>> no republicans were in the room for the vote.

this is two hours. >> 11 members of the committee are present. we will come to order. we have several items on today's agenda. three nominees were listed on the agenda. sarah hill for the district court of the northern district of oklahoma. john david russell for the u.s. district court for the northern district of oklahoma, to

the district court of the northern islands. today we will again vote on two judicial nominees who have been referred back to the committee due to a procedural issue with previous vote. given these nominees have already been divided at length we will move directly to those votes. we also vote on three judicial nominees and justice department nominee. the committee will return to its consideration of the request for authorization for subpoenas related to the company's investigation into the supreme court's ethics standards. before i turn it over to ranking member graham let me address the most rent development. on november 13th the supreme court announced for the first time in its history, it would implement a code of conduct for the justices. this came after the roberts court refused to act on this issue for more than 10 years. after a series of heavily reported disclosures involving

several justices and after this committee favorably reported the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act sponsored by senator whitehouse , among other things the new code addresses the need for justices to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by avoiding impropriety and appearance of impropriety. the courts new code of conduct falls short of what we would expect from the highest court in the land. first as a statement on the code specifically notes and i quote, for the most part, these rules are not new. that is a tell. it was the old way of doing things that brought the reputation of the court to a new low in public opinion. under the court's previous practices, justices accept lavish gifts and luxury travel from individuals with this before the court without disclosing these gifts. without a new stronger ethics regime, how can the public trust that the justices will indeed refrain from such impropriety in the future?

and if there is no enforcement mechanism in the courts announcement to hold justices accountable for violating the code. while the code of conduct prohibits the appearance of impropriety, it allows the justice to individually determine whether their own conduct creates such an appearance in the minds of court, reasonable members of the public. this is something the justices have repeatedly failed to do over the last few years. without an enforcement mechanism, this code of conduct will step in a positive direction cannot restore the public's faith in the court. because of this congressional action remains appropriate and necessary. the committee's investigation of the courts ethical crisis in these subpoenas are a key piece of legislative effort to establish an effective code of conduct. my republican colleagues claim efforts are motivated by my disagreement with courts recent decisions. but i first ask chief justice roberts in writing to address

the courts lack of enforceable code of conduct 11 years ago. unenforceable code of conduct would apply to all nine justices appointed by presidents in both parties. one republican claimed i am opening pandora's box but i'm only seeking subpoenas for two people who have refused to comply with this committees oversight request for months. contrast this with the republicans unprecedented subpoena authorization of 2020 for a crossfire hurricane investigation. they provided the chair with blanket authorization to subpoena more than 50 named persons and an unlimited number of unnamed persons. unlimited. committee democrats circulated 22 amendments, 16 of which we offer for a vote. the vast majority of those amendments related directly to the subject matter of the subpoena authorization. and contrast today, committee republicans have circulated 177

amendments. the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the supreme court ethics crisis. both leonard leo and harlan crow are central players in this crisis. their attempts to thwart the legitimate oversight efforts of the congress should concern all of us. as i said before, i do not seek this authorization lightly and do not ask for it often. but to protect congress's authority and advance the committee's efforts to implement an enforceable code of conduct for the supreme court, it is necessary to seek authorization to pursue compulsory process with respect to mr. leo and mr. crow. before turning to the ranking member senator graham his opening remarks, i will tell you that the standards we will follow in procedure are all president of the committee. they have been used by the two previous republican chairman and we can cite the exact date when that happened. senator graham is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what a difference a day makes.

yesterday we had four florida judges that came forward in the committee where the two senators from florida both republicans reached agreement with the white house to fill judicial vacancies at this court level. we did one in south carolina, so here we are today. i don't buy anything you just said. let's just be real blunt and direct. this is garbage. if you really thought this was a problem, why don't you bring up the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act that was passed september the fifth, 2023 in this committee to fix the problem you just talked about? this bill is never going to see the light of day. go to senator schumer and tell him, this is urgent. the country is going to collapse if we don't fix this problem. why hasn't the majority leader brought up the bill that all of you voted for to fix this

problem? it's never going to be brought up. these subpoenas are never going to see the light of day. i don't know who is driving the train on your side but you are driving the committee off into a ditch. this is a joke. a complete joke. senator whitehouse, why can't you convince senator schumer to bring the bill up so we can amend it, debate come and vote on it on the floor of the united states senate? is a supreme court ethics and transparency act. next week i will go down and ask it be brought up. we will spend all the time we need as a body to determine what we should do with the supreme court. it was a partyline vote. all of us voted no because we think it's a really bad idea. this jihadist you have been on against roberts court is not even -- there is transparency. i will give you credit for that. here's what you said. the majority leader of the senate went to the steps of the

supreme court and threatened them they'll. at least you are honest about what you are trying to do, at least you were before. i want to tell you, cavanaugh, you have unleashed a whirlwind and you will pay the price. i guess it's the price the supreme court is paying for offending you. so your response to the court you don't like is to try to basically take over how the court works in terms of their internal policing themselves about ethics matters, which all of us, on our side feel like really uncomfortable because they are a separate branch of the government and they did pass some rules that move in the right direction. but you want to pat the court. when you say you don't want to destroy the roberts court, i don't believe you. i don't believe a word you are saying.

if it were up to you, there would be 13 numbers on the court, 15 members on the court to dilute the roberts court. you are trying to restructure the court. this is just another way to do it. is there a consequence to all of this rhetoric? yeah. if you don't believe me, ask judge cavanaugh. based on this idea you have unleashed a whirlwind, we are going to come after you. some nut job was caught outside of justice kavanaugh's home with a tactical knife, a glock pistol, two magazines, pepper spray, zip ties and screwdriver, a crowbar and duct tape. but we are going to keep going, apparently. it's not enough we can work together on social media where we all agree there has been

abuse and we all work together to do subpoenas. the reason i think this is a bunch of garbage and crap, to be honest with you, i don't think you are remotely interested in bringing up the bill that passed the senate. the judiciary committee. if you really cared about this, we would be on the floor a long time ago debating fixing this problem. you know you are not going to get 60 votes for these subpoenas. i don't know who you are trying to please. i don't know what group is going to feel better because we are doing this on your side. but you are pleasing none of us. this committee has functioned fairly well given what is going on in america today, so, no, i don't buy one bit this is about fixing the problem. this is about an ongoing effort to destroy this court. to destroy clarence thomas's reputation. to pat the court, to get your way, to make sure

the supreme court exists today can't function. the democrats need to destroy clarence thomas's reputation. nutter reader of the new republic but i think a lot of people on your side probably do. and this is what you are trying to do and you are going to meet a real brick wall over here and this is going to fundamentally change the way the committee operates and it's a choice you made, live with your choice. i will end where i started. if you think this is a problem, bring up the bill, passed by the committee. you have the power to do it. you are never going to do because you know a lot of your own members won't support this. you know it's not going to work . you are trying to please a group. you are not trying to make this committee function. >> before moving to the subpoena authorization, we consider the nominees. judgments up akashi by nominee to the u.s. court by the

district of oregon, the clerk will call role. >> will we have an opportunity to speak ? >> yes, i'm sorry. you already had done that at great length. >> i think this deserves some commentary given the nature of the nominee and i would like to ask to speak on the nomination. >> senator, we have debated these two twice. >> i would also like to speak on the nomination. >> i understand what you would like to do but i'm saying and fairness we have debated these nominees twice and i asked the clerk to call role. >> okay, do it. >> on the third time i say no. >> you are just going to make it up? >> i would like to speak too. >> you have a lot of consequences, if you go down this road. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. whitehouse.

