17 Burst results for "Senator Whitehouse"
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on The Daily Beans
"I don't have any interviews today because there's a couple of things i wanted to break down. I wanted to talk to you. You and i face to face or you know ear. Buds two ear buds. But i hope you all heard my interview with frankford. Lucy on friday about the fbi background investigation into cavanaugh. When the news dropped that the fbi sent forty five hundred tips to the white house. And then senator whitehouse called for the department of justice to investigate the fbi. I have to admit i was a bit surprised because we all knew all of us who are listening at the time to molar. She wrote back then. We all knew that the white house had put limitations on the fbi with regards to what they could investigate. And we also learned from frank on friday. This was a background inquiry. Which by policy longstanding policy means. They cannot investigate any leads. They get in the background. Check as frank pointed out the client is the agency asking for it. Not the american people. Fbi are working on behalf of the white house at this point. Not us and this. This happens all across the government with the fbi. As you heard the interview an agency will ask for information. The fbi gathers it and gives it to the agency. The agency is the one tasked with making the decision as to how to use that information makes sense now. A lot of people are saying. Why didn't they referred over the department of justice for prosecution. Bill bar was there. That's why and they can't do that. It would be the white house that does that. This is just longstanding policy. If we have to address the policy we address the policy. Cool now. i'm not saying. I don't want the inspector general look into this to make sure the fbi did everything on the up and up. I wanna make sure of that. And ensure everyone does to the. Fbi's job is restricted to getting that information and forwarding it to the agency. They're not permitted. As i said to follow all the leads as they would for an investigation on behalf of the united states and i was confused as to why there was finger pointing at the fbi when the bullshit was perpetrated by the white house and the white house lawyers. And i'm not sure why everyone wants to investigate the fbi instead of the white house or you know at least why people aren't calling a probe into both as i said though we likely already know the outcome of the probe into the fbi. They would find that the f. b. i. Followed long standing protocol for how to conduct a background investigation. But if there was anything untoward. I would like to know about it as i'm sure you would too. But all this pre- preemptive attacking is is not helping democracy anyway in light of these facts. I wanted to share with you some reporting from october twenty eighteen from the new york times when all of this was going down. I want to put everybody back in that time when this was happening quote an exasperated president trump picked up the phone. To call white house counsel donald f mcgann the second last sunday. Tell the fbi. They can investigate anything he told mister mcgann because we need the critics stop. Not so fast. Mr mcgann said mr mcgann. According to people familiar with the conversation told the president that even though the white house was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the f. b. i. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against judge cava a wide ranging inquiry like some democrats were demanding and mr trump was suggesting would potentially be disastrous for kavanagh's chances of confirmation to the supreme court. It would also go. Far beyond the fbi's usual supplemental background investigation. Which is by definition very narrow in scope. The white house could not legally order the fbi to rummage indiscriminately. Through someone's life. Mr mcgann told the president and without a criminal investigation to pursue agents could not use search warrants and subpoenas to try to get at the truth trump back down although he said publicly the next day that the fbi should interview anyone. They want within reason. But the episode on sunday was further evidence of the confusion including on the part of the president about what would happen after senator jeff flake republican arizona..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM
"And as we continue, Greg, Eric Carrie Submarino are with us The hearings with Amy Cockney Barrett seemed to be going very, very well. So Hard last day of testifying is today and then I guess they have. You know whatever they have internally that they need to do with Senate Judiciary Committee. That's next. They may not vote her out of committee when that doesn't happen if that doesn't happen, what is next? Gregg Jarrett? Well, it can go straight to the floor. It doesn't according to the rules has to come out of committee on and look what's going to happen tomorrow. Dianne Feinstein released the witnesses that Democrats are called Going And these are all people, not scholars or lawyers talking about the qualifications of the nominee. Know these are individuals who will talk about the impact of overturning Obama care, abortion done control cases, other cases. This is a blatant attempt to influence a future justices decision making and its campaigning. It's trying to sway voters. That's not the purpose and function of a confirmation hearing. It's a bastardization of the process. It is in a word. Shameful. What do you think, Carrie From there? When do we get to a full vote in the U. S Senate? I think we'll have a vote before the end of this month. I think there's a few moving pieces and Democrats We know have already declared. They know they don't have the votes to staff for their goal is delay DeLay delay whatever partisan reasons they could do to delay. They're going to use them. But I think way have a good team on the Senate that's working to counter all those. She will have a vote before the end of this this month, and I think it's gonna be really hard for anyone who watched her in the series. Just masterful, really commanding the room clearly smarter than all the people that bench asking her. These Silly question. It's gonna be hard for them to really justify their answer again. So that's why they're turning it into a campaign footage video rather than actually engaging with the nominee because they know they can't stand will help the candle there. Senator Whitehouse is literally speaks for, you know, 30 minutes doesn't ask A single question brings 1000 charts and I'm like why you forcing us to listen to you ramble on and on forever. I mean, it was like his chance. Tohave his own campaign commercial carry submarino. Thank you, Gregg Jarrett. Thank you. 809 For one, Shawn. You want to be a part of the program, a developing blockbuster story, as relates to zero experience Hunter and Barry Sma and Ukraine and apparently goes way beyond that. And that is that the lie that Joe Biden told that he knew nothing about under Biden's business dealings has now been blown out of the water. What impact this will have on what else is coming next, 800. Fine for one, Shawn, You want to be a part of the program. We'll have that story for you on the other side. As we continue..