The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominations of key Trump Administration nominees.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Today, we're meeting to consider the nominations of John Sauer to serve as Solicitor General,
00:05Hermit Dillon to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,
00:11and Aaron Wright to serve as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy.
00:17Each of these nominees is highly qualified for their positions.
00:22I spoke about their qualifications at the hearing, so I'm not going to repeat those today.
00:28I think the President made good choices for these positions, and obviously, I'm going to support
00:34them. I would like to address an issue that was raised during my hearing and the week afterwards.
00:42My Democratic colleagues and the liberal media kept suggesting that President Trump and his
00:48attorneys won't follow court orders. I'd like to review facts on this subject with you.
00:56In the few weeks since he's been in office, President Trump has been overwhelmed by decisions
01:03from individual district judges that encroach on core constitutional powers.
01:12Nevertheless, he and his administration have worked diligently to abide by those orders,
01:18no matter how outrageous, by appealing them and challenging their scope and reach,
01:24and the President has been explicit in his views because this is what he said,
01:29quote, I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we will appeal, end of quote.
01:37At their hearing, my colleagues badgered the nominees with hypotheticals,
01:44criticizing Mr. Reitz for saying there's no, quote, hard and fast rule, end quote,
01:52in determining the scope of a lawful court order and applicability of court orders to non-parties.
02:01As Mr. Reitz explained in his testimony, his response was about, quote, the role of the courts
02:10and their ability to bind parties that are not litigants to the case, end of quote, and another
02:16attorney who makes this exact same argument was President Biden's Solicitor General, Elizabeth
02:24Preloger, who wrote, quote, a court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it,
02:32end of quote. I didn't hear any comments about a constitutional crisis when President Biden's
02:39attorneys made the same point that Mr. Reitz did. The nominees expressed a legal argument,
02:46a correct one in my view, that judicial decisions are limited to the parties before them and that
02:52there are limits to the court's jurisdiction. I think we all agree that parties, including the
02:58President, are generally bound by federal court orders, but surely my colleagues aren't taking
03:03the extreme position that our system of checks and balances allows for no room to challenge the
03:10scope of the rulings or the ones that encroach on constitutional rights or separation of power.
03:18Our history teaches that in extreme cases, there may even be grounds to defy a court decision.
03:26Think about Dred Scott as an example. President Lincoln defied the Supreme Court by issuing
03:32passports and patents to black Americans. Federal courts have also issued direct orders to federal
03:39marshals ordering the return of fugitive slaves. If an official refused to follow that order,
03:46I would call that justice and a feature of our system of checks and balances.
03:51I'm sure my colleagues would agree, which shows that this issue isn't as binary as they suggest.
03:57All three of our nominations should be supported. I also want to take a moment to update my
04:04colleagues about my investigative work. Last Congress, I opened an investigation into the
04:10Obama-Biden administration of obstruction of FBI efforts against Iran's weapons of mass
04:18destruction and ballistic missile programs. That investigation was based in a large part on
04:25whistleblower disclosures. On Tuesday last week, I released a committee report with my results.
04:33My report highlights the following. Then Secretary Kerry prevented the FBI from arresting known
04:40Iranian terrorists. And so you can ask the question, why? Because he thought it would
04:46interfere with the Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal. Records show that as arrest opportunities passed,
04:58one FBI official wrote, quote, we're all besides ourselves on asking the question to stand down
05:06on a layup arrest. However, as it stands right now, we'll have to sit back and wait until all
05:12the U.S. and Iran negotiations resolve themselves, end of quote. Whistleblowers told my office, quote,
05:20the State Department and Obama-Biden administration officials persistently
05:27and systemically derailed criminal and national security investigations, end of quote. An email
05:36from Shell Oil Company to FBI said that Trump 2060 election win negatively impacted their ability
05:44to do business in Iran. Shell told the FBI, quote, we were in talks with a Japanese bank to handle
05:52the funds, but they recently backed off, unofficially citing the coming Trump presidency.
06:00European banks feeling the same way, end of quote. It wasn't until Trump took office that the FBI
06:07returned to normal law enforcement activities against Iran. My colleagues have complained
06:13that the Trump administration has upended the FBI. These records show that the Obama-Biden
06:21administration was the one that did that. Without objection, I'd like to enter into the record
06:27recent editorial about my report, titled, quote, Barack Obama, John Kerry's work for Iran
06:35shows Russiagate was a pure projection, end of quote. The editorial concludes, quote, for years
06:43America endured screeches and screams from the left about Donald Trump's servitude to foreign
06:50powers. Turns out Democrats were simply projecting, end of quote. It's no secret that I've been one of
06:57the loudest critics of the FBI, but credit has to be given when it is due. In the face of failed
07:05DOJ and FBI leadership, my report shows FBI line agents made the right effort for this senator.
07:15To those agents, I say thank you. Senator Durbin.
07:19Thanks, Chairman Grassley. Let me address the issue which you raised in your opening remarks,
07:24because I think it is a critical issue before this Congress and one which we
07:30have not settled within this committee, as we should have.
