Attorney General Confirmation Hearing - Jeff Session

Live now.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?420932...n-hearing&live


Around 02:05:37, he basically dodged and gave a none-answer to Sen Durbins question about what would be done with DACA recipients. He responded in a general way about addressing the issue though legislation - at which point Durbin pointed out that he stood against the most recent bi-partisan effort.

Durbin ended his query by emphasizing that such a view would leave DREAMERS in the lurch, and that Sessions did not answer his question.

To which Sessions responded: "It was a answer".

Correction: Durbins question starts at 02:12:21

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 WHO CAN CANNOT BE DEPORED FOR TWO YEARS RENEWABLE AND CAN WORK FOR TWO YEARS AND YOU SAID LET CONGRESS PASS A COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REPERFORMANCE BILL. YOU OPPOSED THE ONLY BIPARTISAN EFFORT WE'VE HAD ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN MODERN MEMORY AND WHAT'S 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?

Sessions:>> WELL, THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT MY RESPONSE TO SENATOR GRAHAM THAT WHAT WOEZ RESPONSIBILITY THIS IS. I HAD AN RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY I BELIEVE IT WAS CORRECT ON DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT'S NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ROLE. IT'S TO ENFORSCE THE LAW. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ABLE FINANCIALLY OR ANY OTHER WAY TO SEEK OUT AND REMOOUFVE EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INDICATED THAT CRIMINAL ALIENS ARE THE TOP GROUP OF PEOPLE AND SO, I WOULD THINK THAT THE BEST THING FOR US TO DO AND I WOULD URGE COLLEAGUES THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS, LET'S FIX THIS SYSTEM. AND THEN WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AFTER THIS LAWLESSNESS HAS BEEN ENDED, AND THEN WE COULD ASK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ENTER INTO A DIALOGUE ABOUT HOW TO COMPASSIONATELY TREAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME

Durbin:>> THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT 800,000. THAT WOULD BE LEFT IN THE LURCH, WHOSE LIVES WOULD BE RUINED WHILE WAITING ON CONGRESS FOR A BILL YOU OPPOSED.

Sessions: >> WELL, I THOUGHT IT DID ANSWER IT PRETTY CLOSELY FROM WHAT YOU ASKED AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.

well he will get the nomination, and we still do not know the future of the DACA Program, guess we will know by/on Friday January 20th.

Grahm:>> IMMIGRATION. YOU'VE SAID THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, YOU BELIEVE IS IS UN[CO]NSTITUTIONAL. THE DACA LAW. DO YOU STILL HAVE THIS POSITION?

Sessions:>> I DID. FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

Grahm:>> I'M NOT BEING -- I AGREE WITH YOU. NOW WE GOT 800,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME OUT OF THE SHADOWS THAT HAVE BEEN SIGNED UP. WILL YOU ADVISE THE NEXT PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, TO REPEAL THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER?


Sessions:>> THAT WILL BE A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE STUDIED AND HE WOULD NEED TO ADWREE TO. BUT IT'S AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, REALLY A MEMORANDUM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. IT WOULD BE [UN]CONSTITUTIONAL. I BELIEVE TO END THAT ORDER. AND I WOULD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE I THINK COULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A DECISION TO BAN IN THAT ORDER BECAUSE IT IS VERY QUESTIONABLE IN MY OPINION [UN]CONSTITUTIONAL.

G:>> ONCE WE REPEAL IT AND I AGREE, THAT IT IS AN OVERREACH, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE 800,000 KIDS WHO HAVE COME OUT OF THE SHADOWS?

S:>> FUNDAMENTALLY, WE NEED TO FIX THIS IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. IT'S NOT BEEN WORKING RIGHT. WE'VE ENTERED MORE AND MORE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ILLEGALLY INTO THE COUNTRY. EACH ONE OF THEM PRODUCES SOME SORT OF HUMANITARIAN CONCERN. BUT IT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR CHILDREN. SO, WE'VE BEEN PLACED IN A BAD SITUATION. I REALLY WOULD URGE US ALL TO WORK TOGETHER. I WOULD TRY TO BE SUPPORTIVE.

*This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

He will very likely be confirmed. Only need 50 to pass - Republicans have 52. Besides, most Senators, even Democrats, will defer out of collegiality and decorum.

After all I think the decision maker is really the head of DHS, right? So Sessions opinion is only that an opinion, and I think the real decision maker is the head of DHS.

Sessions:>> THAT WILL BE A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE STUDIED AND HE WOULD NEED TO ADWREE TO. BUT IT'S AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, REALLY A MEMORANDUM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. IT WOULD BE [UN]CONSTITUTIONAL. I BELIEVE TO END THAT ORDER. AND I WOULD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE I THINK COULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A DECISION TO BAN IN THAT ORDER BECAUSE IT IS VERY QUESTIONABLE IN MY OPINION [UN]CONSTITUTIONAL.

What?

Its a rough transcript. Like captions in a Youtube video. Scroll down and read it for yourself. I listened to it live and made corrections to make it more intelligible. You can read the corrected final transcript or playback when it is published.

Recommend listening if you can.

I agree.

Anxiously waiting for Gen. John Kelly confirmation hearing.

A decision that Needs to be studied? What, but trump was screaming to the moon and back that he was getting rid of every EO on day one! Now they have to study them lol you know what's funny though most conservatives probably don't know that obama passed an EO to make sure federal funding wouldn't be used on abortions through the ACA.