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"You won't miss any data shows by subscribing to the podcast on Google plane or wherever podcasts are available. Tired of third point there's been some discussion from Democratic members raising A question of federalist society and dark money. And all sorts of mysterious connections. Now judge buried in my right That's that, at least for a period of time. You remember the federal society is that right while I was on the faculty is a full time tenured professor. Oh, and you spoken it. Some federal society events is that accurate as well have In your time dealing with the federal society. Have they ever lobbied you to take a particular position? In your time as a judge in the federal Society ever filed a brief in your court urging an outcome in a particular case. It's my understanding the federal society doesn't litigate have not ever filed a brief in my court. Your understanding is correct. Federal society does not file amicus briefs. Our Democratic colleagues have been engaged in a sustained effort to try to sully the Federalist Society. It is. Disconnected from Reality, But I will say it, and I wish Senator Whitehouse, We're here. My intention was to have this discussion with him here because he Just spoken, spoke about All the connections. He had his charts. I would note I was feeling a little bit bad that I didn't have a chart with sort of red fuzzy yarn connecting all the things that they're the deep conspiracy is going on. So in that interest, I do have a chart that's a little bit smaller that that has similar connections back and forth and It is produced by the Americans for Public Trust. And it shows the dark money connections between Senator Whitehouse and Planned Parenthood and Arabella Advisors and and all of these different organizations, with money flowing back and forth and back and forth all the dark money And in fact, I would note one of those dark money organizations on the left. That we talked about yesterday that that is the demand Justice organization. I would point out the demand. Justice Organization has decided to be directly involved in these proceedings because this is a left wing dark money organization that has posters that are right outside of this building. That have picture Senator Leahy. You're on the poster Chairman Graham. You're on the poster and the posters say Supreme super spreaders politics, First Health and safety last You know what The First Amendment is a great thing. If they want to put your pictures up, it's it's actually a pretty good picture of senator Lace nighties going picture of Chairman Grant needs to work on getting a better picture. That's not their fault. This's all good. It's long, but it's good for the Democratic dark money. Efforts. Dwarf. The Republican dark money efforts, which is why With without a twinge of hypocrisy. Democratic members make this charge repeatedly. And in fact, I will point to one specific example. Which is a judge Judge John J. Jack McConnell. This is was a judge in the state of Rhode Island. Who is Judge McConnell. Well, he used to be the treasure. Of the Rhode Island Democratic Party. And the director of the Rhode Island branch of Planned Parenthood. Well, how did Mr McConnell become a judge, according to CQ roll call. He contributed about $500,000 to Democratic political convict committees before becoming a judge. This, by the way, is more than any other judge nominated by Obama Trump. So Judge McConnell stands at the top. $500,000 Donated $12,600 to Senator Whitehouse. He hosted a fundraiser for Senator Whitehouse at his home in Providence and 2006. Judge McConnell's wife gave another $250,000 to candidates and causes so that's $750,000. And now Judge McConnell is a judge after Senator White House Vigorously led the fight to get him appointed a judge. He sits on the committee on Code of Conduct of the US Judicial Conference. And what has he done on the committee on Cody? He has helped lead the charge. To issue a new role to try to ban judges from being members of the Federalist Society. And To the shock of No one looking at the red yarn connections after Judge McConnell Onda Committee put out this this assault on the Federalist Society to prohibit judges from sitting on Bit from being members. Senator Whitehouse and six other Democratic senators loudly cheered that effort in writing now, unfortunately, Oh, so good. That effort was roundly denounced. Over 200 federal judges signed a letter opposing this federal society takes no positions doesn't doesn't love doesn't file amicus briefs doesn't take public policy positions. Most of its events are debates. Where People on the left are featured prominently every single U. S. Supreme Court justice. All.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Same time corner, the Kaiser Foundation's premiums. Average family's premiums have risen Mohr than seventh risen $7967 per year on average, that is catastrophic that millions of Americans can't afford health care. It is a catastrophic failure of Obamacare, and none of that has anything to do with Judge Barrettes nomination to the Supreme Court. That is a very good argument for members of the Senate to be having and yes, we should be protecting preexisting conditions and expanding competition, expanding options and lowering premiums. This body will continue to debate that, but Judge Barrett will not be the decision maker. On what the appropriate approach to health care is a policy matter. Second point I want to address Senator Durbin. Had an exchange with Judge Barrett about the right to vote and also about the Second Amendment was a policy matter. Many Senate Democrats number one wants to see the Second Amendment of bridge to the maximum extent possible and number two and he said it. Democrats have decided as a policy matter that they would like to see as many felons as possible able to vote. But it is one would presume. Whom they have made a determination. It's in their political interest. Tohave mohr felons, more convicted murderers, more convicted rapists more people convicted of domestic abuse voting. They've made an assessment that that helps their prospects on election day. They're entitled to make that policy determination in different states have made different determinations about In what circumstances? Felon should be allowed to vote in what circumstances? Felon should not be allowed to vote. Um I, for one am a bit puzzles. I'm not sure our democracy is better by changing the law to allow murderers to vote. I'm not sure the operation of the Republic would be better if Charles Manson had a greater voice in the electoral system, and I would note one of our colleagues, Senator Sanders. In Vermont, the course of the Democratic presidential primaries argued, not just felons who are out of jail. He argued that felons in jail literally Charles Manson, serving a life sentence. Reading multiple life sentences for murder should be able to vote policy matter. I think that's pretty out there, but the interesting thing is Judge Barrett wasn't called upon to make Determination. Whether is a policy matter. Every felon should vote. No felon should vote or somewhere in between. Rather she was doing a very different thing, which is applying the law and judge bed. Did I hear you correctly that when you were describing your two set in a counter case that one of the reasons you said that there was a difference in the law, A za concerned voting versus the Second Amendment is because the 14th amendment the text of the 14th amendment. Explicitly contemplates legislatures making restrictions on voting based on whether you've committed a crime. Is that right? That's right, and actually have the text of the amendment because Senator Durbin was highly critical. As a policy matter he wants those felons voted, but he didn't in fact, address