07:36You will recall, of course, that when these three nominees were before this committee,
07:41a number of us asked pointedly whether they believed that a public official was bound to
07:46follow an order of the court. And I was surprised, maybe even shocked a little,
07:54that they didn't say unequivocally yes. This morning, again, a question has been raised by
08:00the chairman as to what the appropriate answer is. We have had members of the committee opine
08:08on this subject. I think we ought to dwell on it at least for a moment because of its gravity.
08:15This question gets to the very heart of our constitutional democracy.
08:19If the Article III courts cannot expect their orders to be followed by an executive,
08:27then virtually there is no check or balance on that executive's decision making.
08:32And I think I have to say the person I thought spoke with clarity on this issue was Senator
08:38Kennedy on the Republican side from Louisiana. And he said, don't ever, ever take the position
08:46that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court, ever. He said, you can criticize
08:53it, you can appeal it, or you can resign. I think that comment by him spelled out my opinion as
09:01well, that anyone who questions an order of the court has limited opportunity to do it in a legal
09:10fashion and a constitutional fashion. It's often noted that when Joe Biden as president came up
09:18with a program to forgive student loans, the court rejected it. He said he disagreed with that
09:23court decision and he took another approach. At no time was he found in contempt of the court
09:30for their earlier decision or anything that he did subsequently. Now, we've gone back in history
09:36to find some pretty terrible decisions by the court. Some of the worst have been noted even
09:40this morning, the Dred Scott decision being one of them. And the notion that because it was so
09:45inherently wrong that it didn't have to be followed. I don't believe that that was the lesson
09:52of Dred Scott. I believe the lesson was stated clearly by Senator Kennedy and his interpretation
09:59of this issue which is before us. And I would just say that it raises a question in my mind,
10:06what if someone said Brown v. Board of Education calling for the integration of America's public
10:10schools is morally reprehensible to me and I'm not going to follow it? Well, if you take that
10:16position and try as an elected official to hold to it, you will be held personally responsible
10:22for a decision in contradiction of the court. I also say that I'm sorry that what I offered on
10:28the floor was not accepted. To say that you only have to follow a lawful court order is to engage
10:36in the most circular semantics possible. Marbury v. Madison made it clear that the courts decide
10:42what the law is. That has been the standing premise since that 1803 decision. And now to say
10:51you only have to follow a lawful court order, who decides whether it's lawful? Marbury said the
10:56courts decide. Is someone suggesting there's someone else who decides what's lawful? If so,
11:02if it happens to be the executive branch, you've just defeated the purpose of judicial review and
11:06the rule of law. I don't think this is a minor issue. I think this issue goes to the heart of
11:11our Constitution and checks and balances. And I believe it's legitimate to raise it with the
11:16nominees of either party because it is so fundamental. Let me add as follows on a different
11:24topic. It was just over a month ago that we confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi. It's been
11:29only three weeks since we confirmed Kash Patel with the FBI. In that time, Bondi and Patel have
11:35plowed through many of the guardrails that protect us from the Justice Department and the FBI's
11:41vast investigative and prosecutorial authority being used as weapons against the American people.
11:48During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Bondi said, and I quote, I believe that the Justice Department
11:53must be independent and must act independently. And then she said, politics will not play a part.
12:01Now that she's been confirmed, we're hearing something different. Last week in an interview
12:05on Fox television with Sean Hannity, the Attorney General said, and I quote,
12:11we are still trying to find a lot of people in the FBI and also in the Department of Justice
12:17who despise Donald Trump, despise us. We're going to root them out. We will find them,
12:23and they will no longer be employed, end of quote. That does not sound like a declaration
12:28of independence and apolitical conduct from the Justice Department. During her confirmation
12:34hearing, Attorney General Bondi was asked about potential conflicts of interest with her many
12:39wealthy lobbying clients, including Amazon, Pfizer, the private prison company, Geo Group,
12:45and the governor of Qatar. The Attorney General pledged under oath to us, and I quote,
12:50to consult with career ethics officials within the department. We know what happened next.
12:56Senator Schiff has raised this issue. Trump officials replaced the Justice Department's
13:01longstanding senior career ethics officials with two inexperienced political appointees.
13:08This is a dramatic departure from practice under previous administrations,
13:12including the first Trump administration. Just last week, in his first day on the job,
13:17Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche destroyed two additional guardrails. He removed the senior
13:23career officials who headed the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office
13:28of Pardon Attorney. It's not hard to imagine how corrupting these changes will be. Political
13:34appointees now have sole discretion making responsibility on matters relating to ethics,
13:39employee discipline, and whistleblower complaints, among other things. Now the Attorney General
13:44doesn't want to recuse herself from deciding whether to grant a contract to detain immigrants
13:49to her former client, Geo Group. She just needs to check with a political appointee who reports
13:55to her. And if Todd Blanche does not want to recuse himself from a decision regarding his
14:00former client, President Trump, he just needs to check with the political appointee who reports
14:06to him. If Attorney General Bondi wants to fire prosecutors because they won't participate
14:11in a corrupt bargain like dismissing charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams in exchange
14:17for his political cooperation, she just needs to check with a political appointee who reports to
14:22her. If she wants to kill an ethics investigation into her conduct or any other political appointee,
14:29she just needs to ask whoever she taps to head up the Office of Professional Responsibility.
