TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-10-14 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029112

US POLITICS ... DEMOCRATS SENATOR CORY BOOKER Senator Cory Booker: Booker DEMANDS Debate on Emil Bove PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5BIkuXQoc
Booker DEMANDS Debate on Emil Bove: FULL Senator Cory Booker Jul 17, 2025 129K subscribers ... 98,639 views Cory Booker Fights Back—Demands Senate Debate on Emil Bove Peter Burgess COMMENTARY I am happy to archive this reporting from Congress about Senator Cory Booker. It supports my view of the Senator's values and competence. I was surprised and elighted when all the Democrats on the committee walked out in support of the Booker initiative! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 Uh thank you very much chairman Grassley. This process with uh Emil Boie started with uh my office as well as Senator Andy Kim saying to the White House we were willing to work with them to find someone. The president of the United States or the White House council completely violated the process we had agreed upon and thrust this judge onto the state of New Jersey. a judge, excuse me, a a a candidate, a nominee who we had already written letters of complaint about for his role in the prosecutor's office around issues around January 6th. Bo directed Ed Martin to fire the January 6th defendants, and that was something we were actively investigating before he was even being considered as this. Imagine any senator here having somebody put in as a circuit court nominee in their state when there is an active investigation going on about 1:01 something as serious as the January 6th nominations. That is something that everybody here would consider a violation of process. Now, I understand that there are folks here in good faith who are looking for issues and understanding, but we should all know we have an obligation, a duty, constitutional duty to advise and consent that requires full and fair consideration. At this moment, there are still unanswered questions surrounding this nominee, evidence and data coming out, at least one whistleblower who's come forward. Moving forward with this vote before this committee has addressed these issues and concerns would undermine the integrity of this process. Mr. Bob's answers at his hearing and questions for the record raise serious questions as to whether he actually misled this committee, even lied to this committee. Multiple members of this committee have pending requests for 2:00 critical information regarding Mr. that must be fulfilled for us to responsibly and thoroughly evaluate this person's qualifications for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. Let's start with a credible whistleblower who came forward with texts and emails that show that Mr. Boie said FU to the courts and instructed federal officials to ignore a court order. The whistleblower is a 15-year career lawyer at the DOJ who served in Republican and Democratic administrations and defended the Trump administration's immigration policies during the first term. This is hardly someone that lacks credibility and legitimacy. And he came forward at a climate that we all know when folks like this come forward, they are targeted with hate, with threats. Yet this person who has such integrity and such experience daringly, courageously stepped forward and this committee won't even hear from him. 3:02 I I I'm hardpressed to believe that someone who dedicated 15 years to public service would jeopardize their career, the safety of themselves and their families for no reason. After learning that in 2018, members of the Federal Defense Bar in SDNY may of whom were former prosecutors took the unprecedented step in 2018 of alerting Mr. Boy's supervisors of his unethical conduct. These are Democrats and Republicans, former federal prosecutors. Many of my colleagues and I on this committee requested information from the SDNY about any internal or external complaints against him during this tenure. And after weeks of outreach, we haven't gotten any response. Just yesterday did the DOJ respond only to refuse to honor the request. And yet we're moving forward. This committee is moving forward without all of these former prosecutors, federal prosecutors, federal defenders, their legitimate 4:01 claims being heard. Finally, after receiving credible information, I sent a letter to Mr. Boi requesting that he explain his role in reviewing and withholding information about the Epstein files. That's something that should be basic for this committee. Just give us the information. He held a leadership role at the Department of Justice since the beginning of the Trump administration after months of public statements about quote unquote truckloads of documents in the Epstein files. The DOJ and the FBI suddenly declin decided that there's no need to do any kind of disclosures. There's nothing to see here. Look away. Which one is it? The public has a right to know. And a person being nominated for one of the highest courts in our land who clearly played a role in this matter of grave national concern, including child sex trafficking, should actually we should know what he knew and what he did in this matter. I've 5:00 requested responses to these questions by 9:00 a.m. this morning, and we have heard nothing as a committee. And yet, we're moving forward. Time and time again, there are relevant allegations made against this nominee by independent people, by Republicans, by career professionals, and we are not listening to them or demanding answers. These unanswered questions strike at the very core of whether Bo is fit for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. Does he respect the rule of law? They raise the alarming possibility that he deliberately lied and concealed critical information to these to this committee. Mr. Chairman, there are federal prosecutors who held accountable those who attacked the US capital and assaulted law enforcement on January 6th. I'm grateful for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about the severity of this issue. 