>> mr. chairman, don't we get the opportunity to speak? >> we are in a roll call. >> you are telling us to shut up? you want us to shut up? is that what you are saying quick seesmic a lot of people didn't speak on the two nominees before. >> did you raise your hand if you did not speak. >> wouldn't have a chance to speak. >> we have several folks, they didn't have a chance to speak. >> we want to tell you again why these nominees are awful. >> or tell you for the first time. you are going to sit there and ignore as quick seesmic senator blackburn, having spoken on these nominees? would you like to? >> i would like very much to speak on -- >> senator corn has had not been chance to speak. >> point of order mr. chairman,

you can't limit debate without invoking roll for you haven't done that. >> we have debated. we have debated on prior occasions where we didn't have a quorum. that vote didn't count. we will get people who are here now who want here then. we would like to speak. >> can we speak on the other nominees? >> or is your plan to end all debate today? you have an answer? are you going to rely on somebody whispering in your ear? what is your plan? >> no. no we are not. okay. listen, here's the deal. we worked seven weeks to try to solution the asylum problems. we boycotted the committee. >> mr. chairman, i don't know if he left us any alternative but to deny the committee a quorum. >> mr. cotton? >> i think that is something --.

>> mr. cotton says the chairman history reducing --. you can mark that down as my vote. >> everybody over there not willing to look at me or look at nick needs to think about it as well. >> mr. kennedy wants to speak as well. mr. kennedy needs to speak too. >> i'm waiting to be heard on the nominee. i have requested several times to be heard on the nominee. >> i guess senator durbin is not going to let women speak either. >> of the ayes are 11. >> nominee to the u.s. district court for the --. >> who has not been allowed to speak on that nominee quick you

just destroyed one of the most important committees in the united states senate. you set a precedent which will be repeated every time one party or the other takes advantage and takes the low road is is a precedent that will then be the norm. congratulations on destroying the united states senate judiciary committee. >> of next is --. smith who has not spoken on this nominee. look at all these people who have never said a word before you make them vote. never said a word before you make them vote. >> just going along with it. just going along with it. >> mr. chairman, when we were the majority, we allowed democrats to speak at nottingham

at great length. we never did this. >> both of these nominees have had two opportunities for speeches by members. >> you have to bring them up again. it wasn't our fault, it is your fault. >> going right along with it. >> mr. chairman, i hope you are proud of yourself. >> yeah, you really have -- i don't know what drives this, i really don't. >> mr. chairman, is that you driving it or your staff? or is it the white house? this is completely inappropriate not to let us be heard on these nominations. and you know that. >> your own members have told you to let them speak.

>> mr. lee. mr. cruz. >> this is a complete disgrace. >> maybe you can -- >> my colleagues over here understand what goes around comes around. >> this is so unnecessary. to ruin the committee over a political exercise is going nowhere. senator whitehouse --. >> was my name called? i can't hear. >> was he recognized to speak? >> we are in a roll call. >> i would like to speak please. >> we are in a roll call. >> i'm waiting to be heard on the nominations. is this an illegal vote?

>> so now he is going to dictate how other senators not? >> on this vote the ayes are 10. >> we now turn to nominations that have not been debated before the committee and the committee -- >> mr. chairman, i seek to speak on set a frame. >> that is the next nominee and you are recognized. >> i thank you for that. i have made it clear that i will not support this nomination and their is a good reason for not supporting him, mr. chairman. the white house really does not have a good record when it comes to this seat. back in february i voiced my opposition to mr. delaney, michael delaney who was nominated for this very same seat.

mr. delaney, we found out had used hardball tactics against a 15-year-old survivor of sexual assault. he did this in order to protect and delete private school that wanted to cover up the disgusting conduct that had been perpetrated against this young woman. mr. delaney threatened to name, shame and humiliate her by removing her anonymity if she had the audacity to come forward and tell her story. fortunately at least one of my democratic colleagues had the moral clarity to join us in sinking mr. delaney's nomination. now, after the delaney debacle,

you would think that the white house would have learned their lesson and i thought they would have the decency to nominate someone who actually had a track record of protect being women and children and it seems i was wrong. the president has chosen to nominate someone very similar to mr. delaney and his disregard for the well-being of children, and that is seth. i would like to welcome my colleagues through the two cases that mr. efraim that automatically disqualify him for service on the federal bench. and each of these two cases, mr. efraim recommended sentences far lower than the guidelines for heinous

unimaginable crimes against children one of the differences were guilty of unconscionable acts of sexual violence against a 14-year-old girl with a hearing impairment. this precious child was kidnapped, was taken to an abandoned motel in vermont and she was . despite all of this, despite what happened to this child, mr. efraim as a prosecutor recommended a sentence far below the probation officers suggested guidelines. it is clear that mr. efraim wanted a low sentence and let me read you why. these are his words. he wrote him and i am quoting, this low sentence will incapacitate the defendant

until he is in his 60s, hopefully by that time the danger that the defendant presents will have subsided. mr. chairman, that is repulsive , it is disgusting and you have a 14-year-old girl that was hearing impaired that was forced to go through this and the sexual violence with a man and then you have a judge who says, well, maybe by the time he is in his 60s he will not want to do that anymore. that is disqualifying from someone to sit on the federal bench what is a woman, a girl, what are they going to think when they go before this man?

the other case that i want to bring up, the defendant in the other case had created six videos of himself sexually abusing a three-year-old girl. three years old. now, many of us are parents and grandparents. i want you to think about this, think about a three-year-old girl being sexually abused, not once, not twice, not three, not for, not five, six different times six. think about this. this is a three-year-old toddler. how many of you have three-year- olds in your lives?

i do. to me, this is repulsive. so, let's talk about this sentence. in this case. well, mr. aframe decided he was going to recommend 60 years , but what was the sentencing guideline on this? it was life in prison. if he had given life in prison, he wasn't going anywhere. he was locked up. 60 years, maybe the guy can get probation. so, mr. aframe , himself noted in the sentencing memo that he was asking for something lower than life in prison. when i pressed mr. aframe about this under oath, on why he refused to recommend life in prison, he misrepresented the facts, so

let me again set the record straight, the sentencing memo that mr. aframe wrote himself stated that the guidelines recommend a sentence of life in prison for this child. that, mr. chairman, is a fact. regardless of what your staff is whispering in your ears, that is a fact. so, i am going to ask my democratic colleagues to join me in voting no on seth aframe , the man is morally unfit to sit on the federal bench. >> miss chairman, may i speak on this? >> senator graham is recognized. >> when i had a discussion with mr. aframe as i recall it, this idea you age out in terms of being whatever you want to call

the guy was unnerving to me. i am never going to put somebody in a position of legal authority who believes and hopes that by the time one of these pedophile types are in their 60s they are no longer a threat. i hope you all understand his reasoning here. there is no information that i know of to suggest that makes any scientific sense. just think about what i said. we are about to put a man on the court of appeals who, when he was in the trenches, justified a sentence that was under what it should be based on the idea that by the time he gets in his 60s, hopefully, he will not be a threat.

