Sparks Fly As Ted Cruz & Cory Booker Clash After Booker Accuses Cruz Of 'Patent Lie'

Forbes Breaking News

At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) battled over Cruz's claim that Democrats did nothing when mobs of protesters demonstrated in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.

Transcript

00:00make two brief observations. Number one, it is interesting as our Democrat

00:07colleagues defend these nationwide injunctions that neither of them made

00:14any reference to the fact that the number of nationwide injunctions issued

00:18in the first four months is greater than the entire 20th century and is greater

00:23than all of the nationwide injunctions issued against Bush, Obama and Biden

00:28combined, nor did they address the disturbing fact that of the 40 universal

00:36injunctions that have been issued in the last four months, 35 of them came from the

00:42same five judicial districts. There is a reason for this. Blue state attorneys

00:49general and radical leftist groups are seeking out affirmatively radical judges

00:56who they know will impose their own policy preferences. If it were simply, as our

01:01Democrat colleagues said, judges following the law, then you wouldn't have to keep

01:06going to the same radical judges over and over and over again because judges across

01:11the board should do that. But the litigants know exactly who the zealots are that are

01:16on the bench and that's who they are seeking out. I will also point out that the

01:21discussion about the urgency of protecting the safety of judges. Listen, I agree. We should protect

01:27the safety of every federal judge, but it is interesting because my Democrat colleagues were

01:33utterly silent during four years of the Biden administration when you had violent mobs outside

01:40the homes of Supreme Court justices unhappy with the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs and the Biden

01:46Justice Department refused to enforce federal law and protect the justices. And my Democrat colleagues

01:52were perfectly happy with Supreme Court justices being threatened if they disliked the rulings that

01:59were coming from the Supreme Court justices. Unlike my colleagues, I believe we should protect judges

02:05regardless of whether I agree with them or not. We should protect their safety. And every time you hear

02:10a Democrat senator talk about protecting judges from acts of violence, you ought to ask them,

02:16why did they not have a word to say about the Biden Justice Department allowing mobs

02:21to threaten the families and children of Supreme Court justices night after night after night while

02:27Biden's Attorney General refused to follow the law? And with that, I'll recognize the ranking member of

02:31the full committee, Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cruz. They asked Winston Churchill after World War

02:39Trump, would you indulge me for a moment? We indulge you every moment. I appreciate that.

02:46Act of generosity. It's just something you said that I think is actually dangerous and

02:50should be addressed, and you're welcome. But when Judge Anderall was killed in New Jersey,

02:57the Republican colleagues in the Senate, their outpouring of support, their outpouring of concern,

03:03their willing to work together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the truth of

03:08this institution that, despite some of the fiery rhetoric that you were showing, we're really a

03:13bipartisan, working bipartisanship. Cornyn and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about,

03:20got together and actually passed a bill to better protect our Supreme Court justices,

03:25many of whom are friends of ours. You know, Gorsuch and I disagree on a lot of stuff. I knew his wife

03:32before he did. We studied together at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there

03:37were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I remember the rhetoric and the comments,

03:43the concern from Coons. I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, on more than once condemning

03:50those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists. To say things like that feeds just the partisanship

03:58in this institution and feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true. It's just plain

04:05not true. And I think you know that, but we can pull from the record from my colleagues in real time,

04:10literally days afterwards, condemning it. There's a lot of substantive things to say here, but to think

04:16that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being threatened was not in existence, I think that's unfair

04:22and really concerns me that you would say that in the way that you did.

04:25Well, I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note, as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn

04:33things. And it is existing federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1507, that makes it a crime to protest at

04:42a judge's home. And the law provides whoever with the intent of interfering with obstructing or impeding

04:47the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer

04:53in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United

04:58States in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court

05:04officer, or with such intent uses any sound truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration

05:11in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

05:19one year or both. That is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry mobs were outside

05:27the Supreme Court justice's homes. And in the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department

05:33prosecuted nobody. We had the Attorney General sitting at that table and multiple Republican senators

05:41asked him, why are you not enforcing the law? What they are doing is a crime. And my friend from New

05:48Jersey said, it is a lie to say we, the Democrats, condone this. I would challenge my friend, find a

05:57single Democrat senator on this committee holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this

06:04law. I was here at those hearings and I do not recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney

06:11General, you should arrest these people who are violating the law, you should protect the judges.

06:18I agree that there was general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator that

06:26I ever saw in this committee was willing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for

06:32flagrantly disregarding the federal criminal law because the Biden administration agreed with the

06:38protesters and I think wanted those justices harassed at their homes. I really appreciate that you've

06:43now shifted the accusation you made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of

06:49protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to

06:58condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection, literally days.

07:06It was introduced May 5th, passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion on May 9th. So if you're

07:12saying that we didn't criticize Merrick Garland- Did the DOJ arrest a single person under this law?

07:16Sir, you are now changing the- No, that is what I said. That is what I said.

07:19Again, I'll pull the record. Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one?

07:23Again- The answer is no.

07:24My point to you is the accusation that the Democrats on this committee do not care about the safety of

07:33federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish.

07:40I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we

07:47have such divisions in this country. The attacks we see from the President of the United States of

07:53America trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about that puts people in

08:00danger. I am simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top that people on the Democratic

08:07side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing. You said we

08:14were silent after people's houses were protested. That is a patent lie, sir. We were not silent.

08:21We took action. We joined in a bipartisan way to protect those judges as was done in a bipartisan way

08:29to protect a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack at their home. So I see you now trying to

08:36shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general. I am simply taking issue with this

08:41accusation that somehow we Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats to our

08:49judicial colleagues. And that is wrong. You could change the argument now that you want,

08:54but what you said was patently not true and was in fact a patent lie.

09:00So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie

09:06and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric. There is some irony to doing those two together.

09:15I'll point out that in the entire course of those remarks, Senator Booker did not dispute the central

09:21point I made, which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted zero people

09:29for violating the criminal law. And every Democrat senator on this committee was silent about it.

09:35And this was an ongoing pattern for months. And I would note also that the senator from New Jersey

09:41clutched his pearls about language, threatening judges. And yet I do not recall a single Democrat

09:47senator of this committee saying a word when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme Court and

09:53threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices by name, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And he said,

10:00you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And not a single Democrat senator had a

10:07word to say about this. And so their outrage is selective. And I will give my colleague from New Jersey

10:15a chance to just answer a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department have enforced

10:21the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home? Yes or no?

10:26So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next day, and you holding that standard for

10:33him and not for your president, who you actually rightfully described when you were running against

10:38him in a primary. I would love to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about the danger of our

10:45president and his rhetoric. But now you are failing, in fact, blind to the very things you're accusing

10:53Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump would know an apology if it hit him in the head. Never

10:58said apologizing. So again, you are very, very, sir, very, very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your

11:07criticisms of Chuck Schumer.

11:09So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the

11:15criminal law should be enforced because he knows the answer is yes. And he knows that the Biden

11:20Department of Justice was being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the law because

11:26they disagreed with the Supreme Court justice's rulings. I have also, in addition to Senator Durbin,

11:33who's given his opening statement, I have a written opening statement from Chairman Grassley,

11:38without objection, that written statement is entered into the record.

11:41And I will now briefly introduce our distinguished witnesses. We have three.

Category

Transcript

Recommended