NYT Interpretation Of The Year That Was 2016

Editorial

 I guess we can gloat it would be totally justified since the left went all out crazy when Obama was elected back in 2008 and for unseen reason re-elected in 2012.

 The race baiter the so called Rev.Jesse Jackson back in 2008 was crying and saying Barack Obama was the first African-American President in US History but of course never acknowledge that his mother was a Caucasian (for you liberals that's white).

 Now fast forward to todays lead editorial in the New York Times all of the sudden 2016 was a bad year by their piece of crap entitled "Take a Bad Year. And Make It Better" oh well I say.

 The rant begins "Let’s pretend we’re in some cosmic therapist’s office, in a counseling session with the year 2016. We are asked to face the year and say something nice about it. Just one or two things.

The mind balks. Fingers tighten around the Kleenex as a cascade of horribles wells up in memory: You were a terrible year. We hate you. We’ll be so glad never to see you again. The silence echoes as we grope for a reply.

The Cubs?

Looking back on the last 12 months, those who feel miserable and afraid have plenty of justification. For many it was the election of a president unfit for the job. He seems to want to run the country like some authoritarian game-show host, but we don’t really know what he’ll do, and uncertainty worsens the sickening feeling.

 Yeah in pink if you are a Hillary Clinton supporter and still bitching and whining about the Presidential election results because they didn't go your way boo fucking whoo. Oh no correction President-elect Trump is more qualified than Obama or Hillary for that matter. Sucks to be liberals establishment and other readers that are left of the NYT.

 It goes on "Yet so many bad things happened, from the unthinkable to the horrifying to the merely shocking. Things fell apart. Tyrants and terrorists trailed blood and rubble across the Middle East and Europe. Refugees drowned in the Mediterranean. Right-wing extremism and xenophobia were on the march. The American election let loose old racial hatreds. The planet got hotter; the Arctic went haywire. The world was burning or smoldering or blowing up or melting.

It was bad. But to avoid the poles of despair and denial, it would help to have a frame of mind, a perspective with which to consider the year gone by. And with it, a sober but bracing way to meet the headwinds and miseries that await in 2017. It could be this: a recognition of the power of unity, of drawing close, and of speaking out. Of the strength that solidarity wielded in 2016, over and over.

 In green OMG not the right wing extremists no the only xenophobia was from you bastards on the left spewing your hatred of Donald Trump or liberalism gone mental but that's you all's normal state of mind lmao.

 It goes on again "The most powerless of economic players, low-wage workers, kept pressing for a $15 minimum wage. Rallies across the country in November invigorated the cause, which is succeeding against long odds. More than two dozen states and localities have raised minimum wages as the movement has gone mainstream.

 Funny the NYT fails to mention the ones who were crying poor mouth wanting $15.00 an hour were the burger flippers at those golden arches aka McDonalds workers. Umm where is the cause succeeding in your own bullshit minds.

 More misery bs "The most frequent targets of the dehumanizing rhetoric of the Trump campaign — immigrants and refugees — found welcome in many communities. Families opened their homes to displaced Syrians. Churches gave sanctuary to unauthorized immigrants. Governors and mayors, teachers and lawyers, faith leaders and congregations vowed to resist any efforts to demonize the foreign-born.

There and elsewhere was evidence that the center could hold, and reason and compassion prevail.

 Oh ok now back to attacking Trump yeah foreign born that are BREAKING OUR LAWS JUST BY BEING HERE ON OUR SOIL NYT DONT YOU MORONS GET IT!

  It ends more made up opinion/news "National protests shone a harsh light on police killings of black civilians. Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama inspired millions, their achievements and grace rebuking the sour misogyny of the Trump campaign. American Indians in North Dakota braved rubber bullets and water cannons to protect their drinking water from an oil pipeline. Nations of the world — all threatened by a warming planet — ratified the Paris climate agreement. The global health community found ways to subdue the Zika virus and create an effective Ebola vaccine. The death penalty in the United States kept sliding into history’s dustbin. Some states, reflecting strong public support, began tilting the gun debate in the direction of sanity

The forces of disunity are strong, but our job is to make the country less divided than Donald Trump’s splintering campaign has left it. A Roman Catholic priest, James Martin, in a powerful essay after the election, counseled combatants to give one another the benefit of the doubt — while remaining ready to defend those likely to suffer in the coming administration: “the homeless, the unemployed, the underemployed, the disabled, the sick.”