the best way to make sure that logic doesn't infiltrate the american legal system is to deny this man a position of responsibility, of high responsibility. this would be the last guy i would entrust one responsibility of our legal system based on that single statement and the reasoning behind it. >> anyone else seek recognition? senator cotton? >> mr. chairman, i would like to make a few comments on the nomination of seth aframe. i hear talk about having a prosecutor as if he is tough on crime. even when he is supposed to be, the criminals adversary in court he finds a soft spot for them. for example, and one heinous child pornography case, mr. aframe refused to recommend life sentence for the abuser.

even though that is the sentence called for by the sentencing guidelines. instead, mr. aframe asked to reduce the sentence to 60 years and give the criminal supervised release instead. that may seem like a long time but honestly even a life sentence or as far as i'm concerned the death penalty would have been far too lenient for this depraved terminal. we are talking about a criminal who filmed himself a three-year- old girl. let me repeat that. a three-year-old girl. after he spent years having gotten close enough to her family that the even consider him as a potential legal guardian for their daughters. the details of the case are much more heinous than just that. i know some democrats on the committee think that child pornography laws are too harsh. they are wrong about that. we are not talking about some

minor child pornography offender here. someone who happened to have an image on a computer. we are talking about producing, making the worst most depraved heinous imaginable child pornography and infiltrating the home and family of his victims to do it. somehow mr. aframe thought this criminal deserved leniency and refused to ask for even the recommended sentence for his crimes. i ask my democratic colleagues, are you on the side of mr. aframe or a three-year-old girl who was violently ? >> anyone else seek recognition on this nomination? senator kennedy. >> mr. chairman, can you hear me? could you give -- i won't say

us, i will just say me -- an explanation of the legal basis on which you denied us the right to debate the first two nominees? >> thank you, senator. i'm happy to do that. the two proceeded chairs violated the letter and spirit of committee roll for without any affirmative votes from democrats they set a time certain for vote on a nominees legislation ending debate without adhering to rule four. madam chair grassley does so with nomination vote on then judge brett kavanaugh of the supreme court and then chair graham did show with parmesan immigration bill. republicans established a new precedent that i followed on one occasion unless congress and will follow again today. i said time and again i cannot be one set of rules for republicans and a different set for democrats. in this instance the two nominations in question have been brought before the committee just as this nominee is and members will be given opportunity to speak if they

want to. we did it twice. this is the third time they were brought up. it's the reason the ruling was made by the chair. >> mr. chairman, the fact --. mr. chairman, you are saying because you think that senator grassley violated the rule you are going to violate the rule? >> it's called president, senator. >> it's called two wrongs don't make a right but they do make it even. i would like to hear what senator grassley has to say. you accused him of violating the rule. my guess is he doesn't agree with you. >> all i can say is, what happened the days that we were involved with cavanaugh, there wasn't any effort to stymie democrats from saying everything they wanted to say and we sat there and listened to them and then we had a day before we voted.

>> and i believe you said one other republican chairman violated the rules, senator graham? >> yes. >> senator graham, did you violate the rules? >> we are talking about legislation, not nominations. for seven weeks i begged my democratic colleagues to work with me to find and change the asylum system. they boycotted once or twice the ability to move the legislation forward >> excuse me for interrupting, what you mean by boycotting? >> they didn't show you -- show up. the same group of people are refusing to do things necessary to secure the --. this is a 2019 that are kennedy. we are trying to find a way to stop a problem, working together , the response was to boycott

the markup, but we are talking about legislation. the nominations were brought back to the committee because the parliamentarian ruled that the way the committee conducted the nominations violated the rules. it wasn't me. i didn't ask these two people to come back. but the underlying problem, let's get to it. we are talking about subpoenas not legislation. rule 26 doesn't cover this. you are basically --. we will be. what drives all this is how we feel about this never ending effort to delegitimize this court. and the reason i think this thing is a charade is because the bill that was passed by the committee in september supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act has never been brought up.

and all of us know, you don't have 60 votes to subpoena the people you want to subpoena. months have gone by since this thing was first brought up. so, this is the future of the committee, right here. you see it. this is the way it is going to be because you chose to please some group who i don't know who they are, to use the committee to push their agenda in a way that i think is destructive to the court, and when we have a vote on the subpoena, it will be a violation of rule four. because rule 26, in my view, doesn't cover the subpoena vote , so you can't just act like there is nothing else going on in the committee. i have tried, as the ranking member, to my own detriment to

get things moving to the committee because i realize that elections matter. those days are over. cavanaugh, i vote for stoudemire and kagan. and get repaid by the most disgusting display of hatred and partisanship against a nominee i have ever seen. it's always our people who have their lives turned upside down. senator grassley allowed dr. blase ford to come into the committee. every time something new came up we had another hearing and another hearing and another hearing. and when we voted on the nominee, you had information about miss ford and you never

shared it with the nominee. we read about in the washington post. this is an effort to ambush the guy and it didn't work. so, you made a choice here. i'm going to go to the floor and ask that this bill that we passed in september come to the floor, and it never will. one we had amendment -- when we had subpoenas to be issued regarding crossfire hurricane, the biggest abuse of the rule of law since i have been here, people using fake information to get warrants against american citizens, the fbi running every stop sign known to man, you had votes one we issued those subpoenas. i think 26 or 16. the bottom line, you made a choice. it was a bad choice.

you assumed things you cannot assume anymore. you assume that we are just going to act like nothing happened. i have told you, personally and privately, senator whitehouse and i have done good things together. i consider this unacceptable. i consider this taking good attentions and turning it around in a bad way. i hate this. i hated no -- more than you will ever know. here we are. and to my friends on the other side, you have made a terrible decision today. >> senator kennedy, one other point i would like to make. in those first two nominations after we made an offer opportunity for debate in the committee and it did have a roll call, something occurred which was news to me. have you ever voted proxy in a

committee and then arrived a few minutes later and it will be recorded as voting present with unanimous consent there has never been an objection. there was an objection from the republican side of the aisle to the parliamentarian. that's why we had to take an additional roll call vote on the first two nominees. it wasn't just a happenstance. it was a circumstance that was created beyond our control. spark i understand >> mr. chairman, i would like you to -- i would like to consider this. i don't understand why you are taking this new approach. i enjoy this committee. we all take our responsibilities seriously. i can only speak for me. i try to be fair-minded. i voted for a number of president biden's nominations.

what i think they are qualified. i try to ask substantive questions. i did the same thing with resident trumps nominees. we killed five of president trump's nominees because we killed them dead as 4:00 because it was apparent after questioning them they didn't know a lot about from a sears roebuck catalog. and we killed them. and i think we on our side of the aisle, my side of the aisle , have a voted for more of president biden's nominees then my democratic colleagues have voted for president trump's nominees. that's okay. everybody has their right to exercise their vote. i understand you like some of my questions. i get that.