14:34During his confirmation hearing, Kash Patel claimed that he didn't know anything about the
14:38purge of senior career FBI officials. He promised if confirmed, and I quote,
14:44to honor the internal review process of the FBI before removing additional officials. Of course,
14:50we now know from highly credible sources that Mr. Patel was personally directing the removal of some
14:55of these senior officials as a private citizen. Since he was confirmed, Mr. Patel has continued
15:02the purge. He has installed political loyalists in numerous critical positions,
15:07including for the first time in history, a deputy director who is a political appointee,
15:12mega podcaster Dan Bongino, serving as general counsel, head of congressional affairs,
15:17and head of public affairs. And my staff also learned that Patel is slashing staffing for FBI
15:24offices with critical expertise and responsibility, including the Civil Rights Unit and the Public
15:30Corruption Unit. I commend to my colleagues the floor statement made by Senator Chris Murphy
15:36on this issue of corruption. I think it was well worth everyone taking a look at.
15:41Keep in mind in the FBI's long history, this has never happened before. Never. The FBI historically
15:47has had only one political appointee, the director. Now Kash Patel is politicizing the ranks of the
15:54FBI to go after President Trump's enemies. Remember, Trump himself has said, I have the
16:00absolute right to do what I want with the Justice Department. He's promised to seek retribution
16:05against, quote, the enemy within, close quote. Just as important, the leadership and experience
16:11vacuum created by this purge has weakened the Justice Department and the FBI. Trump appointees
16:17have removed dozens of senior career civil servants at those departments, including long-time
16:23nonpartisan leaders of our counterterrorism and counterespionage effort. These career civil
16:29servants are responsible for coordinating the Justice Department and FBI's fight against
16:33terrorism. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that our nation will pay a price sooner rather than later
16:38for these decisions. I yield. Okay. I would like to move to the nominees now.
16:47May I say something before we do, Chairman? Proceed. I want to raise to all of my colleagues
16:57an issue that I have with what's happening over at the DOJ and the FBI, and it relates to these
17:04two nominees because of my view that the two lead nominees here are essentially Trump operatives
17:12who will be far more loyal to Trump personally and to the political movement that Trump leads
17:19and to Trump donors than they will to the Constitution or the institutions that they will
17:24serve. We've heard a lot about weaponization of the Department of Justice and of other
17:31prosecutive efforts, but if you actually look at the trail of those, they went through proper
17:36procedures. They went through grand juries. They reached jury determinations in some cases.
17:41There's no indication that they're actually violating the traditions and the guardrails
17:49of a prosecution. So now let me just tell you about one thing. I've been looking into this
17:54in my role as the ranking member on the Environment Public Works Committee. There is a fund that was
18:02set up under the Biden administration. It was put in place in the summer, well before the election.
18:10It involved putting a substantial fund into the hands of Citibank as the fiscal agent
18:17to administer the distribution of funds to the program grantees. It was not a midnight deal
18:25where this was suddenly, you know, shoved out in the waning hours of the Biden administration
18:30as a new administration came in. This was done through regular order and now the fund is sitting
18:36out there. Ed Martin is the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Before he became the U.S.
18:44attorney, he critiqued politically that fund. He attacked politically that fund. Then he comes in
18:53as U.S. attorney and here's what happens. The first thing that happens is that because there's no
19:00remaining claim against that fund, unless you can hypothesize that there is a crime that has
19:07going on and that you can therefore freeze the fund while you're continuing the investigation
19:13of the crime, they tried to create an imaginary crime. And they asked the grand jury
19:24to take a look at this, to open a grand jury investigation. The lead career chief of the
19:30criminal division said, no, there's no crime here. There's no predication for a grand jury
19:36investigation. I won't do that. They tried to get her to sign a seizure letter, a freeze letter,
19:43which would be what you would get once you had a grand jury investigation in place.
19:48And she said not only no to the grand jury investigation, she said no to the freeze letter.
19:52And I ask unanimous consent that her letter about this be put into the record so everybody has a
19:58chance to see it here. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. It is extraordinarily unusual
20:06for that to happen. And the result of it was that she was fired. Not that they said, okay,
20:12you're right. No, she was fired so that somebody more complacent could be put in her place.
20:18So they evidently shopped this effort around the U.S. attorney's office and nobody
20:27would sign it. So the U.S. attorney went forward on his own. I've been a U.S. attorney. It is
20:33extremely unusual for a U.S. attorney to proceed in his own or her own name. Your name is on the
20:43pleadings, but the actual AUSA who's doing the work is usually the person who is the moving
20:51individual and whose name is signed on the pleadings. Your name is on it, but you're not
20:56the party, the individual going forward. He went forward individually. That is wildly unusual. And
21:02what's even more unusual is the guy's not even a federal prosecutor. He has no experience. It
21:06wasn't like he had some rare and special expertise that the office didn't have so he would go
21:12forward on his own. So you've got a fired person. You've got shopping it around unsuccessfully.
