Michael Cloud Criticizes Witness For Call To Protect Judges From ‘Hurt Or Threats Of Impeachment’

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing last week, Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) spoke of his disapproval for phrases from Judicial Conference Secretary Robert Conrad’s statement.

Transcript

00:00I'll recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, for any questions.

00:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:06Thank you both for being here.

00:07Thank you for the work you do in our all-important judiciary.

00:12I had a couple questions I wanted to bring up.

00:15One, I read through the strategic plan, and my understanding is those come out every five years,

00:20so we should be expecting another one this year.

00:23Is that correct?

00:24Yes.

00:24About when could we expect that?

00:26We have spent time at the last two judicial conferences getting out the strategic plan

00:37to the committee responsible for it, to the other conference committees that have input in it.

00:43Is there a time?

00:44I'm sorry.

00:45I work in process.

00:46I have a lot of stuff to go through.

00:48Is there a date that we can, roughly.

00:50The next judicial conference is in October of 2025.

00:53Okay, so we, is that when we would expect the report, shortly thereafter?

00:58It's possible that it would be produced at that time.

01:00Okay.

01:01You had mentioned, Judge Conrad, in your statement, the importance of us protecting judges against hurt or threats of impeachment.

01:12I think it's dangerous to combine those two in the same sentence.

01:15Against hurt, yes, we should definitely protect them.

01:18But that would be like you telling me that I should not be worried about what the people will think who elected me.

01:26Impeachment is a constitutional role to hold the judiciary accountable.

01:31And certainly, you know, Congress created these courts with the exception of the Supreme Court,

01:36and that is our mechanism to deal with the legal system that's gone wayward.

01:41So we want to do everything we can to protect the judges and anyone involved in the legal process.

01:48But I think it's a dangerous ground to say that.

01:51And I was actually disappointed by this chief justice when he came out.

01:55With everything going on in the judiciary right now,

01:58for him to come out and take issue with the president

02:03when there's a lot of work to be done within the judiciary is very concerning.

02:09Now, one of the big issues and the second one in the strategic plan,

02:14which I certainly appreciate, was preserving public trust, confidence, and understanding.

02:20And it talked basically about the need to educate the public about everything that's going on.

02:24Now, a lot's happened in five years, and we've seen a lot of what some would say is lawfare.

02:30I certainly would agree with that.

02:32I think a number of Americans do.

02:35And I'm wondering what you will do as we approach the next strategic plan

02:41to deal with these sort of things, where we see lawyers who represent President Trump disbarred

02:47and threatened just for representing him in some cases,

02:50and then we see those prosecuting President Trump basically given a free pass.

02:58And so you could go down the long list of bad practices that has happened,

03:06but, you know, from Jack Smith to Fannie Willis was disqualified from the case

03:13and Nathan Wade from his case, but neither of them have faced disbarment.

03:18Alvin Bragg turned a misdemeanor into invented law, basically, in order to bring indictments.

03:26He has not been referred to for disbarment.

03:30Leticia James has been basically under investigation for the very thing she accused President Trump of,

03:41and Elise Stefanik and others have called for her to be disbarred.

03:44He's not been referred.

03:45You know, so we see a duplicity here, and that's where we're getting a lot of the mistrust

03:52that the Americans have in the judiciary right now.

03:56I'm wondering what your strategic plan will do to address those concerns.

04:01I'd like to go back to your first comment, work from there,

04:04where you identified that in my opening remarks.

04:07I had referred to the physical security of judges and impeachment in the same phrase or sentence,

04:17and your point's a fair one, and I take it as a clarification.

04:22From the independent judiciary's perspective, they do represent two harms.

04:33The first harm is to judges and their family members who have been threatened either by intimidation

04:44or actual physical violence that the last several years the marshals have...

04:51We've met with the Supreme Court and the administrative judge, and we've discussed this.

04:57You know, I don't think there's debate across the aisle as to whether or not we should protect judges,

05:01at least hopefully in this chamber.

05:03My concern is, what are we going to do to restore trust in the American people

05:08in a judicial process that seems very partisan?

05:12For example, district judges who think that they can impose executive mandates.

05:16I mean, you go read Federalist 78, and it's very clear the judiciary will have no force

05:21or will over the purse or the sword, and yet we have a number of judicial judges

05:26who seem to think that they've been elected president.

05:28And our system for 250 years has functioned with one branch having the sword,

05:37one branch having the purse, and the third branch being supposedly

05:42the least dangerous of the branches.

05:45There is disagreement, strong disagreement, passionate disagreement

05:52with the rulings of district court judges.

05:54Our tradition of justice has been to challenge those rulings, to appeal them,

06:03and to get the ruling that you think, as a litigant, you're entitled to.

06:10The question was, what were you going to do in the strategic plan?

06:13And my time's up, Chairman.

06:15That's the answer.

06:16Chairman, I recognize.

Category

Transcript

Recommended