some of your comments have been borderline snarky but i ignore them. one my son was going through puberty he used to ask -- he used to make those comments and i learned the best thing to do is ignore them. i just don't understand why you are taking us down this road. i don't. last time we met you preach cooperation and i think we have been cooperating. i think we confirmed more louisiana nominees than just about any other state. there were some people who were not here at the last hearing that would like to speak on, and would have liked to speak on mr. khashoggi. i did speak and i'm willing to waive my right to speak again, but this is a gentleman who says he believes that when race is an issue in a case, that he has

the right to ignore precedent and the federal rules of evidence and the federal rules of civil procedure and apply a new standard of proof some people find objectionable. and i think people should have the right to weigh in on it. and i just confess, i don't understand why you are taking us down this road. i don't. and the final point i would make is that, i ask you this question last time. i think if where you are headed with this is to ultimately subpoena justice thomas or another member of the supreme court, i think that would be a huge mistake but if that is where we are going to go with this, i respectfully suggest

you go ahead and do it and let us meet it head on because it looks to me like where it is headed. and i think it will provoke a constitutional crisis, and let's just go ahead and meet it head on. thank you for the chance to respond, mr. chairman. >> anyone else wish to speak? >> for the record it wasn't some esoteric rule. you didn't have a majority present the last time we voted on these judges. that the widely known rule. it's not some obscure technicality incompetence on your part does not override the prerogative of senators on our part. >> first-time senator cotton has ever been an objection when a proxy vote is asked to be physically present and i just say all of us because of our schedule space this all of the time and this is the first time i have seen it in the time i have served in united states. >> like senator graham has some thing to say. >> i do. >> he can take the rest of my time. >> here's the deal.

these two nominees are like historically bad. i would do anything i could to keep them off the bench, but in terms of what the parliamentarian ruled, she did it and here we are. there are rules, but the point i'm trying to make, mr. chairman , the consequences of this to the committee are just far outweighing, i think any benefit. i don't believe your side when you say you are not out to get the court. if it really were about fixing the ethics problems of the court as you see them, why haven't we taken up the legislation the committee passed? why can't you get senator schumer to bring the bill up that supposedly fixes this? it's never going to be brought up. you know why it's not going to be brought up?

because it's not going to pass. is unconstitutional. it's a bad idea. so i'm going to keep making that point. i don't buy what you are saying . if this were really were the issue you claim it to be, we will have a voted on the bill passed by this committee a long time ago. we are never going to vote on that bill, folks. it's all political theater at the expense of this committee. you made a choice, accept the consequences. >> unfavorably reporting the nomination of seth robert aframe to be a circuit judge for the first circuit the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. koontz, mr. booker [ indiscernible ]

the nomination will be favorably reported to the floor. up next is judge edward kiel, nominated to the u.s. district court for the district of new jersey does anyone seek recognition to seek on this nomination. if not the clerk will call roll. >> mr. whitehouse, mr. koontz, mr. blumenthal, mr. booker mr. madea, mr. welsh, mr. butler,

mr. graham, mr. grassley, mr. gornick, mr. lee, mr. cruz, mr. holly, mr. cotton, mr. kennedy, mr. tillis, mrs. blackburn. >> the nomination will be favorably reported to the floor picked up next to sarah russell nominated u.s. district court for the district of connecticut. does anyone seek recognition? senator lee? >> mr. chairman i have got some concerns with this nominee. made some statements that i think are incompatible with someone wanting to serve as a life tenured article three federal judge. during the height of covid, one of my many concerns relates to

a letter that she signed on to. a letter that reflects a certain betrayal in term reflecting a lack of judicial temperament. the letter that she signed onto his captioned, urgent action needed to protect individuals and connecticut's prisons and jails from coronavirus 19. we call that on the governor on the state of connecticut and all connecticut jurisdictions to number one immediately released to the maximum extent possible, this is a quote, people incarcerated pretrial and postconviction. also said that even postconviction the governor should release as many people incarcerated postconviction as possible including but not limited to all people over the age of 55. by that standard, if that

somehow entitles you to compassionate release, nearly every committee member here would be subject to that. doesn't seem that old to me. individuals who have uncontrolled diabetes, respiratory conditions and/or immunocompromised and all people eligible for parole and community supervision release or who are currently incarcerated for technical parole or probation, violations. in addition, it argued that the state should declare a moratorium on incarceration, a complete moratorium. and urged that the governor issue an executive order directing state attorney and law enforcement entities including city departments as of four to immediately cease adding to the incarcerated population give the high risk of infection blessed by publishing increase both of those are really incarcerated and those entering correctional facilities. in other words, basically

declaring it on incarceration holiday. think of the message that sent at the time. commit a crime in the state of connecticut and you are not going to be thrown in prison? why? because of covid. it also asked for a policing for all policing and arrest practices. to be changed in order to reflect the moratorium on incarceration. these are not my words. these are the words of the letter. a moratorium on on incarceration. think about what that means. it reminds me of a scene in the movie lion king. they are talking about -- there would be no king and the absolute anarchy would prevail. for instance, best practices across medical field in times

of crisis recommend stockpiling at least two weeks and three months of supplies and so they were going to have all of these policing policies changed to that extent. people dependent on substances also ensure they have accessible several weeks applied to prevent potentially severe effects of withdrawal at the time, at a time with even less capacity for adequate treatment. suggest to me that -- i don't know whether she is suggesting keeping people doped up so that they don't have to detox if they are incarcerated at the time or not incarcerating them at all, but again when you're declaring a moratorium on incarceration, that seems to be what they are suggesting. in those circumstances, is it appropriate --. i can't think of a circumstance, even at the worst time of panic during

covid when people committed to the rule of law thought it was important not to make arrests or to sentence people to prison , send them to jail or prison as a precaution against covid. people who commit criminal acts should never receive the message that there is going to be no consequence. i think someone, a letter that i would add if i'm not mistaken was not properly disclosed to the committee on the nominees part, we have a major concern with this nominee. i can't support this nominees confirmation. >> senator kennedy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss russell sent a letter to

the governor of connecticut. during the pandemic. here's what she said, quote, as they stand, prisons and jails are detrimental to public health and human rights and disproportionately harm marginalized communities. including black, brown, indigenous and other communities of color, immigrants , people with mental illness, people with disabilities, people in the lgbtq+ community, people who use drugs, people engaged in work and people experiencing housing --

houselessness and poverty. then she went on to request the governor to immediately release everybody in jail in connecticut . it's unclear to me whether she was talking about just during the pandemic or on a permanent basis. then she goes on to tell the governor of connecticut to stop putting people in jail, and it is still unclear to me whether she meant just for the duration of the pandemic or on an extended basis. and on top of all of that, the cherry on top, she didn't turn

the letter over to the committee . i don't know why she didn't. perhaps she thought -- i'm guessing this is the case she thought we wouldn't find it. it took about 7.3 minutes on google to find it. this is america. miss russell has a constitutional right to believe in these things and to say those things. she does not have a constitutional right to be a federal judge. and she is not qualified to be a federal judge. if those are her beliefs. how can she possibly -- how can any criminal defendant in front of her or any prosecutor in front of her think that they are getting a fair shake in light of this letter when she sentences someone to prison, if she ever doesn't sentence someone to prison? it's just simply breathtaking.

and for that reason, mr. chairman, i'm going to be voting no. >> anyone else seek recognition? senator blumenthal? >> i thank my colleagues on the other side for those comments, which really don't call into question the fundamental credentials and qualifications of this nomination, which are extra neri as to the letter, senator kennedy, those are not her beliefs. in fact, in response to questions raised during her hearing, she stated in the supplemental statement, and i'm going to quote her, the letter does not accurately reflect my views in particular, the letter suggestions were over broad and failed to make expressly clear that all decisions about whether to incarcerate people and whether to release people who are already incarcerated must be conducted in a