His words made us think of West Virginia. It’s a state that turned its back on Democrats, where populist anger fed on racism and working-class despair. But it’s also the home of Blind Alfred Reed, a Methodist minister and old-time folk fiddler who died 60 years ago. He is buried in Mercer County, which gave Mr. Trump 75 percent of the vote. Blind Alfred wrote a remarkable song, “Always Lift Him Up.” Its many verses counsel unflinching kindness for the most unloved and unlovable among us.

If he has no friends and everything’s against him/If he’s failed at everything that he has tried/Try to lift his load and help to bear his burden/Let him know that you are walking by his side.

If he feels that all is lost and he is falling/Try to place that poor man’s feet on solid ground/Just remember he’s some mother’s precious darling/Always lift him up and never knock him down.

That’s a message for these times. Lift up those in the Fight for $15, those fighting policing abuses and discrimination, those who are marginalized and poor and weak. This may be the most heartening development in a dismal year — the evidence all around that we know how to do this, and can indeed summon the will.

 Just more made up shit from the NYT hopefully in the new year which is coming upon us maybe just maybe theres a glimmer of hope for the rag shit paper

New BS Forum in the Editorial Pages Of The NYT

This Week In Hate

  Every Friday since President-elect Trump won the New York Times have wasted more time and energy dedicated to a new spot on their already useless editorial pages.

  The title of this weeks "The Scope of Hate in 2016" by ANNA NORTH.

 The so called hate begins "How many hate crimes have been committed since the election? The short answer is, we don’t know.

National data on hate crime is scarce. The F.B.I. releases annual statistics on hate crimes, but not every incident is reported to the agency. And some incidents of bias-motivated harassment or intimidation don’t fit the F.B.I.’s definition of a hate crime. However, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups are studying the problem with an eye to providing more comprehensive data. Below are a few things we know about trends in hate crime before and after the election, false reports and more.

 I say who cares no one I know of cares.

 It goes on "According to the F.B.I., hate crimes rose in 2015.

The F.B.I. hasn’t released hate crime data for 2016 yet, but in November it reported a total of 5,850 hate crimes in 2015, up from 5,479 in 2014. The biggest jump was in anti-Muslim hate crimes, which rose by 67 percent last year. Anti-Semitic crimes were up 9 percent, and anti-black crimes rose almost 8 percent.

Terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe may have stirred up anti-Muslim hatred in 2015, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. But Donald Trump’s campaign promises about banning Muslims may have played an even bigger role. “Whenever a politician starts attacking a particular population,” said Heidi Beirich, who directs the S.P.L.C.’s yearly count of hate groups, “we tend to get hate crimes.”

 Gee if its true I wonder why. Yeah the FBI running stats under this poor excuse of a Presidential administration.
 It goes on "The Southern Poverty Law Center has found more than 1,000 reports of hate incidents since the election.

The group counted 1,094 reports of harassment and intimidation between Nov. 9 and Dec. 12. According to Ms. Beirich, this number is unusually high, more than the group would usually see over a six-month period.Reported incidents included a homophobic voice mail sent to a church, a racial slur directed at a teenage boy and a threatening letter sent to mosques around the country. Immigrants were the most common target of hate and harassment, followed by African-Americans and Muslims). The S.P.L.C. has counted 26 incidents of hate or harassment aimed at Mr. Trump’s supporters in the month after the election.

Some reports to the group have been firsthand accounts, while others have been news stories sent in by readers. The S.P.L.C. is working to verify all reports and has verified about half so far.

Thirteen other reports appeared to be false.