21:17You've got the political U.S. attorney going after this fake criminal investigation to get
21:23access to a freeze of the fund that he previously criticized as a political civilian. And it gets
21:32better still from there because when he went forward seeking the order from the magistrate
21:38judge, the magistrate judge said no. Magistrate judges almost never say no to those kind of
21:47pleadings from U.S. attorney's offices because no U.S. attorney's office wants to put a magistrate
21:53judge in a position where they have to say no. You double and triple check. You backstop. You
21:58do not present something like that to a judge until you have it nailed down. And in my office,
22:05if we had pursued a warrant or seizure application and a judge had said no, there would be a
22:12significant follow-up internally about what the hell went wrong because you never, never, never
22:19want to put a magistrate judge in the position where they have to say no to something that we
22:24have asked for. It's a failure of preparation at best. So now, in addition, you have
22:32you've got the improper effort to pursue the fake crime. You force out the person who said no,
22:40there's no crime here. You try to shop it around the office and nobody else will sign. You then
22:45have the weirdness of the U.S. attorney proceeding essentially solo with no record of experience as
22:52a federal prosecutor. So he's clearly just flailing about. He goes before the magistrate
22:57judge. The magistrate judge says no. And it still doesn't end. Then reportedly the
23:02Department of Justice starts shopping it to other U.S. attorneys' offices. They'd completely blown
23:08up in this office. They had a bad ruling from a judge and they keep shopping it to try to find
23:13other U.S. attorneys' offices. And apparently, nobody would do it. There's still no order out
23:19there. But Kash Patel's FBI agents are now running around asking people questions.
23:27I hear it's under the authority of a U.S. attorney's office in Florida.
23:32The parties involved are the EPA, Washington, D.C., Citibank, headquartered in New York. If
23:37they had to shop it all the way down the East Coast to Florida to find a U.S. attorney's office
23:43that was willing to turn FBI agents loose, again, that's a sign of things going badly,
23:48badly awry from proper Department of Justice procedure. And when you begin with the U.S.
23:55attorney saying, I don't like this fund. I want to go after this fund. This fund isn't proper.
23:59Before he even gets in office, not a prosecutor, starts bumbling around and wrecking things trying
24:05to get this done. This is a trail of misuse and abuse of the criminal justice system whose purpose
24:18is to create the illusion of criminal activity so they can freeze a fund that has already been
24:23appropriated and obligated and has been sitting out there since last summer for people who have
24:29made real commitments based on the grants that they were expecting. There's a bus company we
24:35heard from yesterday. They've ordered parts for the new buses that were going to be bought.
24:40They have a supply chain people who are depending on them. They are having to deal with financing,
24:46refinancing the company because the pledged money is not coming through. This whole thing
24:54completely stinks to high heaven. And I would like to, for the sake of this committee, I want to put
24:59my letter to the attorney general and to Kash Patel into the record. This was done out of the
25:05Environment Public Works Committee, so you may not have seen it yet, but this explains what has gone
25:11wrong. If you want to find weaponization of the Department of Justice, look no further than this.
25:18Guardrail after guardrail after guardrail broken. Without objection. And I thank you for allowing
25:24me the time, Mr. Chairman. This is important to me. It covers two of my committees, and as a former U.S.
25:30attorney, I can tell you every single one of these is a really sickening warning sign, and there are
25:35multiple warning signs. Before I call on Senator Coons, are we going to be able to get our members
25:41here? Okay. In regard to what I just said to Republican staff, our members are supposed to
25:53be here by a certain time, and I hope that's well before 10.30. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
26:00I'm just going to follow up on one of the points just made by my colleague. Since the inauguration
26:06of President Trump, my colleagues and I have sent five oversight letters to the Department of Justice
26:13and the FBI. A letter to DOJ asking to review the Jack Smith report, no response. A letter to DOJ
26:22and FBI about the purge of FBI agents, no response. A letter to Attorney General Bondi asking the DOJ
26:28retain Eric Adams' case records, no response. A letter to AG Bondi about the reassignment of
26:35career DOJ and FBI employees, no response. Mr. Chairman, I've long respected your dogged pursuit
26:42of responses to your DOJ oversight letters. I hope you will help my colleagues and I get
26:47responses to our letters. I also look forward to this committee beginning oversight hearings.
26:53In the first months of the Biden administration, then-Chairman Durbin scheduled an FBI oversight
26:59hearing for March 2021 and a Bureau of Prisons oversight hearing for April of 2021. We should be
27:06conducting hearings on the same timeline during this administration. I want to speak to these
27:12three nominees briefly, if I could, at a time when DOJ independence from the White House is
27:18critical, given everything that's just been discussed by my colleague from Rhode Island.
27:23President Trump has sent us a slate of nominees on our agenda today that I cannot trust
27:29stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Two of today's nominees are quite literally
27:34on Trump's payroll. John Sauer is still representing Trump in the Second Circuit.
27:39Harmeet Dhillon earned millions over the last two years from representing Trump
27:43and his campaign and is representing him as a private attorney right now. These are the people
27:49we expect to pursue justice for all Americans, rather than the demands of a client who has been
27:55paying them for years. Those checks don't come because nominees Sauer and Dhillon tell Trump,
28:01no. They come because they tell him, yes. And Aaron writes, he refused to say the Trump
28:07administration needs to abide by court orders. In my view, his answer was disqualifying on its own.
