by making it harder 

for some Americans, especially those who are already disadvantaged, to exercise their right to vote. 

Another threat to the American ideal is violence and intimidation directed against ethnic and religious 

minorities. There have been hundreds of such incidents in the weeks since the presidential election. The 

bigotry at the root of these incidents is a threat to individual lives and families and to a society grounded in 

the constitutional values of equality and pluralism. It is shocking to even consider that at this very moment 

-1-
1070 

our Department of Justice would be led by someone who has cultivated close relationships with 

organizations that promote racial and religious divisiveness and hostility toward immigrants, as Mr. Sessions 

has. 

I am also a Muslim American who cherishes the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty. There is 

nothing that demonstrates the American ideal more than our country's commitment to religious freedom for 

all people. And that is another reason that Mr. Sessions cannot be entrusted with the office of Attorney 

General. 

Mr. Sessions has defended proposals that would single Muslim immigrants out for discriminatory treatment 

on the basis oftheir religious beliefs. He has happily accepted awards from the most intensely anti-Muslim 

organizations and groups that spread the vile falsehood that Muslims cannot be loyal Americans. That is not 

the American Way. 

My son, US Anny Captain Humayun Khan, was a living rebuke to such bigotry. He gave his life in service 

to this country, earning a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his heroism. He, like the people of every 

gender, ethnicity, and religion whose bodies rest in Arlington National Cemetery, which include FIVE 

Muslim Soldiers, swore an oath to protect the Constitution. 

One central constitutional value, something that sets the United States apart from so many countries, is the 

freedom of individuals to organize, to speak out on behalf of their values, and to dissent against official 

wrongdoing. It is this freedom that allows me to make my case to you. Mr. Sessions has denounced anti-war 

protesters and described the NAACP and the ACLU as un-American, which indicates he does not understand 

patriotic dissent or value the role that these organizations play in upholding our constitutional values. 

I urge you to think beyond partisan politics as you consider this nomination. Thirty years ago, a bipartisan 

group of senators rejected Mr. Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge. His record since then does not 

give us any reason to believe that those senators were in error. Mr. Sessions has confinned their concerns and 

raised additional ones. For example, unlike the vast majority of his Republican and Democratic Senate 

colleagues, he voted against a law that would prohibit the U.S. military from engaging in torture, something 

that violates our very sense of decency and humanity as well as our commitment to the rule oflaw. 

I am one citizen expressing his voice. But my concerns are shared by many others, including people who 

have dedicated their lives to protecting constitutional rights, and more than 1200 law school professors. 

The most minimal standard for leading the Department of Justice must be a demonstrated commitment to 

pursuing justice for all Americans. Mr. Sessions fails to meet that standard. Americans deserve better. 

In conclusion, I appeal to this honorable committee to reject Sen. Sessions' nomination to be the chieflaw 

enforcement officer of our country. 

Khizr M. Khan 

Charlottesville*, Virginia 

*World Class City of Thomas Jefferson. 

-2-
1071 

January 6, 2016 

2000 M STREET NW • SUITE 750 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

Via electronic mail tolllllllllllllll. 

Chairman Chuck Grass ley 

Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

On behalf of survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking, we are writing to 

express our firm opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions III (R-AL) as 

the 84th United States Attorney General. 

Founded in 2013, Know Your IX is a youth-led organization that aims to empower students to 

end sexual and dating violence in their schools. The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence is 

the voice in Washington for the 56 state and territorial sexual assault coalitions and 1300 rape 

crisis centers working to support survivors and end sexual violence. Through our networks, we 

work with thousands of survivors of gender-based violence across the country, and we know 

firsthand how critical the work of our Justice Department-and the Attorney General charged 

with leading the Department's Office of Violence Against Women and the Educational 

Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division-is to survivors seeking justice, support, and 

healing. We are deeply troubled by the nomination of Sen. Sessions as Attorney General. During 

his tenure as a U.S. Senator, Sen. Sessions has not only failed to lead in the fight against 

gender-based violence, but often stood on the opposing side. 

Gender-based violence remains a widespread and urgent problem in America today. Every year, 

more than ten million people are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. 

One in five women in the United States will experience rape during her lifetime. 1 Fighting 

gender-based violence is a core responsibility of the Attorney General. As advocates working 

every day to end this violence, we have carefully evaluated Sen. Sessions' record and concluded 

that he is not qualified to fulfill that role. 

In particular, we are deeply concerned about Sen. Sessions's public statements and actions on the 

following: 

1 National Statistics, NATIONAL CoALITION AGAINST DoMESTIC VIOLENCE, htlp; ncadv.org,'learn-morefstatistics (last 

visited Jan. 6, 2017). 
1072 

Failure to Condemn Sexual Assault 

During the 2016 campaign, the Washington Post released a 2005 recording in which 

then-candidate Donald Trump admitted to grabbing women's genitals without consent-and 

boasted that his fame allowed him to avoid accountability. When asked about these tapes, Sen. 

Sessions not only failed to denounce President-Elect Trump's actions, he explicitly stated that he 

did not "characterize that as sexual assault," adding, "that's a stretch."2 

To be clear: "grabbing" anyone by the genitals without their consent is sexual assault. Sen. 

Sessions's statements about sexual assault are at odds with the very definitions of sexual assault 

used by the Department he has been nominated to lead and the laws he has been nominated to 

enforce.3 The Justice Department defines sexual assault as "any 1Ype of sexual contact or 

behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient." In denying that forcibly 

groping women is not sexual assault, Sen. Sessions revealed his misunderstanding of 

gender-based violence and indifference to the harms survivors experience when their bodily 

integrity is violated by assault. 

The Department of Justice has jurisdiction over cases of gender-based violence, including sexual 

assault that occurs on Native American reservations, sexual assault and domestic violence in the 

District of Columbia, and stalking that occurs across state lines. Understanding law and policy 

related to sexual assault is a core qualification to lead the Department; Senator Sessions' 

dismissive statements about a clear example of sexual assault suggest that he is unfit to do so. 

Opposition to the Violence Against Womeu Act 

The Violence Against Women Act (VA W A) is the bedrock of our national response to the crisis 

of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. It is the first and only 

comprehensive federal legislation written to address gender-based violence. We are deeply 

troubled by Sen. Sessions' opposition to the bipartisan effort to reauthorize VA WAin 2013. 

The grant programs authorized by VA W A provide life-saving services for survivors of 

gender-based violence, funding rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, and prevention 

programs across the United States. It provides victims of domestic violence fleeing across state 

lines the ability to retain custody, enables enforcement of protection orders across state lines, 

requires prevention education in higher education to end campus sexual assault, creates programs 

to address violence against women with disabilities, protects survivors from unfair eviction on 

the basis of their status as victims of gender-based violence, creates legal assistance programs for 

2 Danielle Paquette, It's not clear if JeflSessions thinks f<rabbinf< a woman by the crotch is sexual assault, WAsH. 

PosT (Nov. 18, 2016), 

https:i:'www. washingtonnostcom/ne\<\·s:·\vonk/wp:20 !61 IIi 18/its~not-clear-if-trump-attorney-gcncral-sessions-thinks 

-gmbbing-a-\:voman-bvAhe-crotch-is-sexual-ussault/?utm term""'.e622e8h814h2·'. 3 See 18 U.S.C. §2244 (defining sexual assault as "the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of 

the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, 

degrade, or arouse or gratifY the sexual desire of any person"). 4 See Sexual Assault, U.S. DEP'T JusT., (Apr. I, 2016), https:lr"\\"Ww.justice.gov!ovvv/scxual-assaull. 
1073 

VIctims, and ensures immigrant survivors have the opportunity to pursue justice. Without 

VA W A, many survivors would be unable to seek help in the wake of violence, and many more 

women and girls would be at acute risk of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. 

VA WA is particularly important to students, who face high rates of gender-based violence.5 The 

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, which was passed as part of the 2013 VA W A 

reauthorization, increases transparency on campus about incidents of sexual violence, guarantees 

student victims' rights, sets standards for disciplinary proceedings, and requires campus-wide 

prevention education programs. This Act, alongside student activism and strong federal 

enforcement, has helped transform how schools address gender-based violence. 

The Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) plays a vital leadership 

role in national efforts to address and end this violence. VA WA created OVW and today 

underpins its essential work: OVW administers 24 grant programs authorized by 1994 Violence 

Against Women Act and subsequent legislation. The Attorney General is tasked with leading 

OVW and the national fight to end gender-based violence. It is imperative that whoever fills this 

critical role understand the profound importance of the Violence Against Women Act in that 

fight. 

Yet in 2012, Sen. Sessions joined a small group of legislators in opposing VAWA 

reauthorization, putting these essential programs, and countless survivors, at risk. The Senator 

instead supported a watered-down version of the Act that stripped protections for LGBT and 

Native American survivors--despite the fact that both groups face staggeringly high rates of 

gender-based violence." Senators from both sides of the aisle, and women across the nation, 

united behind a VA WA reauthorization to protect all victims. Yet Sen. Sessions still refused to 

support the bipartisan reauthorization bill and voted against its reauthorization, jeopardizing the 

safety of millions of victims and their families. 

As advocates, services providers, and survivors, we know firsthand that the Violence Against 

Women Act saves lives; we believe that opposition to its reauthorization is inexcusable. 

Hostility to Educational Civil Rigbts 

The Educational Opportunities Section oftbe Civil Rights Division plays a key role in protecting 

students' ability to access education, in part by assisting the Department of Education in 

enforcing civil rights law in schools, including Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. 

Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded educational programs and 

requires institutions to address campus sexual violence.7 

5 See CHRISTOPHER P. KREBS ET AL, THE CAMPUS SEXUAL AssAULT (CSA) SruoY: FINAL REPORT at 6-3 (2007), 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles l/nij/grants/221153.pdf. 

"'See THE WHITE HousE CoL1'-.TIL ON WoMEN AND GIRLS, RAPE A~D SEXUAL AssAULT: A RENEWED CALL TO AcTION 9-10 

(20 14 ), https:/ /www. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sexual_ assault_report _1-21-14 .pdf. 7 See Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-318 § 901(a), 86 Stat. 235,373 (codified at 20 

U.S.C. § 1681(a)(2012)). 
1074 

Throughout his career, Sen. Sessions has fought the educational civil rights he would now be 

tasked with enforcing. For instance, he attacked the bipartisan Individuals with Disabilities in 

Education Act (IDEA), which was passed to ensure that disabled students could access public 

education alongside their able-bodied peers.' Sen. Sessions characterized the law itself-rather 

than discrimi~ation against disabled students-as an "irritating problem" and "really 

unacceptable". 

Given his comments excusing sexual assault and his vote against the Campus SaVE Act, we are 

particularly concerned with Sen. Sessions's apparent lack of commitment to addressing gender 

violence in schools. For too long, gender-based violence in our nation's schools has been swept 

under the rug, impeding victims' access to education and frustrating Title IX's equality mandate. 

One in five women, as well as many men and gender nonconforming students, will experience 

sexual violence during their time in college. 10 This violence often limits, or outright precludes, 

victims' ability to learn. Many survivors go to great lengths to avoid their perpetrators on 

campus, skipping shared classes, 11 or avoiding shared extracurriculars. Without support and 

accommodation, formerly successful students watch their grades drop as they struggle to 

participate in, or even attend, their classes.12 Still other survivors report withdrawing from their 

classes or universities as a result. 13 These effects are often exacerbated when a perpetrator 

remains on campus or when schools fail to support victims in the wake of violence. 

Because gender-based violence jeopardizes victims continued access to education, courts have 

long recognized that schools receiving federal funding are required by Title IX to address 

R See Valerie Strauss, Trump's pickfllr uttvrncy general once linked special education lmv 10 'decline in civili(v' in 

classrooms, WASH. PosT (Dec. 2, 20 16), 

https :f.'w\nv "wash ingtonnost .com/ news.-"ansvrcr-sheet: wn/1 0 1 6' J 2 ;0:2:'sen-sess ions-once-1 i nked-snecial-ed ucat ion-Ia 

w-to-decline-in-civilih·-in-classroomsi'!utm tenn'---= d4dth0d62b8a. 9 Jd; see also Education Discipline and IDEA, THE OFFICE OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS, 

http ://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=a 7977b 1 d-7 e9c-9af9-7 5 3e-8f3 a8b3 b43fb 

(last visited Jan. 6, 2016). 10 See KREBS, supra note 5. at 5-3. 11 See Rebecca Marie Loya, Economic Consequences of Sexual Violence for Survivors: Implications for Social 

Policy and Social Change 96 (June 2012) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University) (on file with Know 

Your IX) (quoting a legal services provider stating that "Probably like 95% of the time, students will skip class for 

one reason or another. And, I mean, the reasons are because the perp's in the class, because the perp's friends are in 

the class, because, sometimes schoolwork just gets to be too much, again in the aftennath of the assault. Sometimes, 

they've come out to the professor as a survivor, and the professor hasn't ... been particularly supportive, so they 

won't go back to the class. Sometimes it's because they know that on their way to the class, they'll see the perp 

because of their schedules or whatever. Sometimes they might be in different majors with different course studies, 

but they'll have like a I 0 I class together. so that something will intersect, so they'll stop going to the 101 class. So 

they won't stop their studies on their own plane, but they'll stop the ones that intersect with the perp"). 12 See Cari Simon, On Top of Everything Else, Sexual Assault Hurts the Survivors' Grades, WAsH. PosT: PosT 

EVERYTHING (Aug. 6, 2014). 

https://www. washington post.com/posteverything/wp/20 14/08/06/ after-a-sexual-assault-survivors-gpas 

-plummet-this-is-a-bigger-problem-than-you-think. 

l3 ld. 
1075 

campus violence and address its effects." Unfortunately, as students have made clear time and 

time again, too few schools live up to their legal obligations. 15 

In recent years, the Department of Justice, alongside the Department of Education, has taken 

great strides in combating gender-based violence in schools, releasing key guidance documents 

clarifYing schools' legal obligation to promptly and equitably respond to reports of sexual 

assault, intervening in litigation against schools, and ensuring that the Title IX rights of college 

students are robustly enforced. 

Safe and equitable schools depend on an Attorney General who is committed to maintaining the 

Department's progress towards ending gender-based violence and ensuring that all students can 

pursue their education free from discrimination, harassment, and violence. Sen. Sessions's 

demonstrated hostility to educational civil rights, combined with his failure to condemn sexual 

violence, raises serious questions about his fitness to oversee the Educational Opportunities 

Section as Attorney General. 

* * * 

As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions would be tasked with fairly enforcing the laws that allow 

survivors of violence to seek justice, without bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, 

sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This is particularly important because women of 

color, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities face extremely high rates of gender-based 

violence and uniquely severe barriers to reporting assault and accessing accommodations. 16 

Therefore, we are deeply concerned by Sen. Sessions's long record of racially-insensitive 

statements and hostility towards civil rights. As Attorney General of Alabama, Sen. Sessions led 

a false and baseless prosecution of African-American civil rights activists; 17 he has disparagingly 

14 See e.g, Gebser v. Lago Vista lndep. Sch. Dist. 524 U.S. 274,292 (1998) (tasking the Department of Education 

with "administering and enforcing Title IX, see 20 U.S.C. § 1682"). 15 See Tyler Kingkade, Han•ard Forced Sexual Assault Victim to Live By Abuser, Lawsuit Claims, HUFFINGTON PosT 

(Feb. 17, 2016), htip:c. hu!Ito' I oqH9is U.S. Department of Education Releases List of Higher Education Releases 

List q(Higher Education Institutions with Open Title TXSexual Violence Investigations, U.S. DEP'T Enuc., (May 1, 

2014), 

N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 16, 2014), 

htto·//www .nytimes.com/interactive/20 14/04/16/sports/errors-in-inquirv-on-rape-allegations-agai nst-fsu-jameis-win 

ston.html 

16 See ERIKA HARRELL, CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, 2009-2012- STATISTICAL TABLES (2014), 

https://ww~.-v.bis.gov \:onhmVrmh pdf·capd091 'lstndf; BLACK ET AL., THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARmER AND SEXUAL 

VIoLEl'CE SuRVEY (N!SVS): 2010 SuMMARY REPORT (2011), 

https:/iwww.cdcgov·'violenceprL'vention··pdFnisvs report:20 J 0-a.pdJ; BLACK ET AL., THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER 

A~D SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS): 2010 FINDINGS ON VICriMIZATION BY SEXUAL 0RJENTATION (2011), 

https :/,\vvo/w .cd(:. gov ·viol en c~prcv cntion :·pdfn is vs so find ing.s. pdf. 17 See Ari Bennan, Jeff Sessions, Tmmp 's Pick/or Attorney General, Is u Fierce Opponent of Civil Rights, THE 

N.m<" (Nov. 18. 20 16), 

https://www.thenation.com/artic1e/jefl~sessions-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-is-a-fierce-opponent-of-civi1-rights 

I. 
1076 

called the Voting Rights Act a "piece of intrusive legislation"18 and civil rights organization like 

the NAACP "un-American".19 When Sen. Sessions was nominated for federal judgeship in 1985, 

his Justice Department colleagues testified under oath that Mr. Sessions repeatedly referred to an 

African-American attorney as "boy" and told him to "be careful what you say to white folks". 20 

Sen. Sessions even once ~oked about thinking the KKK were "okay".21 He is a longtime 

opponent of LGBTQ rights 2 and has closely associated himself with organizations founded by 

white supremacist John Tanton. 23 

We respect the Senate's responsibility to give due consideration to nominees put forth by the 

President of the United States and to ensure Sen. Sessions has a fair hearing before the Senate 

and the nation. We urge you to carefully and fully consider Sen. Sessions's record on violence 

against women and girls as part of this process, and the critical role of the Attorney General in 

the ongoing project of ensuring survivors in the United States can access their educations, 

medical care, housing, and justice. At a time when this country has begun to acknowledge the 

pervasiveness of sexual assault, we can neither tum our backs on survivors, nor ignore the 

essential role our leaders play-through both their words and actions-in preventing it. We 

believe that a fair assessment of Sen. Sessions's record on violence against women and girls will 

yield the same conclusion we have reached: Sen. Sessions's record is disqualifying. 

Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to ending gender violence m our 

country. 

If you have any questions, please contact Mahroh Jahangiri at mahroh@knowyourix.org. 

Sincerely, 

Mahroh Jahangiri 

Executive Director 

Know Your IX 

"Jd 

Monika Johnson Hostler 

President 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

19 See Matt Apuzzo, Specter of Race Shadows Jeff Sessions, Potential Trump Nominee for Cabinet, N.Y. TIMEs 

(Nov. 18, 2016), 

http::.\\·ww .nYtime~.com/20 16-' I I, 17/us :politics/spcctcr-of-race-shadows.-jeff .. sessions-potential-trump-nomince-forcabind.html? r-o-0. 20 ld 

"!d. 

22 See Trudy Ring,AG PickJ~ffSessions Got a Zero on HRC's Scorecard, THE ADVOCATE (Nov. 18, 2016), 

http:/ /www.advocate.com/politics/20 16/11 I 18/ag-pick -jeff-sessions-got-zero-hrcs-scorecard. 23 See Stephen Piggott, Jeff Sessions: Champion ofAnti-Mus/im and Anti-Immigrant Extremists, THE SouTHERN 

PovERTY LAw CENTER, 

https:/ /www .splcenter.org/hatewatch/20 16/ II I 18/j eli-sessions-cham pion-anti-muslim-and-anti-immigrant-extremist 

s (last visited Jan. 6, 2017). 
1077 

Hon. Mitch McConnell, Maj. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S230 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 9, 2017 

Hon. Charles Schumer, Min. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S221 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

!52 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: LETTER FROM LA WYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

IN OPPOSITION TO SENATOR JEFFERSON SESSIONS' NOMINATION TO SERVE 

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grasslcy, and Senator Feinstein: 

We, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors and Trustees of the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, write to present our statement regarding the nomination 

of Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United States. This statement is 

endorsed as well by several Board members of our affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Jackson, 

Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., whose names follow the 

statement. Since its creation in 1963, at the urging of President John F. Kennedy, the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has been devoted to the recognition and enforcement of 

civil rights in the United States. 

While we have seen significant progress in our nation, the challenges of unlawful 

discrimination remain. Recognizing the Attorney General's critical role in civil rights enforcement 

and the central role that the Department of Justice plays in our democracy, the Lawyers' 

Committee has evaluated the record of Senator Sessions to determine if the nominee's record 

demonstrates a commitment to upholding and enforcing the Constitution and civil rights laws, 

ensuring equal justice under the law and promoting the rule oflaw. We enclose a written statement 

which summarizes the result of our review. Our key conclusions are set forth below. 

Voting Rights Act 

One of the core priorities of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is 

ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Senator Sessions' political career 

demonstrates hostility towards the principles underlying federal civil rights laws, such as the 

Voting Rights Act, that spans over thirty years. 1 

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. 

Holder which gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions stated, "if you go to 
1078 

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of 

their skin." However, the ongoing work of the Lawyers' Committee indicates otherwise. Indeed, 

we have filed several voting rights lawsuits in all three states in the past year alone. 1234 While 

Senator Sessions voted in favor of reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

in 2006, during his 1986 confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions described the Act as a "piece of 

intrusive legislation." This disdain for one of our nation's most important federal civil rights laws 

is particularly problematic at a moment in which we continue to see ongoing voting discrimination 

and voter suppression across our country. 

The Lawyers' Committee knows the reality of voting discrimination and voter suppression 

all too well having filed more than a dozen such cases in 2016 alone. Our nation requires an 

Attorney General who recognizes the existence of voting discrimination and who will use the 

Voting Rights Act as a tool to confront it. There is no evidence in Senator Sessions' record that 

suggests he would bring any meaningful commitment to attacking voting discrimination. 

Pattern or Practice Investigations of Police Departments 

In a new report issued by the Justice Department on January 4, 2017, confirmed that there 

are currently 18 open agreements in pattern or practice policing cases, including 14 court-enforced 

consent decrees. In the introduction to a 2008 paper published by the Alabama Police Institute, 

Senator Sessions condemned such investigations and consent decrees as an abuse of federal 

authority. 5 "Consent decrees have a profound effect on our legal system as they constitute an end 

run around the democratic process," he wrote. This statement suggests that Senator Sessions will 

not carry forward the critical work of the Justice Department in this area and may abandon the 

violations addressed by the 18 existing agreements. Such a result would dismantle years of work 

to restore constitutional policing practices at offending law enforcement agencies across the 

country. 

Hate Crimes 

Senator Sessions fiercely opposed the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act. The Act extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized 

because of their sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, or disability. The law mandates that 

the Attorney General- or a designee- sign off on all criminal prosecutions brought under the Act. 

But, we have seen a significant uptick in the number of hate crimes and hate-inspired incidents 

across the country in the last several weeks of 2016. This moment requires an Attorney General 

who brings a deep commitment to aggressive enforcement of our nation's laws addressing hate to 

1 NAACP v. Stale of Ala., 2:16-cv-00731 (M.D. Ala. 2016). 2 Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, eta/., v. Hancock County Board of Elections and Registration, et al., 

5:15-cv0414-CAR, M.D. GA. 3 NAACP, eta/., v. Kemp, el a/., 2: 16-cv-219-WCO, N.D.GA.Gainesville Div. 4 N Carolina Stale Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). 5 lillJ2i0.vww .a labamiill.9llcy .oro wp~c0ntent 'uploads/A P (- ~esearch-CQ_tt!~I1J:J2..?crees.ndf 

2 
1079 

help tum the tide on this pattern of growing hostility and intolerance. Senator Sessions' record 

raises grave concerns that he would bring such commitment to the job. 

Opposition to Federal Civil Rights Legislation 

On a range of civil rights matters, Senator Sessions has consistently and often stood 

opposed. In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act. In 2013, Senator Sessions opposed the bipartisan immigration reform that passed the 

Senate. In 2009, Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay of 2009. In 2006, 

Senator Sessions supported a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In 

2002, Senator Sessions voted against a bill that would have expanded the definition of hate crimes 

to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit 

the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action 

was implicated. In 1997, Senator Sessions co-sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1997, a bill which 

would have eliminated affirmative action by the federal government in connection with federal 

contracts, employment, or other programs by the activities. 

Conclusion 

The nation needs an Attorney General who has a record of supporting civil rights laws and 

the principles underlying them, and taking actions that demonstrate this commitment. 

Unfortunately, the record demonstrates that Senator Sessions docs not have the commitment to 

upholding and enforcing the Constitution and civil rights laws, ensuring equal justice under the 

law and promoting the rule of law. His confirmation would place at the head of the Justice 

Department a person, who will not be a vigorous force in promoting the cause of equal justice 

under law to which this nation has long been committed. 

Respectfully, 

John Nonna, Co-Chair 

James P. Joseph, Co-Chair 

Jane Sherburne 

Andrew Kentz 

Lisa Cleary 

Edward Soto 

Teresa W. Roseborough 

Eleanor H. Smith 

Adam T. Klein 

Nicholas Christakos 

Michael D. Jones 

Betsy Plevan 

Gaeton Alfano 

3 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Miami,FL 

Atlanta, GA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 
1080 

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR 

CIVIL RIGHTS U N D E R 

Rebecca Anderson 

Rand S. April 

Daniel Barr 

Sarah Benedict 

Lynne Bernabei 

Victoria B. Bjorklund 

Jonathan I. Blackman 

Jack L. Block 

Ilene Lin Bloom 

Benjamin Blustein 

David J. Bodney 

Lisa W. Borden 

John W. Borkowski 

KimM. Boyle 

William H. Bradley 

JeffBrenman 

Terrel J. Broussard 

John Camp 

Catherine A. Chan 

Mike Chanin 

Todd R. Chandler 

Nicholas E. Chimicles 

Fay Clayton 

Philip E. Cook 

Michael Cooper 

Edward Correia 

Marion A. Cowell, Jr. 

Michelle D. Craig 

Nora Cregan 

Bert H. Deixler 

Armand Derfner 

Emma Dickson 

John C. Ericson 

Brian T. Feeney 

Ira M. Feinberg 

James E. Ferguson 

Rory FitzPatrick 

Marc L. Fleischaker 

John Fleming 

Eleanor M. Fox 

Harold E. Franklin, Jr. 

Ellen S. Friedell 

Rachel Gallegos 

Marc Gary 

Kathleen 1. Gebhardt 

L A W 

4 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Phoenix, AZ 

Denver, CO 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

New York, NY 

Evanston, IL 

Denver, CO 

Chicago, IL 

Phoenix, AZ 

Birmingham, AL 

Chicago, IL 

New Orleans, LA 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New Orleans, LA 

Miami,FL 

Denver, CO 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Chicago, JL 

Los Angeles, CA 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Charlotte, NC 

New Orleans, LA 

Oakland, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Charleston, SC 

San Francisco, CA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

New York, NY 

Charlotte, N C 

Boston, MA 

Washington, DC 

Atlanta, GA 

New York, NY 

Atlanta, GA 

Philadelphia, PA 

Philadelphia, PA 

New York, NY 

Boulder, CO 
1081 

Joseph Gelb 

Spencer Gilbert 

Matthew A. Glazer 

Paul Greenwalt 

Howard M. Haenel 

Matthew M. Hoffman 

Vitia B. Hayes 

Andrew Hendry 

Paul Holtzman 

Jerome Hyman 

Priscilla Jimenez 

David Johnson 

Robert H. Kapp 

Jerome C. Katz 

Maximilian W. Kempner 

Kim Kennan 

Charles Kerr 

Loren Kieve 

Stephen J. Klastenberg 

Jessie A. Kohler 

Daniel F. Kolb 

Deborah Gross Kurtz 

Gregory P. Landis 

Brian K. Landsberg 

Robert LaRocca 

Steven Lass 

Michael Lehr 

Bradley Levin 

Marjorie Press Lindblom 

Sanford Litvack 

Nancy L. Maldonado 

Christopher M. Mason 

Shannon McClure 

Michael McKeever 

Ellen Meriwether 

JeffreyS. Moller 

H. Laddie Montague 

Carlos Montoya 

Sandra B. Wick Mulvany 

Robert A. Murphy 

Aasia Mustakeem 

Blain Myhre 

Bradley S. Phillips 

Kit A. Pierson 

Stephen J. Pollak 

5 

New York, NY 

Jackson, MS 

Philadelphia, P A 

Chicago, lL 

Denver, CO 

Chevy Chase, MD 

New York, NY 

Pinehurst, NC 

Boston, MA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Lexington, MA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

San Francisco, CA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Santa Monica, CA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

Seattle, WA 

Sacramento, CA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Denver, CO 

Washington, DC 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

New York, NY 

Chicago, IL 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, PA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Denver, CO 

Boston, MA 

Atlanta, GA 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 
1082 

John E. Putnam 

Kenneth L. Racowski 

Michael H. Reardon 

William Robinson 

Sidney S. Rosdeitcher 

David Rosenbaum 

Lowell Sachnoff 

Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin ( (U.S.D.J. Ret.) 

Lauren E. Schmidt 

Jennifer Scullion 

RichardT. Seymour 

Lila Shapiro-Cyr 

Valerie Shea 

Stephen M. Sherline 

Roman Silberfeld 

Garfield Simms 

Marsha E. Simms 

John Skilton 

David Smith 

Laura Smolowe 

Mark Srere 

David W. Stark 

Hyung P. Steele 

Brian Strange 

Marjorie Sussman 

Michael Swartz 

Daniel A. Sweetser 

Errol B. Taylor 

T.A. Taylor-Hunt 

Dr. Sandra Thompson 

Martha M. Tierney 

Gail Migdal Title 

Daniel Tokaji 

Marc A. Topaz 

Michael Traynor 

Michael W. Tyler 

Donna J. Vobomik 

Julie Waggener 

Phillip E. Wilson 

EkowN. Yankah 

Judy Yun 

cc: Senate Judiciary Committee 

6 

Boulder, CO 

Philadelphia, PA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Phoenix, AZ 

Chicago, IL 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Baltimore, MD 

Miami,FL 

Los Angeles, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Philadelphia, PA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

Denver, CO 

Philadelphia, P A 

Los Angeles, CA 

Boston, MA 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

Irvine, JL 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Columbus, OH 

Philadelphia, P A 

Berkeley, CA 

Atlanta, GA 

Chicago, IL 

Denver, CO 

Philadelphia, P A 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 
1083 

January 9, 2017 

Chairman Grass ley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Senate 

Judiciary Committee, 

I write to you on behalf of Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), a coalition of 

more than 120,000 lawyers, law professors, law school deans, paralegals, law 

students, and activists, regarding the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to 

be the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Lawyers for Good Government members are committed to civil liberties, human 

rights, and a government that protects the life, liberty, and happiness of all 

Americans. For that reason, we believe the next Attorney General- who will be the 

top law enforcement officer in the United States- must be someone who can be 

trusted to: 

• protect civil rights, democratic institutions, the rule of law, and judicial 

independence; 

• safeguard Constitutional rights; and 

• remain sufficiently independent to prosecute criminal acts including those that 

may implicate the President of the United States. 

We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a thorough investigation 

of the nominee, and carefully consider the issues raised by those who have 

concerns about this selection. 

As you have made clear, the Committee has a "critical role in providing oversight of 

the Department of Justice and the agencies under the Department's jurisdiction, 

including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland 

Security ... "

1 

Your review of the nominee to be the next Attorney General of the United 

States may be one of your most critical decisions concerning the rule of law 

and the next Administration. 

Below are some of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee must address when 

considering the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions. 

1 United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. "Jurisdiction," https:llwww.iudiciary.senate.qovlaboutljurisdiction 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

Lawyers for Good Government 

January 9, 2017 
1084 

Civil Rights 

The right to equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our American system 

of justice. The battle for equal justice for minority groups in this country is not over. 

The Attorney General must be vigilant in investigating and prosecuting discrimination 

in housing, education, employment, treatment by law enforcement, hate crimes, or 

wherever it appears in our society. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will give the 

protection of civil rights the highest priority. 

Voting Rights and Free and Fair Elections 

The right to participate in the election of our political leaders is central to our 

democratic form of government. 

A core responsibility of the Attorney General is to enforce the Voting Rights Act and 

remove obstacles to voter participation, such as Voter 10 requirements. The Attorney 

General also must ensure that elections are not interfered with by foreign powers. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will 

faithfully uphold the Voting Rights Act, oppose state measures to establish 

burdensome voting requirements, fully investigate allegations that foreign powers 

have interfered with U.S. elections (including hacking and exposing private 

communications), and report the findings to the American people. 

Criminal Justice Reform 

Incarceration rates in the United States are far beyond those of any other democratic 

government in the world. The impact of criminal sentencing falls disproportionately 

upon people of color and those in low-income communities. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will 

address criminal justice reform issues to ensure equal justice for all and prevent 

over-criminalization, including fully investigating allegations of civil rights violations 

by local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting appropriate cases. 

Women's Rights 

Our country has made meaningful progress over the past several decades with 

respect to women's rights, and the protection of women's rights (including the right to 

bodily integrity and autonomy, the right to be free from sexual violence, and the right 

to equal pay and equal opportunity) must continue to be a national priority. 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

2 Lawyers for Good Government 

January 9, 2017 
1085 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should ensure that the nominee will defend the 

rights of women in this country and enforce laws regarding discrimination, rape, 

sexual assault, domestic abuse, and stalking. 

Disability Rights 

Over the past several decades, milestones such as the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, and the regulations enforcing 

the Olmstead v. L. C. decision have transformed the lives of people with disabilities in 

this country. The rights granted by these laws have helped restore dignity to a 

population that has been marginalized and faced extreme discrimination throughout 

history, increased access and acceptance for people with disabilities, and provided a 

much-needed boost to millions of Americans who rarely receive equal or inclusive 

treatment. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate must ensure that the nominee will defend 

people with mental, emotional, physical, sensory and other disabilities by ensuring 

that the ADA, IDEA, and other laws are enforced to their full extent, and that the 

rights of persons with disabilities are not diminished, ignored, or denied. 

LGBTQ Rights 

Our country has made enormous progress in recent years, recognizing the 

fundamental right of all people to love who they wish and to make a family life as 

they choose. This hard-won progress has come at enormous cost and we cannot let 

our country move backward. 

The Attorney General must act forcefully against those who commit hate crimes, and 

must defend the fundamental rights of members of the LGBTQ community against 

those who seek to deny those rights. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will defend 

the rights of those in the LGBT community. 

Religious Freedom 

The First Amendment defends the right of all people to enjoy the free exercise of 

their religious beliefs and prohibits the establishment of any state religion. But many 

people in the United States now have reason to fear that the government will 

discriminate against them merely for their religious views. 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

3 Lawyers for Good Government 

January 9, 2017 
1086 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will defend 

the religious freedoms of all people. 

Government Accountability: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act 

For more than forty years, the United States has relied on two laws to ensure the 

transparency of government and the privacy of those about whom the government 

gathers personal information. Both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the 

Privacy Act enjoy strong bipartisan support. The Attorney General has a central 

responsibility for enforcing both laws. 

The Attorney General must not place obstacles before those who seek access to 

government information, and at the same time, must ensure that personal 

information is safeguarded and used only for appropriate purposes. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will 

maximize disclosure under FOIA, avoiding unnecessary delay and litigation, while 

safeguarding the personal data retained by the government. 

Conflicts of Interest 

Among the most difficult but essential tasks of the Attorney General is to enforce the 

rule of law, including against elected officials. No one in the United States is above 

the law- and conflicts of interest, if ignored, will have a corrosive effect on our 

democratic government and the rule of law. 

Before voting to confirm, the Senate should be assured that the nominee will fully 

investigate and prosecute conflicts of interest, even if they implicate members of the 

same political party as the nominee and/or the offices of the President, Congress, 

and the Supreme Court. On this point, there can be no backing down. If the nominee 

indicates any reluctance or hesitancy on this point, we will urge you to oppose the 

nomination. 

Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

Traci Feit Love, Founder 

Lawyers for Good Government 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions 

4 Lawyers for Good Government 

January 9, 2017 
1087 

Hon. Mitch McConnell, Maj. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S230 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Connnittee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 9, 2017 

Hon. Charles Schwner, Min. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S221 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: LETTER FROM LA WYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

IN OPPOSITION TO SENATOR JEFFERSON SESSIONS' NOMINATION TO SERVE 

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schwner, Chairman Grassley, and Senator Feinstein: 

We, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors and Trustees of the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, write to present our statement regarding the nomination 

of Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as Attorney General ofthe United States. This statement is 

endorsed as well by several Board members of our affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Jackson, 

Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., whose names follow the 

statement1

• Since its creation in 1963, at the urging of President John F. Kennedy, the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers' Committee) has been devoted to the recognition 

and enforcement of civil rights in the United States. 

While we have seen significant progress in our nation, the challenges of unlawful 

discrimination remain. Recognizing the Attorney General's critical role in civil rights enforcement 

and the central role that the Department of Justice plays in our democracy, the Lawyers' 

Committee has evaluated the record of Senator Sessions to determine if the nominee's record 

demonstrates a commitment to upholding and enforcing the Constitution and civil rights laws, 

ensuring equal justice under the law and promoting the rule of law. We enclose a written statement 

which summarizes the result of our review. Our key conclusions are set forth below. 

Voting Rights Act 

One of the core priorities of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is 

ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Senator Sessions' political career 

1 Affiliate organizations include: Public Counsel; The Public Interest Law Center; Colorado Lawyers' Committee; 

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the 

San Francisco Bay Area; Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.; Mississippi Center for 

Justice; and the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. 
1088 

demonstrates hostility towards the principles underlying federal civil rights laws, such as the 

Voting Rights Act, that spans over thirty years. 1 

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. 

Holder which gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions stated, "if you go to 

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of 

their skin." However, the ongoing work of the Lawyers' Committee indicates otherwise. Indeed, 

we have filed several voting rights lawsuits in all three states in the past year alone. 2345 While 

Senator Sessions voted in favor of reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

in 2006, during his 1986 confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions described the Act as a "piece of 

intrusive legislation." This disdain for one of our nation's most important federal civil rights laws 

is particularly problematic at a moment in which we continue to see ongoing voting discrimination 

and voter suppression across our country. 

The Lawyers' Committee knows the reality of voting discrimination and voter suppression 

all too well having filed more than a dozen such cases in 2016 alone. Our nation requires an 

Attorney General who recognizes the existence of voting discrimination and who will use the 

Voting Rights Act as a tool to confront it. There is no evidence in Senator Sessions' record that 

suggests he would bring any meaningful commitment to attacking voting discrimination. 

Pattern or Practice Investigations of Police Departments 

A new report issued by the Justice Department on January 4, 2017 confirmed that there are 

currently 18 open agreements in pattern or practice policing cases, including 14 court-enforced 

consent decrees. In the introduction to a 2008 paper published by the Alabama Police Institute, 

Senator Sessions condemned such investigations and consent decrees as an abuse of federal 

authority.6 "Consent decrees have a profound effect on our legal system as they constitute an end 

run around the democratic process," he wrote. This statement suggests that Senator Sessions will 

not carry forward the critical work of the Justice Department in this area and may abandon the 

violations addressed by the 18 existing agreements. Such a result would dismantle years of work 

to restore constitutional policing practices at offending law enforcement agencies across the 

country. 

Hate Crimes 

Senator Sessions fiercely opposed the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act. The Act extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized 

because of their sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, or disability. The law mandates that 

2 NAACPv. State ofAia., 2:16-cv-00731 (M.D. Ala. 2016). 3 Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, et al., v. Hancock County Board of Elections and Registration, eta!., 

5:15-cv0414-CAR, MD. GA. 4 NAACP. et al., v. Kemp, et al., 2:16-cv-219-WCO, N.D.GA.Gainesville Div. 

'N Carolina State Conference <if NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). 6 }lttp> :\\'\\ w .alabamapol icY .org wp-cPntent uploads/API ~ Rc:search-Consent-Decrees.pdf 

2 
1089 

the Attorney General- or a designee- sign off on all criminal prosecutions brought under the Act. 

But, we have seen a significant uptick in the number of hate crimes and hate-inspired incidents 

across the country in the last several weeks of2016. This moment requires an Attorney General 

who brings a deep commitment to aggressive enforcement of our nation's laws addressing hate to 

help turn the tide on this pattern of growing hostility and intolerance. Senator Sessions' record 

raises grave concerns that he would bring such commitment to the job. 

Opposition to Federal Civil Rights Legislation 

On a range of civil rights matters, Senator Sessions has consistently and often stood 

opposed. In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act. In 2013, Senator Sessions opposed the bipartisan immigration reform that passed the 

Senate. In 2009, Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay of 2009. In 2006, 

Senator Sessions supported a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In 

2002, Senator Sessions voted against a bill that would have expanded the definition of hate crimes 

to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit 

the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action 

was implicated. In 1997, Senator Sessions co-sponsored the Civil Rights Actofl997, a bill which 

would have eliminated affirmative action by the federal government in connection with federal 

contracts, employment, or other programs by the activities. 

Conclusion 

The nation needs an Attorney General who has a record of supporting civil rights laws and 

the principles underlying them, and taking actions that demonstrate this commitment. 

Unfortunately, the record demonstrates that Senator Sessions does not have the commitment to 

upholding and enforcing the Constitution and civil rights laws, ensuring equal justice under the 

law and promoting the rule of law. His confirmation would place at the head of the Justice 

Department a person, who will not be a vigorous force in promoting the cause of equal justice 

under law to which this nation has long been committed. 

Respectfu II y, 

John Nonna, Co-Chair 

James P. Joseph, Co-Chair 

Kristen M. Clarke, President and Executive Director 

Jane Sherburne 

Andrew Kentz 

Lisa Cleary 

Edward Soto 

Teresa W. Roseborough 

Eleanor H. Smith 

Adam T. Klein 

3 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Miami,FL 

Atlanta, GA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 
1090 

Nicholas Christakos 

Michael D. Jones 

Betsy Plevan 

Gaeton Alfano 

Rebecca Anderson 

Rand S. April 

Kevin Armstrong 

Daniel Barr 

Sarah Benedict 

Susan Bennett 

Lynne Bernabei 

Victoria B. Bjorklund 

Jonathan I. Blackman 

Jack L. Block 

Ilene Lin Bloom 

Benjamin Blustein 

David J. Bodney 

Lisa W. Borden 

John W. Borkowski 

Kim M.Boyle 

William H. Bradley 

JeffBrenman 

Terrel J. Broussard 

Stanley J. Brown 

John Camp 

Paulette Caldwell 

Catherine A. Chan 

Todd R. Chandler 

Mike Chanin 

Nicholas E. Chimieles 

Fay Clayton 

Philip E. Cook 

Miles Cooley 

Michael Cooper 

Edward Correia 

Marion A. Cowell, Jr. 

Michelle D. Craig 

Nora Cregan 

Bert H. Deixler 

Armand Derfner 

Emma Dickson 

Sandra B. Durant 

John C. Ericson 

BrianT. Feeney 

4 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Minneapolis, MN 

Phoenix, AZ 

Denver, CO 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

New York, NY 

Evanston, IL 

Denver, CO 

Chicago, IL 

Phoenix, AZ 

Birmingham, AL 

Chicago, IL 

New Orleans, LA 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New Orleans, LA 

New York, NY 

Miami,FL 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Philadelphia, P A 

Chicago, IL 

Los Angeles, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Charlotte, NC 

New Orleans, LA 

Cloverdale, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Charleston, SC 

San Francisco, CA 

New York, NY 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 
1091 

Ira M. Feinberg 

James E. Ferguson 

Rory FitzPatrick 

Marc L. Fleischaker 

John Fleming 

Eleanor M. Fox 

Harold E. Franklin, Jr. 

Ellen S. Friedell 

Rachel Gallegos 

Marc Gary 

Kathleen J. Gebhardt 

Joseph Gelb 

Spencer Gilbert 

Matthew A. Glazer 

Paul Greenwalt 

Howard M. Haenel 

Conrad Harper 

Robert E. Harrington 

Vilia B. Hayes 

Andrew Hendry 

Matthew M. Hoffman 

Paul Holtzman 

Jerome Hyman 

Priscilla Jimenez 

David Johnson 

Robert H. Kapp 

Jerome C. Katz 

Maximilian W. Kempner 

Kim Kennan 

Charles Kerr 

Loren Kieve 

Alan M. Klinger 

Stephen J. Klastenberg 

Naho Kobayashi 

Jessie A. Kohler 

Daniel F. Kolb 

Deborah Gross Kurtz 

Edward Labaton 

Gregory P. Landis 

Brian K. Landsberg 

Robert LaRocca 

Steven Lass 

Michael Lehr 

Bradley Levin 

Marjorie Press Lindblom 

5 

New York, NY 

Charlotte, NC 

Boston, MA 

Washington, DC 

Atlanta, GA 

New York, NY 

Atlanta, GA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, P A 

New York, NY 

Boulder, CO 

New York, NY 

Jackson, MS 

Philadelphia, P A 

Chicago, IL 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Charlotte, NC 

New York, NY 

Pinehurst, NC 

Chevy Chase, MD 

Boston, MA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Lexington, MA 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

San Francisco, CA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Charlotte, NC 

Santa Monica, CA 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Lawrence, NY 

Seattle, WA 

Sacramento, CA 

Philadelphia, P A 

Denver, CO 

Washington, DC 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 
1092 

Sanford Litvack 

Nancy L. Maldonado 

Christopher M. Mason 

Shannon McClure 

Michael McKeever 

Neil McKittrick 

James P. McLoughlin, Jr. 

Ellen Meriwether 

Jeffrey S. Moller 

H. Laddie Montague 

Carlos Montoya 

Sandra B. Wick Mulvany 

Robert A. Murphy 

Aasia Mustakeem 

Blain Myhre 

Bradley S. Phillips 

Kit A. Pierson 

Stephen J. Pollak 

John E. Putnam 

Kenneth L. Racowski 

Michael H. Reardon 

William Robinson 

Sidney S. Rosdeitcher 

David Rosenbaum 

Lowell Sachnoff 

l-Ion. Shira A. Scheindlin (U.S.D.J. Ret) 

Lauren E. Schmidt 

Jennifer Scullion 

Richard T. Seymour 

Lila Shapiro-Cyr 

Valerie Shea 

Stephen M. Sherline 

Roman Silberfeld 

Jeffrey A. Simes 

Marsha E. Simms 

Garfield Simms 

John Skilton 

David Smith 

Laura Smolowe 

Mark Srere 

David W. Stark 

1-lyung P. Steele 

Brian Strange 

Marjorie Sussman 

Michael Swartz 

6 

New York, NY 

Chicago, IL 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, P A 

Boston, MA 

Charlotte, NC 

Philadelphia, P A 

Philadelphia, PA 

Philadelphia, PA 

Philadelphia, PA 

Denver, CO 

Boston,MA 

Atlanta, GA 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Boulder, CO 

Philadelphia, P A 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

New York, NY 

Phoenix, AZ 

Chicago, IL 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Baltimore, MD 

Miami,FL 

Los Angeles, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

New York NY 

New York, NY 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Philadelphia, PA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Washington, DC 

Denver, CO 

Philadelphia, PA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Boston,MA 

New York, NY 
1093 

Daniel A. Sweetser 

Errol B. Taylor 

T.A. Taylor-Hunt 

Dr. Sandra Thompson 

Martha M. Tierney 

Gail Migdal Title 

Daniel Toaji 

Marc A. Topaz 

Rossie Turman 

Michael Traynor 

Michael W. Tyler 

Peter Van Cleve 

Donna J. Vobomik 

Julie Waggener 

Phillip E. Wilson 

Ekow N. Yankah 

Judy Yun 

cc: Senate Judiciary Committee 

7 

Denver, CO 

New York, NY 

Denver, CO 

Irvine, IL 

Denver, CO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Columbus, OH 

Philadelphia, P A 

New York, NY 

Berkeley, CA 

Atlanta, GA 

St. Louis, MO 

Chicago, IL 

Denver, CO 

Philadelphia, P A 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, P A 
1094 

The leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights 

December I, 2016 

d~e Leodership 

Conference 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 

Civil and Human Rights Organizations Oppose Confirmation of Jeff Sessions 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid, Chairman Grass ley, and 

Ranking Member Leahy: 

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more 

than 200 national organizations committed to promote and protect the civil and human rights 

of all persons in the United States, and the 144 undersigned organizations, we are writing to 

express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to 

be the 84'h Attorney General of the United States. 

Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, 

disregard for the rule oflaw, and hostility to the protection of civil rights that makes him 

unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. In our democracy, the Attorney 

General is charged with enforcing our nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye 

toward justice. And, just as important, the Attorney General has to be seen by the publicevery member of the public, from every community- as a fair arbiter of justice. 

Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' record that demonstrates that he would 

meet such a standard. 

In 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by former President Ronald 

Reagan to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, 

the Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty, undertaking a careful and 

comprehensive review of his record at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented 

with compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as 

an opponent of civil rights enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics targeting 

African Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive statements. This record 

included warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what he said "to white 

folks," and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as his prosecution of three 

African-American voting rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly rejected 

by a jury.' 

As you know, the Attorney General is our nation's highest law enforcement official, with a 

particular responsibility to protect the civil and human rights of all Americans. The 

Leadership Conference opposes Senator Sessions' nomination to become Attorney General, 

in part, because of the previous record we have cited. However, it would be a grave mistake 

to assume that our opposition is based only on incidents prior to his judicial nomination. 
1095 

Page 2 of8 lf , '' The Leadership 

Conference 

Indeed, the following are examples of his actions as a Senator over the past 20 years that raise very 

disturbing questions about his fitness to serve as Attorney General:" 

Voting Rights: In addition to his failed 1985 prosecution of three voting rights activists who were 

working to increase African-American registration and turnout, Senator Sessions has voiced strong 

support for restrictive voter ID laws that have had the effect of disenfranchising many otherwise eligible 

voters, called the Voting Rights Act "intrusive" as it seeks to protect eligible minority voters, and praised 

the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965. This is hardly the record of someone to be entrusted with the protection of voting rights for 

all Americans. 

Association with White Nationalist and Hate Groups regarding Immigration Policy: Senator 

Sessions has been a fierce opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, referring to a bipartisan 2007 

bill as "terrorist assistance." He has closely associated himself with NumbersUSA, the Federation for 

American Immigration Reform, and the Center for Immigration Studies, all three of which were founded 

by John Tanton, who held white nationalist beliefs and called for the preservation of a "EuropeanAmerican majority." Senator Sessions has also received awards from the David Horowitz Freedom Center 

and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, two organizations designated as anti-Muslim hate groups 

by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

Hate Crimes and LGBT Rights: Senator Sessions opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. 

Hate Crimes Prevention Act, even though a unanimous Supreme Court had long ago upheld a similar 

state law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993). This is particularly disturbing at a time when there have 

reportedly been more than 700 hate incidents committed in the weeks since the election. The next 

Attorney General must recognize that hate crimes exist, and vigorously investigate them. 

In addition, on LGBT rights, Senator Sessions supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex 

marriage. He also opposed the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." 

Women's Rights: Senator Sessions has consistently opposed legislation to advance women's rights, 

notably opposing multiple efforts to address the pay gap, to protect women's access to reproductive health 

services, which disproportionately affect low-income women and women of color, and to address the 

scourge of violence against all women. Specifically, Senator Sessions opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act of 2009,ii; enabling women to file ongoing pay discrimination claims, and has voted multiple 

times against consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act.h· Senator Sessions also opposed Title X funding 

legislation, which supports contraception, breast cancer screening and other health services for lowincome women. In addition, Senator Sessions repeatedly voted to de fund Planned Parenthood, and in 

2014, he voted against S.2578' to fix the Hobby Lobby decision by prohibiting employers from denying 

coverage of any health care service, such as contraception, required under federal law. Senator Sessions 

also opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013,v; and when then-candidate 

Donald Trump was revealed in a 2005 video to have made comments bragging about physically forcing 

himself on women, Senator Sessions declined to condemn the remarks, even questioning whether the 

comments described sexual assault.'" 
1096 

Page 3 of 8 7,, 

I , The Leadership 

Conference 

Criminal Justice Reform: Though Senator Sessions was a longtime supporter of eliminating sentencing 

disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenses, he has since been an ardent supporter of 

maintaining draconian mandatory minimum sentences. Recently, Senator Sessions helped to block broadbased, bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses. He also opposed the 

President's initiative to address disparities and restore fairness to the justice system through the use of his 

constitutionally granted executive clemency power."" He criticized the Department of Justice's Smart on 

Crime Initiative, which has focused on prosecuting fewer but "more serious" drug cases and over the last 

three years, has contributed to a 20 percent reduction in overcrowding in the federal Bureau of Prisons.'' 

Finally, Senator Sessions condemned the Department of Justice's use of its powers to investigate law 

enforcement agencies accused of misconduct and a "pattern or practice" of violating civil rights, calling 

consent decrees that mandate reform following these investigations "an end run around the democratic 

process."x 

Failing to Protect our Communities from Pollution and Climate Change: Climate change and 

environmental degradation disproportionately affect low-income families and communities of color. 

Senator Sessions has a long record of voting against protections for our clean air, water, and climate. 

Among his many anti-environmental votes, in 2015 he voted for the resolution to kill the clean power 

plan"; and for the Barrasso bill";; to deny protections for streams that provide drinking water for 113 

million Americans. In 2012, he supported a resolution that would roll back protections from toxic 

mercury.xiH America needs and deserves an Attorney General who will take into account the health and 

safety of all communities. Senator Sessions is not qualified in this regard and cannot be counted on to 

protect our air, water, and climate. 

Rights of People with Disabilities: Senator Sessions opposed efforts to implement Alabama's obligation 

to provide community-based services to individuals with disabilities who were needlessly 

institutionalized. In addition, he called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirements to 

include children with disabilities in mainstream education "the single most irritating problem for teachers 

throughout America today" and "a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in 

classrooms all over America."xiv This opposition to integration and inclusion is extremely concerning 

given the active role that the Justice Department plays in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act to 

enable people with disabilities to live independent lives, be full participants in their communities, and to 

be educated in neighborhood schools and regular classrooms. Senator Sessions also opposed ratification 

of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

These aspects of Senator Sessions' record are among those that led The Leadership Conference to believe 

that he should not be confirmed as our next Attorney General. At the very least, these issues must be fully 

aired and deliberated before each Senator makes a final decision with respect to his nominationotherwise, the Senate's constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent" would be reduced to a mere 

farce. 

Given Senator Sessions' record and public statements, the burden should be on him to prove to the 

Judiciary Committee, the Senate, and the American people- especially to communities of color and 
1097 

Page 4 ofS ff~e Leadership 

Conference 

immigrant communities -- that he can be trusted with the tremendous power of the U.S. Justice 

Department to enforce our nation's civil rights and immigration laws with integrity, fairness, and a 

sense of justice. 

The burden on Senator Sessions is not to prove that he is not a "racist." For the record, The Leadership 

Conference has never made such an allegation, as we do not claim to know what has been in his heart 

when he has taken the actions and made the statements we have described above. Nevertheless, we 

believe those actions and statements are themselves disqualifying. 

This is notwithstanding our recognition that Senator Sessions' record does include some positive actions. 

For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, while expressing opposition to his confirmation, 

acknowledged that he was helpful in the Center's successful effort to sue and bankrupt the Ku Klux Klan 

following its role in the 1981 lynching death of Michael Donald. The Leadership Conference also worked 

with Senator Sessions in an effort that culminated in the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 

which reduced racial disparities in federal cocaine sentencing provisions. While these actions are 

noteworthy, they do not change our conclusion that Senator Sessions' overall record is too troubling for 

him to be confirmed as Attorney General. 

The collegiality that ordinarily governs Senate decorum is no substitute for, and must not supersede, the 

Senate's profoundly important duty to vigorously and fairly review each nominee who comes before it. 

We believe that based on this review, there can be only one conclusion: Senator Sessions is the wrong 

person to serve as the U.S. Attorney General. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please 

contact Wade Henderson, President and CEO, or Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, at (202) 466-

3311. 

Sincerely, 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

9to5, National Association of Working Women 

Advancement Project 

Advocates for Youth 

AFL-CIO 

Alliance for Justice 

American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (AAAED) 

American Baptist Women's Ministries 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

American Federation of Teachers 

American Humanist Association 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) 

Americans United for Change 
1098 

Page 5 of& ff~e Leadecship 

Conference 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State 

America's Voice Education Fund 

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health F arum 

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) 

Asian American Psychological Association 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice- AAJC 

Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote) 

Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence 

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations 

Association of University Centers on Disabilities 

Bend The Arc Jewish Action 

Black Women's Roundtable 

Black Youth Vote! 

Bus Federation 

Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth 

Center for American Progress 

Center for APA Women 

Center for Community Change Action 

Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) 

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Center for Responsible Lending 

Center for Women's Global Leadership, Rutgers University 

Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley School of Law 

Coalition for Disability Health Equity 

Coalition of Labor Union Women 

Communications Workers of America 

Constitutional Accountability Center 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates 

CREDO 

Demand Progress 

Demos 

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund 

Earthjustice 

Equal Justice Society 

Equal Rights Advocates 

Fair Elections Legal Network 

Family Equality Council 

Farm worker Justice 

Feminist Majority 

FIRM (Fair Immigration Reform Movement) 

Four Freedoms Forum 

Global Justice Clinic, NYU School of Law 
1099 

Page 6 of8 

OLSEN 

Human Rights Campaign 

ff ~" Leadership 

Conference 

lA WRT_USA (International Association of Women in Radio and TV) 

Immigrant Legal Resource Center 

In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda 

Institute for Science and Human Values 

Japanese American Citizens League 

Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Laotian American National Alliance 

Latino Victory Project 

LatinoJustice PRLDEF 

League of United Latin American Citizens 

Legal Voice 

MALDEF 

MomsRising.org 

MoveOn.org 

Muslim Advocates 

NAACP 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

NARAL Pro-Choice America 

National Abortion Federation 

National Action Network Washington Bureau 

National Advocates for Pregnant Women 

National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE) 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association 

National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum 

National Association of Human Rights Workers 

National Association of Social Workers 

National Black Justice Coalition 

National CAPACD 

National Center for Law and Economic Justice 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

National Coalition on Black Civic Participation 

National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) 

National Council of Asian Pacific Islander Physicians 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of La Raza (NCLR) 

National Council on Independent Living 

National Domestic Violence Hotline 

National Education Association 
1100 

Page 7 of8 

National Employment Law Project 

National Employment Lawyers Association 

National Fair Housing Alliance 

ff ~1e Leadership 

Conference 

National Federation of Filipino American Associations 

National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) 

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty 

National Lawyers Guild 

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund 

National Network for Arab American Communities 

National Organization for Women 

National Partnership for Women & Families 

National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA) 

National Urban League 

National Women's Political Caucus 

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice 

OCA -Asian Pacific American Advocates 

People For the American Way 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America 

Policy Link 

Positive Women's Network- USA 

Prison Policy Initiative 

Project Vote 

Public Advocates Inc. 

Public Citizen 

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need 

SEIU 

Sierra Club 

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

The Campaign Legal Center 

The National Council on Independent Living 

The Trevor Project 

The Voting Rights Institute 

Transforrnative Justice Coalition 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries 

United Food & Commercial Workers International Union 

Voices for Progress 

Voting Rights Forward 

Women Employed 

Women Enabled International 
1101 

Page 8 of8 f r, '' The Leadership 

Women's Intercultural Network (WIN) 

World Without Genocide 

YWCA USA 

Conference 

1 Lena WiJiiams, '"Senate Panel Hands Reagan First Defeat on Nominee for Judgeship," New York Times, June 6, 1986, at 

http:/ lwww .nytimes.coml 1986/06/06/us/senate-panel-hands-reagan-first-defeat-on-nominee-for-i udgeship.html 

https://ww\v. washingtonpost.com/news/the~ ti x/wp/20 15/0612 3/the~gop,s-stunn ingly-rapid-political-shi ft-on-the-contCdera1e-

.flill!l1 

m U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes I 11th Congress- 1st Session at 

http://www.senate.gov/lcglslative!US/roll call lists/roll call vote clm.cfm?congress=ll1&scssion==l&votc=OOOJ4 

"U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes !13th Congress- 2nd Session at 

hHp:/hnvw.scnatc.gov/legislative/US!roll call lists/roll call vote cfin.cf!n?cont!ress=ll3&session=2&votc:c:-00262 

'U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes !13th Congress- 2nd Session at 

http://w\\w.senate.gov/Jegislative/US/ro!l call lists/roll call \'Otc cfm.cfm?congress=ll3&session-2&vote-00228 111 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 1 13th Congress* pt Session at 

http://v.,vv'\V.senate.gov/legislati\'e-/LIS/roll call lists/roll call vote cfln.cfm?con!!ress=ll3&session~ l&vote=00019 1111 Sean Sullivan, ''Trump supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions reportedly said behavior Trump described in 2005 video is not sexual 

assault," The Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2016 at https://W\\ w. washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/\\'P/20 16/10/1 0/trumpsupoorter-sen-jeff-sessions-repottedlv-said-behavior-trump-described-in-2005-video-is-not-sexual-assault/ 

vm '"President Obama's Unprecedented Commutations of Violent Drug, Gun Felons will inflict long·term harm on the Nation." 

Press Statement of Senator Jeff Sessions, Aug. 5. 2016 at http://wwl-v.sessions.scnntc.goY/public/index.efin/ncv.-·sreleases0lD~9SA30 II F-Il35C-4123-91 F4-857 A5EC3 E47F 1

x_ "'Federal Inmate Population Declines." Federal Bureau of Prisons, Oct. 4, 2016, at 

https://w-...\w.bop.gov/rcsources/nc\vs/20 161004 pop decline.jsp. 

x Eli Hager, Alysia Santo and Simone Weichselbaum, "8 Ways Jeff Sessions Could Change Criminal Justice," The A1arshall 

Project, Nov. 18~ 2016, at https://wv,\Y.thcmarshallproject.org/20 16/ 11/18/8-wa\ s-ieff-sessions-could-chane:e-criminaljustice?ref=hp-l-122#.j2J hp21N 

" U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 1J4ili Congress- 1" Session at 

http://\\Vi\\'.scnate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll call lists/roll call \'Ote c1h1.cfm?cottgress=l14&session=l&vote-:i)0306 

xu U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes ll4lh Congress- 1 sr Session at 

http://wv.-"-·\'.Scnatc.gov/legislati\'e/LIS/roll call lists/roll call \'Ote crm.cf111?congress""ll4&session-J &vote-00295 

xm U.S. Senate Rolle Call Votes lJ21b Congress- pt Session at 

http://'\vww.senate.gov/Iegislative/LIS/roll call lists/roil call \·ote cfi11.cfm?congress=l J2&session-""2&vote=OOl39 

'" Floor Statement, Education Discipline and IDEA (May 18, 2000), available at 

http://>.v\'lw.sessions.senate.gov/public/index..ctin/2000/5/eclucati{m-discipline·and-idea-. 
1102 

lEGAl 

RID AT 

WDRH 

LEGAL STAFF 

St~ffAm:>me')" 

Al!ysuVillall\.ll'\'11 

~nfotd Hersfer f'l•blit:/fllete!>( &_.,t~/}' 

ft'ilow 

~niorSt~I!AtWfll<'y 

>r.1trAUr.lf""')' 

lti"Lhertnt~f!en.r 

SrMfArwmcy 

MltluetT.Gahhoy 

()lr&ror_Communiryley<~!St>!Vl'tt>s 

]MniiGerry 

lmerirnStarYArnm,..y 

ChrlslnpharHo 

Dirwl<K;N.3/ral'!diOr'lfin.lnlm.'S<MIOfl<i.~l1 

ta",g"~I<<Kflls 

JlnnyKim 

ON'>!<!tJt;DiS,Jbb-ryltrgt>B 

£UqbathKrtn..n. 

0tfl'<fa~Gf:(l<}t!;fqwty&.L6£JiRrgh/S 

Ra.;l\.aetUngii'Dn 

St>nwr 5/affkl.om~y 

Wllt.iamC.McN&iiiiU 

Dlrmor:.R~=Ifqullliry 

J<~hhrbb 

srMfAru>mey 

Mari~Tapi~·H:t~: 

s.m P<eg!J Worl<Frs' R!lfll~ Ol!l1~ 1'~/!ow 

Oll'f>CHlt, W.otkilndF~mlly 

KimT..,rnn 

St>morSt«ffAI!Nfley 

C;~rokVign• 

[)itf'rror.Wa~Prorutlon 

Stacyv.ll.alob()$. 

s~~~nFt!Jiow 

I("'~MIIIt! Wutd!hm: 

PAFIAL'ECAl/ 

LEGAL ASSISTANTS 

(:UNIC $1AFF 

C.r>mffl<mlfyLegi.>IServ:,l"'OIJtre.~ch 

(()<>rdr/14/0T 

IGn(Sr.~~~tD 

l<JnSII&/!1':/+I:(f'SS(OOIVI!>oOWf 

SPECIAL COUN$'EL 

Roboortt.lkli"'<D1'1 

liOn«•ble-j011ephR.Grodin{Ret..} 

Ht~llryHewltt 

(h~ff'rogrNnO!fi(er;,'!dGs,er<Jl 

Cwru~! 

january 5, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Diane Feinstein 

Senate judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

·:,:I\~·: •1:,~~>!n•:ry ~t' o:·t~:, :41 ~~ (': 

~ .. v~ t : ; q ~·,~·;: :-J. (A 1

_1-! ll:·i ,;~' .; ,~ 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We write to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator 

jefferson B. Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. Legal Aid at 

Work is a nonprofit providing free legal services across California to low-income 

workers facing unlawful discrimination, unpaid wages and other injustices. 

Given Senator Sessions' long and consistent record of hostility to civil and 

workers' rights, we believe he is unfit to serve as the nation's chief law 

enforcement officer. In 1986, a bipartisan majority of the Senate judiciary 

Committee rejected him for a district court judgeship based on compelling 

evidence that he opposed civil rights enforcement supported voter 

suppression tactics targeting African Americans, and had a history of makingracially insensitive statements. Nothing in his record since then has 

demonstrated he has changed to become fit to serve as a fair arbiter of justice 

and protect the civil rights of all. 

Senator Sessions has supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex 

marriage and associated closely with white nationalist and hate groups 

regarding immigration policy. And he has accepted awards from organizations 

designated as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

He has consistently opposed; 

legislation to protect the rights of workers, including the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and measures to raise 

the minimum wage; 

protections for people with disabilities; 

repeal of the "Don't Ask Don'tTell" policy; 
1103 

efforts to advance women's rights; and 

investigations by the Department of justice of law enforcement agencies accused of 

misconduct and civil rights violations; he has called consent decrees that mandate reform 

"an end run around the democratic process." 

For these reasons, we believe Senator Sessions is unqualified to serve as Attorney General of the 

United States, and we urge you to oppose his confirmation. 

Yours truly, 

joan Graff 

President 

Legal Aid At Work 
1104 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne G. Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We submit this letter in connection with the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the 

position of Attorney General of the United States. We urge you to reject his nomination 

because he is ethically unfit to undertake the weighty role of the country's chief law 

enforcement officer. 

We are law professors who have decades of experience as teachers of legal ethics in numerous 

law schools around the country. Many of us focus our scholarship on lawyers' ethics in the 

criminal justice system. Some of us served as prosecutors or defense attorneys in state or 

federal courts prior to our current positions. Some of us continue to litigate trial and appellate 

criminal cases in law school clinics. All of us strive to uphold the integrity ofthe legal profession 

and to inculcate the significance ofthe values of honesty, trustworthiness, and moral character 

in those we educate and train to be lawyers. 

As Attorney General of Alabama, a position analogous to, if less powerful than, that of the 

nation's chief prosecutor, Senator Sessions demonstrated that he lacked the fundamental 

qualities required for the job. Our conclusion is based upon our knowledge, training, 

experience, scholarship, and relevant ethics rules and standards, as well as the judicial opinions 

of the Circuit Judge of Jefferson County and the 111

h Circuit Court of Appeals. we· have also 

reviewed the letter of Professor Bennett Gershman submitted to this Committee that details 

the facts underlying Senator Sessions' handling of that case as the Attorney General of 

Alabama.1 

1 Letter of Professor Bennett Gershman to Honorable Charles Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, 

January 6, 2017. 
1105 

As more fully set forth in Professor Gershman's letter, in 1995, the Office of the Alabama 

Attorney General investigated and prosecuted TIECO, an industrial equipment sales company, 

and a number of its employees, in what it publicly proclaimed to be the case of the "greatest 

magnitude that the Attorney General's Office had undertaken in the last twenty-five years."2 In 

a stunning dismissal of all ten indictments, Judge James S. Garrett, Circuit Judge of Jefferson 

County, Alabama, excoriated the Office of the Attorney General. The Court held that "the 

misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses in both extensiveness and 

measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed 

by this Court .. } The misconduct is so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire 

atmosphere of this prosecution and warrants a dismissal of these cases."4 

Among the facts cited by the Court to support this conclusion were the following: 

(1) "the Attorney General's repeated refusals and failures to produce exculpatory 

evidence" ;

5 

(2) "the Attorney General's repeated denials of the very existence of exculpatory 

evidence subsequently discovered by the Defendants";6 

(3) "the flagrant disregard ofthe constitutional rights of those accused"/ 

(4) "the completely incredible and deceptive testimony of so many witnesses this 

Court treated as officers of the court (some of whom were either assistants or 

agents for the Attorney General)";8 

(5) "the Attorney General's refusal and/or failure to comply with the previous 

discovery orders issued by this Court"; 9 and 

(6) the "apparent changing of evidence.''10 

In describing the misconduct, the court made clear that the listed misconduct was "only a 

summary" of some of the misconduct in the case.11 

In an uncommon conclusion for any court, Judge Garrett said that "this Court can only conclude 

it is dealing with either intentional and deliberate misconduct or conduct so reckless and 

2 Opinion of James 5. Garrett, Circuit Judge of Jefferson County, Alabama, State of Alabama v. 

TIECO, eta/., Case No. CC-96-2961 (July 16, 1997) at 4 (hereinafter cited as "Op.''). 3 Op. at 2. 

Op. at 13. 

Op. at 2. 6 ld. 7 ld. 8 ld. 

Op. at 11. 10 Op. at 13. 11 Op. at 13. 

2 
1106 

improper as to constitute conscious disregard for the lawful duties of the Attorney General and 

the integrity and dignity oft his court and this Judge.'' 12 

Judge Garrett contrasted the shocking conduct of the Attorney General's Office in TIECO with 

cases of prosecutorial misconduct based upon a single failure to produce exculpatory evidence 

or other lesser misconduct. According to the Court, the poor system of supervision and 

management within Attorney General Sessions' office contributed to the pervasive misconduct 

in T/EC0. 13 

Upon examination of the detailed facts in this case, we concur with Professor Gershman's 

conclusion that "Senator Sessions, as the chief law enforcement officer in the State of Alabama, 

together with his assistants and investigators, engaged in a pattern of flagrant, willful and 

repeated misconduct, which undermined the integrity of the criminal justice system, harmed 

the reputation of entities and individuals who were wrongfully accused of criminal conduct, and 

violated the ethical and constitutional duties of a prosecutor to serve the cause of justice fairly, 

and the administration of criminal law with dignity and respect."14 

The TIECO case, one of the last cases prosecuted by Senator Sessions as a state attorney 

general, is a most pointed example of how Senator Sessions might administer justice as 

Attorney General of the United States. 

The integrity and legitimacy of our country's legal system depend upon the ethical leadership of 

those in positions of authority. The Attorney General is this country's chief "Minister of Justice." 

Senator Sessions has demonstrated that he is unqualified for this role. 