The S.P.L.C. has a list of reports that have been proved to be or are probably false, including the claim by a Muslim student that she was attacked by Trump supporters on a Manhattan subway.It’s not unusual to see some false claims amid an uptick in hate crimes, said Ms. Beirich. “The hoaxes are terrible,” she said, “but it doesn’t make these other things any less real.”

 Hey NYT if these are false at least 13 of them then why even mention them dumb asses;

 It ends Thank God "The number of reports is falling.

Starting with more than 200 the day after the election, the number of reports per day fell to the single digits in early December. The same thing happened in Britain after Brexit, said Ms. Beirich, with a surge in hate crimes followed by a drop. However, she said, if the Trump administration “continues to demonize certain populations, whether it be Latinos or immigrants or the Muslim community,” hate crimes against those groups will continue: “That’s a pattern that has played itself out over and over again.”

 Bullshit more blame game.

Elected officials at the state and city level, as well as members of the community, can help fight hate and harassment by speaking out in support of immigrants and others who are vulnerable, she said. Law enforcement needs to take hate crimes seriously and investigate them aggressively.

Ms. Beirich said that because Mr. Trump’s campaign and election have brought such a jump in hate crimes, she felt he had a duty to denounce them much more vigorously than he has. George W. Bush’s address at a mosque six days after 9/11, in which he said, “Islam is peace,” had a big effect on anti-Muslim harassment. President-elect Trump needs to do more than make a few comments in interviews, she said. “What we need is real leadership on his part to tamp this down.”

 ISLAM IS NOT PEACE

NYT Accusations Of As They Put It Seat Stealing

Editorial

 I can't get enough of this one I'm laughing so friggin hard this morning. The New York Times editorial board is accusing President-elect Trump and the Senate GOP of Stealing a US Supreme Court seat since the death last year of the late great Justice Antonin Scalia.
 Their piece of crap entitled "The Stolen Supreme Court Seat" is ridiculous.
 It begins "Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There will be public debates about the nominee’s credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.

No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.

It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president who fulfilled his constitutional duty more than nine months ago by nominating Merrick Garland, a highly qualified and widely respected federal appellate judge.
 Nothing was stolen bullshit.

It goes on "It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court’s conservative majority. The main perpetrators of the theft were Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But virtually all Republican senators were accomplices; only two supported holding hearings.

Give me a break.
  More rant "The Republican party line — that it was an election year, so the American people should have a “voice” in the selection of the next justice — was a patent lie. The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting him to choose new members for the court. And the Senate has had no problem considering, and usually confirming, election-year nominees in the past.

Of course, Supreme Court appointments have always been political, and the court’s ideological center has shifted back and forth over time. But the Senate has given nominees full consideration and a vote even when the party in power has opposed a president’s choice. That is, until this year, when Republicans claimed that though the Constitution calls for the Senate’s “advice and consent,” senators aren’t obligated to do anything. This is a bad-faith reading of that clause, even if there is no clear way to force a vote. It certainly obliterates a well-established political norm that makes a functioning judicial branch possible. As Paul Krugman wrote in his column on Monday, institutions are not magically self-sustaining, and they “don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms.”
 Defying political norms how about constitutional norms.

 It ends "This particular norm is of paramount importance because the court’s institutional legitimacy depends on its perceived separation from the elected branches — a fragile concept in the best of times. By tying the latest appointment directly to the outcome of the election, Mr. McConnell and his allies took a torch to that idea — an outrageous gambit that, to nearly everyone’s shock, has paid off. But while Republicans may be celebrating now, the damage they have inflicted on the confirmation process, and on the court as an institution, may be irreversible.

The slope is both slippery and steep. If Republicans could justify an election-year blockade, what’s to stop Democrats in the future from doing the same? For that matter, why should the party controlling the Senate ever allow a president of the opposing party to choose a justice? Indeed, in the weeks before the election, Senate Republicans were threatening, with the encouragement of leading conservative thinkers, never to confirm anyone to fill the vacancy if Hillary Clinton won.