28:13But I want to briefly highlight his response to one of my questions for the record. I asked him
28:19in writing, what is the remedy if the President violates his constitutional duty to faithfully
28:24execute the law? This is not a hard question or an unprecedented one. Attorney General Bondi got
28:30it right. She said a plaintiff could take the President to court. Mr. Sauer got it right. He said
28:34Congress could impeach. But Wrights didn't choose either of those appropriate answers. He said
28:40regularly scheduled presidential elections. Just think about that for a moment. The person who wants
28:46to help run the Department of Justice says there is no justice to be done when the President refuses
28:52to follow the law. According to Wrights, if the President acts lawlessly, the only option is to
28:59sit here and take it for four years, hoping the next election will bring some relief. Now, I'm not
29:06naive. I know my colleagues are going to vote to confirm these nominees. That means the oversight
29:12of DOJ is all the more important. Thus, my concern about making sure that our letters get a response
29:18and that this committee holds oversight hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
29:25Senator from Hawaii. Thank you very much. All three of the nominees before us present major
29:31concerns about whether or not they ought to be confirmed. Obviously, I do not think they
29:36ought to be confirmed. I would like to focus on Ms. Dillon. She is nominated to be the lead of
29:42the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. This is the division that is supposed
29:46to be protecting our right to vote. What could be more important than our citizens' right to vote?
29:54The Civil Rights Division was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, specifically designed
30:02to protect the right to vote and prevent states from interfering with voting rights. Remember,
30:08there was a time when people couldn't vote in this country. Blacks were told,
30:14you have to count how many beans are in a jar before they could vote. It was just
30:19horrifying, the barriers that were placed in front of people's right to vote. We passed the Civil
30:25Rights Division. Then, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County, some 13 states immediately
30:32began to pass legislation. Well, the Shelby County decision basically eviscerated the Voting Rights
30:38Act. Some 13 states immediately began to pass legislation that would make it harder for people
30:45to vote. That is why we have the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General's Office.
30:50Ms. Dillon is not the person that's going to enforce our right to vote laws. In fact, quite the
30:54contrary. She is just yet another example of someone who's placed in a position of leadership
31:03and responsibility to do something that they have no intention of doing. She raises severe
31:11concerns for me because an individual's right to vote is, in my view, one of the most important
31:17rights that we need to protect. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee as well
31:25as the other two. Senator Schiff. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. I want to begin by setting the backdrop
31:34for the nominees we're considering today. The backdrop is the creation of a narrative around
31:42the weaponization of the Department of Justice. The reason for this narrative is the need by the
31:49president to explain why he's the first president in history to be indicted multiple times.
31:54The most significant indictment, of course, was the president's role in the January 6th insurrection.
32:01The subsequent indictment or the additional indictment on the sequestering of boxes of
32:10classified documents in Mar-a-Lago, the obstruction of that investigation, cumulatively require the
32:15president to have an explanation for why he's the first president in history to be multiply
32:20indicted. Not just the fact of the indictment, but the fact that multiple grand juries
32:27revealing the evidence found probable cause to believe the president of the United States had
32:31committed many, many crimes. In order to explain that, the president has to create this narrative
32:38that the Justice Department was somehow improperly weaponized against him. Because he's the only
32:45president in history to be indicted multiple times, what other explanation could there be?
32:49Well, sometimes the simplest explanation is the most accurate, and the simple explanation here is
32:56he's the first president to commit these crimes while in office.
33:00And nevertheless, this narrative that has been created around the weaponization of the department,
33:06the fact that the department, far from weaponizing the use of justice, chose to treat the president
33:14like any other American, neither better nor worse, that is, they didn't give him immunity to violate
33:20the criminal laws. Had they decided that they would indict the people who attacked the Capitol
33:26and beat police officers, the people who conspired to make it happen but give a pass to the one who
33:33incited it, had they decided that if other employees in the intelligence community elsewhere brought
33:38boxes of classified documents home, that they would be prosecuted, but if a president did it,
33:45they would be treated differently. It would have meant the renunciation of the whole idea that no
33:52one is above the law. So they followed the law, and the law led to Donald Trump. But this narrative
33:58they have created also serves another purpose, and that is it allows them, in Orwellian fashion,
34:03to do what they have accused others of doing but have accused falsely, and that is it allows them
34:09to weaponize the department, to use the department as a sword and as a shield. Now as Sheldon Whitehouse
34:15has so ably described, they're using it as a sword to try to create criminal cases where none exists,
34:22as a predicate to, in the case of this environmental fund, to try to shut it down, to go after it.
34:30Where there is no probable cause, they ask multiple prosecutors and multiple magistrates to open
34:36an investigation, and finding no probable cause, they did their ethical duty and said, no, it simply
34:41doesn't exist. And so they're fired, and the case is shopped from prosecutor to prosecutor to prosecutor,
34:48from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in an effort to use the department as a sword, to go after either
34:56programs the president doesn't like or political enemies. We have seen letters go out from the D.C.,
35:02the acting U.S. attorney in D.C., to Democratic members of Congress intended to chill their speech,
35:08intended to use the department as yet another vehicle of the president's power. But of course
35:16they're not just using it as a sword, but they're also using it as a shield.
35:23And here we see that on graphic display in New York, where the Justice Department has intervened
35:30in a serious, serious criminal case involving the mayor of New York, a corruption case,
35:35a bribery case, and moved to dismiss it. And why? Because the mayor is useful. He's useful to them
35:43in an unrelated policy matter, and that is immigration. So they move to dismiss the case,
35:48and not just dismiss it, but dismiss it without prejudice, meaning
35:52they want to keep that case hanging over his head like a sword of Damocles,
35:57that should the mayor stop doing the president's bidding, they will let it drop.