Respectfully, 

Cheryl Bader 

Associate Clinical Professor of Law 

Fordham University School of Law* 

Vincent M. Bonventre 

Justice Robert M. Jackson Distinguished Professor of Law 

Albany Law School 

David N. Cassuto 

Professor of Law 

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at 

Pace University 

12 Op. at 2. 13 Op. at 4-6. 14 Letter from Bennett Gershman at 11·12. 

3 
1107 

Elizabeth Chambliss 

Professor of Law & Director, NMRS Center 

on Professionalism 

University of South Carolina School of Law 

KamiN. Chavis 

Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Research 

and Public Engagement 

Wake Forest University School of Law 

Liz Ryan Cole 

Professor of Law 

Vermont Law School 

George W. Conk 

Senior Fellow 

Stein Center for Law & Ethics 

Fordham Law School 

Angela J. Davis 

Professor of Law 

Washington College of Law 

American University 

Anthony Davis 

Lecturer in Law 

Columbia Law School 

Peter L. Davis 

Associate Professor of Law Emeritus 

Touro Law School 

Lawrence Fox 

Crawford Lecturer in Law and Director 

of the Ethics Bureau 

Yale Law School 

Jill Friedman 

Associate Dean 

Pro Bono & Public Interest Program 

Rutgers Law School 

4 
1108 

Barbara S. Gillers 

Adjunct Professor of Law 

New York University School of Law 

Cynthia Godsoe 

Associate Professor of Law 

Brooklyn Law School 

Lissa Griffin 

James D. Hopkins Professor of Law 

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at 

Pace University 

Peter A. Joy 

Henry Hitchcock Professor of Law 

Washington University in St. Louis 

Richard Klein 

Professor of Law 

Touro Law School 

Theo Liebmann 

Clinical Professor of Law 

Maurice A. Dean School of Law at Hofstra University 

Lynn Mather 

SUNY Distinguished Service Professor Emerita 

University at Buffalo School of Law 

Vanessa Merton 

Professor of Law 

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at 

Pace University 

James G. Milles 

Professor of Law 

University at Buffalo School of Law 

Ronald C. Minkoff 

Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, Past President 

Former Adjunct Professor of Law 

5 
1109 

Russell G. Pearce 

Edward & Marilyn Bellet Chair in Legal Ethics, Morality and Religion 

Fordham University School of Law 

Carla D. Pratt 

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of law 

Dickinson law School 

Penn State University 

Jenny Roberts 

Professor of law and Associate Dean for Scholarship 

American University 

Washington College of law 

Norman I. Silber 

Professor of law 

Maurice A. Deane School of law 

Hofstra University 

Marjorie Silver 

Professor of law 

Touro law School 

Abbe Smith 

Professor of law and Co-Director of the E. Barrett Prettyman 

Fellowship Program 

Georgetown School of law 

Ellen Yaroshefsky 

Professor of law and legal Ethics 

Maurice A. Deane School of law 

Hofstra University 

Steve Zeidman 

Professor of Law 

City University of New York School of law 

Richard Zitrin 

lecturer in law 

Hastings College of law 

University of California 

*Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. 

6 
1110 

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL 

JAn.Irs S. Ln:nilfA~ 

SlilfON H. RIFJ(JNI) I

1HOFESSOR OF LAW 

Han. Charles Grassley, Chairman 

Han. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

T£1.: {lll) 8.!14 34ll 

FAX: (liZ) 854 7946 

F.i'HAIL: jliebnum@lnw,cohJmhia,l'llu 

January 9, 2017 

Re: Nomination of Han. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill to the position of Attorney General 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I have been asked by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to respond to Christian Adam's Jan. 4, 

2017 letter to the Committee regarding Jefferson B. Sessions' direction oft he 1985 prosecution 

of Albert and Evelyn Turner and Spencer Hogue, Jr. (the last of whom I represented in the case 

while serving as a staff attorney for the Legal Defense Fund). 

In a separate filing with the Committee, I have been listed among law professors who oppose 

Mr. Sessions' appointment as Attorney GeneraL I signed the law professors' letter because of 

policies Mr. Sessions promotes that I believe are insufficiently hospitable to important 

constitutional and civil rights of the American people. !leave to the Committee to determine 

the effect of the Turner and Hogue prosecution on Mr. Sessions' fitness to be Attorney GeneraL 

My purpose in writing this letter is to describe the facts ofthe 1985 prosecution as I observed 

them to be and as a federal magistrate, judge, and jury found them to be at the time. 

Mr. Adams played no part in the Turner/Hague case, and his letter omits or misstates important 

information about it. To be sure, Mr. Adams makes a number of unobjectionable points about 

the importance of the integrity of American elections and the evil of outside interference with 

the right of American voters to decide for themselves what the outcome of elections should be. 

He illustrates his points by reference to a case he brought in regard to a different Alabama 

county involving entirely different actors and actions from those in the Turner/Hague case. I 

will limit this letter to two aspects of Mr. Sessions' handling ofthe Turner/Hague prosecution 

that I believe are not in dispute and yet are not mentioned or accurately reflected in Mr. 

Adams' letter: 

Jerome L. Greene Hllll 435 West 116111 Street New York, N\' 10027 
1111 

1. It was the stated position of Mr. Sessions' office and staff throughout the prosecution of 

the Turners and Mr. Hogue that any assisted change in any absentee ballot, including a 

change that the voter in question asked a third party to make and/or to which that voter 

consented, was illegal by virtue of the assisted alteration itself. As I reported in my 

testimony to this Committee on March 19, 1986 (Appendix 1 to this letter), Mr. 

Sessions' staff repeatedly conveyed this view to the court and to me and other defense 

lawyers on the case. More importantly, agents representing Mr. Sessions' office so 

informed elderly and infirm African-American absentee voters when first confronting 

them in their homes with the allegation that alterations to their ballots-alterations 

they later testified in court were made at their request and with their consentconstituted voter fraud or other illegality either by them or by the Turners and Mr. 

Hogue. The view of the law taken by Mr. Sessions and his staff at the time is contrary to 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended in 1982, which, as Mr. Adams acknowledges 

in his letter, recognizes "the right of voters to receive assistance." Upon applying the 

correct law, the trial judge in the case dismissed a substantial number ofthe allegations 

of fraud in the indictment Mr. Sessions had brought. And when appropriately instructed 

on the law, the jury of seven African-American and five white citizens promptly 

acquitted the Turners and Mr. Hogue of the remaining counts based upon the testimony 

of the voters in question-under oath and subject to cross-examination by Mr. Sessions 

and his staff-that they desired and consented to the changes made on their ballots. 

2. In elections in Perry County, Alabama around the time of the events alleged in this 

indictment, it was common for both white and black voters-indeed, for as many as 

one-third of those of both races casting ballots, many of whom were elderly and 

infirm-to cast their votes by absentee ballot. It was also common for competing 

political groups who promoted the election of mainly white and mainly black candidates 

to assist voters in casting absentee ballots. As my 1986 testimony, and the attached 

Motion to Dismiss that I assisted in drafting and filing in the case documents (Appendix 

2 to this letter), there was substantial evidence of actual voter fraud on the part of a 

competing political group of white individuals who supported the election of white 

candidates-evidence that was much stronger than any alleged against the Turners and 

Mr. Hogue. And the white candidates supported by this competing political group 

actually won the election, defeating the candidates whom the Turners and Mr. Hogue 

had supported. Yet Mr. Sessions and his stafftook no steps to investigate or prosecute 

those other actors even when presented with this evidence in court. 

Providing one among many examples of the relevant evidence of voter fraud by 

members of this group is the following passage from my written testimony to this 

Committee in 1986: 

[A]Ithough the absentee ballots of many patrons of a senior citizens 

center in Uniontown, Alabama were moved and signed in the same color felt-tip 

pen with what appears on its face- and expert handwriting analysis confirmedwas the same handwriting, that of Andrew Hayden [the leader of the competing 

political group supporting white candidates], who also witnessed each of those 

2 
1112 

ballots, and although all those ballots were identically voted for the same whitesupported slate and simultaneously mailed to the Perry County Clerk, Mary 

Auburtin, from Montgomery, Alabama, scores of miles away, none of the 

patrons of the center were ever questioned by Mr. Sessions' investigators. When 

some of the alleged voters~ questioned by defense investigators, the 

answers clearly demonstrated that some had no idea for whom they had voted, 

and none had any recollection of signing the form necessary to apply to vote 

absentee. [Exhibit TT, pp. 2-4; esp. [voter] M. E.]. 

Even more curious, at least three ofthe ballots witnessed by Mr. Hayden 

and his employees and voted for the white slate showed on their faces that they 

were "witnessed" two days after they were supposedly voted and mailed in by 

the voters, and, indeed, a f@y after they were "received" by the office of the 

county clerk, Mary Auburtin- notwithstanding the requirement that the ballot 

be witnessed simultaneously with the voter's marking and signing the ballot. 

[Exhibits 00-RR.] Not only did Ms. Auburtin's office officially count these facially 

fraudulent votes for the white slate, but Mr. Sessions thereafter failed to inquire 

of any of the 3 alleged voters about how Mr. Hayden and his employees came to 

witness the ballots days after they were supposedly voted. 

Revealing how seriously a federal magistrate took the issue of whether Mr. Sessions' 

office had engaged in improper selective prosecution of blacks for alleged crimes left 

uninvestigated and uncharged despite equal or stronger evidence in the case of white 

actors is the following passage from the same testimony; 

... After considering the selective-prosecution papers filed by defendants 

in this case, and conducting a day long hearing on the matter, the United States 

Magistrate for the Southern District of Alabama concluded that defendants had 

satisfied the first prong of their burden to get a hearing on selective prosecution 

by producing credible evidence in this record that, in bringing the Turner/Hague 

indictment, "the Government[-- Mr. Sessions' office--] was activated by 

constitutionally impermissible motives such as racial ... discrimination." Second, 

the Magistrate found that "[t]here is credible evidence adduced by the 

Defendants that a number of absentee ballots cast in Perry County in September 

1984, contained irregularities related to candidates marking, witnessing, 

attestation, and mailing; ... that the preparation of some of these ballots likely 

was connected with voter assistance activity carried out by groups in Perry 

County which are led by whites; and ... that these ballot irregularities have not 

been investigated, nor the individual apparently connected with the ballots 

prosecuted [by Mr. Session's office]." [May 24, 1985 Recommendations of the 

Magistrate, at 3; see also jQ. at 6, 8.] 

Finally, I must take issue with Mr. Adams' statements implying that the Turners, Mr. Hogue, and 

other individuals in Perry County, Alabama were illegally "harvesting and often casting 

absentee ballots on behalf of African-American voters," actions he claims were not "a noble 

civil rights endeavor" but instead "activities [that] steal votes by stripping the will of the voter 

3 
1113 

away and giving it to a corrupt political enterprise" (page 1). This is a rash statement as applied 

to the Turners and Mr. Hogue, and it is patently unproven and untrue. Although Mr. Sessions so 

alleged in an indictment-albeit based on the improper view that any assisted change in an 

absentee ballot, including one the voter desired and to which he or she consented, is illegalthe facts are that (1) the trial judge dismissed many of the counts in that indictment as so 

lacking in evidence that they couldn't be taken to the jury, and (2) the jurors unanimously 

rejected all of the counts that were brought to them and acquitted the defendants. Indeed, as 

the New York Times reported today, Senator Sessions himself recently "co-sponsored legislation 

awarding Alabama's civil rights marchers and Rosa Parks Congressional Gold Medals"-

marchers who included one of the defendants in the 1985 prosecution, Albert Turner.1 

Evidently, in sponsoring this prestigious award for Mr. Turner along with others, Mr. Sessions 

has accepted the judgment of the federal court and jury in the case that the allegations against 

Mr. Turner, his wife, and Mr. Hogue were at the very least untenable and unproven. On behalf 

of my former client, I would ask the same courtesy from Mr. Adams who never bothers to 

mention that the people he accuses were relieved of many of the charges by the court and 

acquitted of the rest by a unanimous multi-racial jury of twelve Alabama citizens. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter. 

Sincerely, /',/ •' 

-d.~~~? I~ ~::s S. Liebman 

1 Sharon LaFraniere & Matt Apuzzo, Jeff Sessions, a Lifelong Outsider, Finds the Inside Track, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 

2017. 

4 
1114 

Albuquerque 

Arlington 

Atlanta 

Aurora 

Austin 

Baltimore Co. 

Boston 

Buffalo 

Calgary, Canada 

Charlotte·Mecklenburg 

Chicago 

Cinc~nnoi> 

Cleveland 

ColurnD\JS 

Dallas 

Den11er 

Detro1! 

Edmon ten. Canada 

Ei Paso 

fo1rla!t County 

Forl Worth 

Fre~r.o 

Honolulu 

Houston 

J::ans.os City 

las Vegas Mello 

long Becct1 

los Angeles 

Memp~is 

Mesa 

M1arrn 

MIO!Tlf·Dade 

M1lwaukec 

M1nneopolis 

Nassow Co. 

New OrleO'lS 

NewYo'k City 

~e..,. ark 

Oakland 

Oklahoma City 

Omaha 

Orlando 

Otl3Na. Conodn 

Pee! Region. Canada 

Philade-lphia 

r'loen<x 

P1!tsburgh 

Portland 

Pnnce George's Ca. 

Quebec City Canada 

Role1gh 

Socramenle 

SallloKeCity 

San Antomo 

Son Diego 

San FranCISCo 

San Jo~e 

Sea!He 

St. lou1~ 

Suffolk Co. 

TamPa 

foronlo. Canada 

Tuc;on 

Tulsa 

Vancouver. Ca!'lodo 

Y•rginta Beach 

Wosf-Hngton 

W1ch!ta 

Winnipeg, Conado 

YOO:. Onlorio 

MA.JOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 

November 22,2016 

The Hon. Charles Grass ley 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Hon. Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grass ley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

On behalf of the Major Chiefs Association, representing the largest metropolitan 

regions of our Nation, we are writing to support a swift confirmation for Senator Jeff 

Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Senator Sessions has a storied record of service to our Nation and our justice system. 

While serving first as U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and later as State Attorney 

General, he became a nationally recognized spokesman for American law 

enforcement. His exemplary accomplishments as a prosecutor represent a broad 

range of cases that have repeatedly demonstrated his steadfast commitment to public 

safety. 

As a Senator, Jeff Sessions has been an unwavering champion for measures to 

address violent crime and drug abuse in the communities we are sworn to serve. He 

has reached across the aisle and shown a bipartisan balance, forging agreements with 

the opposition and thus serving the common good. 

We will count on him to support the top priorities of American polieing. New 

measures to protect police from violent assaults must be considered, including 

Federal prosecution of those who would prey upon the men and women who bravely 

serve the publie every day. 

American law enforcement has always looked to you for leadership and we again 

turn to you to move the nomination of Jeff Sessions quickly through the confirmation 

process. 

Sincerely, 

J. Thomas Manger 

Chief of Police 

Montgomery County Police Department 

President, Major Cities Chiefs Association 
1115 

· Major County Sheriffs' Association 

January 6, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard 

\':cc Pr'-'~ident- (;o, t:rnmcnt ,\fClit:-

()a]dand 

Ranking Member Diane Feinstein 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

As Vice President of Government Affairs for the Major County Sheriffs' Association (MCSA), I write to 

express our support for the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as the 841

h Attorney General of the United 

States. His service and knowledgeable experience within the field of crimina\ justice makes him a uniquely 

qualified candidate. 

Expected to lead the U.S. Department of Justice on issues from tackling complex organized crime and cyberthreats, to sophisticated fraud and terrorism, the Attorney General ofthe United States requires not only a strong 

command of all justice concerns, but the ability to work cooperatively and closely with a broad community of 

law enforcement agencies and leaders across the country. Within the current Administration, there has been a 

continued pattern of making critical decisions affecting the law enforcement community without adequate 

stakeholder consultation. Issues range from the acquisition of military surplus equipment to immigration 

enforcement and asset forfeiture. 

Senator Sessions has been a strong advocate for law enforcement and we greatly appreciate his hard work and 

commitment to public safety. As an association of elected sheriffs representing our nation's largest counties 

with populations of 500,000 people or more, serving over I 00 million Americans, we seek to be a positive 

source of ideas and solutions and Senator Sessions has been a reliable and valuable partner ofthe MCSA. 

The MCSA urges the Committee and members of the Senate to swiftly confirm Senator Sessions' nomination 

so we may continue to collectively work to protect our communities and follow the rule oflaw. 

Very Respectfully, 

Michael J. Bouchard, Sheriff, Oakland County (Ml) 

Viee President- Government Affairs. Major County Sheriffs' Association 
1116 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We write to express our deep concerns about the record of President-elect Trump's nominee for 

Attorney General ofthe United States, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). We urge a thorough vetting 

of Senator Sessions' policy positions, especially those that we believe will be detrimental to the 

country's progress towards becoming more inclusive and our cities' efforts to create strong and 

safe communities. 

Diversity is rapidly increasing in our cities, in part, due to immigration. We believe this growth 

and integration in our communities promotes a more vibrant economy and life for all our 

citizens. However, with changing demographics, we must also work to promote and encourage 

trust between the public and law enforcement. Senator Sessions' legislative record lacks a 

commitment to these goals, and to upholding civil rights for all. And, as a result, we question 

whether Senator Sessions can fairly lead an agency charged with protecting the constitutional 

and civil rights of rights of all Americans. 

Senator Sessions has consistently opposed bipartisan efforts to reform our immigration policies 

despite his consistent criticism of the status quo. Moreover, he opposes any path to citizenship 

for people illegally brought to the U.S. as children by their parents, known as Dreamers. 

Additionally, Senator Sessions has also aligned himself with several anti-immigration groups, 

such as Numbers USA. 

Given Senator Sessions' history and the critical issues under the Department of Justice's 

jurisdiction, we believe that Senator Sessions is unable to fairly enforce our nation's laws and 

will not work to advance justice and equality. We encourage you to oppose Senator Sessions 

nomination to serve as Attorney General of the United States. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Edward B. Murray 

Seattle, Washington 

Mayor Betsy Hodges 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Mayor Bill Bell 

Durham, North Carolina 

Mayor Edwin Lee 

San Francisco, CA 

Mayor Sly James 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Mayor Toni Harp 

New Haven, Connecticut 
1117 

Mayor Leon Rockingham, Jr. 

North Chicago, Illinois 

Mayor McKinley Price 

Newport News, Virginia 

Mayor William Johnson 

Holly Hill, South Carolina 

Mayor Mario Avery 

Fairburn, Georgia 

2 

Mayor Jacqueline Goodall 

Forest Heights, Maryland 

Mayor Harold Thompson 

Union, South Carolina 

Mayor Beverly Young 

Village of Vandalia, Michigan 

Mayor Wayne M. Messam 

Miramar, Florida 
1118 

Board of Directors 

Sheriffs: 

President 

Kirk Wakefield 

Crawford County 

Past President 

Blaine Koops 

Allegan County 

Vice President 

Tim Donnellan 

St. Clair County 

Dis!rictVDirector 

Secretary/Treasurer 

Scott Celelto 

Dickinson County 

Dlstrlct!Director 

District!! Director 

Pete Wallin 

Emmet County 

Distrlct!J!Dlrector 

RobertJ. Farber 

Oceana County 

District IV Director 

L Paul Bailey 

Berrien County 

New Sheriffs' Representa!ive 

Matthew Saxton 

Calhoun County 

Terrence L. Junge! 

CEO/Executive Director 

John McGlinchey 

or counsel 

Ben Bodkin 

Legislative Representative 

MICHIGAN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION 

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. 620 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 320A • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933-2327 

TELEPHONE (517) 485-3135 • FAX (517) 485-8018 

www.mlsherlff.org 

December 20, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Grassley: 

The Michigan Sheriffs' Association is the oldest law-enforcement association 

in Michigan, established in 1877. It is not the custom of the Michigan 

Sheriffs' Association to involve ourselves in the national political process or 

presidential appointments. While we are very non-partisan, we are certainly 

pro law-enforcement. 

Toward that end, we feel compelled to send a letter of support for the pending 

nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the United States Attorney General 

position. His service, knowledge, experience and dedication in the field of 

criminal justice makes him uniquely qualified to lead that agency. 

The complicated matters that come before the United States Department of 

Justice cannot be overstated and the very security of each man, woman and 

child in this country is under their care. 

The men and women oflaw enforcement who place their lives on the line 

every day in defense of their communities need the support of the United 

States Attorney General. We believe that we will get that support from 

Senator Jeff Sessions. He has not only been a strong advocate forlaw 

enforcement; but, he has been a strong advocate for victims as well, which we 

both strive to serve. 

I believe working together, we can make this country much safer and more 

secure with our combined efforts. 

THE MICHIGAN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION· WORKING WITH YOU FOR YOU. 

SINCE 1877 ... Michigan's Oldest Law Enforcement Organization 
1119 

MICHIGAN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION 

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. 620 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 320A •LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933~2327 

TELEPHONE (517) 485-3135 • FAX (517) 485-8016 

www.mJsherJff.org 

Please know we offer our strongest endorsement and encourage his 

confirmation as the United States 84th Attorney General. 

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if! can be of any further 

assistance. 

TU:ad 

cc: Brcanna Bock-Nielsen 

MSA Board of Directors 

Sheriff Bouchard 

THE MICHIGAN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION- WORKING WITH YOU FOR YOU. 

SINCE 1877,.. Michigan's Oldest Law Enforcement Organization 
1120 

0 1815 COGSWELL AVENUE 

SUITE 221 

PELL CITY. Al 351 25 

(205) 338-9429 

FAX: [205)338-9895 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Building 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

RICHARD J. MINOR 

DISTRICT ATIORNEY 

THIRTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

ST. CLAIR COUNTY 

December 10,2016 

0 POST OFFICE BOX 40 

ASIMLLE. Al35953 

[205) 594-2180 

FAX: (205)594-2175 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

WashingtonD.C. 20510 

RE: Letter of Support for Jefferson Sessions, III 

For Confirmation as 84th Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Senators Grassley and Leahy: 

I wanted to write to express my support for Attorney General nominee Jefferson 

Sessions, III. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm the nomination of 

Jefferson Sessions by President Elect Donald Trump to serve as our next Attomey 

General. I urge the Committee to confirm Jefferson Sessions, III, during your hearings on 

January 10-11,2017. 

I first met Sen. Sessions during my last quarter at Aubum University in 1990 

when I applied for a criminal justice internship within the U.S. Attorneys Office in 

Mobile, AL. After my interview, U.S. Attorney Sessions allowed me to become the first 

college intern to serve within his office. The next year, he allowed me to return upon 

completion of my first year oflaw school. In 1995, Alabama Attorney General Jeff 

Sessions hired me as an Assistant Attorney General to work in the Criminal Trials 

Division of the Alabama Attorney General's Office. His one decision in 1990 allowed me 

to view the criminal justice system from a prosecutor's perspective of equal justice for 

all. For the last twenty-three years (23), I have tried to emulate the prosecutor and man, 

Jefferson Sessions. 
1121 

Just as I have dedicated my life to public service, Senator Sessions has dedicated 

his life to public service and continues to have an exemplary career. He received his J.D. 

degree from the University of Alabama in 1973 and he received his B.A. degree from 

Huntingdon College in 1969. Senator Sessions served in the United States Army Reserve 

from 1973 to 1986 attaining the rank of Captain. Sen. Sessions served with distinction 

during his first employment with the Department of Justice, as an Assistant United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. Two years later in 1981, President Ronald 

Reagan nominated Sen. Sessions to serve as the United States Attorney for Alabama's 

Southern District. Sen. Sessions served with distinction for twelve (12) years as United 

States Attorney before being elected Alabama Attorney General in 1995, serving as the 

state's chieflegal officer and top law enforcement officer unti\1997, when he entered the 

United States Senate. 

As I begin my third term as District Attorney of the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit 

(Alabama), I can think of no better person to be called the Chief Law Enforcement 

Officer of the United States. That person is my friend, my mentor, and the sole reason I 

pursued becoming a career prosecutor ... Jefferson Sessions, III. Without any 

reservation, I strongly support Jefferson Sessions, Ill, as our next United States Attorney 

and urge the Committee to do so as welL 

District Attorney 

Thirtieth Judicial Circuit 
1122 

New York Office 

40 Rector Street, 5th Floor 

New York, NY 10006-1738 

T 212.965.2200 

F 212.226 7592 

Washington, D.C. Office 

1444 Eye St~eet NW, lOth Floor 

Washington, D.C 20005 

T 202.682.1300 

F 202.682.1312 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

S230 U.S. Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman 

IDF 

DEFEND EDUCATE EMPOWER 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

S221 U.S. Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: The Nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to be 

Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Senator 

Feinstein: 

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. ("LDF') submits this 

letter and attached report in strong opposition to the nomination of Senator 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to be Attorney General of the United States. 

As the nation's top law enforcement official, the position of Attorney General 

is one of unparalleled power within the Executive Branch and has profound 
1123 

implications for civil rights. The Attorney General has the principal responsibility 

for enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, including challenging practices that 

violate the constitutional requirement of "equal protection under the laws," and 

violations offederal civil rights statutes. The Attorney General must "ensure the 

fair and impartial administration of justice to all Americans." 

Because of this responsibility, it is essential that any nominee's record on 

civil rights is thoroughly and closely scrutinized before confirmation to this position 

of extraordinary public trust. To that end, LDF has prepared a detailed report on 

Sessions' civil rights record throughout his legal and political career, particularly 

with respect to racial justice. As shown in the report, Sessions' record renders him 

unfit to serve as Attorney General. 

The question before this Committee is whether Senator Jeff Sessions is fit to 

be the chief enforcer of the nation's civil rights laws. The record amassed during the 

entirety of Senator Sessions' career reveals that he has not shown a commitment to 

the principles of racial equality and justice, and support for the civil rights laws 

which, as Attorney General, he would be charged with upholding. From his actions 

as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama in the 1980s, to his actions as 

Attorney General of Alabama in the 1990s, to his twenty-year career as a United 

States Senator, Senator Sessions' record demonstrates hostility to the values of 

equality and justice, and to the core civil rights statutes and legal principles that he 

would be charged with enforcing as Attorney General. 

For these reasons and those set forth in the attached report, LDF opposes the 

confirmation of Senator Sessions to serve as the 84'h Attorney General of the United 

States. Any fair and objective assessment of Senator Sessions' record demonstrates 

that he is neither qualified nor prepared to vigorously enforce the nation's civil 

rights laws. 

Thank you for considering this report. If you have any questions, please contact 

Todd A. Cox, Director of Policy or Kyle Barry, Policy Counsel Associate at 202-682-

1300. 

Sincerely, 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill 

President & Director Counsel 

2 
1124 

Doartl or Directors 

Steven H. Cotlk 

l'r<:"\IJ~nt rED. TN} 

La" renee J. Leiser 

l"1ce President 

{I:.D VA) 

Allison W. Bwgg. 

~'tee i'residenl 

(I· .. D . .-\R) 

Steven B. Wasst'tman 

frem·urr~r(I)C) 

J GrcgoT} Bownum 

lED TN) 

K0:1ren A. hcobar 

(Ell CA\ 

Craig W. !Jailer 

{W.D PAl 

AdamE !Ianna 

iS D. IL) 

t .auren L JtJrgenscn 

(S.IJ LL) 

Joseph L. K<Jchkr 

(1V.) 

David A Marye 

11'.0 KYJ 

Ju!>cli.Ramuet: 

(S.D TXl 

Clay M. West 

tWD.Ml) 

Executive Oin:ctor 

Dcnnts W. l3oyU 

Counsel 

Bruce \1oycr 

National Association of 

Assistant United States Attomeys 

Safeguarding Justice for All Americans 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6050 

Re: Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions 

Dear Chairman Grass ley: 

The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA) is pleased to add its 

voice to the chorus of law enforcement and community groups supporting the nomination of Senator 

Jeff Sessions to be the 84th Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions is a man of 

great integrity who possesses the experience, disposition, and intellect necessary to lead the 

Department of Justice. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a person who is more qualified to be the 

next Attorney General than Senator Sessions. 

Throughout his distinguished career as a prosecutor, private practitioner, and legislator Senator 

Sessions has demonstrated a dedication to the rule of law and a commitment to justice. He is a 

proven leader who knows the inner-workings of the Department of Justice and understands the 

critically important role it plays in the American legal system. As a former Assistant United States 

Attorney and presidentially appointed United States Attorney, Senator Sessions has spent time in the 

trenches prosecuting violent criminals, drug traffickers, and fraudsters. He appreciates the 

tremendous challenges that Assistant United States Attorneys-the backbone of the Department of 

Justice-face on a daily basis. And, Senator Sessions has seen firsthand the destruction that crime 

causes for victims, their families, and society at large. It is, therefore~ no surprise that Senator 

Sessions has spent much of his legal and political career fighting to make our communities safer. 

As you are undoubtedly aware, after decades of declining crime we now find ourselves in the midst 

of a crime wave. Violent crime is increasing in many parts of the country, heroin is ravaging our 

cities and small towns, and terrorism remains a constant threat. In order to effectively address those 

issues, the Department of Justice must be led by a smart, aggressive, respected, and experienced 

leader. Senator Sessions fits the bill perfectly. NAAUSA urges his prompt confirmation and looks 

forward to working with Senator Sessions to protect innocent Americans from those who seek to 

cause harm. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~1-f-t?~ Steven H. Cook 

President 

5868 Mapledale Plaza • Suite 104 • Woodbridge VA 22193 

Tel: 800-455-5661 • Fax: 800-528-3492 • www.naausa.ara 
1125 

@ . 

. 

. . . 

' 

January 11,2017 

PRESIDENT EMERITUS 

Hen Er.warOR 

Senator Charles Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Mitch McConnell 

Senate Majority Leader 

317 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Senator Charles E. Schumer 

Senate Minority Leader 

322 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators: 

PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT 

TREASURER SECRETARY 

>!o!Johiia1ps 

On behalf of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials 

(NALEO) and NALEO Educational Fund, we write to urge you to reject the 

nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as U.S. Attorney General. On the 

basis of his statements and actions as a lawyer and a public official, our organizations 

conclude that as Attorney General, Sen. Sessions would significantly impair the federal 

government's legally-mandated efforts to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunity 

for historically underrepresented communities. 

NALEO is a non-partisan membership organization committed to ensuring that the 

nation's more than 6, I 00 Latino elected and appointed officials are effective advocates 

for the communities they serve. NALEO Educational Fund is the nation's leading 

501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization that facilitates full Latino participation 

in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. Our organizations 

provide national leadership on key issues that affect Latino participation in our political 

process, including immigration and naturalization, voting rights. election reform, the 

Census, and the appointment of qualified Latinos to top executive and judicial 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

llon.Ange:cruz 

RonJoeiNavano 

HonCwnerPrreyro 

HonVtcenteSlinlle.l\C 

Hon LllwrT~loya 

Hon Petet R V.'!eg~s 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

1122W WashmgtonBIVII.,Thmlfloor LosAni'les,CA90015 I 2137417606 I 2137477664 I I 
1126 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

January II, 2017 

Page 2 

positions. Our Board members and constituency include Republicans, Democrats and 

Independents. 

I. Enforcement of Civil Rights Protections 

Among the many important duties of the U.S. Attorney General, two that are of heightened 

concern to our organizations are oversight of the Civil Rights Division's enforcement of nondiscrimination protections, and of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The 

Attorney General has significant discretion to define priorities for U.S. Attorneys and 

Department of Justice (DOJ) staff who ensure adherence to the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the 

Civil Rights Act, and other statutory guarantees of equal protection. These laws give federal 

legal officers authority to challenge discrimination which they have used over the past 

50 years to greatly increase the opportunities available to members of racial, ethnic, and 

linguistic minority groups. For example, according to the Census Bureau, just 37.5% of 

Hispanic adults voted in the 1972 Presidential election, the last to take place before Congress 

added protections for Latino voters to the VRA in 1975. In subsequent years, Latino voter 

turnout has been on an upward trajectory, reaching 49.9% of eligible voters in the 2008 

Presidential election, and potentially higher in November 2016. 

The Attorney General also exercises broad discretion over the immigration court system, and 

possesses extraordinary authority to choose and advise immigration judges, and even overrule 

their decisions. EOIR decides the fate of hundreds of thousands of individuals each year. It also 

administers programs of critical importance to immigrants and their families, such as the Legal 

Orientation Program that helps people who cannot afford an immigration lawyer understand the 

adjudication process. The Attorney General leads the DOJ in enforcing recent Supreme Court 

decisions which have set forth limits on states' and localities' involvement in immigration 

enforcement, and in advising law enforcement agencies at all levels of government on the extent 

of their authority and obligations under federal immigration laws. In exercising these powers, 

the Attorney General deeply affects the lives and livelihoods of many immigrants and their 

American families and home communities. 

Sen. Sessions' actions and votes over the course of his career in public service indicate that as 

Attorney General, he would direct the DOJ to act in ways that threaten the progress Latinos have 

achieved toward equality in the electoral arena and full civic participation. Sen. Sessions has 

expressed skepticism of the vigorous enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws. He lauded 

the Supreme Court's 2013 VRA-weakening decision in Shelby County v. Holder as "good 

news," though it has paved the way for adoption of voting law changes that have thus far 

impaired more than one million eligible Latino voters' access to the ballot. Sen. Sessions 

commented that he did not "think in Shelby County, Alabama, anyone is being denied the right 

to vote because of the color of their skin." Senator Sessions made these comments even though 

the DOJ found that two municipalities in the County had enacted annexations and redistricting 

plans which diminished African Americans' electoral influence within the decade immediately 

preceding the Shelby case. 
1127 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 11, 2017 

Page 3 

Sen. Sessions has opposed and voted against legislation to expand protections of equal treatment 

of women, LGBT individuals, and people with disabilities. He also championed legislation that 

would have prohibited government from providing services in languages other than English, and 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development from using federal funds to enforce 

affirmative fair housing protections. 

It is particularly troubling that Sen. Sessions is alleged to have personally perpetrated and 

expressed tolerance for discriminatory behavior toward groups of Americans on the basis of their 

race, ethnicity, and religion. In sum, if confirmed, he is likely to prevent DOJ employees from 

faithfully performing their crucial duty to challenge and eliminate racial, ethnic, and other unjust 

disparities that continue to impede Latinos and other underrepresented communities from 

making invaluable contributions to our nation's prosperity and security. 

II. Immigration Policy 

Sen. Sessions' actions and statements concerning immigration policy belie a hostility toward 

many members of the Latino community in the United States that is unacceptable to our 

organizations, and that should counsel strongly against his confirmation to oversee important 

aspects of our justice system. Sen. Sessions advocates reduction in both authorized and 

unauthorized immigration, and has embraced anti-immigration organizations grounded in white 

nationalist beliefs. He opposes recognition of the American citizenship of every person born in 

our country, even though the Constitution has been understood for more than 150 years to grant 

equal protection and citizenship to all who are native-born. He has voted against the Dream Act 

and comprehensive immigration reform efforts undertaken during the George W. Bush and 

Obama Administrations. 

Senator Session has displayed particular antipathy toward Latino immigrants, making public 

statements such as, "Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the 

United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and that would indicate 

their likely success in our society." Sen. Sessions' record of broad opposition to immigrants' 

presence ignores the immense benefits that immigration brings to our nation, and minimizes the 

potential negative consequences of reducing legal immigration or ineffectively toughening 

enforcement. 

Over the course of our nation's history, Latinos have made enormous progress toward equal 

participation and representation in government, and yet systemic inequity endures. As our 

population and electorate have become more diverse, some policymakers have responded by 

adopting new voting restrictions that disproportionately impair underrepresented voters' access 

to the ballot. As it has become increasingly apparent that our immigration policies are both 

central to our success as a nation and ill-equipped to meet contemporary needs, some have 

championed draconian, punitive approaches that would imperil our identity as a country that 

welcomes immigrants who are committed to our values and prepared to work hard for personal 

success and for the advancement of the United States. We cannot afford for our premier law 

enforcement agency to be led by an Attorney General who will refuse to use its power to further 

equality, and to advocate fair immigration policies that balance and serve the best interests of all 
1128 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 11,2017 

Page4 

Americans. For this reason, we urge you to reject Sen. Sessions' nomination to this critical 

position. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Laura Maristany, the NALEO Educational Fund's 

Washington, DC office director at 202-360-4182 or at lmaristanyr@naleo.org. Thank you for 

your consideration of our recommendation. 

Sincerely, 

Pauline Medrano 

NALEO President 

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus 

Congressional Hispanic Conference 

John Duran 

NALEO Educational Fund Chairman 
1129 

EXECUTI\'E OFFICERS 

f/iiCH!>.E.L McHALE 

Pres1dent 

Flonda Police Benevolent 

4ssoctatf0n 

JOHN A FLYNN 

v'1:::e Pres1dent 

Patrolmen's Benevolent 

AssoCJatiOI? af Nel'! York C1ty 

TODD HARP,JSON 

Assocta/ron of Texas 

SEAN fv1. SldOOT 

Treasurer 

MARC KOVAR 

Se.-~geant-at-Arms 

New Jersey State Policemen's 

Benevolent Assoc1atfon 

R!CHARD WEILER 

Pan1arnentanan 

Pollee Officers Labor Council 

of Mtchigan 

WILLIAM J JOH!>JSON. CAE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 

Representing America's Finest 

317 South Patrick Street- Alexandria, Virginia- 22314-3501 

(703) 549-0775- (800) 322-NAPO- Fax: (703) 684-0515 

WVM'.napo.org - Email: info@napo.org 

December 22, 2016 

Senator Charles Grass ley 

Chair, Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grass!ey and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations (N APO), and the more than 

240,000 law enforcement officers we represent across the United States, I am writing to 

advise of your our wholehearted support for the nomination of Senator Jeff Session for 

United States Attorney General. Senator Sessions has been a voice for law enforcement on 

many issues facing our community as a Senator and member of the Judiciary Community. 

His experience and ability to work closely with law enforcement and the criminal justice 

community are invaluable qualities for the next Attorney General. 

NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from across the United States that 

serves to advance the interests of America's law enforcement officers. Founded in 1978, 

NAPO now represents more than I ,000 police units and associations, 241,000 sworn law 

enforcement officers, and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to 

fair and effective crime control and law enforcement. 

From his time as a United States Attorney to being elected Alabama Attorney General to 

his current position as a United States Senator, Senator Sessions has been a strong 

advocate for criminal justice issues and has shown a unique understanding of the needs of 

the law enforcement community. Through the years working with him, Senator Sessions 

has earned the trust and respect of the rank-and-file officers NAPO represents. He has 

supported many of our priority issues including increasing penalties for those who hann or 

target for harm law enforcement officers, ensuring state and local law enforcement have 

access to lifesaving gear and equipment, and increasing protections for child victims of 

abuse. 

Senator Sessions has shown his full support of the law enforcement community and we 

believe he will serve our nation well as the next United States Attorney General. 

Therefore, we urge the Committee to support the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions. 

Please feel free to contact me at (703) 549-0775 if there is anything I or our organization 

can do in further support of Senator Sessions for this position. 

Sincerely, / 

/(~/il~~ /t,4/L--- William J. Jorulo~'Esq., CAE 

Executive Director 

Cc: Members, Judiciary Committee, United States Senate 
1130 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) writes to express 

concerns with the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions (R-AL) to be the next Attorney 

General of the United States. 

NASDSE is the national nonprofit organization that represents the state directors of special 

education, the IDEA Part B data managers and the IDEA 619 coordinators in the states, the 

District of Columbia, the federal territories, the Freely Associated States and the Department of 

Defense Education Agency. 

Our concerns stem from his record regarding students with disabilities. He has called the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirements to include children with disabilities in 

mainstream education "the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today" 

and "a big factor in accelerating the decline in the civility and discipline in classrooms all over 

America."1 This opposition to integration and inclusion is problematic given the active role that 

the Justice Department plays in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act to enable people 

with disabilities to live independent lives, be full participants in their communities, and to be 

educated in their neighborhood schools and general education classrooms. 

These issues must be fully deliberated before each Senator makes a final decision with respect 

to his nomination. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please feel free to contact NASDSE's 

Director of Government Relations, Nancy Reder at nancy.reder@nasdse.org if you have any 

questions about our comments. 

Sincerely, 

~6W)~r-· Theron (Bill) East, Jr., Ed. D. 

Executive Director 

1 Floor Statement, Education Discipline and IDEA (May 18, 2000), available at 

http://www.sessions.senate.govlpubliclindex.clml2000151education-discipline-and-idea-
1131 

I.Aollo~, NewYort<,NY January10,2017 

--Elect AngolaS...-ar.ndl St.Paul,MN \lice- - Los~,CA 

C.llcl)onougll 

T~asurer 

KllldlnO.~kl 

-.mt,NJ 

seaetary 

K.l ... a.- SanAntonto, TX 

Immediate Past Presldenl: 

.... ,..L.-111 Stamford, CT 

Meml!!mH!!-Larpe 

PeggJS!aiiAinm 

Mlnreapolls,MN 

DoAnna D.AIIoll 

Washington, DC 

Diane E. Am- Washington, DC 

Krt.tlnL BIIQ~r 

oauaa. 1X 

JonnlfWr A. ChampAn 

R_.,AR 

LovriA.DoiMIII 

Sacramento, CA 

SuunLLNa 

-.IL 

Ellzabolh A.l.eiiJ 

Cambridoo. MA 

Suzan A. MOler 

Santa Clam, CA 

LoolloD.III- Chloaga, IL 

Sholla M. Murplty 

NewYm,NY 

SUUbRaelftOI 

Stamford, CT 

CIIOI A. Robleo-Rolnan 

NewYOII<,NY 

Sandra Yamata 

Chicago, IL 

Executive Director 

Jonnyi\'-

Chlcago, IL 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley . The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Chair 11 JAN 13 PH ~ing Member 

Committee on the Judiciary. . · 'to'tri'mittee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate otib; Oi( F EINS ~P.fl States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Bu-rliNGTON, fJ.tfHart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 WaShington, DC 20510 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Diri<sen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 2051G-6050 

Re: United States Attorney General 

Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein and Members of the Judiciary 

Committee: 

I am writing on behalf of the National Association of Women Lawyers ("NAWL'). 

NAWL is the oldest national organization de11oted to the interests of women 

lawyers. Founded in 1899, NAWL has a long history of serving as an 

educational forum and an active voice for the concerns of women in the legal 

profession. · 

As Americans and as lawyers we cherish the rule of law and the peaceful 

transfer of power to a new administration after each election. The confirmation 

process is critical to that process. As the highest ranking attorney in the United 

States and the person who will be entrusted to ensure the rights of all 

Americans, the Senate must require all appointees for the position of United 

States Attorney General to provide full and complete answers to Its 

Questionnaire. Otherwise we depriVe our citizens, through the powers vested in 

their representatives, the right to ensure that the person entrusted as the 

defender of their rights.is worthy of their trust. 

NAWL adds it voiee in support of the cenceins raised by the National LGBT 

Bar, the National Asian Pacifica American Bar Association, the National Bar 

Association, and. Hispanic Natiol)al Bar Association aimed <II enSuring that the 

Senme has a complete and accurate record as it considers the nomination of 

Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as Attorney General. NAWL also calls 

upon you to ensure that the person ultimately confirmed to fill this important 

office is committed to preserving and protecting the hard-fought rights that have 

been established for aU of our citizens. 

. RespectfuHy yours, 

r;~~ 

Leslie Richards-Yellen 

President 

Am111'1can Elolr Center !321 NOI#t Clarl< SIN8t, M.S. 19.1 I Chicago, IL 60654 

Phone: 312.988.61861 Fax: 312.932.6450 I nawl@nawl.org 1 www.nswt.org 
1132 

Hon. Mitch McConnell, Maj. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S230 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 10,2017 

The Hon. Charles Schumer, Min. Leader 

U.S. Senate 

S22l US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION TO SENATOR 

JEFFERSON SESSIONS' NOMINATION TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Senator Feinstein: 

On behalf of the National Bar Association (NBA), I write to express our opposition to the 

nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United 

States. 

The NBA is the nation's oldest and largest national association of predominantly AfricanAmerican lawyers, judges, educators and law students. Throughout history, it has served 

as the nation's legal conscience. Today, the NBA has 84 affiliate chapters throughout the 

United States and affiliations in Canada, the United Kingdom, Africa, and the Caribbean. 

It represents a professional network of more than 60,000 lawyers, judges, educators and 

law students. 

As head of the Department of Justice and the nation's top law enforcement official, the 

position of Attorney General is one of unparalleled power within the Executive Branch 

and has profound implications for civil rights. The Attorney General must "ensure the fair 

and impartial administration of justice to all Americans," through zealous monitoring and 

enforcement of constitutional and statutory rights. Since its inception in 1925, the NBA 

has been at the forefront of the fight to "protect the civil and political rights of the 

citizens and residents of the United States." Thus, the nominee's record on civil rights is 

of the utmost importance in our evaluation of his qualifications to serve as Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Our review of Senator Sessions' record included legislative votes; his statements on civil 

rights issues and organizations that advocate for civil rights; his record as a federal 

prosecutor; votes and statements on nominations; and testimony submitted during the 

1986 Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to become a district court judge. 

Below we summarize the most compelling and troubling aspects of his public record. 
1133 

Senator Sessions' 1986 Failed Federal Judicial Nomination 

President Ronald Reagan nominated then-Alabama Attorney General Jeff Sessions to 

serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 1986. 

At that time, President Reagan had already appointed approximately 200 judges 

throughout the federal system, and Republicans constituted the majority of the U.S. 

Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Sessions became only the second judicial nominee 

in fifty years to not be recommended for confirmation. Two Republicans, including Arlen 

Specter, voted against him. His fellow senator from Alabama, Howell Heflin, also voted 

against him, citing, "reasonable doubts" over Sessions' ability to be "fair and impartial."1 

Marion Three. In 1985, during his tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama, Sessions pressed charges against eight residents from Greene and Perry 

counties, accusing them of altering absentee ballots. Of the accused, seven of eight were 

African American. Among the group were longtime civil rights activist Albert Turner, of 

the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, his wife Evelyn Turner, and fellow 

activist Spencer Hogue - later known as the Marion Three - who had long conducted 

voter registration drives throughout rural Black Belt counties, aiming to boost registration 

rates among poor and elderly African Americans. Turner became known as "Mr. Voter 

Registration," and was credited with the African American community's gain of political 

control in many counties in the Alabama Black Belt. On the basis of highly questionable 

evidence of an effort by the Marion Three and others to commit voter fraud, then-U.S. 

Attorney Sessions dispatched dozens of FBI agents to repeatedly visit homes of rural 

black residents. The countless hours of interrogation yielded only 14 allegedly tampered 

ballots out of more than 1. 7 million ballots cast statewide in the 1984 election. When 

brought to trial for the alleged crimes, Federal District Judge Emmett Cox dismissed 50 

counts against the defendants due to lack of evidence and all the remaining counts 

resulted in an acquittal by the jury. The approach of Senator Sessions in this case is 

particularly troubling in the context of repeated claims of "voter fraud" when the 

overwhelming evidence is that there are but a handful of such cases around the country. 

Furthermore, this type of misguided, politically motivated and overzealous prosecution 

exhibited by Sessions creates a climate of mistrust and undermines the democratic 

process U.S. Attorneys are supposed to protect. In the past few Presidential elections, 

unsubstantiated claims of "voter fraud" and resulting actions by self-proclaimed "voter 

integrity" activists have not only had chilling effects upon communities of color, but have 

served to create more barriers to the ballot. As challenges to the electoral process have 

evolved, the Justice Department has served as a backstop to protect all citizens, 

particularly those in vulnerable communities and traditionally disenfranchised. 

Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the next Attorney General be fairminded and trusted by the entire country in evaluating these claims. 

Racially Insensitive Statements. During the confirmation hearing, the Senate Judiciary 

Committee heard testimony that Senator Sessions had made a series of remarks that were 

racially insensitive and/or hostile to the support of civil rights. 

1 Goldman, Sheldon (1999). Picking Federal Judges. Yale University Press. p. 309.JSBN 9780300080735. 
1134 

Then-Attorney General Sessions' fom1er deputy, Thomas Figures testified before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee that Sessions told him to be careful about what he said "to 

white folks" after Figures got into a heated argument with a white colleague. Figures also 

testified that then-Attorney General Sessions called him "boy" on multiple occasions. 

Figures also testified that then-Attorney General Sessions joked about the Ku Klux Klan, 

saying he thought its members were ''okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.'' 

The NBA interviewed Mr. Figures in the month prior to the hearing, where he again 

stated the same allegations he made during the confirmation hearing." 

Thcn-Attomey General Sessions' colleague J. Gerald Hebert, who was a Justice 

Department lawyer, also testified that Sessions told him the NAACP and ACLU were 

"un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert also testified that then-Attomey 

General Sessions said a white attorney who represented black clients might be a disgrace 

and that the NAACP and ACLU did more harm than good by trying to force civil rights 

"down the throats of people." 

Senator Sessions Legislative Record as Senator 

Senator Sessions was elected to the United States Senate in 1996. Over the past 20 years, 

he has developed a voting record that further demonstrates his hostility towards the 

support of civil rights. 

In 2015, Senator Sessions supported the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect 

Americans Act, which would have prohibited sanctuary jurisdictions from 

receiving federal grant money. 3 

In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act. 4 

In 2013, Senator Sessions opposed the bipartisan immigration reform bill that 

passed the Senate.' 

In 2013, Senator Sessions supported an amendment to the Employer NonDiscrimination Act of2013. 6 

In 2012, Senator Sessions did not support The Convention on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities.7 

2 National Bar Association May 19861etter to the Senator Joseph Biden. J ' 
1135 

In 20 ll, Senator Sessions opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act of2012.s 

In 2010, Senator Sessions voted against a motion for cloture on a bill to amend 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to 

victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for 

other purposes.9 

In 2009, Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 

2009. 10 

In 2006, Senator Sessions supported a federal constitutional amendment to ban · II same-sex marnage. 

Although, Senator Sessions voted with a unanimous Senate to reauthorize the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965, he has criticized the landmark civil rights law as 

"intrusive," and he later agreed with the Supreme CoUii's 2013 decision, Shelby 

County, Alabama v. Holder, which struck down key provisions of the law. 

In 2002, Senator Sessions voted against a bill that would have expanded the 

definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, 

sexual orientation or disability and pcrn1it the federal government to helf states 

prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. 2 

In 1997, Senator Sessions co-sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1997, a bill which 

would eliminate affirmative action by the federal government in connection with 

federal contracts, employment, or other programs by the activitics. 13 

The Federal Judiciary 

No African American from Alabama has ever served as a judge on the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Earlier this year, President Obama nominated NBA 

member Judge Abdul Kallon to serve on the 11th Circuit. If confirmed he would have 

become the first African American federal court of appeals judge from Alabama. 

However, even though the vacancy on the Court of Appeals was declared a judicial 

emergency and Judge Kallon was previously confirmed to his district judgeship by 

unanimous conscnt, 14 Senator Sessions refused to support the nomination. Furthennorc, 

14 http://www.uscourts.gov/judgcs-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/judicial-cmergencies 
1136 

of the six federal judicial vacancies in Alabama, three of them have been vacant since 

2013 and are deemed judicial emergencies. As a former Attorney General, Senator 

Sessions possesses first-hand knowledge of the impact these judicial vacancies have on 

the administration of justice and historically marginalized communities. However, for the 

past three years Senator Sessions has simply refused to submit potential nominees for 

consideration. His willingness to leave these seats unfilled demonstrates an intentional 

undermining of the federal judiciary and abuse of the administration of justice. 

Given the Justice Department's critical role in evaluating judicial nominees and advising 

the President on nominations for Article III judgeships, we are not convinced that Senator 

Sessions is committed to ensuring that the judiciary is a true representation of the 

communities it serves. 

Conclusion 

In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with enforcing our nation's laws 

without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. Senator Sessions has a 30-year record 

of racial insensitivity, disregard for the rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil 

rights which makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. For 

these reasons and many more, the NBA opposes his nomination to serve as s Attorney 

General of the United States. 

President, National Bar Association 
1137 

DNational 

lY Center for 

Learning 

Disabilities 

January 9, 2016 

Senator Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley & Ranking Member Feinstein, 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

On behalf of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), which represents the 1 in 5 individuals 

with learning and attention issues, I write to respectfully share our concerns regarding the nomination 

of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United States. I urge you to address these and seek 

clarification of the Senator's positions during the upcoming nomination hearing. 

For the last 40 years, NCLD has worked to improve the lives of the 1 in 5 with learning and attention 

issues, which are brain-based difficulties that cover a wide range of challenges children may face in 

school, at home and in the community, including trouble with reading, writing, math, organization, 

concentration, listening comprehension, social skills, motor skills or a combination of these. NCLD's 

mission is to empower parents and young adults, transform schools and advocate for equal rights and 

opportunities. NCLD has a long history of ensuring that individuals with learning and attention issues, 

including those with learning disabilities, have access to the same opportunities for success as their 

peers. 

Enforcement of the laws impacting individuals with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA), is key to safeguarding their civil rights. These Jaws protect individuals from discrimination by 

public entities and in public programs and ensure they get the critical supports they need. Since these 

laws have been in place, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has performed the essential function of 

investigating complaints and enforcing compliance. In states that have relegated students with 

disabilities to separate and subpar schools, the DOJ has stepped in. In situations where students with 

disabilities were denied access to college or career opportunities, the DOJ has acted. Moreover, for 

years, states, schools, service providers, and others have relied on the DOJ to offer guidance, technical 

assistance, and robust collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights that 

furthers the intent of the law- full inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Our society needs a strong 

DOJ to protect individuals in their schools and communities. 

NCLD has serious concerns about Senator Sessions' commitment to upholding these Jaws. In particular, 

we are deeply troubled by some of his past comments which reflect a misunderstanding of disability and 

a willingness to blame individuals for actions resulting from their disability. In one statement, the 

Senator repeatedly suggested that the IDEA- the very Jaw that allows students with disabilities to be 

educated in our public schools and receive the special education services they need- is "a big factor in 

accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America," is the reason "we have 

32 LaightStrnet, 2"' Floor • New Yofl<, NY 10013 • Tel: (212) 545-7510 • Fax: (212) 545-9665 

NCLD.org • Understood.org • GetReadytoRead.org • RT!Network.org 
1138 

children we cannot control," and is "the single most irritating problem" in our nation's schools.' 

Statements like this demonstrate a callous disregard for the challenges facing individuals with disabilities 

and the core purpose of special education. Based on comments like these, we question his ability to 

appropriately enforce civil rights laws. 

Moreover, in contrast to the sentiments he expressed, our federal civil rights laws have allowed millions 

of children with disabilities to receive diplomas, achieve their goals, and enter the workforce leading full 

and productive lives. A strong commitment to the letter and spirit of these laws has lifted our 

expectations for students with disabilities and made our society more inclusive and accepting of all 

people. It is essential for the U.S. Attorney General to continue to defend these laws and signal to our 

nation that historically disadvantaged communities -like individuals with disabilities- are a valuable 

part of our society. 

During the nomination hearing and in his written responses, NCLD, the parents and educators we 

represent, and the disability community will be looking to Senator Sessions to: 

1. Denounce his previous discriminatory statements about students with disabilities; 

2. Affirm his commitment to protecting individuals with disabilities and assure the public that the 

rights of individuals with disabilities are important and will be a priority for the DOJ; and 

3. Share clear and specific steps that he will take to work with the disability and civil rights 

communities to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns addressed. 

Thank you for considering our opinions and we encourage you to raise these issues in the hearing. 

Parents, educators and the community will be interested to hear Senator Sessions discuss his 

commitment to civil rights and legal protections for individuals with disabilities. If you have any 

questions or concerns or if we can be of more assistance as you prepare, please feel free to contact our 

Vice President, Chief Policy & Advocacy Officer, Lindsay Jones (ljones@ncld.org). 

Sincerely, 

Mimi Corcoran 

President & CEO 

National Center for Learning Disabilities 

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

1 Sessions Floor Statement, May 18, 2000. "Education Discipline and IDEA." Available at: 

http:/lwww.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2000/5/education-discipline-and-idea32 Laight Street, 2"' Floor • New York, NY 10013 • Tel: (212) 545-7510 • Fax: (212) 545-9665 

NCLD.org • Understood.org • GetReadytoRead.org • RT!Networtcorg 

2 
1139 

jNCLRI ;:oR 

January I 7, 20 I 7 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C .. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

I 52 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C .. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grass ley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We at the Center for Lesbian Rights write to oppose the nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions as 

Attorney General of the United States. The National Center for Lesbian Rights strives to protect 

the equality and freedom of the LGBT community, and Senator Sessions' long public record 

reflects positions that threaten our nation's fundamental commitments to the principles of equal 

protection and fairness for all. 

The Attorney General is tasked with enforcing the laws of the United States. including the 

constitutional requirements of equal protection and due process and federal civil rights statutes 

to ensure the fair and impartial administration ofjustice for all persons. Throughout his time in 

public life, Senator Sessions has taken positions that call into question his commitment to 

enforce those protections vigorously, especially on behalf of those who are most vulnerable to 

discrimination and disenfranchisement. 

Senator Sessions' Opposition to Robust Enforcement of tbe Voting Rights Act 

Our nation has a long and trouhling history of denying and impeding the rights of Black voters, 

who have been subjected to repeated efforts to prevent their equal patticipation in the most 

fundamental of all democratic rights. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down a 

critical provision of the Voting Rights Act, state legislators in a number of states have once 

again embarked upon shameful new effmts to enact restrictions deliberately designed to deter 

I31ack voters. 

Especially in light ofthis deeply alarming development, we are troubled by Senator Sessions' 

prosecution of three civil rights activists for voter lraud in Alabama in 1985, and his subsequent 

statements promoting unsupported concerns about voter fraud. We are equally troubled by 

Senator Sessions' refusal to state his clear opposition to contemporary efforts to deny Black 

persons equal voting rights. As many other organizations, elected officials. scholars, and civil 

rights organizations have stated, no person with Senator Sessions' demonstrated lack of 

commitment to robustly enforcing equal voting rights should hold the office of Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Senator Sessions' Opposition to Equality for LGBT People 

We also oppose Senator Sessions' nomination because of his long record of opposition to hasic 

legal and social equality for LGBT persons. Senator Sessions supported laws denying same-sex 
1140 

couples the fundamental freedom to marry1 and condemned the Supreme Court's decision in 

Oberg~f'ell v. Hodges in harsh tenns.2 While many other elected officials have also opposed 

marriage equality, few have voiced their opposition in such strident terms or indicated such 

deep-seated disdain for the Supreme Court's recognition that LGBT persons have an equal 

right to marry. As representatives of the LGBT community, we are deeply concerned that 

Senator Sessions lacks a commitment to enforcing that decision, especially in the face of efforts 

by some elected state officials to undermine and chip away at the equal treatment of married 

same-sex and opposite-sex couples. 

Our concerns are amplified by Senator Sessions' history with respect to other LGBT issues. At 

every opportunity, Senator Sessions has reiterated his opposition to the inclusion of LGBT 

persons on equal terms in the central institutions of our democracy. He opposed the repeal of 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, stating that it is a mistake not to believe the repeal would "have a 

corrosive impact on the men and women in the military."1 He similarly opposed the ShepardByrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which addressed hate crimes motivated by the victim's race, 

gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation, stating that the law was not "compelled by the 

facts that are happening in America today."4 

As Alabama Attomey General in 1996, Senator Sessions used his position to pressure 

university officials to cancel the Southeastem Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual College Conference from 

meeting at the University of Alabama, based on a state law that made it illegal for public 

universities to fund groups promoting "actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual 

misconduct laws."5 In a disturbing display of official intimidation, Senator Sessions wrote a 

letter to the university president, stating that the conference violated state law and urging its 

cancellation. Shortly thereafter, a federal district court struck down Alabama's state law as 

unconstitutional. Senator Sessions' actions in this matter demonstrated an alanning willingness 

to use his public office as Alabama's chief law enforcement official to target pro-LGBT 

association and speech and to endorse a blatantly far-fetched and improper application of an 

already unconstitutional law to intimidate a disfavored minority. 

Most recently, Senator Sessions has co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act,6 which 

would create sweeping new exceptions to our nation's civil rights statutes, primarily in order to 

permit businesses to discriminate against LGllT persons. 7 

Senator Sessions' Views on Immigration and Religious Minorities 

Senator Sessions has also demonstrated a lack of commitment to protecting the equality and 

human rights of immigrants and religious minorities. In the Senate, Senator Sessions has 

emerged as one of the most anti-immigration lawmakers in our nation's history, voicing 

extreme positions that reinforce negative stereotypes of immigrants as a threat to our national 

1 Floor Statement, Sen. Sessions on the Marriage Protection Amendment, June 6, 2006. 2 Houston Chronicle, "In wake of gay marriage decision, Cruz pushes 'retention' elections for Supreme Court 

justices," (July 22, 2015). 3 Floor Statement, Sessions Speaks On The Defense Authorization Bill, Sept 21,2010. 4 Floor Statement, Sessions Expresses Concern about the Hate Crimes Act, July 20, 2009. 5 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Alliance v. Jeff Sessions, 917 F. Supp. 1558 (1996). 6 S. 1598 Co-Sponsors, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-billl1598/cosponsors 7 Human Rights Campaign, First Amendment Defense Act, httn:l/wv·iW.hrc.org/res0urces/first-amendmentdefense-act (last visited Jan. 16, 20 17). 
1141 

interest. In 2016. Senator Sessions referred to Islam as a '·toxic ideology"' and voted against a 

Senate resolution stating that the U.S. should not use religion tests as a determining factor in 

immigration decisions. 8 These positions demonstrate not only an unwarrantedly negative view 

of those seeking refuge and opportunity in this country, but also a dangerous view of our 

constitution's protections for religious liberty. 

Senator Sessions' History of Opposition to a Just Criminal Justice System 

Senator Sessions has a well-documented record of opposing bipartisan reforms widely 

acknowledged by leaders in both parties as critical to improving the fairness of the U.S. 

criminal justice system. While Senator Sessions supported reducing the sentencing disparity 

between crack and powder cocaine offenses, he opposed retroactive application of that 

adjustment, which is critical to addressing the acknowledged unfairness of the prior law 

(including its severely disparate impact on persons of color), and also sought to weaken the 

law's correction ofthc disparity despite its continuing imposition of unfairly disparate 

penalties. Senator Sessions also continues to support draconian mandatory minimum sentences, 

despite their documented ineffectiveness and racially disparate impact. Recently, he opposed a 

bipartisan attempt to reduce unnecessarily long federal prison sentences for nonviolent offenses 

by helping to block the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which was supported by 

Republican leadership. 

Unlike a number of Senator Sessions' Republican colleagues, he supports ·'civil asset 

forfeiture,"' which enables law enforcement to take property from a person before they are 

accused of a crime. Additionally, Senator Sessions does not support the Department of Justice's 

initiative to focus on fewer but "more serious drug offenses,"' which has helped to reduce the 

federal prison population. Finally, Senator Sessions has criticized the Department of Justice for 

its investigations into allegations of police misconduct and a "'pattern or practice" of violating 

civil rights. These actions cast serious doubt on Senator Sessions' commitment to ensuring a 

criminal justice system that treats individuals fairly and equally. 

Senator Sessions' Lack of Support for Women's Equality and Opposition to the 

Fundamental Right to Procreative Freedom 

Senator Sessions has consistently opposed legislation seeking to ensure equality for women, 

including multiple efforts to ensure equal pay for equal work (including the Lilly Ledbetter rair 

Pay Act of20099

), measures to protect women's access to reproductive health services, and 

policies to address violence against women. He has voiced consistent opposition to women's 

constitutionally protected right to abortion, amassing one of the Senate's most consistent and 

extreme records on this issue-including voting to entirely eliminate the Title X family 

planning program and contraceptive access despite the devastating impact such a measure 

would have on women's health and well-being. 

8 Rebecca Shabad, In Rebuke Of Donald Trump, Senate Panel Rejecls Religion-Based Bans. CBS News (Dec 10, 

20 15, 4: J 3 PM) http://www .cbsnews.com/news/in-rebuke-of-donald-trump-senate-panel-says-u-s-must-not-banpeoplc-bascd-on-religion-muslims/. 

'556 Cong. Rec. 155,16 (2009). 
1142 

When considered as a whole, Senator Sessions' track record of opposition to many of our 

nation's landmark civil rights statues and judicial precedents casts serious doubt on his 

commitment to enforce these fundamental protections. For these reasons, we oppose the 

nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States, 

Sincerely, 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 
1143 

NATIONAL~ CENTER FOR' f-' J':}.:. 

Charles B. Wang International 

Children's Building 

699 Prince Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314-31 7 5 

U.S.A. 

Telephone 703.224.2150 

Facsimile 703.224.2122 

www.missingkids.com 

www.cybertipline.com 

Other Of:ices 

California 

Florida 

New York 

Texas 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions 

United States Senate 

326 Senate Russell Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Sessions, 

December 15, 2016 

On behalf of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), 

we are \><Tiling to congratulate you on your nomination by President-elect 

Donald Trump to be our nation's next Attorney General. 

As you know, NCMEC was created as a private, non-profit organization in 

1984 and designated by Congress to serve as the national clearinghouse on 

issues related to missing and exploited children. NCMEC provides services to 

families, private industry, law enforcement, victims, and the general public to 

assist in the prevention of child abductions, the recovery of missing children, 

and the provision of services to combat child sexual exploitation. We arc 

proud of the strong partnership NCMEC has with the Department of Justice, 

and we look forward to continuing that work. 

As always, thank you for your strong support of the Center and the families 

and children we serve. We look forward to meeting with you once you are at 

the Department. 

I 

Sin[2,~UU- f,.,lvfvitl~ AF.Clark 

a~::dent and CEO 

John Walsh 

Founder and Board Member 
1144 

NATIONAL~ CENTER FOR',.. ~ 

Charles B. Wang International 

Children's Building 

699 Prince St. 

Alexandria, VA 22314-3175 

U.S.A. 

Telephone 703-224-2150 

Fax 703-224-2122 

www.mlssingkids.com 

www.cybertipline.com 

Like us 

/misslngkids 

~ Fol!owus 

' @misslngkids 

Other offices 

California 

Florida 

New York 

Texas 

December 22, 2016 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on Judiciary 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Committee on Judiciary 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Senator Feinstein: 

As the Senate Judiciary Committee meets to consider the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions to be the 84th U.S. Attorney General, I am v.Titing in 

support of his nomination. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Sessions 

has worked with us at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children 

(NCMEC) on a variety of child safety issues and concerns, including the 

Adam Walsh Act. 

As you koow, NCMEC is a private, non-profit organization that for over 32 

years has been designated by Congress to serve as the national clearinghouse 

on issues related to missing and exploited children. NCMEC provides 

services to families, private industry, law enforcement, victims, and the 

general public to assist in the prevention of child abductions, the recovery of 

missing children, and the provision of services to combat child sexual 

exploitation. 

NCMEC works in partnership with the Department of Justice's Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) on issues related to 

missing and exploited children. In order to fulfill our mission to serve some 

of our nation's most vulnerable children, it is imperative that the Department 

and OJJDP have strong leaders, like Senator Sessions, in place. 

Thank you for considering our views as you begin the confirmation process 

and for your ongoing commitment to the safety of our nation's children and 

families. We look forward to working with you in the 1 J5'h Congress. 

71;~ (fovt_ ~.Clark President and CEO 
1145 

January 9, 2016 

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Member: 

On behalf of more than one million trans gender Americans, the National Center for Trans gender 

Equality \\Tiles to express our strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jcl'f Sessiom for Attorney 

GeneraL The position of Attorney General is one of central importance to the protection of fundamental 

freedoms and the rule of law, and the rush to confirm such a divisive and extreme nominee on an 

incomplete record is deeply disturbing. 

The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice 

for all Americans, including people of all races, nationalities, and religions, women, people with 

disabilities, and lesbian. gay. bisexuaL and transgender Americans. The Department's many 

responsibilities have an especially profound impact on the lives of vulnerable communities such as 

transgendcr Americans. In a national survey oftransgender adults, one in six ( 16%) who had been 

employed in the last year reported losing a job because they were transgcnder. More than three-quarters 

(77%) of those who were out or perceived as transgender as K -12 students reported some form of 

discrimination, and a stunning 17% reported the mistreatment was so bad that they changed schools or 

dropped out. Most disturbingly, nearly one in ten transgender Americans (9%) reported being the 

victim of a hate-motivated physical attack in the last year. In sum, transgender Americans face 

persistent discrimination and violence in their daily lives and. like other Americans, rely on the Justice 

Department to play a key role in protecting their basic rights and freedoms. 

Unfmtunately. Sen. Sessions has shown through his record, statements, associations, and temperament, 

as to whether he is prepared to fully and fairly carry out this critical role in our government. This 

alarming record is exemplified by, but certainly not limited to, the disturbing past statements and 

prosccutorial decisions that previously led the Senate to reject Sessions for a federal judgeship, as well 

as the outrageous statement just weeks ago that grabbing a women's genitals without consent is not 

sexual assault. We are also deeply concerned by Senator Sessions' long and continuing courting and 

elevating nativist and w-hite supremacist organizations and advocates. including his close relationship 

with and praise of the so-called "pladorm of the alt-rigbt.'' Breitbart Media. Sessions has steadfastly 

refused to criticize even the ugliest and most openly racist rhetoric of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim 

extremists he has associated with-even while he has never hesitated to lambast judicial nominees with 

any past associations with civil rights groups. This apparent double standard. along with numerous 

other concerns that have been raised about Session's record, underscores the need for a careful and 

thorough vetting of this nominee. 

Sessions has also been a vocal opponent of equality for LGBT Americans for decades. As Alabama 

Attorney General, Sessions worked to stop an LGBT student group from holding a conference at the 

University of Alabama. Sessions said he would "do everything I can to stop that conference" because 

of what he called LGBT people's "sexually deviate activities"-an effort a federal court ruled 

unconstitutional. In the Senate. Sessions has consistently opposed even the most basic legal protections 
1146 

Page 2 

for LGBT Americans, including the 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act and protections for LGBT 

survivors to access victims' services under the Violence Against Women Act-both of which he would 

be responsible for enforcing as Attorney GeneraL 

The work of the Attorney General will have a profound impact on the lives, fundamental freedoms, and 

dignity of millions of Americans. The Attorney General is charged ensuring equal justice for all and 

safeguarding civil rights. Because of his long history of extremism, intolerance, and disturbing remarks 

and associations, Senator Sessions has disqualified himself from this position. We strongly the 

Committee to reject him, as it did in 1986. 

Sincerely, 

Mara Keisling 

Executive Director 
1147 

National Conference of Black Lawyers 

D.C. Chapter 

60 L Street NE #1018 

Washington, DC 20002 

January 16,2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 205!0 

Re: Confirmation of Senator Jefferson Sessions as United States Attorney General 

Dear Senator Chuck Grassley, 

The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) is composed of lawyers, law students and 

legal workers throughout the United States, U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada who have worked to 

protect the Constitutional and Human Rights of Black people since its founding in !968. The 

D.C. Chapter includes people who reside and work in the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, 

because D.C. is not a state, we do not have a senator to whom we can copy this message. We 

are, therefore, copying this letter to, among others, our non-voting representative, The Honorable 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has represented D.C.'s interests well despite her lack of a vote. 

We supported the Jetter sent to you on January 9, 2017 by the National Bar Association, Hispanic 

National Bar Association, National Asian Pacific Bar Association, and, National LGBT Bar 

Association. It appears, however, that their reasoned request that you delay the hearings on 

Senator Jefferson Sessions' confirmation for United States Attorney General has been denied as 

the hearings began on January 10 and continued through January 11. We join others, therefore, in 

urging you to reject the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions for the position of Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Senator Sessions' history suggests that he will be unable to fulfill the responsibilities of this 

office to enforce the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed under the Constitution 

that protect the civil and human rights of African descendants, other people of color and 

minorities, immigrants and women. 
1148 

In 1986, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, in a bipartisan vote, rejected 

President Ronald Reagan's nomination ofthen-U.S. Attorney Sessions for a federal judgeship, 

due to statements Sessions had made that reflected prejudice against African Americans. His 

record since 1986 supports a conclusion that despite his self-serving statements before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee on January 10, he continues to exhibit prejudice toward black people, as 

well as other people of color; and, this prejudice cannot but influence his decisions as United 

States Attorney General. Indeed, nothing in Senator Sessions' public life since 1986 has 

convinced us that he is a different man than the 39-year-old attorney who was deemed too 

racially insensitive by a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee to become a federal district 

court judge. 

Senator Sessions sought a sentence of 254 years for the Marion 3 (Albert Turner, Evelyn Turner, 

and, Spencer Hogue) in a prosecution for voter fraud that was an affront to the Voting Rights Act 

and to those for whom the act was passed -blacks who had been disenfranchised by laws in 

Alabama that denied them a voice in the state's civic life. When given the opportunity in 2016 

to apologize to Evelyn Turner when she was invited to Washington, DC to be honored as a foot 

soldier in the Civil Rights Movement, he attempted to speak with her; yet he offered no apology. 

In his years as a Senator from Alabama he has consistently voted against civil rights legislation 

that would protect the interests of African descendants, other people of color, women and 

immigrants. He neither supported the Voting Rights Act in 1985 when he prosecuted the Marion 

3, nor as a Senator when he had the opportunity to ensure that key provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act were extended. He voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women's 

Act. His recent testimony blatantly contradicts his past actions and words. Yet, we know that 

the best predictor of a person's future actions is their prior actions. Senator Jefferson Sessions' 

past words and deeds leave but one conclusion: he does not support the civil and human rights 

of the marginalized in this country as protected by the United States Constitution. 

