‘That’s A LIE’:Booker Vs Cruz Explodes In Senate Over Judge Threats | Booker RAGES Over Protest Laws - video Dailymotion

Oneindia

Senators Cory Booker and Ted Cruz engaged in a fiery exchange during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on threats to federal judges. As Cruz accused Democrats of remaining silent during threats against conservative justices, Booker pushed back, calling the remarks “dangerous” and a “patent lie.” The tense back-and-forth highlighted rising political divisions over judicial safety, enforcement of protest laws, and the legacy of Trump-era rhetoric. The hearing, titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch," underscored growing concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and partisan responses to violence and intimidation.    #BookerVsCruz #JudicialThreats #SenateClash #CoryBooker #TedCruz #FederalJudges #SCOTUS #PoliticalDivision #JudiciaryHearing #TrumpEra #DemocratsVsRepublicans #SenateFireworks #USPolitics #PartisanRift #LegalNews #SupremeCourt #DobbsDecision #JudgeSafety #SubcommitteeHearing #CapitolHill #LawAndOrder #DOJ #Protests #FreeSpeechDebate #SenateShowdown #BreakingNews #AmericanPolitics #JusticeSystem #Schumer #Kavanaugh #BookerStrikesBack #CruzVsBooker  Also Read  Zuckerberg’s testimony before social-media unsavvy gerontocrats & shrewd politicians :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-congress-social-media-unsavvy-gerontocrats-ted-cruz-2675671.html?ref=DMDesc  Ted Cruz will vote for former rival Donald Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/ted-cruz-will-vote-for-former-rival-donald-trump-2217831.html?ref=DMDesc  GOP Convention turns ugly as Ted Cruz faces insults for not endorsing Trump :: https://www.oneindia.com/international/republican-convention-ted-cruz-faces-insult-not-endorses-trump-2158995.html?ref=DMDesc    ~HT.410~ED.103~GR.125~

Transcript

00:00I did not interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish.

00:06I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric,

00:11which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country.

00:15Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me for a moment?

00:19We indulge you every moment.

00:21I appreciate that act of generosity.

00:24It's just something you said that I think is actually dangerous

00:27and should be addressed, and you're welcome.

00:30But when Judge Anderle was killed in New Jersey,

00:34the Republican colleagues in the Senate,

00:36their outpouring of support, their outpouring of concern,

00:40their willing to work together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary.

00:43It shows the truth of this institution.

00:46Despite some of the fiery rhetoric that you were showing,

00:49we're really working bipartisanship.

00:53Cornyn and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about,

00:57got together and actually passed a bill

00:59to better protect our Supreme Court justices,

01:02many of whom are friends of ours.

01:05You know, Gorsuch and I disagree on a lot of stuff.

01:08I knew his wife before he did.

01:10We studied together at Oxford.

01:12This implication that there was silence

01:14when there were threats on their people's houses

01:15is absolutely absurd.

01:18I remember the rhetoric and the comments,

01:21the concern from Coons.

01:22I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman,

01:25on more than once condemning those attacks

01:28on Republican-appointed jurists.

01:32To say things like that feeds just the partisanship

01:35in this institution and feeds the fiery rhetoric.

01:39And it's just plain not true.

01:41It's just plain not true.

01:42And I think you know that,

01:43but we can pull from the record from my colleagues

01:46in real time, literally days afterwards,

01:49condemning it.

01:50There's a lot of substantive things to say here,

01:52but to think that the lack of humanity

01:55when people's homes are being threatened

01:57was not in existence,

01:58I think that's unfair

01:59and really concerns me that you would say that

02:01in the way that you did.

02:03Well, I thank my colleague from New Jersey.

02:05I will note, as John Adams observed,

02:09that facts are stubborn things.

02:10And it is existing federal law,

02:1418 U.S.C., section 1507,

02:16that makes it a crime

02:17to protest at a judge's home.