Can anything be done to repair the harm? One step — as obvious as it is unlikely — would be for Mr. Trump to renominate Mr. Garland. Conservatives will scoff, but they know he is as qualified for the job as anyone in the country. When Mr. Garland was floated as a possible choice for the Supreme Court in 2010, Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican senator from Utah, called him a “consensus nominee” and said there was “no question” that he would be confirmed with bipartisan support. That’s partly why Mr. Obama nominated him this time, and also why Mr. McConnell denied him a hearing — he knew he couldn’t prevent a Senate vote once Americans saw an eminently qualified and reasonable jurist testify on live TV.

At the very least, Mr. Trump could follow President Obama’s example and pick a centrist — someone who commands wide respect and operates within the bounds of mainstream legal thought. That would be an appropriate gesture from a man who lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes and will enter office with the lowest approval ratings in recent history.

The shameful, infuriating actions of the Senate Republicans won’t be ignored in the history books. In a desperate effort to keep a conservative majority on the court, they rejected their own professed values of preserving American institutions. There’s little hope that they will come to their senses now, but they and Mr. Trump have the power, and the obligation, to fix the mess they created.

NYT Throwing Rocks At Glasshouses

Editorial

   Not that they care but the New York Times editorial board really stepped into it this time dumbasses they are. Their lead Oped this morning entitled "One Job Is Enough. Sell the Hotel." Is attacking President-elect Trump on his business dealings.

 It starts "President-elect Donald Trump won’t be stepping down from his role as an executive producer on “The New Celebrity Apprentice” — an unprecedented situation in which the commander in chief would have a job on the side.

Maybe this was to be expected since Mr. Trump doesn’t appear willing to give up ownership of his other profit centers either. He seems to think that putting his two adult sons in charge of his various business operations — golf courses, licensing deals and hotels — is enough to mute concerns over his conflicts of interest, which could take pay-to-play government corruption to a whole new level. But it won’t.

There’s no way to ensure that his decisions and actions as president won’t be tainted by his personal financial interests if he doesn’t divest and place his assets in a blind trust controlled by independent managers.

 Oh we all know that the NYT is neck deep into corruption and knows a thing or two about corruption.

 Oh but no the NYT never ever had a conflict of interests with the political establishment in the belt way or its bullshit inflated ego with the rest of the left wing media.

 Rambling goes on "A perfect example is Mr. Trump’s lease on the Old Post Office, which houses the Trump International Hotel in Washington, just down the street from the White House. Mr. Trump hasn’t said what he intends to do about the hotel, which he has called “the most coveted piece of real estate in Washington,” with the exception of the White House. But the 60-year lease with the General Services Administration, the federal agency that oversees government buildings, is clear: 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.” That clause is meant to fend off precisely the kind of self-dealing and appearance of favoritism that Mr. Trump’s control of the lease raises.

He can’t avoid these ethical conflicts without selling off his interest entirely. Transferring the lease to a company owned and managed by his children won’t do it. They aren’t independent of him, and any profits they derive from the lease will benefit him, too.

  Hyopcrites!!!!! NYT OMG you quote something that might effect Trump but of all the laws that Hillary Clinton broke you assholes will never quote.

 It ends "As president, Mr. Trump will have the power to appoint and fire the director of the G.S.A. That will put the agency in the impossible position of negotiating with the president and his family about annual rent increases, the upkeep of the building and other issues. Fearing for their jobs, they might well ease demands on the Trumps or give them special consideration should any problems arise. How would the public even know about this kind of corruption?

Holding on to the lease could also expose Mr. Trump to violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. That clause prohibits elected officials from receiving gifts or earning profits from foreign governments without the approval of Congress. This is already happening, well before Inauguration Day. Foreign embassies and diplomats are booking rooms and hosting events at the hotel. Patronizing Mr. Trump’s hotel is certainly one way to get on his good side. Just on Wednesday, Bahrain’s embassy hosted its National Day celebration at the hotel.

In his tweets and in his postelection interview with The Times, Mr. Trump has been nonchalant about the tangled web of conflicts his businesses will bring his presidency. At the very least, Congress ought to demand that he turn over his tax returns and information about his deals with foreign businesses and governments to lawmakers, and that he transfer the lease to his Washington hotel to an independent operator.