>> she goes on to cite the specific statute that would have to be followed by her as a district judge in sentencing, or in releasing someone, and she also expresses regret for failing to submit that writer letter acknowledging that it should have been, she made a mistake and she acknowledges it. i think the the view expressed in the letter which was signed by hundreds, was a mess letter written by her alone, she has in fact disowned saying that they are stated too broadly and i would look to my colleagues to look at the locations of this. >> question, chairman. can i respond as quickly? >> senator kennedy. >> i appreciate the comments,

but richard, here is how i see it. she got caught. she got caught. she had an epiphany once she got caught. and i am looking at her qualifications, and i'm looking at her record, and i don't know that she did not help write this letter, i know she signed it. and i know she tried to hide it from this committee so even if even if you agree with her that we should stop, that actions have no consequences and that nobody has ever responsible anymore, and it is always somebody else's fault when a criminal summarizes a young girl. everybody ought to get a trophy, i mean i wish we lived in a world like that, but that is what she believes. and you know it, and i know it.

and she has gained it after she got caught, she got caught because she did not turn it over to us for god sakes, senator. we had to find it on our own, shame on her. and every single time when she has gone on the federal bench she has got to sentence a criminal defendant, this will be grounds for appeal, for god sakes, i mean does the rule of law me nothing? i do, and i apologize. the chair recognizes senator cornyn, thank you for yielding to the question. is senator for louisiana familiar with the concept called confirmation conversion? >> i would like to hear more about it, senator. >> why would just be

interested, how can you reconcile the letter with what the senator for connecticut writers her disavowal? of the letter. can you, can you achieve expressed regret, or that she had misspoken, or that she now has a second thought had different ideas, i'm trying to get my head around, how do you, how do you reconcile this letter that you read to them from the statement that the senator from connecticut prince michael here's the thing, senator, here's how i reconcile it. three words, she got caught. she got caught. and we found the letters. and she did not turn it over. during committee, instead of

saying yeah, i signed the letter and i should not have done it, i don't believe that. first she said she was not sure. and then she was sure. and then she did not mean it, and then she will make a pinky promise that she will be a fair federal judge. these positions are for life. they are there forever. at a minimum, just because you see my cousin benny does not qualify you to be on the federal bench. at a minimum, there ought to be a minimum level of integrity and a minimum level of adherence to the rule of law. in this sense understanding, and i wish we did not have to say that, but those are the facts. >> one last question. >> of course.

>> are you familiar with the fact that all federal judges are subject to a code of judicial conduct excuse mike yes, sir. >> i would be all federal judges, correct? >> yes, sir. >> including numbers of the united state supreme court. >> yes, sir. >> and as a senator wearing the fact that the code of judicial conduct that applies to all federal judges who are actually promulgated in 1919. >> yes, sir. i understand that, sir. >> and i'm trying to reconcile the chairman statement that this code of judicial conduct, it applies to the supreme court , specifically that was issued on november the 13th, but that was the first time that members of the spring court were subject to a code of judicial conduct.

is in fact the the judicial conduct code that applies all judges appointed them as well? >> yes, sir. >> and one of those, how can a how can a litigant, a citizen accused of crime, somebody who goes to court to seek vindication for a wrong done to them, how can they have any confidence whatsoever in a judge that won't tell the truth? >> they can't, and shame on us. for allowing someone like that to be on the federal bench. >> now we have talked a little bit about judicial depends here, right? i think i agree with those people who over time over the last 30 years or so who said that judicial, the defense of the jewish area in the united

states is the single most distinct things in feature of our form of government. because ultimately people are going to be held accountable and not for political reasons, not because of their unpopular point of view, but because a judge in some court perhaps with appealing to an intermediate court, maybe the spring court has said you were wrong, and the other side was right. but we also said that these judges should be independent of politics, that is why they get lifetime appointments, that is why the constitution says their salary cannot be diminished while they serve in office. so what recourse does a litigant , a citizen accused of a crime, or the prosecutor who is representing the state, or perhaps the united states, what recourse do they have against

somebody who is confirmed as a federal judge who won't tell the truth? >> is a mystery to me, and we are creating a real problem here, and a real problem for the official operation of the court. i mean if i am a criminal defendant or kernel defense attorney i will do everything i can to try to get this lady is my judge, and if i am a prosecutor, i'm going to try to avoid her, and i think this letter may very well be grounds for appeal on every single solitary case, i mean she says it here, big dallas. i don't believe in putting people in jail. if they are part of this particular group that she deems virtuous now, if you are not in her, her group of people that

she deems underprivileged and virtuous, you're really at risk, apparently, but if you can fit yourself into, you can somehow become black, brown, indigenous, an immigrant, people with mental illness, people with disabilities, people in the lgbtq+ community, people use drugs, you can convince the judge that you have been engaged in work and straight economies, or you are homeless, or poor, that she thinks you should not be in jail. >> i have heard it said that the single most powerful public official in the united states is a individual federal judge, have you heard that excuse mike yes, sir. >> and what recourse does congress have to a federal

judge who plainly disregards their obligations under the law? we can't -- do we have the authority to force them to recuse? or disqualify them? isn't it fact that given the constitutional independence of the judiciary, the sole recourse that congress has, on a litigant, the congress would have would be to impeach for the house in peach, and the senate to convict them in the court of impeachment, is that right? >> that is correct, that is why i've always been so proud to sit on this committee because our job is to stop people from getting on the bench who are work jobs. >> and that scene limitation of remedy that congress would help would also apply to united states supreme court justice, correct? >> yes, sir. >> impeachment by the house, conviction in the senate, and removal from the office. the sole remedy, correct?

>> yes. >> blumenthal. spectacular mr. chairman, i think that this has gone pretty far field come out of the merits response class for the vote. >> was the chairman? >> senator cruise? proceed. >> was chairman in 1964 ronald reagan gave what is now an immortal speech called the time for choosing. and i think of this committee we find ourselves similarly in time for choosing. senator from connecticut is trying valiantly to rehabilitate this nominee. and the arguments he is presenting are essentially, well she is not all that bright, she did not really read the letter, she did not really know what was in it, she signed it but should not mean to sign it, she

if she knew what was and she would have signed it. now that is the defense of her. remember, we are talking about whether this person is fit to be a federal judge and it is the best defense that is she is too dumb to figure out which decided she did not mean to sign it, do not read it, did not know what it said, does not give you a lot of comfort with the kind of jobs you do she's wearing a black robe and assigning death warrants. be sure to read the piece paper in front of her, by the way, this is not some writing from 30 years ago when she was in college. this is written march 16th, 2020, three years ago. it is recent. i don't believe it is an accident. that she did not turn it over. she knew well this is a radical document and, look, the notion that she did not understand what it meant, i'm holding in my hand, let me read you, i'll just read you from the very beginning, let's see if it is

subtle, let's see if they hide the ball when talks about. here are the opening words of the letter. the undersigned organizations of individuals calling on government lot to act immediately to protect the lives of the incarcerated people in our states. three urgent steps are needed, one, the immediate release of as many people in custody as possible. two, a moratorium on new admissions into jails and prisons. and three, evidence-based humane and rights affirming measures to protect the health and well-being of the individual stay behind walls. that is the opening paragraph. it ain't subtle. to my friend from connecticut, she is not bright enough to figure out this letter saying that the criminals go when it says in the opening paragraph we demand right now you let the kernels go that she needs to go back to remedial english in fifth grade

and not become a federal judge, by the way, the letter goes on and on and on, you go ahead into the body of the letter, we call them government will not persist in connecticut also, one, immediately release to the maximum possible people incarcerated in pretrial and postconviction. on pretrial release, here's what it says. government, governor lamont uses emergency powers to protect incarcerated people, their communities and correctional staff by releasing all a.l.l., all people who are incarcerated without having been given a crime. i want you to stop and understand what those words mean. all people means everyone. a means every murderer in the state of texas. serial killer who has written the women and he is arrested for what is call for? let him go.