To confirm Senator Sessions' nomination as United States Attorney General would be an 

outward expression of disdain for the interests and well-being of black people as well as other 

2 
1149 

marginalized groups. Senator Jefferson Sessions will not fairly enforce our nation's laws and 

promote justice and equality in the United States. The NCBL and its D.C. chapter urge you, for 

the reasons stated herein, to reject his nomination as an affront to the rights of the most 

marginalized in the United States. 

Sincerely, 

i0A:_...;~-v.~ Vickie Casanova-Willis, President 

National Conference of Black Lawyers 

cc: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Nonon 

United States House of Representatives 

2136 Rayburn 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Charles Schumer, Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

S221 U.S. Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

S230 U.S. Capitol 

Washington DC 20510 

(l$::4e~ 

Dea 

~~ 

Lott 

Conveners, NCBL DC Chapter 

3 
1150 

January 9, 2017 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association and the students 

they serve, we wish to express our strong opposition, based on the totality of his record, to 

Senator Jeff Sessions nomination to be U.S. Attorney General. As the Committee begins its 

hearing process, we note that in both his home state of Alabama and the U.S. Senate, Sessions 

has fought against equitable funding for public schools, opposed rights for students with 

disabilities, and undermined additional civil rights across a range of issues. 

Specifically, Sessions has played a lead role in: 

Defeating a landmark lawsuit to ensure equitable funding of public schools, Alabama 

Coalition .for Equity, Inc. v. Hunt. Before Sessions became attorney general of Alabama, a 

trial court found that extreme disparities in funding among wealthy and poor schools led to 

school conditions so inequitable they violated the state constitution-for example, schools in 

poor districts were dangerous, dilapidated, and infested with insects; lacked teachers, 

librarians, social workers, nurses, and counselors; and could not afford any art, music, or 

science instruction. After he became attorney general of Alabama, Sessions got the state to 

reverse course and revive its challenge to the lawsuit, ultimately prevailing on a technicality. 

Decades later, Alabama's schools continue to face unequal funding, deep racial disparities, 

and desegregation orders-54 school districts are under desegregation orders today. Yet 

Sessions has signaled that he would end these protections, claiming that the orders are "an 

end run around the democratic process'' (Alabama Policy Institute, Consent Degrees in 

Institutional Reform Litigation: Strategies for State Legislatures, 2008). 

Denouncing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This landmark law, 

which has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, has made it possible for millions of 

students with disabilities to move out of institutions and into classrooms, including those 

with intellectual and learning disabilities. Yet Sessions claims, without evidence, that IDEA 

has "accelerat[ed] the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America" 

(Congressional Record, Vol. 146: S3573, May 8, 2000). He believes that only students with 

physical disabilities should have equal access to a public school education-students, who in 

his words, "have a hearing loss, or a sight loss, or if they have difticulty moving around in a 

wheelchair" (Congressional Record, Vol. 147: S 11518, Nov. 7, 2001). Nowhere does he 
1151 

acknowledge that IDEA also covers students with learning, social, and emotional disabilities 

even though the law itself says, 'The term 'child with a disability' means a child ... with 

mental retardation ... speech or language impairments ... serious emotional disturbance ... 

autism, traumatic brain injury ... or specific learning disabilities" (Pub L. 105-17, Ill Stat. 

43 (1997), codified as amendment at 20 USC. § 1401 (3)(A)(i)). 

• Undermining civil rights across a range of issues. Sessions admitted that he had called the 

Voting Rights Act an "intrusive piece of legislation" at the Senate Judiciary Committee's 

1986 hearing on his nomination for a federal judgeship. Another witness testified that he had 

also described the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American" and ''Communist-inspired" 

organizations that "forced civil rights down the throats of people." As attorney general of 

Alabama, Sessions asserted that LGBT student groups were criminals precisely because they 

advocated for lesbian, gay, bisexual. and transgender Americans. After a federal court ruled 

that his attack on LGBT groups was a ''naked" violation of the First Amendment, Sessions 

vowed "to do everything I can to stop" an LGBT conference at a public university, and was 

again rebuked by a federal court. (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Sessions, 1 996). 

It is the duty of the U.S. Attorney General to enforce the federal laws that govern equity and 

segregation in public schools, including Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal 

Educational Opportunities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. and Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act. Senator Sessions' record 

in these areas is deeply disturbing, especially in light of the ongoing harassment, intimidation, 

and violence against students based on race. religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, 

and disability. 

As you prepare for a hearing and a vote, we strongly urge you to oppose the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. 

Sincerely, 

Marc Egan 

Director of Government Relations 
1152 

January * 9, 2017 

Dear Senator: 

NATIONAL 

IMMIGRATION 

FORUM Practical Solutions for Immigrants and America 

The National Immigration Forum has a series of questions regarding Sen. Jeff Sessions' 

nomination as Attorney General. We are concerned regarding his longstanding opposition to 

broad immigration reform, and skepticism toward legal immigration, such as toward visa 

programs for workers in STEM and high-tech fields. Based on our work with local law 

enforcement officials across the country, we also have questions regarding Sen. Sessions' 

support for policies that impart immigration enforcement responsibilities on state and local law 

enforcement. 

Accordingly, as the Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination, we urge you to 

consider the following questions: 

1) How would Sen. Sessions ensure that individuals in our immigration court system receive 

their day in court and ensure that families and children fleeing violence in their home countries 

receive due process? Is he committed to ensuring that those with valid asylum claims receive 

their day in court? 

2) Would Sen. Sessions enforce civil rights and anti-discrimination laws on behalf of 

immigrants discriminated against on the basis of immigration status or national origin? 

3) How would Sen. Sessions intervene if individual states were to take constitutionally suspect 

actions that harm immigrants? Will a Justice Department led by Sen. Sessions intervene if a 

state passes a law like Arizona's SB 1070, key provisions of which the Supreme Court found 

unconstitutional? 

4) What does Senator Session believe is the appropriate role for local law enforcement in 

enforcing federal immigration laws? Does he plan to change federal grant requirements to local 

law enforcement agencies or other policies to require local law enforcement agencies to assist in 

enforcing federal immigration laws? 

We urge the Committee to probe deeply into these issues as it considers the nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Ali Noorani 

Executive Director 
1153 

November 20, 2016 

Donald J. Trump 

NATIONAL NARCOTIC OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS' 

COALITION 

.JSS .lfassac/wsclls. Jvome SH; Box I I 2, Hit,ftiugron, DC lfH!(Il 

H'H'H'.nar!narc.oJg 

President-Elect of the United States 

New York, NY 

Dear President-Elect Trump, 

The National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC), representing more than 50,000 

law enforcement officers across America, commends your intent to nominate Senator Jeff 

Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. We will urge the Senate to promptly 

consider and confirm the nomination. 

While we know that a strong economy starts with safe communities where innovators, workers, 

and consumers can thrive, we also know that drug traffickers, foreign drug cartels, and violent 

criminal gangs are flooding our communities with dangerous drugs that are putting our citizens -

especially our young people - at great risk. The costs in lives and tax dollars are staggering, 

evidenced by the more than 40,000 Americans killed each year as a result of drug overdoses. 

The explosive epidemic of heroin and opioids has made the situation worse. Thousands more are 

injured or killed in violent disputes over turf where these poisons are sold. Every place those 

terrible things occur is a place that is less likely to see economic growth. 

Senator Jeff Sessions understands these realities to his core. He understands the costs and 

consequences of drug trafficking and the resultant abuse, addiction, and violence that has been 

devastating to many cities, especially in some of our most vulnerable and impoverished 

communities. He has spent most of his life making a difference on these issues. He has long 

supported an overall policy approach that resulted in historic reductions in violent crime, 

property crime, and drug abuse rates from the mid-1980s through the late 2000s. 

Unfortunately, as our some of our nation's leaders shifted the focus away from strategies that 

worked to keep Americans safe, we have begun to see backsliding with drug use and abuse rates 

increasing as legalization and decriminalization movements have picked up steam. Violent 

crime in many cities is spiking. The amount of illegal drugs including methamphetamine, 

cocaine, heroin, and synthetics coming across our borders is increasing. And the number of 

Americans dying from overdoses has reached unprecedented levels, which we should all find 

unacceptable in such a great nation. 

The NNOAC represents men and women on the front lines of protecting our citizens and our 

communities from drug trafficking and the addiction and violent crime it causes. We 

enthusiastically support the nomination of Senator Sessions because we have witnessed the 

effectiveness of the strategies he has supported throughout his career. We are hopeful that, 

under his leadership, the Department of Justice will refocus on those strategies that have 

worked to drive down violent crime and drug use and abuse. That means reaffirming support for 

partnerships between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies 

through strengthened and refocused grant programs including the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant 

program. It means reinvigorating criminal intelligence, information sharing, and deconfliction 

efforts through the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) program. It means enforcing the 

federal Controlled Substances Act in all parts of the United States. It means embracing - rather 

than vilifying - multi jurisdictional task forces that enable law enforcement collaboration against 

threats to our communities, and providing access to proven leadership training like the Center 
1154 

for Task Force Training (Centf) Program. It means ensuring that law enforcement agencies can 

obtain electronic evidence when they get a warrant pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. It means 

protecting asset forfeiture laws that help law enforcement to cripple and dismantle profitable 

drug trafficking and organized criminal enterprises. And it means maintaining tough penalties 

for drug trafficking offenses and not giving the worst offenders a break. 

ln short, as narcotic officers and law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect our fellow 

citizens, it is well past time that we refocus our efforts to do just that. Senator Sessions has a 

record of supporting effective law enforcement. As he is formally nominated, the NNOAC will 

actively support and encourage his prompt confirmation to help get us back on track so we can 

get back to the business of protecting our citizens and communities from the damage and 

carnage left in the wake of drug traffickers and violent criminals, something that will be sure to 

improve the environment for job creation and economic growth. 

During the course of his service to our nation, Senator Sessions has demonstrated his 

commitment to upholding the rule of law, while ensuring the protection of our constitutional 

rights, which are the backbone of our democracy. We support Senator Sessions and will ask that 

the Senate promptly confirm his nomination. 

Respectfully, 

~~ ... -- Bob Bushman 

President 

National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition 
1155 

january 9, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley: 

As Presidt~nt and CEO of the Nationn.l Religious Broadcasters (NRB), I write to thank 

you for moving swiftly to facilitate consideration of the nomination of U.S. Senator Jeff 

Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I wholeheartedly support this 

nomination and 1 urge his approval by the Judiciary Committee and confirmation by 

the entire Senate. 

Senator Sessions is a man of strength, integrity, and principle. After his years of 

experience in public service, particularly as a U.S. Attorney, Alabama Attorney General, 

and his distinguished service in the Senate, he is well suited to lead the U.S. 

Department of Justice and to make certain it stays true to its mission of enforcing the 

Jaw, ensuring public safety, and upholding the constitutional rights and liberties of all. 

I am also grateful for Senator Sessions respect for faith and love of family. At his core, 

he is a good and honorable citizen- one whom we can trust to be true to the 

Constitution and to embrace our nation's founding principles of life, liberty, and the 

pursuit of happiness. 
1156 

il:c 
1157 

National Task Force to End 

Sexual & Domestic Violence 

Dear Member of the Judiciary Committee: 

We, the steering committee of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 

Violence (NTF), a coalition of national, tribal, state, and local leadership organizations 

and individuals advocating on behalf of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, 

dating violence and stalking, write to express our opposition to Senator JetT Sessions' 

nomination for Attorney General of the United States of America. We have arrived at this 

position based upon a review of his record as a state and federal prosecutor, during which 

he applied the Jaw unevenly, and as a U.S. Senator, during which he supported laws that 

would afford only some members of our society equal protection of the law. The role of 

Attorney General requires a demonstrated commitment to providing equal protection 

under the law-particularly to people who face discrimination because of their race, 

religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or other identities. We 

respectfully submit that Senator Sessions' record speaks for itself and that his history of 

differential application of the law carries with it the potential to harm victims and 

survivors of gender-based violence, particularly survivors from historically marginalized 

communities. Thirty years ago, this Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to 

the federal bench due to well-justified concerns regarding his problematic record on civil 

rights and troubling history of making racially insensitive statements. These 

aforementioned concerns, combined with his equally troubling comments on the nature of 

sexual assault and other concerns raised below, make Senator Sessions an unqualified 

choice to serve as U.S. Attorney General. 

The position of Attorney General of the United States of America, created by the 

Judiciary Act of 1789, bears the responsibility of representing the United States in all 

legal matters in which the country has an interest.[!] Chief among those interests is the 

affording of equal protection under our criminal, civil and civil rights laws to all 

members of our society. Under 28 U.S.C. §503, the President's appointment of an 

Attorney General must be with the "advice and consent of the Senate." The process 

ensures that the person holding the post of Attorney General is one fit for such duty, a 

person with the intellectual, moral and steadfast ethical capacity to uphold the laws and 

interests of the United States and to apply the laws equally to all members of society. 

Failure to Speak Up for Victims of Violence and Discrimination 

A threshold qualification for the position of Attorney General is a deep understanding of 

the laws s/he is sworn to uphold. Of critical relevance are Senator Sessions' recent 

comments on the nature of sexual assault in response to the release of a 2005 video in 

which President-Elect Donald Trump describes grabbing women's genitalia without their 

consent. When asked whether he would characterize the behavior described by Presidentelect Trump as sexual assault, Senator Sessions responded, "I don't characterize that as 
1158 

sexual assault. I think that's a stretch. I don't know what he meant --."[2] Federal statutes 

enacted prior to Senator Sessions' tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama criminalize "abusive sexual conduct."[3] The applicable definition for conduct 

prohibited by 18 U .S.C. §2244 is clearly stated: "the intentional touching, either directly 

or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of 

any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the 

sexual desire of any person."[ 4] Thus, the Senator is either unaware that abusive sexual 

contact is illegal under federal law, or he feigned ignorance of the laws he was sworn to 

uphold as an officer of the court for the sake of political expedience. 

The Department of Justice has the exclusive authority to enforce the United States' 

criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §2244. The Department of Justice also has 

exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of domestic and sexual violence in the District 

of Columbia[5], most sexual assaults perpetrated in Indian Country, and concurrent 

jurisdiction over domestic violence offenses committed in Indian Country. Any candidate 

for Attorney General of the United States, particularly a former U.S. Attorney, should 

possess a thorough understanding of the legal definition of sexual assault under federal 

law and under the laws of the jurisdictions in which the Office of the U.S. Attorney has 

prosecutorial responsibility. The National Task Force has worked collectively for decades 

to ensure that legal definitions in the U.S. Code and under state and local laws make it 

absolutely clear that sexual assault is a crime. The job of the Attorney General is to 

enforce the law without fear or favor. Thus, we expect the Attorney General to enforce 

federal laws addressing sexual assault without introducing nonexistent ambiguity, 

because of the perpetrator's identity. Senator Sessions' cavalier statement about sexual 

assault leaves us fearful that he will not vigorously prosecute sexual assault crimes, a 

practice unbefitting of the nation's chieflaw enforcement officer. 

Additionally, Senator Sessions' poor history with respect to fighting for fairness and 

equity has us justifiably concerned that he will not step in to vindicate the rights of 

survivors of campus sexual assault and other victims of discrimination. The Justice 

Department has jurisdiction to enforce a myriad of civil rights statutes, including Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[6] and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972[7]. 

These statutes bar discrimination in education based on race, color and national origin 

and sex (respectively) by educational institutions that receive federal funding.[8] On 

college and university campuses alone, we know that 20 percent of women are victimized 

by sexual assault.[9] Absent an Attorney General's commitment to ensuring that 

educational institutions root out bias and violence and hold perpetrators accountable, 

victims of discrimination, harassment or violence based on sex, race and/or national 

origin will be unable to pursue their education in an atmosphere of educational 

equity. Teachers surveyed since the election have described thousands of incidents of 

"bigotry and harassment," stemming from incidents involving "racist, xenophobic or 

misogynistic comments," and/or "derogatory language directed at students of color, 

Muslims, immigrants. and people based on gender or sexual orientation."[! OJ It is 

imperative that the person nominated to the position of Attorney General possess a 

demonstrated record of work and support for these impacted communities, including 

people of color, immigrants, Muslims and religious minorities, members of the LGBT 

community, and people with disabilities. 
1159 

Regrettably, Senator Sessions' career is replete with actions taken and statements made in 

opposition to equitable educational access. While Attorney General of Alabama, Senator 

Sessions fought equitable educational access for poor, minority and disabled students in 

Alabama even after being ordered by a federal court to remedy the yawning financial 

disparities between Alabama's richest (and whitest) and poorest school districts.[! I] 

Additionally, his mischaracterization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act 

as creating "special treatment for certain children," and being responsible for 

"accelerating the decline of civility and discipline in classrooms across America," is 

appalling.[ 12] In light of these remarks, we are concerned not only about the Senator's 

willingness to use the civil rights statutes to protect survivors of both campus sexual 

assault and other forms of harassment and violence in the education context, but also his 

commitment to ensuring equal access and safety under certain programs in the Violence 

Against Women Act for victims of sexual and domestic violence who have disabilities. 

Fair Application of Law 

We have additional concerns regarding the Attorney General's role with respect to the 

fair, even and unbiased application of the law. Victims and survivors come from all racial 

or ethnic backgrounds, faith practices, sexual orientations, and gender identities: 33.5% 

of multiracial women have been raped, as have 27% of American Indian and Alaska 

Native women, 15% of Hispanic, 22% of Black, and 19% of White women. [ 13] 

Additionally, 53.8% of multiracial women and 39.3% of multiracial men experience 

intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence and/or intimate 

partner stalking in their lifetimes, as do 46.0% of American Indian and Alaska Native 

women, 45.3% of American Indian and Alaska Native men, 19.6% of Asian and Pacific 

Islander women (data for Asian and Pacific Islander men is not available), 43.7% of 

Black women, 38.6% of Black men, 37.1% of Hispanic women, 26.6% of Hispanic men, 

34.6% of White women and 28.2% of White men.[14] We know firsthand that many 

survivors from vulnerable populations hesitate to contact law enforcement or do not trust 

the court system to address their victimization because they fear, based on prior 

experience, that any justice system response may not help them. We expect anyone who 

serves as Attorney General to create a Justice Department accessible to all; the 5th and 

14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution demand no less. 

Senator Sessions' well-documented prosecutorial record[15], as U.S. Attorney for the 

Southern District of Alabama and as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, 

demonstrate his propensity to inequitably apply the law to the disadvantage of historically 

marginalized populations. Senator Sessions' history leads us to question whether he will 

vigorously seek to ensure that all victims and survivors of gender-based violence, 

particularly vulnerable populations and those at the margins of society, have access to 

vitally needed services and legal protections. 

Senator Sessions' Opposition to Protections for the Immigrant and LGBT Communities 

We are concerned that the positions that Senator Sessions has taken on immigration and 

LGBT individuals pose grave threats to vulnerable victims of gender-based violence. His 
1160 

consistent support of immigration policies that increase the barriers to safety for 

undocumented victims of sexual and domestic violence victims pushes immigrant victims 

further into the shadows and harms families and communities by allowing perpetrators 

(barterers and rapists) to abuse, traffic and assault with impunity. During the 

consideration of two major comprehensive immigration reform bills, as well on various 

other occasions, Senator Sessions has sponsored amendments and stand-alone legislation 

to limit the availability of critical safety net assistance for immigrants and increase 

barriers to protections from abuse and exploitation by penalizing local jurisdictions that 

fail to engage in immigration enforcement activities. He has made no subsequent 

statement that indicates that he would rethink these punitive policy positions were he to 

be confirmed. 

His failure to support, and sometimes active opposition to, progress and protections for 

the LGBT community leave us gravely concerned that if confirmed, he would not stand 

up for the rights of the LGBT community generally, and particularly with respect to 

LGBT victims of violence. He opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act, which is of particular concern as we witness a spike in 

harassment of minorities and bias crimes over the last several months. Additionally, he 

supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He also opposed the 

repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Senator Sessions' record sends the message to 

marginalized survivors that their experiences will not be understood, nor will their rights 

be protected, if he is confirmed as the Attorney General. 

Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act 

We are also concerned that the nominee voted against the Violence Against Women Act 

(VA W A) Reauthorization of 20 13. Seventy-eight out of one hundred senators supported 

the bipartisan bill; Senator Sessions was in the distinct minority. The 2013 Act addresses 

the gaps in law that were uncovered through outreach to and surveys of programs and 

service providers and domestic and sexual violence victims themselves. 

Our analysis revealed that many survivors were not able to access services and justice to 

the extent they needed. Of particular note, we found that LGBT survivors often lacked 

access to justice and support based on their gender identity or their sexual orientation. We 

also learned of the deplorable lack of access to justice faced by survivors of domestic 

violence and sexual assault on tribal lands. VAWA 2013 included provisions that 

removed one of many barriers that prevent access to justice for American Indian and 

Alaska Native domestic violence survivors. The 2013 statute's provisions expand and 

ensure that immigrant survivors can access VA W A protections, allowing survivors to 

come out of the shadows, help hold batterers and abusers accountable, and enable law 

enforcement to protect community safety. VAWA 2013's goal of ensuring equal 

protection of the law was rejected by Senator Sessions, who cast the bill's advancements 

toward inclusion and equal protection as political maneuvering and, in that light, voted 

against the bill. The Attorney General is tasked with ensuring that VA W A's protection 

and programs are available and accessible to all. Senator Sessions' opposition to the 

VA W A protections and his prosecutorial record leave us gravely concerned that he would 

not vigorously or consistently apply these protections. 
1161 

Conclusion 

The 14th Amendment provides the inalienable right that every person receive equal 

protection under the law.[ 16] Senator Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to 

protections for historically marginalized populations, coupled with his record of selective 

prosecutions, demonstrate his unwillingness to protect marginalized victims' access to 

justice and disqualify him from holding the position of Attorney General of the United 

States, a position charged with the responsibility of securing justice for all. Selective 

application of the law and outward hostility towards victims of sexual and domestic 

violence in historically marginalized populations has a chilling effect on their willingness 

and ability to seek services and protection. It drives sexual violence, domestic violence, 

dating violence and stalking underground, something we have made great strides to 

avoid. The Attorney General of the United States must be an individual committed to 

protecting the inalienable right of equal protection under the law to all within United 

States' jurisdiction. Moreover, his minimizing comments about the nature of sexual 

assault call into question his dedication to enforcing the law and providing justice to 

victims of this serious crime. 

In short, we oppose Senator Sessions' confimmtion as Attorney General of the United 

States and we ask you, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to ask him direct 

questions regarding the concerns raised in this letter, and to advise the President, pursuant 

to the prescription of 28 U.S.C. §503, that Senator Sessions' is unqualified to hold this 

post. 

Yours truly, 

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Sec 28 U.S.C.§§ 516,519. 

The Weekly Standard, "Jeff Sessions: Behavior Described Trump in 'Grab Them Tape 

Isn't Sexual Assault," (October 10, 2016). Retrieved from h!!Jgj)_~~~c!illC§!JlllitlliL&illnf.i.'<.ff::ill§ill!l!i:: 

u.s.c. 

[4]18 u.s.c. §2246(3). 

[51 Within the District of Columbia, §22-300 1 (9} defines sexual contact, applicable to the sexual abuse 

statutes §22-3002 through 22-3006, as ·'the touching with any clothed or unclothed body part or any object, 

either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any 

person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratifY the sexual desire of any 

person.~' 

[6]42 u.s.c. §2000d 

[7]20 u.s.c. §1681 

[8] See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8 (penn its a failure to comply with Title VI that cannot be resolved infonnal!y to be 

referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement); 28 C.F.R. §54.605 (which adopt the investigative, 

compliance and enforcement provisions of Title Vl tor application to Title IX}. 

[9] Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. Jhe Sexual Victimization qfCollege 

Women: National Institute qlJustice, Bureau Statistics. 

[10] New York Magazine, "Ninety Percent of Teachers Say Tmmp's Win Has Had a Negative Effect in 

Classrooms." (November 29, 20 16) Retrieved from ~cc"'---"-"'·'"'"''''-'''"'"-"'"'"""-="-'-"~LL=-=•~••·•.oc-'-
1162 

[ !2] See h~~;:~i~~~~~";~,~:~;'~~;~~~~g~;~~~;b~i~~~~.~;;)i:0~~~~~.~~%;i~~:t~;;_ [!3] Black, Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., M.T., Chen, J., & 

Stevens, M.R. (201!). The Nationallnrimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NJST'J): 2010 Summary 

Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 

[14]1bid. 

[15] See transcript of the 1986 Senate Judiciary hearing on the nomination ofJeti Sessions for US District 

Court Judge for the Southern District of Alabama 

[16] U.S. Cons!. amend. XIV §1; U.S. Canst. amend. V; Bol/ingv. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (!954}. 
1163 

National 

Urban League 

Empowering Communities. 

Changing Lives. 

120 Wall Street 

New York, NY 10005 

p 212 558 530 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

F 212 344 5188 

www.nul.org 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Democratic Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

As President and CEO of the National Urban League, and on behalf of its 88 affiliates in 

36 states and the District of Columbia, we call upon members of this committee and the entire 

Senate to reject the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions as the next Attorney General of the 

United States. A review of his past and current record on civil and human rights reveals that, as 

this nation's top law enforcement official. Senator Sessions would preside over an 

unprecedented rollback of racial justice, immigration policy, LGBTQ rights and gender equality, 

among other hard-fought for gains in the American struggle towards equality for all its citizens. 

In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan nominated Sessions as the then United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for a federal judgeship, his bid for the lifetime 

appointment was promptly derailed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee 

as a result of sworn testimony that pointed to a disturbing pattern of racist actions and 

comments. For his alarming and distressing comments, Senator Sessions became the second 

man in half a century to be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

As United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions repeatedly 

demonstrated animus towards African-Americans and civil rights. The Justice Department's J. 

Gerald Hebert testified that Sessions claimed that the NAACP and the ACLU were "communist 

inspired" and "un-American" organizations "because they forced Civil Rights down the throats 

of people." Thomas Figures, an African-American prosecutor who worked under Sessions, 

testified that Sessions said the Ku Klux Klan- an organization known for racists and violent 

behavior- was "okay" until he learned they smoked marijuana. Figures also testified that 

Sessions called him "boy" and told him to "be careful what you say to white folks." As U.S. 

Attorney, Sessions used his power to bring baseless fraud prosecutions against civil rights activists 

in Alabama because those activists were helping African-American voters complete absentee 

ballots.' A jury acquitted all three defendants of all charges, in deliberations that lasted only a 

few hours. But the chilling effect on voting rights activists was substantial. 

Senator Sessions' record over the years speaks volumes on his hostility toward civil and 

human rights where he has repeatedly opposed legislation that would make our nation more 
1164 

equal and more just, including many statutes that as Attorney General he would be responsible 

for enforcing. For example, Senator Sessions: 

2 

Called the Voting Rights Act, a "piece of intrusive legislation." And, when the Supreme 

Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, making it 

easier for states and localities to implement racially discriminatory voting laws, Sessions 

applauded the ruling and opposed efforts to update the law. 

Voted against the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Act, which extended Federal hate crimes 

protections to women, LGBT people, and people with disabilities- hate crimes 

protections that the Department of Justice now enforces. 

Opposed critical laws that protect persons with disabilities, including criticizing the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and blaming federal protections for children 

with disabilities for "accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over 

America." Sessions said that federal laws that are designed to ensure children with 

disabilities can receive an equal education "may be the single most irritating problem for 

teachers throughout America today." 

Strongly opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for temporary work 

authorization, and voted against the DREAM Act. which would have provided a way for 

immigrants who came to the United States as children to earn their citizenship 

Voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which protects 

women from domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault. 

Voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which seeks to ensure equal pay for equal 

work. 

Additionally, and most disturbing, are the recent revelations that Senator Sessions has 

close ties to extremist, white nationalist organizations.n A review by People For the American 

Way's Right Wing Watch demonstrates that Sessions has strong ties to Breitbart, a white 

nationalist media organization that its former head, Stephen Bannon, has called a "platform for 

the All-Right." Bannon has called Senator Sessions "one of the intellectuaL moral leaders of this 

populist, nationalist movement in this country." Sessions has praised Breitbart, saying that "your 

writers get it, every day they find new information that I use repeatedly in debate on the floor of 

the Senate because it's highlighting the kind of problems that we have. And nobody else is 

doing it effectively, it's just not happening, so to me it's like a source. And we consistently find 

your data to be accurate and hold up under scrutiny." 

Senator Sessions has even disrespected the Senate and its constitutional responsibility to 

provide advice and consent where he has not made a good faith effort to complete his Senate 

Judiciary Committee questionnaire.m He has omitted decades of information, including 

numerous controversial interviews and speeches related to white nationalist groups. In addition 

to these omissions, Senator Sessions provided misleading and inaccurate information regarding 

his litigation experience, including exaggerating the role that he played in civil rights litigation in 

Alabama in the past)' Sessions made up a civil rights enforcement history when, in truth, he is 

one of the biggest opponents of civil rights in the Senate. 

Never in recent memory has a nominee for U.S. Attorney General faced such united and 

widespread opposition from a wide spectrum of concerned individuals, civil rights activists and 
1165 

organizations, including a group of more than 1,100 distinguished professors of law who sent a 

letter to Congress urging the rejection of his nomination, stating that "Nothing in Senator 

Sessions' public life since 1986 has convinced us that he is a different man than the 39-year-old 

attorney who was deemed too racially insensitive to be a federal district court judge." 

3 

The Attorney General is one of the most important positions in the entire Federal 

government. The Justice Department has the responsibility to vigorously enforce some of our 

nation's most critical laws; to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans; and to serve as an 

essential independent check on the excesses of an Administration. The evidence is 

overwhelmingly clear that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as chief enforcer of civil rights laws. 

We join the rest of the civil rights and legal community and all defenders of equal rights in asking 

the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire United States Senate to reject the nomination of 

Senator Sessions as our next Attorney General. 

Respectfully, 

Marc H. Moria! 

President and CEO 

Cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

' http://www. n a a cpldf.o rg/files/ about -u s/Deva 1-L -Patrick -Letter -re-Sessions-AG-N om-1-3-17. pdf 

;;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marge-baker/jeff-sessions-relationshi b 13941372.html 

'''http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2016/12/sessions-updated-questionnaire-still-shockingly-incompletegroups-call-sena-O 

lv https:(fwww.washingtonpost.com/opinionsfjeff-sessions-says-he-handled-these-civil-rights-cases-he-barelytouched -them/2017/01/03/4ddfffa6-d0fa-lle6-a 7 83-cd 3fa9 5012 fd storv. htm l?utm term ;.4QOcald ld 2 a 7 
1166 

jl N A 1 I 0 N A L ~ , ... W 0 MEN'S 

LAW CENTER EXPANDING THE POSS!B1L!TIE5 

January 9, 2017 VIA EMAIL 

Re: Nomination of Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill to be Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of the National Women's Law Center (the "Center"), an organization that has 

advocated on behalf of women and girls for forty-five years, we write in strong opposition to the 

confirmation of Senator Jefferson ("Jeff") B. Sessions III to be Attorney General of the United 

States. 

As the nation's chief law enforcement official, the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing 

federal laws, including laws of the utmost importance to women, such as Title Vll, Title IX, the 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), the Violence Against Women Act 

(VA WA), the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as well as core 

constitutional protections, including the Equal Protection Clause and the right to privacy. The 

Department of Justice, led by the Attorney General, also enforces federal hate crime laws, which 

create enhanced criminal penalties for crimes that target victims based on gender, race, sexual 

orientation and disability, among other bases. Consequently, the Attorney General has a 

profound impact on the legal rights and very futures of women across this country. 

Senator Sessions' record demonstrates that he has a deep hostility to carrying out core 

responsibilities of the office to which he has been nominated. His over thirty years in public 

office have established a consistent, incontrovertible hostility towards a broad swath of women's 

rights and civil rights that, if he is confirmed, would undermine the very purpose of the 

Department ofJustice. For example: 

• Sen. Sessions has taken positions hostile to the rights of survivors of sexual assault. He 

voted against the 2014 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.' He also 

voted to block the Military Justice Improvement Act/ which would have increased 

protections from sexual assault for military members and would have removed the 

decision to prosecute sexual assault from the chain of command and placed it in the 

hands of trained, independent military prosecutors. Indeed, when a 2005 tape in which 

Donald Trump described sexually assaulting and harassing women was released in 

October 2016, Sen. Sessions stated that he wasn't even sure that grabbing a woman by 

1 Ala. Senator Opposes Violence Against Women Act, WSF A (20 13), http://www. wsfa.comlstory/21202399/alasenator~opposes~violence-against-women-act. 

2 S. 1752- MILITARY JUST. IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 20 l3- KEY VOTE, 

http:/ /votesmart.org/bi II/ 17 609/46979/44 3/rni I itarv-j ustice-improvement -act -of-10 13#. W D3v0b IrLcs (last visited 

Jan. 6, 2017). 

W1th the !a;v on your side. great things are possible 

11 Dupont Ctrcle ~ Swte 800 i! Washington. DC 20036" 202 588 5180 if 202 588.5185 Fax i! vvvlfl.v nwlc.org 
1167 

her genitals constitutes sexual assault. 3 

• Sen. Sessions has explicitly attacked the legal validity of Roe v. Wade and shown 

hostility to women's right to reproductive health care, including abortion. He has 

described Roe v. Wade as one of the worst, "colossally erroneous Supreme Court 

decisions of all time." And he has repeatedly opposed legislation providing women 

access to reproductive care, including abortion and contraception. 5 Further, Sen. 

Sessions has opposed funding that would help protect abortion clinics from harassment 

and violence. 6 

• Sen. Sessions has consistently opposed laws protecting women's right to equal pay 

and equal opportunity. He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 7 and the 

Paycheck Fairness Act. He also voted against a bill that would give women-owned 

businesses more access to government contracts for construction projects. 8 

• Sen. Sessions has a long record of opposing bedrock civil rights protections. In 1986, 

before becoming a Senator, Sen. Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge was rejected 

by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which cited his prior history of hostility to basic civil 

rights protections. The evidence presented was stark. There was even testimony that he 

had called the NAACP and the ACLU "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" 9 and 

during the hearing Sen. Sessions stated that the Voting Rights Act was a "piece of 

intrusive legislation." His opposition to the Voting Rights Act continued once he became 

a Senator. Sen. Sessions opposed legislative efforts to restore and update the Voting 

3 DanjelJe Paquette, It's Not Clear if Jeff Sessions Thinks Grabbing a Woman by the Crotch is Sexual Assault, THE 

WASH. POST (Nov. 18, 2016), https://www.washingtonpostcom/news/wonk/wp/2016/ll/1 8/its-not-clear-if-trumpattorney-general-sessions-thinks-grabbing-a-woman-bY-the-crotch-is-sexual-assault/. 

4 See, e.g .• Press Release, Child Custody Protection Act(Sept. 10, 1998), available at 

http:/ !www .sessions .senate .e:ov/pu b! ic/index.c 1m/floor-statements? I D= A DB005 77 -7E9C' -9 A F9-79F9-

98D660DCB8Al. 

5 See e.g., U.S. SENATE ROLL CALL VOTES 1 11TH CONGRESS- 1ST SESSION, VOTE 396. 

https:/iwww.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll call lists/roll call vote cfm.cfm?congress·"' lll&session= l&vote=003 

96 (last visited Jan. 6, 2017); S. 1292- DEFUND 0DAMACAREACTOF 2013 -COSPONSORS, 

https://www.congress.gov/biili113th~conuress/senate~bill/l292/cosponsors (last visited Jan. 6, 2017); Press Release, 

Sessions Backs House Effort to Defund Obamacare (Sept. 20, 2013 ), available at 

http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pub1ic/index.cfm/news-releases?lD~3CD6748A-F4AD-8C54-16D2-

95C49FBF60 18. 6 U.S. SENATE ROLLCALL VOTES 114m CONGRESS-1STSESSJON, VOTE 311, 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro!! call lists/roll call vote cfrn.cfm?conf!ress-::::: ll4&session""l &vote"""'0031 

l (last visited Jan. 6, 2017). 7 S. 181 (111TH): LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009, https://www.rrovlrack.us/congress/votcsil11-2009is1 4 

(last visited Jan. 6, 2017). 8 Neha Thirani Bagri, Trump's Choice for Attorney General Has Done Some Really Awjitl Things to Try to Set Back 

Women's Rights, QUARTZ MEDIA (Nov. 19, 2016), http:/!gz.com/841443/ieff-sessions~womens-rights-record/. 

9 J. Gerald Herbert, Why l Told the Senate that Jeff Sessions Thought Civil Rights Groups Were 'Un-American ',THE 

WASH. POST (Nov. 22, 2016). https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/20 16/ll/22/my-testimonyabout-leff-scssionss-racist-remarks-kept-him-from-becoming-a-iudge/?utm term=.821 Oec707661. 

11 Dupont Circle# Suite 800 # Washington. DC 20036 # 202.588.5180 # 202.588.5185 Fax# www.m\ I c. ora 
1168 

Rights Act, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. 10 

• Sen. Sessions has regularly opposed antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQ 

individuals. He opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act, 11 which added violence based on bias against gender, sexual orientation, 

gender identity and disability to federal hate crimes legislation. Sen. Sessions voted for 

an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act that would have removed protections 

for LGBTQ individuals, 12 and voted against the final bill that included those 

protections. 13 He voted for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as 

between one man and one woman. 14 He voted for an amendment to the Employment 

Non-Discrimination Act that would have gutted protections against employment 

discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by exempting religiously 

affiliated employers from the law. 15 

Sen. Sessions has been a leading voice in Congress arguing against immigration 

reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and is in 

favor of drastically reducing legal immigration. In his two decades in the Senate, Sen. 

Sessions has opposed every single immigration bill that included a path to citizenship, 16 

and has also soughtto limit the number oflegal immigrants entering the country. 17 

10 Mary Troyan, Sessions Opposes Up<klte to the Voting Rights Act, THE MONTGOMERY ADVISOR (June 25, 2014), 

http://www .mont£omeryadvertiser.com/story/news/20 14106/251 sessions~opposes-update-voting-ri ghtsact/11364929/, See also Mary Troyan, Sessions' Career Shows ,\fixed Record on Voting Rights Act Support, USA 

TODAY (Nov. 24, 2016), http://www.usatodav.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/24/sessions-senate-career~showsmixed-record-\'Oting-rights-act-support/94303120/ (describing Sen. Sessions' opposition to the Voting Rjghts Act as 

Alabama Attorney General and as during his freshman term as a Senator). 11 Press Release, Sessions Expresses Concerns About the Hate Crimes Act (July 20, 2009), available at 

http://wW\v .sessions.senate .gov/pu b I ic/i ndex.cfm/ floor~statements? lD=a814 7bc1~d851-bebf-9a8a-02a4 97fd6fl b. 12 Congressional Scorecard: Measuring Support for Equality in the I I 2th Congress, HUMAN RIGHTS CA~PAIGN 6 

(20 13 ), http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eastl.amazonaws.com/fileslassets/resources/112thCongressionalScorecard 20 12.pdf. 13 Sunnivie Brydum, Why We Can't Afford to "Wait and See" How Trump Dismantles LGBT Rights, RELIGION 

DISPATCHES (Dec. 2, 2016), http:/Ireligiondispatches.org/vihy-we-cant-afford-to-wait-and-see-how-trumQ.: 

dismantles-lgbt-rights/. 

14 Scott Keyes & Shannon Greenwood, For GOP Senate Candidates, Banning Same-Sex Jfarriage in the 

Constitution Has Lost Its Appeal, THINK PROGRESS (June 6, 2014), https://thinkprogress.org/for-gop-senatecand idates-bann ing-same-sex -marriage-in-the-constitution-has-lost-its-appeal-a3dd24c4e 15 3# .:xmcm 141w I . 15 Chris Johnson, Sessions Tapped as AG Despite Anti-LGBT Views, Charges of Racism, THE WASHINGTON BLADE 

(Nov. 18, 20 16), https://www. washingtonbladc.com/20 16/ II/ J 8/trump-taps-sen-sessions-for-ag-despite-racist-antilgbt-reputation/. 

16 Suzanne Gamboa, Latinos Blast Trump's AG Pick Jeff Sessions Over Race, Immigration, 'NBC NEWS (Nov. 18, 

20 16), http:/ hvw\\' .nbcnews.com/newsllatino!Jati nos-blast -trump-s-ag-pick -j eff-sessions-over-race-n6 85951 . 17 Amber Phil1ips, 10 Things to Know About Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's Pick for Attorney General, WASH. 

POST (Nov. 18, 20 16), https://ww\-v. washinetonpost.com/news!the-fix/wp/20 16/JI/18/ 1 0-things-to-know-about-senj e ff-sessions-dona ld-tru mps-pick-for-attomev-gcncral /?utm term-. bd3 a3 e9b 8 8da. 

11 Dupont Circle# Suite 800 #Washington, DC 20036 # 202.588.5180 # 202.588.5185 Fax# 1\\\\l.mlio.org 
1169 

Sen. Sessions' record of hostility to the key laws that he would be charged with enforcing raises 

serious concerns that, under his leadership, enforcement of key legal protections for women, 

people of color, LGBTQ people, and immigrants by the Department of Justice would be ignored 

at best, but more likely challenged and undermined. Women seeking to exercise their right to 

basic health services and health care providers could be at risk; women asserting their right to 

equal pay could face new hurdles; women subjected to domestic abuse and sexual assault could 

lose Justice Department protection; immigrants could face government harassment and 

prosecution; victims of police misconduct could be abandoned; those seeking to exercise their 

right to vote under the Voting Rights Act could confront a Department that is an adversary; those 

facing hate crimes could lose confidence in the Department's prosecution of the perpetrators. 

The consequences are great and the dangers to the pursuit of justice in our country grave, should 

Sen. Sessions be confirmed. 

Although the publicly available record amply demonstrates why Sen. Sessions' nomination 

should be rejected, it should be noted that the record before the Senate Judiciary Committee is 

incomplete. Sen. Sessions failed to include hundreds of speeches, interviews, and op-eds in the 

questionnaire that he initially submitted to the Committee. And even his supplements are 

seriously deficient. Every nominee for any confirmable position should be required to provide 

complete information, but given the special obligation of the Attorney General as the chief law 

enforcement officer of the land, it is essential that the Committee- and the public have before 

them a full and complete record upon which to evaluate Sen. Sessions' nomination, and that he 

be held to the requirements of the law. In fact, Sen. Sessions asserted previously that the 

omission of important documents from a nominee's questionnaire could be considered a legal 

violation and at the least warranted delaying the nominee's confinnation hearing- and that is 

certainly the case here. 18 Given the serious gaps in information provided here, delaying the 

hearing until the gaps are filled is imperative. 

In conclusion, given Sen. Sessions' record, the public can have no confidence that, as Attorney 

General, he would fairly enforce the bedrock laws and constitutional protections that secure 

equality, fairness, and opportunity in this country. Consequently, the Center strongly opposes the 

confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions lii to be Attorney General of the United States and 

urges the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to reject his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

18 Brian Montopoli, Republicans Attack Judicial Nominee Goodwin Liufor Omissions, CBS NEWS (Apr. 6, 2010), 

http://wwv<~.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-attack-judicial-nominee-goodwin-liu-for-omissions/. 

!1 Dupont Circle # Suite 800 # Washington, DC 20036 # 202.588.5180 # 202.588.5185 Fax # "11 ".n11lc.org 
1170 

Marcia Greenberger 

Co-President 

Nancy Duff Campbell 

Co-President 

II Dupont Circle# Suite 800 # Wa,hington. DC 20036 # 202.588.5180 # 202.588.5185 Fax# www.rmlc.org 
1171 

Margot Isaacs Line4 

JOHNS. KIERNA.~ 

PRESIDENT 

Phone: (212) 382-6700 

Fax: (212) 768-8116 

jk.iernan@nycbar.org 

NEW YORK 

CITY BAR 

12/61 01/06/2017 07,50,34 PM -0500 

January 6, 2017 

Via Regular Mail and Facsimile 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking ~ember 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Nomination of Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions lll 

for Attorney General 

Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein: 

I submit this letter on behalf of the New York City Bar Association ("City Bar"), a 

voluntary bar association founded in 1870 and having over 24,000 members, to offer comments 

on the nomination of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions III to serve as Attorney General of the United 

States. 

While lhe City Bar regularly reviews and provides public assessments of the qualification 

of candidates to become judges in New York City federal. state and local courts, the New York 

Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, the City Bar has never developed and 

communicated a public evaluation of whether a nominee for a Cabinet position is qualified for 

that position. We acknowledge that the Senat~ should afford rhe President substantial deference 

in the selection of Cabinet members when exercising its Constitutional function of advice and 

consent. At the same time, the Attomey General occupies a special position as the nation's top 

law enforcement officer, and the City Bar's mission centrally embraces advancement of the rule 

of law and the fair administration of justice, especially by tbose wbo are entrusted with important 

public responsibilities. 

In light of the characteristics of Sen. Sessions' candidacy set forth in this letter, the City 

Bar believes it is appropriate to urge the Judiciary Committee to pursue such searching inquiry 

regarding Sen. Sessions' record and views as is necessary to confinn his commitment to 

preserving and advancing the rule of law, enforcing the law (including legislation or judicial 

decisions with which he disagrees), and protecting the rights of individuals who lack the power 

THE ASSOCIAT'IO~ OFUIE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 

42 West 44'h Street, New York. m' 10036~6689 W'NW.nycbar.org 

01/06/2017 7:54PM (GMT-05:00) 
1172 

Margot Isaacs Lin~4 (3/61 01/06/2017 07,51,16 PM -0500 

to protect themselves. These inquiries should be predicated on the position -which the City Bar 

believes the Judiciarv Committee shares-~ that whole-hearted commitment to these values is an 

essential component~ofa candidate's qualification to serve as Attomey General of the United 

States. 

After an extensive review ofthe materials provided in Sen. Sessions' responses to the 

nominee questionnaires for his current candidacy and his 1986 candidacy for a federal district 

court judgeship, as well as other materials identified through research into his record as a public 

servant, the City Bar respectfully urges that the Judiciary Committee's review of Sen. Sessions' 

candidacy should include searching inquiry into a number of subjects: 

L The Apparent Incompleteness of Sen. Sessions' Questionnaire Responses 

As the Judiciary Committee has recognized, the questionnaire responses submitted by a 

candidate for a position requiring Senate confim1ation are important sources of information for 

review of that candidacy. Questions have been raised as to the completeness of Senator 

Sessions' questimmaire responses, suhmitted on December 9, 20161 and supplemented on 

December 23,2 with respect to potentially important information concerning his public remarks 

and writings. 3 

While the generation of complete questionnaire responses after decades in public life as a 

U.S. Senator, State Attorney General and United States Attorney is undoubtedly a significant 

undertaking, we submit that it is appropriate, and even essential, for the Judiciary Committee to 

insist on receipt of comprehensive questionnaire responses. Some of the information that would 

be provided in a complete response to the questionnaire may not be publicly available by other 

means. Senator Sessions himself has asserted strong positions about the importance of 

completeness in questionnaire responses and the strength of the adverse inferences that should 

follow from incompleteness, including in connection with review of the judicial candidacies of 

Justice Sonia Sotornayor4 and California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu when he was 

being considered for a position on the V.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit5 

The importance of ensuring that the Judiciary Committee's vote is fully informed and 

based on as complete a record as possible argues strongly for postponing the closing of Sen. 

Sessions' confirmation hearings and a vote on his nomination until the Committee can confirm 

that all infom1ation that appears obtainable has been supplied. Rigor in collecting a complete 

record appears particularly warranted because Sen. Sessions' actions and statements in 

Sen. Sessions Belatedly Supplements His Senate Judiciary Questionnaire~ But Dozens of Items Still Missing 

and Records fur Two Decades Still La.rgely .Absent (December 30, 2016 Report by National Council of Asian 

Pacific .-<\mericans, People for the American Way, and Alliance for Justice), available at 

http:itwww,afl.org/wo-content/up]oudsi2.016/l:YS:e,~ond~Se.ssions-Mr.m.QJ2.Qf 

htm:/r'blog.al.coiill.fotil(:>v>I:.009/06/wtlShin~lon i.lS sen jefChtml 

2 

01/06/2017 7:54PM (GMT-05:00) 
1173 

Margot Isaacs Line4 (4/61 01/06/2017 07,52,15 PM -0500 

connection with his 1986 candidacy for a federal judgeship led the Judiciary Committee to the 

extremely rare step of a vote disapproving the presentation of his candidacy to the full Senate, 

and because certain statements and actions reflected in the incomplete currently available record 

present reasons for inquiry into the finnness of Sen. Sessions~ commitment to enforcing certain 

areas of the law. 

IL Questions Presented by One of Sen. Sessions' Questionnaire Responses 

Sen. Sessions' response to Section 15 of his questionnaire, asking him to describe the ten 

most significant matters he "significantly handled," identifies four civil rights cases dating from 

before 1986 that he did not mention when he was asked the same question in Section 18 of his 

1986 questionnaire: United States v. Conecuh County, Davis v. Board of School Commissioners 

ofMobile County, United States v. Dallas County Cmmnission, and United States v. Marengo 

County Conunission.6 Decause it appears that Sen. Sessions may have listed these cases at least 

in part in an effort to demonstrate his record of commitment to enforcing the civil rights laws, 

and because others involved in these cases have publicly asserted that Sen. Sessions had no 

substantive involvement in the cases,7 it appears appropriate for the Judiciary Committee to 

inquire about these matters sufficiently to enable il to understand fully what role Senator 

Sessions may have played in these cases and what relevance his citation of them may have to his 

candidacy. 

IlL Statements and Actions by Sen. Sessions Warranting Inguiry 

Over the course of Sen. Sessions' long career as a public servant, he has made many 

statements about what he believes the law should provide. The City Bar does not believe that 

statements advocating change in the law even highly politicized ones will generally support a 

finding that a candidate for Attorney General lacks the critical qualification of the required 

commitment to the rule of law. But at least some of the statements in which Sen. Sessions 

htms:!/w'.';w_ :udklarv.scrutk. govilmoimo;dia/ck•,:iSessions%")0SJC%"00uesHortiHrir.~%2QFpdf at 16, 18, 24, 

26; United States v. Conecuh County, CV 83-1201-H (S.D. Ala. June 12, 1984); Davis v. Board of School 

Commissioner ofMobilc County, CV 3003-63-H (S.D. Ala.) (describing how a consent decree was entered 

after nearly a decade of litigation and citing to Davis v. Board ofSch. Comrn'rs of Mobile Cnty., \986 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 27519, at *2~3 (S.D. Ala., Mar. 27, 1986) which states that the consent decree was adopted in 

1982): United States v. Dallas County Commission, CV 78-578-H (S.D. Ala.) (describing litigation pending 

since 1978 that culminated in appellate decisions in 1988 in Dallas, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988) and 850 

F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1988)); United States v. Marengo County Commission, CV 78-474-H (S,D. Ala.) 

(describing titigation involving decisions including an appeal in United States v. Marengo Cnty. Conun'n, 731 

F.2d 1546, 1572(llthCir.1984)). 

For example, ·with respect to Dallas County, the lead DOJ Civil Rights Division attorney handling the case has 

stated, "He never filed anything in the Dallas County case that he wrote. Usually, the civil rights division filed 

the briefs and wrote them. His name would have been included in the CRD draft, which is standard operating 

procedure." .hlli22L~-~'_1Qe3tlanr:ic.comlpclitks/archiv~J20 16/l2/which-schooJs-did-jeff~sessions~ 

.9.~~..W:.~l~~!l216.Z Similarly, with respect to Davis. a former Civll Rights Division attorney who worked on the case has stated, "My recollection is that Se-ssions had very little to do with it. He was the U.S. attorney, he 

was probably on the pleading. but I don't remember him playing a major role in it." 

htms://l;<;wW.!heatlarrtk.com/Dc>litics/arc::hivc/2() 16/l "lwbich~schools·did-ieff.sessEons--,lesegre«ate/50986 7 

Sen. Sesshms' supplemental questionnaire described his role in these cases as "to pwvide support for the 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, attorneys." 

htms:/lwww.h.Jd.kbrv,scnatc.gov/imoimcdiah)o,.:.fSe:;siom%10SJC%:.":0Q·\lest.lonnaire%20~%20Supplcment.pdf 

Following Sen. Sessions' supplemental submission, Civil Rights Division attorneys who handled three of the 

four cases stated in an op-ed that Sen. "Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of' these three cases. 

h!JC?.~li.~X..\IL,_~:;'!giJ.I!£.1QJ.ll'.Qg&_o.lu{~LljmP.f~ff-ses_?iilll2.:.:L~~..:h.o::h!!fl9.l:;Q-tllcse-s.bjl:tig.b!.§.·.s1~~.0.1.~:.~.\ill..b::. 

toucherl-tlK:mt20l 7/0l/(J3/4ddfffa6-d06-.ll~6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd storv,html?utm tcrm:::.2f3237cb3949 

01/06/2017 7:54PM (GMT-05:00) 
1174 

Morgot Isoocs Line4 15/6) 0110612017 07,53,20 PM -0500 

indicated his disagreement with existiug law, as Sen. Sessions has framed them, justify rigorous 

inquiry into Sen. Sessions' commitment to enforcing the law and energetically advancing all the 

protections that existing law affords even if he disagrees with the law. That inquiry appears to be 

warranted in at least the following areas: 

10 

II 

12 

• Senator Sessions has stated that, Hfn reality. federal courts are threatening our political 

institutions, not vice-versa. The federal courts have usurped one political issue after 

another. Abortion, homosexual rights, school busing, racial preferences, term limits, 

criminal procedure."8 His expression of this view warrants rigorous inquiry into his 

commitment to enforcing and supporting the judicial decisions he has criticized even 

though he disagrees with them. 

• Although he has acknowledged the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, Senator 

Sessions also has criticized the law as "'an intrusive piece of legislation." That statement 

warrants inquiry into his commitment to enforcing this law.9 

• Senator Sessions opposed the Shepard-Byrd hate crime law and the Violence Against 

Women Act, 10 and has criticized laws providing for efforts to mainstream special 

education srudents as "a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in 

classrooms all over America" and ''the single most irritating problem for teachers 

throughout America today. 11 While opposition to passage of these laws reflects the 

nature of political debate and does not by itself present disqualification issues, these 

positions warrant inquiry into his current commitment to vigorously enforcing these laws 

as passed. 

• Senator Sessions has commented about immigrants from the Dominican Republic as 

follows: 

Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United 

States is coming here because they have a provable skill that would benefit us and 

that would indicate their likely success in our society. They come in because some 

other family member of a qualified relation is here as a citizen or even a green card 

holder. That is how they get to come. They are creating a false document to show 

these are relatives or their spouses and they are married when it is not so. 12 

htlp://www.fed-s0c.or~<frub1icatiomJdetajlireflections-on-·iudjdal-.indepcndencc 

Hearings on the. Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions III at 30-31, available at 

https://www.scrihd.conJ!d,.x·.tJmeotJ.\ 5090 ,1_ 83/Se,<;<:i(;ns-Hearin"-Transcripts; 

l!!tJ.'.:£L\;ll_lgggQ£!g_~.ill!<JJ.ill'"-SSl:rJf.Y_c;/.':':1:!}::~liQ.:2:El!r!l~!l.:-.9.f.:i£.ff:f&?.?.!Ql1~:&:~.lli:.'llfiD.I4Jl&:Y.S.)lJJ.W31.W~§.-_ 

~ 

4 

01/06/2017 7:54PM CGMT-05:00) 
1175 

Margot Isoacs Line4 (6/6) 01/06/2017 07,54,12 PM -0500 

These statements justify inquiry into Sen. Sessions' commitment to combating and 

rreating as legally intolerable racial stereotyping and all forms of discrimination based on 

race, national origin or other legally protected points of difference. 

IV. Follow-Up Questions from Sen. Sessions 1986 Judicial Nomination 

The public record docs not identify all the reasons why the Senate Judiciary Committee 

took the rare step of voting not to approve the presentation of Sen. Sessions' candidacy for a 

district court judgeship to the full Senate in 1986. Reports of these bearings suggest, though, that 

factors in the decision included the presence of accusations that Sen. Sessions had made racially 

offensive remarks on several occasions and had acted improperly in prosecuting unsuccessful 

claims of voter fraud against African-American civil rights workers in United States v. Turner. 

'W'hile the City Bar believes that Sen. Sessions' denials of having made the asserted statements 

and the passage of 30 years since those confirmation hearings should prevent that 1986 record 

from determining the outcome of the current confrrmation process, the seriousness of the issues 

presented at the time ---sufficient to provide an extremely rare rejection by this Committee -

appears to warrant inquiry into whether Sen. Sessions categorically repudiates today, as improper 

and intolerable, the remarks and actions ascribed to him in the 1986 confirmation bearings. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 

CC: 

Hon. Rkbard Blumenthal 

[lou. Christopher A. Coons 

Hon. John Comyn 

I-lmL T0d Cmz 

Hun.. Dick Durbin 

I-T on. Jdf Flak~ 

Hon. A l Franken 

Hon. Kirsten GilHhrand 

Hon. Linds.:;v Graham 

Hon. Orrin (~. Hatch 

Hon. ,>\my KlobucbM 

Hon. Patrick Lc,iliy 

Hon. \1icb;lel S. L?.e 

Hon. Chc1rles Sdmmer 

HorL Thom Tillis 

Hon. Sbddt)n Whttehousl.! 

Respectfully yours, 

l, ;/l #f:tl: v·-· -·--·--·· 

~</ 

JohnS. Kiernan 

President, New York City Bar Association 

5 

01/06/2017 7:54PM CGMT-05:00) 
1176 

GIBSON DUNN 

January 4, 2017 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Gibsor1, Dunn &Crutcher LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W 

Washm~on, D.C. 20036-5306 

Tel ?07.955.8500 

www.g1b~ondurm.com 

Theodore B. Olson 

Direct: +1 202.955.8588 

Fax: +1202.530.9575 

TOison@gibsondunn.com 

Re: Nomination Of Senator Sessions To Serve As Attorney General Of The United States 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Senator Feinstein: 

I write to endorse, enthusiastically, the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve 

as Attorney General of the United States. I urge the Senate to confirm Senator Sessions as 

promptly as possible. 

I have known Senator Sessions, personally and professionally, for decades. I also 

have served in two Administrations in the Department of Justice, as Assistant Attorney 

General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan Administration and as Solicitor 

General of the United States in the George W. Bush Administration. My federal government 

service also includes being a member of the President's Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Oversight Board and, during the Obama Administration, a member of the Council of the 

Administrative Conference of the United States and the President's Commission on White 

House Fellowships. Based on these experiences, I am confident that Senator Sessions 

possesses the character and all the qualities necessary to be the Attorney General for all 

Americans. 

Senator Sessions has repeatedly demonstrated the judgment and calm temperament 

that are necessary to this important position. He is himself a former official with the 

Department, and his knowledge of the Department, and his enthusiasm for its people, 

mission and values, will help ensure that he can lead the Department successfully. 

Beijing· !:lrus~eJs • Century C1ty • Dall<lS ·Denver • Dubai • Hor~g Kong· London· Los Angeles· Mun1cll 

Nel'i York • Orange County • ra!o Alto • Pam,· San Franc1sco ·Sao Paulo • Smgapore • Washmgton, D.C 
1177 

GIBSON DUNN 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 4, 2017 

Page2 

Senator Sessions will emphasize fairness in the Department, making sure that he has 

gathered the necessary facts from those in a position to know, and that he has consulted 

appropriately with those who are affected by the Department's operations. He will listen, 

and he will lead with integrity. 

Of course, Senator Sessions also has a track record as a successful prosecutor, and 

during his tenure in the Senate he worked to help Jaw enforcement and prosecutors fight 

crime. He has worked with Senators of both parties, including the late Senator Kennedy and 

Senator Durbin, on issues involving incarceration and sentencing. 

Senator Sessions is a man of outstanding integrity and moral character, who has 

demonstrated respect for the Constitution and laws of the United States and for his country 

and fellow citizens. 

Further, Senator Sessions understands the difference between serving as a legislator, 

and serving in the Executive Branch. He will vigorously enforce the laws Congress enacts. 

He will defend the Constitution, and protect the rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor at 

both the federal and state levels, he will respect principles of federalism in law enforcement, 

and work well with states that need federal resources and expertise to address local law 

enforcement issues. 

As a lawyer who has devoted years of effort to litigating and vindicating the civil 

rights of our fellow gay, lesbian and trans gender citizens, [recognize that people of good 

faith can disagree on legal issues. Such honest disagreements should not disqualifY them 

from holding public office. [n particular, [have no reservations about Senator Sessions' 

ability to handle these issues fairly, and in accordance with the law and to protect the civil 

rights of these and all of our citizens. 

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will bring his integrity, work ethic, legal knowledge 

and experience to his new role at the Department. He will serve our Nation with distinction. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Respectfully, 

Theodore B. Olson 
1178 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. DC 20554 

January 11, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6050 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I write in support of President-Elect Donald J. Trump's nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as 

Attomey General of the United States. 

I had the honor of working for Senator Sessions between 2003 and 2004 as Deputy Chief Counsel on the 

Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, which Senator Sessions 

chaired. At the time, many complicated, controversial matters came before us, such as national security 

legislation, judicial nominations, constitutional issues, and more. Senator Sessions approached each matter in a 

thoughtful way. He always wanted to know the facts and the law before rendering a reasoned judgment. Senator 

Sessions was, and is, a superb senator: honorable, faithful to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and 

deeply committed to equal justice and the rule of law. 

I would note as well that his management style would be well-suited to lead a large agency like the 

Department of Justice. During my tenure, he hired highly qualified staff, he outlined for them his general 

principles and policy priorities, and he delegated substantial authority to them to implement those principles and 

priorities. I have no doubt that he would be an effective manager of the numerous Justice Department offices that 

would be subject to his supervision. 

Last but certainly not least: Senator Sessions is a good man. He approaches life with good cheer and an 

even temper. He treats everyone, even those who might vigorously disagree with him, with dignity and respect. 

He consistently takes an interest in the careers and families of those who work for him. (A quick anecdote: soon 

after I started working for him, my parents carne to Washington. On the spur of the moment, they asked if they 

could meet the Senator. Despite the Senator's busy schedule, he took 40 minutes to sit with them and talk about 

everything from politics to the American Dream that drew them to the United States. I cannot overstate how 

impressed they were by his generous spirit and proud they were that he was my boss.) And he has long employed 

a diverse staff of attorneys--during my tenure, his staff eonsisted of an African-American man, two women, and 

me, a first~generation Indian~ American. 

I support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attomey General without reservation. The Department of 

Justice and the American people will benefit from his leadership. I hope the Senate confirms him promptly. 

Sincerely, 

., 

!(< j v 0J 

('} C.t: v V"\ 

VAjitV.Pai 

Commissioner, 

Federal Communications Commission 
1179 

Deval L. Patrick 

200 Clarendon St., 381

h floor 

Boston, MA 02116 

Han. Charles Grassley, Chairman 

Han. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

January 3, 2017 

Re: Nomination of Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill to the position of Attorney General 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

At the request of Committee Counsel Tiffith, I am submitting these written 

comments in connection with the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to the position of 

Attorney General of the United States. I apologize to the Committee and to the 

nominee that I cannot be there to offer my comments in person, but long-planned travel 

overseas will keep me from attending the upcoming hearings. 

In years past, I have worked closely and, I believe, respectfully with both of you 

and many of the members of your Committee. For those Members with whom I am not 

familiar, my background is as an attorney, business executive and public official. In 

addition to being a partner in two business law firms, I was a staff lawyer at the NAACP 

Legal Defense Fund in New York in the early 1980s. I served in the first term of the 

Clinton administration as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. I have also served 

as an executive and general counsel for two Fortune 50 companies and as the two-term 

Governor of Massachusetts. I currently lead an impact investing fund in Boston, where I 

live with my wife of more than 30 years. 

I write to shed light on an important aspect of Mr. Sessions' record, to which I can 

attest from personal experience. In 1985 I was part of the defense team in the federal 

criminal voting fraud prosecution of three African-American community activists (the socalled "Perry County Three") in Alabama. With colleagues from the Legal Defense 

Fund, I represented defendant Spencer Hogue. That prosecution was led by the thenUnited States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Jeff Sessions. I have not 

had direct contact with Mr. Sessions since that time. 
1180 

Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

January 3, 2017 

Page Two 

That case was thoroughly litigated twice: once in the Federal District Court in 

1985 and again before this Committee in 1986 when Mr. Sessions was nominated for a 

federal judgeship. There is no need to litigate it again. My objection is not that Mr. 

Sessions lost that case. It was that he undertook to bring it at all. 

The theory of Mr. Sessions's case was that it is a federal crime for someone to 

help someone else to vote or to advise them how they should vote-- even if and when 

they ask for such help. At the outset of the trial, the presiding judge -- Judge Emmett 

Cox, a Reagan appointee to the district court, subsequently elevated to the Eleventh 

Circuit-- rejected that theory as contrary to settled law and the Constitution. Mr. 

Sessions proceeded to trial on that theory anyway. The jury unanimously acquitted 

each of the defendants on all counts. 

Pursuing that case was an act of extraordinary quasi-judicial activism. Voting is 

a civic and even sacred right in our country. Extending it to black voters in the Alabama 

Black Belt was a significant national challenge. Making access real --through the 

Voting Rights Act, and countless acts of civil disobedience-- represents an equally 

significant national triumph. Courts have recognized that, while the ballot is officially 

secret, citizens have the right to seek assistance --as informal as asking one's spouse 

how to vote or as formal as conforming to the designated slate of a political party or 

advocacy group. To use prosecutorial discretion to attempt to criminalize voter 

assistance is wrong and should be disqualifying for any aspirant to the Nation's highest 

law enforcement post. 

There were other troubling aspects about the manner in which Mr. Sessions 

pursued this case. First, while absentee ballots were used widely and to great effect by 

white voters and their advocates within his jurisdiction, Mr. Sessions investigated only 

the use by black voters and only where white incumbents were losing political ground. 

Second, the prosecution focused on the Perry County Civic League, a service and 

community organization whose main activities were helping poor, rural and often elderly 

residents with food, education, medical and other needs on whose meetings Mr. 

Sessions authorized the FBI to eavesdrop. Third, though most of the 20 government 

witnesses were old and frail, and had only achieved access to the ballot in their elder 

years, the prosecution loaded them onto a bus under armed federal, state and local 

police guard and drove them 160 miles to Mobile for grand jury testimony, causing 

many observers to conclude there was a concerted campaign to intimidate susceptible 

witnesses into believing that voter assistance was illegal. And finally, though Mr. 

Sessions had a reputation for plea bargaining criminal cases, many involving violence, 

he was adamant in refusing to consider a deal in this one. 

For 30 years I have viewed the prosecution of the Perry County Three as a 

cautionary tale. I believe it demonstrates what can happen when prosecutorial 

discretion is unchecked, when regard for facts is secondary to political objectives. What 

can happen is that the rule of law is imperiled. In a republic based on law, this is not the 

kind of risk any of us should accept in our attorney general. 
1181 

Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

January 3, 2017 

Page Three 

Donald Trump was not my candidate, but he is my President-elect While I do 

not expect to agree with him on every appointment or policy choice, I believe it would be 

irresponsible and unpatriotic to oppose everything he does even before he does it For 

the peace and prosperity of the country, I pray for the President-elect just as I have for 

President Obama and his predecessors. 

I also believe that, within bounds of basic preparedness and qualifications, 

presidents should have the team of their choosing. That should be as true for the 

President-elect as it has been for most presidents and as it should have been for 

President Obama. 

With that context, I wish nevertheless to express one additional concern about 

this appointment. 

Our Nation needs a healing. 

The tenor and divisiveness of the recent presidential campaigns -- whether one 

cheered or grieved the outcome -- discouraged many Americans. The dysfunction and 

hyper-partisanship of the federal government in the years before the campaigns has 

contributed to the public's frustration. Meanwhile, all over the country hate crimes 

assaults against black and brown citizens, against women, against immigrants are on 

the rise. Like it or not, intentional or not, the recent election cycle seems to have given 

some in our country the view that they have permission to treat other Americans as 

lesser because of the color of their skin or the free exercise of their religion. If America 

is to be what the Founders committed her to be, if we are to be the land of liberty and 

justice for all, this kind of behavior cannot be sanctioned or encouraged --directly or 

indirectly. 

This Committee shares responsibility for setting the right tone. Thirty years ago, 

because it was widely understood and appreciated that his appointment to the bench 

would raise a question about this Committee's commitment to a just, fair and open 

justice system, Mr. Sessions's nomination was withdrawn on a bi-partisan basis. I 

respectfully suggest to you that this moment requires similar consideration and a similar 

outcome. At a time when our Nation is so divided, when so many feel so deeply that 

their lived experience is unjust, Mr. Sessions is the wrong person to place in charge of 

our justice system. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 
1182 

A PEOPLE 

...:.._~FOR THE 

·~ 1 AMERICAN 

r ""' WAY 

January 5, 2017 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Maj. Leader 

United States Senate 

S230 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Charles Schumer, Min. Leader 

United States Senate 

S221 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grass ley, and Senator Feinstein: 

On behalf of People For the American Way (PFA W) and our hundreds of thousands of members across 

the country, I am writing to oppose the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to become Attorney 

General of the United States. The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer but the "people's 

lawyer," responsible for exercising independent judgment in enforcing our laws on counterterrorism, 

civil rights, and many more critical areas. Senator Sessions' record makes clear that he is not qualified to 

fulfill that role and should not be confirmed. 

The last time a Republican-controlled Senate considered Senator Sessions' nomination to a position of 

responsibility, when he was nominated to a federal district court seat in 1986, he was rejected because of 

his disastrous record on civil rights. His record over the last 30 years, including his close association 

with Breitbart News, a self-proclaimed platform for the white nationalist alt-right, makes clear that the 

Senate's judgment at that time was correct. Senator Sessions has continued to demonstrate that he is an 

outlier on these and other issues, which are central to the role of Attorney General. As The New York 

Times concluded, making Senator Sessions our Attorney General- in light of his "dogged animus to 

civil rights," his opposition to laws he would be responsible to enforce, and his resistance to fixing our 

immigration system and other problems would be "an insult to justice." 

At the outset, as Ranking Member Feinstein has pointed out, holding confirmation hearings on the 

currently scheduled dates of January I 0 and II is entirely inappropriate in light of the gaping holes in 

Senator Sessions' response to the questionnaire he received from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even 

after several attempts to supplement his answers, the record he has provided remains woefully 

incomplete. He has failed to provide information on decades of speeches, interviews, writings, and other 

materials similar to the type of information that, as a Senator, he demanded of nominees before hearings 

took place. The failure to provide such information, he wrote in 2010, is itself"potentiallv 

disqualifying". and he even suggested it could subject a nominee to criminal prosecution. In addition, 

since President-Elect Trump has delayed the date by which he will explain how he will deal with 

personal conflict of interest issues until after the hearings are complete, Senators cannot possibly ask 

Senator Sessions how he would deal with these issues as Attorney General. The hearings clearly should 

be postponed. 

1101 15'" Street, NW +Suite 600 +Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone 202.467.4999 +Fax 202.293.2672 +E-mail pfaw@pfaw.org +Web site http://www.pfaw.org 
1183 

Despite the incomplete record, it is clear based on what we do know that Senator Sessions will not be 

able to fulfill the important responsibilities of our nation's next Attorney General. He will not be an 

effective and reliable check on the extremism of this Administration and a defender of justice and the 

rule of law for all Americans. His own shameful record on race, gender, disability, LGBT status, and 

immigration makes clear he is unable to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. 

Our nation's Attorney General must have a commitment to fairness and equal opportunity, and to 

enforcing laws that ban discrimination or crimes based on race, gender, and other grounds. But as more 

than 150 civil rights and other groups have written, Senator Sessions has a "30-year record ofracial 

insensitivity" and "hostility to the protection of civil rights," including racist statements when he was an 

Alabama prosecutor. The fact that Senator Sessions has maintained a close relationship with Rreitbart 

News, a far-right platform for the white nationalist alt-right that was run until recently by Trump 

strategist Stephen Bannon, in and of itself is disqualifying. That platform has showcased extreme and 

disturbing claims, such as blaming feminism for mass shootings, claiming that birth control "makes 

women unattractive and crazy," defending white nationalist alt-right leaders as "intellectuals," and 

referring to a conservative commentator as a "renegade Jew." The site featured stories that showcased 

what it called "Black Crime" in an effort to smear African Americans and-shortly after the racially 

motivated murder of nine churchgoers at an African American church in Charleston, South Carolinaran an article entitled "Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage." 