  Talk about corruption the NYT is nothing but corruption and not reporting the news that's fit to print.

Hello NYT Those That Live In Ulrta Thin Glasshouses Shouldn't Throw Boulders

Editorial

 

  If one was to make a point on the height of arrogance a perfect example would be looking at the lead oped from this mornings New York Times. "Facebook and the Digital Virus Called Fake News" is the title of the piece of crap
 The example of what I now call hyper-hypocrisy "This year, the adage that “falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” doesn’t begin to describe the problem. That idea assumes that the truth eventually catches up. There’s not much evidence of this happening for the millions of people taken in by the fake news stories — like Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump or Mr. Trump pulling ahead of Hillary Clinton in the popular vote — that have spread on social media sites.

Most of the fake news stories are produced by scammers looking to make a quick buck. The vast majority of them take far-right positions. But a big part of the responsibility for this scourge rests with internet companies like Facebook and Google, which have made it possible for fake news to be shared nearly instantly with millions of users and have been slow to block it from their sites."

 To make my initial point the hyper-hypocrisy is pointed out in red type by the NYT. Notice the NYT only points out the popular vote not the electoral college which is more relevant. Hey NYT you are the biggest scammers going. And of course the NYT blames the political right for their wrongs.

 The bullshit goes on "Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Facebook, has dismissed the notion that fake news is prevalent on his platform or that it had an influence on the election. But according to a BuzzFeed News analysis, during the last three months of the presidential campaign, the 20 top fake news stories on Facebook generated more engagement — shares, likes and comments — than the 20 top stories from real news websites. OMG LMAO like the NYT is a real news website since when LMAO!!!

These hoaxes are not just bouncing around among like-minded conspiracy theorists; candidates and elected officials are sharing them, too. Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, on Thursday tweeted about people who have been paid to riot against Mr. Trump — an idea propagated by fake news stories. A man who wrote a number of false news reports told The Washington Post that Trump supporters and campaign officials often shared his false anti-Clinton posts without bothering to confirm the facts and that he believes his work may have helped elect the Republican nominee.

Abroad, the dissemination of fake news on Facebook, which reaches 1.8 billion people globally, has been a longstanding problem. In countries like Myanmar, deceptive internet content has reportedly contributed to ethnic violence. And it has influenced elections in Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere. Social media sites have also been used to spread misinformation about the referendum on the peace deal in Colombia and about Ebola in West Africa.

 Yeah ok like the NYT has never had a negative influence on an election before.

 The crap piece end finally "Facebook says it is working on weeding out such fabrications. It said last Monday that it would no longer place Facebook-powered ads on fake news websites, a move that could cost Facebook and those fake news sites a lucrative source of revenue. Earlier on the same day, Google said it would stop letting those sites use its ad placement network. These steps would help, but Facebook, in particular, owes its users, and democracy itself, far more.

Hey umm NYT you all know about losing money big time so look in the mirror might I remind you morons about how you took over a BILLION $$ loss in selling another piece of shit paper you once owned the Boston Globe. Oh how soon we forget.

Facebook has demonstrated that it can effectively block content like click-bait articles and spam from its platform by tweaking its algorithms, which determine what links, photos and ads users see in their news feeds. Nobody outside the company knows exactly how its software works and why you might see posts shared by some of your friends frequently and others rarely. Recently, the company acknowledged that it had allowed businesses to target or exclude users for ads for housing, employment and credit based on their ethnicity, in apparent violation of anti-discrimination laws. It has said it will stop that practice.

Facebook managers are constantly changing and refining the algorithms, which means the system is malleable and subject to human judgment. This summer, Facebook decided to show more posts from friends and family members in users’ news feeds and reduce stories from news organizations, because that’s what it said users wanted. If it can do that, surely its programmers can train the software to spot bogus stories and outwit the people producing this garbage.