the legal issue that is a judge. Judge Barrett was obliged to address in Section Two of the 14th amendment provides in relevant part, But when the right to vote in any election is denied, or is anyone, or is he in any way of bridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime? Well, Senator Durbin Not like that. The 14th amendment explicitly contemplates that if you commit a crime, if you're a felon, you may forfeit your right to vote. But that is in the text of the Constitution. And as a judge, Judge Barrett would be not doing her job where she not to look at the text of the Constitution and follow the text of the Constitution. And my right Judge Barrett that the Second Amendment doesn't have similar language, suggesting or other crime or some or anything comparable to that you are the third point there's been some discussion from Democratic members, raising the question of the Federalist Society and dark money and all sorts of Mysterious connections Now judge buried in my right that that at least for a period of time. You remember the federal societies that right while I was on the faculty is a full time tenured professor on you've spoken at some federal society events. Is that accurate as well, I have in your time dealing with the federal society. Have they ever lobbied you to take a particular position they have not in your time as a judge. Oh society ever filed a brief in your court urging an outcome in a particular case? It's my understanding the federal society doesn't litigate have not ever filed a brief in my court. Your understanding is correct. The federal Society does not file amicus briefs are Democratic colleagues have been engaged in a sustained effort to try to sully the Federalist Society. Um, it is Disconnected from reality, but I will say it, and I wish Senator Whitehouse, We're here. My intention was to have this discussion with him here because he just focus spoke about all the connections. He had his charts. I would note I was feeling a little bit bad that I didn't have a chart with sort of red fuzzy yarn connecting all the things that are the deep conspiracy is going on. So when that interest I do have a chart that's a little bit smaller that has similar connections back and forth and And it is produced by what is it the Americans for Public Trust? And it shows the dark money connections between Senator Whitehouse and Planned Parenthood and Arabella Advisors and and all of these different organizations, with money flowing back and forth and back and forth all the dark money. In fact, I would note one of those dark money organizations on the left that we talked about yesterday that that is the demand Justice organization. I would point out the demand. Justice Organization has decided to be directly involved in these proceedings because this is a left wing dark money organization that has posters That are right outside of this building that have picture Senator Lee. You're on the poster Chairman Graham. You're on the poster and the posters say, Supreme Super spreaders. Politics, First Health and Safety last Ted Cruz know what the First Amendment is a great thing. If they want to put your pictures up, it's It's actually a pretty good picture of Senator Lee. It's not going to make sure Chairman Graham needs to work on getting a better picture does not their fault..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Potentially coming your way. So I flagged that foryou. Question by Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The enquiry by committee chair from South Carolina Senator Graham WCS before much another topic I'd like to raise with you is you've repeatedly mentioned during this hearing the phrase about litigation winding its way up through the courts and ultimately To the Supreme Court. And you've described that process of winding its way as a important restraint, judicial activism that you gotta wait till the court gets a case Get to you in the ordinary course correct description of where you've been cracked. And the ordinarily I don't know. Have you ever done a case? But ordinarily, when you do case it begins. A person, right? Correct. And that person feels an injury. Yes. And then that person goes to a lawyer. Yes. And then that lawyer goes on their behalf to court and files a complaint and filed a complaint and then in court, they try to win and vindicate their injury. That's kind of the basic standard way in which this works. Yes. So it gets a little weird sometimes, and that's a circumstance. I'd like to bring up to you that touches on some of the stuff that I addressed yesterday one. It's not even a case. You know, Janice? Yes. Okay. Let's describe this as the Janus Aga because it's more than really one case. And it's really about a completely different case called aboot. You're familiar with the aboot decision? Yes. So the decision was precedent for what 40 years. I can't remember when Abboud was decided, but it was president before Janice and roughly 40 years, I'll tell you on DH had repeatedly been reaffirmed. It was a long standing precedents on which there was considerable reliance. Let's see. So Janice did over. All that president. And so Janice did go through the application of the starry decisis factors and deciding whether to overrule it rather that their heads there was, in fact, reliance in the 40 years that it had been the law of the land on the question of the union question that it had resolved. Well, I don't wanna second gas or criticize or praise the majority and Genesis. I'm not asking you. I'm asking you, as a matter of fact, had 20 plus states relied on it. Um, well, Senator Think reliance and the degree of reliance on a food is a legal question. We'll just leave that Then. So the Jenna saga begins. Actually, with a case called mocks, in which Justice Alito took a shot at he criticized it a substantially impinge ing upon First Amendment rights of union members just For people who are watching the Abboud case was about the right of a labor union to get compensated, not dues, but just compensation from nonmembers went in their representation of their members. They get added benefits for the people who are not members, so not the most exciting part of the law. But settle this question of when labor unions could get compensated for work they do for non members. But Justice Leo did not like it. He took a shot at it in Knox versus you and the concurrence in that case, said Whoa, wait a minute, Quote The majority's choice to reach an issue not presented by the parties briefed or argued, disregards our rules. But justice Alito didn't like something about aboot. And so he took that shot. Then we went on to a later decision called Harris V. Quinn. Ludo took another shot. At aboot. In that case, describing Aboud as having analysis that is questionable, he undertook an extended critique of the decision describing it as having questionable foundations. Justice Kegan spotted that and in her purse, and she said Today's majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood on described its critique of our boots, foundations as gratuitous dicta, But the message went out. From Judge Alito that he wanted to do something about Abood. There was something about Abou that he did not like. And with that way went to that's the prequel. Then we went to the two cases have followed. Um, the first one was Friedrichs, which was supposed to be the case that got rid of a boot. And it had an interesting travel because the The case was one of these groups from Janice. It was the center for individual rights right here who was council