36:03Is this where we are now, where the Justice Department can be so blatantly used
36:08as a mode of intimidation, as a mode of control, as a mode of making policy?
36:14Now what has empowered all of this is a decision by the Supreme Court that gives a president
36:20immunity from criminal liability, but most particularly says in certain core areas of
36:26responsibility the immunity is absolute. And here the Supreme Court of nine states
36:32said that when the president uses the Justice Department, he is absolutely immune.
36:39There could be no more frontal assault on the post-Watergate policy of having some division
36:44between the White House and the Justice Department than the Supreme Court of the United States saying,
36:50break down that wall, use the department any way you wish, create cases where there's no evidence,
36:59dismiss cases where there's plenty of evidence, and you will never face accountability.
37:06No matter how corrupt a motive, you will never face accountability.
37:12You could pay the president of the United States to drop a case against the foreign national,
37:18you could pay him directly, you could buy his meme coin, you could do whatever you want,
37:21and he would be immune from criminal liability under the Supreme Court's decision.
37:27This has turbocharged the ability to weaponize the Department of Justice
37:31by a president who wishes to use it for that purpose. Now we enter these
37:35nominees and others before them as the instruments of that ability to use the department.
37:43The first three top appointments all go to the president's criminal defense lawyers.
37:52Pam Bondi, who represented him, Todd Blanche, who represented him, John Sauer represented him,
37:58many who still represent him, many who cannot distinguish between representing him personally
38:04and representing the United States of America. I asked Mr. Sauer about his ethical obligations.
38:11I asked Mr. Blanche the same. These were two, at the time of their questioning,
38:16current lawyers for the president. Well, when they're the former lawyers for the president,
38:21they still have a continuing ethical obligation to their former client,
38:25not to injure the interests of the former client. That would demand recusal, but none were willing
38:32to commit. The most they would be willing to do is say that they will consult with the career
38:36ethics lawyers at the Department of Justice, but they're gone. They're now fellow criminal defense
38:43lawyers of Donald Trump. The inspector generals are gone, the head of the Office of Professional
38:48Responsibility gone, the career national security professionals gone, lawyers who won't bring cases
38:57where there's no evidence gone, lawyers who won't dismiss cases where there's plenty of evidence
39:02gone, and what is taking their place, but people who don't understand where the representation of
39:11the person of the president ends and the representation of the country should begin.
39:17I would just say that for any of us that might think that we are immune because of our positions
39:22in this body or any other, the longer we allow this to go on, the more we confirm people who
39:31will not recuse themselves, the more we expose ourselves and our very democracy
39:39to a president with no respect for the rule of law empowered by a Supreme Court that has given
39:45him no reason to fear the law. And I can't tell you where that will lead, but I can tell you it
39:51will lead to a place that will not look like a democracy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Senator Durbin,
39:58then I think we'll have members here and we can vote. Mr. Chairman. Who's calling? Go ahead, Senator
40:06Yeah, I will be very quick on a point that I hope will unite us on this committee.
40:13Simply to add to the backdrop that Senator Schiff has outlined so well,
40:19the action against law firms because of who their clients are should be chilling to every one of us
40:30on this committee. Literally, there is nothing more fundamental, and I say it as one who has
40:40been a prosecutor, has gone after some really bad, disgusting people who are entitled to be
40:49represented. If the Department of Justice is taking action against law firms, whether it is
40:57Perkins Coie or any other law firm, simply because they represented someone who is a political
41:06adversary of the president, we are in deep trouble. And I know for the broad public, this
41:15issue may seem esoteric. Lawyers are not the most popular of professions in this country, necessarily.
41:25But we know on this committee how fundamental it is for people to be represented.
41:33And this is chilling. As the judge said yesterday, she said it sent a chill down her spine
41:42that Perkins Coie was, in essence, being put out of business. A major law firm,
41:49reputable, distinguished for its past performance, just like Covington and Burling, which also was a
42:05target. And I would just ask my fellow members of this committee to join me. I am going to be
42:14writing and espousing this cause because I think it should bring us together in a bipartisan way.
42:20It isn't directly related, necessarily, to these nominees, but they will be responsible for
42:26administering a justice department that is undermining justice when it attacks lawyers
42:34simply because they have represented adversaries of the president of the United States.
42:43Sandra Dobrin. I want to join in Senator Blumenthal's remarks. I'll be happy to join
42:50in your letter as well. Our first nominee is going to be John Sauer, who is aspiring to the
42:56role of Solicitor General. It's a critical role in representing the United States before the
43:01Supreme Court. Traditionally, an apolitical appellate lawyer, Mr. Sauer, unfortunately,
43:08does not fit the mold. In the most troubling moment of his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sauer
43:14suggested that court orders need not always be followed. This is a shocking position for someone
43:20who aspires to be the so-called tenth justice, as the Solicitor General is known. There was
43:27high praise for Mr. Sauer's legal ability from at least two members of this panel,
43:32the senators from Missouri, both of whom were attorneys general of that state and worked with
43:38him. That's why it came as a surprise when the simple, direct question as to whether
43:44a public official must follow a court order was equivocated by Mr. Sauer. I aspire to the
43:51Kennedy standard, Senator Kennedy, on this panel, who established what I think is the
43:57legitimate standard when it comes to these court orders and whether they need to be followed,
44:02and I will oppose his nomination. Now we'll vote, so the clerk will call the roll on John Sauer.