if it is pre-conviction, let the serial killer go. you have an aggravated ? you have a child molester? there is no conditionality about well, only nonviolent, no, this is a nonviolent, it's is all. let every single criminal go. look, i understand this is washington, d.c. and there's politics, and there are a lot of issues on which democrats but with democrats, but publicans vote with punk and it will all be here long time to understand how this works. but every person sitting at this was elected by the people in their cities. and you are elected not to follow the instructions of chuck schumer, not to obstruct the objections of beau biden, you were elected to present citizens of downstate.

i've been to the states of every member of this community. i promise you to citizens of your state would find this a simple question. i expect in minute every democrat, like the soviet who will vote for this judge, no, because that is what happened. you're not going to refute the substance of what we said, you're just going to be we are democrats we are voting yes. and part of the reason you are is you are very close and you are very confident that the media back home not ask about it. and i would challenge the numbers of this committee, go home and convene a town hall in your state. ask the citizens of illinois, should we conform to the federal bench a woman who demanded the connecticut release

all violent criminals, all criminals pre-conviction, all murderers, all , all child clusters, shoemaker federal judge with power to do that? asked the citizens of rhode island, ask the citizens of minnesota, ask the citizens of connecticut, i.e., new jersey, california, and georgia, vermont, california again, i guarantee i don't care how blue your state is your citizens, if you asked them was anything to someone who things we should into the jails and release a criminal, should they get federal judge? pray state of georgia, the peach state, i don't think you can find real people that would say yes, that should be a federal judge. just about everybody. we get up on shove lefty college kids asked him, should not be a federal judge? this of course.

constitution gives us body the power to advise and consent, but only works for people have the backbone to use it. if you do your job, they sent us, look the democrats on this committee have already signed off on three nominees of the department of justice want to abolish the police. you already signed off on a radical judge who describes themselves as known words as a quote wide-eyed liberal, says he wakes up every morning motivated by hatred. go sit there your honor, you see your honor will go that morning by hatred of you. but every democrat that was fine, that is a good judge for us. and you are prepared to move forward on the judge that literally does not know what article two in the constitution is. we lost another judge with no significant legal experience was a drivers license

revocation procedure. you all know this is garbage. you know the right thing to do what it takes is one democrat to have the gumption to say no, oh and by the way all right, you'll if earlier with the bracelets people wear, debbie debbie dear jd, what people did jesus do? i would suggest to the democrats that your version of that, and with respect to the good lord i will not invoke his name, i will make it more terrestrial version, i will suggest that you guys wear bracelets that say wwii jkd, that when you're thinking of what to do ask yourself what would john kennedy do. that is a really good test, what would john kennedy do? by the way, if these were chump judges heck, i would be here with top court watching john kennedy rip those trumped

judges a new one, if they sent a judge that is not what article two is, that person is not becoming a judge. because john asked actually respect what it takes to be a judge, he spent too much time in too many courtrooms to note that if you it is and what he's doing or an ideal of on the bench that is bad for the rule of law. and you will remember, john kennedy torpedoed trump judge a judge who had a lot of great judges. but we had some that were not great. and the ones that were not great, the republicans on this committee said no. go back and do it again. is there even a single democrat who could look at the bracelet, what would john kennedy dylan so you know what? a judge who calls for releasing every violent criminal in the state of connecticut who was on pretrial containment, that

should not be a judge. you all know it. the choice you are facing is, well, i vote no, wow, the white house is going to be really mad, so no, the chuck schumer's would be really mad. you know, i'm supposed to follow the instructions of my party. you are united states senators for pete sakes. you don't represent the white house, you were present chuck schumer, you represent the people in your state. and all of you, the people in your state on this nominee would look to you and say if they read this letter people in your state would say when you are voting you should not just vote no, you should vote no. i hope and pray maybe one of you chooses to listen. to the people in your state, or if not, you can look forward to

when you are back in your state. having constituents read this letter to you and say what you think this person should be a judge? i got to tell you, i would i not answer the question. only answer i would know to give was good to my constituent is of course i did not, should make a terrible judge. so do what you know is right. >> anyone else? if not, the clerk will call the roll.

>> reported, next we have christopher, nominated to be the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel. we would like to see recognition on this nomination. spec was determined. specs are different rhode island. >> just to say that i have made considerable progress of the department of justice and will be voting yes in the committee on this individual, the expedition about continue. >> what else? >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. >> thank you.

>> requesting the documents and they just arrived and we are in the process of reviewing them, so i intend to vote yes, but reserve my rights on the floor, thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> i would say a few words about the nomination, chris fun zone to leave the office of legal counsel. i don't believe that mr. fun zone should be affirmed to this very important and sensitive job, it is often described with the department of justice's law firm and opinions issued by the office of legal counsel or fining authority on the executive branch unless we pass a law or court rules contrary. it is not an insignificant job, it requires a very, very important that the judgment, and discernment. unfortunately, i believe mr. fun zone has not shown that sense of judgment and discernment in the past. he worked in barack obama's national security council. he is well aware of the time

that, the threat china opposed to this nation, given the work on the nsc. but at the end of the obama ministration he went to the private practice, and in private practice he willingly agreed to do work for chinese communist controlled entities like huawei, in his nomination hearing for his current role as general counsel of the dni, i asked us to find zone about the repetition, whether he could have turned it down with his firm. he said he did not know. i suppose he never sought to find out. i guess he was not interested in knowing whether it was suitable and fancy law firms declined work for chinese coming is controlled entities. i suspect very much that it was just fine to turn down work for big tobacco companies, big oil companies, or the companies during this favor by the

democratic party. but radio silence for chinese communist controlled or affiliated companies. now despite his work for while way, he has been in very sensitive role at the office of the director of national intelligence, and present abiding was the put in charge of legal ruling that the entire executive branch. i think wish should all ask the question, not just about mr. fun zone and by his rules, but should we confirm people who are well aware of the threat the communists of china poses to this country, who have left government, left sensitive national security or foreign policy related positions in the government, and then gone into the private sector where they have worked with chinese communists owned, controlled,

directed, affiliated entities. if they do, should they be invited back into united states government? into positions requiring sensitive judgments? i have nothing against mr. fun zone personally, and he's far from the only person who has worked in government, left, and done work in private practice for chinese communists owned, controlled, directed affiliated entities. but i do think it is a practice that we ought to frown upon, to discourage, and to encourage people who are in law firms, investment banks, or consult consulting firms, or multinational corporations to think twice about willingly working for chinese communists controlled, owned, directed,

affiliated entities. it would be a good thing if you are people that that, and especially if they came back into the government. that is why i oppose this nomination to his current role, that is why i will oppose to the nomination to this role as well. >> was determined to >> senator graham? >> akamai will join my colleague in posing. if you are a foreign country and ally of the united states and you use huawei technology, we tell you we are not going to share duration with you. because we believe that while way is the extension of the communist party, and if that our systems get hooked up to the waterway system for lack of better way of expanding it, we could compromise our securities, so we tell recalling the prime minister of great britain at a time when they were discussing and talking about our policies in