in Janice. The national right to work. Legal Defense Foundation was council. So they switched right and Fredericks Center of Individual Rights was cancel Council National right to work with an amicus When it went on to Janice. They switched National Liketo Work Legal Foundation Defense Foundation was council and send for individual Rights was an amicus and from everything that I see. It looks like they actually went out and found the plaintiff so back to our earlier discussion. It wasn't the injured person that went in for heart. A lawyer. It was the legal group that went in, found a plaintiff on DH. Then they went to court, which everybody does. But it got interesting there because they're the lawyers asked to lose, I don't know. I've never been a case in which the lawyers asked to lose before I never have been. I've never let it get litigated against anybody who asked to lose if you've ever been in a case in which a party asked to lose. No, I don't think I've ever experienced that. Yeah, I can not. So these Groups with all this money behind them from donors, Trust and Bradley Foundation and all come into court and they say, Please dismiss my case in the district court. Then they go up to the ninth Circuit. And they specifically asked the ninth Circuit to get rid of their case to dismiss uphold the decision, dismissing their case as quickly as practical as practicable and without our Have you ever seen a case in your circuit where somebody came in and said, I'd like to lose and I'd liketo loses quickly is practicable. And I'd like to lose without making an argument on behalf of my client. But Abboud was controlling lot at that point, right? My question was. Have you ever seen that happen in your circuit? I have not seen that happen in my circuit. Okay, So then the case went on to decision and As predicted, or signaled by Justice Alito. It looked like it was going to be a 5 to 4 decision knocking out a boot after 40 years. Um, sadly, and unfortunately, Justice Scalia died before that decision could be rendered so it actually turned out to be a 44 decision. And as you know, for for decision, the tie goes to the decision below and the ninth Circuit prevailed. And so that was it for free drinks. But it didn't take long for the same group. So this is back to my Janice exhibit. These are all the commonly funded Mickey and lawyers who showed up in Janice 11 of them had showed up in Friedrichs. So Janis was a reunion of the team. Everybody piling back in together to get what they There was no big rush this time because this time they had to wait for Vacancy on the court to be filled. They didn't want a 44 decision that wait for justice Gorsuch, So there wasn't the same rush. The case came through more ordinary travel and then boom, and they went to argue it on down came the decision. And I asked you to think that through because I've done some appellate argument on. I've done some Trial work, and I have run an awful lot of litigation. And one of the things that has been a constant for me has been the belief that even if I was kind of taken a longshot case, I'd get a fair hearing. I'd get a fair decision and I had a shot. I've got a feeling that the lawyers going into the United States Supreme Court in that Janice case, looking at this array of commonly funded Anti union front groups assembled against them as a Maquis, having seen what Friedrichs portended having been signaled by a little earlier cases that they wanted to get rid of Abou that they was on the on the hunt for Abboud. That's a feeling that no lawyer should have in America..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on KQED Radio
"But that is in the text of the Constitution and as a judge Judge Barrett would be not doing her job where she not to look at the text of the Constitution and follow the text of the Constitution and my right Judge Barrett that the Second Amendment doesn't have similar language, suggesting Or other crime or some or anything comparable to that you are Are the third point Has been some discussion from Democratic members raising the question of Federalist society. And dark money. And all sorts of mysterious connections. Now judge married. Am I right? That that at least for a period of time? You remember the federal society is that right while I was on the faculty is a full time tenured professor. On and you've spoken it some federal society events is that accurate as well. I have Um In your time dealing with the federal society. Have they ever lobbied you to take a particular position? And your time is the judges. The federal Society ever filed a brief in your court urging an outcome in a particular case. Understanding the federal society doesn't litigate have not ever filed a brief in my court. Your understanding is correct. The federal Society does not file amicus briefs. Our Democratic colleagues have been engaged in a sustained effort to try to sully the Federalist Society. Um It is disconnected from Reality, But I will say it, and I wish Senator Whitehouse. We'll hear my intention was to have this discussion with him here because he Just spoken, spoke about All the connections. He had his charts. I would note I was feeling a little bit bad that I didn't have a chart with sort of red fuzzy yarn connecting all the things that they're the deep conspiracy is going on. So in that interest, I do have a chart that's a little bit smaller that has similar connections back and forth, and it is produced by What is it? The Americans for Public Trust, and it shows the dark money connections between Senator Whitehouse and Planned Parenthood and Arabella Advisors and and all of these different organizations, with money flowing back and forth and back and forth all the dark money. And in fact, I would note one of those dark money organizations on the left. That we talked about yesterday that that is the demand Justice Organization. I would point out the demand. Justice Organization has decided to be directly involved in these proceedings because this is a left wing dark money organization. That has posters that are right outside of this building that have picture Senator Lee. You're on the poster Chairman Graham. You're on the poster and the posters say, Supreme Super spreaders politics first. Health and safety last. You know what the First Amendment is a great thing. If they want to put your pictures up, it's it's actually a pretty good picture of senator Lace nighties going picture of Chairman Grant needs to work on getting a better picture. It's not their fault. The Democratic dark money. Efforts dwarf The Republican dark money efforts, which is why, with without a twinge of hypocrisy Democratic members make this charge repeatedly. And in fact, I will point to one specific example. Which is a judge Judge John J. Jack. It was a judge in the state of Rhode Island. Now who is Judge McConnell? Well, he used to be the treasure. Of the Rhode Island Democratic Party and the director of the Rhode Island branch of Planned Parenthood will How did Mr McConnell become a judge? Well, according tto two CQ roll call. He contributed about $500,000 to Democratic political committees before becoming a judge. This, by the way, is more than any other judge nominated by Obama or Trump. So Judge McConnell stands at the top $500,000. He donated $12,600 to Senator Whitehouse. He hosted a fundraiser for Senator Whitehouse at his home in Providence in 2006. Judge McConnell's wife gave another $250,000 to candidates and causes so that's $750,000. And now Judge McConnell is a judge after Senator White House Vigorously