44:28Mr. Grish. Aye. Mr. Cooney. Aye. Mr. Griffin. No. Mr. Whitehouse. No. Mr. Klobuchar. No. Mr. Coons.
44:42No by proxy. Mr. Klobuchar. No. Mr. Cronin. No. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No. Mr. Welch. No. Mr. Schiff. No.
44:58Chairman Bradley. Aye. On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.
45:02The nomination will be favorably reported. Now to Mrs. Dillon.
45:10Yes.
45:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Dillon is yet another of President Trump's personal attorneys
45:19nominated to senior position at the Justice Department. Her law firm's clients include
45:24the President and his campaign, and her firm has received millions of dollars, millions of dollars
45:30in legal fees from the President's team. During her hearing, she claimed that President Trump
45:35had never asked her to do anything objectionable, dismissed the prospect of the President asking
45:41her to do something illegal or unconstitutional as hypothetical. We all know this is not a
45:47hypothetical. As the head of the Civil Rights Division, Mrs. Dillon will be responsible for
45:52protecting access to the ballot by enforcing the voting rights laws, but look at her track
45:57record when it comes to protecting elections. Mrs. Dillon repeatedly questioned the outcome
46:02of legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. In November 2020, she tweeted, and I quote,
46:08stop the steal, close quote, and encouraged followers to donate to President Trump's
46:13election defense fund. The day after the 2020 election, while votes were still being counted,
46:19Mrs. Dillon infamously called for the Supreme Court to intervene and declare Trump a winner.
46:24She stated, quote, we're waiting for the United States Supreme Court, of which the President has
46:28nominated three justices, to step in and do something, and hopefully Amy Coney Barrett
46:34will come through. During her hearing, Mrs. Dillon doubled down on her election denialism,
46:39repeating her dubious claims about irregularities and so-called voter integrity.
46:44She still refuses to admit that President Biden won the 2020 election, but even beyond her
46:50concerning ties to President Trump, she has a long history of advocating for restricting
46:56civil rights, and now she's responsible for that department if she's approved. She supported
47:02voting laws that make it harder to access the ballot. She's criticized key provisions of the
47:07Voting Rights Act. Nothing in her record indicates she'll place the civil rights of American people
47:12above the President she serves. I will oppose her. Call the roll, Mr. Senator. Mr. Chairman,
47:18I just wanted to make quickly, say I'm a little confused. Senator Blumenthal made a statement,
47:26which I happen to agree with, and then the ranking member agreed with it, said basically to the
47:32effect that you shouldn't hold against a lawyer who their clients are and who they've represented,
47:39yet it seems to me to be the principal argument of our
47:42Democratic friends that these individuals are not qualified because of who their client was.
47:47Senator, call the roll. Mr. Graham. Aye. Mr. Cornyn. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye.
47:57Mr. Cruz. Aye. Mr. Foley. Aye. Mr. Tillis. Aye. Mr. Kennedy. Aye.
48:05Mrs. Blackburn. Aye. Mr. Smith. Aye. Mrs. Briggs. Aye. Mrs. Mookie. Aye. Mr. Griffiths.
48:14No.
48:15Mr. Whitehouse.
48:16No.
48:17Ms. Klugenthal.
48:18No.
48:19Mr. Coons.
48:20No by proxy.
48:21Mr. Klugenthal.
48:22No.
48:23Ms. Serrano.
48:24No.
48:25Mr. Booker.
48:26No by proxy.
48:27Sorry.
48:28Mr. Booker.
48:29I'll say it again.
48:30No by proxy.
48:31Thanks.
48:32Mr. Padilla.
48:33No.
48:34Mr. Welch.
48:35No.
48:36Mr. Schiff.
48:37No.
48:38Chairman Grassley.
48:39Aye.
48:40Mr. Blumenthal.
48:41No.
48:42Ms. Blumenthal.
48:43Aye.
48:44On his vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.
48:48Ms. Dillon will be reported.
48:50Now we have the nomination.
48:52You want to speak on this?
48:55Yeah.
48:56Go ahead and speak.
48:57Mr. Chairman, Aaron Rice has demonstrated he is not fit to serve in any role in the Department
49:01of Justice.
49:03He believes there are instances in which a public official may defy a court order that
49:08should concern every member of this committee on both sides of the table.
49:12As Senator Kennedy said to Mr. Rice during his hearing, quote, don't ever, ever take
49:17the position you're not going to follow the order of the federal court ever, close quote.
49:21I couldn't agree more.
49:23Failing to unequivocally commit to following federal court orders should disqualify any
49:29nominee before this committee.
49:31This is not only my concern.
49:33Mr. Rice attempted to hide his disturbing views on many issues, deleting approximately
49:394,000 social media posts.
49:43Nothing was off limits in his social media posts that we uncovered.
49:47The venom and self-righteousness in his posts are a fair warning of what he would bring
49:52to the Department of Justice.
49:54There was one episode involving the Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.
49:58I am not going to go into it because he publicly apologized for what he said.
50:03But there are other things of concern.
50:05I will only speak of one.
50:07Before Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd, Mr. Rice wrote, and I quote,
50:13no question in my mind, he wrote, that Chauvin is not guilty.
50:17Really?
50:18Did he see the nine minutes and 29 second video of Chauvin kneeling on Mr. Floyd's neck
50:25as he cried out for his mother?
50:27Can you ever forget the look in his eyes?
50:30Several Republican members of this committee rightfully spoke out against this heinous
50:33crime.
50:34After Chauvin was convicted, Mr. Rice called the jury decision, quote, a bogus guilty verdict,
50:40close quote.
50:42Mr. Rice's disrespect for the finality of court orders is matched by his disrespect
50:46for the finality of a jury verdict.
50:49He is unfit to lead the Office of Legal Policy and I urge my colleagues to oppose him.
50:54Mr. Chairman?
50:55Who's calling?
50:56Mr. Chairman?
50:57Yes, please, go ahead, Senator Cruz.
51:00If I could briefly respond, I will say it is rich listening to our Democrat colleagues
51:05profess their fidelity to the rule of law after four years of happily turning a blind
51:11eye to Joe Biden and the Biden Justice Department, ignoring federal law, refusing to force federal
51:17immigration law, blatantly defying the law.
51:21And ironically, the litany of false charges that the senator from Illinois just directed
51:28at Mr. Rice is really striking, but their favorite talking point is that he will defy
51:33federal court orders now.
51:35He's been a practicing lawyer for many years.
51:37He's never defied a federal court order, but I'll tell you who has, Joe Biden.
51:42And in fact, let's read what Joe Biden said in his tweet.
51:45Here's what Joe Biden said, quote, the Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student
51:50debt, but they didn't stop me.
51:54I've relieved student debt for over five million Americans.
51:57I'm going to keep going.
52:00That's the same Joe Biden they were happy to salute and listen to defy the court if
52:05it's in favor of their left wing political agenda.
52:10I will point out the aspersions ranking member Durbin just cast to Mr. Rice.
52:16He is also in the Marines as a reserve, a major in the Marines.
52:19He has fought to defend this nation and he will make an exemplary assistant attorney
52:24general at the Department of Justice.
52:27And I, for one, I'm glad we are getting officials at the Department of Justice who will follow
52:32the damn law instead of being lawless.
52:37And treating the Department of Justice and FBI as the personal enforcement arm of the
52:42Democrat National Committee.
52:44I urge everyone to vote yes, although I'm confident everyone on the left side of the
52:48aisle is going to vote no, because for all their words of the rule of law, they could
52:53not bring themselves once to demand the rule of law be followed from the Biden Justice Department.
53:00Clerk will call the roll.
53:02Mr. Graham.
53:02Aye.
53:03Mr. Cornett.
53:03Aye.
53:04Mr. Lee.
53:04Aye.
53:05Mr. Cooney.
53:05Aye.
53:06Mr. Hawley.
53:06Aye.
53:07Mr. Tilley.
53:07Aye.
53:08Mr. Kennedy.
53:08Aye.
53:09Mr. Blackburn.
53:09Aye.
53:10Mr. Smith.
53:10Aye.
53:11Mr. Britt.
53:11Aye.
53:12Mr. Moody.
53:12Aye.
53:13Mr. Durbin.
53:13No.
53:14Mr. Whitehouse.
53:14Aye.
53:15Mr. Whitehouse.
53:15Aye.
53:16Mr. Rice.
53:16Aye.
53:17Mr. Rice.
53:17Aye.
53:18Mr. Rice.
53:18Aye.
53:19Mr. Moody.
53:19Aye.
53:20Mr. Durbin.
53:20No.
53:21Mr. Whitehouse.
53:21No.
53:22Ms. Klobuchar.
53:22No.
53:23Mr. Coon.
53:23No by proxy.
53:24No by proxy.
53:24Mr. Koolendorf.
53:25No.
53:25Mr. Romanoff.
53:26No.
53:26Mr. Booker.
53:27No by proxy.
53:27Mr. Padilla.
53:28No.
53:28Mr. Welch.
53:29No.
53:29Mr. Schiff.
53:30No.
53:30Mr. Grassley.
53:31Aye.
53:31On Ms. Booker, I hear 12.
53:32The nays are 10.
53:32The nays are 10.
53:33The nays are 10.
53:33The nays are 10.
53:34The nays are 10.
53:34The nays are 10.
53:35The nays are 10.
53:35The nays are 10.
53:36The nays are 10.
53:36No by proxy.
53:37No by proxy.
53:37Mr. Padilla.
53:38No.
53:38Mr. Welch.
53:39No.
53:39Mr. Schiff.
53:40No.
53:40Mr. Grassley.
53:41Aye.
53:41On Ms. Booker, I hear 12.
53:42The nays are 10.
53:43The nomination will be favorably reported.
53:44The committee is adjourned.
53:45Mr. Chairman.
53:46Yes.
53:46Mr. Chairman.
53:47I wanted to be recorded, I in person, on Mr. Sauer.
53:49You will be so recorded without objection.
53:51All right.
53:59You will be so recorded without objection.
54:03All right.