our way, an ally, and a better ally than great britain, but at the time a real friend crossing we disbelieve it is just not in our national security interest for our allies to sign up with while way technology. the gentleman in question, after having been at the department of defense working with the national security council took on work in a firm part of the firm that represented huawei technologies. i find it hard to believe that we are going to make somebody llc warrior for our government who decided it was okay to work with huawei technologies after having been in our government. that is just like bad judgment. so we are telling our british allies and others we can't do

business with you if you sign up for while way, why in the world would we promote somebody who after having been in the government decided to represent these entities? i mean that is just that choice. really bad choice. >> mr. chairman. >> senator korman. mr. jim i think mr. franz on the nomination of the points made by senator graham braves raises larger questions, i'm thinking as i heard the comments about the attempts that senator grassley, senator feinstein and those others of us on this committee have tried to implement reforms to the foreign agent registration act, it is a fact that foreign governments, not just friends, but adversaries hire lobbyists,

law firms, accountants, other people here in washington, d.c. who unbeknownst to us are working on behalf of our nation's adversaries. and the reason why is because the formation nation frustration i is will oppose. and it needs to be fixed. we take the oath of office to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states, not to do the bidding inadvertently, maybe unwittingly of our nation's adversaries, this is serious stuff. because our nation's adversaries exploit this loophole in the registration of foreign agents. i will just give you a quick

antidote back in 2016 i was one of the chief sponsors of the law the they call jaster, which created a waiver for sovereign immunity for countries that finance terrorist attacks on american soil, this is focus like a laser on 9/11. in the 9/11 families who lost loved ones on that terrible day came to us and they have said that we think there were four nations who financed a terrorist attack on american soil which resulted in the death of our loved ones. and we would like to be able to go to court to prove it if we can. and so, two times this very narrow waiver of sovereign immunity, foreign sovereign entity caught in the bill

passed the senate, hundred to zero, both times, we actually overrode a veto by president obama because i think we all felt like this was a compelling case and that these american citizens who through no fault of their own from themselves a victim of a terrorist attack for 9/11 should be able to go to court and seek recourse. i actually had a number of lobbyists on k street call me and urge me to drop this legislation. they were working for the kingdom of saudi arabia. now i'm not passing judgment on the facts, but i do believe the

9/11 family should be able to go to court and prove what facts that do exist if in fact there was a foreign nation that finance terrorist attacks on american soil. the next thing i knew i had a group of american gis, veterans show up in my office. and say we are here because we think you should not pass this law that would give recourse to the 9/11 families and we acquire what possible interest could you have on this topic to have been sold a bill of goods. but they knew, and the people who pay their travel and their hotel bills to come to washington to lobby against this jaster bill, that if in fact numbers of congress believe that hey, this is something that our veterans care about,

and they don't want us to do this that maybe, just maybe they would be able to get some traction. now they were required to register to let me or anybody else know that they were unwittingly representing the interest potentially of a country that financed terrorist attacks on american soil on 9/11. i found that outrageous. i found it downright frightening. so, when mr. franz on represents a company, while way, which is affiliated with the chinese communist party in which we have urged our allies around the world not to buy that

telecommute occasion material because it is an door into spying on their two indications by the chinese communist party, it does trouble me as senator, pointed out on someone who wants to serve in such sensitive positions as representative again, this is not so much addressed to mr. franz on specifically, but i wanted the opportunity to talk about why this is not a trivial matter. this is a highly significant matter. but it is even bigger than this nomination. to this important position. thank you. >> clerk, call the roll.

>> the nomination be federal court to the floor. >> mr. chairman, i did not vote on the second nominee this morning, there was a period where was unclear whether members were to be allowed to speak to the nominees and i requested clarification, you

subsequently made educational members will be allowed to speak to nominees, you went through the realms of presidents, so i'm . to skew boat for the nominees if you would call a roll again and permit members to speak who did obviously have the opportunity to speak. >> chair entertains that suggestion and any member who request to speak. respect verify which nominee we are talking about? >> lee. >> so if there are any senators asking for recognition before the rollcall is called to if not , the clerk, call the roll.

>> to the alteration of subpoenas remain to the ethics investigation, i would like to offers managers h3n2 3b 86 to move for its adoption. now spreading a substantive response to our inquiry, i am no longer seeking to hold the presses against him. as his counsel told the cross court, we were treated fairly by the committee. in contrast, leo continues to

ignore our efforts and crow has refused to provide a sufficient response. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. >> no. macro: the manager's amendment coal roller. >> no. no.

>> aye. managers minutes adopted. >> mr. chairman, i have two amendments. >> will, please let me make a statement. i'm going to recognize senator graham on the republican side to honor the numbers in your side will offer the amendments, he has artie give me your name earlier, but i want to let you proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if it is okay, blackburn, think of a couple of amendments that is involved in this process i just want to, when we did subpoenas across one of the most corrupt investigations in history the country, count number 16, 20 votes, camera what was so i'm glad we're having votes. i just want to remind the public who may still be watching this

for some odd reason, this is going nowhere, say political exercise, mr. chairman, i'm still dumbfounded that after voting a bill out of the committee that supposedly fixes this problem from your point of view, while we have not brought it up on the floor. i mean, you have a solution, you say it was voted out of the committee, and it has never been brought up to the floor. you are doing an investigation to fix a problem that you have already had a solution for. what are we -- if you want to fix the problem try to pass the bill that you claim fixes the problem. the reason we have not voted on that bill, mr. chairman, and never will is because there is just not the boats, this is

incredibly in my view unconstitutional. so we will play this game for a while, nothing will happen, the subpoenas never get issued, the bill never gets voted on, but it is important enough to restore the committee. >> i defer to senator graham. speculate for question? just want to please. we are in the amendment states that motivate my colleges will finish this today. >> will finish this bill today? >> a menace to bill today. senator blackburn will be the first republican. >> thank you. >> about guilting for question, i want to know like -- >> certainly different to senator blackburn for respective practice on the center -- senators have the floor, the senator asked them to give the request and they say yes, i will. but then that senator --'s my

guesstimate indefinitely, will one are we going to be able to debate this bill to what happens? what is a game plan? what you intend to do. >> 177 amendments of this is not the person we have had a number before the committee. >> was and were going to vote on it today. so what is the day mean? >> today at noon? is that what we are going to vote on? what are we going to vote on the bill today? >> stay here as long as you wish for the amendments. >> okay, so we can waive the two hour rule. >> no. i don't know that the two hour rule has been invoked, but you are doing with this for -- spec okay, so basically you're giving us today, which is thursday, wow. okay. >> with the center to yield for a question.