led the fight to get him appointed a judge. He sits on the committee on Code of Conduct of the US Judicial Conference. And what has he done on the committee on Code of Conduct? He has helped lead the charge to issue a new rule to try to ban judges from being members of the Federalist Society. And To the shock of No one looking at the red yarn connections. After Judge McConnell Onda Committee put out this this assault on the federal society to prohibit judges from sitting on from being members, Senator Whitehouse and six other Democratic senators loudly cheered that effort. In writing. Now. Fortunately, That effort was roundly denounced. Over 200 federal judges signed a letter opposing this federal society takes no positions doesn't doesn't lobby doesn't file amicus Briefs doesn't take public policy positions Most of its events are debates. Where people on the left or featured prominently every single U. S. Supreme Court justice. All of them have spoken in at least one federal society event. And thankfully The assault on the federal Society was withdrawn in the face of over 200 federal judges, and I would note 29 senators. Roundly criticizing The attempt. Let's turn to fourth issue. Many Democratic members of this committee. Seem to be treating this hearing as a policy hearing on what's good health care policy. What's good? Gun policy. What's good Voting rights policy. Judge Barrett. In your view, is that the responsibility of a federal judge to implement policy positions that they might happen to agree with? That's your job, not judges. I very much agree with you. Um You know, it's easy for someone watching these proceedings to assume both sides want the same thing just on opposite partisan lines. It's easy for someone watching do so. While the Democrats they want Democrat judges, too Implement their policy and the Republicans. They want Republican judge judges to implement their policies. As easy as that is to assume I don't believe that is accurate. It is certainly not accurate, with respect to the sorts of judges I would like to see nominated and confirmed. I'll give you an example of that an issue that I am deeply passionate about his school choice. I think school choice is the civil rights issue of the next century. But I also think the right arena to fight for school choice is right here in the United States, the right arena to fight for school choices in the state legislatures. It is in the politically accountable. Elected legislatures, so Do I want to see a federal court issue an order mandating school choice across the country. It might be simpler. If I could just convince five justices to order every jurisdiction in America. You must have school choice. It would be a lot easier than trying to convince 51 or 60 senators trying to convince the house well. Gotten school choice legislation passed through this this body that I've introduced, but it's been hard fought it be much easier if five philosopher kings could just mandated But that would not be inappropriate judicial role and I'm certainly not asking Judge Barrett to issue any ruling, although I believe that policy is the right policy. It's not a judge's role to mandate Interestingly enough, our Democratic colleagues do support judges prohibiting you look at a case called Zelman versus Simmons Harris. That was a case that was a challenge to Ohio School Choice program. Ohio School Choice Program gave scholarships to thousands of low income Children, mostly African American and Hispanic Children trapped In failing schools. It gave them hope it gave them a chance at a decent education a chance to escape violence a chance to to Have a shot at the American dream. It was immediately challenged. Case went to the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4. The Supreme Court upheld upheld the program. Four justices were prepared to strike down that program is unconstitutional. And with it.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Port backing is itself manipulative. It's something that has great danger to do immense political and constitutional harm to our system of government, in part because it would set up a one way ratchet. Once you create a position and confirms someone to that position, absent death, retirement or impeachment removal, that position remains in place. So if, for example, a future Congress and White House were to decide to get together and to pack the court and increase the numbers say to 11. And let's say it's Democrats who do that, and we've got Joe Biden now is a presidential candidate who's refusing to say whether he would do it. There's a reason he's not saying whether he would do. It is only one reason why you refuse to answer That question is, if you're wanting to be able to do it, But you don't want to take the heat for the fact that you're thinking about doing it right now. So if they do that, where does it lead inevitably leads to the point where the next time Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they'd increase it as well. You'd end up increasing it incrementally before long. It looks like the Senate in Star Wars where you've got hundreds of people on there. I don't know what the note total number would be. But you increase it and all you change the number of all you do so for partisan political purposes at all. You delegitimize the court. And you can't delegitimize the court without fundamentally threatening and eroding and impairing some of our most valued liberties. You can't do that, without inevitably threatening things like religious freedom. Things like free speech thinks that air themselves often unpopular but are protected by the constitution precisely because they are unpopular. And yes, In that respect, the Constitution is sometimes counter Democratic. Sometimes it can be described as fundamentally undemocratic effects. The whole reason to have a constitution is to protect us from the impulse of a majority that might be bent on harming a few in the name of the money. That's why the laws so important. That's why the position for which you're being considered is so essential. That's why we've got to do our job to make sure that the only people who get the job for what you've been nominated the bill, you judge Barrett or someone in whom I have immense confidence, immense trust, and I look forward to voting confirming you for that very position. Senator Mike Lee Similarly will take less. Come back at 12 45. We'll start with Senator Whitehouse. We have 15 senators left. Everybody takes the 30 minutes, says 7.5 hours. We'll take a break for for dinner tonight. Sometime later on in a short break. Are you doing okay? Three hours of that, right? So we'll come back at 12 45. And right now we're on schedule to be here tonight O'clock, but We'll do whatever the committee wants. When recessed for Senator Lindsey Graham is the chair of the Judiciary Committee Republican from South Carolina Live coverage from Capitol Hill. Day two of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Federal Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. And as you heard each senator getting 30 minutes today to question the witness so far, 22 senators on the committee they've been through 7 15 to go. On the 22 Sanders and Committee 12 Republicans 10 Democrats, There will be a second round of questioning of 20 minutes each that is likely to spill into Wednesday and then the fourth and final scheduled day of the hearing is Thursday. Senator Graham now coming out to speak with reporter live coverage..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Judge. That's what we're here to discuss. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. We'll definitely some good news that right there, Senator Mike Lee. And that's why you like him. Dear God is that good? I know people run hot and cold on Mike Lee. Not me. I mean, never to me things. Statements I disagree with or or votes that could disagree with, but in terms of an understanding of the of the founding of the nation He's got it. He's got incredibly incredibly cold. Now this confirmation is going on. We're sharing as much of it is possible and in order to get it done, right. We actually started to show early. So as you're listening, kind of hear things that were out of order throughout the show. It's because I wanted you to get everything. I want you to hear what opening statements were with, with Graham and with Feinstein. Fearsome Chuck Grassley knows about Leahy and they're a lot of stuff that took place. You know, you got Senator Whitehouse from from Rhode Island. What you just heard from Senator Lee. All this matters because so much of what we're going to here, and this one makes Mike Leigh's point. So important is narrative kind of stuff. As opposed to what is it? We should be listening for? What is it that matters and politically they really gonna attack this woman. They claimed Mansplaining from Mike Pence, but they're gonna go after Amy Cockney Barrett. They were so absolutely despicable to Brett Kavanaugh. How are they going to treat Amy Cockney Barrett, Speaking of White House, Sheldon Whitehouse. A very liberal member of the Senate. He's speaking right now. Take it to him. Really quick. Don't.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"Do for you. Actions taken for the country's top military officials after the president's positive covert testing the week of the president's positive covert tests, the Pentagon said the U. S military's top officer was tested Friday morning and received the negative result. Defense Secretary Esper tested negative two days ago will travel in North Africa will be tested again. Leader today is a precaution. Espero not be returning early from his trip. Both the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, that Senator Whitehouse event with the president Sunday for Gold Star families. A Pentagon spokesman says there's been no change the Defense Department's alert levels at the Pentagon Lucas Tomlinson Fox News, Civil rights and voter advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit to try to block it order by Texas Governor Greg Abbott that reduced the number of drop off locations for mail in ballots claiming voters depression. The order, which took effect today closes dozens of drop off sites statewide. Abbott staff said he was not limiting voting, saying that he has increased the period during which voters can submit their mail in ballots in person. To include any time up to election day after several attacks characterized as terrorism the leader of France plans a crackdown on extremism in Muslim communities. Islamist French president Emmanuel Macron saying it's time the country tackled what he calls is the mist separatism, accusing radical Muslims trying to build a parallel society. Macron announcing plans to tighten rules on home schooling. And give local authorities the power to block school cafeterias or swimming pools being made single sex. He wants a bombs to be trained in France and not overseas. Muslim leaders are cautious. Some welcome the plans but warn Macron's choice of words risk stigmatizing all Muslims in London, Simon Oh, in Fox News, Wall Street, the Dow Lost 1.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Do something the committee staff the other committees territory, even if they're not doing anything, it's the proverbial dog in the manger problem. And so we you'll get all jammed up. And then on the other side, we had a kind of a happy moment. When Tom Boston was over there. I think was very solid pro. And we had Dan Coats are former Senator, and I thought well there, you got substance and politics, and we'll get something going, but nothing organized has emerged out of this administration to deal with cyber. Legislatively, and that's really a shame because somehow or other there is a gap here. I think the chairman would agree there is a gap here, and we need to fill the gap and whether CSI can help us do that. Or whether the chairman's leadership can help us do that. Or whether the administration will finally decide that they're going to do something legislatively on this. Somehow we've got to to use the phrase, the chairman used another circumstance cross the Rubicon here and get to drafting strong bipartisan cybersecurity legislation. Thanks german. Well, thank the panel just echo what center white outfit. I'm by. No means an expert at Sarah White House really understands the threats we face from cyber attacks. So a couple of years ago, we tried to incentivize the private sector too, hard and critical infrastructure in a fashion that if you met the best business practices in you invested. And you actually did the things to protect your infrastructure you'd be given liability protection. We all believe the regulatory system is not going. To be able to keep up with a threat. So you've got hardening our critical infrastructure home this mostly private sector based now we've got developing technology called five G that if China dominates this market. We may not be able to do normal business or function militarily, and we're sitting around looking at you that each other we've got a bunch of bills being introduced, but it's gonna take it ministry leaderships. Take the Trump administration working with the congress to deal with both problems. So I promise Senator Whitehouse that will restart the conversation about how to harden critical infrastructure here at home. Understanding the private sectors our best fit. They just have to do it meaningfully. And when it comes to the five G problems that we're facing is just not enough to tell our allies. No. We're going to have to do more. We're going to offer a better alternative than what that China has on the table. Thank you will lead the hearing open to receive information a letter, I think Senator Feinstein wants to introduce and we'll leave it open for in the next three days. Thank you. Senator Lindsey Graham Republican from South Carolina, chairs the judiciary committee. This has been live coverage from Capitol Hill. President Donald Trump is heading to Louisiana today to talk about energy infrastructure and the economy this morning, congressman Steve Scalise. The house majority whip he's from Louisiana was at the White House. And then spoke with reporters about five minutes. If I can just. Refl? Mentioned in a few hours will be joining President Trump on Air Force One to go to south Louisiana will be going to an Ellen g export facility right out of lake Charles Louisiana, and it's a separate energy facility. It's a multibillion dollar privately funded export facility where they're taking in natural gas liquifying it and then sending it out to the world. And in many cases, sending it to our allies around the world who are getting their energy today from Russia and will no longer have to be getting that energy from Russia because of good smart American energy policy. So creates great jobs at home. But it also allows us to help our friends around the world to get their energy from America instead of Russia. So I welcome President Trump to south Louisiana. See this facility. It's something impressive to showcase. And and I think he's going to be very impressed by what he sees. In terms of how good smart American energy policy is translating into jobs and geopolitically.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on WCPT 820