Despite this appalling record, Sessions has given at least 18 interviews to Breitbart's radio programs and 

seven exclusive interviews to its print journalists, and his office provided Breitbart with exclusive first 

access to at least a dozen statements and documents. These numbers bolster what Politico reported in a 

June profile of Stephen Miller, who was Sessions' communications director before leaving to work for 

the Trump campaign and who will soon have a top role in the Trump White House. Politico reported 

that when he was working for Sessions, Breitbart was Miller's "preferred media ally" and that he 

frequently fed leads to the site's reporters, and organized "a weekly Friday happy hour for Sessions and 

Breitbart staffers." Sessions himself told Bannon in2015 that Breitbart was "the absolute bright spot" in 

coverage of the struggling middle class. "You get it," he said, "your writers get it, every day they find 

new information that I use repeatedly in debate on the floor of the Senate because it's highlighting the 

kind of problems that we have. And nobody else is doing it effectively, it's just not happening, so to me 

it's like a source. And we consistently find your data to be accurate and hold up under scrutiny." 

Senator Sessions has also associated himself with other extremist groups. For example, in 2014, he 

received an award from the anti-Muslim David Horowitz Freedom Center and specifically praised its 

leader, even though Horowitz has claimed that all Muslim-American associations are "fronts for the 

Muslim Brotherhood.'' called House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi a •'Jew-hating b*tclf' on Twitter. 

and claimed amidst protests of police violence that there is ·• no community that's more racist in 

America than the black community. In 2015, Sessions accepted the "Keeper of the Flame" award from 

the Center for Security Policy, the group run by anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, saying 

that the Center "fights for America every day." Gaffney was the driving force behind smears against 

Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. also promoted by Horowitz. that Senator John McCain called "an 

unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman. a dedicated American and a loyal public 

servant.'' He also claims that there is an Islamist attempt to seize control of the conservative movement, 

alleging that conservative activist Grover Norquist is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, saying that 

former GOP Senator Chuck Hagel acted like an "Iranian agent," and accusing New Jersey Governor 

Chris Christie of"misprision of treason'' because he appointed a Muslim lawyer to be a judge. He once 

claimed that a Missile Defense Agency logo was evidence of·'official U.S. submission to Islam." 

-2-
1184 

Other specific areas of concern about Senator Sessions' record include: 

Voting rights: Senator Sessions has an extremely troubling history on voting rights, including a muchcriticized and unsuccessful voter fraud prosecution and vote suppression tactics when he was a 

prosecutor in Alabama, and opposition to voting rights protections as a Senator. This record includes 

racist comments as well as comments antagonistic to civil rights such as allegedly calling a white civil 

rights attorney "a disgrace to his race" and, as recently as 2010, complaining that too many of President 

Obama's judicial nominees had "ACLU DNA." We have serious concerns that as Attorney General 

under Trump, Sessions would not only cut back substantially on DOJ's positive voting rights role but 

that he would also pursue harmful claims of alleged voter fraud and attempt to force states to purge more 

voters from their rolls. 

Equal educational opportunity: In addition to the Department of Education, the Attorney General and 

DOJ play an important role in providing guidance and enforcing federal laws and rules that prevent 

discrimination and improper discipline, harassment and isolation of students based on race, national 

origin, religion, gender and gender identity, disability, and special education needs. Senator Sessions' 

record, however, is cause for deep concern. As Alabama Attorney General, he strongly opposed a state 

court ruling, later upheld on appeal, that found serious inequities and inadequacies in funding for poor 

and minority schools. A recent review found little evidence to back up his supporters' claims that he 

actively supported school desegregation efforts in Alabama. As Senator, he criticized laws providing 

special education for students with disabilities, calling them perhaps the "single most irritating problem 

for teachers across America today." and leading to serious concern about whether he would effectively 

enforce those laws as Attorney General. And given his virulent anti-LGBT record, Sessions is 

considered likely to withdraw DOJ guidance and litigation seeking to protect the rights of trans gender 

students. 

Other Gender and LGBT issues: One of the Attorney General's key responsibilities is enforcing criminal 

and other laws that protect against violence and other misconduct aimed at women and the LGBT 

community. But_as Senator, Sessions fought against hate crime protection for LGBT people and we have 

grave concerns that he is likely to neglect or abandon the responsibility to enforce hate crimes laws. He 

was one of only 22 Senators who opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 

2013, he voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and during the campaign he tried to defend Mr. 

Trump's own reported assaults on women, leading to serious concems about Sessions' willingness to 

perform DOJ's role in that area. 

Immigration: The Attorney General and DOJ have important functions concerning our nation's 

immigration laws. These include appointment of administrative immigration judges and appeals board 

members who decide most deportation and related cases, setting criteria for asylum, deciding on 

enforcement priorities, and more. Sessions' extreme record on immigration, however, has been well 

documented. He has suppot1ed Trump's campaign immigration promises, including stepped up 

deportation, limiting or banning immigration by Muslims, and building a wall between the US and 

Mexico, and has voted against bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, particularly 

given his close association with virulently anti-immigrant groups as noted above, we fear Sessions could 

well refuse to take action against school systems tl1at refuse to serve children of undocumented 

immigrants, especially in light of his opposition to the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship. 

Civil Liberties: Both in his role as the nation's chief prosecutor and as the official to whom the FBI 

reports, the Attorney General also plays a key role with respect to national security. The FBI, as well as 

Republicans and Democrats, have made clear that effective protection of national security consistent 

-3-
1185 

with the rule of law means that waterboarding and torture should not be pursued in terrorism 

investigations. Senator Sessions clearly disagrees, and has voted against bipartisan proposals to ban such 

tactics. Sessions has also opposed efforts to curb overly aggressive electronic surveillance of Americans, 

as demonstrated by his opposition to bipartisan reform of the Patriot Act that was supported by the NSA 

itself. Sessions as Attorney General could produce an extremely troubling reversal in this area for the 

DOJ. 

In short, Senator Sessions' record makes clear his continued disregard for the rights of the American 

people and the rule of law. He is unfit to serve as our nation's Attorney General, and the Senate should 

again reject his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Keegan 

President & CEO 

-4-
1186 

January 6, 2017 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

We write on behalf of 70 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in strong 

opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as United States attorney general. 

Given his long record of hostility towards reproductive rights and his alignment1 with extreme 

anti-abortion organizations, we firmly believe that Senator Sessions is not capable of fair and 

impartial action as attorney general. His long-held bias will negate his ability to oversee 

Department of Justice obligations to protect without prejudice the constitutional right to abortion, 

as well as the patients and providers of reproductive health care. 

Since 1977, there have been II murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 185 arsons, and 

thousands of incidents of criminal activities directed at abortion providers. In 2015, there was a 

dramatic increase in hate speech, death threats, attempted murder, and murder.2 

Especially at this time, the importance of the Department of Justice, and specifically the 

leadership of the attorney general, in helping to stem the tide of violence against abortion 

providers cannot be overemphasized. 

The Department of Justice is charged with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes targeting 

abortion providers, and thus impacts the safety of abortion providers and their patients more than 

any other agency. Specifically, the attorney general is responsible for enforcing the Freedom of 

Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act which, when enforced, has a clear impact on the number 

of violent acts directed against clinics and providers. 3 The attorney general also oversees the 

work of the critical National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers.4 The 

attorney general has discretion and authority regarding resources and staffing, and can decide 

whether to pursue FACE cases, in addition to what level of priority the Task Force takes within 

the Department of Justice. 

Senator Sessions' record indicates that he is not fit to carry out these responsibilities as the 

Attorney General of the United States. His prior actions lead us to believe that protecting 

abortion providers from violence will not be a priority for a Department of Justice directed by 

Senator Sessions. In fact, he has voted against protecting abortion providers from violence.5 

Senator Sessions voted repeatedly to reject an amendment put forth by Senator Schumer that 

would have prevented perpetrators of violent crimes against abortion providers and clinics from 

evading fines resulting from convictions by filing for bankruptcy.6 Sessions' votes amount to 

excusing criminals and indicate his low prioritization of safety issues when they impact abortion 
1187 

providers and their patients. Additionally, in 2015 Sessions voted against an amendment to 

create a "Women's Health Care and Clinic Security and Safety Fund" that would ensure 

enhanced safety measures and provisions for reproductive health providers and clinics.7 

Senator Sessions' long history of opposition to women's health is reason for concern for all who 

value the safety of women's health providers and their patients. Sessions has made it clear that 

he opposes abortion access, repeatedly voting against resolutions in support of Roe v. Wade, the 

landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women's constitutional right to decide to have 

an abortion. In fact, he has described the precedential case by saying "I firmly believe that Roe 

v. Wade and its descendants represent one of the worse [sic] colossally erroneous Supreme Court 

decisions of all time. It was an activist decision ... it was a Court that decided to politically 

impose their will. Good law should prevail."8 Among his many anti-abortion votes are multiple 

votes for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a Jaw that grants separate legal status to an 

embryo or fetus 9

, and for a measure banning medically appropriate abortion care as early as 20 

weeks without an adequate exception to protect a woman's health. 10 

Sessions has consistently opposed reproductive health, rights, and justice, voting 86 times 

against these critical issues during his 20 years in the Senate. 11 This includes voting to eliminate 

the essential Title X family planning program 12, which provides millions of women with health 

care services. 13 He has repeatedly voted against contraceptive access, including voting to defund 

Planned Parenthood health centers and/or other family-planning clinics 1

4, voting for measures 

purporting to address the Zika crisis but which included restricted access to contraception15, and 

repeatedly voting to defund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that 

provides family planning services for the world's poorest women. 16 

The Attorney General, as head of the U.S. Department of Justice, is directly responsible for 

carrying out the President's constitutional charge to "take care" that the laws ofthe United States 

are faithfully executed. While Senator Sessions may understand that his responsibility would be 

to execute the laws as they are, and not as he might wish them to be, the extreme positions that 

have been a driving and overriding theme of his public career cause concern that he could use the 

vast powers of Attorney General to endanger the constitutional guarantees and hard-won federal 

laws that form core legal protections for women's ability to exercise their reproductive rights. 

The next United States attorney general cannot be allowed to promote his extreme personal 

ideology over enforcing the law and holding criminals to account. Senator Sessions' hostility to 

abortion and troubling record on civil rights disqualifies him for a cabinet level appointment. We 

strongly urge you to oppose Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general. 

Sincerely, 

30 for 30 Campaign 

Access Reproductive Care-Southeast 

Advocates for Youth 

Black Women's Health Imperative 

California Latinas for Reproductive Justice 

Catholics for Choice 
1188 

Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley 

Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program 

Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR) 

Desiree Alliance 

Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund 

Feminist Majority Foundation 

Forward Together 

Freedom From Religion Foundation 

Gender Justice 

If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice 

Institute for Science and Human Values 

International Women's Health Coalition 

Jane Fund of Central Massachusetts 

Jewish Women International (JWI) 

Legal Aid at Work (formerly Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center) 

Legal Voice 

Lift Louisiana 

Lilith Fund 

Mabel Wadsworth Center 

Methodist Federation for Social Action 

Muslims for Progressive Values 

NARAL Pro-Choice America 

National Abortion Federation 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum 

National Black Justice Coalition 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Council of Asian Pacific Americans 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of Jewish Women- St. Louis 

National Council of Jewish Women- Columbus 

National Council of Jewish Women- Essex County 

National Council of Jewish Women- Ohio State 

National Council of Jewish Women- Rockland County 

National Council of Jewish Women- Seattle Section 

National Council of Jewish Women Washington State Policy Advocacy Network 

National Health Law Program 

National Immigration Law Center (N!LC) 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health 

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund 

National Network of Abortion Funds 

National Partnership for Women & Families 

National Women's Health Network 

National Women's Law Center 

New Voices for Reproductive Justice 

Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive Health (formerly Nursing Students for Choice) 

Physicians for Reproductive Health 
1189 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America 

Population Connection Action Fund 

Population Institute 

Positive Women's Network- USA 

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need 

Religious Institute 

Reproductive Health Access Project 

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) 

S isterReach 

SisterSong: National Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective 

Tewa Women United 

Texas Equal Access Fund 

The Interfaith Alliance of Colorao 

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation 

URGE: Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity 

Virginia NOW 

Women's Medical Fund, Inc. (WI) 

WV FREE (West Virginia Focus: Reproductive Education and Equality) 
1190 

1 In Operation Rescue's press statement announcing its endorsement of Senator Sessions, the group's president Troy 

Newman states "I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past and know him to be an experienced 

prosecutor and a principled pro-life advocate with a reputation for honesty." 2 2015 Violence and Disruption Statistics: A dramatic escalation in hate speech, threats, and violence, National 

Abortion Federation, (April 20 16), http://prochoice.org/wp-content!uploads/2015-NAF-Violence-DisruptionStats.pdf 

3 Department of Justice, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances & Places of Religious Worship, 

https://www Justice.gov/crt-12 4 Department of Justice, National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-task-force-violence-against-health-care-providers-O 

5 Schumer amendment to Bankruptcy Reform Act, S.265, 2/2/00; Bankruptcy Reform Act, H.R.2415, 12/7/00; 

Schumer amendment to Bankruptcy Reform Act, S.256, 3/8/05. 6 Maura Reynolds, Abortion Debate Still Tangled in Bankruptcy Bill, Los Angeles Times, (Feb. 28, 201 5), 

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/28/nation/na-bankrupt28 

7 Motion to table Murray amendment to H.R.3762, 12/3/15. 

'Veronica Neffinger, Trump Offers Attorney General Position to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Christian Headlines. com, 

(Nov. 1 8, 20 16), http://\\"WW .christianheadlines.corn!blo g/trump-offers-attomey-general-position-to-sen-jeffsessions.html 

9 Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R.l997, 3/25/04. 10 Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on H.R.36, 9/22/15. 11 NARAL Pro-Choice America, Congressional Record on Choice, 1997-2016. 12 FY'll Continuing Resolution, H.R.l, 3/9/11. 13 /D. 14 Vitter amendment to Labor, Health Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, H.R.3043, 10/1 8/07; 

FY' II Continuing Resolution, H.R. 1, 3/9/11; Enrollment Resolution to FY' II Continuing Resolution, 

H.Con.Res.36, 4/14/11; Motion to invoke cloture on S.l881, 8/3/15; motion to invoke cloture on H.J.Res.61, 

9124/15; motion to table Murray amendment to H.R.3762, 12/31!5; Collins amendment to Restoring Americans' 

Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, H.R.3762, 12/3/15. 15 Motion to invoke cloture on the conference report for H.R.2577, 6!28116; motion to invoke cloture on the 

conference report for H.R.2577, 7114/16; motion to invoke cloture on the conference report for H.R.2577, 9/6/16. 16 Conference report of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, H.R.1757, 4/28/98; Brownback 

amendment to Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, H.R.2764, 

916!07; FY'll Continuing Resolution, H.R.I, 3/9/11. 
1191 

November 28, 2016 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Gerald A Reynolds 

1381 S. 41

h Street 

louisville, KY 40208 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I am very pleased to support the nomination of the Honorable Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the 

United States. Senator Sessions has a distinguished record of public service that demonstrates his love 

of country. his commitment to the rule of law and his dedication to equality of opportunity for all 

Americans. His forty years of dedicated service-as a military officer in the U.S. Army Reserves, U.S. 

Attorney for Alabama's Southern District, Attorney General for the State of Alabama and now a leader in 

the U.S. Senate-make him eminently qualified to be America's chief law enforcement officer. 

I came to know Senator Sessions personally when I was nominated by President Bush to be Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education in 2001. Exhibiting his characteristic 

graciousness, the Senator lent his expertise and that of his staff to assist me in preparing for my own 

ccnfirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. During 

my discussions with Senator Sessions and his staff, it was clear the senator has a strong interest in 

er.suring our nation's antidiscrimination laws are vigorously enforced. Senator Sessions is a man of great 

character and integrity with a commitment to fairness and equal justice under the law. Based on these 

qc;alities, his deep knowledge of the Department of Justice from his time with the U.S. Attorney's office 

and his decades of service on the Judiciary Committee, I have no doubt that he will be guided solely by 

fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of our great country. 

I am honored to give him my highest personal and pro:essional recommendation. 

~ Q \,\ 

G""A. 

cc: Senator 

R•~o~,:~ Jeff Sessions 
1192 

Frank Ricci 

46 Chimney Sweep Rd 

Wallingford Ct 06492 

ricci@locai82S.org 

(203) 285-4907 

Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

Senate judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Senate judiciary Committee 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

january 7, 2017 

RE: Support of Senator Jeff Sessions Nomination 

Dear Chairmen, Ranking Member and Committee Members, 

As a point of reference I was the prevailing lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme 

Court Case Ricci v. DeStefano. In that capacity I have testified before the U.S. Senate 

judiciary Committee at the conformation hearings regarding Associate Justice Sonia 

Sotomayor's nomination as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme 

Court. I am a noted author and I have lectured at the Reagan Library. I currently 

serve as a Contributing Editor for Fire Engineering Magazine and the Union 

President of New Haven Connecticut Fire Fighters. I have appeared in a PBS series 

on the U.S. Constitution and I have served as an expert witness in court cases 

concerning fire strategy and tactics, hazardous material emergencies and 

promotional practices. 

This is the third time I have provided written testimony before your Honorable 

Committee. The last time 1 testified I supported President Obama's nomination of 

United States District judge Victor A. Bolden. judge Bolden represented the City of 

New Haven in Ricci v. DeStefano. Despite being adversaries I did not draw unfair 

conclusions based off political differences and conjecture, I evaluated the totality of 

Judge Bolden's record and my personal interactions with him. Judge Bolden is 

honorable and demonstrated a fidelity to the law. He is a consummate professional 

who serves with integrity. These are the same qualities demonstrated by Senator 

Jeff Sessions. 
1193 

Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

January7,2017 

RE: Support of Senator Jeff Sessions Nomination 

Page 2 

I am confident that as Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions will serve with 

distinction and he will place the law above all else. Senator Sessions understands 

that he must uphold the law and ensure our Constitution is followed. He knows, and 

through his actions has demonstrated, that civil rights are for all Americans and that 

the cost of our democracy is vigilance. 

I am disheartened to see the baseless political attacks on Senator Sessions 

concerning civil rights. I have, and continue, to experience these kinds of attacks 

since prevailing at the United States Supreme Court. To hear individuals and 

associations claim racism and racial insensitivity in an attempt to discredit his 

distinguished record of public service is disingenuous. The mere inference, without 

hard proof, that he would deprive an individual of their rights based off race is 

reprehensible. 

When racism exists it should be rooted out, however, labeling a man because some 

disagree with his politics only serves to downplay the serious nature of that claim. 

Individuals and associations crying wolf, after relying on conjecture and feelings 

undermines our political process. President John Adams captured this sentiment 

best when he was defending British Soldiers as an attorney before the Revolution by 

stating, "Facts are stubborn things." Merit must transcend partisan race politics. 

Race politics and personal attacks only serve to distract and silence those who 

disagree with their political positions. 

I believe that Senator Jeff Session will be a credit to America. He is a principled man 

who believes in the promises contained in The Declaration of Independence and the 

sacrifice of our Civil War. He will stand for all Americans as the top law enforcement 

official for the United States of America. He comes to this position with vast 

experience and credentials. It is an honor to offer my support for his nomination to 

the position of Attorney General of the United States of America. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Ricci 
1194 

FOWLER SCHOOL OF LAW 

==::...__:_.::_:_;_-=-___:_-----'----------~--~~~~~- ~~~ ~ ~ ·~ .. ~----······ 

ONE UNIVERSil:Y Ronald D. Rotunda 

The Day & Dec Henley Chair and 

])i~l iu~uished Pn~{essor of Jurisprudence 

Email: rrotunda@)chapman.cdu 

\714) 628-2698 • Fax (714) 628¥2576 

]1llp://\\'WW I .chapman.edu/-rrotunda! 

www.ronaldrotunda.com 

0RANm·:, CALIFORNIA 92!\66 

WW\'•t.CHAn1A~.f.DU 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Chairman Charles E. Grassley 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

VIA EMAIL: 

Dear Sen. Grassley: 

Introduction. You have asked us, Ronald D. Rotunda, 1 and W. William Hodes,l for our 

expert opinion on the significance today of an ethics complaint leveled against Senator Jeff 

Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of 

Jurisprudence at Chapman University, the Dale E. Fowler School of Law: See, 

www.ronaldrotunda.org. His current resume is attached at the end of this Opinion Letter. 

W. William Hodes is Professor Emeritus of Law at Indiana University, and 

President of the William Hodes Law Firm. See www.hodeslaw.com. His current resume is attached 

at the end of this Opinion Letter. 

Professor Rotunda is a coauthor of, Legal Ethics: The Lawyer's Deskbook on 

Professional Responsibility, which the ABA co-publishes with Thomson Reuters (ABA 

Thomson-West & ABA, 14th ed. 2016), a one-volume treatise on Legal Ethics, updated annually. 

He is also a coauthor of the most widely-used course book on Legal Ethics, Problems and 

Materials on Professional Responsibility (Foundation Press, St. Paul, MN. 12th ed. 

20J4))(Unabridged Edition), and Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility 

(Foundation Press, St. Paul, MN. 12th ed. 2014)(Abridged Edition). 

Professor Hodes is the coauthor (with Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.. and Peter R. Jarvis) of The 

Law of Lawyerigg (Wolters. Kluwer. 4th ed. 1985, 2014). one of the leading treatises on legal 

ethics and related issues in the United States, which is updated twice annually. 
1195 

- 2 -

Sessions approximately a quarter-century ago. We have read the material discussed herein and 

have evaluated the charges. 

For simplicity, we present our conclusion first, and then explain in more detail how we 

reached it. 

Conclusion, Almost a quarter century ago,3 when Senator Sessions was the Attorney 

General of Alabama, lawyers for a company that had been criminally indicted sought dismissal of 

the charges in part on the grounds of prosecutorial abuse (that was not described in factual detail). 

Although the trial court adopted that allegation (verbatim) as part of its dismissal order. the 

Alabama State Ethics Commission and the Alabama State Bar each separately investigated the 

matter, and both found, unanimously,4 that there was insufficient evidence to find any ethics 

violation against General Sessions (who had already been elected to the U.S. Senate at that point). 

In addition, when related civil litigation continued in federal court between the company 

and the customer it had been accused of defrauding, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit found that because the statement of the Alabama state court judge was little more 

than a convenient adoption of a party's argument, it was "particularly unreliable and 

misleading"-so much so that admitting it into evidence in the federal district court trial was an 

abuse of the (federal) trial court's discretion that required reversal. 

In our view, the contemporaneous actions of two Alabama state agencies and the Eleventh 

Circuit demonstrate clearly that the mere nonspecific allegations of a party, uncritically adopted 

by a state court judge and rejected by the state agencies with jurisdiction over ethics complaints, 

cannot possibly have any bearing on Senator Sessions's ethical standing today. A supposed blot 

on one's record that has been so thoroughly debunked is no blot at all. 

The whistle blower alleging fraud by Tieco first raised his charges in May, 1995, 

U.S. Steel. LLC.v. Tieco,lnc.,261 F.3d 1275,1281 (llthCir .. Aug.17.2001). 

In addition to the criminal case in state court, there was extensive litigation in federal court, 

because USX and Tieco sued each other. See, e.g .. USX Corp. v. TTECO, Inc.,l89 F.R.D. 674 

(N.D. Ala., Nov. 09, 1999), affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part by U.S. Steel, LLC, 

v. Tieco, In,·., 261 F.3d 1275 ( llth Cir. Aug. 17, 2001 ), rehearing and rehearing en bane denied, 

U.S. Steel LLCv. Tieco. Inc., 277 F.3d 1381 (lith Cir. Nov. 8, 2001). Related cases include, USX 

Corp. v. TIECO, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1455 (N.D. Ala., June 21, 1996); USXCorp. v. TIECO, Inc., 

USX Corp. v. TIECO, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D. Ala., June 21, 1996); USXCorp. v. TIECO, 

Inc., 227 F.R.D. 680 (N.D. Ala., Sep. 01, 2004), affirmed by, USX Corp. v. Tieco, Inc., 132 Fed. 

Appx. 23 7 (lith Cir. May 16, 2005). 

The Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, ASB No. 98-116(A), 

dismissed the ethics charges on Feb. 16, 2000. Those charges were brought on April 16, 1998. 

The Alabama Ethics Commission dismissed the ethics charges on July I 0, 1996. 
1196 

• 3 • 

Factual background. 

In 1995, a whistleblower from a company called Tieco, Inc. informed United States Steel. 

LLC (USX) that Tieco was receiving payment for goods not delivered. USX took the information 

to the Office of the Attorney General of Alabama, which sought and obtained a search warrant and 

eventually a criminal indictment against Tieco after demonstrating probable cause. 

The Attorney General's Office voluntarily dismisse<;l some counts in the indictment, and 

Tieco then moved to dismiss the remaining counts, alleging prosecutoriat misconduct, among other 

things. The state trial judge granted the motion, copying verbatim key passages from court papers 

that Tieco's lawyers had drafted. There was no appeal from the dismissal order, but the issue of 

prosecutorial abuse was thoroughly litigated in related civil litigation in federal court and in two 

state disciplinary proceedings. As described below, the Eleventh Circuit found the allegations to 

be "particularly unreliable and misleading," while the state agencies both unanimously found 

insufficient merit in the allegations and dismissed the ethics complaints. 

The Alabama criminal case aside, USX sued Tieco civilly in federal court, under the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Tieco counterclaimed, asserting 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of its due process rights, and under state law for 

malicious prosecution. The federal trial court permitted Tieco to introduce the earlier Alabama 

state court order (that included language taken verbatim from Tieco's own filings), and the jury 

awarded Tieco $7.2 million on its counterclaims. 

The Eleventh Circuit unanimous reversed the jury verdict in Tieco's favor. Even looking 

at the record in the light most favorable to Tieco, there could be no § 1983 claim, the Court said, 

because the criminal prosecution, although eventually dismissed, was supported by probable 

cause.5 

The Court then turned to the Alabama trial judge's order that dismissed the criminal case, 

which Tieco had introduced in its civil case in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit said that the 

criminal trial judge had simply adopted "a statement of facts prepared by TIECO in coMection 

with its motion to dismiss the indictment. Not surprisingly, the statement of facts is quite favorable 

to Appellees(Tieco] and relied upon heavily by Appellees in their brief to this Court."6 Again, 

Sec 261 F.3d 1275, 1289-90. USX cooperated with the criminal investigation by 

the state attorney general's office into the actions of equipment vendor Tieco. That resulted in 

criminal charges being brought, but that did not violate Tieco's due process rights, and thus could 

not support a § 1983 claim against the steel company because the vendor had no substantive due 

process right to be free from a criminal prosecution (even though ultimately successful) that was 

supported by probable cause. "Thus, no violation ofprocedura1 .due process could have occurred." 

261 F.3d 1290 (footnote omitted). 

261 FJd 1275, 1286. 
1197 

. 4. 

according to the Eleventh Circuit, the trial judge merely repeated Tieco 's memorandum "in toto,"' 

-a memorandum "that neatly confonned to Appellees' allegations ... .''8 The trial judge had said 

(quoting the lawyers representing Tieco), "[T)he misconduct of the [AG] in this case far surpasses 

in both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously 

presented to or witnessed by this Court. "9 

That was a damning statement, to be sure, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found 

that it was "particularly unreliable and misleadingc" Moreover, introducing it in the federal trial 

required the Circuit Court to reverse. The Alabama trial court's statement, said the Eleventh 

Circuit, 

"was particularly unreliable and misleading. Although the statement of facts was 

presented to the jury as Judge Garrell's finding. it l!'as prepared entirely by 

Appellee • counsel. In effect, the admission of the statement of facts pennitted 

counsel to testify on his client's behalf, without being cross-examined. Further, the 

statement of facts was intended to exculpate TIECO, and thus, it was self-serving 

and unreliable . ... unfairly prejudicial and misleading."10 

Introducing this "particularly unreliable and misleading" statement of the Alabama trial 

judge was serious error. "The district court abused its discretion in admitted Judge Garrett's 

opinion. " 11 

In addition to its involvement in the civil litigation in federal court, in May 1996 Tieco 

filed an ethics complaint against then Attorney General Jeff Session, while he was running his first 

Senate campaign. The Alabama State Ethics Commission investigated the Tieco charges, which 

were buuressed by the trial judge having copied them in his opinion. The Commission held a 

hearing, heard witnesses, and heard argument. But, as later related by the Eleventh Circuit, "On 

July l 0, 1996, the Commission concluded there were insufficient facts to find the AG had violated 

261 F.Jd 1275, 1286 (emphasis in original). The judge's opinion "adopted in toto 

a memorandum of facts prepared by TIECO in connection with its motion to dismiss the 

i.ndictment." 

261 F.3d 1275. 1286. 

261 F.3d 1275, 1286. 

10 261 F.3d 1275, 1287 (emphasis added), citing United Swtes v. Reme, 738 F.2d 

1156, 1168-69 (lith Cir.l984). 

II 261 F.3d 1275, 1288 (emphasis added). 
1198 

- 5 -

Alabama ethics laws."12 Indeed, the Alabama State Ethics Commission found unanimously (5 to 

0) that then Attorney General Sessions had not violated Alabama ethics laws. 

Tieco's counsel also filed a complaint against Attorney General Sessions with the Alabama 

State Bar. Once again, Tieco relied on the state court order, which Tieco had largely drafted and 

the state judge had copied, in haec verba. The State Bar dismissed that complaint as well. 

Ultimately, the historical record shows only that Tieco and its lawyers filed one charge 

after another, attacking the office of the Attorney General of Alabama, various lawyers connected 

with it, and also then General Sessions. But the historical record also shows that the charges 

remained unsubstantiated, and ultimately went nowhere. 

Some media sources have suggested that these charges were well founded, or that Senator 

Sessions failed to disclose them to your Committee. As to the latter, we have been informed that 

disclosure was made in materials that the Committee has not yet released, but have no independent 

knowledge on that score. As to the former, it is our experience that it is much easier to file charges 

than to make them stick. It is not uncommon, unfortunately, for disgruntled opposing parties or 

clients to file ethics complaints that do not hold up under scrutiny. 

Whether Tieco's long-ago allegations were made in good faith, or made in bad faith as a 

tactical ploy, is of no moment today. What is significant is that the charges were looked at and 

rejected decades ago by the courts and state agencies. Your Committee should have no concern, 

in our opinion, about any ethical violations said to have arisen out of the Tieco matter. 

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

11 261 F.3d 1275, 1284. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald D. Rotunda 

rrotunda@chapman.edu 

~~ W. William Hodes, Esq. 

wwhlillhodeslaw.com 
1199 

Stephen A. Saltzburg 

Attorney at Law 

2000 H Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20052 

Tel: (202) 994-7089 

Fax: (202) 994-7143 

Email: ssaltz@law.gwu.edu 

January 7, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearings on Attorney General Sessions 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

The undersigned have spent considerable effort over many years in 

analyzing issues ofprosecutorial power, discretion, and alleged misconduct. One 

issue that has come to our attention relates to the scathing July 16, 1997 judicial 

opinion regarding conduct of the Alabama Attorney General's office in State v. Tieco, 

et. a/. Senator Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General nominee, was the Attorney 

General whose office's conduct was the subject of the Court's opinion. The Alabama 

Circuit Court, ruling on a motion to dismiss charges by defendants in 10 related 

cases, granted the motion and in the first paragraph of its opinion wrote: 

The Defendants have presented extensive evidence of serious and wholesale 

prosecutorial misconduct by the Office of the Attorney General, its attorneys, 

investigators and agents, throughout the initiation, investigation and 

prosecution of this case. The Attorney General has failed to rebut this 

evidence, other than through argument, which was at times misleading, or 

made in the hope or expectations that they were true and accurate and it was 

later determined that they were neither, the Attorney General has failed to 

present a case in its defense. The Court finds that even having been given 

every benefit of any doubt, the misconduct of the Attorney General in this case 
1200 

far surpasses in both extensiveness and measure the totality of any 

prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed by this 

Court. (Opinion at 1-2, emphasis added). 

Your Committee can easily review the instances of misconduct cited by the 

Court, so that there is no need for us to review their specifics in this letter. But, the 

potential importance ofthe Circuit Court decision even 20 years later is that 

Attorney General Sessions' office brought more than two hundred charges against 

Tieco, Inc. and certain individuals, and as a result of voluntary dismissals of five 

cases and the Circuit Court's decision to dismiss all ten indictments pending before 

it meant that not a single charge remained for trial against any defendant.' We are 

unaware of any other case in which so vast an array of wrongdoing was alleged, and 

every single charge was dismissed. Senator Sessions is now nominated to head the 

largest prosecutor's office in the United States, and we believe it is important for the 

Senate to assure itself that the Department of justice will operate at the highest level 

of integrity and investigate and deal appropriately with any misconduct by federal 

prosecutors. 

Even a well run prosecutor's office can discover that some overly aggressive 

lawyers have engaged in misconduct, and that does not mean that an Attorney 

General or District Attorney has done anything wrong. But, if misconduct is 

continuing and flagrant, there is reason to question the leadership of an office. 

The number of instances of misconduct cited by the Circuit Court and their 

seriousness justifies in our view a careful examination of then-Attorney General 

Sessions' role in the initiation, investigation and prosecution ofthe Tieco case. 

Senator Sessions should have a full opportunity to respond to the Circuit Court's 

opinion and to offer explanations for the actions of the Alabama Attorney General's 

office, especially since he had been elected to the Senate prior to the issuance of the 

Circuit Court's opinion and was not in a position to decide whether to seek 

reconsideration of the decision or to appeal it. 

' We recognize that the Circuit adopted the findings suggested by defense counsel, after 

carefully reviewing them and finding that they were supported by the evidence, and that 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a related civil case, United 

States Steel, LLC v. Tie co, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001), criticized such wholesale 

reliance and suggested that the Circuit Court's adoption of the findings resulted in 

statements in the Circuit Court opinion that were "particularly unreliable and 

misleading." !d. at 1287. But, the Eleventh Circuit failed to identify any specific 

statement in the Circuit Court opinion that was either unreliable or misleading. The 

Senate has the opportunity to make its own decision on the accuracy and reliability of the 

Circuit Court's opinion and on its importance to Senator Sessions' candidacy as Attorney 

General of the United States. 

2 
1201 

We respectfully suggest that the Senate is well justified in asking Attorney 

General nominee Sessions questions relating to the Tieco case and that any nominee 

for Attorney General of the United States should welcome an opportunity to answer 

them in order to demonstrate that the Department of Justice would be in the hands 

of a responsible steward should the nominee be confirmed. The specific questions 

that we suggest are these: 

(1) How closely did then Alabama Attorney General Sessions pay attention to 

the investigation, charging and prosecution of the Tieco case, given the 

number of charges brought by his office against both the company and 

individuals and the importance of the case as announced in press releases 

by the Office? 

(2) Was then Alabama Attorney General Sessions aware that the Tieco case 

was initiated by a competitor of Tieco that might have sought a 

competitive advantage by having the Attorney General's office investigate 

Tieco, and if so, what precautions were taken to assure that the Attorney 

General's office would make an independent determination as to the 

validity and appropriateness of any charges it considered bringing? Can 

the nominee cite any other case in which there was such cooperation 

between the Attorney General's office and a private party and in which 

the Attorney General (a) personally approved the payment of expenses 

for an analysis of a target's records and (b) agreed with the private 

company that it would reimburse the Attorney General's office for the 

costs of the analysis? Was this an attempt to make it appear in the 

criminal cases that the Attorney General's office actually was paying for 

the analysis and to conceal who actually was responsible for paying? 

(3) Was the timing of the indictments against the Tieco defendants affected 

by the fact that there was an ethics complaint made against the Attorney 

General's office? 

( 4) Did then-Attorney General Sessions receive during the time frame of the 

Tieco investigation a $5,000 campaign contribution from the law firm 

representing the competitor company that had brought the complaint 

against Tieco to the Attorney General's office, and if so, was it appropriate 

for General Sessions to accept the contribution while his office was 

closely cooperating with the private company? 

(5) During the Tieco time frame did Attorney General Sessions name as a 

Special Assistant Attorney General the lawyer representing the private 

company that brought the Tie co complaint to the Attorney General's 

office, and if so, was it appropriate to do so even if the Special Assistant 

was not assigned to the Tieco matter? 

Our experience is that when a court sanctions a prosecutor or prosecutor's 

office and those sanctioned believe the court erred in doing so, the sanctioned party 

typically seeks judicial relief in the form of a motion to reconsider or an appeal. One 

of the most remarkable facts with respect to Tieco is that despite the dismissal of all 

ten indictments, the Alabama Attorney General's office did not appeal. Presumably 

3 
1202 

the decision whether or not to appeal would have been made by the successor 

Attorney General, William Pryor, now Judge Pryor. The Senate might find it useful 

to seek to determine why no appeal was taken. Did this mean that then-Attorney 

General Pryor agreed with the findings of the Circuit Court? 

We trust that the Senate shares our belief that the Department ofjustice 

should be led by men and women of unquestioned integrity who will insist that 

everyone in the Department uphold the highest standards of professional conduct. 

The Tieco case raises a concern about whether then-Attorney General Sessions 

established the highest standards of integrity and professional responsibility and 

held his lawyers to account for them. 

None of us has any personal knowledge ofthe facts surrounding the Tieco 

matter. We hope the Senate will want our suggested questions answered in order to 

meet its own high standards with respect to the confirmation process. We 

appreciate the opportunity to communicate with the Committee. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/Stephen A. Saltzburg 

Irvin B. Nathan 

Former D. C. Attorney General 

Former Dep. Assistant AG 

Criminal Division, U.S. DOJ 

Barry Coburn 

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney D.D.C. 

David M. Louie 

Attorney General, State of Hawaii 2011-

2014 

Sandy Weinberg 

Partner Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 

Chair-Elect ABA Criminal justice Section 

Neal R. Sonnett 

Former Assistant United States Attorney 

Chief of Criminal Division S.D. Fla. 

4 
1203 

Lawrence Robbins, 

Former Assistant United States Attorney 

E.D.N.Y. 

janet I. Levine 

Los Angeles, CA 

Cynthia Orr 

Past President NACDL 

5 
1204 

HANK SANDERS Sf ATE SENATOR 23RD DISI"RRCT 

P.O. BOX 1290 

SEUIA, ALABAJU.. 36702 

SELMA (334) 875--9264 

MONTGOMERY (334) 242~78&0 

ALABAMA STATE SENATE 

ALABAMA STATE HOUSE 

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 361311-4600 

January 6, 2017 

United States Senate Judiciary Committee 

Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member 

224 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D. C. 20510-6050 

COMMI1TEE& 

BAlOaNG .t. INSIJRANCE P'IJIIA.NCE o1. TAX.\DOI'i' DMICA.TION 

EDUCATION A VOUTII AI'FAIRS 

l:l'fERGY A TRANSPORT A TON 

IIJDlCUllY 

RE: Confirmation Hearing for U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General 

Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein: 

I wish to submit my testimony in opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions 

for Attorney General of the United States of America. 

As an attorney, Alabama state senator, and community leader, I have had firsthand experience 

with Senator Jeff Sessions as a U.S. Attorney, as an Alabama Attorney General, and as a U.S. Senator. 

My experiences convince me that Senator Sessions cannot do justice as U.S. Attorney General, the top 

person over the entire United States Department of Justice. 

In the late seventies and early 1980s, Perry County, Alabama was a majority Black county. 

However, White candidates were winning elections by voting absentee ballots for dead and other 

ineligible persons. Black leaders strongly complained to law enforcement about these violations. 

Albert Turner and others traveled to Washington, D.C. to complain directly to U.S. Attorney General 

Edwin Meese and other high-ranking Justice Department officials. They were informed that nothing 

could be done and that Blacks would have to learn to use the absentee voting process. I was directly 

involved in these efforts, as an attorney and as a community leader. 

When African Americans began to win elections through effective and legal use absentee 

voting, White leaders began to complain about the Blacks' use of absentee ballots. Jeff Sessions, as 

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, immediately responded to the complaints of 

Whites with a full-blown investigation. I was the initial and coordinating attorney in these matters 

relating to the investigation. 

-more-
1205 

Letter in opposition to Jeff Sessions tonftnnation- page 2 of3 

In 1985, numerous Black voters were placed on a bus parked at the spot where the shooting of 

Jimmie Lee Jackson occurred in Febi'WII)' 1965. This shooting and subsequent death had triggered the 

momentous Bloody Sunday March and the historic Selma-to-Montgomery March, events that led to 

the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act As the bus was being loaded to go to Mobile to for its 

occupants of Black voters to testify before a grand jury, numerous law enforcement officers were 

present and openly armed with all kinds of visible weapons. 

Despite the fact there was a federal courthouse 30 miles away in Selma, the U.S. Attorney's 

Office required these potential witnesses to travell68 miles to Mobile and stay overnight. The 

massive armed law enforcement contingent that had been present in Perry County escorted the bus to 

Mobile. This was maximum intimidation directed by U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions. Any person who 

misuses law enforcement through these kinds of tactics should not be a U.S. Attorney, much less the 

Attorney General of the United States of America. 

Three Perry County citizens- Albert Tuner, Evelyn Turner, and Spencer Hogue -were 

indicted. After they were released on bond, U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions moved to revoke Albert 

Turner's bail. During the bail revocation hearing for Albert Turner, massive armed law enforcement 

was again present. This extended, massive intimidation was designed to frighten Black voters. If U.S. 

Attorney Sessions abused his power to quash voting and civil rights in his furmer position, which he 

did, he certainly cannot be entmsted with the highest law enforcement position in the nation. 

A massive number of charges were lodged against these three Perry County citizens. As l 

recall, there were more than 70 counts. At trial, the witnesses, who had been so thoroughly intimidated 

by the 168-mile trip, overnight stay in Mobile, and the presence of massive openly armed law 

enforcement, simply told the troth. A jury of Alabama citizens unanimously exonerated Albert Turner, 

Evelyn Turner, and Spencer Hogue. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing before which I testified in 1986 brought out numerous 

racial incidents directly involving Jeff Sessions including his saying that the NAACP and other 

associations were "un-American organizations." He called a Black lawyer in his office "boy" and said 

that he should "be careful how he talked to White people." He also said a White lawyer who worked 

with African Americans on civil rights issues "may be at traitor to his race." 

Thomas Figures, who worked U.S. Attorney's office under Jeff Sessions and who testified 

against Jeff Sessions at the federal confirmation hearing in 1986, was subsequently indicted by Jeff 

Sessions in early 1990s. Figures personally told me and others that the indictment was solely in 

retaliation for his testifying against Sessions at the 1986 hearing. Figures was fully exonerated by a 

jury of his peers. The misuse of the power of the federal government as U.S. Attorney demonstrates 

that U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions cannot do justice as Attorney General of the United States of America. 

As an Alabama state senator, I also have experience with Jeff Sessions when he served as 

Attorney General for the State of Alabama On various occasions as Alabama Attorney General, 

Sessions used his position to prevent African Americans from achieving justice. This includes his 

actions to kill an effort to secure districts for the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Civil Appeals, 

and Court of Criminal Appeals instead of the partisan statewide election system Alabama still utilizes. 

Sessions also used his position to strongly oppose efforts to secure fair and equitable funding for public 

education in Alabama. At every tum, Sessions has strongly opposed equal rights. 

-more .. 
1206 

Letter in opposition to Jeff Sessions confirmation - page 3 of 3 

More recently, I have interacted with Sessions in his role as United States Senator. Last year, I 

and others flew to Washington, D.C. to ask Senator Sessions to remove his opposition to the proposed 

nominations of several African American attorneys to the federal bench. Sessions did not budge. In 

the 20 years that Jeff Sessions has served in the United States Senate, only one African American 

attorney has been confirmed to the federal bench in Alabama and he replaced retiring African 

American Federal District Judge U. W. Clem on. Moreover, as a member of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, Jeff Sessions opposed confirmation of any judicial candidate who had any history 

whatsoever of working for civil rights. 

There is nothing in U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions record to show that he has changed for the better. 

In fact, his continuing actions reinforce his long-standing opposition to justice for African Americans 

and other minorities. I pray that this Committee will consider this and other testimony about Jeff 

Sessions positions and actions throughout his career, which are contrary to justice, and decline to 

confirm Jeff Sessions as Attorney GeneraJ for the United States of America. 

HS/gjp 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Han L Sa tzden;; 

Hank Sanders 

Alabama State Senator 

cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

S230 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: The Honorable Charles Schumer, Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

S221 US Capitol 

Washington, DC 20510 
1207 

JOHN D. SAXON 

DONNAS. CUDP' 

SANDRA KOSLTN REMTNGTON+ 

Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

LAW OFFICES 

JOHN D. SAXON, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

2119 3RD AVENUE NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM. AL 35203 

January 9, 2017 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

Re: Sessions Nomination for Attorney General 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member: 

TELEPHONE (2.o5) 324-0223 

FACSfM!LE (205) J2J-158J 

FIRM ADMTNlSTRATOR 

MICHELLE PEOPLES 

"'ALSO ADMITIEO It-< 

TEXAS 

+ALSO ADMITIED IN 

RORIDA 

I am writing because I have inform arion of which I have personal knowledge which I feel 

compelled to share with the Committee as it considers the important task of confirming Senator Jeff 

Sessions to the position of Attorney General of the United States. The Department of Justice is one 

of our most important federal agencies, not only in the process of keeping our streets safe but also in 

safeguarding and nurturing our voting rights, civil rights, civil liberties, equal opportunity and the 

cause of justice in America. 

Let me start by informing you of who I am and what my background is before I presume to 

tell this Committee anything. I am a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama. I received my undergraduate 

degree from The University of Alabama, and, like Jeff Sessions, received my law degree from The 

University of Alabama School of Law. In between, I received a masters degree in speech 

communication from The University ofNorth Carolina. Immediately after law school, I was in private 

practice in Birmingham with a large, full service firm, doingcivillirigation. In 1978, I became a White 

House Fellow and spent a year as a Special Assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale in the Carter 

Administration. After that, I went to the Hill, where I served as Counsel to Senator Howell Heflin's 

Sub-committee on Jurisprudence and Governmental Relations of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Shortly thereafter, Senator Heflin became Chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, the first 

freshman in seventy-six years to chair a Senate committee, and he moved me over to that Committee 

to be counsel, shortly after which we began the ABSCAM investigation into Senator Harrison 

Williams of New Jersey. 
1208 

Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page Two 

After three ye.rs with the Ethics Committee, I worked in the Washington office of RCA as 

Director of Corporate Issues. RCA groomed me to be its Washington Vice~President, and sent me 

to the Stanford Graduate School ofBusiness where I graduated from the Stanford Executive Program. 

I returned to Washington, bur before I could assume the job of Vice-President of RCA, General 

Electric acquired RCA. After a brief stint in the GE Washington office, Senator Heflin was named 

as one of eleven senators on the Iran-Contra Committee. Each of the eleven Senators got to name one 

lawyer to serve as Associate Counsel to the Committee, which I did. During the !ran-Contra 

investigation, I was responsible on the Senate Committee for the Pentagon, which involved both the 

sale of arms to Iran and Contra~support activities in Central America. After our hearings were 

completed and our report issued, our Staff Director returned to her prior job. Senator Daniellnouye, 

Chairman, asked me to stay on and become Staff Director, which I did for eight months. My charge 

from Senator Inouye was three-fold: one, to place all of the staffers who were not able to return to their 

prior jobs; two, to deal with the Independent Counsel, Judge Walsh, by transmitting to his office 

deposition transcripts and documents for the criminal investigation; and three, to index, archive and 

transmit to the National Archives more than 300,000 documents, most of which were classified and 

some of which were highly classified. 

When I worked on the Iran-Contra Committee regarding the Pentagon's involvement, I 

worked closely with Senator Sam Nunn, a member of the committee. At the time, Senator Nunn 

chaired the Armed Services Committee. After our work with Iran-Contra was completed, he asked 

me to become Special Counsel to the Senate Armed Services Committee, during which time I 

conducted a classified study into how the Pentagon oversees its involvement in Special Access 

Programs and manages covert military operations. I submitted that study to Senator Nunn and 

Ranking Member John Warner, then I returned home to Alabama. I was honored while on the Hill 

to have worked under Howell Heflin, Daniel Inouye, and Sam Nunn, and to have worked with the 

Vice Chairs or Ranking Members, Malcom Wallop, Ted Stevens, and Warren Rudman. 

When I returned to Birmingham, I engaged in the private practice of law, which I have done 

continuously since 1988. I have had my own law firm since April of 1995. In my practice, 1 specialize 

in plaintiffs employment law. I represent people mistreated in the work place: women who have been 

grabbed and groped, employees called the "N" word, denied promotion because of their age, made fun 

of because of their disability, or retaliated against because they took Family and Medical Leave. 1 

practice primarily in Federal District Court, where I have tried dozens of jury trials in all three of 

Alabama's federal districts, and have argued before the 11 '" Circuit more than half a dozen times. 

I am listed in Best Lawyers in America, and Alabama Super Lawyers, which for the last seven 

years has included me as one of the Top Fifty lawyers in the state. I am honored to be a Fellow of the 

American College ofT rial L1wyers. 1 include mention of these things not to impress anyone but to 
1209 

Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page Three 

establish some credibiliry for what! am about to address. I love the instirution of the Senate. !tis the 

world's most deliberative body. I am also passionate about the cause of justice, for which reason I offer 

the following information of which I have personal knowledge. 

Judge Alex Howard, of Alabama's Southern District, was ready to slow down. A Reagan 

appointee to the Federal bet1ch, he didn't want a Democratic President to appoint his replacement. 

He waited to see whether Senator Bob Dole would defeat President Clinton in the 1996 election. 

When Dole lost, Howard decided he didn't want to wait four more years. In December of 1996, he 

took senior status, thereby creating a vacancy. 

The 1996 election determined more than that Judge Howard would take senior starus; it also 

determined how his predecessor would be selected. 

In 1996, U.S. Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, a Democrat, retired. Former Alabama 

Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Jeff Sessions, won the 

Republican nomination to replace Heflin, and defeated the Democratic nominee. In]anuaryof1997, 

Sessions was sworn in. Alabama's other Senator, Richard Shelby, had already switched parties (having 

been elected as a Democrat in 1986), giving Alabama two Republican Senators. In a state in which 

there was no Democratic Senator to vet nominees and forward names to the \X!hite House, the 

Clinton White House requested that the political establishment in each such state create a patronage 

committee m deal with federal appointments. 

That was done in Alabama. As Chair of President Clinton'sAiabama Campaign, both in 1992 

and 1996, I was a member, as was Joe Turnham, our State Party Chairman; Birmingham Mayor 

Richard Arrington; Millport Mayor Barbara Bobo; Congressman Earl Hilliard; prominent trial lawyer 

Larry Morris; Dr.] oe Reed, Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, Alabama's oldest black 

political group; and Dr. Yvonne Kennedy, a state legislator and President of Bishop State Community 

College. We convened in early 1997 to consider a replacement for judge Howard. Consensus quickly 

emerged that it was time to desegregate the Southern District. The Southern District, headquartered 

in Mobile, where Sessions had been U.S. Attorney, had never had an African-American U.S. District 

Judge, Federal Magistrate Judge, U.S. Attorney, or U.S. Marshall. 

The Northern District, headquartered in Birmingham, had an African-American District 

Judge, U.W. Clemon, and U.S. Marshall, Bill Edwards. TheM iddle District had an African-American 

District judge, Myron Thompson, and two female African-American Magistrate judges, Vanzetta Penn 

McPherson and Delores Boyd. Clemon and Thompson were Carter appointees to the bench. 
1210 

Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page Four 

We vetted and sent to the 'V;fhite House not one name, but five: all African-America11lawyers 

or sitting state court judges. We would let the President choose which name to send to the Senate. 

Bur nothing happened. Senator Sessions, who had wrangled an assignment to the judiciary 

Committee, let the 'V;!hite House know of his opposition to all five candidates. Back stage 

maneuvering took place, and lobbyi11g, all to no avail. Sessions refused to signal approval for any 

cnndidate. 

After a long and frustrating period, I was with Senator Sessions in the President's Box in 

Tuscaloosa at a University of Alabama football game. Our private conversation had as its sole topic 

the filling of the Southern District vacancy. I argued, politely and respectfully, until I was blue in the 

face. Sessions would not relent. Finally, out of frustration, I said calmly but firmly, "Jeff, it doesn't 

work this way. Our guy won the election. We get to name the federal judge." He replied, 'Tm sorry, 

but I can't live with any of those people whose names ya'll sent up." So I said, "Fine. Give us another 

name. Name an African-American lawyer or state court judge anywhere in the state you would find 

acceptable." He refused. 

The reader mighr say, "Yes, but he wanted qualified nominees, and there were none. 

Assuming, without accepting, that there were: no qualified African~AmeriGm candidates in the 

Southern District, one need only look to the Northern or Middle Districts to find a bevy of able 

lawyers <lnd judges. 

In Tuscaloosa, there was john England, a State Circuit judge, and Bryan Fair, a constitutional 

law professor at The University of Alabama. In Birmingham, there was Ken Simon, who had practiced 

with an insurance defense firm in Mobile, then was a "\{/hite House Fellow in Washington where, in 

the Reagan Administration, he worked as a Special Assistant to Attorney General William French 

Smith. Upon returning to Alabama, Simon was a Circuit Judge in Birmingham before becoming a 

partner at Bradley Arant, the largest law finn in the state. There was also Ralph Cook, a former 

Circuit judge in Bessemer, former Dean of the Miles College School of Law, and a Justice on the 

Alabama Supreme Court. Or Frank james, a former law professor at The University of Alabama, who 

was a partner at Baker Donelson, a full-service establishment firm, or LaVeeda Battle, a Howard Law 

gn1duate who at the time served on the National Board of the Legal Services Corporation. 

One could have looked to the Middle District where two very qualified Magistrate judges sat, 

Vanzetta Penn McPherson and Delores Boyd, either of whom would have served with distinction [n 

the Southern District. 
1211 

Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page Five 

Could this be done? There was ample precedent. At the very time we were seeking to replace 

Judge Howard in the Southern District, a senior judge on that bench was the Honorable Virgil 

Pittman, a Lyndon Johnson appointee, who had been on the Etowah Counry Circuit Court bench in 

Gadsden, Alabama, in the Northern District, at the time of his appointment. In the Middle District, 

the Honorable Frank M. johnson sat with distinction for many years, having been U.S. Attorney in 

the Northern District at the time of his appointment by President Eisenhower. 

This list is by no means exhaustive. Suffice it to say there were competent and credentialed 

African-American candidates whose judicial temperament qualified them for the Federal bench. 

Precedent existed to move a lawyer or state court judge from another district. Sessions would have 

none of it, 

The sad story, the most frustrating thing I have ever been involved with professionally, is that 

for the entire four years of Bill Clinton's second term as President, that federal judicial seat sat em pry. 

Our committee finally softened on the noble notion of desegregating the Southern District. 

We wanted a Democratic judge appointed. We flew to Washington and met with Clinton's Chief of 

Staff, John Podesta. \X!hile we were still desirous of having an African-American confirmed, we floated 

another name, Donald Briskman. A respected Mobile lawyer who practiced regularly in Federal 

Court, handling both civil and criminal matters, Briskman had chaired the Clinton reelection 

campaign in 1996 for Alabama's 2"' Congressional District. Sessions opposed Briskman. Whether 

it had anything to do with the fact that Donald Briskman was jewish, I'll never know. 

Was Sessions' resistance to an Nrican-American on the Federal bench in Alabama twenty years 

ago an isolated matter? The evidence suggests otherwise. 

On October 26, 2013, judge Joel Dubina, the Chief Judge of the 11 <h Circuit, took senior 

status, creating a vacancy on the 11'h Circuit. Because Dubina was from Alabama, this vacancy was 

an Alabama slot. 

As in 1996, there was no Alabama Democratic Senator. With the blessing of Congresswoman 

Terri Sewell, the only Democrat in the Congressional delegation, last February, Obama sent the name 

of U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon to the Senate. Kallon was an Obama appointee to the Northern 

District bench. Nothing happened. A year has gone hy. Still nothing happened. Sessions made it 

known that he wanted either of two other Federal District judges, both white, and would not support 

Kallon. Was Kallon qualified? His undergraduate degree was from Dartmouth, he graduated from 

the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and had clerked for Federal District Judge U.W. Clem on. 

After his clerkship, his private practice experience consisted of sixteen years as a lawyer at Bradley 
1212 

Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page Six 

Arant, the premier establishment law firm in Alabama (and also the largest). TI1at seat sits vacant 

today, more than three years later. 

Myron Thompson, the first African-American Judge in the Middle District since 

reconstruction, took senior starus on August 22, 2013. Congresswoman Sewell wanted Thompson 

replaced by an African-American, and sent to the 'White House the name of HermanN. "Rusry" 

Johnson, a Cumberland School of Law professor since 2010 who had been in private practice for eight 

years. johnson's credentials were impeccable: B. A. in economics from Duke, masters in international 

affairs from Columbia, and a law degree from Columbia University School of Law. He had clerked 

for Judge Thompson, the judge he sought to replace, then clerked for Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey 

on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He had also been a Peace Corps Volunteer in Mali. 

Sessions would have none of it. That seat also sits vacant, three and a half years later. 

Jeff Sessions has a problem in elevating African-Americans to the Federal bench. The 1996 

Southern District experience is no aberration. Sessions' reluctance to elevate competent African~ 

American lawyers, judges or professors to the Federal bench in Alabama continues to this day. 

The Senate should carefully examine whether someone with Sessions' questionable record on 

race should be this nation's chief law enforcement officer. 

l view the position of Attorney General as one of the three most important in any President's 

cabinet. Secretaries of State and Defense help keep us safe and on decent relations with the 

community of nations. The Attorney General helps protect and preserve our rights and liberties as 

American citizens. He or she ensures justice, seeks to enforce the taws for all Americans, to insure and 

protect equal opportunity and fundamental fairness for all Americans, to protect their sacred right to 

vote, and to help elevate to our federal courts men and women who are competent people of integrity, 

fairminded and with proper judicial temperament. I seriously question whether Senator Sessions 

should be confirmed to such a position. 

I stand ready to provide such additional information as the Committee may desire, or to 

answer your questions. Respectfully submitted. 

JDS/erl 

//

Very truly you. rs, 

!110 •• 11~(\ 

V

'ti-'INVV 

John D. Saxon 

~ 
1213 
1214 

SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF NFW YORK 

35 WORTIJ STREH, NEW YORK. NY 10013 

212.226.2180 FAX 212.4JL42RO 

•vww.sbanyc.org 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDE:'\T Ev¥.~\RD 0. MVLLI'-.S 

January 5. 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassle; 

Chairman. 

Committee on the Judiciary 

\Jnited States Senate 

Washington. DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein: 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member. 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington. DC 20510 

lam writing on behalf of the more than 13~000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of 

the New York City Police Department to advise you of our strong support lOr the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States. We thank you tl.1r promptly 

scheduling Senator Sessions· confirmation heating, arrd hope that he v-.ili be approved by the 

Committee and the full Senate as expeditiously as possible. 

Senator Sessions is perhaps one of the most highly qualitied individuals ever selected to sen'e as U.S. 

Attomey General. He will brirrg to the office a unique perspective on the U.S. Department of Justice 

shaped by his years of service as both a federal arrd state prosecutor and by the key role he has played 

in providing oversight of the Department as a Member of the Judiciary Committee. Just as important, 

Senator Sessions has demonstrated a commitment to equal justice under the law and the proper 

functioning of the crin1inal justic~ system. As a union representing law enfOrcement officers~ over the 

years the SBA has worked as both an ally and a respectful opponent of Senator Sessions. This 

experience has shovvn us that Senator Sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity devoted to the rule 

oflo.w and the best interests of our nation. It is for rhese reasons and many others that we believe 

Senator Ses!'-ions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chiefla\v enforcem~nt officer. 

On behalf oft he membership of the Sergeants 13cneYolent Association, thank you in advance lor your 

consideration of our views in this matter. We hope that you v-.111 support the confirmation of this 

eminently qualified public servant. and swiftly move his nomination through the Committee. Please 

do not hesitate to contact me. (lr our Washington Representatives Andrew Siffand Chris Granberg at 

(202) -'\57 7756. if we can be of any further assistance. 

Sincerely. 

Ed Mullins 

President 

CC: Members, Committee on the Judiciary. Cnited States Senate 
1215 

' 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chainnan 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Rc: Attorney General Nomination 

~~THE 

(r,~;i ~ ~"' SIKHCOAliTION the voice of a people 

January 9. 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Chaim1an Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

As the largest Sikh American civil rights organization in the United States, the Sikh Coalition 

respectfully requests that the Senate Judiciary Committee make the following inquiries of 

Senator Jeff Sessions while reviewing his nomination to serve as Attorney General: 

1. Hate Crimes- In a Trump Administration, will the U.S. Department of Justice continue to 

vigorously prosecute hate crimes, including anti-Sikh hate crimes, under the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd, Jr, Hate Crimes Prevention Act of2009 (the "Matthew Shepard 

Act'fl 

2. School Bullying- In a Trump Administration. win the US. Department of Justice continue 

to hold school districts accountable tmdcr the Civil Righ1s Act of 1964 for failing to protect 

students, including Sikh American students, against hu!lying, harassment, and physical 

violence? 

Sikh Americans, especially thost! who wear turbans and maintain uncut hair in accordance with 

their faith, have experi~nccd an avalanche of hate crimes in the post-9/11 environment. For 

example, on August 5, 2012, a nco-Nazi gunman massacred six worshippers and pennanently 

il~jured several others, including a law enforcement officer, at a gurdwara (Sikh house of 

worship) in Oak Creek, \Visconsin. 

In cases where state ;md local onicials lack the capacity or expertise to investigate and prosecute 

1hese attacks as hate crimes, th~ U.S. Depm1:ment of Justice serves as a critical backstop to 

ensure that victims receive the fullest measure ofjllstice. 1 

1 See, e.g.. Press Release. U.S. Department of Justice, "Washington State Man Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime 

in Attack on Sikh Man," (Jun. 27, 2013), available at https:!/www.justice.gov/opa!orfwashinaton-state~man-pleads-

,lt fid lht , ttak 'kh 

National Office W~stem RegiOn Office Washmgton DC Office 

5JKHCOALJTION ~~:~;~ s~~~~o~~~te 1537 ;~;!~~a~~~= s:et Su1te 210 ~v~~: ~~~5~c 20008 

WWWSIKhCOa!tiOOOrg t 212655309'} t 5106590900 t 2027474914 

1 2'22084611 f !..106590903 l 20233055'4 
1216 

Even our children arc being attacked. According to Sikh Coalition research, a majority of 

observant Sikh students that we surveved in four cities nationwide were bullied and harassed 

because of their religion, with some e~en experiencing physical violence.2 

In cases where state and local school officials ignore these problems and students have no other 

recourse, the Educational Opportunities Section at the U.S. Department of Justice has intervened 

to ensure that students enjoy a safe and healthy learning environment.3 

We note with appreciation that our engagement with the U.S. Department of Justice began 

during the Bush Administration shortly after the inception of the Sikh Coalition in 2001 and 

continued unabated during the Obama Administration. We hope this engagement will remain 

strong in the coming years, with no deterioration in the agency's enforcement of civil rights 

laws, including the Matthew Shepard Act and the Civil Right Act of 1964, and no diminution in 

its commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans. 

Sincerely, 

Execntive Director 

The Sikh Coalition 

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

2 See Sikh Coalition, "Go Home Terrorist": A Report on Bu/6;ing of Sikh American School Children (2014), 

m•ai/ahle at https://issuu.com/thesikhcoalition/docs/go-home-terrorist/3. 

3 See, e.g .. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, "Department of Justice Reaches Settlement to Resolve 

Complaints of Religious Harassment at Charter School in DeKalb County, Georgia," (May 7, 20 13), available at 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-reaches-settlement-resolve-complaints-religious-harassmentcharter.:2_ffiQQ) 
1217 

RECEIVED DEC 1 6 Z016 

STATE OF" ALA..BAMA 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

LUTHER STRANGE 1\.TTORNE'>' GENERA-L MONTGOMERY. AL 36l:'>V•01S2 

(.'334}2<1.2.-7300 

WWW.AGO ALMl4M•\ GC\J 

December 15, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman, Senate Committee on th~ Judiciary 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy1 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

As the chief legal officers of our respective states, we write to express our unqualified support for the nomination 

of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney Genera! of the United States. The challenges we face often cross state lines, 

and it is imperative that we have as our nation's chief law enforcement officer someone who has the experience, 

the knowledge, and the principles to work with us to meet those challenges. No one is more qualified to fill that 

role than Sen. Sessions. 

Sen. Sessions has stood in our shoes before. As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for twelve 

years and a former Attorney General of Alabama, he understands the needs of federal, state, county, and local 

prosecutors and law enforcement officers within our jurisdictions. He will bring that knowledge to bear as he 

crafts federal policy that will help us to enforce the law. And Sen. Sessions has first-hand experience as a 

prosecutor. He has faced the challenges of balancing justice with fairness and the rule of law with individual 

freedom, qualifications that make him well suited to his new role. 

Of course, Sen. Sessions is no stranger to us. Many of us have worked wlth him during his time serving on the very 

same Senate Judiciary Committee that now -considers his nomination. His leadership on important policy matters 

has been invaluable, For example, his efforts to reduce the unfair disparity in drug sentencing ls well known. He 

introduced the first bipartisan drug sentencing reform act in 2001, and he worked tirelessly to bring Senators from 

both sides of the aisle together to support it. That hard work paid off. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which he 

co-authored and co-sponsored with Ranking Member Leahy and Sen. Durbin and which President Obama signed 

into law, has not only saved the federal government millions of dollars and reduced sentences for non~violent 

offenders, it has set a standard for fairness in sentencing that our states have sought to emulate. We need that 

kind of thoughtfulness, discretion, and leadership at the helm of the Department of Justice. 

Few positions are more important than our nation's attorney general. The person who fnts that role Is not only 

charged with keeping our streets safe, but upholding the legal principles that are the bedrock of our republic. Sen. 

Sessions has proven over a long and distinguished career that he has the character to serve as United States 

Attorney General for an Americans. We urge his confirmation. 
1218 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

December 16, 2016 

Page 2 

Sincerely, 

Luther Strange 

Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Pam Bondi 

Attorney General 

State of Florida 

Jeff Landry 

Attorney General 

State of Louisiana 

Mark Brnovich 

Attorney General 

State of Arizona 

Alan Wilson 

Attorney General 

State of South Carolina 

Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General 

State of Oklahoma 

Bill Schuette 

Attorney General 

State of Michigan 

Adam Paul Laxalt 

Attorney General 

State of Nevada 

Curtis Hill 

Attorney General-Elect 

State of Indiana 

Tim Fox 

Attorney General 

State of Montana 

Patrick Morrisey 

Attorney General 

State of West Virginia 

Sean Reyes 

Attorney General 

State of Utah 

Marty Jackley 

Attorney General 

State of South Dakota 

Doug Peterson 

Attorney General 

State of Nebraska 

Wayne Stenehjem 

Attorney General 

State of North Dakota 
1219 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

December 16, 2016 

Page 3 

Leslie Rutledge 

Attorney General 

State of Arkansas 

Ken Paxton 

Attorney General 

State of Texas 

Brad Schimel 

Attorney General 

State of Wisconsin 

Mike DeWine 

Attorney General 

State of Ohio 

Chris Carr 

Attorney General 

State of Georgia 

Herbert Slatery 

Attorney General 

State of Tennessee 

Derek Schmidt 

Attorney General 

State of Kansas 

Greg Zoeller 

Attorney General 

State of Indiana 

Lawrence Wasden 

Attorney General 

State of Idaho 

Josh Hawley 

Attorney General-Elect 

State of Missouri 
1220 

J<muary 9, 2017 

Chair Char·les E, Gr·ass!ey 

U.S, Senate Judiciary Committee 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Chairrnan Gt·ass!ey 2nd Ranfdng iv'lerr'iber Feinstein: 

The Bus Federation writes today in strong opposition to the nomination of Senator 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Ill as Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney 

General and Department of Justice are charged first and foremost with protecting the 

safety of Americans while ensuring that our civil rights are respected. Senator Sessions' 

record as a prosecutor and Senator makes clear that his priorities would threaten the 

health and livelihoods of millions of Americans, weaken our commitment to civil rights, turn 

a blind eye to very real public safety threats, and dedicate federal resources to harassing 

Americans for activities that enjoy widespread popular support. 

The Bus Federation writes in opposition as a voice of younger Americans. Our organization 

supports and scales the work of local organizations, building a movement of young 

people, by young people, and for all people. We represent a network of local young 

people's organizations from Seattle, Washington to Miami, Florida. 

As nonpartisan young voter mobilization experts, we have assisted millions of young 

Americans to register and vote over the past decade. Our work serves Republicans, 

Democrats, and unaffiliated voters to ensure that young Americans have a voice in our 

great democracy. Based on this experience, we believe the people of the United States 

would greatly suffer under an Attorney General as openly hostile to voting rights as Senator 

Sessions. From calling the Voting Rights Act a "piece of intrusive legislation," to using his 

power as U.S. Attorney to lead a jury-rejected prosecution of Alabama civil rights leaders 

for leading voter registration drives, Senator Sessions's career indicates an inclination to 

use his power to disenfranchise voters rather than protect their rights. This would be an 

extraordinary break from American tradition and values, as the Department of Justice has 

served as the last line of defense for voting rights under Republican and Democratic 

presidents alike. 

Despite a self-professed belief in states' rights, Senator Sessions has demonstrated 

hostility toward the rights of many states to govern themselves without interference from 

the federal Department of Justice, particularly as it concerns cannabis-related laws. A 

number of states, driven by popular sentiment at the polls, have moved to legalize and 

regulate cannabis for recreational or medicinal purposes. As laws have changed and the 

federal government has indicated a tolerant approach to shifts in state policy driven by 

popular demand, a number of individuals and businesses have established personal or 
1221 

The Bus Federation 

commercial cannabis activity. Due to his belief that "good people don't smoke marijuana", 

Senator Sessions has made myriad public statements giving strong indication that he will 

pursue actions to target these individuals and businesses, strip billions of dollars out of our 

states' economies, come between doctors and their patients, and go against 

overwhelming public opinion. 

Equally unsettling is Senator Sessions's cavalier, and even encouraging attitude toward 

extrajudicial government infringement on the constitutionally protected rights of American 

citizens. Senator Sessions is arguably the US Senate's foremost defender of civil asset 

forfeiture, a process by which an individual's property may be seized on suspicion that the 

property is connected to a crime. The action requires no conviction in a court of law and 

puts the burden of proof on individuals in a way that is firmly out-of-step with fundamental 

traditions of our legal system. Senator Sessions stated in 2015 that he is "very unhappy" 

with criticism of the practice, that it's "not wrong" and that "95%" of victims of civil asset 

forfeiture have "done nothing with their lives but sell dope." Given the important role of the 

Department of Justice in encouraging and supporting best practices in law enforcement, 

Senator Sessions's support for this deeply unfair program should trouble every American. 

Despite advances in policy and practice, the United States has a long ways to go in pursuit 

of ending sexual assault and partner violence. We find deeply inappropriate Senator 

Sessions' glib remarks about sexual assault. His rejection of the Violence Against Women 

Act 0/AWA) reauthorization in 2013 raises additional questions regarding his commitment 

to protecting the safety of all Americans. 

Finally, Senator Sessions has defined his career in opposition to immigration of all kinds, 

ranging from vitriolic attacks on undocumented immigrants to regular insistence that the 

United States curtail legal immigration. Many in our nation have waited decades for the 

Congress to set credible policy on immigration. Senator Sessions himself has been a major 

barrier to adoption of popular, coherent, bipartisan immigration reforms. If confirmed, his 

record indicates that he will dedicate significant federal resources to breaking up families 

and initiating costly, needless fights with state and city governments in the US. 

Based on this record, we strongly urge you to oppose Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney 

general. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Singer 

Executive Director, The Bus Federation 

CC: Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 
1222 

1hompson 

eHortoni.LI' Houston Chris Barreca 

Dallas Partner 

Austin 

Janet L. Horton 

Partner 

713-333-6767 

713-583-8884 

cborreca··t:i~thompsonhorton.com 

jborton((ilt_homp~onhorton.com 

Thompson & Horton LLP 

Phoenix Tower, Suite 2000 

3200 Southwest Freeway 

Houston, Texas 77027-7528 

December 2, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grass ley 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Grasslcy and Ranking Member Leahy: 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

We are several of the founding members of Thompson & Horton, a law firm that represents 

many educational institutions throughout the state of Texas. We advise clients regularly in the area of 

compliance with federal and state laws pertaining to special education. Today we learned of several 

recent news stories carried in national magazines and websites, describing opposition to the appointment 

of Senator Jeff Session to the post of Attorney General on the basis of Senate floor statements he made 

in 2000 relative to Jaws serving students with disabilities. The stories inaccurately described certain 

floor comments from Senator Sessions which were made during the last reauthorization of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The actual remarks made by Senator Sessions are attached 

as Exhibit A to this letter. These stories, we believe, are taken completely out of context and do not 

reflect the actual circumstances of the Senate testimony nor even the testimony itself: 

We worked on behalf of many school districts during this general time to insure that lawmakers 

clearly understood the details of the law and the impact it had upon classroom environments. 1 Our 

clients voiced a common concern regarding the impact of one provision in the law pertaining to the 

discipline of students with disabilities. The law at that time, Section 615(k)(7)(C) of P.L. 105-17, 

passed in 1997, resulted in many instances where students who violated a school's code of conduct 

remained in their current educational setting if they challenged the disciplinary consequences through 

the law's provision for a due process hearing, a situation known as "stay-put.'' This was true even if the 

child's behavior had been determined not to have been a manifestation of his or her disability by their 

IEP team. Often times this time period of "stay-put" lasted months, even years, following the offense as 

it was required during the pendency of the hearing and any appeals. As a result, many students with 

disabilities who committed code of conduct offenses (which, again, were unrelated to their disability) 

were never actually removed to disciplinary placements but remained in their regular classroom on the 

1 At that time. the authors were affiliated with the law film of Bracewe11 and Patterson in Houston. Texas. 
1223 

Han. Messrs. Grassley and Leahy 

December 2, 2016 

Page2 

basis of the legal challenge to the disciplinary placement. Senator Sessions' testimony was made in the 

context of the issue of this application of"stay-put" to disciplinary placements and this aspect of the law 

at the time. This provision in the law at the time often led to exactly the types of situations described by 

Senator Sessions in the cited testimony. 

Senator Edward Kennedy and other members of the HELP committee saw the problem with 

such an approach and replacement language was written that placed the evidentiary burden back onto 

the party challenging the discipline. The law was changed in 2004, P.L. 108-446 , and now requires that, 

during a parent's appeal, the child shall remain in the interim alternative educational setting chosen by 

the IEP team pending the hearing officer's decision or until the time period for the disciplinary action 

expires. The law requires that the child still be provided an appropriate education during the time spent 

in the alternative disciplinary placement. Importantly, the law still allows for a parent to challenge that 

placement via an expedited hearing. 

The remarks reported in news stories are, in our opinion, misrepresentative and do not reflect the 

reality of the law or context of the time period when the law was being reauthorized between 2000 and 

2004. We write, on our own accord and with actual knowledge of the circumstances and law 

surrounding the cited remarks, to ensure an accurate depiction of the comments referenced. 

CPB/JLH!bg 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

Thompson & Horton LLP 

_///-~") .· /~ . ~-· 

Christopher P. Barreca 

cc: Members of the Committee on the Judiciary 

867172 
1224 

Senator Jeff Sessions (http:/ fwww.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home) 

FLOOR STATEMENTS 

Home (http;Jjwww.sessions.senate.govjpublicjindex.cfmjhome) I Press Shop (http:jjwww.sessions.senate.govjpublir/indN.dm/press-shop) I Floor Statements 

(http:Jjwww.sessions.senate.govjpub/icjindex..cfm/floor-statements) 

MAY 18 2000 • 

EDUCATION DISCIPLINE AND IDEA 

(HTTP:/ /WWW.SESSION S.SENATE.GOV/PU BLIC/1 N D EX.CFM/FLOORSTATEMENTS?ID=A 7977B1D-7E9C-9AF9-753E-8F3A8B3B43FB) 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President,! want to shar~ some additional thoughts with the members of the Senate and those watching what we can do to improve 

education in America. 

1 believe in public education. I have taught and my wife has taught in public schools. I say that to express how deeply I care about it. We have been active in PTA 

as our kids have gone forward. We want to improve the system. We want to make learning occur more regula.r!y. We want to help teachers.! b€Heve in American 

teachers. They are some of the finest in the world. They are well trained. They give their hearts and souls to it, only to be frustrated by regulations., paperwork, 

and discipline problems resulting from mandated rules passed by this Congress. 

! am going to share some thoughts today, and those in education in any state of America will know what I am saying is true. They will ha'Je heard these kinds of 

e~amp!es time and time again. But the vast majority of Americans will not believe it; they wi!! not believe these things occur. 

Over15 years ago, for example, we passed a federal disabilities act. !twas designed to mandate to school systems and require that they not shut out disabled 

kids from the classroom and that they be involved in the classroom. If they have a hearing loss, or a sight loss, or if they have difficulty moving around, in a 

wheelchair, or whatever, the school system must make accommodations for them. They would be mainstreamed. They would not be treated separately. 

That was a good goal, a gbal from which we should not retreat.! hope no one interprets what I say today as a retreat from that goa!. But in the course of that 

time, we have created a complex system of federal regulations and laws that have created lawsuit after lawsuit, special treatment forc~rtain childr~n, and that 

are a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms aU over America. I say that very sincerely. 

Teachers! have been talking to have shared stories with me. I have been in 15 schools around Alabama this year.! have talked to them about a lot of subjects. 1 

ask them about this subject in every school I go to, and I am told in every school that this is a major problem forth em, In fact, it may be the single most irritating 

problem for teachers throughout America today. 

It was realty brought to my attention a tittle over a year ago when a longtime friend, District Attorney David Whetstone, in Baldwin County, Alabama, called me 

about a youngster in the school system classified as having a disabi!ity.lt is called "emotional conf\ict." He was emotionally conflicted. He could not, or would 

not, behave. An aide would meet him in the morning at his home, get on the bus with him, and go to school, sit through the class all day, and ride home on the 

school bus with him. This student was known to wrse principals and teachers openly in the dassroom. Because he was a disabled student, he could not be 

disciplined in the normal way. The maximum ten-day suspension rule-and 45 days is the maximum a chHd can be disciplined under this federal law and then 

they are back in the classroom. One day, he attacked the school bus driver on the way home. The aide tried to restrain him, He then attacked the aide. District 

Attorney Whetstone told me, "I was never more stunned when! ta!ked to school officials and they told me this is common in our county." 

We have children we cannot control because of this federal law. He came to Washington, and we sot up in the gaUery and ta!k€d about it. I respe<:t David 

Whe<-..stone and his views. He said this cannot be. I began to ask around, is this tru€? As a matter of fact, this very incident was focused on in Time Magazine There 

was a full-page story about it called "The Meanest Kid in Alabama," and 60 Minutes did a story about it because it is, tmfortunately, so common around the 

country. 

What can we do about it? I began to ask leaders in education around the state. The state superintendent: ~Absolutely, it is one of the biggest problems we have." 

! talked to Paul Hubbard, head of the teachers union in Alabama: "Absolutely, it is a big problem." "I am tired," he said in the newspaper recently, "of children 

cursing my teachers in the classroom and nothing being done about it." 

Then we began to talk to teachers, principals, and school board superintendents. They talked about the lawyers and the complicated regulations with which 

they deal. It is really unacceptable. Teachers who have been trained with masters' degrees in special education to deal with these children have also 

overwhelmingly told me this is not a healthy thing, that we are telling special children with physical disabilities, ordlsabillties as defined by the federal law, that 

they don't have to adher€ to the same standards other children do. Right in the classroom, we c.f.eate, by federal law, two sE'parate standards for American 

citizens. You can say to one child: You can't do this, you are out of school. But we can say to another children: You can do it, and you are only out 10 days, or 

maybe 45 days, and then you are back in the classroom. That is not defensible. 
1225 

! want to share some of the !etters I began to receive from teachers who care about this problem and want me and you and the members of this Congress to do 

something about it. I believe we can, 1 hope it will be part of the debate this year in our political arena. Maybe we can make some progress with it. 

First,! want to mention that when Congress passed the IDEA-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act-in 1975, we committed to pay the states, whom we 

were requiring to do it-we require these states to meet these standards. We agreed to pay 40 percent of the cost. We have never paid more than 15 percent of 

the cost. It has been below 10 percent in most years. We had testimony in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which! am a member, from 

a superintendent in Vermont who testified to our committee that 20 percent of the cost of the school system in his county is for special education children. This 

is a major factor in education today. Let me share some stories with you about this. 

An experienced educator in Alabama shared these thoughts with me in a letter: 

HWe have a student who is classified emotionally conflicted, learning disabled, and who has attention deficit disorder. While this student has been enrolled, 

students, teachers, and staff have been verbally threatened with physical harm. Fits of anger, fighting, and outbursts of verbal abuse have been commonplace. 

Parents and students have expressed concern over the safety of their children due to the behavior of this young man. Teachers have also become extremely 

apprehensive toward the presence of the student due to his explosive behavior. His misbehavior has escalated to the point that the instructional process of the 

entire school has been jeopardized." 

Here is another one: 

~~have taught for 25 years.! plan to continue teaching, but the problems with discipline are getting out of hand. We are not allowed to discipline certain 

students. Any student labeled as "special needsn must be accommodated, not disciplined. A student recently brought a gun to my schooL He made thrr2ats to 

students and teachers which he claims werr2 jokes.! was one of those teachers. This student has been disruptive and belligerent since! first encountered him in 

the ninth grade. Now, he is a senior. After bringing a gun to school, he was given another "second chance." He should have been expeUed. What is his handicap? 

He has a problem with mathematics. While this may be an extreme situation, it is not isolated." 

Still reading from the letter: 

"Teachers are told to handle discipline in the classroom. The government has taken most of the teachers' rights away; our hands are tied." 

This is a letter from a young teactlerin a small town of about 25,000 in Alabama. This is a story by which! think anybody would be moved: 

"As a special educator of six years, I consider myself'on the front lines' of the ongoing battles that take place on a dally basis in our nation's schools.! strongly 

believe that part of the 'ammunition' that fuels these struggles are the 'right' guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA '97. The law, though well-intentioned, 

has become one of the single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to provide all of our children with a quality education delivered in a safe 

environment. There are many examples that I can offer firsthand. However, let me reiterate that I am a special educator.! have dedicated my life to helping 

children with special needs. It is my job to study and know the abilities and limitations of such children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, a masters 

degree in special education, and a Ph.D. in good old common sense. No where in my educational process have I been taught a certain few "disabled" students 

should have a "right" to endanger the right to an education of aU other disabled and nondisab\ed chi!dren.lt's nonsense; it's wrong; it's dangerous; and it must 

be stopped." 

There is no telling how many instructional hour!> are lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an increasingly competitive global society it 

is no wonder American students fa!! short. Certain children are allowed to remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours that can never be 

replaced. 

Therr2 is no need to extend the school day. There is no need to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it possible for educators to take back the 

time that is lost on a daily basis to certain individuals there is no doubt we would have a better educated students. 

It is even more frustrating when it is a special education child who knows and boasts "they can't do anything to me" and he is placed back in the classroom to 

disrupt it day after day, week after week. 

It is dearth at lD£A '97 not only undermines the educational process it also undermines the authority of educ<!.tors. In a time when our profession is being called 

upon to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources our credibility is being stripped from us. 

I am sure you have heard the saying: The teachers are scared of the principals, the principals are scared of the superintendents, the superintendents are scared 

of the parr2nts, the parents <1re scared of the children, and the children are scared of no one. And why should they be? 

I have experienced the ramifications of the "new and improved" law firsthand. I had one child attempt to assault me-he had been successful with two other 

teachers. He was suspended for one day.l had another child make sexual gestures to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact that every child in my class 

and a majority of the children in the school knew of it, 1 was told by my assistant principal that nothing could be done because "these special ed kids haYe 

rights." 

l literally got in my car to leave that day, but my financial obligations to my family and my moral responsibilities to the children! had in my dass kept me there. 

The particular child I spoke about frequently made vulgar comments and threats to my girls in my class on every opportunity he had when there was no adult 

present. Fortunately, the girls, also special ed, could talk to me about it. Unfortunately, they had to put up with it because "nothing muld be done." 

I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a fight. The !earning disabled child and her parents then attempted to sue the school system because the 

child was burned when she grabbed a coffee pot to break it over the other chl!d's head. I know of another specific incident where three children brought firearms 

to schooL The two "regu!ar"children where expe!!ed. The special education student was back to school the following week. 

I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington will do what it takes to take our schools back from this small group of children who feel it is their right 

to endanger the education of every other child in school. A5 my grandmother said, "right is right and wrong is wrong" and to enable this to continue is just 

wrong. 
1226 

She does have a right to expect members. of this Congress to confront this issue and not allow it to continue. This is a letter from a town in Alabama with a 

population of 20,000, or so, from another special education teacher. 

"As a special educator teacher for 27 years, may l applaud your efforts to make special education students as accountable as any other student for any behavior 

they exhibit while in schooL I fully support the idea that just because they are students in need of special education services that it in no way diminishes their 

ability to tell right from wrong. When teachers and administrators. cannot provide some type of appropriate punishment, then the students are tau gilt that their 

behavior has no consequences. Just the other day, we had a student, who had been offered detention to avoid missing school time, he responded that they 

cou!djust go ahead and suspend him because he was not going to come to school on Saturday and that it was not going to hurt his grades because 'he' was 

allowed to make up all the work. When students find out about this 'loophole' then they often feel they have free reign to do or say whatever they feel and that 

there is nothing that anyone can do." 

He is correct about that. This is a federal law. We provide 7 percent of the cost of education in America. But we don't hesitate to mandate these kinds of rules in 

every school system in the country. 

There federal rules often make teaching very difficult, and it penalizes the students who come to school to try and improve themselves. 

He is teaching a class of special education students, and wants at! of them to !earn. Many of them are there trying to learn, and they find it more difficult because 

of these rules. 

I feel that for the best interest of tile students and of the entire education population, changes in til is policy must take place. 

Mr. President.! don't want to disrupt the system. But! have some more comments that I am prepared to make. 

This is a letter from a small town in Alabama. 

"Due to the federal rules and the situation they create, I cannot spend time in my class discussing a lesson. I do not do something to tantalize the students, they 

become disruptive. I can no longer simply explain a concept.! now mllst spend over half my time disciplining the disruptive students. I am no longer a teacher,! 

am a threatened and battered baby-sitter who is not allowed to do her job. Give us back our classrooms and our schools. Give the teacher the right to have these 

disruptive students removed. Please help us." 

This is a letter from an assistant principaL 

"!am an assistant principal in Alabama. I taught middle school before taking this administrative position. As a teacher I saw a 'small picture' of the problem, as 

an administrator! see a much 'larger picture.' You have chosen a much-needed, but difficult battle. Most of the special education students are wonderful 

(emphasis added) unfortunately, a few are literally destroying the public: education process in our country. We are teaching them that they have excuses not to 

follow rules or obey laws, then we act shocked when violence occurs. Now, perhaps more than ever in our history, we need to teach our children right from 

wrong and that there will be consequences for their actions. Instead we develop more and more excuses for unacceptable, sometimes criminal behavior. Thank 

you for anything you can do to help save our children, as well as our country's future." 

I have a letter from a student in a good school system in Alabama. 

"I would like to let you know l agree with changing the section on IDEA law, I am in high school and I know how difficult it is for you to learn ifthere is disruption 

in the classroom. I think if there is a student who does not want to learn, they should be put in an alternative school or separate class." 

Amen, young student. I agree. 

Another student from an average town in Alabama. 

"I'm seeing more and more teachers getting out of education because of the ridiculous lawsuits by special education students." 

We are losing good teachers today in America. If you check around, one of the biggest reasons is frustration over their inability to maintain discipline in the 

classroom. Talk to them about it. In most schools, that is a real problem. It is hurting public education. These laws don't apply to private schools. Teachers in 

private schools don't have these problems and are able to be more effective in creating a learning atmosphere. In a way, it hurts our ability to maintain public 

education as a competitive enterprise. We need to make sure what we do in Congress does not make it more difficult for our teachers to teach. First, do no hann. 

The letter continues, 

"We have been told to give the parents whatever they want. They have individual education plans for each student. A lot oftimes, that is very helpfuL But they 

have become almost contracts with the parents, and schools have to obey them to the tetter of the law. There are frequently lawsuits over whether the school is 

following the IEP, the individual education plan. It is sad. 

We have been told if they sue us we are going to lose. Because ofthis, special education students are suffering and so are tllose students around them. They can 

disrupt class at will and take away from the education of the majority of the students. Often they do less, and even no work, and we are told to pass them 

anyway." 

Then he makes an interesting point: 

"When these students leave school and enter the real world, they wit! not have things given to them as they do in school. They will not be prepared to function as 

a regular citizen should be. As a parent, I fear for my son's safety in schooL He has already had one confrontation with a special needs chi{d. The disabled 

student assaulted my child. !n self-defense, my son hit the student back. Tile student was known to get Into fights. My son was hauled off to the police station. 

His grades suffered. The spedal ed student could go on repeatedly assaulting, with very little consequence.~ you can see, thls is both an emotional and 

professional issue for me. I am glad you are aware of the large problem our educational system is having. I hope something can be done before it gets worse. We 

will see the repercussions for years to come if we don't change this system." 

Another letter from a teacher: 
1227 

"1 have over 30 years experience as a teacher, principal, federal program coordinator, and school superintendent.! am greatly concerned about the future of 

public education in this country. IDEA has given local superintendents grief beyond description. First, in 1975, the law was fir.>t passed, Congress promised to 

pick up 40 percent of the cost to operate the program, and according to figures! have seen, 10 percent has been the norm since then. Second, this has made 

every system fair game, with litigation costs consuming more than education dollars. While our system is small, we have had to deal with a number of weapons 

cases in the last few years. Two of the cases students were caught with weapons they admit they accidentaHy left in their vehicles coming to school grounds 

from target shooting. The first boy was expelled one year. He never returned to schoo! to graduate. According to him, the situation was just too embarrassing. 

Although the second boy was in the exact same position as the first, having accidentally left the weapon in his car, instantly we were told he was a special 

education student and has an IEP. He was then assigned to an alternative school for45 days and is now back in our school. Both of these young men were not 

troublemakers at school. Senator, it is impossible to explain to the family of the first student that their son was deserving of more punishment. Think about 

that" 

This family is now bitter toward me and toward the American system because they, in grave error, b€1ieve that all Americans have the same legal right and they 

were unaware that Congress now deddes what rights we are entitled to hold as American citizens. As said in Animal Farm:AU are equal, but some are more 

equal than others. 

The second student's handicap does not prevent him from knowing right from wrong. I'm sorry that I'm old fashioned and believe we should be teaching aH 

students to be responsible for their behavior. We should be helping them develop good decision-makingskiUs, not tetting them that you are not responsible for 

your behavior and that there will be no consequences, or minimal consequences, regardless of your behavior. 

1 became a teacher in 1965 and 1 do not remember hearing of gun shootings prior to 1975 when Congress began teUingten percent of our students you are not 

responsible. 

I think these teachers make a point. It is a matter we need to give careful consideration to, not overreact, not undermine the great principles of the Disabilities 

Act Program. But at the same time, we need to say that a cilild is not allowed to commit crimes, to disrupt classroom, to curse teachers, principals and students, 

and abuse them and do so with impunity. 

I thank the Chair for the time and yield the floor. 

Permalink: http:/lwww.sessions.senate.gov/pubticjindex.cfm/2000/5/education-disdp!ine-and-idea-

(http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1000/5/educatlon-discipline-and-ide<'!-) 

RElATED LINKS 

News Releases (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pub!ic/index.cfmjnews-releases} 

Op-Eds (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds) 

Videos (http:/ j w ww.session s.se nate. gov I pu bli c/i n d ex.cfmjvi d eos) 

CONSTITUENT SERVICES 

CaseworkAssistance(http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pub!lc/!ndex.cfm/c:asework-.assistance] 

Visiting D.c. (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public!index.dmjvisiting-d-t) 

lnternships(http:ffwww.sessions.senate.gov/pub!ic:/index.cfm/internst>!ps) 

U.S. Senate Pa~ Program (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.dm/u-s-senate·page·program) 

Service Atademies (http://www.s!"ssions.senate.gov/oub!lc/index.cfm/servke-academies) 

FederalGrants{http://www.sessions.St!nate.gov/publlc/index.cfm/federal·grants) 

Federal Resources {http://www.se$sions.senate.govjpublic/index.dm/federa!-resources) 

FlagRequests{http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/flag-requests) 

FAQ's (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/faq-s} 

DisasterPrepal1!dness(http://www.sessions.senate.gov/publk/index.dm/disaster-proeparedr~ess} 

LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES 

lssues(http:/(www.sessions.senate.govfpub!ic/index.cfm/issues-priorities) 

Sponsored Loegislation (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/publk/index.cfm/sponsored-loegislation) 
1228 

Co-Sponsored Legislation {http:/ jwww.sessions.senate.gov/publicjindex.dm/co-spansored-!egislation) 

Voting Record (http:i/www.ses.sions.senate.govfpublic/lndex.dmjvoting-record) 

Senate Resources (http://www.sesr.ions.sen<~te:gov{public/index.efm/senate-resources) 

St<~fflist~http://m.vw.sessions.senate.gov/pub\!c/index.dm/starf-\ist) 

PRESS SHOP 

News Releases (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pub!lc/index.cfm/news-re!eases} 

Op-Eds (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/pub!ic/index.cfm/op-eds) 

Vidi!Os (http://www.youtube.com/SenatorSesslans) 

ABOUT JEFF 

Biography (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography) 

CommitteeAssignments(http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committe~assignments) 

Photo Gallery (http://www.ses.sions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/photo-gaUery) 

Official Photo (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/offkial-photo) 

CONTACT JEFF 

Contact Me (http://ww-...-.sessions.-senate.govfpublic/index.dm/contact·me·ll:'dir) 

Office Locations (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/publicjindex.dm/office-!ocations) 

Privacy Release (http://www.sessians.senate.gov/publk/index.dm/privacy-release) 

Scheduling Requests 1 Invitations (http://www.sessions..senate.gov/public/index.cfm/schedu!ing-requests) 

lntemet Policy (http://www.sessions.senate,gov/pub!ic/index.efm(internet-policy) 

Follow U.S. Senator Jeff Session$ 

Subscribe 

(http://www.facebook.com/jeffsessions) (http://twitter.comjsenatorsessions) (http:/ Jwww.youtube.com/SenatorSesslons) 

LATEST UPDATES 

Situation At The Border Deteriorates Further: "We Are Simply Overwhelmed" (http:f/www.sessions.senate.gov/pubUc/index.dmfnews~reteases7 

ID=AD29ACCC-F4B9-44AB-8467-3539400A09C2) 
1229 

CHESTNUT, SANDERS, & SANDERS, l.L.C. 

ATTORNEYS-AT. LAW 

ONE UNION STREET SELIIIA,AL.ABAMA 36701 

-w.cheatnutsandarslaw.com 

J.L. CHESTNIIT, JR. (1930-2008) 

HENRY SANDERS 

fAYA ROSE TOURE (ROSE SANDERS) 

CAROLYN GAINES· VARNER 

MAUKA SANDERS FolmER 

OF COUNSEL: AtNKA SANDERS JACKSON 

Senator Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Feinstein 

January 6, 2017 

Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

MAlUHO ADDRESS: 

P.O. Box 1290 

SILIIA,ALABAMA 38702·1280 

(3341 526-4531 

TELECOPIER; (3341 626-4535 

I graduated from Harvard Law School in 1969. My husband is a 1970 graduate ofHIIIVIIId 

Law School. We returned to the South in 1971, filled with hope and a commitment to build aNew 

South. We organized several institutions and events including the Campaign for a New South, the 

Alabama New South Coalition, two museums and the Bridge Crossing Jubilee, among other 

organizations and institutions. The Bridge Crossing Jubilee is an national celebration of the right 

to vote. We worked closely with Albert Turner and other civil rights leaders to secure and advance 

voting rights. 

In spite of the victories that flowed from the Voting Rights Act, efforts to suppress the 

voting rights of African American citizens persisted. Yet, we did not anticipate that Jeff Sessions, 

the U.S. Attorney in 1984, would maliciously target voting right activists in the Alabama Black 

Belt for prosecution and removal from the political scene. Albert Turner had effectively organized 

the Peny County Civic League to address the fear that kept most African Americans from even 

trying to register to vote in Peny County. His bold leadership caught the attention of Dr. Martin 

Luther King, who appointed him as State Director of SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership 

Conference). Albert called upon Attorney General Robert Kennedy to help crack what seem to be 

an impenetratable wall that blocked Black citizens from voting booths. He responded by sending 
1230 

Nicholas Kazen bach, who personally oversaw the registering of 300 Black voters in Perry County 

in 1963. By contrast, Lowndes County did not have a single Black registered voter before the 

Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. 

Marion, Alabama, was the ideal place for Jeff Sessions to initiate his witch hunt. His 

mission was painfully reminiscent of the successful efforts of white supremacist to generate fear 

to rob Black men of the political success achieved during the Reconstruction Era of American 

History. Back then, Klan violence was allowed and encouraged to achieve the disenfranchisement 

of Black men. Jeff Sessions recognized that the same goal could be achieved through the 

prosecution of effective Black leaders. Albert Turner was the most effective and well-known 

Black community leader in the Alabama Black Belt. 

As a member of the legal team that represented Albert Turner, his wife, Evelyn and Spencer 

Hogue, I witnessed firsthand the frivolous cases against them. In my 15 years of practice at that 

time, I had never known an integrated jury to find a Black citizen not guilty on criminal charges. 

The verdict to free the Marion 3 of more than 100 criminal counts was unprecedented. Following 

the exoneration of the Marion 3, five citizens from nearby Greene County were also exonerated. 

The only white person indicted, who was also acquitted, was a close ally of the black community. 

I also represented her. 

For the past 25 years, my husband, Senator Hank Sanders. and I have assumed the 

leadership in organizing the "Bloody Sunday" March re-enactment every year. It is the largest 

annual celebration of the right to vote in the nation. In 2015, Senator Jeff Sessions attended the 

celebration along with President Obarna and over 100,000 people from all over the nation. 

Sessions attendance at the Commemoration is not evidence of a changed heart. His consistent 

attacks on voting rights and civil rights is evident of the agenda he demonstrated in the 80s. When 

he met Evelyn Turner face to face last year at a congressional ceremony to honor foot soldiers of 

the movement, he offered no regrets or apology for his efforts to imprison her and her husband for 

the remainder oftheir lives. 

Ms. Turner, now 80 years old, still suffers from the emotional scars of that "persecution". 

I had to urge her to give an affidavit to the Committee and to give interviews to the media. She 

said she relives the terrible ordeal each time she remembers and vocalizes that memory. 

Unfortunately, her son, Albert Turner, Jr., is more committed to political opportunism than truth. 

He was in college, removed from Session's witch hunt to persecute his parents in 1985. On my 

radio show, his mother, Ms. Evelyn Turner, stated that her son was "brainwashed". When asked 

by a CNN reporter how she compared Robert Kennedy, (who assisted her husband in 1963), with 

Jeff Sessions, she said "It's like comparing God with the Devil." 

I write to encourage the Committee to reject the appointment of Jeff Sessions for his past 

and current white supremacist views and actions. He was appointed by a man who embraces the 

same views that dominated the old South. I also represented Shirley Sherrod in the Black Farmers 
1231 

case. Ms. Sherrod was falsely accused by the founder of Breitbart News for racist actions against 

a white farmer. This allegation proved to be false after Ms. Sherrod was dismissed from her job. 

President-Elect Trump has selected Stephen Bannor, a Chairman of the Breitbart News 

Network, as his Senior Advisor, which demonstrates his agenda in selecting Jeff Session as 

Attorney General. Jeff Sessions, however, is in a more dangerous position to shake and even 

dismantle the foundation of our democracy. Equal justice for all is an essential part of that 

foundation. 

Last week, a white judge in Selma, Alabama expressed his grave concern that a Black 

District Attorney and Police Chief arranged and allowed a young Black emotionally disturbed 

young man to remain in jail for a year and a half for a crime he did not commit. Ultimately, it is 

not the color of the skin or one's political persuasion that will determine who will get justice. 

America's democracy depends on the character and strength of men and women who can dispense 

justice without regard to race, gender, class, age or religious affiliation. The highest law 

enforcement office must embody that character and strength if America's fragile democracy is to 

survive and thrive. 

Senator Jeff Sessions will make America "great again" for the Confederate South and 

people who do not believe that justice should be for all. America's era of lawless and unjust 

treatment of some of her children and citizens of color cannot be returned. Keep Senator Sessions 

in the U.S. Senate. 

Civil Rights Attorney 
1232 

THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

Office: (334) 683-2200 

Cell: (334) 8SO-Z47S 

Email: adeca12@hotmail.com 

Honorable Albert F. Turner 

Commissioner, District 1 

P.O. Box933 

Marion, AL 36756 

Website: www.commissioneralbertturner.com 

E-911, 

~ 

Chairman 

Finance, Chairman 

Contract Review 

Legisli!tive, Chairman 

Personnel, Chairman 

Solid Waste, Chairman 

A lot has been said about Senator Jeff Sessions and his record on issues related to 

race - some of it distorted and unfair. Some of these statements have included 

references to matters with which I have a very personal connection. My family and I 

have literally been on the front line of the fight for civil rights my whole life. And while I 

respect the deeply held positions of other civil rights advocates who oppose Senator 

Sessions, I believe it is important for me to speak out with regard to Senator Sessions 

personally. 

First, let me be clear: Senator Sessions and I respectfully disagree on some issues. 

That won't change when he is the Attorney General of the United States. And I expect 

that there will be times as it is with all politicians when we will legitimately disagree and I 

will be required by my conscience to speak out. I look forward to those constructive 

debates if necessary. However, despite our political differences, the Senator and I share 

certain Alabama and American values, including a love for our State, its people and our 

Country. 

I have known Senator Sessions for many years, beginning with the voter fraud case in 

Perry County in which my parents were defendants. My differences in policy and 

ideology with him do not translate to personal malice. He is not a racist. As I have said 

before, at no time then or now has Jeff Sessions said anything derogatory about my 

family. He was a prosecutor at the Federal level with a job to do. He was presented 

with evidence by a local District Attorney that he relied on, and his office presented the 

case. That's what a prosecutor does. I believe him when he says that he was simply 

doing his job. 

I believe that he is someone with whom I, and others in the civil rights community can 

work if given the opportunity. I believe that he will listen, as he has in the past, to the 

concerns of my community. More than most I am very familiar with him. I believe he 

will be fair in his application of the law and the Constitution; as such I support his 

nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. 

Not produced at tax payer's expense. 
1233 

I encourage the civil rights community to engage in constructive dialogue with Senator 

Sessions concerning the protection of voting rights for African Americans and other 

minorities, gun control, senseless killings and strengthening Constitutional protections 

for all Americans. I stand ready to work with Senator Sessions as he becomes our 

Country's Attorney General, and offer to him my willingness to help him in any way I 

might be of service. 

Sincerely, 

A lberl: f. T urvteV 

Albert F. Turner 

Not produced at tax payer's expense. 
1234 

Senator Grass1ey 

Chairman, Committee on Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Feinstein 

January 4, 2017 

Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

My name is Evelyn Hatch Turner. I live in Marion, Alabama. I was married to Albert 

Turner, who was the Field Director for Dr. Martin Luther King in the state of Alabama in the 

1960s. In 1963, Albert Turner took the leadership in organizing the Perry County Civic League. 

We organized out in the woods because we were afraid to meet in town. Black people were 

mistreated throughout the county. The police chief and the high sheriff were brutal. Fear was 

used to keep black people in their place. Everything in Perry County was segregated. And only a 

few Black people were allowed to register to vote. A white "well to do" citizen had to vouch for 

a black person in order for the person to register. We couldn't even enter the front door of the 

courthouse. We had to go around the back. We couldn't serve on juries or serve in any electoral 

capacity. The Perry County Civic League was organized to fight for our rights as American 

citizens. 

The Civic League wrote hundreds of letters to the Justice Department for help. Nicholas 

Kazen bach was sent by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He also sent federal registrars down 

to the Marion post office. They worked in the basement. Consequently, 300 or so Black persons 

were registered to vote. In 1964, SCLC came to Perry County to help us. By 1965, a movement 

was underway in Perry County and throughout the Black Belt. The tragic death of Jimmy Lee 

Jackson happened in Marion at the Mack's Cafe. Jimmy Lee was trying to protect his grandparents 

and his mother. His death triggered the Selma to Montgomery March and Bloody Sunday. Albert 

Turner had led a night march to protect Rev. James Orange from being lynched. Albert also helped 

organized and lead the Selma to Montgomery March and was a victim along with Congressman 

John Lewis and others of unmitigated violence. Six months later, the Voting Rights Act was signed 

into the law by Lyndon Johnson. 
1235 

It was still hard to elect black elected officials because of fraud, trickery and the fear of 

violent retaliation. Finally, Blacks began to be elected to public office. As black political power 

strengthened, resistance to that progress intensified. My husband, Albert Turner, continued to give 

the county strong leadership. In the early 1980s, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, focused on 

eliminating or minimizing black political power in the Alabama Black Belt, which is majority 

African American. The level of black voter participation in Perry County was the highest in the 

state and perhaps the nation. I believe that's why we were targeted. By arresting us, the plan was 

to discourage black people from voting. After the Civil War, Klan violence was used to strip black 

men of their voting rights. Arrest and jail was the new tactic and Jeff Session, I believe, was the 

architect and implementer. Albert, Spencer Hogue and I were arrested because of our successful 

political activism. Jeff Sessions made it clear: he wanted the maximum sentence for all of us. We 

were Jaw abiding American citizens with no history of criminal activity. We became known as 

the Marion 3. In spite of jury racial bias at that time, an integrated jury found us not guilty on all 

counts. During the trial, citizens called to testify against us by Jeff Sessions, told stories of how 

Albert and the Civic League had saved them. We took people to the doctor, fed them when they 

needed food. We registered them to vote. 

Last year, I and other were invited to Washington to be honored as foot soldiers of the 

movement. While there, Jeff Sessions attempted to speak to me. He did not attempt to apologize. 

I reminded him that he tried to give me, Albert Turner and Spencer Hogue 254 years in jail for 

trumped up charges. If he had changed, he would have expressed some regret for his malicious 

prosecution of the "Marion 3". I am now 80 years old. Albert died on April 13, 2000. Spencer 

Hogue died September 18,2016. My dear Albert was willing to plead guilty for crimes he didn't 

commit to keep me from going to jail. I wouldn't let him do it. I knew we were innocent. I knew 

that Jeff Sessions was a leftover from days when violence and any other means was used to keep 

Black people from the ballot box. He failed then. But now, as Attorney General, he can use his 

power to negatively impact voting rights laws and voting rights activists across the nation. I am 

very troubled by his stance against civil rights in the more recent past. As a U.S. Senator, he 

supported no laws or causes which suggest that he has changed. 

Initially, I refused to give interviews to the media about my Jeff Sessions experience. I 

was convinced by friends that our story must be told and preserved. After all of these years, my 

stomach still aches when [ think of the pain he caused so many people. When I think of him as 

the Attorney General, I literally ache inside for America. He will not only be dangerous for African 

Americans but for freedom loving people, Black, Brown and White people throughout the world. 

I remember Assistant Attorney General Kazenbach as an honorable and just man. He was sent by 

Attorney General Robert Kennedy. It would be a great step backwards for our democracy to have 

Jeff Sessions serving in that same office as America struggLes-to · emocratic goal of 

"Justice for All". . . / _..-
1236 

ultra(QJviolet 

Equality at a Higher Frequency 

The Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein 

3 31 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

To the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, 

We write to ask for your opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff 

Sessions (R-AL) for Attorney General. 

We write on behalf of Ultra Violet, a powerful community of over one 

million people mobilized to fight sexism and expand women's rights, from 

politics and government to media and pop culture. 

This community--which includes thousands of survivors of sexual 

assault and domestic abuse--deeply believes that Senator Jeff Sessions is 

unqualified to protect the rights of women. 

We, like millions of Americans, are deeply concerned about Senator 

Sessions' record on civil rights. We are particularly concerned about his 

record on issues impacting women, especially issues involving sexual 

assault and ending violence against women. Specifically: 

I. Senator Sessions' vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women 

Act of 2013, and whether he intends to enforce the programs in the 

legislation as Attorney General. We note your votes in favor of the Violence 

Against Women Act and its reauthorization. Given his comments in October 

stating that he did not know whether grabbing a woman sexually without her 

consent constitutes sexual assault, we have grave concerns about his 

intentions on this issue. 

2. Senator Sessions' votes in 2014 and 2015 to block bipartisan legislation--

the Military Justice Improvement Act--to curb the growing epidemic of 

sexual assault in the military, and question how women servicemembers can 

trust that as Attorney General, Sessions will treat sexual violence as the 

grave crime that it is. We note your votes in favor of cloture on this 

important legislation. 

PO Box# 34756 rxl .. WeAreUltraViolet.ora 
1237 

ultra(QJviolet 

Equality at a Higher Frequency 

3. Senator Sessions' opposition towards making emergency contraception 

affordable and accessible--as you know, a critical health access issue for 

rape survivors. 

4. Senator Sessions' repeated votes and rhetoric toward attempts to shut 

down abortion clinics, and whether he will use the powers of the Justice 

Department to protect the safety of women, particularly rape survivors, 

seeking abortion care. Specifically, his intentions on whether to continue the 

use of federal marshals and prosecutorial powers to protect patients and 

combat a rising wave of terrorism against clinics. We note your vote in favor 

of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. 

If you have any questions, please contact Campaign Director Emma 

Boorboor via emma@weareultraviolet.org. Thank you for your 

consideration. 

With appreciation, 

Nita Chaudhary & Shaunna Thomas 

Co-Directors, UltraViolet 

PO Box# 34 756 lXl .. WeAreUltraViotet.oro 
1238 

Anton R. V alukas 

353 N. Clark 

43'd Floor 

Chicago, IL 60654 

December 12, 2016 

RECEIVED UEC Z J 2UJ6 

Re: Nomination of Senator of Jeff Sessions for Attomey General of the United States 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

United States Senator 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

WashirrgtD!l:, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United State Senate 

437 Russell Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Detlr Chairman Gtassley, Ranking Member Leahy and United States Senator Feinstein: 

I sel"Ved as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois from April 1985 

through November of 1989. During that period of time, I came to know both personally and 

professionally- Senator Jeff Sessions who then served as the United States Attorney for 

Alabama's Southern District. 

From my work with Senator Sessions, both on committees as well as in connection with some 

significant law enforcement investigations, I came to form an opinion as to the manner in which 

he handled the important responsibilities as the United States Attorney. Throughout the entire 

time that I knew him, I never saw anything which suggested that his commitment was other than 

to the community as a whole and to protect the public while recognizing the individual rights 

guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. 

ThroughouHhafperiod of time, I never saw or heard anything which suggested that he was in 

any way racially biased or unwilling to consider, accept and appreciate points of views that 

diffe1'ed froin his own. 

2517544.1 
1239 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

Page Two 

December 12,2016 

I know that my view of Senator Sessions was shared by the many United States Attomeys who I 

dealt with during that period oftime. 

I submit tlus letter in the hopes that it will address certain issues which I have read have been 

raised about Senator Sessions and will assist you in your hearings conceming his confinnation. sztf---

Anton R. Valukas 

ARV/bjz 

Cc: John Brownlee 

25!7544.! 
1240 

Chairman Chuck Grass ley 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

January 9, 2017 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We, the undersigned civil rights, advocacy, community, and interfaith groups, 

write to express our profound concern regarding President-elect Donald Trump's 

intention to nominate Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) as the next Attorney 

General of the United States. Given his 30-year record on a number of issues 

impacting the communities we represent, as well as his association with known hate 

groups, we seriously question Senator Sessions' willingness to protect the rights of 

all Americans. 

The Attorney General is charged with ensuring the fair and impartial 

administration of justice for all Americans. Throughout his public life, Senator 

Sessions has opposed the enforcement of civil rights laws and taken anti-immigrant 

and anti-LGBTQ positions. Among many other concerns, he recently expressed antiMuslim views and defended the President-elect's call for a ban on Muslim 

immigration into the United States. Answering a question about a religion-based ban 

on Meet the Press last year, he brushed aside concerns that regulations targeting the 

adherents of a particular faith would plainly violate the First Amendment, stating: 

"There is no constitutional right to come to America if you possess an ideology that 

is dangerous." 1 Further underscoring his position, Senator Sessions was one of the 

few Senators who voted against a proposed amendment to existing legislation that 

would prevent a religious litmus test for people entering the country. 

Alarmingly, Senator Sessions has also chosen to align himself with known 

anti-Muslim hate groups and their leaders. In 2014, he accepted an award from a 

group founded by David Horowitz, a leading anti-Muslim voice in this country. Mr. 

Horowitz founded the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) to combat "the 

efforts of the radical left and its Isla mist allies to destroy American values and 

disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.''2 Senator 

Sessions has attended several DHFC convenings of prominent anti-Muslim 

advocates, lawmakers, and journalists. When accepting the DHFC award, Mr. 

Sessions spoke of his admiration for Mr. Horowitz, and praised others who have 

previously been awarded. Previous award recipients include Pamela Geller, who 

1 Sam Kestenbaum, Trump's Muslim Ban Has an Advocate in Attorney General Pick jeff Sessions, 

FORWARD, Nov. 18, 2016, http:/ /forward.com/news/354898/trumps-muslim-ban-has-anadvocate-in-attorney-general-pick-jeff-sessions/. 

2 David Horowitz Freedom Center, About, http:/ jwww.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/about. 
1241 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

January 9, 2017 

Page 2 of3 

leads her own anti-Muslim hate group and is considered one of the chief architects 

of the anti-Muslim movement in the United States. 

In 2015, Mr. Sessions accepted an award from yet another anti-Muslim hate 

group, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) run by Frank Gaffney. Both CSP and Mr. 

Gaffney have played a significant role in fomenting anti-Muslim hate by promoting a 

dangerous and false narrative regarding the threat posed by the American Muslim 

community. As just one example, Mr. Gaffney infamously accused Muslim employees 

of the federal government of acting as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. We also 

are troubled that Senator Sessions did not initially disclose the full extent of his 

connection with these organizations in his Senate judiciary Questionnaire, which 

would have prevented the Senate from thoroughly examining this issue. 

Now more than ever, it is critical for our nation's top law enforcement officer 

to uphold the law and administer justice fairly for every individual in this county, 

including American Muslims. This is particularly true given the divisive rhetoric that 

surfaced during the election cycle, and because so many members of the upcoming 

administration have demonstrated strong bias against Islam and Muslims. As 

described above, Senator Sessions has closely aligned with anti-Muslim hate groups, 

accepted their awards and accolades, and publicly praised their leadership. Senator 

Sessions' appointment will only embolden these groups and activists and serve to 

further fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry already burning in this country. 

Thank you for considering our views. If you would like to discuss this matter 

further, please contact Madihha Ahussain by phone at 415-692-4932 or email at 

madihha@muslimadvocates.org. 

Respectfully, 

Alliance for Justice 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State 

Arab American Institute 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice- AAJC 

Bend the Arc Jewish Action 

Capital Area Muslim Bar Association 

Center for Media Justice 

Center for New Community 

Color Of Change 

Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago 

Emerge USA 

Free Press 

Georgia Association of Muslim Lawyers 

The Interfaith Center of New York 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 
1242 

Chairman Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein 

Senate judiciary Committee 

january 9, 2017 

Page 3 of 3 

MoveOn.org Civic Action 

Muslim Advocates 

Muslim Bar Association of New York 

Muslim Community Network 

Muslim Justice League 

Muslim Public Affairs Council 

NAACP 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum 

National Council of Asian Pacific Americans 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of La Raza (NCLR) 

National Immigration Law Center 

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund 

National Network for Arab American Communities 

National Religious Campaign Against Torture 

NIACAction 

DCA- Asian Pacific American Advocates 

People For the American Way 

South Asian Bar Association of North America 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 

Southern Poverty Law Center 
1243 

January 9, 2017 

Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee 

Re: Nomination for Attorney General of Senator Sessi()!l_S 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

We are writing to express our concerns about the privacy record of the President-Elect's nominee for 

Attorney General of the United States, Senator Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions has been a leading 

proponent of expanding the government's surveillance of ordinary Americans at the expense of civil 

rights and civil liberties. He has spent his 20-year career in the Senate arguing for broad, often 

unchecked surveillance powers in intelligence investigations, even though those investigations pose 

unnecessarily invasive risks to privacy. Senator Sessions has staunchly defended the USA Patriot Act's 

most controversial and privacy invasive provisions, calling the Act "a restrained piece of legislation."' 

He has advocated for broader surveillance powers than the intelligence community (IC) itself has asked 

for and opposed the USA Freedom Act, which the IC supported. 

Senator Sessions's own statements, excerpted below, demonstrate an inclination to gloss over 

differences between criminal and foreign intelligence investigations; a lack of respect for the right to 

privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press; and a desire to use 

American companies to warrantlessly spy on Americans. 

I. Senator Sessions's record demonstrates an inclination to gloss over differences between 

criminal and foreign intelligence investigations. 

Senator Sessions defended the USA Patriot Act, particularly bulk collection under Section 215 

(which Congress outlawed once the program was exposed), as merely extending to 

intelligence agencies the same investigatory powers that law enforcement has in criminal 

investigations. 

• "I believe everything in that bill [the USA Patriot Act] was consistent with thenexisting criminal law techniques that were used every day by prosecutors in the 

counties of America, in the U.S. Attorney's Offices, which I was for almost 15 years. 

And I do not believe that there is anything there that we should be apologizing for."' 

1 Oversight of the USA PATRIOT ACT: Hearings Before the S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 26-28 (2005). 

2 Hearing on the Report of the Presidenfs Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies Before the S. 

Comm. On the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 28 (2014). 

1 
1244 

• "The Patriot Act basically is a restrained piece of legislation that focuses on a 

number of loopholes and gaps in our law. Many times situations arise ... where the 

DEA can go out and issue administrative subpoenas in a drug case, the Food and 

Drug Administration can go into businesses and search everything in the business 

and get all kinds of documents, but an investigator investigating somebody trying to 

kill millions of Americans cannot do it. So what we did was try to give the same 

proven constitutional powers that existed in other investigations to people 

investigating terrorism and to break down the walls that had been created between 

intelligence agencies that made it far more difficult to share that information."3 

• "Most people would agree it should not be more difficult to investigate a terrorist 

plot than check fraud. As the National Academy of Sciences noted in its recent 

report, Section 215 of the Patriot Act simply 'allow[s] the [Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court] to require production of documents and other tangible things 

determined relevant to national security investigations, much like other courts do in 

criminal and grand jury investigations.'"4 

This stance is particularly noteworthy because intelligence investigations pose special and 

extreme risks to privacy. They are secret, rarely if ever tested in court, and result in the 

collection of much more information. Because of these differences in the nature of 

investigations, it is appropriate that intelligence gathering authorities, such as Section 215 of 

FISA and national security letter provisions, are limited in scope and are subject to more 

oversight than the corresponding criminal authorities. 

II. Senator Sessions has repeatedly made statements and supported policies that devalue and 

erode freedoms of association and of the press. 

Senator Sessions does not acknowledge the significant First Amendment and privacy 

interests in protecting library records from warrantless surveillance. From a Senate hearing 

transcript: 

• Sessions: "You tell me a principled reason why you could subpoena someone's 

medical records, their bank records, their telephone records, but not subpoena their 

library records. Is there one?" 

Director Mueller: "I do not believe so .... " 

3 Oversight of the USA PATRIOT ACT: Hearings Before the 5. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Con g. 28 (2005). 4 Jeff Sessions, Why Should Terrorists be Harder to Investigate Than Routine Criminals, National Review (May 20, 2015), 

http://www .nationalreview .com/ article/ 418675/why·shou ld·terrorists·be·harder·i nvestigate·routine·criminals·jeff· 

sessions. 

2 
1245 

Sessions: "Thank you. And I know that they are entitled to every kind of 

constitutional protection, a library is, that anyone else is. But I do not think a library 

deserves a special protection over any other business. A library does not have any 

sanctity. Why does a library have sanctity that your medical records do not have? 

They think it is sanctified, I will admit. I just disagree that it deserves special 

protection."5 

Senator Sessions opposed the USA Freedom Act, which ended the bulk collection of phone 

records by the NSA under Section 215 and was supported by the intelligence community. 

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the USA Freedom Act "preserves the 

essential operational capabilities of the telephone metadata program and enhances other 

intelligence capabilities needed to protect our nation and its partners."6 Senator Sessions 

defended bulk collection of Americans' telephone records despite consistent evidence that 

the program never discovered or disrupted a terrorist plot. In doing so, Senator Sessions 

mischaracterized the dragnet collection of phone records under 215 as equivalent to the 

targeted collection of phone records with subpoenas in the criminal context. 

• "A local district attorney can obtain [phone records] in a routine criminal case .... 

[by] issu[ing] a grand-jury subpoena .... But legislation known as the USA Freedom 

Act would prevent our intelligence officers from obtaining information in this 

manner at all . ... In short, the USA Freedom Act would make it vastly more difficult 

for the NSA to stop a terrorist than it is to stop a tax cheat."7 

Senator Sessions opposed a federal reporter's shield bill that would protect journalists from 

having to reveal their confidential sources when subpoenaed, and demonstrated that he 

believes government secrecy should trump the public's right to know about the 

government's activities. 

• "This week, the Committee will consider legislation to shield journalists from being 

compelled to testify or produce any documents in investigations relating to certain 

protected information. I believe this information will do considerable-this 

legislation as written will do damage to our national security. There are reasons, 

very good reasons, that nations have to maintain a certain amount of secrecy, and I 

5 Oversight of the USA PA TR/OT ACT: Hearings Before the S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 109th Con g. 26-28 (200S). 6 Letter to Sen. Leahy and Sen. Lee from Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attny Gen., and James Clapper, Dir. Of Nat'llntel. (May 11, 

20 1S ), https://cdt.org/files/2015/0S/DNI·AG·USA-FRE ED 0 M-2015-Su pport-Letter .pdf. 7 Sessions, supra note 4. 

3 
1246 

think we need to be aware of that, and I hope to ask you questions about that .... it 

is a very sensitive matter to inquire of a free news person in America .... It just 

almost is not done unless it has to be done for some very significant reason. I am not 

sure that is always wise, but I think to err has been on the side of protecting the 

media if there has been any error in recent years for the most part."8 

Senator Sessions questioned the validity of legal challenges to surveillance programs 

• "And some private lawsuit out here against companies for millions of dollars, filed by 

lawyers who could be lawyers associated with groups associated with terrorism, is 

not the way to give oversight to a program like this, I don't think. Would you agree 

with that?"9 

Ill. Senator Sessions does not believe that Americans hilVe a right to privacy in any sensitive 

information about them that companies store. He wants the government to be able to 

collect sensitive personal information from third parties without any privacy protections. 

Senator Sessions takes an absolutist view of the third-party doctrine-that people have no 

expectation of privacy in any records held by third parties. This extreme view is in opposition 

to the evolving views of the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor's widely cited concurring 

opinion in United States v. Jones questioned whether "it may be necessary to reconsider" the 

third-party doctrine, which is "ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal 

of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane 

tasks."10 Rather than advocating a role for Congress in filling the privacy gaps left by the 

third-party doctrine, Senator Sessions supports companies voluntarily turning over their 

customers' personal information with no process and no notice. 

• "[R]ecords held in a bank are not your records, they are the bank's records .... 

Dragnet, Joe Friday and company .... used to go out to the motel and get the 

records to see if old Billy checked in. And they would give it to them. Now because 

of the laws and lawyers, banks and everybody often demand subpoena or some sort 

of official document before they will turn it over because they don't want to be sued 

by somebody and have to defend the case whether they win or lose. But the 

principles are pretty much the same here. You have a diminished expectation of 

privacy [in] records held by independent third parties.11 

8 Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 1llth Cang. 4-10 

(emphasis added). 9 153 Cang. Rec. 15709, 15750 (2007). 10 United States v. Janes, 565 U.S. 417 {2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). 11 Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT ACT: Ensuring liberty: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Admin. Oversight and the Courts, 

S. Comm. On the Judiciary, lllth Con g. 27-28 (2009). 

4 
1247 

• "Now, there is a question about, under certain circumstances, the ability to forbid 

disclosure. It used to be banks and hotels and motels would produce documents and 

the agent or the local police detective would ask them not to tell the person because 

they were conducting an investigation, and they would not. My understanding from 

my experience in prosecuting is that more and more lawyers have told these banks 

and motels and other businesses that they can or should report any subpoena of the 

person's record. And this could have a very damaging impact on a very sensitive 

investigation, could it not?"12 

Senator Sessions supported immunity for third parties that violate the law in turning over 

records to the government without a proper court order, denigrated efforts to vindicate the 

rights of those whose records were turned over, and complained that those efforts caused a 

public debate. 

• "So I do not know how we got to a place where we are supporting an effort by some 

to allow these companies, these good corporate citizens, to be sued. I know it is 

being driven by a lot of leftist, the 'blame America first' folks who seek to undo every 

single thing that is done to protect America from attack by foreign adversaries. They 

go through it. They attempt to find anything that can be complained about, and we 

end up having a big debate on these issues."13 

Senator Sessions sponsored an amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 

that would require companies to turn over records without a court order, or any oversight at 

all, when law enforcement claims there is an emergency, even when the company had 

determined there was none. 

• "Law enforcement investigators, who have the training and experience in such 

matters, should be making the determination as to what constitutes an emergency 

situation-not an untrained employee of a service provider. An emergency 

exception that allows law enforcement professionals to determine the existence of 

an emergency and requires service providers to disclose the requested information 

is a potential fix that might help address some law enforcement concerns and might 

help recalibrate ECPA so that there is better balance between privacy and public 

safety."14 

12 153 Cong. Rec. 15709, 15750 (2007). 

13 /d. 14 5. Rep. No.113-34, at 12-19 (2013) (additional views from Grassley and Sessions). 

5 
1248 

We urge you to carefully investigate Senator Sessions's record on privacy and seek assurances that he 

will not pursue policies that undermine Americans' privacy and civil liberties. 

Sincerely, 

Access Now 

Alliance for Citizenship 

American Association of Law Libraries 

American Library Association 

Amnesty International USA 

Association of Research Libraries 

Center for Democracy & Technology 

Constitutional Alliance 

Electronic Frontier Foundation 

Liberty Coalition 

National Bar Association 

New America's Open Technology Institute 

Restore the Fourth 

Voting Rights Forward 

cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

6 
1249 

Victims & Friends 

United 

December 8, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

United States Senate 

135 Hart Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

P. 0. Box 44587 

Phoenix, AZ 85064 

(602-651-1329) 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: LEITER OF SUPPORT for Jeff Sessions 

For Confirmation as 84th Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Senators Grassley and Leahy: 

On behalf of the members of Victims and Friends United, we write to express our endorsement of 

Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our next U.S. Attorney General. We urge the Senate Judiciary 

Committee to promptly and impartially confirm the nomination. 

Victims and Friends United was founded in 1992. It is a grass-roots organization that works to ensure 

that existing victims' rights laws are zealously enforced, and encourage the drafting of new legislation to 

further protect the rights of crime victims and improve public safety with an emphasis on what takes 

place on the state and national levels. The organization keeps track of judges and criminal justice 

professionals who are champions for the rule of law and fight for the rights of law-abiding citizens. The 

information has been published and distributed, with personal funds and is a contribution to all crime 

victims in memory of our daughter Louarna {who was murdered in 1979 by a gang member seeking to 

gain status in his gang by murdering the family member of a police officer). 

Mr. Sessions began his work in public service in 1975. He has a long and distinguished career in the 

criminal justice field. He will be a strong law-and-order Attorney General. He was a prosecutor for 

nearly 15 years and has worked with Democrats and Republicans to support criminal justice reform 

legislation. Mr. Sessions is committed to the rule of law which is important to a group such as Victims 

and Friends United which has diligently fought for the rights of those who are the innocent victims of 

violent crime. Mr. Sessions has dedicated his life to public service, has a stellar career, academic 

achievements and the academic credentials which make him the best person to serve as our next 

Attorney General. 

Although we (the founders) are Black, our organization is ethnically diverse and we seek to bring equal 

justice for all Americans who may become and are victims of crime. We whole-heartedly endorse Mr. 

Sessions for Attorney General of the United States. We have researched his background and could find 

no evidence that he is biased toward people of color. In addition we have members who are diverse 

Victims & Friends - United we make a difference! 
1250 

and from all walks of life. We have fought for tough-on-crime measures, regardless of race, and seek to 

bring justice to all individuals who are victims of crime. We seek justice based on the evidence not 

ethnidty, religion or political party affiliation. 

Victims and Friends United, support and endorse Mr. Sessions' confirmation without reservation as our 

next U.S. Attorney General. We welcome the opportunity to answer (in person) any questions your 

Committee may have. 

Sincerely, 
1251 

State Office 

Victims of Crime and Leniency 

VOCAL Angel House 

The Quenette Shehane Center 

P.O. Box 4449 

Montgomery, Alabama 36103 

December 5, 2016 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate United States Senate 

1-800-239-3219 

(334) 262-7197 

135 Hart Building 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

437 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20510 

RE: Letter of Support for Jefferson Sessions, III 

For Confirmation as 84'h Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Senators Grassley and Leahy: 

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Victims of Crime and Leniency of Alabama 

(VOCAL), I write to express our unanimous endorsement of Attorney General Nominee 

Jefferson Sessions, III. We strongly urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to immediately 

and fairly confirm the nomination of Jefferson Sessions by President Elect Donald Trump 

to serve as our next Attorney General. We urge the Senate to confirm Jefferson Sessions, 

III, immediately. 

Founded in 1982 by Miriam Shehane, mother of Quenette Shehane. Quenette was 

brutally shot and murdered while going to buy salad dressing for a party on the campus of 

Birmingham Southern. As a result of Quenette's murder, VOCAL was organized to 

balance the scales of justice by giving crime victims rights rather than eroding the rights 

of an offender. VOCAL's originally focused on legislation to recti!Y the unequal scales of 

justice that our founder saw and lived from 1976 to !982. During his time as U.S. 

Attorney, Alabama's Attorney General, and as a United States Senator, Jefferson 

Sessions, III, continued the fight to ensure victims within our state and our country found 

fair and equal justice. 

Senator Sessions has dedicated his life to public service and continues to have an 

exemplary career. He received his J.D. degree from the University of Alabama in 1973 

Non-Profit Organization 
1252 

and he received his B.A. degree from Huntingdon College in 1969. Senator Sessions 

served in the United States Army Reserve from 1973 to 1986 attaining the rank of 

Captain. Sen. Sessions served with distinction during his first employment with the 

Department of Justice, as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of 

Alabama. Two years later in 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated Sen. Sessions to 

serve as the United States Attorney for Alabama's Southern District. Sen. Sessions served 

with distinction for twelve (12) years as United States Attorney before being elected 

Alabama Attorney General in 1995, serving as the state's chieflegal officer and top law 

enforcement officer until 1997, when he entered the United States Senate. 

Throughout his career, Senator Sessions has led the fight to ensure victims found fair and 

equal justice while protecting all the citizens of our great state and nation. He cosponsored legislation to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act, the Protecting 

Children from Internet Pornographers Act, and legislation to allow law enforcement to 

track down violent sexual predators and protect the vulnerable members of our nation. He 

has supported VOCA and VA WA funding to ensure violent domestic offenders are 

prosecuted to the fullest extent under our laws. In a fight dear to the hearts of our Board, 

Sen. Sessions has warned against the "unprecedented commutations" of violent 

offenders. These are just an indication of where Sen. Sessions' heart lies-justice for 

those who are victims of crime. Additionally, Sen. Sessions has a rock solid reputation of 

being an outstanding prosecutor, with impeccable character and integrity. He will serve 

this nation as the chieflaw enforcement officer whose decisions are driven by the U. S. 

Constitution and laws as passed by Congress. 

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors of VOCAL, without any reservation, 

strongly support Sen. Jeff Sessions as our next United States Attorney General. The 

United States is at a pivotal moment in terms of the criminal justice system. We 

respectfully submit that the Department of Justice and our criminal justice system has 

never needed a more professional, intellectual and personally qualified individual to take 

the helm. The United States of America needs Sen. Sessions as Attorney General. 

Therefore, we urge his confirmation as soon as possible so that he can assume command 

of the Department of Justice on the first day of the Trump Administration. 

The Board welcomes the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have and we 

thank you for your consideration. 
1253 

January 9, 2017 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Diane G. Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington,D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 

I submit this letter in support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Since the announcement of Senator Sessions' nomination, there has been extensive public 

discussion about his record in many areas, including immigration law, criminal prosecution and 

civil rights enforcement. Somewhat overlooked in that debate has been Senator Sessions' record 

as a supporter of our national security professionals and the surveillance and other investigative 

tools they need to protect our country against terrorists. 

As a former Executive Branch official in the George W. Bush Administration- FBI 

General Counsel and Chief-of-Staff; United States Attorney; Assistant Attorney General for 

National Security; and Homeland Security Advisor for President Bush I have been heavily 

involved both during and after my government service in the post-9/11 effort to provide the 

Intelligence Community with a strong yet measured set of surveillance and investigative 

authorities. Senator Sessions has played a key role in that effort and has distinguished himself as 

an effective and knowledgeable advocate for these authorities. 

Senator Sessions has been centrally involved in the national security legislative debates 

of the past 15 years. In each of these debates, Senator Sessions drew on his extensive practical 

experience as line prosecutor and United States Attorney to pierce through the histrionics and 

misi~npressions on both sides and center the debate on the two critical considerations in national 

security lawmaking- the need for the requested authority and the existence of sufficient 

safeguards to ensure it is used responsibly and in accordance with legal and constitutional 

requirements. In doing so, he has consistently demonstrated a clear recognition that strong 

investigatory powers require strong oversight, and that we must always balance our national 

security concerns with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. Senator Sessions' cleareyed perspective and his leadership in these debates were instrumental to the passage of those 

pieces of national security legislation including the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act Reauthorization 
1254 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

The Honorable Diane Feinstein 

January 9, 2017 

Page 2 

and the FISA Amendments Act- that have done so much to build our national defenses against 

the terrorists who wage war against us and our way of life. 

With the rise oflSIS and the growing concern about homeland terrorist attacks, it is 

critical that our government officials provide that same clear-eyed leadership in the face of the 

looming terrorist threat. Based on his record as an effective champion of strong and measured 

surveillance authorities over the past 15 years, I am confident that Senator Sessions will provide 

that leadership as Attorney General of the United States. 

Thank you for considering my observations about Senator Sessions and his strong 

national security record, and please do not hesitate to call upon me if there is any additional 

assistance I can provide. 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth L. W ainstein 
1255 

Deo~mbcr 2. 20 !6 

loWiwm Conc~rn: 

!C>r Senator Jctr Sessions lhr Fnited Attomcy 

1991. when was raped and murdcr"d. l 

\Vorklng to st-cure 

Tenn.:ssce Voict"S Victims. a state v\ide cdm\! victim ud\ocac) 

l htn·c a solid reputation with justice prolCssionals and law enforccmc!1t in 

as an for victims and tilr law en!\.1rcemem. have collaborated with la\\ 

enforc~m~nt agencies m.c:ross Tcnncs:sce on tutd 1 

served. and on numerous 

the victim. {~ly bio is 

victim of crime. 

of law enforcement is 

victims 

the sccurit:y. 

un,dc,·st:mrls these critical 

m rcr 25 years. I know tl(l\\ vitally important rok 

andjustke our l'ommunitl~.~s. Senator 

time- and with legislation he both 

year:;. the danger men and women of Ia\V 0nforcemenJ 

dr:Jmaticallv increased due in large part tl·om non-support !rom top. Senator Sessions has 

demonstrated through legislation like "'The Thin Blue AcC that he understands the nn"m"'''r'' 

necessary respect and support J(>r the men and \\omen of la\\ ''nlmr''''"'"t 

line e\ery day to protect our citizens, 

of these crimes. and has worked 

through VOC\ funding and VAWA 

Senator understands core is safety of the public. has 

wise approach is to slow down and hdhre a~''''""'w'~ population 

knows that releasing offenders who arc not accountable or only creates new 

Scna\0!' solid understanding uf our dru;: 

the probh:ms of impaired driYing, His ' and " 

position. m this m our coumry 

thank 

appointment States Attorney GeneraL 

Victims 

Phone: 615-5!3-8707 

and the of addiction, He seen 

a pcricct tit 

for consid.-:ring my his 
1256 

YWCA USA 

1020 191

h Street NW, Suite 

750, 

Washington, D.C., 20036 

p 202.467.0801 

F 202.467.0802 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 10,2017 

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the U.S. 

Senate Judiciary Committee, 

On behalf of YWCA USA, I write to express our opposition to the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United States of America. As 

one ofthe oldest and largest women's organizations in the nation, serving 

over 2 million women, girls and families, YWCA USA is on a mission to 

eliminate racism, empower women, stand up for social justice, help families, 

and strengthen communities. We have been at the forefront ofthe most 

pressing social movements for more than 150 years- from voting rights to 

civil rights, from affordable housing to pay equity, from violence prevention to 

health care reform. Today, our 217local associations in 47 states and the 

District of Columbia combine programming and advocacy in order to generate 

institutional change in three key areas: racial justice and civil rights, 

empowerment and economic advancement of women and girls, and health 

and safety of women and girls. Notably, YWCA is the largest provider of 

domestic violence services in the country. 

YWCA USA has grave concerns about Mr. Sessions' record as a U.S. Senator 

and as a state and federal prosecutor with respect to survivors of domestic 

violence and sexual assault, and his record on civil rights. Senator Session's 

record demonstrates a profound lack of support for survivors of domestic 

violence and sexual assault: he opposed the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013 and has promoted policies that harm immigrant 

victims and survivors. His record also demonstrates a history of undermining 

critical civil rights protections: he has promoted racially discriminatory laws 

and policies, and he voted against legislation that made targeted violence 

against LGBTQ people a hate crime. 

We are also concerned by the significant omissions in Senator Sessions' 

responses to the committee's questionnaire. Proceeding with consideration of 

his nomination without more forthcoming and detailed responses to these 

questions leaves the American people without critical information needed to 

assess his commitment to protecting survivors of gender-based violence and 
1257 

YWCA USA 

1020 19th Street NW, Suite 

750, 

Washington, D.C., 20036 

p 202.467.0801 

F 202.467.0802 

constituencies impacted by civil rights violations the Department of Justice is 

tasked with enforcing. 

The written role of the Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice 

and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, is to represent 

the United States in legal matters, including affording equal protection under 

our criminal, civil and civil rights laws to all individuals within our society. 1 

YWCA USA believes deeply that our nation needs an attorney general who will 

help restore faith in our justice system. We need a leader who will bring 

together members of local communities, law enforcement agencies, churches 

and civil rights organizations, and ensure that law enforcement agencies 

receive adequate training, document racial profiling incidents, and are held to 

high standards. In light of his record on equal opportunity, equal protection, 

and gender-based violence, we do not believe that Senator Jeff Sessions is 

that leader. We ask you, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to 

ask him direct questions regarding the concerns we have raised in this letter 

and to oppose his nomination as Attorney General. 

Best Regards, 

Dara Richardson-Heron, MD 

CEO, YWCA USA 

1 28 U.S.C.§§ 516, 519. 
1258 

ALABAMA ETIDCS COMMISSION 

MINUTES 

July 10, 1996 

9th Floor, RSA Union Building 

Montgomery, Alabama 

2001 

The Alabama Ethics Commission met on July 10, 1996, at 9:50 a.m., in the Public Service 

Commission Hearing Room on the 9th Floor of the RSA Union Building. 

Present: 

Honorable H. Dean Buttram, Jr., Chair 

Honorable James T. Pursell, Vice Chair 

Honorable Henry B. Gray, III, Member 

Honorable Camille S. Butrus, Member 

Honorable Helen Shores Lee, Member 

E. I. (Mac) McArthur, Director 

Hugh R. Evans, III, Assistant Attorney General 

David Green, Special Agent 

Charles Aldridge, Special Agent 

Absent: 

Pennie Buckelew, Recording Secretary, Executive Assistant 

Theresa Davis, Paralegal (during Opinion Review/Vote) 

Reverend Scott Jordan, Ridgeview Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama gave the invocation. 

Mr. Buttram introduced the Commissioners. Mr. Buttram then explained the procedures of the 

Alabama Ethics Commission. 

Old Business: 

Approval of the June 5, 1996 minutes. 

Ms. Butrus moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Gray seconded the moti011. Motion passed 

unanimously. 
1259 

Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes 

July 10, 1996 

Page six 

2006 

of the Board does not vote, attempt to influence, or otherwise participate in the lease issue. Ms. Lee 

moved to adopt Opinion No. 96-71 and Mr. Gray seconded the motion. Motion passed 

unanimously. 

The Ethics Commission recessed for 30 minutes for lunch. 

The Ethics Commission went into Executive Session. 

The Ethics Commission left Executive Session to publicly vote. 

Holland Greer, Chairman, Lauderdale County Board of Education 

Mr. Gray moved that Holklnd Greer having violated the Alabama Ethics Law, and pursuant to 

Section 36-25-27{b), Code o(Ahlbama, 1975, Holklnd Greer having requested an Administrative 

Resolution and the same llaving been approved by the Honorable Steve Graham, District Attorney 

for the lldr Judicial Circuit, hereby muved that said modon be granted and the matter of Holland 

Greer be handled adnrlnistroti.vely as follows: that a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 is ordered 

by the Commission and that said fine be paid to the Ethics Commission within 10 days. Ms. Lee 

seconded the motion. Motion passed u11animously. 

The Ethics Commission went into Executive Session. 

The Ethics Commission left Executive Session to publicly vote. 

Edward McFadden, Chief Investigator, Attorney General's Office 

Ms. Butrus moved t!Jat with regard to the complai11t as filed against Mr. Edward McFadden, 

Chief Investigator, Attorney General's Office and based on the evidence as presented to this 

Commission, there currently exists insufficient facts to hold that Mr. Edward McFadden, Chief 

Investiglltor, Attorney General's Office has violated the Alabama Ethics Law and further moved 

that the CIISe be closed. Mr. Gray seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (Mr. Pursell 

recused himself and therefore, was not present). 

John Mulligan, Special Investigator, Attorney General's Office 

Mr. Gray moved that with regard to the complaint as flied against Mr. John MulUgan, Special 

Investigator, Attomey General's Office and based 011 the evidence as presented to this 

Commission, there currently exists insufficient facts to hold that Mr. John Mulligan, Specml 

Investigator, Attorney General's Office has vio/llted the Alabama Ethics Law and further moved 

that rhe case be closed, Ms. Lee seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (Mr. Pursell 

recused himself and therefore, was not present). 

Larry Miller, Special Im·estigator, Attorner General's Office 
1260 

Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes 

July I 0, 1996 

Page seven 

2007 

Ms. Butrus moved thGI with regard to the complaint as fded against Mr. Larry Miller, Special 

Investigator, Attorney General's Office and based on the evidence as presented to this 

Commission, there currently exists insuffu:ient facts to hold that Mr. Larry MiUer, Special 

Investigator, Attorney General's Offke has violated the Alabama Ethics Law and further moved 

that the case be closed. Mr. Gray seconded the motio11. Motion passed unanimously (Mr. Pursell 

recused himself and therefore, was not present). 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, HI, Attorney General, State of Alabama 

Ms. Lee moved that with regard to the complaint as filed agaillst the Honorable Jeff Sessions, HI, 

Attomey General, State of Alabama and based on the evidence as presented to this Commission, 

there currently exists insufficient facts to hold that tl!e Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ill, Attorney 

Ge11eral, State of Alabama has violated the Alabama Etllics Law andforther moved thGI tile case 

be closed. Ms. Butrus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (Mr. Pursell recused 

himself and therefore, was not present). 

Adjournment 

At 11:2 7 p.m. Ms. Lee moved to adjourn and Ms. Butrus seconded the motion. Motion passed 

unanimously (Mr. Pursell recused himself and t/u:refore, was not present). 

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission is August 7, 1996. 

E. J. "Mac" McArthur, Director 
1261 

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 

OF THE ALABAMA STATE BAR 

Jefferson B Sesstons III ASB No 911-116fA) 

FINAL DETERMINATION 

The Dtsctphnary Colllliiisston of the Alabama State Bar tn tts duly assembled 

meeting of February 16, 2000, havmg revtewed the recommendatmn of 

the Office of General Counsel, hereby 

Accepts sa1d recommendation that th1s matter be concluded wtth· 

a dts1111SSal wtthout further achon 

pursuant to Rule 12 (c)(l), Alabama Rules of the Dtsctphnary Procedure 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 

ALABAMA STATE BAR 

,. 