02:20And the law provides,

02:21whoever with the intent of interfering

02:23with obstructing or impeding

02:24the administration of justice

02:26or with the intent of influencing

02:27any judge, juror, witness, or court officer

02:30in the discharge of his duty,

02:31pickets or parades,

02:33in or near a building,

02:34housing a court of the United States,

02:36in or near a building or residence,

02:37occupied or used by such judge,

02:40juror, witness, or court officer,

02:42or with such intent

02:43uses any sound truck or similar device

02:45or resorts to any other demonstration

02:47in or near any such building or residence,

02:50shall be fined under this title

02:53or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

02:58That is federal criminal law.

03:00Night after night after night,

03:03angry mobs were outside

03:04the Supreme Court justices' homes

03:06and in the entire course of it,

03:09the Biden Justice Department

03:10prosecuted nobody.

03:13We had the Attorney General

03:14sitting at that table

03:15and multiple Republican Senators

03:18asked him,

03:19why are you not enforcing the law?

03:21What they are doing is a crime.

03:24And my friend from New Jersey said,

03:26it is a lie to say

03:27we the Democrats

03:28condone this.

03:32I would challenge my friend,

03:33find a single Democrat Senator

03:36on this committee

03:36holding the Attorney General

03:39to account for not enforcing this law.

03:42I was here at those hearings

03:43and I do not recall

03:44a single Democrat Senator

03:47saying to the Attorney General,

03:48you should arrest these people

03:52who are violating the law,

03:54you should protect the judges.

03:55I agree that there was general language

03:58against violence,

03:59but not a single Democrat Senator

04:02that I ever saw in this committee

04:05was willing to hold

04:06Attorney General Merrick Garland

04:08to account for flagrantly disregarding

04:11the federal criminal law

04:12because the Biden administration

04:14agreed with the protesters

04:16and I think wanted

04:17those justices harassed

04:18at their homes.

04:19I really appreciate

04:20that you have now shifted

04:21the accusation you made earlier.

04:23Your accusation was

04:25that we were silent

04:25in the face of protests

04:27at Supreme Court Justices' homes.

04:31Again,

04:32we joined together

04:33in a bipartisan way

04:34not only to condemn that,

04:36but to pass legislation

04:38to extend

04:39round-the-clock security protection

04:42literally days.

04:43It was introduced May 5th,

04:45passed the Senate

04:46in a bipartisan fashion

04:48on May 9th.

04:48So if you're saying

04:49that we didn't criticize

04:50Merrick Garland...

04:50Did the Biden DOJ

04:51arrest a single person

04:52under this law?

04:53Sir, you are now changing

04:54the accusation that she made.

04:54No, that is what I said.

04:55That is what I said.

04:56Again, I'll pull the record.

04:58Did the Biden DOJ

04:59arrest even one?

05:00Again.

05:01The answer is no.

05:01My point to you is

05:03the accusation

05:04that the Democrats

05:06on this committee

05:07do not care about

05:08the safety

05:09of federal judges...

05:11Should the Biden DOJ...

05:11I did not interrupt you, sir.

05:12I would appreciate

05:13if you let me finish.

05:17I am sick and tired

05:19of hearing

05:20the kind of

05:21heated partisan rhetoric,

05:22which is one of the reasons

05:24why we have such divisions

05:25in this country.

05:26The attacks we see

05:27from the President

05:28of the United States

05:29of America

05:30trolling and dragging

05:32judges through

05:34is what we should be

05:35talking about

05:36that puts people

05:37in danger.

05:38I'm simply taking issue

05:39with the claim

05:40that you made

05:41at the top

05:42that people

05:43on the Democratic

05:44side of the aisle

05:45do not care

05:46about the safety

05:47and the security

05:48of judges

05:49and said nothing.

05:50You said we were silent

05:52after people's houses

05:53were protested.

05:54That is a patent lie, sir.

05:56We were not silent.

05:58We took action.

06:00We joined in a bipartisan way

06:02to protect those judges

06:03as was done

06:04in a bipartisan way

06:06to protect

06:06a New Jersey judge

06:08after their horrific attack

06:10at their home.