"But the next person who will win have better be the person that can be Trump, and let me can I say one last thing. Yes. This fake controversy coming from the left about comma, Harris owning a firearm. And again there we go and half the men in the field on a gun. What how was that disqualifying that tool? Got like twenty eighty what are they talking about? She was D a people threatened her life gangs, threatened her life. She has a law enforcement officer. It's also coming from the right that says since she owns a handgun handgun that disqualifies stupidity with Hillary Clinton shouldn't have a secret service detail with gun. Yeah. All right. There's norms and there's norms. Anyone that is using that against Kamla, harass. You're just a partisan again. All right Bernie Sanders, you should check out his gun legislation. If you guys want to start getting into it. But one last sex isn't one James tweet sexism is when Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders don't have to explain why they voted for the crime Bill, but Hillary Clinton had explained why her husband signed the Bill that sexism. I mean, ask them. Yeah. I'm all for answering questions. Yeah. Well, if everybody's going to have to answer questions about their records, Mary people, it's not, you know, it's it's by could've handled the Nida hill thing a little better. He needs to see, you know. He was the chairman. He needs to not the same. Sorry. What how I'm sorry. I how I handle the answering. This question for the next year and a half. Yeah. At some point. We have to understand that history happened thirty years ago, if you it's like when they were hammering Obama for not being in support of gay marriage. He evolved, everyone evolve. Yeah. No. But that's Donald Trump and grow you need to do that Donald Trump never. Yeah. Evolve. You know, exactly twenty minutes after the hour. This portion of the Stephanie Miller show brought to you by our good friends at citizens for truth in drug pricing. Right. Oh, that was one of the ten thousand lies Trump told that said, Dr prices have gone down. They have here's incoherent rambling about that. Yes. I did. We got that audio good. It's time to fight back against the rising costs of prescription drugs. That are recent Senate hearing Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island bemoaned the level of big pharma's dissection deception, the pharmaceutical industry has been able to take pressure on their pricing. And turn it into with political jujitsu of almost magical variety pressure on their greatest adversary. The most powerful force for pushing prices down. So I hope that you at least respect what they've been able to pull off.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on Talk 1260 KTRC
"That's the kind of action we need to take here in the United States Senate, the United States can and rather must lead the way in this transition. And that's why we're challenging majority leader McConnell to put an end to the political stunts leader McConnell bring your solutions to the floor. Let's get to work together. And I yield arrest of ice time to Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island who spent an incredible leader on this issue. Twenty seven minutes after one o'clock governor today governor's has asked the New Mexico game commission to resign. We'll get to that. Which is a great move. Also, we learned today that is going to be up to the newly constituted leadership and Santa Fe, especially in the department of health and the medical cannabis board. Mexico has a medical cannabis board, and they have recommended in the past that opiate addiction be added to the list of qualifying conditions ignored by former cabinet secretary. Lynn Gallagher, even though it was recommended. I think three or four times in a row. But it'll be up to that board whether to recommend again, Eddie no Pete addiction to the list of qualifying conditions to be in these states medical marijuana program. The governor is in support of that opiate addiction being added to the list of conditions now the board the medical cannabis board will meet Friday here in Santa Fe another opportunity if you wanna go be heard or listen and learn Friday. The board is made up a certified professionals the board reviews petition seeking to expand the list of debilitating conditions. They qualify for medical cannabis program state health secretary, then makes a final determination. It's good because we have a new secretary..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on Skullduggery
"Here. But here's my principal. Takeaway from these two interviews eight subtle, but real difference in the way, Senator Whitehouse address the question of whether he's going to support Bill bars confirmation, and the way Senator clover shirt did White House indicated he's not there yet. But sounded like he was leaning to voting for bar closure known as a more moderate Senator than White House said she can't imagine all of the circumstances under which vote for sounds like presidential politics roll here. Because as you say they represent different wings of the Democratic Party. She is much more moderate nam, she's a consensus builder. You know, kind of flame throwing liberal outweighs. But she was running the president. But she, but she's she's running for president. And I think in this democratic electorate there's just no way in the world that you can she hasn't announced yet. So she looks like she may be close to an all. But and if the, and it's one of the first things you do before you now is to vote for Donald Trump's at Terni General Hussein ideological conservative movement conservative as we used to call them. That's a problem. Right. Yeah. So, you know, look, I think today certainly every democratic Senator who is running for president, which is quite a few of his going to vote against bar. But I think almost all them Kratz will. And I wouldn't be surprised at the end of the day. White House seeing the direction of all his colleagues ends up voting. He's not going to be only democrat on the committee who votes for Bill, but knowing full well that he's gonna get confirmed anyway because they're. Public control the Senate. And and they will not be stuck with Matt Whitaker. Totally unqualified. It's not staying right? Right. Right. And yet bar is going to be confirmed. There's just no chance in the world that he's gonna let's talk about some of the substance from the bar confirmation hearing because there's so many takeaways certainly his refusal to commit to following the advice of Justice department ethics advisers, I loved his exchange classic hours in which he was trying to nail him down on on. What basis would you not follow the advice of Justice department ethics officers, and she'd say and bar said I disagreed with it because he's the head of the agency and unless there's a conflict of interest if it's in big US as some of these examples of been he's the person who decides head of the agency decides. And this is a guy as we've talked about on this podcast before who's kind of a maximalist when it comes to executive power. He's in the executive branch. He's not gonna give that up. You know, he's he's gonna make decision. He's a supremely confident guy. We're not really used to seeing people like Bill bar up there from confirmation hearings because they tend. To be much more diplomatic