By~~~ Chamnan 
1262 

ALABAMA STATE BAR 

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 

TELEPHONE 334-269-1515 

FAX: 334!261-6311 

April16, 1998 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions 

c/o Ms. Peggy Jeffreys 

Executive Assistant 

Office of Senator Jeff Sessions 

495 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0104 

Re; ASB No. 98-116(A) 

Dear Senator Sessions; 

P.O. BOX671 

MONTGOMERY, AL3610l DELIVER" ADOOESS: 4\5 DEXIER AVENUE MONTGOMERY.AL36104 

I am writing to advise that a formal investigative file has been opened based upon the enclosed 

Order and Opinion of Judge James S. Garrett, which was received in this office on or about July 

16, 1997. After receipt of this Order and Opinion, the Office of General Counsel requested J. 

Mark White, attorney for one of the defendants, to provide this office with a copy of the 

defendants' "Memorandum in Support of Motions to Dismiss and/or Suppress" which statement 

of facts was adopted as part of Judge Garrett's order. A copy of the Memorandum in Support of 

Motion to Dismiss and/or Suppress was provided on or about July 31, 1997, and is enclosed for 

your reference as part of the complaint. 

After review of the Memorandum in Support of Motions to Dismiss and/or Suppress and the 

hearing transcripts, the Office of General Counsel determined that you were possibly an 

"involved attorney." 

No aspect of the complaint has been prejudged. The Disciplinary Commission has adopted a 

policy that lawyers are entitled to receive a copy of any complaint and entitled to respond in 

writing to the complaint. 

RULE JD AlABAMA IMES OF D:SCIPUNAI'?V PPGCWURE OF THE ALABAMA $fAtE BAR. ADOPl£0 BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. PROVIDES THAT AU OISCIPU· NMY POCICEEDINGS SHAU REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL lJNlll A PLEA Of GUILt\' OR fHf: DISCIPLINARY SOARD OR D!SCIPLINMY COMMISSION MAKES A FINDING OF GUilTY 
1263 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, lli 

April 16, 1998 

Page2 

Please review the enclosed documents and provide a written response thereto on or before June 

1, 1998. In making your response, you should consider the following general allegations of 

misconduct and the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 

Knowing use of unreliable information to obtain a search warrant 

Material representations of fact in the affidavit used 

to obtain the search warrant 

Improper execution of the search warrant 

Seizure of items outside the scope of the search 

warrant 

Allowed unauthorized persons to be present 

during grand jury proceedings in violation of law 

and/or court rules 

Allowed nonlawyers to examine witnesses 

testifying during grand jury proceedings 

Allowed witnesses to provide unsworn testimony 

during grand jury proceedings 

Failure to comply with other requirements of law 

and/or court rules during grand jury proceedings 

Failure to keep records of grand jury proceedings 

as required by law and/or court rules 

Selective recordation of testimony during grand 

jury proceedings 

Improper use of criminal proceedings for personal 

gain or benefit 

Improper use of criminal proceedings and evidence 

obtained therein for the benefit of third parties in 

ongoing, related civil proceedings 
1264 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, Ill 

April 16, 1998 

Page 3 

Improper use of criminal proceedings and evidence 

obtained therein as a defense to proceedings 

before the Alabama Ethics Commission 

Disclosure of indictments, evidence and/or action 

of the grand jury in violation of law and/or court 

rules 

Presenting and obtaining indictments from the grand 

jury with knowledge or reason to know that they were 

not supported by probable cause or were otherwise 

legally defective 

Maintaining and prosecuting charges not supported 

by probable cause 

Failure to produce exculpatory evidence 

Failure to comply with court orders and/or court rules 

Misrepresentations to the court and others regarding 

the existence of and character of discoverable 

evidence 

Deliberate lack of diligence or intentional ignorance 

to avoid responsibilities regarding discovery imposed 

by law, court order and/or court rules 

Altering evidence or documents having potential 

evidentiary value 

Publication or release ofNCIC information in 

violation of law 

Improper contact with witnesses and/or parties 

represented by counsel 

Lack of candor in testimony or statements made 

as officers ofthe court during court proceedings 
1265 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, III 

April 16, 1998 

Page4 

Lack of candor in investigative reports, affidavits, 

or other products of the criminal investigation 

Representing conflicting interests 

Disclosure of confidential infonnation 

Use of confidential infonnation to the disadvantage 

of a client and/or fortner client 

Possible violations of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct as follows: 

1.7 

1.8 

1.9 

1.10 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.8 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

5.1 

5.3 

5.5 

8.4(a) 

8.4(c) 

8.4(d) 

8.4(g) 

Conflict of Interest: General Rule 

Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions 

Conflict of Interest; Fonner Client 

Imputed Disqualification: General Rule 

Meritorious Claims and Contentions 

Expediting Litigation 

Candor Toward the Tribunal 

Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel 

Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor 

Truthfulness in Statements to Others 

Communication With Person Represented by Counsel 

Dealing With Unrepresented Person 

Respect for Rights of Third Persons 

Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer 

Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants 

Unauthorized Practice of Law 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Your response need not be limited to the foregoing, but should include any and all infortnation 

you deem necessary in order to adequately respond to any allegations that may apply or concern 
1266 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, Ill 

Aprill6, 1998 

Page 5 

you, your conduct, or your knowledge of circumstances surrounding such conduct on the part of 

others. 

Sincerely, 

Q~"~f ~~t:~ant General Counsel 

REL/clr 

Enclosure 
1267 

IICHAPMAN II FOWLER SCHOOL OF LAW UNIVERSITY ______ _ -·--··· -·--·---..,-----:-

ONE UNrvERSITY D"1v.1:. 

0RAN(;I':, CllliFOfi.N!A !)2fl66 

WWW.CHArMA;\.EDll 

January 6, 2017 

The Honorable Chairman Charles E. Grassley 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6050 

VIA EMAIL: 

Dear Sen. Grass!ey: 

Ronald D. Rotunda 

Tht• Voy & IJ~r HetJfey Chairat1d 

!Ji_>~mguislwl Proft•ssor of /uris.prudt•nr:e 

F.mai\: notunda@c-hapman.cdu 

{ 714) 628-2698 • Fax (714) 628-2576 

http://www l.chapman.edu/-rrotundal 

www .rona ldrotunda.com 

Introduction. You have asked us, Ronald D. Rotunda, 1 and W. William Hodes,1 for our 

expert opinion on the significance today of an ethics complaint leveled against Senator Jeff 

Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dec Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of 

Jurisprudence at Chapman University, the Dale E. Fowler School of Law: See, 

www.ronaldrotunda.org. His current resume is anached at the end of this Opinion Letter. 

W. William Hodes is Professor Emeritus of Law at Indiana University, and 

President ofthe William Hodes Law Firm. See www.hodeslaw.com. His current resume is attached 

at the end of this Opinion Letter. 

Professor Rotunda is a coauthor of, Legal Ethics: The Law:ycr's Deskbook on 

Professional Responsibility, which the ABA co-publishes with Thomson Reuters (ABA 

Thomson-West & ABA, 14th ed. 2016), a one-volume treatise on Legal Ethics, updated annually. 

He is also a coauthor of the most widely-used course book on. Legal Ethics, Problems and 

Materials on Professional Responsibility (Foundation Press, St. Paul, MN. 12th ed. 

2014))(Unabridged Edition), and Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility 

(Foundation Press, St. Paul, MN. 12th ed. 2014)(A bridged Edition). 

Professor Hodes is the coauthor (with Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr .. and Peter R. Jarvis) ofThe 

Law of Lawvering (Wolters, Kluwer. 4th ed. 1985. 2014 ), one of the leading treatises on legal 

ethics and related issues in the United States, which is updated twice annually. 
1268 

-2-

Sessions approximately a quarter-century ago. We have read the material discussed herein and 

have evaluated the charges. 

For simplicity, we present our conclusion first, and then explain in more detail how we 

reached it. 

Conclusion. Almost a quarter century ago,3 when Senator Sessions was the Attorney 

General of Alabama. lawyers for a company that had been criminally indicted sought dismissal of 

the charges in part on the grounds of prosecutorial abuse (that was not described in factual detail}. 

Although the trial court adopted that allegation (l•erbatim) as part of its dismissal order. the 

Alabama State Ethics Commission and the Alabama State Bar each separately investigated the 

maller, and both found, unanimously; that there was insufficient evidence to find any ethics 

violation against General Sessions (who had already been elected to the U.S. Senate at that point}. 

In addition, when related civil litigation continued in federal court between the company 

and the customer it had been accused of defrauding, the United Stales Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit found thai because the statement of the Alabama state court judge was lillie more 

than a convenient adoption of a party's argument, it was "particularly unreliable and 

misleading"-so much so that admitting it into evidence in the federal district court trial was an 

abuse of the (federal) trial court's discretion that required reversal. 

In our view, the contemporaneous actions of two Alabama state agencies arid the Eleventh 

Circuit demonstrate clearly that the mere nonspecific allegations of a party, uncritically adopted 

by a state court judge and rejected by the state agencies with jurisdiction over ethics complaints, 

cannot possibly have any bearing on Senator Sessions's ethical standing today. A supposed blot 

on one's record that has been so thoroughly debunked is no blot at all. 

J The whistle blower alleging fraud by Tieco first raised his charges in May, 1995, 

U.S. Steel. LLC. v. Tieco, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275, 1281 (lith Cir., Aug. 17, 2001). 

In addition to the criminal case in state coun, there was extensive litigation in federal coun, 

because USX and Tieco sued each other. See, e.g., USX Corp. v. TIECO, lnc.,l89 F.R.D. 674 

(N.D. Ala., Nov. 09. 1999), affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part by U.S. Steel. LLC, 

v. Tieco, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275 (lith Cir. Aug. 17, 2001), rehearing and rehearing en bane denied, 

U.S. Steel LLCv. Tieco.lnc., 277 F.3d 1381 (lith Cir. Nov. 8, 2001). Related cases include, USX 

Corp.''· TIECO, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1455 (N.D. Ala., June 21, 1996); USXCorp. ''· T!ECO, Inc .• 

USX Corp. v. TIECO,Inc., 929 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D. Ala., June 21, 1996); USXCorp. v. T!ECO, 

Inc., 227 F.R.D. 680 (N.D. Ala., Sep. 01, 2004), affirmed by, USX Corp. v. Tieco. Inc., 132 Fed. 

Appx. 237 (lith Cir. May 16, 2005). 

~ The Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama Stale Bar, ASB No. 98-116(A), 

dismissed the ethics charges on Feb. 16, 2000. Those charges were brought on April 16, 1998. 

The Alabama Ethics Commission dismissed the ethics charges on July I 0, 1996. 
1269 

• 3-

Fadual background. 

In 1995, a whistleblower from a company called Tieco, Inc. informed United States Steel. 

LLC (USX) that Tieco was receiving payment for goods not delivered. USX took the information 

to the Office of the Attorney General of Alabama, which sought and obtained a search warrant and 

eventually a criminal indictment against Tieco after demonstrating probable cause. 

The Auomey General's Office voluntarily dismisse<;t some counts in the indictment, and 

Tieco then moved to dismiss the remaining counts, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, among other 

things. The state trial judge granted the motion. copying verbatim key passages from court papers 

that Tieco's lawyers had drafted. There was no appeal from the dismissal order, but the issue of 

prosecutorial abuse was thoroughly litigated in related civil litigation in federal court and in two 

state disciplinary proceedings. As described below, the Eleventh Circuit found the allegations to 

be "particularly unreliable and misleading," while the state agencies both unanimously found 

insufficient merit in the allegations and dismissed the ethics complaints. 

The Alabama criminal case aside, USX sued Tieco civilly in federal court, under the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Tieco counterclaimed, asserting 

claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of its due process rights, and under state law for 

malicious prosecution. The federal trial court permitted Tieco to introduce the earlier Alabama 

stale court order {that included language taken verbatim from T_ieco's own liiings), and the jury 

awarded Tieco $7.2 million on its counterclaims. ·· 

The Eleventh Circuit unanimous reversed the jury verdict in Tieco's favor. Even looking 

at the record in the light most favorable to Tieco, there could be no § 1983 claim, the Court said, 

because the criminal prosecution, ahhough eventually dismissed. was supported by probable 

cause.5 

The Court then turned to the Alabama trial judge's order that dismissed the criminal case, 

which Tieco had introduced in its civil case in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit said that the 

criminal trial judge had simply adopted "a statement of facts prepared by TIECO in connection 

with its motion to dismiss the indictment. Not surprisingly, the statement of facts is quite favorable 

to Appellees [Tieco] and relied upon heavily by Appellees in their brief to this Court."6 Again, 

See 261 F.3d 1275, 1289-90. USX cooperated with the criminal investigation by 

the state attorney general's office into the actions of equipment vendor Tieco. That resulted in 

criminal charges being brought, but that did not violate Tieco 's due process rights, and thus could 

not support a §1983 claim against the steel company becau$e the vendor had no substantive due 

process right to be free from a criminal prosecution {even though uhimatcly successful) that was supported by probable cause. "Thus, no violation of procedural .due process could have occurred." 

261 F.3d 1290 (footnote omitted). 

6 261 F.3d 1275, 1286. 
1270 

• 4-

a<:cording to the Eleventh Circuit, the trial judge merely repeated Tieco's memorandum "in roto,"1 

-a memorandum "that neatly confonned to Appellees' allegations ... :oa The trial judge had said 

(quoting the lawyers representing Tieco), "[T]he misconduct of the [AGJ in this case far surpasses 

in both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously 

presented to or witnessed by this Court."9 

That was a damning statement, to be sure, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found 

that it was "particularly unreliable and misleading;" Moreover, introducing it in the federal trial 

required the Circuit Coun to reverse. The Alabama trial court's statement, said the Eleventh 

Circuit, 

"was particularly unreliable and mi.~leading. Although the statement of facts was 

presented to the jury as Judge Garrell's finding. if was prepared entirely by 

Appellee· counsel. In effect, the admission of the statement of facts pennitted 

counsel to testify on his client's behalf, without being cross-examined. Further, the 

statement of facts was intended to exculpate TIECO; and thus, it was self-serving 

and 11nreliable .• .. unfairly prejudicial and misleading."to 

Introducing this "particularly unreliable and misleading" statement of the Alabama trial 

judge was serious error. "The district court abused irs discretion in admitted Judge Garten's 

opinion. "11 

In addition to its involvement in the civil litigation in federal court, in May 1996 Tieco 

filed an ethics complaint against then Attorney General Jeff Session, while he was running his first 

Senate campaign. The Alabama State Ethics Commission investigated the Tieco charges, which 

were buttressed by the trial judge having copied them in his opinion. The Commission held a 

hearing, heard witnesses, and heard argument. But, as later related by the Eleventh Circuit, "On 

July 10. 1996, the Commission concluded there were insufficient facts to find the AG had violated 

7 261 F.Jd 1275, 1286 (emphasis in original). The judge's opinion "adopted in toto 

a memorandum of facts prepared by TIECO in connection with its motion to dismiss the 

i.ndictment." 

261 F.3d 1275, 1286. 

261 F.Jd 1275. 1286. 

10 261 F.3d 1275, 1287 (emphasis added}, citing United Stclles ''· Reme, 738 F.2d 

1156, 1168-69 (lith Cir.l984). 

II 261 F.Jd 1275, 1288 (emphasis added). 
1271 

• 5 • 

Alabama ethics laws."•z Indeed, the Alabama State Ethics Commission found unanimously (5 to 

0} that then Attorney General Sessions had not violated Alabama ethics laws. 

Tieco 's counsel also filed a complaint against Attorney General Sessions with the Alabama 

State Bar. Once again, Tieco relied on the state coun order, which Tieco had largely drafied and 

the state judge had copied, in ht1ec verba. The State Bar dismissed that complaint as well. 

Ultimately, the historical record shows only that Ticco and iiS lawyers filed one charge 

after another, attacking the office of the Attorney General of Alabama, various lawyers connected 

with it, and also then General Sessions. But the historical record also shows that the charges 

remained unsubstantiated, and ultimately went nowhere. 

Some media sources have suggested that these charges were well founded, or that Senator 

Sessions failed to disclose them to your Committee. As to the latter, we have been informed that 

disclosure was made in materials that the Committee has not yet released, but have no independent 

knowledge on that score. As to the former, it is our experience that it is much easier to file charges 

than to make them stick. It is not uncommon, unfortunately, for disgruntled opposing parties or 

clicniS to file ethics complaints that do not hold up under scrutiny. 

Whether Tieco's long·ago allegations were made in good faith, or made in bad faith as a 

tactical ploy, is of no moment today. What is significant is that the charges were looked at and 

rejected decades ago by the courts and state agencies. Your Committee should have no concern, 

in our opinion, about any ethical violations said to have arisen out of the Tieco matter. 

If you have funher questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

12 261 F.Jd 1275, 1284. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald D. Rotunda 

rrotunda@chapman.edu 

~~ W. William Hodes, Esq. 

wwh@hodeslaw.com 
1272 

rtJII 

I~ I ~~M~~JII 

AMEIUCA?-i 

I:VIMIGRATI0:-.1 

L4.\VYERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Submitted to the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate 

Hearing on January 10,2017 

Nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the national association of 

immigration lawyers established to promote justice and advocate for fair and reasonable 

immigration law and policy. AILA has over 14,000 attorney and law professor members 

nationwide. 

Senator Sessions' record as a U.S. senator and federal prosecutor raises serious concerns that he 

would be unwilling or unable to interpret the U.S. Constitution in a fair and neutral manner or 

exercise balanced judgment on immigration law as is required of the Attorney General. AILA 

urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask the following questions of Sen. Sessions and to 

insist on forthright responses demonstrating he would faithfully execute his duties consistent 

with the Constitution before voting to confirm him. 

Will Sen. Sessions uphold and defend the J4'h Amendment to the Constitution and its 

guarantee that individuals born in the United States are entitled to citizenship regardless 

of their parentage, ethnicity, or race? 

Will Sen. Sessions guarantee that people facing removal will receive due process and a 

hearing before an impartial judge? Will he ensure that the immigration court system has 

adequate budget and resources to operate effectively and that it will be protected from 

political interference? 

Will Sen. Sessions uphold his duty as Attorney General to enforce civil rights and antidiscrimination laws, and commit to prosecuting states and localities that engage in 

practices such as the unconstitutional profiling, arrest and detention of immigrants? Will 

Sen. Sessions intervene to stop state legislation like Arizona's ''show me your papers" 

law, SB I 070, struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? 

Will Sen. Sessions adopt a humane and reasonable approach to the young DREAMERs 

brought here as children who received protection under the DACA initiative and others 

who have lived here for years who have families and jobs but do not have legal status? 

AllA National Office 

1331 G Street NW. Suite 300. DC 20005 

Phone: 202.507 7600 I Fax· www a113 org 
1273 

Sen. Sessions has opposed the 14'" Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. 

As the country's top lawyer and highest-ranking law enforcement official, the Attomey General 

(AG) has broad authority over the application and interpretation of immigration law as well as 

the fundamental responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution. Startlingly, Sen. Sessions 

rejects the view that children bom in this country are U.S. citizens, a direct challenge to the 

Constitution's fundamental protections under the l41

h Amendment. He has proposed the extreme 

position that children born in the United States arc not U.S. citizens if their parents were citizens 

or subjects of another country at the time of the child's birth. 1 

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the 

United.States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; arc citizens of the United States and of the 

State wherein they reside.'·2 The Citizenship Clause makes clear that citizenship based on place 

of birth is a fundamental right inextricably tied to our liberty and equal rights. and that each 

person is born equal with no disadvantage or exalted status arising from the circumstance of their 

parentage. 3 Any restrictions on the rights of citizenship guaranteed in the 14th Amendment 

would offend this country's most sacred values and Constitutional principles. Sen. Sessions has 

proposed re-establishing the very same discriminatory exclusion that the 14th Amendment was 

intended to remedy, and he should be called upon to disavow proposals to strip people born in 

the United States of the right to citizenship. 

Sen. Sessions must pledge to ensure the immigration court system is given the resources it 

needs to operate effcctivclv and is protected from political interference. 

Our nation's immigration system cannot function effectively without a fair and efficient 

immigration court system that can manage the high volume of cases involving people seeking 

relief from removal. The Attorney General oversees the immigration court system, including the 

courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Immigration judges are chosen by the 

DOJ's Executive Oftice for Immigration Review, which also sets standards and instructions for 

how judges should interpret immigration law. The Obama administration recently hired 61 

immigration judges, bringing the total to 294. But Congress has authorized 374 judge positions 

leaving 78 open slots. In addition many judges are expected to retire in the next few years. ln 

short, as Attorney General he will have the opportunity to fill dozens of new judge positions. 

IIIlA National Office 
1274 

In the past the immigration court system has been criticized for its lack of independence, 

particularly since it functions fully under the authority of the Attorney GeneraL In 2007, an 

investigation was conducted regarding the political nature of hiring and firing decisions 

implemented by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. 4 The investigation resulted in a 

temporary freeze on the hiring of immigration judges and members of the BIA as well as the 

subsequent resignation of Mr. Gonzales. 5 Sen. Sessions should pledge that he will protect the 

immigration court system ti·om political and ideological interference. 

Sen. Sessions must pledge to stop abusive civil rights violations against immigrants like 

those committed by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. 

As a U.S. Attorney for the Department of Justice (DO.J) in Mobile, Alabama, Sessions used his 

position to wrongly prosecute African-American voting rights activists in Alabama's Black Belt. 

In 1985, he filed dozens of counts of voter lraud and related charges against Albert Turner, an 

advisor to Martin Luther King. Jr.; his wife. Evelyn; and a colleague. Spencer Hogue--known as 

the "Marion Three''--who were assisting elderly citizens with absentee ballots. The judge 

dismissed more than half of the charges for lack of evidence, and the jury acquitted the Marion 

Three of all remaining charges after only three hours of deliberation. The case is widely 

acknowledged as a gross abuse of prosecutorial authority. One year later, Sen. Sessions' 

nomination for a federal judgeship was rejected by the Senate at least in part due to his 

prosecution of the Marion Three. 

A chief responsibility of the Department of Justice is to intervene and prosecute states and 

localities that engage in racial, ethnic or nationality-based profiling, arrest or detain immigrants 

without due process of law, or commit other violations of the Constitution or federal law. Yet 

Sen. Sessions has called for states and localities to enforce immigration law in an aggressive 

manner that will almost certainly result in the kind of harassment and civil rights abuses that the 

Department of Justice is charged with preventing. 

For example, Sen. Sessions has called for expansive enforcement of federal immigration law by 

states and localities by giving them broad authority and responsibility for investigating, 

identifying, apprehending, and detaining individuals suspected of being undocumented. See the 

Homeland Security Enhancement Act (HSEA) of 2003, the HSEA Act of 2005 and the Michael 

Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act ('"Davis and 

Oliver Act") 6 

AllA Nallonal O!lice 
1275 

Sen. Sessions has called for local law enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration law 

with apparent disregard to constitutional protections. Under his Davis and Oliver Act, he would 

penalize localities whose law enforcement officials have chosen to detain noncitizens only where 

there is probable cause to detain. Courts have concluded that detention for longer periods 

violates the Constitution's right to due proccss. 7 Rather than acknowledge that detainers must 

satisfy Constitutional requirements, Sen. Sessions' bill attempts to summarily cloak all federal 

immigration detainers with probable cause, as if the underlying facts have no bearing on the 

application of the Fourth Amendment. In short, Sen. Sessions' proposals call for states and 

localities to engage in practices that endanger the Constitution's fundamental protections. 

In addition, local law enforcement agencies inclined to commit such abuses will likely feel 

emboldened if Sen. Sessions becomes Attorney General, and the country would sec increases in 

practices like those used by Sheriff Joe Arpaio who notoriously applied discriminatory tactics 

targeting immigrant communities. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division initiated 

prosecution against Sheriff Arpaio for precisely these civil rights violations, and in October 

2016, a federal judge found him in criminal contempt. 

Our nation needs an Attorney General who is firmly committed to the defending the Constitution 

and enforcing our laws. Sen. Sessions should not be confirmed unless he pledges to enJorce civil 

rights laws and explains how he will respond when state and local law enforcement agencies 

engage in such discriminatory practices. In addition, Sen. Sessions should pledge to act against 

states that pass ·'show me your papers" laws like Arizona's SB 1070 which was struck down by 

the Supreme Court8 as unconstitutional. 

Sen, Sessions should pledge to adopt a humane policy regarding young DREAMERs 

granted DACA and others who have lived in the United States for vears who have families 

and jobs but do not have legal status. 

Sen. Sessions should be asked how he will handle the situation of those who have lived in the 

United States for years who still do not have legal status. ln particular, 750,000 people have been 

granted temporary reprieve from removal under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

initiative (DACA) and they are now at risk of losing deferred action. President-elect Trump has 

stated that we will rescind DACA as a pwgram, but he has also indicated a softer position with 

respect to those who have already been granted DACA. 

IIlLA Na!lonal O!!lce 
1276 

Sen. Sessions past views suggest he would actively pursue enforcement against anyone without 

legal status 9 despite consistent public polling that shows that 75 percent of Americans support 

legalizing the status of the undocumented and similarly high support for protecting those granted 

DACA. 1

° For example, he has proposed legislation that would criminalize the undocumented 

and require their prosecution and incarceration. His Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 

2003 would criminalize all immigration status violations by requiring those who are here without 

documentation to be prosecuted for a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one-year in 

prison. Similarly the Davis and Oliver Act would criminalize immigrants by authorizing the 

criminal prosecution and incarceration of any individual who is ·'unlawfully present.'' These 

bills would result in thousands of arrests not only by federal immigration authorities but by the 

states and localities who would be empowered to enforce immigration law. In the 2013 debate 

on the comprehensive immigration refmm bill, S.744, he offered amendments which would have 

eliminated or made unworkable the legalization program for the undocumented. 

AllA National Ol!ice 
1277 

ADC'. 

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

Statement for the Record on the 

Nomination of Jeff Sessions to U.S. Attorney General 

before the 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Nominee Confirmation Hearing 

January 10-11,2016 

Samer Khalaf, Esq .. , ADC National President 

Yolanda C. Rondon, Esq., ADC Staff Attorney 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

1990 M Street NW Suite 610 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 244-2990 

Fax: (202) 333-3980 

E-mail: legal@adc.org 

Web: www.adc.org 
1278 

Americ.a11-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

To: Congressman Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee 

Congresswoman Feinstein, Ranking Member of Senate Judiciary Committee 

Introduction 

I am writing to you on behalf of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), 

the country's only national Arab-American organization. ADC has a long history of supporting 

the human and civil rights of all Americans and opposing racism, discrimination and bigotry in 

any form. ADC was founded by former U.S. Senator James Abourezk in 1980. Today, ADC is 

the largest grassroots Arab-American civil rights and civil liberties organization in the United 

States. ADC is non-profit, non-sectarian, and non-partisan, with members in nearly every State 

of the United States. ADC routinely works with a broad coalition of national organizations to 

protect civil rights and advocate for racial justice issues related to profiling. ADC respectfully 

takes this opportunity to provide a statement for the record to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

on Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III nomination to serve as U.S. Attorney General. 

Civil Rights 

The U. S. Attorney General responsibility is to prosecute and enforcement the federal laws. 

The U.S. Attorney General also has a fundamental role in prosecution of civil rights laws to 

protect vulnerable and marginalized communities. These laws include but are not limited to the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 

Act, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Voting Rights Act were enacted 

to protect. Sessions is unqualified and not fit to lead the U.S. Department of Justice in 

enforcement of these civil rights and hate crime protections because he has actively worked 

throughout his career to undermine these protections. 

Sessions has misused his authority to push misinformed policy on voter fraud. This policy has 

been used to enact voter 1D bills that disproportionality impact African Americans, the disabled 

and elderly, and English-second language communities. Sessions does not support the Voting 

Rights Act and stated that this law, which he would be charged with enforcing. is "invasive."' In 

I 986, Sessions' nomination for a federal judgeship was denied due to exposure of incidents 

where he undermined civil rights protections. Sessions prosecuted three African American civil 

rights activists for voter fraud in Alabama in 1985, all of whom were acquitted of all charges. At 

1 Paul Blumenthal, Jeff Sessions' Voting Rights Record Is So Bad That Common Cause Will Oppose llim, HUFF PosT~ Jan. 

5, 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-attomey-general-commoncause_us_586e7a4fe4b043ad97e20abe. 

- P 202 244 2990 I F 202 333 3980 1 1 990 M Street, NW Swte 610 I Washmgton, DC 200361 www a de org 
1279 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

the same time he did not pursue cases of voter rights violations.2 lt is clear that Sessions has 

misused the law to intimidate a community. This flagrant abuse of professional ethics and 

authority is indicative of how Sessions will act when charged with the powers of the lead law 

enforcement agency in our country. 

In 2009, Sessions adamantly opposed the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act.3 Sessions voted no to passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which 

extended hate crime protections to people victimized because of their sexual orientation, gender 

or gender identity, or disability. Sessions' actions demonstrate that prosecution of hate crimes, 

enforcement of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and hate crimes reporting is not a priority. This 

is extremely problematic where underreporting and non-reporting of hate crimes under the Hate 

Crimes Statistics Act, and training law enforcement on hate crimes remains an issue. Concerns 

with hate crimes enforcement will only be exasperated under Sessions', especially where recent 

spikes in violence and hate crimes targeting the MASSA (Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian) 

community, a community that he has attacked. Most troubling is Sessions' prior positive 

statement regarding the Ku Klux Klan,' which is a designated hate and terrorist organization. A 

U.S. Attorney General cannot enforce hate crimes laws meanwhile expressing approval of the 

KKK. 

Sessions' actions are reflective of a much larger problem where his personal views and 

opinions would outweigh his obligation to defend and protect the Constitutional and federal 

rights of all. Sessions is ill-equipped to enforce civil rights law to protect Arab Americans and 

communities of color. ADC fears that with Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. 

Department of Justice will abandon the Office of Civil Rights' efforts to work with communities 

of color. 

Law Enforcement 

ADC lacks confidence in the ability of Sessions to perforrn the duties of the U.S. Attorney 

General. Part of the duties of the U.S. Attorney General is to conduct oversight of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigations, and ensure that government agencies are accountable to the law and are 

in compliance with the DOJ Guidance Against Use of Racial, National Origin, Ethnic, and 

Religious Profiling. In direct contradiction, Sessions has publicly supported the registration of 

Muslims and prohibiting immigration of Arabs and Muslims solely based on their 

2 Michelle Ye Hee Lee, 11wfacts about the voter fraud case that sank Jeff Sessions' bid for a judgeship, 

WASHINGTON PosT, Nov. 28, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/Jl/28/the-factsabout-the-voter-fraud-case-that-sunk-jeff-sessionss-bid-for-a-judgeship/?tid=a _inl&utm _ tenn= .a757 49ab5146. 1 Eric Bradner, First on CNN.· Matthew Shepard's mother blasts Trump AG pick Sessions' votes on hate crimes law, 

CNN POLITICS, Jan. 29,2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/0l/09/politics/matthew-shepard-jeff-sessions-hate-crimes/. 4 See Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Jeff Sessions' comments on race: For the record, WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 2, 2016, 

https:/ /wv-rw. washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/20 16/12/02/jeff-sessionss-oomments-on-race-for-therecord/?utm _ tenn= .da982bf6d687. 

- P 202 244 2990 IF 202 333.3980/1990 M Street, NW Surte 610 I Washmgton, DC 20036/ wwwadcorg 
1280 

ADC 

American-A:r;~b Anti-Discrimination Committee 

identity.6 Sessions himself has directly propagated fear, anti-Arab sentiment, Islamophobia and 

political rhetoric against immigrant communities that only serves to further criminalize and 

securitize our communities7 Sessions argues that the federal government should be able to use 

whatever criteria it wants to decide who can and cannot immigrate to the U.S.-and that includes 

using religion as a criteria.R These actions are unacceptable for any government official, let alone 

a nominee for the U.S. Attorney General whom will have authority over the Executive Office of 

Immigration Review. Sessions' actions demonstrate his flagrant disregard to substantive due 

process, the guarantee of equal protection under the law for all, and protection for asylum 

seekers and refugees. 

ADC has further reservations about Sessions' ability to reign in law enforcement 

excessive use of force, and misuse of surveillance tools in violation of the First, Fourth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. During his time in Congress, Sessions has provided unconditional 

support for increases in funding to state and local law enforcement agencies, while failing to 

exercise any oversight mechanism to assess the use of such federal funding provided to them. In 

the face of rising and clear police brutality against communities of color, and excessive use of 

force, Sessions continued to defend the inconceivable actions of police officers use of militarized 

equipment and riot gear at peaceful protests. 9 These actions are indicative of unfettered deference 

to law enforcement with no accountability even where such conduct is questionable. 

Sessions vigorously opposed the USA Freedom Act, which put into place some modest 

reforms to surveillance programs, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) 

warrant process and amicus curiae role. 10 Namely, Sessions continues to support section 215 

bulk collection under the Patriot Act despite the fact that: 1) section 215 gave the FBI and the 

NSA broad power to spy on innocent Americans without a warrant; and 2) the Privacy and Civil 

6 Watch Chuck Todd Grill Sen. Jeff Sessions For Ten Minutes About His Support For Trump And His Anti-Islamic 

Rhetoric, From the June 15 edition ofMSNBC's Meet The Press Daily, June 15,2016, 

http:/ /mediamatters.org/video/20 16/06/15/watch-chuck-todd-gril1-sen-jcfT-sessions-ten-minutcs-about-his-supporttrump-and-his-anti-islamic/21 0979; Jennifer Butler and John McCullough, If Sessions won't defend Muslims, he's 

wrong AG for religious freedom, THE HILL, http:l/thehill.com/blogs/pundits~blog/the~administration/313131~jeffsessions-disqualifying-religious-frcedom-track. 

7 Stephen Piggott, Jeff Sessions: Champion of Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Extremists, SOUTHERN POVERTY 

LAW CENTER, Nov. 1 8, 2016, https://w\liw.splcenter.orgihatewatch/2016/11/18/jeff-sessions-champion-anti-muslimand-anti-immigrant-extremists: see also Betsy Woodruff, Trump Attorney General Pick Jeff Sessions Argued 

For A Religious Test To Ban Muslims, THE DAILY BEAST, Nov. 19, 2016, 

http://www .thedailybeast.com/articles/20 16/11 /19/trump-attomey-general-pick-jeff-sessions-argued-for-a-religioustest-to-ban-muslims.html. 

8 Sessions Delivers Remarks In Opposition To Global 'Right To Migrate' Amendment, Dec. 10, 2015, 

http://www .sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID= l86AEDE2-B813-4 7 41-A 1 B lC3759DFDD2C5. 

9 Ames Grawert, Sen. Jeff Sessions' Record on Criminal Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, 

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/defaultlfiles/analysis/SenatorJeffSessionsRecordonCriminalJustice.pdf 

10 Jeff Sessions~ Wl!v Should Terrorists Be Harder to Investigate than Routine Criminal~, 

http://www .nationalreview .com/article/41867 5/dont-hamper-nsas-ability-stop-terrorist-attacks. 

- P 202 244 2990 I F 202 333 3980 11990 M Street, NW SUite 610 I Washmgton, DC 200361 www adc org 
1281 

Ametic.an-Arab Anti-Disc.rimtnation Committee 

Liberties Oversight Board finding that no single instance involving a threat to the United States 

in which bulk collection made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counter-terrorism 

investigation was identified. Sessions' record shows that he actually seeks to further reduce 

transparency and oversight of the intelligence community and FISC. Sessions' statements and 

actions are indicative of providing the FBI with such broad latitude and unchecked power of the 

J. Edgar Hoover era. Such unchecked power with mass surveillance, expansion of surveillance 

tools, abuse of the watch-list programs, and surveillance targeting of Arab and Muslim 

Americans is alarming. 

Nomination Process Problematic 

ADC has serious concerns on the ability of Congress to sufficiently vet Sessions' record 

to be able to make a well-informed decision on his nomination and fitness to be U.S. Attorney 

General. The Committee has yet to receive all documents, materials and information in response 

to the Committee's questionnaire. Prior nominee's confinnations demonstrate a requisite practice 

of a complete and full response to the Committee questionnaire prior to a vote on the nominee. 

Sessions' failure to provide a complete and full record in response to the Committee's requests 

and the Committee's questionnaire requires strict scrutiny and disqualification as the nominee. 

The fairness of the nomination process is a legitimate concern that throws into jeopardy 

the entire hearing process and makes it more of a formality, rather than the constitutional duty of 

Congress to conduct oversight and ensure accountability on the Executive. The scheduling of the 

nomination hearing at virtually the same time as other nomination hearings and the limitations on 

witnesses makes it impossible to actually examine Sessions' records on key areas that the U.S. 

Attorney General will be charged with enforcing and/or intricately involved in including: 

immigration; civil rights, racial justice, and hate crimes; workers' rights; national security and 

civil liberties. 

Conclusion 

The U.S. Attorney General particularly has a responsibility, where the U.S. Department 

of Justice- Office of Civil Rights has to step in due to action and/or inaction by state and local 

entities in violation of federal law, and/or lack of resources in the state to adequately handle a 

federal civil rights violation. Sessions has not only disregarded civil rights and liberties 

protections but has actually engaged in pushing policies and direct actions that harm 

communities of color, and vulnerable marginalized communities. 

- P 202 244 2990 I F 202.333 3980 11990 M Street, NW Swte 610 I Washrngton, DC 200361 www adc org 
1282 

ADVANCING 

JUSTICE 

Written Statement of Asian Americans Advancing Justice 

To the Senate Judiciary Committee 

For a Hearing on the Nomination of Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions Ill to be Attorney 

General 

January 10 · 11,2017 

<\sian Americans Advancing Justice writes to express our strong opposition to the 

1omination of Senator Sessions for Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions' 

)Oor record on civil and human rights! and close relationships with white supremacist and 

mti-Muslim organizations and people make him unqualified and inappropriate to be the 

:hieflaw enforcement officer of the United States. 

<\sian Americans Advancing Justice (Advancing Justice) is a national partnership of five 

rron-profit, non-partisan organizations that work to advance the human and civil rights of 

<\sian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPis) through advocacy, public policy, public 

~ducation, and litigation. We are based in Washington D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles 

md San Francisco. While Asian Americans have been part of the fabric of American society 

for centuries, in recent years AAP!s have become the fastest growing minority group in the 

IJ.S. surpassing Latinos.2 Today, 92% of Asian Americans are immigrants or the children of 

immigrants.3 

In 1986, Senator Sessions' nomination for a federal judgeship was rejected by a 

Republican-controlled Senate due to racist statements he made as a US Attorney and the 

wrongful prosecution of Black civil rights activists for "voter fraud." Since that time, there 

ilas been little evidence that Senator Sessions has changed, only that he has learned to be 

more careful about the words that he uses. Instead, Sessions has allied himself with white 

supremacist organizations that seek to maintain the white and Christian majority in the 

lJ.S. 

Sessions has consistently expressed his opposition to, and raised alarmist concern 

regarding, patterns of immigration post-1965 -a watershed year in which the United 

States dismantled its explicitly racist national origin quotas (including the remaining 

vestiges of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and finally allowed larger numbers of non1 See The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights organizational sign-on letter to Majority Leader 

McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Leahy dated Dec.l, 2016. 
1283 

Europeans into the U.S., creating the diversity we see in America today. Sessions has been 

the standard bearer for a nativist vision of America, sounding the alarm regarding the 

"unprecedented" percentage of the American population that is foreign-born4 - without 

regard for the fact that the current percentage is lower than during the late 1800s, when 

the foreign-born were overwhelmingly from Western Europe. Senator Sessions has also 

questioned birth-right citizenship, which is protected by the Constitution. 

Senator Sessions has close relationships to white supremacist, anti-immigrant 

organizations- the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for 

Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbers USA -whose views he represents in the Senate are 

central to the dangerous resurgence of nationalism and scapegoating of immigrants that we 

are witnessing in this country. The FAIR founder, John Tanton, is a white supremacist who 

wrote in 1993, 'Tve come to the point of view that for European-American society and 

culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." Tanton 

also founded the Center for Immigration Studies, whose staff have been called as favorable 

witnesses in hearings that Sessions has presided over. 5 

Senator Sessions' words and opinions echo the white supremacist views espoused by these 

organizations though in a somewhat more sanitized version. For example, Dan Stein, 

FAIR's president, has stated that supporters of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act 

wanted to "retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance" and that the policy is causing "chaos 

and will continue to create chaos."6 Senator Sessions has similarly bemoaned the last 40 

years as a period of "record, uncontrolled immigration to the United States."? 

Senator Sessions has similar close relationships to anti-Muslim organizations and has 

supported a proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country. Sessions has received 

awards from anti-Muslim organizations and spoken at their events, including the David 

Horowitz Freedom Center and the Center for Security Policy. 8 1n 2015, Sen. Sessions 

accepted the "Keeper of the Flame" award from the anti-Muslim hate group the Center for 

4 Senator Sessions' full quote states, "Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 

1965 and currently constitute a near record 14% of the U.S. population -this is a, reaching the largest 

proportion in history and will surge beyond that 14% unless law in the United States is changed- we are 

really on an extreme unprecedented pattern of immigration into tbe United States, I think it's unlike most 

established countries in the world." Hearing: "The Impact of High Levels of Immigration on U.S. Workers" 

Senate judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest 

(March 16, 20 16) http:/ jwww.judiciary.senate.gov jmeetingsjthe-impact-of-high-levels-of-immigration-onus-workers. 

5 The Southern Poverty Law Center, jeff Sessions: Champion of Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Extremists 

(November 18, 2016), https:/ (www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/jeff-sessions-champion-antimuslim-and-anti-immigrant-extremists. 

6Jd. 

7 A Memo For Republican Members From Sen. Jeff Sessions, l;J).!J1i1Jnn .'tJ..!..Ll!i!..!i~i:' :''' ,,'; (cr 'i'" \'cw /?c:•ui:/iu:n 

6 The Southern Poverty Law Center, jeff Sessions: Champion of Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Extremists 

(November 18, 2016), https:( jwww.splcenter.org(hatewatchj2016/11j18jjeff-sessions-champion-antimuslim-and-anti-immigrant-cxtremists. 
1284 

Security Policy, whose leader Frank Gaffney has asserted his belief in the conspiracy theory 

that President Obama is Muslim, writing " ... there is mounting evidence that the president 

not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself."9 

Senator Sessions has indicated support for excluding Muslims from entering the United 

States as immigrants or refugees. At a 2016 hearing on the refugee resettlement program, 

Sessions said in regards to Syrian refugees that, "We have a right and a duty to favor the 

admission of immigrants who support and celebrate our pluralist western values ... If we 

cannot ensure the adequate screening of any individual, we must not admit them to the 

United States. Period."lO 

Sessions has also given over a dozen radio interviews with Steve Bannon when he was with 

Breitbart News, a platform for white nationalists and other extreme right-wing groups. 

The former head of Breitbart, Steve Bannon has stated that "When two-thirds or threequarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ... " After a 

pause, he continued, "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society." 11 Senator 

Sessions and Steve Bannon have expressed their mutual admiration for each other 12 and 

hold similar views on immigration policy. Additionally, Sessions' nomination was praised 

by Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and a leader of the white 

nationalist movement.13 These facts taken together indicate that Senator Sessions seeks to 

limit immigration to the U.S. in order to maintain a white and Christian majority in the U.S. 

We also echo the concerns of our allies working to end domestic violence and sexual 

assault, who have raised serious doubts about Sen. Sessions' commitment to victims of 

such crimes. We are particularly concerned that Sen. Sessions opposed the most recent 

reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013, against 78 of his Senate 

colleagues. Over its 22-year history, VAWA has provided a coordinated national response 

to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, including critical 

provisions that protect immigrant women who are particularly vulnerable to abuse. 

Senator Sessions affinity for white supremacist organizations and persons combined with 

his anti-civil rights record, and nativist vision of America make us seriously doubt that he 

would enforce civil rights in our communities or those of other communities of color, 

immigrants, women, people with disabilities, religious minorities or LGBT people. We 

9 Frank Gaffney, America's First Muslim President?, The Washington Times (June 9, 2009) 

http:/ jwww.washingtontimes.comjnewsj2009 Jjun/9 jamericas·first·muslim·president/ 

1o Senate judiciary Committee Hearing, "Oversight of Administration's FY 2017 Refugee Resettlement 

Program," 24:28 (September 28, 2016). 

11 https:J Jwww.washingtonpostcomjpoliticsjhow-bannon·flattered·and·coaxed-trump·on·policies-key-to· 

the-alt·right/2016/11/15 /5 3c66362-ab69-11e6-a31 b-4b6397 e625dO_story.html?utm_term=.ebb60e661ac9 12 Marge Baker, "jeff Sessions' Relationship With Breitbart, 'The Platform' For The White Nationalisti\lt-Right, 

Should Be DisqualifYing.'' Huffington Post (Jan. 3, 2017) http:/ fwww.huffingtonpostcomjmarge·bakerjjeffsessions·relationshi_b_1394137 2.html. 13 David Weigel, "Alt-right leaders praise Sessions as attorney general pick'' Washington Post (Nov. 19, 2016) 
1285 

strongly encourage you to oppose his nomination. 
1286 

Statement of the Brazilian Worker Center 

Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing on ''Attorney General Nomination" 

January 10, 2017 

Members of the Committee, we are the Brazilian Worker Center. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

statement for inclusion in the record for today's hearing. The Brazilian Wclrker Center is a community 

organization that suppmis immigrants on issues of \\orkplacc rights and immigration. We \"<ark with the 

community. instructing them to execute their rights through organizing, advocacy. education, leadership. 

capacity building and civic participation. We join Brazilian and other immigrants helping them to organize 

against economic. social and political exclusion in order to create a more just society. 

The Brazilian Worker Center urges all members of the United States Senate to oppose the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. Throughout his lengthy career, Senator Sessions has 

consistently dehumanized many of our communities including immigrants, people of color, women, Muslims. 

LGBTQ individuals and people with disabilities. Given his strong history of obstructing civil rights, Senator 

Sessions has proven that he is unfit to serve as Attorney General. 

As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General is charged with upholding the constitutional 

rights and protections of all people in the United States. Senator Sessions, however, has opposed the Voting 

Rights Act, which aims to ensure all Americans have an equal opportunity to participate in our democracy and 

instead prosecuted voting rights activists who tried to increase Black registration and turnout. He has opposed 

bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system by reducing sentences and he opposes federal consent 

decrees with local law enforcement agencies designed to reduce police misconduct. Sessions has opposed hate 

crimes protections for members of the LGBTQ community, fought the reauthorization of the Violence against 

Women Act (VA WA) and supported a Muslim ban in the United States. In addition, Senator Sessions has 

closely aligned himself with anti-immigrant extremist groups like NumbersUSA and the Federation for 

American Immigration Reform, which are founded on white supremacist ideals. Senator Sessions, through his 

own record, has been one ofthe staunchest opponents of any proposals that would bring humanity to our 

country's treatment of immigrants and has instead called for a massive border wall, mass deportations and the 

criminalization of immigrants. This record and these affiliations make Senator Sessions wholly unfit to 

prosecute hate crime and defend the civil rights of all persons in the US. 

Congress has already determined that Senator Sessions does not meet the standards necessary to carry out a 

political appointment. In 1986, a Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination for a 

federal judgeship in Alabama because of his history of racist statements. Since then, Senator Sessions has 

continued his record of divisive hateful rhetoric. We urge Members ofthis Committee to uphold the values of 

our democracy and reject the nomination of Senator Sessions for Attorney General. 
1287 

Sessions a distinguished public servant who will uphold the 

law 

January 9, 2017 

The Rule of Law is an indispensable cornerstone of the United States of America. It is often 

defined as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined 

and established laws. 

Throughout our country's history, and especially in recent times, we have seen that personnel 

has a profound effect our nation's policy. It is therefore essential that we choose our high 

ranking government officials based on their proven ability to respect and conform to our laws. 

With that in mind, I was greatly encouraged to see that President-elect Donald TrumpDonald 

John TrumpFamily immigration detention centers could be at capacity within 

days: report Trump likely to meet with Putin in July: reportDOJ requests 

military lawyers to help prosecute immigration crimes: report MORE will be 

nominating Senator Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsDOJ 

requests military lawyers to help prosecute immigration crimes: report 

Trump backs down in rare reversal Senate moving ahead with border bill. 

despite Trump MORE to be our next Attorney General, 

ADVERTISEMENT 

Jeff Sessions is an Eagle Scout who has honorably served as a U.S. Army Reserve JAG 

Captain, a federal prosecutor, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a member of the Senate 

1/2 
1288 

Judiciary Committee. He has continually demonstrated his ability and 

commitment to upholding the rule of law on every step of the way. 

Sessions' legal career began as a practicing attorney in his home state of 

Alabama. Following two-years of service as Assistant United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions was nominated by 

President Reagan in 1981 and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the 

United States Attorney for Alabama's Southern District, a position he held for 12 years. 

Sessions was elected Alabama Attorney General in 1995, serving as the state's chief legal 

officer and excelling in the enforcement of substantial civil rights cases. 

In 1996, Sessions was elected to the United States Senate. During his time in the Senate, he 

has put substantial energy toward promoting law and order and empowering law enforcement 

officers and prosecutors to fairly and justly fight dangerous crime. 

He sponsored legislation to shut down rogue internet pharmacies that distribute controlled 

substances without proof of identity, age, or prescription, and has supported cybercrime 

centers to fight the proliferation of online child pornography. 

Together with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Sessions authored the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act of 2003, which helped reduce and prevent sexual assault in prisons. In 2010, he joined 

with Senator Dick DurbinRichard fDickl Joseph Durbin Democrats protest 

Trump's immigration policy from Senate floor Live coverage: FBI chief 

Justice IG testify on critical report Hugh Hewitt to Trump: 'It is 100 percent 

wrong to separate border-crossing families' MORE to unanimously pass the 

Fair Sentencing Act, which increased fairness in federal drug sentencing 

while also providing tougher penalties for hardened drug traffickers. 

Most recently, as a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions is a leading 

advocate of confirming federal judges who follow the law and do not legislate from the bench. 

"Be prepared." It's the famous motto of the Boy Scouts, but it's also a key element of success 

for the best lawyers in our country. Jeff Sessions is an Eagle Scout, a highly experienced 

prosecutor and a distinguished public servant with a demonstrated commitment to upholding 

the rule of law. His nomination to become the next Attorney General of the United States is 

something we should all support. 

Mark Brnovich is the Attorney General of Arizona. He previously served as an Assistant United 

States Attorney for the District of Arizona and as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. 

Army Reserve. 

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill 

212 
1289 

Written Testimony of 

Julie A. Burkhart 

Trust Women Foundation 

Founder and CEO 

for a Hearing on 

Attorney General Nomination 

Submitted to the 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Januaty 10,2017 

Trust Women Foundation 

PO Box 3222 

Wichita, Kansas 67201 

316.425.3215 office 

ME 
1290 

10 January 2017 

My name is Julie A. Burkhart, and I am the Founder and CEO of Trust Women Foundation, 

which operates reproductive health care clinics in Kansas and Oklahoma. Before founding Trust 

Women, I worked for eight years with Dr. George Tiller, who also had a health care facility that 

provided abortion care in Wichita, Kansas. I worked for him until he was assassinated the 31st of 

May 2009. I have also been the target of death threats, threats of bodily injury, bomb tin-eats, 

harassment and other criminal activity for the work that I do and love. 

I have spent the vast majority of my career, beginning while in the Midwest on summer breaks, 

working for women's reproductive access and rights. My induction into this line of work was 

during the 1991 Summer of Mercy, in which thousands of abmtion opponents descended upon 

Wichita for months and blocked access to abortion clinics. 

My personal and professional experience with anti-ab01tion crimes makes me deeply distressed 

about the nomination of Senator Sessions to become Attorney General. The Freedom of Access 

to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), which is enforced by the Attorney General and the 

Depm1ment of Justice, was enacted to protect the very rights to which Sen. Sessions has 

expressed long-standing opposition. Sen. Sessions holds views that are extremely hostile to 

reproductive rights and, as a result, I fear he may be tmcommitted to punishing wrongdoers 

through the FACE Act and may not direct federal law enforcement to protect people like me 

when needed. 

In 2001, while working with Dr. Tiller, I learned that there was a 1 0-year atmiversary planned 

for the 1991 Summer of Mercy. While monitoring the activities around this event, we became 

aware of tlueatening language being used by its promoters, including Operation Rescue. For 

example, the organizers asserted they would "Finish the Job," a reference to the attempted 

assassination of Dr. Tiller in 1993. This not-so-veiled threat led to Dr. Tiller's protection by the 

U.S. Marshals Services, as ordered by the U.S. Attorney General at that time. 

The rhetorical violence directed at Dr. Ti!ler characterized him as a pariah in a community and 

state that had been his family's home for decades. In my view, the rhetoric was a factor that 

ultimately led to his assassination. 

On May 31, 2009, my boss was fatally shot in the side of the head by anti-abortion 

extremist Scott Roeder. He was serving as an usher during Sunday morning service at his church, 

and was wearing body armor, as he had been doing since 1998. In response, Attorney General 

Eric Holder directed the U.S. Marshals Service to offer protection to other abortion providers 

across the country. 

After the horror of Dr. Tiller's assassination, I experienced anger, disbelief and dread. It was a 

time when I felt that my safety and sectu·ity were an illusion. The fact that Dr. Tiller was 

providing a constitutionally protected medical service was no protection for his life. The 

atmospherics leading up to the assassination were violent and toxic. And rather than taking 

responsible actions to discourage violence, the state attorney general and groups including 

Operation Rescue contributed to a lethal environment. I felt that collectively, and with the 

leadership of a government official, he had been assassinated to serve the need to make an 

example, once again, of a physician who provides abortion care. Dr. Tiller's death caused great 

1 
1291 

disillusiomnent with the political process and with our difficulty, as a society, to have civil 

discourse about complex issues. It was a time of feeling that tyranny had won in our country. 

After much reflection, I decided to found an organization that would be dedicated to providing 

abortion access in the very part of the country where Dr. 11ller had been so vehemently harassed 

and murdered. After anti-choice activists learned of my plans to open our clinic in Wichita, the 

harassment and intimidation began. After purchasing the clinic building, David Leach, affiliated 

with the Army of God (an extremist anti-choice gi'Oup), had a 45-minute phone conversation 

(recorded by prison officials) with Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller. In that 

conversation, Leach expressed that by opening the clinic I had put a target on my back, and Scott 

Roeder agreed. They insinuated that someone might murder me as well. 

There are other instances of threats against my life, wl1ich include: anti-choice people coming to 

my home to protest, canying signs that say things such as, "Prepare to Meet Thy God" and 

"Where is your church?"- a direct reference to where Dr. Tiller was assassinated. 

I have had fliers distributed throughout my neighborhood, asking people to "bring me to God." I 

have also received threats against my life via the mail and email. 

One of the most startling incidents occurred when Operation Rescue exploited false information 

they had received about our clinic, which, in turn, incited people to threaten my life. One such 

threat stated that someone should jump me and beat me to death. I was so struck with fear and a 

sense of helplessness and isolation that I purchased a firearm immediately after these threats 

began. 

Additionally, anti-choice activists have dis1upted our clinic operations numerous times and have 

placed undue stress on staff and patients. In November 2016, someone scaled our eight-foot 

wooden privacy fence and broke into the security vestibule and vandalized the clinic. Patients 

could not enter thmugh the main entrance due to all of the broken glass and other debris. 

Employees were sta1iled and unsettled by this act of violence, unsure as to what they may be 

walking in to. On another occasion, this past August, two bomb threats were made against the 

clinic. The person called twice and stated that he was going to blow the building up. The Wichita 

Police Department bomb squad, the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI responded. People have 

trespassed onto the pmperty during business hours, with the intent of disrupting our business. 

Pmtestors m·e at the clinic in Wichita five days a week for eight hours per day. 

This past summer, the group Opemtion Save America staged the 251

ft Anniversa1y of the Summer 

of Mercy at the clinic. They also said that they were going to "finish the job" m1d defy the law 

due to their sole belief in God's law, which, in their view, trumps laws that govern civil society. 

The protest took place in July, but I began meeting with law enforcement as early as February of 

last year. Needless to say, we spent numerous homs planning for their demonstration. The City 

of Wichita took this seriously and prepared 100 officers who either stood watch or could respond 

to any acts of violence and aggression directed at the clinic or its staf{ During the IO-day pmtest, 

I had four SWAT members, who were armed with automatic weapons, stationed right next door 

to my office. Even though the protest was peaceful, a fact for which I am grateful, it was 

tmsettling to need so many law enforcement officers in and surmunding the clinic. It was a stark 

reminder that the business of reproductive health care is fraught with violence and danger. 

2 
1292 

I recount some of the security challenges I have faced because I depend on an engaged and 

committed Justice Department to protect the constitutional rights of patients who seek abortion 

care and medical professionals who provide that care. The Attorney General sets the agenda and 

tone of the Justice Department. Senator Sessions' record on abmtion causes great concern that he 

will be indifferent or even hostile to women's health providers. We must not allow the leader of 

the Deprutment of Justice to become an anti-choice operative with an agenda to undermine the 

constitutional right to safe abortion care. 

3 
1293 

1n12017 Democratic leader in Alabama Senate praises Jeff Sessions! ALcom 

Alabama 

Democratic leader in Alabama Senate praises Jeff 

Sessions 

' By Mike CastNI I mcason@al.com "V Email the author I Follow on Twitter 

on December 07. 2016 at 12:42 PM, updated December 07. 2016 at 12:53 PM 

The leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama Senate says he and Sen. Jeff Sessions 

have worked well together and he expects Sessions to enforce the law fairly if he becomes 

U.S. attorney gen~ral. 

While many have spoken out against President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of 

Sessions, Sen. Quinton Ross, D~Montgomery, said he looks forward to working with the 

Republican senator from Mobile if he is confirmed as AG. 

Ross, a Mabile native, said he was a high school student in Pontiac, Mich •. when Sessions 

JEFF SESSIONS TAPPED 

FOR TRUMP CABINET 

Did Jeff Sess10ns block ,nt0grotron 

of south Alnbama federo! co~!~ts? 

failed to win confirmation for a federal judgeship in 1986. A Senate committee voted against No sp 9 c1.J! election to replace 

Sessions after he was accused of making racist comments and being racially insensitive. Sessror.s; Benti\~y says 

Sessions denied the accusations. 

Ross said he has had a good working relationship with Sessions for 20 years. 

"I have worked with Sen. Sessions on education policy and securing federal funding for our 

schools," Ross said in a press release. "Additionally, I have spent time with him at the Magic 

City Classic and at Heritage Barbershop in Montgomery.! know h1m personally and a\! of my 

encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama." 

Ross said he has been in close personal contact with Sessions since Trump nominated 

Sessions. 

Sl6 rrlil!ror~ 

petrtron aga1nst /\G nomrnatlon 

Ai<:~bamo NAACP lcDder on on est 

sit-in at Sess1ons' offtce: 

;p· 

AU Stories 

"We've spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are 

focused on doing right by all people," Sen. Ross said. 

"We both acknowledge that there are no perfect men, but we continue to work daily to do the right thing for all people." 

http:/Mww.al.com/newslbirminghamlindex.ssf/201&'12/democratic_leaderjn_alabama_s.html 112 
1294 

1{712017 Democratic leader in Alabama Senate praises Jeff Sessions 1 ALcorn 

Registration on or use of this site const1tutes acceptance of our Usi!r Agreement and Privacy Policy 

© 2016 Alabama Media Group. All rights reserved (A.bout Us). 

The material on this s1te may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used. except with the prlor written permission 

of Alabama Media Group. 

Community Rules apply to aU content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. 

f> A.dCho!ces 

http://www.al.com/news/blrmirgham/index.ssf/2015'12/democratic_!eadeUn_alabama_s.html 2!2 
1295 

Print 

Why Jeff Sessions, a conservative attorney general, would 

be best for crime victims 

By Paul G. Cassell, Steven J. Twist 

14,2015 

FoxNews.com 

As two crime victims' rights advocates and law professors, we welcome the announcement that President~e!ect Trump will 

nominate Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next attorney general of the United states, 

Senator Sessions has a long and robust record of fighting for justice, and more specifically for enforceable victims' rights. If 

confirmed by the Senate, he will undoubtedly be a powerful voice for crime victims as the chief law enforcement officer of the 

United States. 

Close 

bur enthusiasm about Senator Sessions stems from the fact that he was an early supporter of amending the U.S. Constitution to 

protect rights for crime victims. 

This idea was first proposed by a Task Force assembled by President Ronald Reagan and later endorsed by Presidents Bill 

Clinton and George W. Bush. 

The Victims' Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1996 by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyl. Senator 

Sessions strongly advocated for the amendment and will be the country's first Attorney General to cast votes for amending the 

Constitution to give rights to crime victims. 

In his support for the Amendment, much about the core of the man and his sense of justice is revealed. Senator Sessions 

strongly supported the Amendment because, as a Senate Judiciary Committee Report in which he joined, explained: "It is time to 

extend Federal constitutional recognition to those who are too often forgotten by our criminal justice system- the innocent 

victims of crime." 

It is no exaggeration to say that Senator Sessions voted to open the doors of the courtroom to the parents of a murdered child 

during the trial of the accused murderer. He voted to let a woman who has been brutalized by rape tell the court about the impact 

of the crime on her life. And he voted to give a voice to the victims of domestic violence before decisions are made about 

releasing those accused of perpetrating violence against them. 

The Senator's strong bipartisan record on behalf of crime victims does not end there. Senator Sessions crossed the aisle to 

work with Senator Feinstein to preserve restitution rights for crime victims and to provide stronger protections for vk:tims of child 

abuse. He joined with the !ate~Senator Ted Kennedy to reduce sexual assaults in prison. He worked with Illinois Democratic 

Senator Dick Durbin to address sentencing disparities in federal drug laws and increase penalties for the most serious drug 

traffickers. And in many other ways, he fought against weakening the federal criminal laws whenever they posed an undue risk of 

creating even more victims of crime. 

More impressive still is his courage as a prosecutor to take up the cause of pursuing justice for crime victims through the 

prosecution of their attackers. 

He stood against headwinds of the Old South to prosecute KKK ~riminals in AJabama. He prosecuted Klansman Henry Francis 

Hays, son of Alabama Klan leader Bennie Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager. 

As a prosecutor, Senator Sessions established a record as aggressive, but fair. He remained focused on the ethical duty to do 

justice. 

We are excited about the prospect of an attorney general who sees the need for expanding rights and services for crime victims, 

and who has demonstrated the heart, the courage, and the leadership to head a Department of Justice that will ensure justice is 

pursued for all, including and especially for the crime victim. 

Paul Cassell is a former federal judge and the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the S.J. Quinney 

College of Law at the University of Utah. 

Steven Twist is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. 
1296 

CWS Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Pertaining to the 

Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General 

January 10 ·11, 2017 

As a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions 

and 36 refugee resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service urges all Senators to oppose 

the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General. Senator Sessions has consistently made 

dehumanizing comments about immigrants, refugees and minorities, and is not fit to serve in this position. 

We know from sacred texts across faith traditions that nations will be judged by how they treat the most 

vulnerable: the widow, the orphan, and the refugee, during trying times. 

As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General is charged with upholding the 

constitutional rights and protections of all Americans- regardless of where they come from or which religion 

they practice. In contrast, Senator Sessions has called Islam a "toxic ideology," implied that all persons from 

the Middle East are dangerous, and supported a "Muslim ban" in the United States. This type of hateful, 

xenophobic rhetoric has been met with increases in acts of hate, especially against our Muslim brothers and 

sisters. Senator Sessions has also opposed hate crime protections for LGBTI individuals, the reauthorization 

of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and civil rights laws. 

Senator Sessions has close ties to anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim extremist groups like the NumbersUSA, 

the Center for Security Policy, and Federation for American Immigration Reform, whose leaders regularly 

make racist statements and founded these groups on white supremacist ideals. As Attorney General, 

Senator Sessions will be responsible for prosecuting hate crimes, and his record on this issue ignores 

effective approaches to countering extremism, while galvanizing instances of hate against others. Senator 

Sessions has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and his appointment would 

undermine our nation's commitment to religious freedom and non-discrimination. 

Immigrants and all newcomers contribute to our communities. Immigration is correlated with significantly 

higher employment growth and a decline in the unemployment rate, and immigrants have high business 

formation rates, creating successful businesses that hire immigrant and U.S. citizen employees. Yet, Senator 

Sessions has wrongfully argued that immigrants do not contribute to the United States-- a perspective that 

has been widely discredited, given that immigrants are vital assets to the U.S. economy and are an important 

part of the U.S. business community. On numerous occasions, he has stated that refugees and immigrants 

are unable to integrate, and has implied that people who are not currently fluent in English have less value. 

As we face the worst displacement crisis in recorded history with over 65 million displaced persons including 

over 21 million refugees around the world, it is critical that the United States demonstrate leadership in 

refugee protection and resettlement. The U.S. refugee resettlement program emphasizes early selfsufficiency through employment, and most refugees are employed within their first six months of arriving to 

the United States. 

Throughout his career, Senator Sessions has failed to respect the dignity of all individuals and uphold our 

values of compassion, generosity, and welcome. Congress has already determined that Senator Sessions 

does not meet the standards necessary to carry out a political appointment. In 1986, a Republican-led 

Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination for a federal judgeship in Alabama because of his 

history of racist statements. Since then, Senator Sessions has remained steadfast in his divisive, hateful 

rhetoric. He has supported attempts to curtail due process rights for asylum seekers, especially children, and 

expressed hostility toward U.S. legal obligations to screen arriving individuals for protection claims if the 

individual expresses a fear of return to their home country. Senator Sessions is simply not poised to ensure 

the U.S. government complies with basic, fundamental legal obligations and fulfills its commitment to 

protecting vulnerable populations. 

We urge you to oppose the confirmation of Senator Sessions as Attorney General and to live up to our 

nation's values of compassion, hospitality, and welcome. We must carry on our nation's proud history of 

hospitality and moral leadership. Let us reflect the best of our nation by extending hospitality and affirming 

our collective, moral imperative to love our neighbor, welcome the sojourner, and care for the most 

vulnerable among us. 
1297 

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. 

Protecting the Legal and Civil Rights of Students with Disabilities and Their Families 

Testimony on: The Nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

By: Denise Marshall, Executive Director 

January 20, 2017 

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) respectfully submits testimony expressing our 

strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as the U.S. Attorney General (AG). As stated 

in our letter submitted to the Judiciary Committee on January 5, COPAA's opposition is rooted in Senator 

Sessions' 30-year track record in the U.S. Senate, as Attorney General for the state of Alabama, and as an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney. He has compiled a longstanding and consistent record, including public 

statements, policy proposals, and other various actions that serve to discriminate against the rights and 

dignity of children and adults with disabilities. The Attorney General must be a fair arbiter of justice and 

enforce the nation's laws without prejudice. Equal educational opportunity is a cornerstone of democracy and 

our laws confer important rights to students with disabilities to assure that each child can succeed. Again. we 

urge you to reject this nomination. 

This testimony is intended to expand upon the several testimonials included in the January 5th letter 

demonstrating the impact the IDEA bas bad on the lives of children with disabilities throughout the 

nation. We hope the stories of real students will shed further light on why the role of the AG is vital to 

leading, supporting and ensuring that individuals with disabilities have access to the full protections of 

federal law- statues that are intended to enable thousands of individuals to live and work independently 

thereby reducing the level of public resources needed to support them as adults. The monies we spend 

on special education are repaid many times over by substantially reducing the number and need for 

governmental support of adults with disabilities. 

Stories: The Impact of Federal Law for Students with Disabilities 

Josh is a high school student with Tourette Syndrome, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and 

learning disabilities. Despite his serious struggles and his parents' repeated requests for an individualized 

education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the school district 

refused to provide any accommodations or services. Josh's dif!iculties in completing his assignments led 

him to stay up past midnight to complete homework, causing his anxiety to escalate and resulted in an 

explosion of both his physical tics and his OCD symptoms. Finally, his parents were driven to file for due 

process, resulting in a determination that Josh was eligible for special education services. The hearing 

officer ordered the district to provide Josh with an IEP and compensatory education. Josh went on to 

graduate from high sehool, graduate from college, and enroll in a Master's program in environmental 

management. 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (844)426-7224 www.copaa.org 
1298 

LeDerick was a child who believed he did not have much of a future. He struggled so much that he had 

to repeat first grade. In third grade, he was evaluated for a suspected disability and found eligible to 

receive special education services under the IDEA. The special education and related services that 

LeDerick received enabled him to make progress academically, and after graduation he enrolled in a 

community college where he thrived. He went on to graduate from New Jersey City University with 

honors, earning a Bachelor's degree in mathematics with a minor in fine arts. LeDerick is now an 

advocate. spoken word poet, playwright and motivational speaker. He has performed at the White House 

and to professional audiences; and, LeDerick has presented to groups ranging from youth and staiT at 

correctional facilities to college students. 

While Katie was at an Early Childhood Center, her parents made it clear to school officials that when she 

reached kindergarten they wanted her to attend her neighborhood elementary school and be educated with 

neighborhood children. Katie's parents were disappointed when, during the meeting to discuss Katie's 

transition to kindergarten, school oflicials said that Katie should be placed in a segregated classroom at a 

"special school" more than ten miles from their home. Katie's parents retained an attorney from a nonprofit 

agency, and the district reluctantly agreed to place Katie in her neighborhood school for kindergarten. 

Following kindergarten and first grade, the school system again tried to move Katie to a "special school." 

The family was forced to file for due process. The matter settled at mediation, and Katie successfully 

remained at her neighborhood school through 5th grade. When Katie transitioned to middle school, the 

district AGAIN tried to place her in a segregated classroom. Katie's family was again forced to file for a 

due process hearing. This time the issues were not resolved prior to a hearing. Katie's parents prevailed at 

the hearing. The district took the issue to federal court, resulting in more delay and cost for both sides. 

While in federal court, Katie's parents and the district reached a settlement that has led to Katie's current 

successful program in her neighborhood high school. 

Isabel, a student with multiple disabilities and significant social and emotional needs, was making 

progress in a regular classroom with supplementary services and a Behavior Intervention Plan. Upon 

moving to a new state, the new school district placed her in a segregated special education classroom, 

despite her parents' requests for more integration. Additionally, school personnel used physical force, 

restraint, and prolonged periods of isolation and seclusion to address her behavioral issues in violation of 

her IEP and Behavior Intervention Plan. [sabcl was later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 

as a result of this experience. I EP meetings and discussions between the parents and school failed to 

resolve the issues, and Isabel's parents filed for a due process hearing. A hearing officer found that the 

school district violated the IDEA by failing to provide Isabel with an education in the least restrictive 

environment and by implementing behavioral interventions which were inconsistent with substantive and 

procedural rights under the IDEA. 

George was an eight-year-old child with Autism who was taught in an alternative setting because he could 

not be managed in a general education classroom. However, George was not receiving special education 

services because his school district asserted that he was "not disabled enough" to qualify for special 

education. His parents tiled for due process and the hearing officer found that George was eligible for 

special education. As a result, he was provided with supports and services that would allow him to benefit 

from his education. Not only did this success at due process improve educational outcomes for George, but 

it also brought public attention to a systemic scandal in which children with disabilities were being kept out 

of special education. 

PO Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (844)426-7224 www.copaa.org 
1299 

Dennis was a high school student who had never learned to read. From first through eleventh grade. he 

failed the majority of his classes, yet he was promoted from grade to grade. By the time he was eighteen, 

he had a history of suspensions from school and juvenile charges against him. Despite his academic and 

behavioral problems, Dennis was never evaluated or identified as a child with a disability in need of special 

education. Believing that Dennis had an undiagnosed learning disability, an attorney from Legal Aid tiled 

for a due process hearing on Dennis' behalf under the IDEA a settlement was reached without a hearing. 

Under the settlement agreement, Dennis was provided with intensive educational and transition services. 

As a result, Dennis learned to read and graduated high school. Utilizing IDEA's transition services, Dennis 

attended a technical school paid for by the school district, where he excelled as a student electrician. He 

then secured a job as an apprentice to a traveling electrician. One of his first assignments was to travel to 

Texas after a hurricane to help rebuild homes. 

Sincerely, 

Denise Marshall 

Executive Director 

1'0 Box 6767, Towson MD 21285 Ph: (844)426-7224 www.copaa.org 
1300 

NAFSA oi STATEMENT OF 

lHtem,Jti(%)1 Educ<tlms Esther Brimmer, DPhil, Executive Director & CEO 

NAFSA: Association oflnternational Educators 

NAI~'SA 

BEFORE THE COMMIHEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES 

SENATE 

THE NOMINATION OF JEFF SESSIONS TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY 

GENERAL TO THE UNITED STATES 

January 10,2017 

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

On behalf ofNAFSA: Association of International Educators, I appreciate the 

opportunity to express our strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff 

Sessions as Attorney General to the United States. NAFSA does not take this 

step lightly. As a matter of practice, NAFSA believes it is preferable to reserve 

judgment on cabinet level nominees until after they have had a chance to 

testify in the confinnation hearing process. However, in the case of Senator 

Sessions. his long track record provides sufficient evidence for us to determine 

he is not qualified to enforce laws pertaining to immigration and civil rights 

that are vital to NAFSA's mission. 

