trump wishes for him to do. but because there have been some concerns, because there has been some unorthodox statements that have been made, because, you know, the world has been what it is. i mean, the united states leadership and the world has been much lesser than it s been in the past. there s been a lot of consternation about a lot of things. the current administration, where does the future administration go, how do they feel about alliances around the world. what people are going to be looking for is how is he going to influence the president, even though at the end of the day he may not win the case. senator, are you at all concerned that mr. tillerson as a former executive of a major oil company has not been one to view the world in terms of the issues that you care about a great deal when it comes to sovereignty, democracy, human rights? i don t mean that as a criticism of him. it just hasn t been his job.
that is the reason you have preclearance, and that is the reason that you can t rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. mr. chairman, i voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension 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 have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. the supreme court found that that no longer could be
who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. is that accurate, senator sessions? i think it is, yes. that s exactly what i intended to do. it actually occurred before i became united states attorney. wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. 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, burt glenn and barry kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant thomas figures in my office, broke that case and i thought they deserve 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, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it.
unsustainable. now, north carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? north carolina states would be. it would have been. i would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that s what i suppose they filed the action under in this case. it just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. and as the supreme court has said and i didn t mean that in any pejorative way. i was asked, do you believe it s intrusive, is that correct? i said it is intrusive. but the voting it said this is 1986. but the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem announcer: this is cnn breaking news. we re going to break away from the confirmation hearings for some breaking news on the charleston church massacre
from interfering like this in the future, beyond obviously improving our cyber security? well, obviously that s it. we ve got to protect ourselves. but, look, you have no jake, we ve talked about scenarios as far as where this can go. and again, it s all about hardening. you can think about a case, for instance, where jake tapper, reporter, happens to be giving an individual a hard time and, so, they get into your computer which is easily done and put materials in there that discredit you and cause you all of a sudden not to be someone that people want to listen to any more, or your reputation is there s all kind of directions that this could go. and, jake, you know that sophisticated governments use hacking to get information. that happens all around the