Blocking misinformation will help protect the company’s brand and credibility. Some platforms have suffered when they have failed to address users’ concerns. Twitter users, for instance, have backed away from that platform because of abusive trolling, threatening posts and hate speech, which the company hasn’t been able to control.

Mr. Zuckerberg himself has spoken at length about how social media can help improve society. In a 2012 letter to investors, he said it could “bring a more honest and transparent dialogue around government that could lead to more direct empowerment of people, more accountability for officials and better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time.”

None of that will happen if he continues to let liars and con artists hijack his platform.

Editors note

Just to remind my readers that it has been a known fact that Mark "Sucker" Zuckerberg is a known liberal piece of shit because he has blocked people on his as the NYT puts it "platform" aka facebook

of those who have a different political position than his.

NYT Bashing Trump's Cabinet Picks

Editorial

  Well now that the establishment got its ass handed to them in the 2016 Presidential election with a Donald Trump victory now the New York Times through their little hissy fits they are now attacking the picks of the PRESIDENT-elects cabinet.

 For example this morning in their lead OPED "Jeff Sessions as Attorney General: An Insult to Justice" the little hissy fit.

 Their bitching begins "In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Jeff Sessions, then a United States attorney from Alabama, to be a federal judge. The Republican-controlled Senate rejected Mr. Sessions out of concern, based on devastating testimony by former colleagues, that he was a racist.

Three decades later, Mr. Sessions, now a veteran Alabama senator, is on the verge of becoming the nation’s top law-enforcement official, after President-elect Donald Trump tapped him on Friday to be attorney general.

It would be nice to report that Mr. Sessions, who is now 69, has conscientiously worked to dispel the shadows that cost him the judgeship. Instead, the years since his last confirmation hearing reveal a pattern of dogged animus to civil rights and the progress of black Americans and immigrants.

 Umm wrong NYT the Democrats were in charge of the US Senate in 1986 and Jeff Sessions is not a racist by the way. He will be a great US Attorney General way better than the screwed up DOJ right now under the last two bigots Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

 The rant goes on "Based on his record, we can form a fairly clear picture of what his Justice Department would look like:

For starters, forget about aggressive protection of civil rights, and of voting rights in particular. Mr. Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a “piece of intrusive legislation.” Under him, the department would most likely focus less on prosecutions of minority voter suppression and more on rooting out voter fraud, that hallowed conservative myth. As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Sessions brought voter-fraud charges against three civil rights workers trying to register black voters in rural Alabama. The prosecution turned up 14 allegedly doctored ballots out of 1.7 million cast, and the jury voted to acquit.

Forget, also, any federal criminal-justice reform, which was on the cusp of passage in Congress before Mr. Trump’s “law and order” campaign. Mr. Sessions strongly opposed bipartisan legislation to scale back the outrageously harsh sentences that filled federal prisons with low-level drug offenders. Instead, he called for more mandatory-minimum sentences and harsher punishments for drug crimes. The one bright spot was his working with Democrats to reduce the 100-to-1 disparity between punishments for crack and powder cocaine offenses.

 Obviously a better record than the far left has done.
   It ends "But Mr. Sessions can do plenty of damage without any congressional action. As attorney general, he would set the guidelines prosecutors follow in deciding what cases and charges to bring. In 2013, Eric Holder Jr. ordered his prosecutors to avoid the most severe charges in low-level nonviolent drug cases, which has helped cut the number of absurdly long sentences for minor players. Mr. Sessions could reverse that with the stroke of a pen. He could just as easily reverse Mr. Holder’s decision not to interfere with state marijuana laws, likely ramping up prosecutions even as states continue to legalize the drug for medicinal or recreational use. “Good people don’t smoke marijuana,” he said at a Senate hearing in April.Mr. Sessions has been the Senate’s most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump’s chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants.

Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.

Donald Trump ran a presidential campaign that stoked white racial resentment. His choice for attorney general — which, like his other early choices, has been praised by white supremacists — embodies that worldview. We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’s views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.

  It good to reverse the perverse ways of the current DOJ which has been nothing but a bunch of hack leftists.