NAFSA is the world's largest professional assocJatton dedicated to the 

promotion and advancement of international education and exchange. Our 

nearly I 0,000 members believe that connecting students, scholars, educators, 

and citizens across borders is fundamental to building mutual understanding 

among nations; preparing the next generation with vital cross-cultural and 

global skills; and creating the conditions for a more peaceful world. Our 

commitment to fostering peace and security through international education 

relies upon leadership that embraces openness, equality, and justice. Senator 

Jeff Sessions' hostile positions on immigration. voting rights, and education 

disqualify him from leading the United States Department of Justice. 
1301 

Immigration 

New Americans yearn to contribute to our nation as generations have done before them. Yet, 

Senator Sessions is among the Senate's most anti-immigrant senators. When his colleagues 

produced a bipartisan package, he opposed it. He has opposed nearly every immigration bill 

that has included a pathway to citizenship, and was instrumental in killing comprehensive 

immigration reform efforts in Congress. In opposing immigration proposals, including visa 

programs for individuals to work in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields, 

Senator Sessions has relied on flawed and out-of-context research and statistics from the 

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Numbers USA, and the Federation for Immigration 

Reform (FAIR). All three are well known anti-immigrant groups which the Southern Poverty 

Law Center has described as "the nativist lobby," having been founded by "a man with deep 

racist roots." 

Despite statistics showing otherwise, Senator Sessions claims the shortage of U.S. STEM 

graduates is a hoax perpetrated by employers who want to bring down wages and harm 

American workers. He has used this unjustified theory to oppose "stapling a green card" to 

the diplomas of foreign students graduating with master's degrees or PhDs in STEM. We 

should be pleased that well-educated students want to contribute their expertise to our 

economy. 

NAFSA works to encourage qualified students from around the globe to study in and 

contribute to our institutions of higher education. International students contributed $32.8 

billion to our economy and supported over 400,000 jobs in the 2015-2016 academic year, in 

addition to providing incalculable benefits to their communities and educational institutions. 

Hostile immigration policies that make it harder for students to work and live here will 

dissuade many students, who will seek educational and work opportunities in other countries. 

Bringing his anti-immigrant bias to the Department of Justice would drastically harm the 

rights of immigrants and undercut the values of openness and inclusivity that represent the 

best of U.S. policy. The attorney general has prosecutorial discretion and control over the 

immigration courts, which Senator Sessions could use to prosecute migrants on even minor 

and technical charges and speed deportation. He will also have the opportunity to hire new, 

anti-immigrant judges whose impact on the immigration courts could last for decades. In 

addition, as attorney general, Senator Sessions could expand the controversial use of private 

prisons to house nonviolent, non-criminal immigrants waiting for decisions on their 

immigration and asylum cases. 

His reach could extend to thwarting policies of local jurisdictions that want to be welcoming 

to immigrants. He has recommended cuts to much needed federal funding to so-called 

"sanctuary cities," jurisdictions that refuse to do the job of federal agents to identify and turn 

over migrants without legal documentation. Justice Department attorneys under Sessions' 

direction could be required to seek injunctions against cities which do not cooperate with the 

administration's efforts to root out immigrants. 

Voting Rights 
1302 

NAFSA also opposes Senator Sessions' nomination because of his alarming record on voting 

rights. We believe our democracy must be as strong and inclusive as possible to realize the 

promise of America. The nation is great because of the values we strive to uphold. The right 

to vote is the bedrock of our democracy. Moreover, the United States gains respect abroad 

from our protection of civil rights at home. Senator Sessions' willingness to prevent citizens 

from exercising their right to vote makes him unqualified to lead the department that enforces 

voting rights. 

Sessions' nomination to be a district judge in 1986 was derailed in part as a result of his 

opposition to voting rights for disenfranchised citizens. As a U.S. attorney, he unsuccessfully 

prosecuted activists engaged in voter registration, claiming rampant voter fraud in an election 

in which only 14 ballots had been allegedly tampered with, out of 1.7 million cast. In 2013, 

he applauded the Supreme Court's decision to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act 

and supports voter ID on the false premise that voter fraud, as opposed to voter suppression, 

is a widespread problem in the United States. As Attorney General he could direct Justice 

Department resources away from efforts to enfranchise more citizens whose right to vote has 

been wrongfully denied, and instead channel Justice Department efforts towards chasing 

mythical cases of rampant voter fraud. 

Education 

The United States has long recognized that education is a Constitutional right which supports 

democracy and creates an informed electorate. As Attorney General of Alabama, Jeff 

Sessions led the fight to overturn a ruling that found the inequitable funding of Alabama 

public schools resulted in unconstitutionally separate and unequal education for Alabama's 

children. His willingness to sacrifice the futures of minority and disabled students by refusing 

to support necessary improvements to lift all Alabama school children suggests that as 

attorney general he will fail to enforce policies or practices to remedy discrimination in our 

institutions of education or elsewhere. 

To advance international education and exchange, NAFSA seeks to provide opportunities for 

all students-regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, gender 

identification or expression, or sexual orientation-to benefit from international education 

and gain the experience necessary to succeed in an interconnected world. Senator Sessions' 

willingness to embrace segregation of educational institutions is anathema to that goal. 

CONCLUSION 

The Attorney General is charged with enforcing laws that are fundamental to ensuring "equal 

justice for all." Senator Sessions' record on immigration, voting rights, and education 

indicates that if confirmed, he will champion policies that are neither just nor inclusive. In 

1986, the United States Congress decided that his extremism disqualified him from serving 

on the federal bench. In the intervening years, nothing has changed that would indicate he is 

now fit to serve as the head of the federal law enforcement. We urge all Senators to oppose 

his confirmation. 
1303 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 14,2016 

CONTACTS: Craig Ford, 256-393-9009 

Rep. Craig Ford Endorses Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney 

General of the United States 

Montgomery- Alabama State Representative Craig Ford announced today his support for 

Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. Rep. Ford, a 

Democrat who was first elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 2000, made this 

endorsement because of the positive impact it could have for the State of Alabama. 

"Throughout his career in public service, Senator Sessions has faithfully and honorably 

represented the people of Alabama. As a federal prosecutor and state attorney general, he fairly 

and equitably pursued and administered justice. I believe Senator Sessions will be a fair and 

unbiased Attorney General. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, and as Alabama's Attorney 

General, makes him exceptionally qualified to serve in this role. 

"As a U.S. Senator for the past 20 years, Senator Sessions has repeatedly worked across party 

lines to enact landmark legislation that was signed into law by presidents of both parties. 

"Senator Sessions has always been committed to public safety, the rule oflaw and our 

Constitution. Furthermore, and perhaps most impressive to members of both political parties, 

Senator Sessions has seen an outpouring of endorsements from law enforcement organizations. 

Our attorney general must have an effective working relationship with national, state and local 

law enforcement in order to ensure public safety, and Senator Sessions truly has their support. 

"The appointment process shouldn't be about partisan politics; it should be about making sure 

we have capable people appointed to these offices. While I have not always agreed with Senator 

Sessions on everything, I've always believed that he was doing what he thought was in the best 

interest of our State, and his experience and qualifications make him an excellent choice for 

Attorney General. 

"Senator Sessions and I share a deep commitment to, and love for, our great State. Having an 

Alabamian in such a prominent national role can be very beneficial to the State. We also share a 

commitment to our armed forces, as we both served as Captains in the U.S. Army Reserve. Now 

is the time to come together as a State and a country, and therefore I give Senator Sessions my 

full endorsement for attorney general of the United States." 

Rep. Craig Ford is a Democrat from Gadsden and the Minority Leader in the Alabama House of 

Representatives. 

### 
1304 

Opinions 

Jeff Sessions says he 

handled these civil rights 

cases. He barely touched 

them. 

By J. Gerald Hebert, Joseph D. Rich and William Yeomans Jnnucny 3 

J. Gerald Hebert is director of the Voting Rights and Redistricting Program at the Campaign Legal Center. Joseph 

D. Rich is G'O-director of the Fair Housing and Community Development Project at the Lawyers' Committee for 

Civil Rights Under Law. William Yeomans is a fellow in law and government at American University's 

Washington College of Law; on Election Day, he worked as a voter protection legal volunteer for the Democratic 

Party of Virginia. 

Attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions is trying to mislead his Senate colleagues, and the country, into believing he 

is a champion for civil rights. '\Ve are former Justice Department civil rights Iav.yers who worked on the civil rights 

cases that Sessions cites as e·vidence for this claim, so we know: The record isn't Sessions's to burnish. We won't let 

the nominee misstate his civil rights history to get the job of the nation's chief law enforcement officer. 

In the questionnaire he filed recently with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions (R-Aia.) listed four ci,il rights 

cases among the 10 most significant that he litigated "personally" as the U.S. attorney for Alabama during the 1980s. 

Three involved voting rights, while the fourth was a school desegregation case. Follovving criticism for exaggerating 

his role, he then claimed that he Pro'"ided "assistance and guidance" on these cases. 

We worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which brought those lawsuits; we handled three of the 

four ourselYes. We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them. He did what 

any U.S. attorney would have had to do: He signed his name on the complaint, and we added his name on any 

motions or briefs. That's it. 

To understand why that was the sum total of Sessions's work, it helps to know that the Civil Rights Division in 

Washington takes the lead in investigating and trying \'Oting rights and school desegregation cases. Division lawyers 
1305 

decide which cases to bring, where to bring them and the contours of the legal theory presented to the court. When a 

complaint is filed~ the custom is for the local federal prosecutor, the U.S. attorney, to sign it and perhaps other 

substantive court filings. This step is a mere formality. In rare cases, the U.S. attorney also provides input to the 

Civil Rights Division attorneys about the substance of the case or the legal strategy. But the role is limited to that of 

an adviser to the division lawyers driving the litigation. 

Sessions's attempt to pass himself off as a civil rights hero is particularly brazen giYen his history with the 

nominations process. In 1986, as part of his rejected bid to become a federal district court judge, Sessions filled out 

a similar questionnaire and had to provide the same information about his most important cases. Yet he listed none 

of the civil rights cases he now touts, even though all of those cases eitherv.rere in progress or had reached a decision 

by that time. Instead, he chose to highlight his criminal prosecutions. 

The Daily 202 newsletter 

A must-read morning briefing for decision-makers, 

In both the 1986 questionnaire and his confirmation hearings (at which one of us, J, Gerald Hebert, testified), 

Sessions indicated that he discussed civil rights cases with department attorneys only when they came to Mobile, 

Ala., to get him to sign complaints. He also said he did not try any civil cases himself while U.S. attorney, focusing 

instead on criminal prosecutions. Indeed, he said it was Tom Figures- the same Mrican American assistant whom 

Sessions allegedly called "boy"- who handled all of the office's civil rights cases. It therefore makes seuse that his 

1986 questionnaire induded so many criminal cases and no civil rights matters. That renders e\ren more suspect his 

recent efforts to claim his colleagues' civil rights experience as his OV\11. 

Sessions's dubious questionnaire is not an isolated incident. It is part of a concerted effort to make his abysmal chil 

rights record look exeinplary. For instance, Sessions is circulating talking points touting his support to reauthorize 

the Voting Rights Act 10 years ago. That took no special courage- the measure passed the Senate 98 too. But 

Sessions celebrated when the Supreme Court cut the heart out of the law in 2013, and has opposed all efforts to fix 

it since. He is also playing up the fact that his U.S. Attorney's Office tried cases v.ith the NAACP and the American 

Civil Liberties Union. Yet he has called those same organizations ''un-American," and in 2010 he bashed several of 

President Obama'sjudicial nominees for haviugwhat he called "ACLU DNA" or "the AC!.U chromosome." His recent 

assertions to the contrary nohvithstanding, Sessions has a long record of hostility toward enforcing the rights that 

Americans cherish. 

Sessions has not worked to protect civil rights. He worked against civil rights at every turn. Sessions knO\'\"S that his 

real reeord on race and civil rights is harmful to his chances for confirmation. So he has made up a fake one. But 

manyofuswho were there- in .Alabama in the 1980s, 1990s and beyond -are still around. We lived that story, 

too. And we are here to testify that Sessions has done many things throughout his 40-year career. Protecting civil 

rights has not been one of them. 
1306 

The Leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights 

ff~he Lesdorship Conference 

STATEMENT OF 

WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

HEARING ON 

THE NOMINATION OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS AS ATTORNEY GENERAL 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JANUARY 10,2017 

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the Committee: I am Wade Henderson, 

President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. I am also honored to serve 

as the Joseph L. Raub, Jr. Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of the District of Columbia 

David A. Clarke School of Law. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of The Leadership 

Conference on the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next United States Attorney General. 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is the nation's oldest and most diverse coalition 

of civil and human rights organizations. Founded in 1950 by Arnold Aronson, A. Philip Randolph, and 

Roy Wilkins, The Leadership Conference seeks to further the goal of equality under law through 

legislative advocacy and public education. The Leadership Conference consists of more than 200 national 

organiz.ations representing persons of color, women, children, organized labor, persons with disabilities, 

the elderly, gays and lesbians, and major religious groups. I am privileged to bring the voices of this 

community to today's hearing. 

The Leadership Conference strongly opposes the confirmation of Senator Sessions as Attorney General. 

His decades-long record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, and 

hostility to the protection of civil rights makes him unfit for this position. In our democracy, the Attorney 

General is the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, and has a sacred duty to enforce our nation's 

laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. He must be seen by the public- every member of 

the public, from every community- as a fair arbiter of our legal system. Unfortunately, Senator Sessions' 

record does not demonstrate that he would meet such a standard. 

As you know, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated in 1986 by former President Ronald 

Reagan to be a federal district judge, the Senate upheld its constitutional duty by undertaking a thorough 

review of his record at that time. This Committee was presented with compelling evidence that then-U.S. 

Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights enforcement, as someone 

who engaged in voter suppression tactics targeting African Americans (most notably his failed 

prosecution of three African-American voting rights activists 1

), and a history of making racially 

1 Lena Williams, "Senate Panel Hands Reagan First Defeat on Nominee for Judgeship," New York Times, June 6, 

1986, at http://nyti.ms/2iadwlg 
1307 

Page 2 of 4 f 'r'' ·· The Leadership 

Conference 

insensitive comments. In light of this record, the Committee voted against recommending his 

confirmation. 

Over the subsequent three decades, the record of Senator Sessions on matters of civil and human rights 

has been no less troubling. He remains just as unfit to serve in a position that would require him to 

represent all Americans in a fair and impartial manner. 

First, we are concerned that he will simply fail to properly enforce many of our nation's important civil 

rights laws and precedents, given his opposition and in some cases outright hostility to them. For 

example: 

He praised2 the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, 3 which gutted a key part of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

He strongly opposed the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 4 and even argued it would be 

unconstitutional, long after the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a similar state law in Wisconsin 

v. Mitche//. 5 

He opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of20096 and other legislation to advance women's 

rights, including efforts to address the pay gap. 

He opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 20137 

He characterized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirements to include children 

with disabilities in mainstream education as "irritating" and "accelerating the decline in civility."' 

He criticized' the landmark marriage equality rulings of US. v. Windsor111 and Obergefell v. 

Hodges," and supported legislation that aims to do an end run around them. 

He condemned investigations of police agencies accused of misconduct or a "pattern or practice" of 

violating civil rights, and called consent decrees "an end run around the democratic process."" 

2 David Weigel, Southern Republican Senators Happy that Supreme Court Designated Their States Not-Racist, 

Slate.com, June 25, 2013 at http://slate.me/2ia9qpX 3 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). 4 Sen. Jeff Sessions, Floor Statements, July 20, 2009 at http://bit.ly/2iabMEY 

5 508 u.s. 476 (1993). 6 Passage of Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 181), U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes I lith Congress- 1st Session, at 

http://bit.ly/2i9UCrg 

7 Passage of Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of20l3 (S. 47), U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes ll3'h 

Congress- l" Session, at http://bit.ly/2ia8529 8 Sen. Jeff Sessions, Floor Statements, May 18, 2000, at http://bit.ly/2iaua0q 9 Chad Petri, '"Senator Sessions on Gay Marriage," WKRG.com News, June 29,2015 at http://bit.ly/2i7a4Jx 10 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). 

" 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). 12 Eli Hager, Alysia Santo and Simone Weichselbaum, "8 Ways Jeff Sessions Could Change Criminal Justice," The 

Marshall Project, Nov. 18,2016, at http://bit.ly/2ialG7d 
1308 

Page 3 of 4 { ''. f • The Leadecship 

Conference 

After then-candidate Donald Trump was revealed to have made comments in 2005 bragging about 

physically forcing himself on women, Sen. Sessions failed to condemn the remarks and even 

questioned whether the comments described sexual assault 13 something his subsequent 

"clarification" still failed to address. 

Second, at the same time that he will under-enforce the law in many areas, we believe he will overenforce the law in other areas. For example: 

As evidenced by his failed 1985 prosecution of three voting rights activists who were working to 

increase African-American registration and turnout, and by his strong support for restrictive voter ID 

laws," Sen. Sessions is certain to overzealously pursue allegations of voter fraud- even though it is 

extremely rare"- and support policies that make it more difficult for citizens to register and vote. 

Given his opposition to bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses, 

and his opposition to administrative efforts that prioritize more serious cases, 16 he can be expected to 

support mandatory minimum sentencing and other failed, heavy-handed criminal justice tacticsincluding with respect to marijuana, even though voters throughout the country continue to support 

its decriminalization. 

As a fierce opponent of comprehensive immigration reform- which he once referred to as "terrorist 

assistance" 17 - as well as to more targeted legalization programs such as the DREAM Act, he will 

likely step up the criminal prosecution of nonviolent immigrants under programs such as "Operation 

Streamline" and reduce due process protections in administrative immigration proceedings. 

His defense of then-candidate Donald Trump's call to prohibit Muslims from entering the countrysomething he called "appropriate to begin to discuss" 18 - raises serious concerns that he will 

selectively enforce terrorism and criminal laws on the basis of religion. 

Third, Senator Sessions has proudly associated himself with some of the most extreme and divisive 

organizations in our country today, associations that would contravene his responsibility to serve as "the 

people's lawyer" for all Americans. For example, he has aligned himself with NumbersUSA, the 

Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Center for Immigration Studies, all three of which 

were founded by John Tanton, who held white nationalist beliefs and called for the preservation of a 

"European-American majority." He has also received awards from the David Horowitz Freedom Center 

and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, two organizations designated as anti-Muslim hate groups 

by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And he has praised the writers of Breitbart.com, which its former 

head Stephen K. Bannon has described as the "platform for the Alt-Right." 

13 Sean Sullivan, "Trump supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions reportedly said behavior Trump described in 2005 video is not 

sexual assault," The Washington Post, Oct. 10,2016 at http://wapo.st/2ia5WDE 14 See, e.g., vote on Dole Amendment on voter identification (S.Amdt. 2350 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669), U.S. 

Senate Roll Call Votes II O"' Congress- I" Session, at http://bit.ly/2i7d9Jy 15 See, e.g., Brennan Center for Justice, "Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth," Sept. I, 2016, at http://bit.ly/2i7cBDk 10 "Federal Inmate Population Declines." Federal Bureau of Prisons, Oct. 4, 2016, at http://bit.ly/2iaeOJD 17 Sen. Jeff Sessions, Floor Statements, June 27,2007, at http://bit.ly/2i71Fr0 18 Eric Lichtblau, "Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General, Could Overhaul Department He's Skewered," New York 

Times, Nov. 18, 2016 at http://nyti.ms/2iali8N 
1309 

Page 4 of 4 d~e leadership 

Conference 

Finally, since his nomination was announced, Senator Sessions has evidenced a disrespect for the 

nomination vetting and "advice and consent" process that raises additional questions about his fitness to 

serve as our nation's top law enforcement officer. In particular, he has repeatedly failed to fully complete 

the Committee's questionnaire, 19 by omitting numerous controversial interviews and speeches and by 

giving inaccurate information regarding his civil rights litigation experience.10 While I can understand the 

difficulty involved in documenting every speech and interview throughout a career as long as his, the 

misrepresentations and omissions are nonetheless troubling because he has strongly criticized other 

nominees for allegedly incomplete questionnaires- even suggesting in one case that it could amount to a 

felony. 21 They also raise questions about whether he will exercise the necessary independence to serve as 

a proper adviser to and a check on the President and the administration that he intends to serve. 

The totality of Senator Sessions' record, despite some positive aspects,22 disqualifies him from wielding 

the tremendous authority and public trust that comes with serving as Attorney General. For the above 

reasons, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights urges you to vote against his 

confirmation. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute my views to the record oftoday's hearing and to 

your deliberations over this nominee. Please feel free to contact me at (202) 466-3311 if! can be of any 

further assistance. 

19 See, e.g., Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Press Release, '4

More Time Needed to Review Sessions Nomination 

Documents," Dec. 13, 2016, at http://bit.ly/2i7wOUL 20 J. Gerald Hebert, Joseph D. Rich and William Yeomans, "Jeff Sessions Says He Handled These Civil Rights 

Cases. He Barely Touched Them," Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2017, at http://wapo.st/2i7fZyo 21 Jennifer Bendery, "Jeff Sessions Omits Decades of Records For His AG Confinnation Hearing," Huffing/on Post, 

Dec. 30, 2016 at http://buff.to/2i7jZJL 22 For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, while expressing opposition to his confinnation, acknowledged 

that he was helpful in the Center's successful effort to sue and bankrupt the Ku Klux Klan following its role in the 

198llynching death of Michael Donald. Similarly, The Leadership Conference was grateful to work with Senator 

Sessions in an effort that culminated in the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of20 I 0, which reduced racial 

disparities in federal cocaine sentencing provisions. While such actions are noteworthy, they do not change our 

conclusion that Sen. Sessions' record, on the whole, is too troubling for him to be confirmed as Attorney General. 
1310 

Supplemental Statement of J. Gerald Hebert 

On the Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions III 

To Be United States Attorney General 

January II, 2017 

I am submitting this supplemental statement to respond to questions raised by Senator 

Ted Cruz during this Committee's hearing on the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be 

Attorney General on Tuesday, January 10, 2017. During the hearing, Senator Cruz referenced the 

testimony I gave in a deposition and to this Committee regarding Mr. Sessions' nomination for a 

federal judgeship in 1986. Senator Cruz has mischaracterized my prior testimony, intimating that 

I essentially recanted my 1986 testimony and that I had "lied." He claimed that, because of the 

events of 1986, people cannot trust my current testimony that Mr. Sessions had no substantive 

involvement in civil rights cases I handled at the Department of Justice in the 1980's. I would 

like to clarify for the Committee what occurred in 1986, in order to rebut the unfounded and 

misleading accusations that Senator Cruz made at the hearing yesterday. 

On March 12, 1986, staffers on this Committee contacted the Department of Justice, 

asking my supervisor, Paul Hancock, and me to come to Capitol Hill to provide sworn testimony 

regarding Mr. Sessions. Civil Rights Division leadership requested that we comply, and we did 

so. Mr. Hancock and I had mere minutes between being contacted by Committee staff and being 

transported to the Hill to provide deposition testimony. Neither of us had any time to consult 

Department records regarding our cases or Mr. Sessions' involvement in them prior to giving our 

deposition testimony for this Committee. 

During his deposition, Mr. Hancock stated that Mr. Sessions had contacted the FBI and 

stopped an investigation related to a voting rights case Mr. Hancock was conducting in Conecuh 

County, Alabama. 1 Mr. Hancock was unable to recollect, or to piece together from his records, in 

which of two Conecuh County cases this interference occurred, or when exactly it occurred. 2 He 

admitted: "[M]y recollection is really not clear."3 In my deposition, I was asked whether Mr. 

Sessions had interfered with Department of Justice cases. I stated that "I only know what 

happened with our Conccuh County case, but Paul Hancock is in a better position to talk about 

that than I am."4 I said that "he and I both have a very fuzzy recollection about Conecuh 

County," and that it "was Paul's case primarily."5 

1 78-84 (deposition of Paul Hancock). Both Mr. Hancock's and my deposition testimony are a part of the 1986 

hearing record on Mr. Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge. 2 /d. at 79-80. 3 fd at 87. 4 Jd at 109 (deposition of J. Gerald Hebert). 

'fd. 
1311 

The next day, I was called to testify before this Committee. Senator Joe Biden questioned 

me about Mr. Hancock's statement in his deposition. I replied, based on Mr. Hancock's previous 

testimony and my own limited recollection, that Mr. Sessions had gotten the FBI to call off its 

investigation.6 Unfortunately, we were unable to collect and review all of the DOJ records 

regarding Alabama voting rights investigations until a few days after the hearing. When we did 

so, we realized that the investigation at issue related to a case in Clarke County, Alabama, not 

Conecuh County, and that the interfering U.S. Attorney was Mr. Sessions' predecessor, not Mr. 

Sessions. Mr. Hancock and I immediately submitted sworn declarations to that effect to this 

Committee, correcting our testimony. 7 Those declarations were filed on March 17, 1986, well 

before the Committee voted on Mr. Sessions' nomination. 8 Mr. Hancock testified before this 

Committee regarding the error on March I 9, I 986. 9 

Senator Cruz distorted this regrettable occurrence to suggest that I had somehow recanted 

my testimony before this Committee, that I had lied, and that therefore my word cannot be 

trusted now. This is patently false. First, the only testimony that I corrected was that regarding 

the FBI investigation, a matter which constituted ten lines of a 24-page deposition and one page 

of my ten-page live testimony.ID In my declaration correcting the error, I reiterated that I stood 

behind the rest of my testimony. 11 Second, neither Mr. Hancock nor I "lied" regarding the one 

incorrect piece of our testimony. As I stated in my declaration: "When I rendered that testimony, 

it was true to the best of my knowledge, recollection and belief." 12 At that time, Mr. Sessions 

acknowledged that we had acted in good faith. 13 And third, the idea that an error regarding a 

minor aspect of my testimony in 1986 should render suspect, not only my own statements today 

on Mr. Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, but also those of my former Department of 

Justice colleagues, is shameful. 

As I and other Department of Justice attorneys have stated, both in the J980s 14 and 

today, 15 the very structure of our voting rights and school desegregation cases meant that Mr. 

6 Jd. at 59-60 (statement of J. Gerald Hebert). 7 Id at 209-16 (declarations of Paul Hancock and J. Gerald Hebert). 8 Id at 209. 9 Id at 206-08 (testimony of Paul Hancock). 10 Compare id at 59-60 (testimony regarding FBI investigation), with id at 56-66 (full live testimony); id at 109 

(testimony regarding FBI investigation), with id at 94-I I 7 (full deposition). 11 Id at 216 (declaration of J. Gerald Hebert) ("This revelation concerning the non-involvement of Mr. Jefferson 

Sessions in interfering in any voting investigations in the Southern District of Alabama does not affect in any way 

my other testimony rendered before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13, I 986."). 12 ld at 216. 13 ld at 537 (statement of Jefferson B. Sessions Ill)("! simply refuse to believe that Mr. Hancock, who came in here 

and apologized for his error, or Mr. Hebert were deliberately out to discredit me or embarrass me. But I want to 

point this out: When I was asked about it, I did not call them liars."). 14 See id at 77-78 (deposition of Paul Hancock). 15 J. Gerald Hebert, Written Testimony of J Gerald Hebert On the Nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Jll 

For Attorney General of the United States, Testimony to U.S. Senate Comm. On Judiciary (Jan. 9, 2016), 

http://www.carnpaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/J.%20Gerald%20Hebert%20Testimony%20Regarding%20N 

2 
1312 

Sessions was not substantively involved in those cases as U.S. Attorney. His statements to the 

contrary in his questionnaires to this Committee are false. Nothing that occurred in 1986 changes 

that fact. 

Nominatio%20of%20Jefferson%20B.%20Sessions%20III.pdf; J. Gerald Hebert, Joseph D. Rich & William 

Yeomans, Op-Ed, Jeff Sessions Says He Handled These Civil Rights Cases. He Barely Touched Them., Wash. Post 

(Jan. 3, 20 I 7), https:/ /www .washingtonpost.com/ opinions/jeff-sessions-says-he-handled-these-civil-rights-cases-hebarely-touched-them/2017 /0 l/03/4ddfffa6-d0fa-ll e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm _term=.38b I b899295d. 

3 
1313 

IXJM'OUft. cwa~ 

M.SSIHILl,JR 

CIOirmon,IDolddDirtttors 

I.AIIIIY DOSS 

IIIIIRWIIIGOI.OSTIIN ""'"""""' 

VICIIQiollmlln 

OORfTIA _, scon KIIG 

MIS'IIHEIIINGFARRIS 

Stn!orYtOIA'OOII'IIlriOiUI: .. 

HCf,J WAI.lfA fAUNlROY 

\filet Pitt~, GowilmiT*'IItl! NIOIIS 

HOPI AHDR£W J YCXMO V!a1Piuldll11,111•rnarumo!M'olr& 

fWIRY BU.AFONif Ylc::ePIIIIOII\1 

--''"""' 

THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. CENTER 

FOR NONVIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE, INC. 449 Auburn Avonue. N.E. AtlanLa. Goor~ia 30312 (404) 524·19M; 

March 19, 1'.!86 

The Honorable Strom Thurmond, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

SD-224 Dirksen Senata Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Nomination of Jefferson II, Sessions 

u.s. Judge, Sbuthern Diotrict of 

Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986 

Dear Sen a tor Thurmond: 

I write to express my sincere oppoai tion to the 

conf1!'1!1Btion of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district 

court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. !!y 

professional and personal roots i.n Alabama are deap and lasting. 

Anyone who hBB used the power of his office as United Stataa 

Attornev to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the 

ballot by eitizens should~ be elevated to our courts. 

Mr. Sessions baa used the awes0111e powers of his office in a 

shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. 

For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded 

with a federal judgeship. 

I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from 

appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 

I have attached a copy of lilY statement opposing :Mr. Sessions' 

confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this 

letter lie made a part of the' hearing record. 

I do sincerely url!e you to oppose the confirmation of 

Mr. Sessions. 

Sincerely,~- • 

Co~t·t Ki;'g '., 

CSK/lm 

cc: The Honorable Joseph ll. lliden, Jr; 

United States Senate 

308 Senate Hart Building 

~lashington, D.C. 20510 
1314 

statement of 

Corette Scott Kinq 

on the Nomination of 

Jefferson Beaureqard Sessions, III 

for the 

United States District Court 

Southern District of Alabama 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Thursday, March 13, 1986 
1315 

Statement of 

Coretta Scott King 

on the Nomination of 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions 

for the 

United States District Court 

Southern Distri«t of Alabama 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Thursday, March 13, 1986 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my 

strong opposition to the nomina~ion of Jefferson Sessions for a 

federal district judgeship for the Southern District of Alabama. 

My longstanding commitment which l shared with my husband, 

Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black Americans, 

rights which include equal access to-the democratic process, 

compels me to testify today. 

Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert 

Turner, have fought' long and hard to achieve free and unfettered 

access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used•the awesome 

power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by 

black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a 

federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions' 

2 
1316 

conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting 

fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations 

of civil rights laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament, 

fairness and judgment to be a federal judge. 

The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important 

to the future of democracy in the United States. I was . privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma 

to Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was 

particularly impressed by the determination to get the franchise 

of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County, As he wrote, 

"Certainly no community in the history of the Negro struggle 

has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and her neighboring 

town of Marion. Where Birmingh~~ depended largely upon 

students and unemployed adults [to participate in non-violent 

protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma has involved 

fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of Marion 

_! .... ""as arrested on one day." Martin was referring of course 

to a group that included the defendants recently prosecuted 

for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to exercise that 

franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the.depth of 

their commitment twenty years ago, that a united political 

organization would remain in Perry County long after the 

other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry County 

Civic League, started by 1-!r. Turner, Mr, Hogue, and others, 

I The New York Times, Sunday Magazine, March 14, 1985. 

3 
1317 

as Martin predicted, continued "to direct the drive for 

votes and other rights." In the years since the Voting 

Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, Selma and 

elsewhere have made important strides in their struggle to 

participate actively in the electoral process. The number 

of Blacks registered to vote in key Southern states has 

doubled since 1965. This would not have been possible 

without the Voting Rights Act. 

However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 

participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 

South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 

the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of 

the voters. It has been a long up-hill strug~le to keep .. alive the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental 

right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility 

to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise 

of those rights by Black people should not be elevated to 

the federal bench. 

The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if 

confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a 

federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished 

twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years 

ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of 

~oting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in 

Selma and Y~rion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the 

time, "it was not just a sick imagination that conjured up 

4 
1318 

the vision of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, 

who forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; 

who ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his 

sickbed; who clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who 

callously inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities 

upon nonviolent Negroes peacefully petitioning for their 

constitutional right to vote," _I 

Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 

American democracy that we can not tolerate any form of 

infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have 

been disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has 

struggled longer or suffered more in the attempt to win 

the vote than Black citizens. No group has had access to 

the ballot box denied so persis~ently and intently. 

Over the past century, a broad array of schemes have been 

used in attempts to block the Black vote. The range of 

techniques developed with the purpose of repressing black 

voting rights r~• the gamut from the-straightforward application of brutality against black citizens who tried to 

vote to such legalized frauds as "grandfather clause" 

exclusions and rigged literacy tests. 

The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard•to the 1984 

voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique 

_I "Civil Right No. 1 -- The Right to Vote," by ¥..art in 

Luther King, Jr., The Ne\-7 Ycrk Times, Sunday Magazine, l-1.a.rch 14, 1965. 

5 
1319 

used to intimidate Black ~oters and thus deny them this 

most precious franchise. The investigations into the 

absentee voting process were conducted only in the Black 

Belt counties where blacks had finally achieved political 

power in the local government. Whites had been using the 

absentee process to their advantage for years, without 

incident. Then, when Blacks; realizing its strength, began 

to use it with success, criminal investigations were begun. 

In these investigatigns. Mr. Sessions, as u.s. Attorney, 

exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three 

leaders of the Perry County Civic League including Albert 

Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence 

of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, 1o •• 

Mr. Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites, 

choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by 

blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions 

sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors 

and colleagues of my husband, who ha~ been key figures in 

the civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons 

who, realizing the potential of the absentee vote among 

Blacks, had learned to use the process within the bounds of 

legality and had taught others to do the s~e. The only 

sin they committed was being too successful in gaining votes. 

6 
1320 

The scope and character of the investigations conducted 

by Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were 

selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of 

their testimony to the government's case. Also, the 

prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical 

statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify 

were pressured and intimidat~d into submitting the "correct" 

testimony. Many elderly bl~cks were visited multiple times 

by the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a 

grand jury in Mobile when they could more easily have 

testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. 

These voters, and others, have announced they are now 

never going to vote again. 

I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct 

in these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious 

questions about his commitment to the protection of the 

voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his 

fair and \lllbiased judgment regarding..'this fundamental right. 

When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments 

of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are 

analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political, 

and the result frightening -- the wide-scale chill of the 

exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to 

recei\•e that right in the first place. There£ore, it is 

my strongly-held vie~ that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions 

to the federal bench would irreparably darr~ge the work of 

my husband, Al Turner, and co~,tleEs others who risked 'their 

7 
1321 

lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal 

participation in our democratic system. 

The exercise of the franchise is an essential means 

by which our citizens ensure that those who are governing 

will be responsible. My husband called it the number one 

civil right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately 

results in the denial of oth~r fundamental rights. For, it 

is only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that 

they are able to participate actively in the solutions to 

their own problems. 

We still have a long way to go before we can say that 

minorities no longer need be concerned about discrimination 

at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asian 

Americans are grossly underrepresented at every level of 

government in America. If we are going to make our timeless 

dream of justice through democracy a reality, we must take 

every possible step to ensure that the spirit and intent of 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and th~ Fifteenth Amendment 

of the Constitution is honored. 

The federal courts hold a unique position in our 

constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other 

citizens without political power have a forum in.which to 

vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is 

essential that the people selected to be federal judges 

respect the basic tenets of our.legel system: respect for 

individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. 

8 
1322 

The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they protect, 

can only be maintained if citizens feel confident that those 

selected as federal judges will be able to judge with fairness 

others holding differing views. 

I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the 

requisite judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the 

rights guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify 

for appointment to the federal district court. Based on 

his record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating effect on uot only the judicial system in Alabama, 

but also on the progress we have made everywhere toward 

fulfilling my husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty 

years ago. I therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee 

to deny his confirmation. 

I thank you for allowing me to share my views. 

9 
1323 

1/512017 The law" Professors' Scandalous Statement Aga1nst JeffSessmns 

Forbes 

OPiNlON 110512017@ 1' 46AM 898 v.ews 

The Law Professors' Scandalous 

Statement Against Jeff Sessions 

On ,Jan. 10, Senator Jeff Sessions is scheduled to 

appear before the Senate .Judiciary Committee to 

present his qualifications to replace Loretta 

Lynch as Attorney-General of the United States. 

In anticipation of his hearing, over 1300 law 

professors have .o;igned onto a statement to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Committee, whieh urges them to reject 

President-Elect Trump's nomination of Sessions. 

Let me emphasize tlmt I do not know Senator 

Sessions. I am not a member of Mr. Trump's 

transition team. I wlite about this solely in my 

capacity as a Professor of Legal Ethil's. One of my 

main goals as a professor of legal ethics is to try 

to show my students, through my teaching and 

scholarship. that officers of the court should be 

pondered and serious. We should not engage in 

casua1 character assassination. We should not 

become partisan hacks. 

http://W'NW.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2017/01/Q51the-law-professors-scandatous-statement-agalnst-jeff-sessions/prinl/ 115 
1324 

1/5!2017 The Law Professors' Scandalous Stfl.tement AgamstJeff Sessions 

In that capacity, I regret having to conclude that 

the statement shaml'S me as ala\'\' professor. 

The statement is little more than a diatribe of 

charges against Sessions, many of which have 

nothing to do with his ability to execute the 

functions of the office to tYhich he has been 

nominated. Thus: 

The statement claims that some (it 

never says hov.· many} of its signers 

object to Sessions' view that illegal 

entry into America should be 

prohibited. Wanting to enforce our 

laws is not disqualifying for an 

Attorney General, except perhaps in 

a Bizarro '"orld. 

The statement claims that some (it 

never says how many) of its signci'S 

objed to Sessions' willingness to 

enforce existing drug laws. Again, it 

is fatuous to criticize a would~be 

Attorney Genera! for desiring lo 

enforce existing hnvs. 

The statement claims that some (it 

never says how many) of its signers 

object to Sessions' virws about the 

relationship between fossil fuels and 

climate change. As regards his fitness 

as Attorney General, I don't care 

what those views are any more than I 

care what Sessions thinks about 

NATO or the Designated Hitter mle. 

The statement claims that some Ot 

never says how many) of its signers 

object to Sessions' opposition to 

nnnamed legislative efforts of \Vhirh 

they approved, and which would in 

their opinion have filvored women, 

homosexuals, and transgendered 

prople. They don't elaborate on any 

of this, nor do they nott~ that the 

Attorney General cannot pass 

new legislation, but is entrusted with 

enforcing it. They newr claim that 

Sessions 'Would not enforce 

lrgislation of which he disapprows. 

Note to signatories: bring of the 

opposite politkal party from you is 

not grounds for refusing to confirm. 

Last and ce11ainly not least, thr 

statement claims that some (it never 

says how many) of its signrrs objcrt 

to Srssions' nomination beeause he 

was accused of racial insensitivity in 

his prosecution of three people for 

voting fraud when he .served as 

United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of Alabama 32 

years ago. The statement further 

http:/!wwv•.forbes.com/siles/michaelkraussf2017f01/051the-!aw~professors~scandalous~statement-against-jeff-sessions!printl 215 
1325 

1!512017 The Law Professors' Scandalous Statement Against Jeff Sessu;Jns 

claims that this racial insensitivity 

was tht> reason why Sessions \'laS not 

confinned as a federal judge 

following his nomination by 

President Reagan in 1986. This 

chargt> would be relevant to his 

position (though surely not decisive 

~if one's position on issues 32 years 

ago are disqualifying today, few if 

any recent federal office-holders 

would be in office) if it were true. But 

the statement docs not provide the 

slightest bit of evidence iu support of 

its defamatory conclusion. 

In 1985 three (black) defendants were accused of 

having altered the absentee ballots of (black} 

voters in order to defeat some (black) candidates 

the defendants opposed, and to ensure vietmy for 

other (black) candidates the defendants fa\·ored. 

U.S. Attorney Sessions had recciyed a call from 

the Perry County (Ala.) district attorney, 

informing him that two (black) Democratic 

officials, \'I'· hose candidacies were opposed by civil 

rights leader Alber1 Turner, "were very 

concemed that a conceried effort was being 

made to deny a fair election" through the 

multiplication of altered absentee ballots by 

Turner and his allies. A subsequent examination 

of absentee ballots revealed that many had 

indeed been altered, ahvays from non-Turnersupporied candidates to Turner-supported 

candidates (including Turner himselD. Turner 

apparently admitted to making alternations, but 

claimed that the voters had authorized him to 

make them (though .AJahama law prohibited 

candidates from ever touching absentee ballots 

for any reason). Several (blal'k) voters denied 

ever having authorized the alteration of their 

completed ballots. 

Sessions assigned tvm attorneys to prosecute the 

case. They were opposed by large (eleven 

different attorneys at various times) team for the 

defense. Turner and his two co-defendants 

tverc acquitted. Note, though, that William 

Kimbrough Jr., Sessions' Democratic 

predecessor as United States Attorney, testified 

on Sessions' behalf in 1986 that his defeat in 

court did NOT mean the prosecution \Yas 

unjustified: 

http"//www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2017/01/05/the-law-professors-scandalous-slatement-against-jeff-sessioos/print/ 315 
1326 

1/5!2017 The Law Professors' Scandalous Statement Against Jeff Sess1ons 

~Quit<· ofkn, in the South, you do not -.,.,in ci\ il rights 

casc>s. Th;tt is not to sn_:~- they should not b;:- brought I 

personally tried a number of d\·il rights ("ascs 

involving po]k"t' brutality or allegl•d poli(X" brutality, 

and I do notbelien· l>Hm one of them. !do not 

apologize to anyone for having hrou.t;ht the case. 

The-re was probabk cause to belieYc that somebody's 

ri).';ht.'> had been abused .... You bring thl' l-.tSe lweausc 

tlK ease nec>ds to he brought." 

For vd1at it's worth, even Albert Turner's son has 

recognized that Sessions v .. ·as "doing his job," 

competently and ethically, by bringing charges 

against his parents. "My differenees in policy and 

ideology v.-ith (Sessions) do not translate to 

personal malice," said Albert Turner .Jr., now a 

county commissioner in Perry County. "'He is not 

a racist." 

As I stated. above, I have never met Senator 

Sessions. I am not on his "team." But T think he 

is entitled to a fair hearing, not one Liascd by a 

condusory and dubious "statement" concocted 

by 1300 academics, the great majority of whom 

possibly signed on ,..,.ithout doing any 

independent research. I think Mr. Turner is 

1ight- this is all about political differences 

bchveen the signatories of the statement and .J eft 

Sessions, not about his fitness for office. 

Joe Bid en told CNN in December, "The president 

should get the person that they want for that joh 

[Attorney General], as long as they commit, 

under oath, that they are going to uphold the 

la\',.._" 

Character assassination is so unvmrthy of our 

profession -what an a\Yful example to set for the 

budding la\'')TfS who arc our students! The ABA 

Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit 

"conduct that is prejudicial to the administration 

of justice." T contend. that the law professors' 

statement, which condemns Attorney General 

nominee Jeff Ses5ions bast.~d on irrele,·ancies and 

innuendoes, is just that. 

Michael Krauss is Professor of Law at the 

Antonio Sralia School of Law at George Mason 

University, and is a nationally known scholar of 

Tort Law and Legal Ethic_.:.;, His home page is 

lllTI:. 

REC<DIME:'iDW BY FORBES 

http:/!www.forOOs.com/si!es/michaelkrausst2017101/051the-law-professors-scanda!ous-statement-against-jeff-sessionslprinU 415 
1327 

1/512017 The Law Professors' Scardalous Statement Against Jeff Sess1oos 

Th:s ar1Jcls IS available online at 2017 Forbes com LLC'~ All R1gl1ts Reserved 

http://www.forbes.com/sltes/michaelkraussf2017/01/051the-ICM1-prafessors-scanda!ous-statement-agalnst-jeff-sesslons/printl 515 
1328 

STATEMENT 

LA WYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

RE: OPPOSITION TO SENATOR JEFFERSON SESSIONS' NOMINATION TO SERVE 

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was founded in 1963 at the behest 

of John F. Kennedy who called upon the private bar to contribute its time and resources to combat 

discrimination. We arc pleased to present this testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

regarding the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United 

States. 

The position of the Attorney General is unique in American governance. As the head of 

the Department of Justice and the nation's top law enforcement of1icer, the Attorney General has 

the high duty of vigorously enforcing the law. Enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws is one 

the most important responsibilities of the Attorney General in inspiring confidence in all 

communities in the United States. especially at a time, like now. when racial divide and tensions 

arc increasing. This responsibility is of special importance to fullilling the mission of the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ("Lawyers' Committee). As Senator Bingaman explained 

during Senate debate on another nominee, the Attorney General is uniquely situated within the 

President's cabinet: 

"The position of Attorney General is not comparable to other Cabinet positions. 

As head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General has enonnous 

independent responsibility and authority, neither of which is subject directly to 

direction by the President .... Historically, the Attorney General is the officer 

who has enforced the Voting Rights Act and the other civil rights laws which 

have transformed our nation tor the better in the last half century. Given the great 

power which has been lodged in this office. it is important that the American 

people have conlidence in the fairness and impartiality of the occupant of that 

oflice.'' 

- Congressional Record, 01/31/200 l, S872 

At this time, our country needs an Attorney General who has a record of supporting civil 

rights laws and the principles underlying them, and taking actions that demonstrate this 

commitment. Unfortunately, the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General is a major 

step backwards in fulfilling this critical responsibility. His long record of hostility to civil rights 

enforcement makes him the wrong choice to serve as this nation's Attorney General. 

Initially, it is important to take note of Senator Sessions' effort to claim that he was a strong 

enforcer of voting rights and school desegregation laws when he was Attorney General of Alabama 

and U.S. Attorney. In his recent response to a question in the Committee's questionnaire for his 

confirmation hearings, he was asked to list the "ten most significant litigated matters that [he] 

personally handled." Senator Sessions' response to this question listed three voting rights cases 
1329 

and one school desegregation case. But. as pointed out in a recent editorial in the Washington 

Post, three former attorneys of the Department's Civil Rights Division (including one Lawyers' 

Committee attorney) who personally handled three of the four cases stated "categorically that 

Senator Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them." Rather he did "what any U.S. 

attorney would have had to do: signed his name on the complaint, and have his name added on any 

motions or briefs. That's it." In fact, in responding to a previous questionnaire from the Judiciary 

Committee, he did not even mention these cases. 

A more accurate picture of Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights is demonstrated 

by the historical record. 

Record on Voting Rights 

One of the top priorities of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is ensuring 

compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Senator Sessions' political career demonstrates 

hostility towards the principles underlying civil rights laws that spans over thirty years. 1 In 

response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder which gutted Section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions stated, "but now if you go to Alabama, Georgia, 

North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of their skin." However. 

the ongoing work of the Lawyers' Committee indicates otherwise. Indeed, we have filed voting 

rights lawsuits in all three stales in the past year alone. In Alabama, we filed suit alleging that the 

method of electing Alabama's most powerful judges violates the Voting Rights Act. 1 In Hancock 

County, Georgia, we tiled suit in 2015 to stop the attempted purge of African-American voters 

from the voting rolls, and obtained a court order requiring that those wrongly struck from the 

register be placed back on the rolls.2 Also in Georgia, we and other organizations filed suit in 2016 

to stop the improper rejection of over 40,000 voter registration applications. predominately filed 

by African Americans, resulting in an agreement by the State to allow the applicants to votc. 3 And 

also in 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an array of voter suppression laws 

enacted by the North Carolina Legislature were passed with the intent to discriminate against 

African Americans.4 

While Senator Sessions voted in favor of reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act in 2006, during his 1986 confirmation hearing. Senator Sessions described the 

Act as a "piece of intrusive legislation." This disdain tor one or our nation's most important federal 

civil rights laws is particularly problematic at a moment in which we continue to sec ongoing 

voting discrimination and voter suppression across our country. Furthermore, he has a deep history 

of opposing and undermining cases on behalf of traditionally disenfranchised voters. Those cases 

include the following: 

1 NAACP v. State q{Aia .. 2: 16-cv-00731 (M.D. Ala. 2016). 2 Georgia State Cm?fi?rence of the NAACP, eta!., v. Hancock Cmmty Board o.fE/ections and Registration, et aL, 

5:15-cv04l4-CAR, M.D. GA. 3 NAACP, eta! .. v. Kemp, et at .• 2:16-cv-219-WCO, N.D.GA.Gainesville Div. 

'.\'. Carolina State Conference of',\AACP v .. \fcC1·01y, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). 

2 
1330 

White v. Alabama 

This past September. the Lawyers' Committee filed a new federal voting rights lawsuit in 

Senator Sessions' home state of Alabama concerning the at-large method of election that has long 

been used for the state's three highest courts. The predecessor to our case, White v. Alabama, was 

initiated in 1994 by a group of African American voters who asserted the same Voting Rights Act 

violation as our current case - that the at-large system of electing Alabama appellate judges 

violated Section 2 of the Act. The statewide at-large method of electing these judges. combined 

with the enduring presence of racially polarized voting in the state, ensures that most every 

elected appellate judge in Alabama is the candidate of choice of the white majority. At that 

time of the White litigation. only one of the nineteen appellate judges in Alabama was AfricanAmerican even though African Americans comprised over 25% of the State's population. For the 

previous 125 years. only two African Americans. both of whom were appointed by the Governor. 

had served as an appellate courtjudge.7 

In October 1994, a federal district court approved a settlement in the White case which had 

been negotiated by the then-State Attorney General of Alabama. Jimmy Evans. The settlement 

was designed to provide significant African American representation on the Alabama judiciary for 

the first time in the state's history. At the time of the settlement, Senator Sessions was running for 

Alabama Attorney General against Evans and vigorously opposed the agreement, including 

making an appearance before the district court in opposition when the court was reviewing the 

matter. 

Subsequently, Senator Sessions was elected as the new Alabama Attorney General and 

soon after, when the case was on appeal, he reversed the position of the previous Alabama Attorney 

General and urged a panel of federal circuit judges to reject the settlement, arguing that he could 

not defend the terms agreed to by his predecessor and approved by the district court because they 

improperly focused on race. The court subsequently vacated the settlement, 8 but Sessions made 

no further efforts at reaching an acceptable settlement. The alleged Section 2 Voting Rights Act 

vio !at ion was not further pursued, either when Senator Sessions was the A Ia bam a Attorney 

General or any time since, until the recent filing of our case. 

Today. twenty years later, there is not one African American appellate judge in Alabama. 

All nineteen are white. Because of this continued lack of minority representation, we filed our suit 

in an attempt to finally bring the three highest courts in Alabama into compliance with the Voting 

Rights Act. Once again we argue that the at-large election method used to select appeals court 

judges unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans and prevents them from 

electing candidates of their choice9 

Senator Sessions' rejection of the settlement in the White case resulted in a discontinuation 

of that case and the continuation of an all-white judiciary in Alabama. Our lawsuit reflects the 

7 White v. State of Ala., 867 F. Supp. 1519, 1527 (M.D. Ala. 1994). 8 White v. State of Ala., 74 F.3d 1058 (! lth Cir. !996). 9 ,\AACP v. State <;{Ala., 2:16-cv-00731 (M.D. Ala. 2016). 

3 
1331 

importance of addressing, through the Voting Rights Act, discrimination which has historically 

been the cause of the complete lack of minority representation on Alabama state courts. It is an 

example of the kind of voting discrimination that we continue to see in many communities across 

our country. 

The Marion Three Case 

In 1985, during his tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama under 

then President Ronald Reagan, then Attorney General Sessions pressed charges against eight 

residents from Greene and Perry counties, accusing them of altering absentee ballots. Of the 

accused, seven out of eight of were black. Among the group were longtime civil rights activist 

Albert Turner, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, his wife Evelyn Turner, and 

fellow activist Spencer Hogue- later known as the Marion Three- who had long conducted voter 

registration drives throughout rural Black Belt counties, aiming to boost registration rates among 

poor and elderly African Americans. Turner became known as "Mr. Voter Registration:· and is 

credited with the African American community's gain of political control in many counties in the 

Alabama Black Belt. On the basis of highly questionable evidence of an effort by the Marion 

Three and others to commit voter fraud, Senator Sessions dispatched dozens of FBI agents to 

repeatedly visit homes of rural black residents. The countless hours of interrogation yielded only 

14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast statewide in the 1984 election. 

When brought to trial for the alleged crimes, Federal District Judge Emmert Cox dismissed 50 

counts against the defendants due to lack of evidence and all the remaining counts resulted in an 

acquittal by the jury. In other words. what was clearly a major effort by then Attorney General 

Sessions to prosecute alleged "voter fraud" was based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. 

The approach of Senator Sessions in this case is particularly troubling in the context of 

repeated claims of "voter fraud'' when the overwhelming evidence is that there are but a handful 

of such cases around the country. The Justice Department will be responsible for overseeing these 

claims and the responses of the states to them. Consequently, the next Attorney General must be 

fair-minded and trusted by the entire country in evaluating these claims. 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 

The Lawyers' Committee knows the reality of voting discrimination and voter suppression 

all too well having filed more than 12 such cases in 2016 alone. Our nation deserves an Attorney 

General who recognizes the existence of voting discrimination and who will use the Voting Rights 

Act as a tool to confront it. There is no evidence in Senator Sessions' record that suggests he 

would bring any commitment to attacking voting discrimination. In fact, he denies its existence 

in many states with the most egregious histories of such discrimination. 

Record On Criminal Justice 

The Department of Justice enforces federal criminal laws, including criminal laws that 

protect our civil rights; it operates a prison system; and it enforces civil laws protecting us from 

civil rights violations committed by law enforcement agencies. Prosecuting hate crimes, creating 

4 
1332 

trust between minority communities and law enforcement, and reducing the over-incarceration of 

minority men and women are essential to unifying our country. Today, approximately 211,000 

people are locked up in federal prisons, according to data from the Prison Policy Initiative. Below 

is an overview of pressing criminal justice issues that must continue to be national priorities but 

would likely be disregarded by Senator Sessions, 

Police Oversight 

In response to a string of police-involved shootings of civilians, the Justice Department 

utilizes its powers to investigate law enforcement agencies accused of a "pattern or practice" of 

violating civil rights. When the Justice Department identifies civil rights violations, the 

Department may bypass litigation and enter into consent decrees with the offender agencies to 

resolve the pattern or practice of unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful conducL In a new report 

issued on January 4, 2017. the Justice Department confirmed that there are currently 18 open 

agreements in pattern or practice policing cases, including 14 court-enforced consent decrees. In 

the introduction to a 2008 paper published by the Alabama Police Institute, Senator Sessions 

condemned such interventions as an abuse of federal authority. 10 "Consent decrees have a 

profound elTect on our legal system as they constitute an end run around the democratic process," 

he wrote. This statement suggests that Senator Sessions will not carry forward the critical work 

of the Justice Department in this area and may abandon the pattern or practice violations addressed 

by the 18 existing agreements. Such a result would dismantle years of work to restore 

constitutional policing practices at atTending law enforcement agencies across the country. 

Sentencing 

The Attorney General guides U.S. attorneys toward stricter or more lenient sentences 

through charging memos. While individual U.S. attorneys have some discretion, the Attorney 

General sets the tone for use of that discretion. Former Attorney General Eric Holder advised 

against piling on charges for low-level drug offenders and seeking maximum sentences, a policy 

Senator Sessions is unlikely to continue. Senator Sessions was a longtime supporter of eliminating 

sentencing discrepancies between crack and cocaine offenders, but he helped block broader drug 

sentencing reform in the Senate in 2016 despite wide bipmiisan suppmi, saying it would release 

"violent felons" into the street. 

Today, the United States comprises just 5% of the world's population but it incarcerates 

almost 25% of all of the world's prisoners. In 2010 alone, state and federal governments spent 

$80 billion on incarceration. Of the 216,000 current federal inmates, nearly half are serving time 

for drug-related crimes. 

If confirmed, Senator Sessions will likely reverse the significant progress that has been 

made to adjust sentencing ranges for low-level drug offenders, destroying years of efforts to reduce 

10 
1333 

federal prison populations and rein in federal prison spending while directing limited federal 

resources towards more serious threats to public safety. 

Hate Crimes 

Senator Sessions fiercely opposed the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act. The Act extended federal bate crime protections to people victimized 

because of their sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. or disability. The law mandates that 

the Attorney General- or a designee sign off on all criminal prosecutions brought under the Act. 

In a speech on the Senate floor in July 2009. Senator Sessions agreed that people should not be 

attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender. but he argued that federal prosecution of 

such attacks was unnecessary because there was no evidence that they weren't being prosecuted 

adequately at the state and local levels. The incoming Attorney General will be in a position to 

effectively neutralize the protections the law afTords. 

But. we have seen a significant uptick in the number of hate crimes and hate-inspired 

incidents across the country in the last several weeks of2016. While no official FBI data on this 

period has yet been produced. these incidents have been well documented and recorded by media. 

This moment requires an Attorney General who bring a deep commitment to aggressive 

enforcement of our nation's laws addressing hate to help turn the tide on this pattern of growing 

hostility and intolerance. Senator Sessions' record raises grave concerns that he would bring such 

commitment to the job. 

Lack of Commitment to Judicial Diversity 

Senator Sessions' actions in the White case also reflect his lack of commitment to the 

importance of diversity at every stage of the eountry'sjudicial system. The Lawyers' Committee's 

Judicial Diversity Program seeks to improve the judicial system through increased representation 

from people of diverse backgrounds working on the judicial bcnch. 11 Judicial diversity is 

especially important in maintaining and increasing public confidence in the legitimacy of the 

courts. As the American Bar Association's Judicial Division bas stated: 

"The public's !rust and confidence in the justice .1ystem is enhanced when 

they see that the judges deciding their cases resembles the vast racial, 

ethnic, and cultural groups that make up American society. Likewise, a 

diversejudicia! branch expands an individualjudge'sperspective in making 

decisions that impact a diverse population. .. 

American Bar Association, Judicia! Division 

As a United States Senator, Senator Sessions' opposition to judicial diversity has not been 

limited to the Alabama appellate judiciary. An African American has never served in the Alabama 

seat of the II '

11 Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this year, President Obama nominated Abdul 

Kallon to serve on the II 111 Circuit, a nomination applauded by the Lawyers· Committee. If 

6 
1334 

confirmed he would have become the first African American federal court of appeals judge from 

Alabama. However, even though the vacancy on the Court of Appeals has been declared a judicial 

emergency, 12 Senator Sessions continued his anti-judicial diversity stance and refused to support 

the nomination. 

Senator Sessions' hostility to judicial diversity is significant because of the Justice 

Department's critical role in evaluatingjudicial nominees by way of the 011icc of Legal Program's 

role in advising the President on nominations for Article Ill judgeships. 

Legislative Record On Civil Rights Matters 

On a range of civil rights matters concerning race, gender and immigrants' rights, Senator 

Sessions has consistently and often stood opposed. 

In 2015, Senator Sessions supported the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans 

Act, which would have prohibited sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal grant money. 13 

In 2013. Senator Sessions voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act. A bill signed into law by President Obama. VA WA 20 I 3 recognized tribes' inherent 

power to exercise "special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction" over certain defendants. 

regardless of their Indian or non-Indian status, who commit acts of domestic violence or dating 

violence or violate certain protection orders in Indian country. 14 

In 2013, Senator Sessions opposed the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the 

Senate. When it passed, he published an "Immigration Handbook for the New Republican 

Majority" to assist efforts to defeat the bill in the House. and has updated the handbook to oppose 

subsequent efforts to enact immigration reform. 15 

In 2013, Senator Sessions supported an amendment to the Employer Non-Discrimination 

Act of 2013. The amendment exempts religiously affiliated employers from the prohibition on 

employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender idcntity. 16 

In 20 I 2, Senator Sessions did not support The Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities. The purpose of the Treaty was to ensure that the equality of treatment and 

nondiscrimination. precepts anchored in the United States Constitution arc extended to all citizens. 

including those with disabilitics. 17 

7 
1335 

In 2011, Senator Sessions opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act 

of2012. 18 

In 20 I 0, Senator Sessions voted against a motion for cloture on a bill to amend the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in 

the payment of wages on the basis or sex, and for other purposes. 19 

In 2009, Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay of 2009. The bill -

which was the first piece of legislation that President Obama signed into law- amended the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 to ensure that the statute of limitations does not unfairly bar claims of pay 

disparity based on gender discrimination.20 

In 2006, Senator Sessions supported a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex 

marriage. He voted to invoke cloture and move to a final vote on the amendment, which fell II 

votes short of the 60 it needed to pass.21 

In 2006, Senator Sessions voted with a unanimous Senate to reauthorize the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965, but he has criticized the landmark civil rights law as "intrusive," and agreed with the 

Supreme Court's 2013 decision, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, that struck down key 

provisions of the law. 

In 2002, Senator Sessions voted against a bill that would have expanded the definition of 

hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex. sexual orientation or disability 

and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally 

protected action was implicated. He voted not to invoke cloture and move to a final vote on the 

amendment, which fell 6 votes short of the 60 it needed to pass. 22 

In 1997. Senator Sessions co-sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1997, a bill which would 

eliminate affirmative action by the federal government in connection with federal contracts, 

employment, or other programs by the activities.23 

In addition to his consistent opposition to important federal civil rights legislation, he has 

also consistently opposed the nominations of African Americans, Latinos and other minorities to 

Senate-confirmed positions including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. United States Attorney General 

Loretta Lynch, Assistant United States Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Bill Lann 

Lee, among others. 

8 
1336 

Integrity and Fairness 

The Attorney General leads the nation's largest law enforcement agency, comprised of 

more than 113,000 employees. That said, a court found that grave prosecutorial misconduct was 

carried out under Senator Sessions' leadership of the Alabama State Attorney General's Office 

during his term as State Attorney General. In State o.fA/abama v Tieco (Jefferson County, Alabama 

1996), the court found that the "misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses in 

both extensiveness and measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously 

presented to or witnessed by this couii." 

The court concluded that the State Attorney General either refused or failed to turn in 

exculpatory evidence when requested; failed or refused to comply with previous discovery orders 

issued by the court; and repeatedly lied to the court, denying the existence of evidence, which was 

later discovered by the defense. The court also found the use of deceptive testimony; imposition 

of false charges; a flagrant disregard of the constitutional rights of the accused parties; and 

complete disregard of the law when issuing a subpoena demanding that witnesses appear before a 

jury and testify, among other things. 

The prosecutorial misconduct of the magnitude described here raises grave questions about 

Senator Sessions' integrity and fitness for the chief law enforcement role in our nation. 

Furthermore, seeing as Senator Sessions could not properly control a far smaller State Attorney 

General's office of less than 200, it raises serious questions as to his fitness and ability to lead one 

of our nation's most impoiiant and largest federal agencies. His track record creates doubt 

surrounding whether or not he is truly fit to be the Attorney General of the United States. 

Conclusion 

Senator Sessions' public record demonstrates a deficient commitment to upholding and 

enforcing the Constitution and civil rights laws, ensuring equal justice under the law and promoting 

the rule of law. His record makes clear he will not be a vigorous force in promoting the causes of 

racial and gender equality to which this nation must be committed. Furthermore, the grossly 

inadequate completion of Senator Sessions' Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire 

demonstrates a failure to understand the importance and necessity of a thorough and honest vetting 

of our next Attorney General. Now more than ever, it is essential that the American people believe 

in the integrity of this position. For these reasons and more, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law issues this statement in opposition to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to serve 

as United States Attorney General. 

9 
1337 

Environmental Leaders' Statement on Civil and Human Rights, 

Social Justice and an Inclusive Economy 

As leaders of the U.S. environmental movement, we are mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, 

white, black, Latino, Asian, Native American, of many creeds, faiths and religions. We come from 

diverse backgrounds and near infinite preferences and beliefs. But above all, we are concerned 

individuals and concerned members ofthe human race. 

For these reasons, we join our voices with millions across the United States and around the world 

who are speaking out against the intolerance we are witnessing because we believe in justice for all 

and equal protection under the law. We will advocate to protect our rights to clean air and water, to 

dwell in a livable climate and to exercise our freedom of religion and cultural beliefs. We are united 

in guarding our natural spaces, and preserving the diverse and abundant life that shares our world. 

We stand in solidarity with national and global movements for civil rights and social justice, to end 

structural racism and to empower women, people of color, immigrants, indigenous, disabled, and 

LGBTQi people as fully equal and fully safe members of our society. We will champion efforts to 

foster an inclusive economy that is both just and sustainable. 

The environmental movement is, at its heart, about protecting the home we all share, not just for 

ourselves but for the generations to come. There is a place for everyone in that home. But there is 

not a place for hate. We have witnessed with alarm the rapid, abhorrent and dangerous rise in 

racist and violent acts in communities across the nation in the wake of the election, and we 

condemn the language and actions during and since the election that have fostered or encouraged 

those acts. 

We will oppose hatred and abuses of civil and human rights because they are incompatible with a 

just and sustainable future. Creating that future requires inclusion and equality- and the 

unequivocal defense of both. 

We call on our allies that have not yet done so to join us in solidarity with frontline communities, 

beginning with making a public statement and pledging to support building an inclusive future for 

all communities. 

And we call on President-elect Trump to put out a statement that is inclusive of all people, 

expresses respect and understanding for the fears many Americans are now feeling, and upholds 

the unique and grave responsibility of the Presidency to protect all Americans equally. In doing so, 

we demand that all his nominees and appointees honor fundamental civil rights and embody 

civility befitting the offices for which they have been selected. Therefore, we call on the Presidentelect to rescind the appointment of Steven Bannon as Chief Strategic Advisor and withdraw the 

nomination of Senator jeff Sessions for Attorney General to signify his move to represent all equally 

and protect the rights of all people. 

Protection of our planet is an absolute necessity for the survival and health of the human race and 

other species. And a strong commitment to human rights for all is a fundamental building block to 

the protection of our planet. 
1338 

Michael Brune 

Executive Director 

Sierra Club 

Keya Chatterjee 

Executive Director 

US Climate Action Network 

Allison Chin 

Board Member 

Sierra Club and Women's Voices for the Earth 

Green Leadership Trust, Co-Chair 

Jamie Rappaport Clark 

President 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Tony DeFalco 

Board Member 

Earth justice 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 

Dianne Dillon-Ridgley 

Board Member 

National Wildlife Federation and Center for 

International Environmental Law 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 

Dr. Michael K. Dorsey 

Director 

National Sierra Club Board 

Michel Gelobter 

Board Member 

Ceres and CalCEF 

Carmen G. Gonzalez 

Board Member 

Earth justice 

Reginald "Flip" Hagood 

Governing Council Member 

The Wilderness Society 

Green Leadership Trust, Co-Chair 

David Hahn-Baker 

Clean Water Fund 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 

Jamie Hoyte 

Board Member and Treasurer 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 

john E Huerta 

Board Member Emeritus 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Gene Karpinski 

President 

League of Conservation Voters 

Ken Kimmell 

President 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Annie Leonard 

Executive Director 

Green peace US 

Mark Magana 

Board Member 

League of Conservation Voters 

Green Leadership Trust Co-Chair 

Aaron Mair 

Board Chair, Sierra Club 

Board Member, Arbor Hill Environmental 

justice 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 
1339 

juan D. Martinez 

Board Member 

The Wilderness Society 

Anuja Mendiratta 

Emeritus board member 

Women's Voices for the Earth 

Carroll Muffett 

President 

Center for International Environmental Law 

Brian O'Donnell 

Executive Director 

Conservation Lands Foundation 

Angela Park 

Angela Park Consulting 

Audrey Peterman 

Board Member 

National P<1rks Conservation Association 

Erich Pica 

President 

Friends of the Earth US 

Adrianna Quintero 

Board Member 

US Climate Action Network 

Lauret Savoy 

National Parks Conservation Association 

John Seager 

President 

Population Connection 

Patrice L. Simms 

Howard University School of Law 

Earthjustice 

Tamara Toles O'Laughlin 

Board Member, Women's Voices for the Earth 

Vice President, DC Ecowomen 

Green Leadership Trust Steering Committee 

Catherine Thomasson, M.D. 

Executive Director 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Vi en Truong 

Director 

Green for All 

Trip Van Noppen 

President 

Earth justice 

Robert Wendelgass 

President 

Clean Water Action 

Guy 0. Williams 

Board Member 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

Jamie Williams 

President 

The Wilderness Society 
1340 

ALABAMA STATE BAR 

THt DISCIPliNARY COMMISSION 

TELEPHONE 334-269-1515 

April 16, 1998 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions 

c/o Ms. Peggy Jeffreys 

Executive Assistant 

Office of Senator Jeff Sessions 

495 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0104 

Re: ASB No. 98-ll6(A) 

Dear Senator Sessions: 

PO BOX671 

fviOMGOMERY, AI 36101 

I am writing to advise that a formal investigative tile has been opened based upon the enclosed 

Order and Opinion of Judge James S. Garrett. which was received in this office on or about July 

16, !997. After receipt of this Order and Opinion, the Office ofGenerul Counsel requested J. 

Mark White. attorney for one of the defendants. to provide this office with a copy of the 

defendants' "Memorandum in Support of Motions to Dismiss and/or Suppress" which statement 

of facts was adopted as part of Judge Garrett's order. A copy of the Memorandum in Support of 

Motion to Dismiss and/or Suppress was provided on or about July 31, 1997, and is enclosed for 

your reference as part of the complaint. 

Ailcr rnicw of the Memorandum in Support of Motions to Dismiss and/or Suppress and the 

hearing transcripts, the Office of General Counsel determined that you were possibly an 

"involved attorney." 

No aspect ofthe complaint has been prejudged. nlC Disciplinary Commission has adopted a 

policy that lawyers arc entitled to receive a copy of any complaim and entitled to respond in 

w1·iting to the complaint. 
1341 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, Ill 

April 16, !998 

Page 2 

Please review the enclosed documents and provide a written response thereto on or before June 

1, 1998. In making your response, you should consider the following general allegations of 

misconduct and the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 

Knowing use of unreliable infonnation to obtain a search warrant 

Material representations of fact in the at1idavit used 

to obtain the search warrant 

Improper execution of the search warrant 

Seizure of items outside the scope of the search 

warrant 

Allowed unauthorized persons to be present 

during grand jury proceedings in violation oflaw 

and! or court rules 

Allowed nonlawyers to examine witnesses 

testifYing during grand jury proceedings 

Allowed witnesses to provide unsworn testimony 

during grand jury proceedings 

Failure to comply with other requirements of law 

and/or court rules during grand jury proceedings 

Failure to keep records of grand jury proceedings 

as required by law and! or court rules 

Selective recordation of testimony during grand 

jury proceedings 

Improper use of criminal proceedings for personal 

gain or benefit 

1m proper use of criminal proceedings and evidence 

obtained therein for the benefit of third parties in 

ongoing, related civil proceedings 
1342 

Honorable Jeff D. Sessions. III 

April 16, I 998 

Page 3 

Improper usc of criminal proceedings and evidence 

obtained therein as a defense to proceedings 

before the Alabama Ethics Commission 

Disclosure of indictments, evidence and/or action 

of the grand jury in violation of law and/or court 

rules 

Presenting and obtaining indictments from the grand 

jury with knowledge or reason to know that they were 

not supported by probable cause or were otherwise 

legally defective 

Maintaining and prosecuting charges not supported 

by probable cause 

Failure to produce exculpatory evidence 

Failure to comply with court orders and/or court rules 

Misrepresentations to the court and others regarding 

the existence of and character of discoverable 

evidence 

Deliberate lack of diligence or intentional ignorance 

to avoid responsibilities regarding discovery imposed 

by law, coutt order and/or court rules 

Altering evidence or documents having potential 

evidentiary value 

Publication or release ofNCIC information in 

violation of law 

Improper contact with witnesses and/or parties 

represented by counsel 

Lack of candor in testimony or statements made 

as officers of the court during court proceedings 
1343 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, III 

April 16, 1998 

Page4 

Lack of candor in investigative reports, affidavits, 

or other products of the criminal investigation 

Representing conflicting interests 

Disclosure of cont]dential infonnation 

Use of confidential information to the disadvantage 

of a client and/or former client 

Possible violations of the Alabama Rules o{f'rofessional Conduct as follows: 

1.7 

1.8 

1.9 

1.10 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.8 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

5.1 

5.3 

5.5 

8.4(a) 

8.4( c) 

8.4(d) 

8.4(g) 

Conflict of Interest: General Rule 

Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions 

Conflict of Interest: Fonner Client 

Imputed Disqualification: General Rule 

Meritorious Claims and Contentions 

Expediting Litigation 

Candor Toward the Tribunal 

Fairness to Opposing Pmiy and Counsel 

Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor 

Truthfulness in Statements to Others 

Commtmication With Person Represented by Counsel 

Dealing With Unrepresented Person 

Respect for Rights of Third Persons 

Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer 

Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants 

Unauthorized Practice of Law 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Misconduct 

Your response need not be limited to the f(wegoing. hut should include any and all infommtion 

you deem necessary in order to adequately respond to any allegations that may apply or concem 
1344 

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions, III 

April 16, 1998 

Page 5 

you, your conduct, or your knowledge of cirwmstances surrounding such conduct on the part of 

others. 