>> absolutely. speaks to subpoena, correct to >> are you familiar with any legit legislative purpose. or subpoena private citizens. >> to the intact the integrity of roberts court, to act on what they said they wanted to do to restore claire thomas's mutation, i think they really cared about the ethics practice in the court, we would be looking into the mire or situation, just distort my overstuffed numbers calling people, you need to sell some books that she is going to speak. so yeah, i think this is all clinically motivated, i think the two private citizens involved particularly leonard leo is the top of the guy most lived in the conservative world, i think this is

despicable what they are doing to these people, i think it is bad for the country, i think this is a joke simply because the bill to fix the problem the claimant exist, they won't even bring it up to the floor. so this is an investigation of private citizens of florida that i think is politically motivated not legislatively motivated. because if you want to pass legislation you have already died of committee. all you have to do is bring it to the floor, you are in charge. so no, i think it is obvious, there is no legitimate purpose. this is designed to get people they don't like and try to destroy clarence thomas. >> at the senator would yield for one more question. we heard some discussion about precedent earlier, the chairman cited what he claimed to be a precedent, i'm not chlor that i cleared up and suctioned the case. in other words, that the rules of been violated before, and so now that sets a precedent for

that action, it becomes the norm. so, what limitation is there on the majority of the judiciary committee issuing subpoenas to private citizens for any purpose that they may please? >> that is the heart of the matter perspective is a precedent that would be set, correct? >> anybody that we don't like for whatever reason will begin to subpoena a partisan basis, the people i want to subpoena were involved in a corrupt investigation. the court reviewed the department of justice and fbi lawyers for misleading the court. here we have efforts to bring in two private citizens associated with plants thomas

clarence thomas. there is no effort to go after other situations involving judges that may have done something untoward, so what we are doing now is using this committee as sort of a political vendetta. you don't like a couple of people who were active on the other side, and it was on subpoena. >> and i would be the precedent that would be set. >> akamai think so, i did not do that. senator presley did not do that but we actually worked issue of together. >> senator graham, to yield for the question? >> yes, sir. >> i would appreciated if you and or senator korman could educate me hear on the, the so- called president of subpoena in private citizens, i will give you an example. i recently, where the fbi has announced that it is prosecuting a prostitution ring here in

washington and maybe new york, i could have -- or new jersey. and it includes permit politicians and generals and lobbyists and in order for the client to frequent this brothel , the client had to give his name, his address, his social security number, his credit card . could we issue a subpoena for their name? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat it? >> have to repeat the whole thing? >> no. >> he got the problem part, right? my guess. >> no. no. no. i mean under this person which we be allowed to subpoena those names?

you were going, i guess, that a candidate the subpoenas were issued in the past that i'm aware of involving oversight function of an mitigation by the department of justice. i know we work together to issue subpoenas to get people before the committee and detect business who we think the companies in question are doing a lot of harm to the country. leonard leo and her lyft wrote a really prominent focus of the people you talk about leonard leo, i mean where do you get your judges from? we get our judges from conservative people who make relation to us. me what you get your judges from? your local groups after recommending names. this is really dangerous senator kennedy. there are two individuals, working once, they want to know

when you're saw the plane your permit at the gas station. it is beyond overbroad, it is chilling to me. i have literally back my colleagues please don't make me get on this road. please don't make me half to fight back over this that is not going to answer any calls you have picked political people you want to please over the smooth and efficient operations of the judiciary committee. you have made me a on the side fight back as we believe what you are doing his political motivated, there's not an ounce of legislated purpose in the subpoenas, because if you really gave a about legislation to fix the problem, you would

bring the bill up to floor that has passed this committee, so yeah. this is really bad, senator kennedy. there's no limit to. i hope you are satisfied over there. >> we will reclaim the time, i'm sorry, senator kennedy. expect to have the question. >> wyrick and i'm sure you have plenty of questions, i recognize senator graham, publicans offering amendments, want to make one statement and then we will proceed to ask --'s neck but it was a good question i had. >> all the russians are good. keep in mind as we talk about the expanding the limit opportunity under subpoenas and whether we are going to for we have made -- we need two individuals who we work with for much to its information. let me tell you, two individuals, that is it, of the subpoena so far but i will tell you this too a contrast that with the republicans

unprecedented subpoena authorization 2020 on crossfire hurricane provided the chair with a blanket authorization to subpoena more than 50, 50 maimed persons and an unlimited number of unnamed persons. so the subpoena obviously was a major consideration at that moment. >> and ask a question? >> senator blackburn. >> wait a minute. >> mr. chairman, cannot respond to what you said? because i am the one who thought the subpoenas. >> this is true. >> we were trying to find out how in america the fbi could use christopher stills dossier that was full of lies and garbage to get one against american citizens? we are trying to find out how crossfire hurricane got off the rails to the point that the

court reviewed and issued sanctions against the department of's justice and fbi legal counsel for mr. presenting to the court the true nature of the facts. this is a political effort by the radical left to destroy this court. you have subpoenaed two prominent, conservative people. you have ignored other problems with the court that senator blackburn would like to bring up to the committee. there is legislation you have passed before you did the subpoenas that would fix the problem. why would you do the subpoenas after you pass legislation to fix the problem? you have chosen not to bring

the legislation to the floor because it is unconstitutional. there is no legislative purpose here. this is politics, it is raw politics, it is dangerous politics, and this committee is taking the country down a very dark and dangerous road. that is the difference. >> will you yield for a question? >> yes. first of all, mr. chairman. isn't it true that the committee requested 25 years worth of documents for mr. crowe? mr. crow offered five years of those documents. i would think the fact that he was under no obligation to do this. >> that is correct. is it also true that on november 9th 2023 with that remix ago today, instead of hearing her chairman, are committee chairman said from this very seat, quote is within the power of the cheese justice

and fellow is that this all the spot before noon today, and i should've done show long time ago. in other words, he was conditioned upon the supreme court issuing a zone code of conduct, which the supreme court have not done. i have i heard anyone describe as inadequate, insufficient, was in the entire condition precedent for this committee considering that for >> all i can say is is not about this report, the weight operates is about the levitating the supreme court with constitute. i'm not saying that, that is what they said, they literally want to pass the court. they want to destroy this court, they want to add numbers of that defense to destroy, they want to ruin people's interpretation, that is what it takes to destroy it, the subpoenas in question are going after private citizens beyond being overbroad, there is no legislative purpose here, with

senator leave yield for a question? >> i will. >> the two individuals that senate democrats were targeting , leonard leo and harlan crow are both i believe it should aric richards. excuse me, i want to make one point clear. in a request for time comes to the chair. i yielded to senator graham, has made a statement. now what is happening in the interim, with reports is the committee so you know exactly where we stand. in the time that i have served in the judicial committee and in recent times, the democrats have never invoked the two hour rule on this committee, never. so we were able to continue our business and finish it. now for the second time as chairmanship or the republicans invoke the two hour rule as it did under the group to nomination. which means that we literally have until 12:00 -- smack know, we have next week, and have the week after that, and we have the week after that. what is the urgency here? give me a break.

you got bill of the floor. >> please let me finish. >> the chair has the floor. we will therefore proceed with the rule on the chairs of a second 2023 motion to authorize subpoena related to the committee supreme court ethics investigation. the clerk will call the roll. have the court order, mr. chairman. i have of court order. the chair shall entertain, skews me, i raise the court order, can i raise a point of order? mr. chairman? can you please rate a point of order as to what you're doing? i have a right on the rule floor to have a roll call vote to end debate, that is in the rules, i am invoking that now. are you denying me the right to vote to end debate under rule four?

>> clerk will suspend the chair makes a motion to suspend four. clerk will call the roll. >> i object. i asked for a roll call vote, please. >> suspending rule four. debate, right? thank you.

[ roll being taken ] >> >> mr. chairman, senator grassley did not give me a proxy. i have that information. thank you. >> the question now is on the proceeding to vote on the chairs november 2nd 2023 motion to authorize subpoenas. the clerk will call the role.. mr. chairman, can i raise a point of order, please? ? i'm sorry, but we have to proceed with this roll call. >> i can't raise the point of order before we go? >> the clerk will call the role.

>> [ roll being taken ]

the motion is agreed to put the chairs authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to the motion and the committee stands adjourned.