6:02 Federal prosecutors, career professionals have raised strong reservations about Mr. Boie who had undermined their legitimate work to hold accountable people who did the most horrific acts of violence. Listen to these folks who are law enforcement professionals and what they're saying about Mr. Boie. Several of these prosecutors reached out to my Republican colleagues on this committee to share their grave concerns, but not one of them were met with by anyone on the other side of the aisle. Not even to listen to these prosecutors who did their job, who faithfully served the rule of law, who were instruments and agents of justice. One would expect that their concerns should be heard, but unfortunately, not one meeting, almost as if they don't want to hear the truth or the facts or the details. How can you 7:00 say you were concerned about what happened on January 6th, and you won't listen to the people who spent months and months and months prosecuting those cases? How does that make sense to not even want to hear from these folks who have legitimate concerns, who've expressed grave concerns? I I don't understand why we are willfully refusing to hear the legitimate concerns not of politicians, not of elected officials, but of career folks, many of them Republicans who've expressed care grave concerns. One group literally said, and this isn't from the time that Trump nominated him. This is before he even served in the in the Department of Justice, a group of lawyers, federal prosecutors and defendants said that he is the prosecutorial version of a drunk driver. He is reckless and dangerous. 8:02 And have we asked to hear from those folks? Here's a guy that was given the worst ever condemnation from a judge in the SDNY for withholding exculpatory evidence as a prosecutor. There are former prosecutors on this committee. Imagine that kind of flaunting of the rule of law, the grave ethical violations in that case. Imagine that we are about to put that person now to be a judge. That is stunning to me. There is no need to vote on this nominee today. It is a false urgency. My guess is the White House has issued orders to move this along as quickly as possible. Don't let these independent arbiters with legitimate insight into this 9:01 nominees qualifications don't let them be heard. Dear God, we are hearing that there are other whistleblowers who are wondering if they should come forward. We're hearing that they they are afraid to come forward. They have lawyered up and and we better get this thing through as quickly as possible before other people come through. With more time, we would get more answers. With more times, the things that Mr. Boie has done at the DOJ and throughout his career would come to light, not by elected officials, but by legitimate people whose voices should be heard. Why are we refusing to hear them? Why are we silencing those people? It's going to get harder and harder for my colleagues to ignore the truth. So, let's rush these things through, but let's hear a little bit of the truth. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit a number of le letters into the record. First, an opposition letter of current and former state and federal prosecutors from around the country. 10:00 These prosecutors state, quote, 'Boy not only refused to hold accountable those who attacked our nation's capital and attempted to block our democratic process on January 6th, but he punished and dismissed career justice department employees who investigated and prosecuted that insurrection.' Another letter I'd like to submit from almost a thousand former DOJ prosecutors. This is unprecedented that almost a thousand former DOJ prosecutors would write this committee and say that they are alarmed, quote, by DOJ's leadership's recent deviations from constitutional principles and institutional guard rails. They identified Mr. Boie as the leader in this assault. They say it is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Department of Justice would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land. And the third letter I'd like to submit is from 75 former federal and state judges, including a former Third Circuit judge 11:00 who was appointed by President Bush. jurists are writing. This is what they say. Elevating a nominee whose record reflects a pattern of misconduct, disregard for lawful authority and political entanglement would not only compromise the integrity of the courts. It would set a dangerous precedent that judicial power may be wielded in the service of personal feely rather than constitutional duty. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit a letter from former federal prosecutors who have collectively more than 450 years of experience trying cases. These former federal prosecutors, 450 of them, urge, there is only one way this committee can determine whether Mr. Boie has violated a court order. It's by hearing the testimony of Mr. Revene, the whistleblower. Failure to take the time now to do so before voting on this 12:02 nomination will forever brand this decision as rubber stamping. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I make a request and I and and as I understand the rules of this committee, I have the right to do that. Mr. Revenue witness the DOJ leadership plan to defy court orders. I would like to say under I ask under rule four of this rules of the committee that the chairman is required to entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee for a vote. I'm a making a motion to bring this matter to a vote. I request a roll call of this committee so that the record may show that each me where each member stands on allowing a whistleblower, an independent prosecutor who worked in Democrat and Republican administrations for 15 years, who courageously stepped forward, who put his life at risk, who is being threatened right now, who felt 13:00 like it was worth to come forward to speak to this committee. I'd like to request that before voting on this nominee, we would hear from this nominee. I'd like a roll call vote on that according to rule four of this committee. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Uh well before you call the role uh first of all I do believe that uh it's not on the agenda what you've requested and uh we uh won't uh things that I haven't previewed ahead of time or on the agenda. So I'm going to rule you out of order. But sir, we we can in all sincerity, we could we could take the time. We could set the the whistleblower coming next week. It would give us more time than enough time to review all of the things that you're concerned about. The level of gravity of the charges of an independent prosecutor for 15 years who literally has put his life on the 14:00 line by coming forward. We could do the necessary work to prepare for such a hearing to hear from this prosecutor. Before I call on Senator White House, let me uh say that you request to put things in the record. We will grant that request. Uh we'll go to Boy's nomination. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Mr. Chairman, um Mr. Chairman, according to rule four of the committee, we have the right to continue to debate this nomination. No, I'm invoking rule four of the committee, we have the right to debate this nomination. You're out of seconding Senator Booker's demand for a vote on his request to hear from the whistleblower. Mr. Chairman, you should at least acknowledge my rule four point of order. You're out of I don't understand this. What are you afraid of about even debating this, putting things on the record, hearing from every senator? Dear God, that's what our obligations are is to state our 15:01 reasons for debate. at least address the rule four point of order that we're calling. There's no need to rush this. What are we afraid of? We're not pressing for the 2-hour rule like you all did when you were in the minority. We're simply asking for a credible amount of time to air our concerns before the vote. We respect each other in this committee. We respect the understanding that we have things to say. But yet, we're doing this in a way that makes no sense to me. And it makes no sense to me because we're not trying to do things like force the committee to close or force a two-hour rule. This is about understanding that people on this side have a responsibility to state their issues. Out of order. Uh Mr. Sir, you could call me out of order because this is out of order. This undermines the basic decency of this committee. Yes, maybe overrule a rule four, but at least address the rule four point of order that senators were elected to debate issues and debate 16:00 nominees. This is absolutely insane. What is the rush? Sir, I am interrupting because you're interrupting a regular point of order. At least address my point of order. I have the right to do that by the rules of this committee. If you want to overrule the rules of committee, then do so. But this is not in any way in order. You are obligated to address a point of order according to the rules of this committee. You could overrule me by a Senate vote. You're violating your own rules. The parliamentarian has been clear about this. The parliamentarian has been clear. You could overrule the rule I'm the the point of order I'm doing, but you have to follow the precedents and procedures of this committee. This is outrageous that you're not allowing senators to have their fair say before a controversial nominee is being done. This is unbelievable. This is unjust. This is wrong. It is the further deterioration of this committee's 17:00 integrity with a person like this. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of hearing from Chris Coons? From hearing from one of my colleagues, from hearing from Adam Schiff, what is the fear here? have at least the decency to have a vote on my point of order regarding rule four. I have respect for you, Mr. Chairman. We've served together for more than a decade, but this is outrageous. This is unacceptable. This is wrong. It is wrong. And why? Why? What is the rush to take another half hour to listen to people? What is the rush? What are we afraid of, Mr. Chairman? What are we afraid of? I do not understand why senators can't debate a nominee as we've done when both sides have been in the majority to take the time. What is the thing that you are so afraid of from hearing from my Senate colleagues? This is a violation of the precedence of this committee. We're not trying some stunt here to try 18:01 to force a two-hour rule like you all did when you were in the minority. We just want to be heard before a controversial vote. Sir, this is wrong and you know it. You are a person of integrity. How could you be doing this? At least have a vote on my point of order. Sir, with all appeals to your decency, with all appeals to your integrity, with all appeals to pass jurisdiction and pass president, why are you doing this? This is outrageous. This is a kangaroo court. That's all we have here. This is wrong. to violate your own rules without going by the the the mandates of the parliamentarian. This is unbelievable. There's a way to do this. If you want to force this through, if you want to ram this through, there's a way to do it in accordance to the rules as spelled out by the parliamentarian. It it is simple. It is clear. There's a pathway to achieve what you're trying to achieve. But sir, this lacks decency. It 19:02 lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues. This is absolutely wrong. And sir, this is this is to me one of those moments where we are not showing common respect for each other on both sides. I have sat here when we were in the majority and listen to my colleagues arguments, listen to their passionate statements and then we voted. This is not that. This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration. Sir, God bless America. You are a good man. You are a decent man. Why are you doing this? What is Donald Trump saying to you that are making you do something which is violating the decorum of this committee, the rules of this committee, the decency and the respect that we have each other to at least hear each other out? Nomination. I've sat through so many long speeches of my colleagues, heard 20:00 their objections, listen with with sincerity to try to see what their arguments are, but we are not doing that. Sir, this is wrong. And you know it. There are some people on this committee who are the least fire brand people and they've walked out. Some of the least controversial people in the Senate, some of the people that work the hardest to find bipartisan common ground have just walked out of this committee and and you don't even seem to care. But I know you do. I know your heart, Senator Grassley. This is wrong. I know the kind of person you are, and you know this is wrong. There's no, this is not necessary. What is another half an hour to allow senators to be heard? It's what the Constitution mandates. It's the ideals of the United States Senate, the world's most deliberative body, should take a decent amount of time to deliberate. But here, we're not doing that. Here we are jamming this through with some sense of false urgency. It's one thing not to hear from whistleblowers. It's another thing not to hold another hearing, but 21:01 to not even allow my colleagues to have their moment to speak against this justice is just wrong. And I know you know this. I know you know this. The only time this rule has ever been overturned by both parties was done when one minority was trying to pull some stunt to stop the committee from hearing. This is not that. This is not the two-hour rule. This is a basic element of the ideals of this committee. Sir, it is the basic understanding of having debate and deliberation. It's a basic understanding of we can listen to each other even if we disagree. that we should have time and space and a forum to listen. Sir, this is just wrong in every way. It is wrong in every single way. This is an abuse of power. It's an undermining of the well-being and the integrity of this this Senate and this committee that I I for so long I've been so honored to be a part of. I this is wrong, sir. And I join with my colleagues in

SITE COUNT