Sincerely, 

Q-:~t~f ~~t~~ant General Counsel 

REL!clr 

Enclosure 
1345 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

NEWS FROM THE 

MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS 

CONTACT: Darrel Stephens 

Executive Director 

Major Cities Chiefs Association 

704-996-545 7 

Major Cities Chiefs Statement on Sessions Nomination 

WASHINGTON, November 22,2016 Association President J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, 

Montgomery County, Maryland, today released this statement 

The Major Cities Chiefs Association today joins with law enforcement colleagues to support the 

nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to become our next Attorney General. 

As U.S. Attorney and Alabama Attorney GeneraL Jeff Sessions became a steadfast advocate for law 

enforcement and public safety during his early career. Over the past 20 years on the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, he has been an unwavering champion for measures to address violent crime and drug abuse in 

the communities we serve across the Nation. 

He will be strong partner in our continuing efforts to prevent and interdict acts of terrorism against the 

American people. His record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates a tirm and consistent commitment to 

community policing and undiminished support for the men and women of law enforcement. 

Major Cities Chiefs will look to Jeff Sessions to strengthen critical programs upon which we rely 

including: 

Evidence-Based Policing Programs 

Funding from Byrne-JAG and COPS Community Policing Development 

Violence Reduction Network and Programs to Reduce Violent Crime While Maintaining 

Community Suppm1 

We will form a pat1ncrship with our new Attorney General to: 

Strengthen measures for protection of police officers, including Federal prosecution of assailants 

Launch a national campaign to recruit and hire our next generation of police professionals 

Reform and strengthen asset forfeiture partnerships between Federal and local agencies 

Address encryption barriers and industry efforts that thwart public safety 

Law Enforcement Executives across the Nation stand ready to work with the Department of Justice on 

these and other critical issues and thus we urge the U.S Senate leadership to swiftly confirm the 

nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. 

### 

Major Cities Chiefs is a professional association of Chiefs and Sheriffs representing the largest cities in 

the United States and Canada. Membership is comprised ofChicfs and Sheriffs of the sixty-eight largest 

Jaw enforcement agencies in the United States and ten largest in Canada. They serve 81.9 million people 

(70.4 US- 23%, 11.5-32% Cat1ada) with a workforce of 185,183 (163,244 US, 21,939 Canada) officers 

and non-sworn personnel. 
1346 

WASHINGTON BUREAU· NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 

115615.HSTREET, NWSUITE915 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 P(202)463-2940 F (202)463-2953 

E-MAIL WASHINGTONBUREAU@NAACPNET ORG WEB ADDRESS WWW.NAACP ORG 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 17,2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: FOLLOW UP TO THE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JEFFERSON 

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS Ill TO SERVE AS ATIORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Dear Chairman Grass!ey and Ranking Member Feinstein, 

During the hearing on the nomination of Senator Jefferson 1'Jeff" Beauregard Sessions Ill to 

serve as Attorney General of the United States, Senator Lindsey Graham posed a question to 

NAACP President and CEO Cornell William Brooks regarding the annual NAACP Civil Rights 

Federal Legislative Report Card. Since coming to the US Senate, Mr. Sessions appears to ignore 

the position of the NAACP in the majority of instances, despite the fact that according to the 

last Census count over 26% of the population of Alabama is African American, and our Alabama 

State Conference of Branches, which has been in existence since 1918, is one of the strongest in 

the nation. Well known alumni of the Alabama State Conference of Branches include Rosa 

Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More recently our Alabama State Conference of Branches 

has been out front on a number of crucial issues, including voting rights and immigration 

reform. Regard!ess 1 Senator Sessions has consistently voted in opposition to the NAACP 

position on average almost 90% of the time since coming into office, according to the annual 

NAACP Federal Civil Rights Legislative Report Card. 

Since 1914, the NAACP Federal Legislative Civil Rights Report Card has served as a presentation 

of key civil rights votes taken by the full United States Senate and the United States House of 

Representatives. The Report Card, which is released once a year, at the end of the first session, 

as a midterm report and then again at the end of a Congress as a final report1 is designed to 

provide NAACP members with insight into the general voting patterns of their congressional 

representatives and state delegations over the course of a year. 

It is often said that the NAACP has no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent positions. 

Nowhere is this sentiment more true than in our federal legislative civil rights report card. The 

recorded votes, and the responding percentages and grades, show how each member voted on 

the bread and butter civil rights issues which come before them. Very often, the NAACP 

Washington Bureau sends a letter to Congressional offices urging members to support or 

oppose a particular legislative position. In many cases, Members of the House and Senate also 
1347 

L 

I 

receive letters, phone call. and even constituent visits from NAACP members in their states or 

districts or by the NAACP Washington Bureau Director. In cases in whlch a vote is called and we 

have not had time to send a letter, e-mai!s, office visits and phone calls into the Capital Hill 

offices or a quick review of the NAACP list of policy priorities should answer any questions. This 

list of priorities reflects the will of the more than 2,200 voting delegates from across the nation 

who attend our national convention each year, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of 

members of the NAACP. 

For the edification of this Committee, I am submitting the latest full NAACP Federal Legislative 

Report Card, for the 113th Congress. We are still compiling the final votes for the second 

session of the 114th Congress, which ended in mid-December. 1 am also including below a 

chart of Senator Sessions' voting record since coming to Congress. 

In closing, let me say that we would like every single member of the Congress, regardless of 

political party affiliation to vote in support of the NAAVP Congressional civil rights legislative 

agenda fully. 

I hope that you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding the 

Federal Legislative Civil Rights Report Card or any other issue, please feel free to contact me at 

(202) 463-2940. 

CONGRESS YEARS OVERALL PERCENTAGE TIMES VOTED CORRECTLY 

105 1997-1998 10% 1/10 

106 1999-2000 13% i 2/15 

107 2001-2002 19% 7/37 

GRADE 

F 

F 

F --· j----·· 108 2003-2004 3% 1/33 F 

109 2005-2006 7% 2/28 F 

110 2007-2008 28% 8/29 F 

I -~----

111 2009-2010 10% 4/39 F 

112 2011-2012 i 0 0/26 F 

113 , __ 2013-2014 8% 3/40 F 

114 (midterm) 2015 7% 2/29 l F 

Sincerely, 

Hilary 0. Shelton 

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & 

Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy 
1348 

Enclosure 

cc: Senator Lindsey Graham 
1349 

New York Office 

.lQ Ro;-ctor St1eet 5th Fluor 

r~ew York, NY 10006-1"138 

T 212 965 2200 

F2122267S92 

Washington, D.C. Office 

1<44,~ E}'t' St1pet, NW, lOth Floot 

WclShlllgton DC 20{)05 

T 202 682 1300 

F 20.?6321312 IDF 

DEFEND EDUCATE EMPOWER 

January 10, 2017 

The Honorable Charles Grassley 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

152 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: The Nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to be 

Attorney General of the United States 

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Senator Feinstein: 

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. ("LDF") writes to 

supplement its January H, 2017 report in opposition to the nomination of Senator 

Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States.l After extensive review of 

our vast internal records, and in light of testimony during today's hearing on the 

nomination, we are submitting three additional documents that we believe arc 

relevant to Sen. Sessions' record and his fitness to serve as Attorney General. These 

documents, attached to this letter, include: 

A. A declaration signed by Theodore M. Shaw, Chambers Distinguished 

Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Civil Rights at the 

University of North Carolina Law School. From March 1982 until April 

2008, Mr. Shaw worked in various capacities for LDF, including directing 

LDF's docket of school desegregation cases in the South. During that time, 

Mr. Shaw worked with local Mobile, Alabama cooperating attorneys on 

1 LDF, Report in Opposition to the Nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions to be Attorney 

General of the United States (Jan. 9. 2017). http://www.naacpldf.org/fileslour-workiLDF-JeffersonSessions-Report-in-Opposition-FINAL-1-9-20 17.pdf. 
1350 

Birdie Mae Davis u. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile, Alabama, a 

case which Sen. Sessions now lists among "the 10 most significant" 

litigation matters that he "personally handled." In his declaration, Mr. 

Shaw avers that: "I have no recollection, knowledge, information and 

belief of Mr. Sessions working directly on the Davis case or working 

directly with me or any other LDF attorney while I was involved with the 

Dauis case." 

B. A chapter of the book Lift E(:ery Voice by Lani Guinier, the Bennett 

Boskey Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Guinier, then a staff 

attorney at LDF, served as defense counsel to Spencer Hogue in the 

Marion Three prosecution. In this chapter, Ms. Guinier recounts her 

experience defending the prosecution, and in particular the chilling effect 

that the prosecution had on Black political participation in Alabama. 

C. A March 19, 1986 letter and nine-page statement from Coretta Scott King 

to Senator Strom Thurmond regarding the nomination of then-United 

States Attorney Jeff Sessions to be United States district judge in the 

Southern District of Alabama. ::\Irs. King wrote in "sincere opposition" to 

Sen. Sessions' nomination, and focused her statement on Sen. Sessions' 

failed prosecution of three voting rights activists-known as the "Marion 

Three"-in Perry County, Alabama. One ofthe defendants in that case, 

Albert Turner, was a close aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and played 

a central role in the activism that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Regarding Sen. Sessions' decision to pursue that prosecution, in which a 

jury ultimately acquitted all three defendants, 2 Mrs. King concluded: "Mr. 

Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to 

intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible 

conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship." 

Thank you for considering LDF's report in opposition and these supplemental 

materials. If you have any questions, please contact Todd A. Cox, Director of Policy 

or Kyle Barry, Policy Counsel, at 202-682-1300. 

Sincerely, 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill 

President & Director Counsel 

2 See id. at 11-13. 

2 
1351 

''P Toq"'<..k!yfltHiyourseatcM!e•month•spage,oress Ctr!+FDr~-F{MaclcmdusetMel•r,Jbur 

Sessions will fight for women: Column 

And he'll do it even if it costs him politically. 

fPhoto Mi!rl<lM!Wwwcr,Gl>lty 

lm~ges) 

Senator Patty Murray, D-V\Iash , sig11aled to other liberal women in the United States Senate. as well as to 

liberal groups, that Donald Trump's prck for attorney genera!, her colleague Senator Jeff Sessrons, RAia .. should be opposed m part because of h1s opposrt1on to the V~alence Against \f',bmer1 Act. "I ha~e seen 

him vote agamsttheViolenceAgainstiJVomenAct." she wrote ina~ 

ihttps /lwwwfacebook.com/pattymurraylpostsi101_548262654~.!!§..U.l post, "And we need to do everything we 

can to fight for an Attorney General who IS truly committed to st:<lnd1r1g up for and protecbng the nghts of 

everyone in th!s country. Given Sessfons' record, 1t IS d1ff1cult to see how he could pass thiS most baste, most 

essential, test" 

1/Veli, the Violence Agatnst \I"KKmen Act (VAWA), desp1te 1ts clever name, has many problems and Sessions 

has fought. and wtN CCJntinue to fight, for vulnerable victims of vio!enCil'. However. with a whoppmg pnce tag of ll.§_QiUion over five years 

!https //books goog!e cqmlbooks?ld=wVBnDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&!pq=PA59&da=vawa+1 6+btl!ion&source:e:b!&ots=a· 

h0 KhfHS&stgo:wk2pZAX~~~~ 

qNCMIZXRAhUI8!MKHWPsCbs06AE!LzAD#Fonepage&g"'~awa"A>201 6%20bil!jon&f=false}, VAWA failed to adequately address the needs of women 

mthreeways 

Fn;t. the money increases bureaucracy and law enforcement wJthoul a~;tua!ly reachmg women (and men) in need. For example, housmg, a persistent 

need for v1ct1ms, r=e111es only one-f1tth fhtto 1/natmn t1me com/2013/02/27/whats-wrong-wilh-the-v•olence.agamst-women-actfl of the funding law 

enforcement actton receives. lfth1s legislation was block granted directly to the st<ltes ther, law enforcement or socral ser~lces could be more precrsely 

allocated. 

Secondly, there IS D.Q..!lliQence /http lltheh#f.com/b!ogslconoress-blog/rudlclal/280897·vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domeshc~violence-rates-to-come­

!!Q..~D1 that the bill itself has helped reduce the rate of mt1mate partner VIOlence A Departmar"lt of Justice report showed there was a~~ 

deqease /http llwww.pewsodattrends.org/2013!05/07/gurl-homie!de-rale-dgwn--49-smce-1993-peak-pubilc-u_~ 111 non-fata!v1o!eot crime from 

1994 to 2010, but domestic vrolence had a sma!lerdecrease iht!ps l/www.bis gov/mdex cfm?ty=pbdetarl&!td-::45361 and then remained steady 

!http /!wwwcbsnews.cpm/newsftustlce-dept-vrolence~JlJ~!I:frli::§.1::.QX~I:Q.~. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice summantes, 

"'NE have no ey1dence (http·llthehtll com/blogslcongress-blogl!udrCiell280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domesttc-vlgleoce-rates-to-cpme-downl to 

POLICING THE USA: A look at ~~dia lhttp://preview usatoday.comloolic!nall 

Wbeoqcbildisboro tests should!;!,~ 

!.hl1nJLl<,'\vw tiSalodc!\ com/slop /npm!Qn/11}]6/ 12/21inewborn-tes!s-sw:e-njnv-

~e:d!l\.l!Jills-deba!Rs!9">769817.') 

There are more pressing concerns than restrooms· #te!lusatodoy 

lhnp /lv.'ww usa!oday rom/gnn-•/ommon/70 161! !122ibath~oonH>enJer:1JQLili:: 

~la-Sil)-[C"I!tts"ll<tdm'/95777798/\ 

Third, VAWA 1s rife w1th bureaucratic and f1nancial mismanagement and abuse. Sen, Ch~Jck Grassley, R-lowa, who was working lo introduce language 

to f1X some of th-ese problems, descnbed wha'\ some mternal1nyestlgat10n:?jhttp /fwww grassleysenate.goy/newsinews-releasesfviolence-agamst-

'fl'QJD..!ll!:: .. a&Uhadfound 

A review of md·vidual VAWAgrantee at1d1ts that were wnducted from 1998-2010 by the D<1partment of Justice Inspector General 

md:cates that the problem with VAWAgrantees' admm1strat1on and record keepll'9 may actually be getlmg worse. Durmg th1s t1meframe, 

the Inspector General conducted a rev1ew of 22 md!VIdua.l grantees that rece1V~Hl fund1rg from VAWA prcgrarns. Of those 22 grar,(ees. 2 

were found to have some form of violation of grant reqtmemen\s rar>gmg from unauthon;:ec[ snd unallowable expenditures, to sloppy 

record keeping artd fa:lur<r to r<lporlm a t1mely manner. Some of these audits are downnght appalling 
1352 

Th1s IS why the women of Concerned VVomen for Amenca and Sessions opposed VAWAas presented and supported other versions that would have 

addressed some of the glaring problems with the bill. The ~assley-Hutchmson amendment lhttp"INfflWQras;s;ley senate gov/newsfnews-

~~port-alternal!Ve-vawa-bi!llwould have, amongotherthmgs, ensured rape k1tprocessmgfunding actuallywenttothatpurpose, 

strengthenedaccountabihtyforgrantawardeesand g1venharshersentencesm cases oflnlerstatevlolenceandchild pornography 

The point here is that 11 would still take a courageous senator to stand !or what IS nght Truly standing on the s1de of WQmen would requ1re a senator 

toendurebeingpainledbythemal~eJousleftasthetotalopposite 

I! says a lot that Sessions did, m fact, stand for women, no matter the personal political cost he had to pay. 

H1s nommat1on IS great news fQf those of us who love justice and truth and who are t1red of the poli\lcal calculations that have plagued the DOJ under 

theObamaadm!ntStratiOn 

Sessmns will be on the Side of the people as the next attorney genera!. He Wll! be for women. for children, for fam1hes -for all Amencans That ·Sa 

welcomed and much-needed change at the DOJ 

The Senate should conf1rm fum SWiftly 

Penny Nance is president end CEO of Concerned Women for America 

You C<ln read diverse opm1ons from our Board of Contnbutors {http 1/oreview usatoday comlreoorterSfboc_htm!l and other writers on the~ 

@ge thttp:llpre'iiew usatoday com/ommon!l. on Twitter @USATOmmon fhttpJ/orewew usatoday com/omnion/) and m our dally QmQiQ{]_[Iewsl!illfL 

(httpi/orofi/e usatodaycomlnewsfettQrsJmanamu1 To subm1t a leN.er. comment or column check ovr submission gwdea·nes 

Usfory/opm!on/2016!09/29/submission-g,udglines-usatoday-opinion-co/umn=PDed-howfo-Jetters edtlor/89964600(! 

ReadorSharethisstory·httpf/usatly/2htWGx2 
1353 

National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys 

For Immediate Release 

November 18, 2016 Contact: Steven H. Cook, President 

1202 670.8721 

NAAUSA Endorses Senator Sessions' Selection 

to Become United States Attornn General 

The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA) expresses its strong support for 

the selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to become the next Attorney General of the United 

States. Senator Sessions, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney, Alabama Attorney 

General, four-term U.S. Senator and longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a 

man of unquestionable integrity and unparalleled experience. Throughout his distinguished 

career he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and equal 

justice for all. 

NAAUSA President Steve Cook said "Senator Sessions is uniquely equipped to be the chief law 

enforcement officer of our Nation and to lead the Department of Justice. We congratulate 

President-Elect Trump for his selection of Senator Sessions to this important post and we look 

forward to his formal nomination and prompt confirmation by the Senate." 

ll#tl 

The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys is a national professional 

association representing the interests of Assistant U.S. Attorneys employed by the Department 

of Justice. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are the career-level attorneys in the 94 U.S. Attorneys' 

Offices responsible for federal criminal prosecutions and civil cases involving the United States 

Government. 
1354 

Statement ofthe National Domestic Workers Alliance 

Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing on "Attorney General Nomination" 

January ro, 2017 

:\I embers of the Committee. we arc the l\'ational Domestic Workers Alliance (:'<I )\VA). Thank vou for 

the opportunity to submit this statement for inclusion in the record !(Jr today's hearing. l\'D\VA is the 

nation's leading ,·oice for dignity and fairness f(lr millions of domestic workers in the Cnitcd States. 

Founded in 2007, 1\;1)\\'A. works for the respect. recognition and inclusion in labor protections for 

domestic workers, most of whom arc women. '1 'he alliance is pm,·cred lw 6o affiliate organizations plus 

four local chapters ofm·er 2o,ooo nannies. housekeepers and direct care workers in36 cities and 17 states. 

Domestic workers plavcd a critical role in our country's historic ciYil rights mm·cmcnt. Senator Jeff 

Sessions' nomination as L'.S. Attorne\ Genct·al is an afti·ont to this proud legacy, :\DWA urges all 

members of the linited States Senate to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions. Throughout his 

lcngthv career. Senator Sessions has consistentlY dehumanized manv of our communities including 

immigrants, people of color, women. ;\ luslims, LGBTQ indh iduals and people with disabilities. Gi\·cn 

his strong hisrorv of obstructing civil rights. Senator Sessions has pro, en that he is unfit to sen·c as 

Attorney General. 

As the nation's chicflaw enforcement officer. the Attorney General is charged \\'ith upholding the 

constimtional rights and protections of all people in the Cnitcd Stares. Senator Sessions. howe\ 'Cr. hcLs 

opposed the \'oting Rights Act. which aims to ensure all Americans have an equal opportunity to 

participate in our dcmocrac\ and instead prosecuted mting rights aeti,ists who tried to increase Black 

registration and turnout. I Ic has opposed bipartisan cftrll1:s to rcfo1111 the criminal jLtstiee system b) 

reducing sentences and he opposes federal consent decrees with local law entrJrccmenr agencies designed 

to reduce police misconduct. Sessions has opposed hate crimes protections t(Jr members of the LGB'l'Q 

communi(), fought the reauthorization of the \"iolcncc against\ \'omen Act (VA\ \'A) and supported a 

;\luslim ban in the United States. In addition. Senator Sessions has dosch aligned himself with amiimmigrant c\trcmist groups like '\"umbers USA and the Federation !i1r A.mcrican Immigration Rcf(mll, 

\Vhich arc f(Jundcd on white supremacist ideals. Senator Sessions. through his own record. has been one 

of the staunchest opponents of any proposals that would bring human it) to our countrv's treatment of 

immigrants and has instead called for a m•Lssi,·c border wall, mass deportations and the eriminaliz.ation of 

immigrants. This record and these affiliations mc1kc Senator Sessions \\·hollY unlit ro prosccmc hate crime 

and ddcnd the chi! tights of all persons in the US. 

National Domestic Workers Alliance 

395 Hudson Street, 4th Floor 

New York, NY 10014 
1355 

Congress has already determined that Senator Sessions docs not meet the standards necessary to can) 

out a political appointment. In 19H6. a Republican-let! Senate Judiciary Committee r~jeetcd his 

nomination for a federal judgeship in Alabama because of his history of racist statements. Since then, 

Senator Sessions has continued his record of diYisi,·c hatdi.1l rhetoric. \Vc urge J\Icmbers of this 

Committee to uphold the ,·alues of our democracy and reject the nomination of Senator Sessions for 

Attorney General. 

National Domestic Workers Alliance 

395 Hudson Street, 4th Floor 

New York, NY 10014 
1356 

CHUCK CANTERBURY Nr.T;J'.JA~ f"lfSi:>fNT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

18 NOVEMBER 2016 

JAMES 0. PASCO, JR. EYECUTI\'E. DIRECTC''l 

CONTACT: JIM PASCO 

(202) 547-8189 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE: 

SESSIONS EXCELLENT PICK FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed this morning's 

news that Senator Jefferson B. Sessions Ill (R-AL) will be nominated to serve as the nation's 

next Attorney General of the United States. 

"Since his arrival in the Senate in 1996, Jeff Sessions has been a key law enforcement ally and 

prominent supporter of police officers," said Canterbury. ''We've worked closely with him 

throughout his career, most recently on issues like asset forfeiture and sentencing reform. Like 

our members, he is also a strong proponent of Federal enforcement of our nation's narcotics 

laws." 

Senator Sessions served as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and was the Attorney General of that 

State prior to his election to the Senate. He has spent much of his time in the Senate as a 

member of the Committee on the Judiciary and has been a real advocate for the men and women 

in law enforcement. 

"We are very, very pleased with the decision of President-elect Trump to tap Senator Sessions to 

be our nation's next 'top cop,"' Canterbury says. "As a long time prosecutor, he is and ah.:vays 

will be a member of the law enforcement family and we look forward to his leadership at the 

U.S. Department of Justice." 

Senator Session's nomination must be eonfinned by the U.S. Senate following the inauguration 

of Donald J. Trump on 20 January. The Committee on the Judiciary will consider the 

nomination first, followed by a vote on the Senate floor. 

"Jeff Sessions is known for his leadership, integrity and commitment," Canterbury said. "I 

expect the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to act quickly on this nomination." 

The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United 

States, with more than 330,000 members. 

BUILDING ON A PROUD TRADITION 
1357 

1/1312017 Pnysicians fur Reproductive Health Statement from Dr. Willie Parker on Trump's Pick for Attorney General- Physicians for Reproductive Health 

January 10, 2017 

In response to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as US Attorney 

General, Dr, Willie Parker, Board Chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health, 

issued the following statement: 

"The nomination of the senator from my home state, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), for 

attorney general is a threat to the safety of reproductive health care providers and the 

patients we care for, His extreme record of hostility towards reproductive rights stands in the 

way of his ability to protect the constitutional right to abortion and the safety of patients and 

providers, As a physician from Alabama who provides abortions, I have seen firsthand how 

his brand of politics endangers the health and safety of women and families, This is 

unacceptable for any officeholder, but especially worrisome for someone who is about to 

become the chief law enforcement official of our great country, 

My colleagues and I serve our patients with compassion so that they can make their own 

decisions regarding their health, their families, and their futures, but we work in an 

atmosphere of intimidation and harassment every day. In 2015, clinics around the country, 

including in Alabama, saw a frightening increase in hate speech, death threats, and violence. 

Sadly. violence against clinics has only spiked since the election in November, according to 

the National Abortion Federation. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the federal department that most affects the safety of 

abortion providers and patients, and its authority on these issues is far-reaching. As attorney 

general. Sessions will be responsible for directing work of the National Task Force on 

Violence Against Health Providers, including its resources and priority status within the 

DOJ. Furthermore. Sessions' record clearly calls into question his ability to enforce the 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and to fairly prosecute federal crimes 

targeting abortion providers. 

Senator Sessions' long history of opposing reproductive rights in Congress demonstrates 

his contempt for reproductive autonomy and for the medical professionals who provide 

reproductive health care. He has repeatedly voted against an amendment that would prevent 

perpetrators of violent crimes against abortion providers from evading fines by filing for 

https:/lprh.orgldr-wil!ie-parker-trumps-pfck-attorrej-general/ 1/3 
1358 

1113'2017 Physicians for Reproductive Health Statement from Dr. Wi!lie Parker on Trump's Pick for Attorney General- Physicians for Reprcductive Health 

bankruptcy. He also opposed the creation of a "Women's Health Care and Clinic Security 

and Safety Fund" that would provide safety measures for reproductive health providers and 

clinics. In addition. he has made troubling comments about sexual assault and voted against 

protections for LGBTQ individuals. Based on his record as a lawmaker, we are profoundly 

concerned with Senator Sessions' ability to protect reproductive health care providers and 

our patients in the role of attorney general. 

Finally. we have deep concerns regarding how Sessions would treat communities of colorcommunities that are already targeted by restrictive reproductive health laws. Being 

personally familiar with recent Alabama history. I am keenly aware of how Sessions' political 

legacy is marred by racism. As reproductive health care providers. we are dedicated to 

helping women and men exercise their right to lives of autonomy. dignity, self-determination, 

and opportunity for all people. Sessions would not protect these fundamental human rights. 

He is simply not fit to serve as the nation's highest ranking law enforcement official." 

Sign up for email alerts on the latest in reproductive health and rights. Stay on top of breaking 

news, key federal and state policy decisions and elections, and opportunities to fight back 

against attacks. 

CONTACT 

MAP 

JOBS 

DONATE 

Search the Site .. 

Reproductive Health 

https://prh.orgtdr-willie-parker-trumps-pick-atlorney-general/ 2/3 
1359 

1/1l'2017 Physicians for Repro::lucUve Health statement from Dr. Willie Parker on Trump's Pick fur Attorney General* Physicians fa( Repro::luctive Health 

https://prh.orgldrMwillie-parkerwtrumpswpick~attorrey-general/ 3/3 
1360 

Testimony of the Reverend Dr. Frederick Douglass Haynes, Ill before 

the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Black Clergy Steering Committee Against the Nomination of Jefferson 

Beauregard Sessions, Ill for the Position of U.S. Attorney General, 

Washington D.C. 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 9:30AM 

Russell Senate Office Building 325 

This weekend our nation will pause to celebrate the phenomenal life and prophetic 

legacy of the drum major for justice, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who fought to 

make America "One nation ... with liberty and justice for all." On that historic summer afternoon 

in the symbolic shadow ofthe Lincoln Memorial, the Rev. Dr. King was presented as "the moral 

leader of our nation" when he narrated the nightmare of oppression before defiantly declaring 

in the iconic speech, "I have a dream." 

In the moral and prophetic tradition of Dr. King and so many others, from Fannie Lou 

Hamer to Barbara Jordan, who have been courageously eloquent and exemplary of the values 

of American citizenship challenging our nation to bridge the gap between principle and 

practice, I oppose the nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Ill as the next Attorney 

General for the United States of America. Mr. Sessions is a throwback to the dark days when a 

former governor ofthe state of Alabama stood for racism and against justice as his "lips dripped 

with the words of interposition and nullification." Mr. Sessions has a terrible track record of 

standing on the wrong side of justice and embodying the principles of the "nightmare" Dr. King 

eloquently portrayed and lived and died opposing. The nomination of Mr. Sessions as our 

nation's "top cop" is a frightening proposition to communities of color who have been 

dehumanized by a policing system that declares Black lives don't matter, given his unapologetic 

and unfunny comments about the terrorist Ku Klux Klan and his fierce opposition to civil rights 
1361 

organizations, like the NAACP, that have stood for the best of American democracy. It is morally 

outrageous that Mr. Sessions, given his history of racial insensitivity would preside over a 

justice system that has often tilted the scales of justice to the disadvantage of the 

disadvantaged. Scriptures declare that we are to "speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of 

the poor and needy."lnstead of defending the poor and needy, Mr. Sessions has used his 

positions of power to deride, attack, investigate and undermine the opportunities of democracy 

for communities of color and the historically underserved. 

The powerful position of Attorney General of the United States of America is an 

entrustment to insure that systems and structures in this nation are fair and just for all 

Americans. Morally, power is used for the benefit of the powerless and vulnerable. The public 

service record of Mr. Sessions warns us that he is not fit to be a trustee of this pivotal position 

given his disposition toward the marginalized minorities and those who are outcast as "other." 

Can Mr. Sessions be entrusted to protect voting rights, one of the supreme values of 

democracy? A background check that does not edit out facts reveals that Mr. Sessions led a 

targeted and invasive investigation of absentee voting ONLY in districts in Alabama where Black 

voter turnout had experienced an upsurge. No, he cannot be trusted to protect the precious 

franchise of voting. Mr. Sessions has opposed restoring the voting rights of felons who have 

paid for their crimes and served their time. Of course, ex-felon disenfranchisement 

disproportionately impacts African Americans. Mr. Sessions referred to the gutting of the 

Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder as "good 

news ... for the South." This statement was a wink and a nod to racists. He went on to call the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation", arguing that Section 5 (a provision 

that concerns mostly southern states with long histories of voting rights abuses) should be 

struck down. In light of recent revelations that our election process is being targeted for foreign 

influence we must also stand against internal threats. The voter suppressive tactics of Mr. 

Sessions represents such an internal threat. Lady Justice must not be cloaked in the garb of 

racism and white supremacy. 
1362 

Mr. Sessions has been one ofthe most anti-immigration senators currently serving. He 

has voted against almost every immigration reform bill introduced in the past twenty years. 

Jesus said that a nation would be judged based on how it treated strangers or foreigners. He 

also proposed in 2015 a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison for illegal immigrants entering 

the country after being deported which could increase the federal prison population by as 

much as 30%. Mass incarceration, already a stain of injustice on the body politic of America, 

that has prompted a bipartisan call for prison reform, would be continued and expanded in a 

Sessions Justice Department. Morally, Mr. Sessions cannot be entrusted to preside over a just 

and fair immigration policy. 

As a minister of the gospel, I recognize that people can change, however Mr. Sessions 

has done nothing in the 30 years since he was rejected for a federal judgeship in a bipartisan 

vote that reflects repentance and a change of heart. If he was deemed an inappropriate 

candidate for a federal judgeship he is even more unfit to serve as our nation's Chief 

Prosecutor. Before enjoying ceremonies and celebrations that commemorate the legacy of Dr. 

King as a Dreamer and the Drum Major for justice, I urge you to oppose his nightmare and 

reject the nomination of Jeff Sessions. The Justice Department must be presided over by one 

who heeds the words ofthe prophet Amos, who warned a nation to "Let justice roll down as 

waters and righteousness as an ever flowing stream." Jeff Sessions, through his policies and 

statements, has been a metaphorical dam, often blocking the waters of justice and must not be 

the Attorney General of the United States of America. 
1363 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH D. RICH FOR 

CONFIRMATION HEARING OF JEFF SESSIONS HELD BEFORE 

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

January 9, 2017 

My name is Joseph Rich and I am the Co-Director of the Fair Housing and 

Community Development Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 

Law. Prior to assuming this position in 2005, I worked for the Department of Justice's 

Civil Rights Division from 1968 to 2005. From 1969 to 1987 I was in the Division's 

Equal Opportunities Section and served as Deputy Chief of that Section from 1973 to 

1979 and 1983 to 1987. Most of my work in this section was on school desegregation 

cases. 

I also am one of three former Civil Rights Division attomeys who co-wrote an op 

ed entitled "We Know Jeff Sessions is Overstating his Record" that appeared in the print 

edition of the Washington Post on January 4, 2017. 

In this op ed we wrote: 

"In the questionnaire he filed recently with the Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Sessions listed four civil rights cases among the I 0 most significant that he litigated 

"personally" as the U.S. attorney for Alabama during the 1980s. Three involved 

voting rights, while the fourth was a school desegregation case. Following criticism 

for exaggerating his role, he then claimed that he provided "assistance and 

guidance" on these cases. 

We worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which brought those 

lawsuits; we handled three of the four ourselves. We can state categorically that 

Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them. He did what any U.S. 

attorney would have had to do: He signed his name on the complaint, and we added 

hi' mnnP nn llnv motion' or hriPf' Th:lt1<; it" 
1364 

I submit this statement to provide further information about the school 

desegregation case that I worked which is one of the four cases referred to Mr. Sessions's 

answers to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire- Davis v. Board ofSchool 

Commissioners (){Mohile Coun(v. AL. This protracted case was filed in I 963 long before 

Sessions became U.S. Attorney. The United States intervened as a plaintiff-intervener in 

1967. It was not dismissed until 1997 and there was significant litigation throughout its 

34 year history. 

After the case had been to the Supreme Court in 197 I ( 40 I U.S. 33 (1971 )) a 

desegregation plan agreed to by the plaintiffs and school board was entered on July 8, 

1971. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and plaintiff intervener United States filed motions for 

further relief challenging whether the school district had been in full compliance with the 

1971 order approving this plan, and whether the school district had achieved unitary 

status. A full evidentiary hearing on this motion was held in October 1983. Thereafter, 

the district court issued a preliminary order that the school district was not unitary. 

Plaintiff-intervener United States made several post-trial submissions leading to the 

district court's lengthy decision on March 27, 1986, affirming its preliminary order that 

the school district had not achieved unitary status and requiring the parties to submit 

remedial plans to address the deJiciencies found. ( 1986 U.S. Dist. LEX IS 27519). It is 

work on this part of the case that Mr. Sessions cites as one of the ten most significant 

litigated matters that he personally handled. 

I worked on the Davis case in this period. My name is listed in the 1986 reported 

decision along with that of Mr. Sessions. and is also noted in Sessions' Committee 

questionnaire discussing the case. However, I never met him at that time nor any other 
1365 

time and he had no input to the case when l worked on it. Indeed, in the years that l 

worked on school desegregation cases in Alabama, l never heard that Mr. Sessions 

participated in them in any way. 

A major part of my work on the Davis case was on a Supplemental Brief of the 

United States filed on September 24, 1985. The brief is an in depth thirty nine page 

document summarizing the evidence which supported its argument that the school system 

had not achieved unitary status. l worked on the drafting of that brief and signed it and 

the certificate of service. The signature block for the brief also lists the Assistant 

Attorney General for Civil Rights, who at that time was William Bradford Reynolds. and 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who at that time was Charles 

Cooper, and who reviewed and edited the brief. 

Jeff' Sessions name is not listed anywhere on this brief nor on the certificate of 

service and he had no input into the drafting or review of the brief. Nor did he advise or 

guide me in any way in the drafting of the brief or any other aspect of the case. I did 

further work on the case after the 1986 decision and attended a conference before the 

district judge with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cooper in 1986 and a pleading 

filed at that time also does not list Mr. Sessions's name. 

In short, any claim by Mr. Sessions that he participated in the Davis case at the 

time of the 1986 decision listed in his questionnaire is inconsistent with my recollection 

of the case and with pleadings filed at that time. 
1366 

For Immediate Release December 6, 2016 

For More Information Contact: 

Kirsten J. Barnes- Communications Director 

Office of the Senate Minority Leader 

(334) 242-7435 or (706)593-0414 

Kirsten.Barnes@alsenate.gov 

Ross sees silver lining in Sessions nomination 

Alabama Senate Minority Leader Quinton T. Ross Jr. (D-Montgomcry) said he looks forward to 

working with U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions when and if he is confirmed as the next U.S. Attorney 

General. 

Since President-elect Donald Trump nominated Sen. Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, Sen. 

Ross has been in close personal contact with the nominee. 

"We cannot ignore the fact that he is on the winning team. No matter what side of the political 

spectrum you are on."' Sen. Ross said. 

When Sen. Sessions faced his failed confinnation for a federal judgeship. Sen. Ross was a high 

school student in Pontiac, Mich. However, as a higher education administrator and an elected 

official, Sen. Ross has had a positive working relationship with the senator for the past 20 years. 

"I have worked with Sen. Sessions on education policy and securing federal funding for our 

schools," said Sen. Ross. who was born in Mobile. Ala. "Additionally, I have spent time with 

him at the Magic City Classic and at Heritage Barbershop in Montgomery. I know him 

personally and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama." 

Sen. Ross said he sees value in having a person in Washington who will be accessible to his 

constituents. 

·'We've spoken about everything from Civil Rights to race relations and we agree that as 

Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people," Sen. Ross said. 

"We both acknowledge that there arc no perfect men. but we continue to work daily to do the 

right thing for all people." 

Sen. Ross believes that Sen. Sessions' application of the law will not be biased. 
1367 

Testimony of 

Vicki Saporta, 

President and CEO 

National Abortion Federation 

Washington, DC 

Submitted to the 

Judiciary Committee 

United States Senate 

Hearing on the Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General of the 

United States 

January 10,2017 
1368 

I would like to thank Chairman Grassley and Members of the Committee for 

allowing me the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the nomination of JeJf 

Sessions for Attorney General of the United States. 

I am submitting testimony on behalf of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), 

the professional association of abortion providers. Our members include private 

and nonprofit clinics, Planned Parenthood affiliates, women's health centers, 

physicians' offices, and hospitals who together care for approximately half the 

women who choose abortion in the U.S. and Canada each year. Our mission is to 

ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care, which promotes health and justice 

for women. 

The National Abortion Federation strongly opposes the confirmation of Jeff 

Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. Based on his record, we have 

serious concerns that Sessions will not adequately enforce the laws that protect 

abortion providers and their patients from violence. Indeed, while in the U.S. 

Senate Sessions has voted specifically against protecting abortion providers on 

three separate occasions. 1 

NAF has been compiling statistics on incidents of violence and disruption against 

abortion providers since 1977. In the past 38 years, there have been 11 murders, 26 

attempted murders, 42 bombings, 185 arsons, and thousands of incidents of 

criminal activities directed at ab01iion providers. Our 2015 statistics reflect a 

dramatic increase in hate speech and internet harassment, death threats, attempted 

murder, and murder. As our statistics clearly illustrate, the providers of abortion 

care, unlike other health care professionals, risk their lives daily to provide legal, 

constitutionally protected reproductive health care to patients.2 

The Department of Justice is charged with investigating and prosecuting federal 

crimes targeting abortion providers. As such, the responsibilities of the Attorney 

General directly impact the lives of our members, in a way that no other Cabinet 

position does. 

Jeff Sessions' long record of opposing protections for abortion providers is very 

concerning. His past actions demonstrate that he cannot be trusted to fairly enforce 

federal laws, including the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). In 

addition to enforcing FACE, the Attorney General oversees the work of the critical 

National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, a unique 

collaboration among federal agencies that, when supported, has resulted in a 

documented decrease in violent crimes against abortion providers. 
1369 

The National Task Force was established by late Attorney General Janet Reno in 

November 1998 in response to the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian and other acts of 

violence against reproductive health care providers. The Task Force was 

established to coordinate and build upon ongoing efforts within the Department of 

Justice and other Federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau 

oflnvestigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the 

United States Marshals Service (USMS), and the United States Postal Inspection 

Service (USPIS). 

The Task Force and the national organizations representing abortion providers 

have established an effective and important working relationship. The existence of 

the Task Force allows reproductive health care providers to access the resources, 

assistance and expertise of all the above law enforcement agencies with one phone 

call. In addition, the federal law enforcement agencies are better able to coordinate 

efforts and investigations into threats and violence against abortion providers that 

cross jurisdictional lines. Our statistics clearly show that in the tirst ten years the 

Task Force operated, there was a recorded decrease in extreme violence against 

abortion providers. 

The reduction of crime is a key goal of the Office of the Attorney General, and 

should be pursued regardless of ideology. The Attorney General has discretion and 

authority to affect resources, staffing, and prioritization of cases for the Task 

Force. Given Sessions' long record of opposition to abortion, the way in which he 

has used his political career to advance that agenda, and his organizational 

alignments, we reasonably conclude that protecting abortion providers from 

violence will not be a priority in a Department of Justice he directs. In a time of 

increased threats and violence, NAF and our members must be able to turn to the 

Department of Justice for protection and effective enforcement of federal law. 

Our grave concerns are supported by Sessions' record in the Senate. He has 

repeatedly voted to reject an amendment put forth by Senator Charles Schumer to 

the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which would prevent violent perpetrators of crimes 

against abortion providers and clinics from evading charges levied against them by 

filing for bankruptcy.3 This amendment passed in 2000 by a Senate vote of 80-17. 

Sessions further voted as recently as 2015 to reject enhanced safety measures 

proposed under the "Women's Health Care and Clinic Security and Safety Fund," 

once again demonstrating his disregard for the safety and security of abortion 

providers and their patients. 4 
1370 

Fm1hermorc, the endorsement of Sessions by the dangerous anti-abortion group 

Operation Rescue is troubling. Operation Rescue sees the nomination of Jeff 

Sessions as an opportunity to investigate abortion providers and end access to 

abortion care. And they have good reason to believe Sessions will be their ally. 

Sessions previously co-led a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Health 

and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, urging them to investigate abortion 

providers, based on false allegations made by organizations that publicly support 

violence against providers.5 The investigations of abortion providers that Sessions 

supports only serve to amplifY dangerous rhetoric and increase threats and violence 

against abortion providers. 

The Attorney General must lead with impartiality. Over the years, our members 

have worked very effectively with those law enforcement officials who have been 

committed to upholding the law, regardless of those officials' personal positions on 

abortion. We cannot tolerate a fm1her increase in violence and criminal activity 

because an Attorney General will not vigorously enforce the law or allow the Task 

Force to continue its vital work. 

The dedicated individuals who risk their lives every day to provide safe abm1ion 

care deserve nothing less than an Attorney General who will vigorously enforce 

the law. NAF's examination of Jeff Sessions' record leads us to conclude that he is 

unable and unwilling to fulfill that mission. 

We urge the Members ofthis Committee to oppose Jeff Sessions' confirmation as 

Attorney General of the United States. 

Thank you. 
1371 

1 Senator Jeff Sessions, https://www.congress.gov/member/jeff-sessions/SOO 1141°pageSOI1"•1atcstAction:asc ; 

http:llwww.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfmlvoting-record 

2 Violence Statistics & History, .\'ationa/Abortion Federation, http://prochoice.org/education-andadvocacy/violencelviolence-statistics-and-historyi 

3 S. Amdt. 2763 to S.625 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1999), (Feb. 2, 2000), 

https :/ lwww .co ngress.gov I am end ment/1 06th -co ngressl senate-amendment/2 7 6 3 4 On the :•dation to TableS. Amdt. 2876 to H.R. 3762 (Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation 

Act of 20 15), (Dec. 3 20 15), https:l/www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-20 15/s311 

'Lee Letter to DOJ and HHS to Conduct Full investigation of Planned Parenthood, (July 21, 2015), 

https:/iwww.scribd.com/documenti272235009/Lee-Letter-to-DOJ-and-HHS-to-conduct-full-investigation-ofP1anned-Parenthood 
1372 

FebruRt)' 12, 2009 

Mt~ority Lea 

United S Scnato 

S-22 apitol Ouilding 

. tingttlll, D.C. 2051 Q.OoO 1 

l)cnr~ 

Of-f!CE or l Hf. m~l UOULAA tE.'\DLH 

D ...... TIC.. 

Tht: Scnn!c has lhc Constitutional duty to provide its Advice and Consent on Prcsidcntialnominntions, H 

duty which we tnke seriously. In consultation with our Ranking Members, we reaffirm our commitment 

to conduct the appropriate review of these nominations, consistent with the long standing and best 

prncliccs of committees, regardless of which political pnrty is in the majority. These Llest practices sel\·c 

the Scnnte well, and we will insist on their f~ir an<! co11sistent application. 

Therefore. prior to confiidering any time agreements on the floor on flllY nominee, we expect the following 

standards will Lle met: 

I. The 1'01 background check is complete and Sl•bmittetf to the committee in time for re,•icw and 

prior to a hearing being noticed. 

2. The Office ofGo,·ernment Ethics letter is complete and submitted lo the committee in lime for 

r~v icw and prior to a cormniltcc hearing. 

3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) arc complete nnd 

~ubmittcd to the commi1t¢e for review prior ton hearing being noticed. 

'!. All committee questionnaires arc complete and have bctm returned to the c01nmittcc. A 

reasonable oppo11unity for follow-up ttuestions has beennfforded committee memllers, and 

nominees hnve answered, with sufficient time for review prior ton committee vote. 

5, The nominee i5 willing to hnve committee st11ffinterviews, where that has been the pntctice. 

6. The nominee has had n hearing. 

7. The nominee agrees to comtcsy visits with members when requested. 

8. The nomine<~ lms committed to cooperate with the Ranking Member on requests for infimnalion 

nnd transparency. 

There will be additional requirements, honoring the traditions oft he Senate, for judicial nominees. These 

common sense standards nnd long standing practices will ensure thai the Senate has had the opportunity 

to lilirly review a nominee's t·ecord and to make nn informed decision prior ton vote. 
1373 

11612017 National Rev1ew Online j Print 

NATIONAL REVIEW 

'Unreliable and Misleading' Charges against Sessions 

By Carrie Severino- December 22, 2016 

As I've written before, much of the rcpm1ing on Senator Sessions' bid lor Attorney General has 

failed to dig deeper than the top-level talking points of his opponents. ~ew reports arc out 

digging up a decades-old lawsuit Sessions was involved with in which a state judge wrote that 

"the misconduct of the Attorney General in this case far surpasses in both extensiveness and 

measure the totality of any prosecutorial misconduct ever previously presented to or witnessed 

by this court." 

Sounds pretty damning, at least until you learn that the order quoted above itself was found 

"particularly unreliable and misleading'' by a unanimous panel of the Elewnth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. The appellate court faulted the judge below for simply cutting and pasting his order 

from the opposing lawyer· s briefs. which explains the over-the-top language. Far from finding 

prosecutorial misconduct, the Eleventh Circuit held that there had bee11 probable cause for 

prosecution. And it found the trial comi's order to be sufliciently misleading that the $7.2 

million verdict in a related civil case was thrown out because the jury had been read that order. 

To clarify the timeline of the case, it began in l 995 when a Tieco whistleblowcr disclosed 

evidence offraud to a customer company, USX, which in turn disclosed it to Sessions, tl1en 

Alabama Attorney GeneraL following an investigation which uncovered Tieco ·sown records 

which suggested fraud, a grand jury indicted Tie co in July 1996. The Eleventh Circuit later held 

that the witness and record evidence \Vas sut1icient at the time to suppot1 prosecution. 

In mid-1996, while the case was pending and Sessions was running for Senate, Tieco filed an 

ethics complaint with the Alabama Ethics Commission that was investigated and rejected 

unanimously, 5-0. At least one news outlet has characterized the cooperation between USX and 

the AG's office in the case as a "bizaiTe arrangement" and suggested it was following up on the 

malicious prosecution decision. But the idea that the customer who was allegedly being 

dctrauded should not be allowed to assist the state Attomey General in accessing records that 

would prove the fraud is itselfbizane. And the ethics investigation itself was only required 

because Tieco's counsel had gone on the offense to !lle ethics charges in the middle of the 

litigation. 

htlp://www.nationalreview.com/nC'Jde/4432B5/print 113 
1374 

1/612017 National Rev1ew Onhne 1 Print 

In the course of the trial it became apparent that the whistle blower witness' testimony was 

weaker than it had originally seemed. In 1997, shortly after Sessions stepped down as AG to 

take his Senate seat, the judge: grant~d a motion to dismiss the case. In an unusual move, he 

adopted as part of his !ina! order the defense counsel's own brief, even the hyperbolic language 

alleging prosccutorial misconduct. 

That's right: the language trashing the Attorney General's oftice was written, not by the trial 

judge. but by the very aggressive opposing pm1y in the case. 

At the time, Sessions characterized the case as one in which the prosecution had been abused by 

the defense lawyer and maintained that the allegations of misconduct were ·•unfounded and 

without merit." 

The Eleventh Circuit apparently agreed. While they never got a chance to weigh in on the 

criminal case itself: which was in state court~ a civil case based on the same factual allegations 

did make it up to the federal appellate court. 

,·\!though Tieco dodged the fraud allegations in the criminal trial, its customer USX filed a civil 

case in federal court. Tieeo countersued, alleging malicious prosecution by USX and basing its 

case almost entirely on the state court order language that Tieco itself had drafted. The jury 

awarded Tieco $7.2 million. 

But the Eleventh Circuit tossed out the verdict, citing the state court's "particularly unreliable 

and misleading" order and its prejudicial ctTect on the jurors. While the court couldn't directly 

overturn that order because the criminal case \Vasn 't the one being appealed, having the 

appellate court treat an order that way sends a clear signal: it thought the order wasn't worth the 

paper it was written on. 

The Eleventh Circuit did something the media ought to do. Before jumping on a sensational 

story, it weighed the reliability of the order to determine whether it represented a serious effort 

to determine that Sessions or his onicc had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. 

I'll add that the report of this case by CN!' was especially unfair in suggesting that Sessions was 

hiding the case by not listing it in his judicial questionnaire as one of his "most significant 

litigated matters," and by speculating that he didn't want to draw attention to it because it was a 

"major embarrassment." In !act the qucstimmaire didn't ignore the case: The relevant facts of 

the efhics complaint were properly disclosed to the Judiciary Committee, and two press releases 

lfom the prosecution were part ofthe public pm1ion of the questionnaire. The fact that Sessions 

didn't rank the case as one of the most significant matters he had ever handled is hardly sinister. 

httpBwww.nationalreview.comfllOde/4432B5/print 2/3 
1375 

11612017 National Rev1ew Online I Print 

And C~'N's failure to note the inclusion of the information elsewhere in the questionnaire raises 

questions about the journalists' willingness to do the homework necessary to report the truth. 

A headline reading '·Decades-old Charges of Misconduct Against Sessions Have Been 

Repeatedly Discredited'' isn't exactly clickbait. But that's about what this nothingburgcr of a 

story deserves. 

http:/!www.nationalrevlew.com/node/443285/print 313 
1376 

OFFICIAL J<BSENTEE 

PRIMARY El,ECTION BALLOT 

4, 1SS4 

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC 
1377 

OFFICIAL ABSENTEE 

l'R!MARY Et.ECTION BALLOT 

SEl'TEMBER 

ALABAMA PEMOCRAT!C l'JU!TY 

PFRRY COUNTY 
1378 

l?!l!MARY ELECTION 

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

?ERRY COUKTY 
1379 
1380 

OFFlClAL ABSENTEE 

P!HMARY ELECT!O!l BALLOl' 

SE?Tl:-:f\-!BER 4, HHN 

AI.ABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

PERRY CCtJN'fY 
1381 

OFFICIAL ABSENTEE 

PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT 

SEPTEMBEF l~s; 

ALABAMA DEMOCl'L'\TIC PAIITY 

PEBIIY COUNTY 
1382 

r 

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

PERRY COUNTY 
1383 

Written Statement of 

Judy Shepard 

To the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Hearing Entitled: Attorney General Nomination 

Janumy 1!, 2017 

I am honored to submit this testimony, but I am also deeply troubled by the nomination at 

hm1d. ln 1998 my son, Matthew, was murdered because he was gay, a brutal hate crime 

that continues to resonate around the world even now. Following Matt's death, my 

husband, Dennis, and I worked for the next 11 years to gamer support for a federal Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act that would increase resources for state and local law enforcement 

agencies investigating and prosecuting hate crimes and provide a federal backstop for 

prosecuting hate crimes throughout the country, including in states- like Wyoming that 

still do not have hate crimes laws on their books. 

Over that decade, we were fortunate to work alongside members of Congress, both 

Democrats and Republicans, who championed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. 

Hate Crimes Prevention Act 1 with the dete1mination, compassion, and vision to match 

ours as the parents of a child targeted for simply wa11ting to be himself. Senator Jeff 

Sessions was not one of these members. In fact. Senator Sessions strongly opposed the 

hate crimes bill. Unfortunately, Senator Sessions believes that hate crimes arc, what he 

describes as, mere "thought crimes.''2 For over a decade, Senator Sessions publicly 

mischaractcrized the reach of the bill, promoting a purposefully inflammatory argument 

that it would allow for the prosecution of religious leaders and teachers 3 

I am not submitting this testimony today because Matt's murderers had "thoughts." or 

because they said hateful things. I am writing this because they brutally beat my son with 

the butt of a .357 magnum pistol, tied him to a fence, and left him to die in freezing 

temperatures because he was gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish the lifechanging acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act horrified me then, 

as a parent who knows the true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this same 

person is now being nominated as the country's highest authority to represent justice and 

equal protection under the law for all Americans. 

1 18 U.S.C. § 249 (2012); Public Law No. 111-84. 

2 1llth Congress. lst Session Issue: Vol. 155, No. 109 Page S7694 

3 !d. 
1384 

As the number of hate crimes surge, this country needs the protections and resources 

provided by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act now more than ever. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

and, particularly, trans gender people continue to face an epidemic of violence. Every 

year, more parents lose their children to hate-induced violence simply for being 

themselves. Just last month, a Mississippi man pled guilty to violating the federal hate 

crimes law when he beat and stabbed a trans gender teenager- admitting that he killed her 

because of her gender identity. 4 This closure was possible because the Department of 

Justice charged him with violating the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Sessions has 

been nominated to perform the duties of Attorney General and to enforce this critical 

piece of federal law. Senator Sessions' very public record of hostility towards the 

LGBTQ community and federal legislation designed to protect vulnerable Americans 

makes it nearly impossible to believe that he wilJ vigorously enforce this statute that he 

worked so hard to defeat. 

Senator Sessions has made his hostility and disgust towards LGBTQ peopk public and 

clear throughout over 3 decades in public service. As Attorney General of Alabama and 

as a United States Senator Jeff Sessions not only accepted, but embraced laws 

criminalizing LGBTQ people. Think about that. He has supported laws that make it 

illegal for LGBTQ people to live their lives without fear of prosecution just because of 

who they are or who they love. 

While Attorney General of Alabama, he used his position of power and an 

unconstitutional state law in an effort to block an educational student conference at the 

University of Alabama in order to target LGBTQ people. 5 This 1996 conference was 

described as a place to discuss, among other things, hate crimes and cultural sensitivity in 

law enforcement, preventing STDs. and an interfaith discussion. He pursued the case 

even after the district court flatly rejected his legal argument and his deputy attorney 

general strongly agreed with the court. 

As a U.S. Senator, he consistently expressed his disagreement and opposition to the 

landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas. which found laws prohibiting samesex relationships to be unconstitutional.6 He described this foundational civil rights case 

"'Set\ .\fississijJpi ,Han P!emA Guilty !o I late ('rime for ,\/urdering Trun..,pender l.ictim Bcnwsc t~/1 fer 

Gender !dmrin·, L:.s. Department of Justice (Dec. 21, 20 I 6) aYailahlc at: 

httf)s: \\ W\\ .iustic~.Q(n· opa nr missi~s.ippi-!rwn-p]o;;!ads-guiltv-hJte-crinll'-Jlntrdcring-transgender-\ ictimbecausc-her-gender (last visited December 28, 2016). 5 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Alliance v. Jeff' Sessions. 917 F. Supp. 1558 ( 1996); See also, JeffSessionsji>ught 

as Alabama attorney general to keep an LGBT conference(iYim meering on a public campus, CNN, 

(December 2, 2016). 6 l09th Congress, 2nd Session Issue: Vol. 152, No. 70. Page S5479- S5548l. 
1385 

as "troubling" and used this decision as a basis for his suppmt and introduction of a 

Constitutional amendment that would have prevented any state from allowing same-sex 

marriage. For years, the Department of Justice has provided protection for many LGBTQ 

people under federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. This 

interpretation has been affilmcd by numerous federal courts and agencies and has become 

a source of justice that many in the LGBTQ community have come to rely upon. Given 

Senator Sessions· track record of using his personal belief in unconstitutional laws to 

support public discrimination, I am deeply concerned that he will fail to continue to 

enforce these critical protections. 

Like many Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgcndcr people too often face 

intimate partner violence in their relationships. The federal government has moved 

decisively to address domestic violence and sexual assault through the 1994 Violence 

Against Women Act (VA WA). Senator Sessions opposed expanding this Act to protect 

LGBT victims of violence in the most recent VA WA reauthorization. Fortunately, 

bipartisan majorities of both chambers adopted these protections and reauthorized the 

law. But now we are faced with the prospect that Senator Sessions will be responsible 

for carrying out provisions of a law he finnly opposed. The health and safety of 

countless LGBT people hinges on his ability to do so. 

In preparing this testimony, I read the mission statement for the Department ofJustice. 

As the Attorney General, Senator Sessions would be entrusted to enforce the law, to 

provide federal leadership, to seek just punishment for the guilty, and to ensure fair and 

impartial administration of justice for all Americans. But here is where I take issue. ln 

30 years in public life Senator Sessions has failed to demonstrate that he can be fair and 

impartial in the administration of justice for all Americans. And I am not only referring 

to the LGBTQ community but all of the protected classes listed in the Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act. Senator Sessions has repeatedly forfeited opportunity after opportunity to 

stand up for people like my son Matt and has, instead. used his position of power to target 

them for increased discrimination and marginalization, thus encouraging violence and 

other acts deemed to be hate crimes. 

Over the years, Senator Sessions has consistently referred to same-sex relationships and 

LGBTQ people like Matt as "dangerous'', or as a "threat" to our American way of life 

and our so called '"traditional'' moral beliefs. Matt was raised to believe in equal rights 

and equal protection for all. As a freshman in college in North Carolina, he participated 

in protests against the racist, bigoted, homophobic attitudes of then Senator Jesse Helms. 

During his short life, Matt was always fighting to make life better for everyone. I am 

here to carry on his legacy, to do what he would be doing if he were alive. to verbally 

protest against the types of attitude and prejudice that resulted in his death. Matt was 
1386 

many things, but he was not dangerous and he was not a threat. But, based on the record 

of his past actions, it is blatantly clear that placing Jeff Sessions in the position as the 

nation's chief law enforcement official would be both. 
1387 

2001 to 

:2003. 
1388 

As a U.S. attorney, Sessions suecessfully prosecuted Alabama Ku Klux 

Klan "Grand Titan'' Bennie ,Jack Hays, who ordered his son, Henry 

Hays, to kill an African American man. 

Knowles did by 

As is common in cases this w·ith serious civil the 

investigation was a joint federal-state effort The state 

noted that the power of the FBI and a 

were He noted that when 

help, "Tell me what need have it" 

Knowles pleaded guilty in federal court to a rights violation and 

sentence to be served in federal prison. 

however, to ensure that 

prosecutors could the death penalty. Hays was 

death sentence. As Alabama attorney 

argued to uphold Hays's sentence. 

Sessions also has a record of bipartisan leadership in Senate, 

and 

on criminal justice issues. His leadership was instrumental 

in the passage of landmark 

legislation for crack cocaine possession, which 

unfairly targeted African Americans, and brought the more 

in line those for powder cocaine. 

This was a tremendous accomplishment inasmuch as Sessions first 

introduecd the legislation in to reduce this unjust disparity 

·'I think vve are at a point now where this 100-to-1 

fall heavier on African-American community 

that is where is most often used has got to be 

workL~d to reduce this disparity t~n· nine years before he was by 
1389 
1390 

Statement of We Belong Together 

Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on the judiciary 

Hearing on '~Attorney General Nomination" 

January 10, 2017 

Members of the Cummittee, we are We Gdong Tngether. Th<lnk you for the opportunity to 

submit this statement for indusiun in the renmJ fnr today's hearing. We Belong Together is a 

campaign co-anchonxl. by the National Domestic Wurh'rs Alliance and the ~ational A~ian Pacific 

An1crican Women's Forum to mobilize \VOmen in support of comrnon-sense immigration policies 

that will keep families together and We Belong Together was launched on 

Mother\ Day in 2010 and has the dan.gerous impact of immigration enforcement on 

women and families, advocated for comprehensive immigration reform legislation and c::tmpaigned 

President Obanu to take executive action \'>'ithin his legCJ! authorir-y to improve the broken 

immigration system. 

We Belong Together urges all members of the Un!teJ States Senate to oppose the nomination of 

Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney GeneraL Throughout his lengthy careC'r, Sen\ltOT Sessions 

has consistently dehumanized n1any of our communities including immigrants, people of color, 

\\'Omen, Muslims, LGBTQ individuals and people with disabilities. Given his strong history of 

obstructing civil rights, Senator Sessions has proven that he is unfit to serve as Attorney GeneraL 

As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Atturney General is charged \Vith upholding the 

constitutional rights and pmtections of atl people in the United States. Senator Sessions, however, 

has orpc1seJ the Voting Rights Act, \Vhich aims to ensure all Americans have an equal opportunity· 

to participate in our democracy and insteJd prosecuted voting rights activists who tried to incre\ISC 

Black registration and turnout. He has opposed bipartisan effl)rtS t"o refl)trn the criminal justice 

system by reducing sentences and he npposes federal consent decrees designed to reduce pl)!ice 

misconduct. Sessions has hate crimes protections for members of the LGBTQ 

community, fought the of the Violence against Women Act (VA \VA) and 

supported a Muslim ban in the United States. In addithm, Senator Ses.siom has closdy aligned 

himself ·with extn·mist groups like Numbers USA and the f'eJeration for American 

Immigration Reform, are f(lUndeJ on \"-·hire supn::macist ideals. Senator Sessions, through 

hb own recnrd, has been one of the staunchest uppom:nts of zmy proposals that woulJ bring 

humanity to our country's treatment of immigrants and has instead called for a massive border 

wall, mass deportations and the criminalization of immigrants. This record and these affiliations 

make Senator Sessions wholly unfit to prosecute hate crime and defend the civil rights of a!l 

persons in the US. 
1391 

Congrt•ss has already determined that Sr.:"nator Sessions does n(>t meet the standards necessary to 

Glrry out a political appolntnwnt. In 1986, a Republican-leLl Senate Judiciary Committee rejected 

his nornination for a federal judgeship Ln Alabama because of his history of racist staremems. 

Since then, Senator Sessions has continued his record of ~.,li\'isive hateful rhetoric. We urge 

Mcn1hers of this Committee to uphold the nlucs of our democracy and reject the nomination of 

Senator Sessions for Attornev General. 
1392 

ONS' EFFORTS 

E BLACK lVlllN 

Stmcnwm Rohen 

Founder and President 

'"''"'"'""" the Ccmcr f(Jr 
1393 

SENATOR SESSIONS' EFFORTS TO SALVAGE 0:-m ULACK C0!\1:\Ilc!'IIITY 

w,nt~d "ith 'knator J.:tr S~»>i<m$ 11Jr more than IS 

lu Uj'lift "till' k:ts! 

sdwuls "ere· h.:atetl by 

lac: ked\\ irinif :mnicic·m support C<lmput.:r" and Internet :k'C<C>s. With 1 

n:antd~t\.·turing and ~._"l't)nt)n1i~..' d~v.:lopn1cn1 th~..." 

~.:nn1m~"'moration::: did to nf thl2" 

l.tl\\!ldcs (\>unl) rcsicknts. Sc's>icms tor>k mar,;hul supptlH to re,·italizc the 

consult:tms 11ho \\\Irked to tad;k the immediatt· probkm ofwm.tc: 
1394 

Wilen the:! lyundui Cc>rpllrntion planned to build a $1 billion nwnulktcturing plan! just six-miles 

frmn th.; LO\\ nde~ \ \nmt; border. s~n, s~..·ssion:s rl'Cugnizt:d the prtJ~pccts. !'or parts 

m:mufacturing and 1\clfhcd 11 itil C~E and \Irs. Fkmcrs to s~cur<: $4 mil! ion gram;; ti·nm the 

liS D.:purtmcm nf l'ommcTl'l' and h:un\)mic DcYdc>p111e'ntlhat made pus;;ibk the cc•nstme·titlfl 

of two industrial parlis that became S<.'C<'lld-ti<:-r <HJl<.' suppliers. 

In 200-1, Senator Sc•ssicl!1S lwstcd mce•ting nn Capitollli!l that brought I 00 corp11nlk' ami pc•lk:-

rc'[Wesentmin:s to karn the· .e\hibanm Rural lni1iati 1 e ( ARl l that Catlwrinc !:l<ni\TS 11as 

inYo!vcd in. As a rc:;ul! oftltat mc·c·ting .. \1innsoft Cc>qxmJ!ion donakd than $1l:'.Olll) 11nrth 

of software to equip Cc'll1PUkr e~ntcrs fpr the lcl\1 -income residents 

RcprcscntatiYc:s frr'm the l'S Dc:j'ar!mcn! of Labor who attended the c:wnt encouraged the :\RI 

to apply l(lr a planning li>r a C:trL'Cr lkvdopmcnl Workl(>rce Ccmer. rhc gram \\"tJ> 

n:cc•in:d in 2005. ami ecHnprc:hensiH' plan 11as ckvdc1pcd to hing togc:ther 1\Prki(HT>.: 

pn;parmion, adult rc:nwdial c:ducation, and legal assi,;tanc.; initiati' c:s in l c>wndcs Cnunt) tp 

provide road out uf ptwen' !i1r its residents. 

Senator Sessions' !(,r Lc>wndcs County also includes dTons to prt:'scnc its histnrical 

legacy. Whenlw rec:ei1ed kiter !i·om an angry "''nstitul'nt d~mcmdinb: lhat.e\labama·s 

lmcrpreth·c· Center :dung the Sdma-\-!ontgnmcry l\1arch lmil be c:loscd duwn and charging th:tl 

it\\ as "nn nrg~ tc:mpk ,,f hate·." Sc•ssiuns !Ourc·J the Cc:ntcr's c·:xhibits \\ ith Flc'II\Ts and declared 

that "c'\\~rycnw should knm1 this his tor:." .llc \\as instrumental transli:rrin,: the' authority l\1r 

the lntcrprt'tiw Ct:ntcT the State :\lahama lcl the National Park SctTic:c:. \\ h<:rc' it will be 

prc:-;erv~d in pt:qJcttlity. 

I rcccn!ly r.:cci1·cd a pcmcrful testimony to Se'tL Sc•ssiun-; !i·nm c:il-il-rrgh!s ac:ti1·is1 :md economic 

llcvck>pment <t>\>rdinatc>r Catherine Flowers 11 lw expe-rienced his :;uppur! since til usc car!J day" 

wastt:-\\Utcr LTisi~ in I,O\\nd~..·s Cuunty ··1 hH\1,.' b~,_~ ... ·n seJ,."lng ~dl thr...· pr~..·s:-: on s,'IW{11l' 

S~ssions and l dothll rccognL-:e the person the! arc' ckscribing." she llrt'h\ "From my \'anlage 

poim. do not ktH>\\ 11 ho he ma1· have been at one time. but lllm e kill\\\ n him to be' li-i>:nd to 

the people l.u11 mlcs l'uun1_1 " 

Tho>c \\he) wouU ('Pl''''~' IlK appointment nf Scnatur Session as A Homey Gc·ncral \\ uuld dl' 11 el! 

wnsider the word:; ,,r l'rcsidc:nt Obama in his eulng: Senator Rohc·n t:l1rd. a t(>rmer 

mcmb>:r and recruiter fix the l'u Klux Klan: "We· ktl\11\ there are things he said ~tnd things he did 

that lw came w regret. __ ,\s I rd1ec:t on the tltll S\\'cep of his ycar:i. it sc:cms to nw that his lit<: 

bl.?ntllmardsjm:tin:. l.ih· the Constitution lk' tucked in his pud:<.'l. like om nat inn itsdl: R1'ben 

Byrd poss.:ss;;d til~\ quintessential :\merican qtwlity, and th,t\ j,; a capacitv tn change:. aeapacit} 

to karn. capacity to lislc'lL a capacity to be matk nwrc· pcrlccL" 
1395 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

A list of material and links can be found below for Submissions for the Record 

not printed due to voluminous nature, previously printed by an agency of the 

Federal Government, or other criteria determined by the Committee: 

Aaron, Marjorie Corman, Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law, et al., 

1,424 faculty members from 180 law schools in 49 states, January 9, 2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017.01.09%20Law% 

20Professor%20Statement%20re%20Sessions%20Nomination.pdf 

Butler, Jennifer, Reverend, Faith in Public Life, Washington, DC, et al., more 

than 2,500 faith leaders, statement: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/01/10/2017/faith-leadersopposition-to-trump-cabinet 

Duncan, A. Cameron, University of Virginia School of Law, et al., open letter from 

1,060 Law Students to President-elect Donald J. Trump, December 22, 2016: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/open-letter-from-1060- 

law-students 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys, United States Attorney’s Office, 

Southern District of Alabama, January 27–31, 1992, final evaluation report: 

www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Executive%20Office%20of%20 

U.S.%20Attorneys%20final%20report,%20Sessions.pdf 

Gershman, Bennett L., Professor of Law, Pace University, White Plains, New 

York, January 6, 2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/01.09.17%20Prof%20 

Ben%20Gershman1.pdf 

Guinier, Lani, Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New 

Vision of Social Justice, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998, chap. 7, 

‘‘Selma, Alabama, June 1985: Building Bridges from the Bottom Up,’’ 

pages 183–219, excerpt: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LaniGuinierLiftEvery 

VoiceCh7.pdf 

Hebert, J. Gerald, former Acting Chief, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC, January 9, 2016, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/J.%20Gerald%20 

Hebert%20-%20Statement%20-%20Opposition.pdf 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Washington, DC, 

December 1, 2016, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sessions%20 

Nomination%2012%201%2016.pdf 

Liebman, James S., Associate Professor of Law, Columbia University School 

of Law, appendix to January 9, 2017, letter: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Appendix 

%201%20to%20Liebman%20Letter%20re%20Sessions%20 

Nomination%20010917.pdf 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 

‘‘NAACP Federal Legislative Report Card, 113th Congress, January 3, 2013, 

through December 16, 2014,’’ Washington, DC, report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/naacpl-reporton-sessions 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), ‘‘Report in Opposition to the Nomination 

of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to be Attorney General of the United 

States,’’ New York, New York, and Washington, DC, January 9, 2017, report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-01-09%20 

NAACP%20LDF%20Report%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Sessions.pdf 
1396 

Patrick, Deval L., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, ‘‘Notice of Findings from Investigation 

of Easterling Correctional Facility,’’ March 27, 1995, letter and report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hitching%20Post%20 

Report%20-%20Easterling1.pdf 

Patrick, Deval L., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, ‘‘Notice of Findings from Investigation 

of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women,’’ March 27, 1995, letter and report: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/01/10/2017/hitching-postreportl-tutwiler 

UltraViolet, Nita Chaudhary and Shaunna Thomas, Co-Founders, petition: 

https://act.weareultraviolet.org/constituents/?tcid=767.tc7597.HKXtdS 

United States Steel LLC v. TIECO Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 

August 17, 2001, decision: 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1481550.html 

Æ