and flying. And you know, because we're trying to get confirmed. He is diplomatic. But he's also very confident, right? Let's not forget that pregnant five second pause. When asked about whether he would jail journalists for doing their job, which was the exact question of Senator closure. Yeah. And when I first heard it, I thought, wow. Did. He stumble here because it sounded like he wasn't just talking about holding a reporter in contempt because they won't turn over their notes that would reveal who their sources in other words that the Justice department would go after the source the leaker as opposed to the journalist. But what he said was that he could imagine the scenario where a news organization runs through a red flag by putting stuff out there that might harm the country. And then you get hold a reporter in contempt. And so that was. Maybe a little nervous on the other hand, you know, we've known bar for twenty five years at least he's one of the most press friendly attorneys general that I ever covered he is fairly transparent in his own behavior. You know, he's a partly because of that confidence. I was talking about he's willing to say a lot of things that other politicians at that level wouldn't say I have my doubts about whether he would have a really aggressive anti-press policy. But who knows all one thing I can say is that when I saw that exchange. I got a little nervous, and I was emailing with an old friend of his lawyer and who worked with him at the Justice department, and he said, don't worry. I don't think he meant Eunice cough. But if he did I'll represent you guys..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"It's not a day for day exchange as far as how much longer it will take us on the proposal. But it may may be slightly delayed at this point where we will get it done before the summer driving season, provided we are back in a reasonable length of time reasonable time. Okay. Regard to the within the law small petroleum refineries are offered the opportunity to request a rollback on the requirement to actually incorporate ethanol into their products. Right now that's monitor about a two point two five billion gallon per year reduction in the total amount of ethanol that's been incorporated into the fuel supplies. I don't think the original intent of congress was that that reduces the total amount of ethanol that is that is actually being marketed. Can you share with us? Your thoughts about the options that we've got when we when we recognize that the law allows those refineries to take a reduction to apply for reduction what what guidelines or what alternatives or what? Authority. Do you have to try to still meet the original goals for ethanol production while at the same time honoring the guidelines of the law that allow those smaller refineries a hardship exemption and can that exemption be reduced? If you feel that you cannot meet the guidelines that congress established with regard to the RV os. Well, it's it's. As you know, Senator we've had three court cases on a small refinery program estimated during the during the Obama administration when they were not granting any small refinery exemptions and EPA has lost all three and the courts. So we are moving forward to implement the smaller refinery exemption, it is included in the and they clean air. In the program as part of the energy act two thousand five Clean Air Act. But it's it's also been encouraged through the appropriations process we've gotten appropriations language telling us to implement a smart refinery extension program as well. Your two competing issues there where if you if you grant a small refinery, it takes it takes barrels away from the from the over our goal with fifteen billion gallons. There's not a lot of leeway for us. There is some depends somewhat on the timing of the applications, but if we were to reduce the fifteen billion gallons by the by the mouth of we grant ended up having a rolling impact on having more refineries being subjected to higher levels of ethanol mandate, and you could end up having even more refineries. I'm having been eligible for the for the exemption. What we have tried to do is provide more transparency. We started the dashboard this past fall. So that everybody understands what we're doing on the smartest binary exemption. I'm and we're also taking a hard look at the overall numbers through our reset program that we intend to move forward. Both the reset and the fifteen and our sales. We're hoping to propose all three of those in February. Good. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you mistaken. Senator whitehouse. Thank you very much, welcome. Mr wheeler. I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the polite and professional demeanor that you have brought to your task substantively. I continue to believe that you have your thumb wrist forearm and elbow on the scales in virtually every determination that you can in favor of the fossil fuel industry. And I think that is very unfortunate. I do think that there is a baseline that we should work off of of. Straight answers that are truthful and complete and I would note with respect to your recent answers to Senator Sanders about the cafe standards that the Federal Register. Analysts your analysis of the cafe standard proposal. You have increases CO two emissions year after year after year after year up to nine percent increase the O two emissions by twenty thirty five relative to the existing baseline. So I don't think it's fair to say that you're taking action to help the carbon emissions problem. When your proposal is worse than the baseline you began with of the Obama cafe standards, and I put the page into the record is page four three three two seven similar you referred to your ace program, replacing the clean power plan as being something that would reduce carbon emissions and again, your own analysis in the Federal Register the government's own analysis in the Federal Register shows that compared to the clean power plan. Your proposal will raise carbon emissions co two emissions by tens of millions of tons every single year, including for example, in twenty thirty raising it by sixty million tons in that year. So I'd like to put those two objectives into the record. When you were last here on November eight th two thousand seventeen. For your confirmation hearing is deputy. Yes, I asked what you knew about your client. Bob Murray, its so-called action plan that he was running around bragging was being implemented by Scott Pruitt, and the Trump administration. Here's what you told me I did not work on the plan. And I do not have a copy of it. I saw it briefly at the beginning of the year. But I don't have a copy of it. I looked at it and handed it back to Bob Murray. So I think the reasonable conclusion from that testimony is that you really only had a hand on it briefly. And only thought very briefly this is of C span radio programming from Wednesday. Okay. Scroll forward to December six two thousand seventeen when we learned by published reports that on March twenty ninth to seventeen two thousand seventeen you attended a meeting between your client Bob Murray and energy secretary Rick Perry where this action plan was discussed. There. You are. And there's the Murray, and if we go onto the next photograph, you can see that this action plan was. Right there in the room. Oh. And it was a nice cozy meeting show the bear hug vote on. It's really a sweet regulatory relationship. So for the record. That's not me though. No, no, no, no. That's your client. