'I'm Glad You Think It's Cute': Ted Cruz Brutally Confronts Witness Calling To Try Oil Execs For Murder

Forbes Breaking News

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned Public Citizen Climate Program Director David Arkush over a 2023 paper in which Arkush made the case for jailing oil industry executives for homicide.

Transcript

00:00is fossil fuel influence in this building and I contend that that is what today is all about

00:09and I'll just leave it at that. Thank you Senator Whitehouse. One final bit of questioning for you

00:18Mr. Arcush. Define for this committee what homicide means. Oh sure so homicide is a legal term that

00:26refers to it's essentially a blanket term for any form of unlawful killing and an unlawful killing

00:32is causing death with a culpable mental state. Causing a death means substantially contributing

00:40to it or accelerating it and a culpable mental state could be negligence, knowledge, recklessness.

00:46So you wrote an article in 2023 entitled quote climate homicide prosecuting big oil for climate

00:55deaths. In that article you argue that oil and gas executives could be prosecuted not just sued

01:01but criminally prosecuted for homicide for murder based on climate change is that right? That's right

01:08I mean I would be careful with the wording because murder again is a technical term and definitely

01:13we're not arguing that they could be prosecuted for first degree murder that's killing with you know

01:18intent. But you want to put them in prison for homicide lock them up treat them as criminals put

01:23murderers get put people who commit homicide get put in in jails with violent criminals and and your

01:30position is this is a reasonable and rational thing that we should put the people leading the energy

01:37companies in America producing 8.5 million jobs we should arrest them and throw them in jail is that

01:43correct? It could be the case that some executives should be prosecuted in that way of course you can't

01:48put a corporation in jail so there are other remedies in that situation. But you can put human beings in

01:52jail and presumably you'd put the corporate officers in jail. Yes you can. You'd prosecute them for

01:56murder so so don't let there be any ambiguity and by the way Senator Whitehouse was really eager to

02:02make clear that you're the minority witness you're the witness he wanted he was eager to introduce you

02:06I'm going to go on the record as saying that is a moonbeam wacky theory that you want to prosecute

02:14people creating jobs and producing energy for murder. Let me ask you Mr. Arkush how did you get to the

02:21capital today? So here's what I want to tell you. How did you get to the capital today? I took an Uber.

02:27You took an Uber. Now was that in an automobile? Yes. Did that automobile have gasoline in it? Yes this is

02:35very very cute I see where this is going. So I'm glad you think it's cute. Under your theory you

02:39admitted you admitted carbon emissions should you be arrested in this in this room right now and

02:45prosecuted for murder? No. Why? That's not what the law holds. So tell me why because you're willing to

02:50say the guy who sold you the gasoline should be prosecuted for murder you're the one that

02:55benefited from it. Couldn't you have ridden a bicycle or maybe like like a some fairy dust to

03:01get here? The guy who sold the gas and 50 years ago knew that it was going to cause globally

03:09catastrophic damage that would cause problems for humanity. But you have exquisite knowledge of

03:14this. You were saying you were an expert. So on mens rea you have a level of culpability because you

03:21claim that the act of getting in that car was violence. It was murder that you should be locked

03:27up. Why do you get to violate these principles in a way that you just want to lock up the person who

03:34sold you the gas but not the beneficiary of it? That's that's your claim not mine because

03:40to be liable there are a bunch of reasons but one of them is you have to substantially contribute

03:45to the harm to the death. How many car rides is substantially? Is it one? Is it two? Is it ten?

03:53How many? A single individual couldn't possibly contribute enough. The point is... Well what about

03:56if say you're a democrat politician? Do you actually want me to answer this? What about if you're a democrat

04:00politician who flies private jets? It would be helpful if you're asking the questions. Doesn't he get to

04:05answer them? He gets to answer them in my time just like he gets to answer them in your time when you

04:11are asking them. Seems like I don't. So what about democrat politicians who fly private planes all the

04:18time? People like John Kerry who say for someone like me a private jet is the only reasonable way to

04:26travel. John Kerry has the climate footprint of a small town in Tennessee. Would you prosecute

04:36John Kerry for murder? So depending on how you calculate it U.S. fossil fuel company or the oil

04:42majors private oil majors are responsible for around half a global emission. My question was would you

04:47prosecute John Kerry for murder? Obviously not. No. Okay so democrat politicians are exempted. There is no

04:53individual. Democrat activists are exempt. I'm not going after people for carbon footprints. The whole

04:57thing is actually. Well why not though? Under your principle carbon is killing us. You claim it is

05:02homicide. By the way this is a whack job theory. You teach in law school. If one of your law students

05:07wrote this on an exam. Any law professor? General Kobach you were a law professor for years. If I wrote

05:14it's homicide lock him up. What grade would you give me and why? It wouldn't be a good one and you'd be part of

05:21the problem here. It's the same problem that the Baltimore judge in rejecting all of the eight

05:26claims brought by the city of Baltimore pointed out with regard to public nuisance theory. And that

05:30is it's not just the company that took the oil out of the ground. The individual consumer made a

05:36choice to use it as well. She said she dismissed all their claims, rejected their attempt to stretch

05:41public nuisance doctrine to cover quote, the results of fossil fuel usage and gas emissions by third

05:47parties located all over the world. You can't put the blame either in a homicide case or in a public

05:55nuisance case just on the company that extracted the oil from the ground because there's everybody's

06:01using it and we're all involved in it and that's why it doesn't fit homicide easily and it doesn't fit

06:06public nuisance easily either. Senator Whitehead. I don't think that Mr. Kobach is familiar with the

06:10relevant law in this case. You can't a defendant in a homicide case can't defend by saying somebody

06:15use my products exactly as I intended them to while I was lying to them about... So you're saying we

06:19should prosecute you for murder? No. Because you drove an automobile here? No, no, no. I'm saying...

06:24Well, you said you couldn't use the defense. The fact that someone else does it... I'm saying the...

06:28You contributed. You're a murderer. Under your wacky theory, you're a murderer too. I'm not sure I

06:33should be trying to speak. Do you... Can I finish the sentence or...? For once, we agree.

06:39Senator Whitehouse. Will you allow the witness to answer without

06:42interruption during my time? It's your time. You're welcome to... You just interrupted him

06:48during my time. You are welcome to sing. No, he was actually... It was the end of my time. You're

06:53welcome to sing or you can conduct poetry in iambic pentameter. You can blow a kazoo. You can do

06:59whatever you wish.

Category

Transcript

Recommended