06:11So I see you now

06:12trying to shift the debate

06:14to whether we talk

06:15to an attorney general.

06:16I'm simply taking issue

06:18with this accusation

06:19that somehow

06:20we Democrats

06:21are so bad

06:22because we don't call out

06:24threats

06:24to our judicial colleagues.

06:27And that is wrong.

06:29You can change the argument

06:30now that you want,

06:31but what you said

06:32was patently not true

06:33and was in fact

06:34a patent lie.

06:35So I do enjoy the fact

06:39that my colleague

06:39from New Jersey

06:40raises his voice

06:41and says it's a patent lie

06:43and says he's doing so

06:44in defense of lowering

06:46the rhetoric.

06:47There is some irony

06:48to doing those two together.

06:51I'll point out

06:52that in the entire course

06:54of those remarks,

06:55Senator Booker

06:56did not dispute

06:57the central point I made,

06:59which is the Biden

07:00Justice Department

07:01arrested zero people,

07:03prosecuted zero people,

07:05for violating

07:06the criminal law

07:07and every Democrat

07:10senator on this committee

07:11was silent about it.

07:12And this was an ongoing

07:13pattern for months.

07:15And I would note also

07:16that the senator

07:17from New Jersey

07:18clutched his pearls

07:19about language

07:20threatening judges

07:22and yet I do not recall

07:23a single Democrat senator

07:25of this committee

07:25saying a word

07:27when Chuck Schumer

07:28went to the steps

07:29of the Supreme Court

07:30and threatened

07:31the safety

07:32of the Supreme Court

07:32justices by name,

07:35Gorsuch and Kavanaugh,

07:37and he said you have

07:37unleashed the whirlwind

07:39and you will pay the price.

07:42And not a single

07:43Democrat senator

07:44had a word to say

07:45about this.

07:45And so their outrage

07:47is selective.

07:49And I will give

07:50my colleague from New Jersey

07:52a chance to just answer

07:54a simple yes-no question.

07:56Should the Biden

07:56Justice Department

07:57have enforced

07:58the criminal law

08:00against protesting

08:01at a justice's home?

08:02Yes or no?

08:04So the rank hypocrisy

08:05of Chuck Schumer

08:06apologizing the next day

08:08and you holding

08:09that standard for him

08:10and not for your president

08:12who you actually

08:13rightfully described

08:14when you were running

08:15against him in a primary.

08:17I would love

08:18to run those tapes

08:19of how you perfectly

08:20talked about

08:21the danger of our president

08:22and his rhetoric.

08:25But now you are

08:26failing, in fact blind

08:29to the very things

08:30you're accusing

08:30Chuck Schumer of.

08:31I don't think Donald Trump

08:32would know an apology

08:33if it hit him in the head.

08:35Never said apologizing.

08:37So again,

08:38you are very, very, sir,

08:40very, very deep

08:42into the waters

08:42of hypocrisy

08:43in your criticisms

08:44of Chuck Schumer.

08:46So let the record reflect

08:48that Spartacus

08:49did not answer the question

08:50and did not tell us

08:52whether the criminal law

08:53should be enforced

08:54because he knows

08:55the answer is yes

08:56and he knows

08:57that the Biden

08:57Department of Justice

08:58was being wildly

08:59political and partisan

09:01in refusing to enforce

09:03the law

09:03because they disagreed

09:04with the Supreme Court

09:05justices' rulings.

09:07I have also,

09:09in addition to

09:09Senator Durbin

09:10who's given his

09:11opening statement,

09:11I have a written

09:12opening statement

09:13from Chairman Grassley.

09:15Without objection,

09:16that written statement

09:16has entered into the record

09:17and I will now briefly

09:19introduce our

09:20distinguished witnesses.

09:21We have three.

09:22Subscribe to OneIndia

09:25and never miss an update.

‘That’s A LIE’:Booker Vs Cruz Explodes In Senate Over Judge Threats | Booker RAGES Over Protest Laws

Category

Transcript

Recommended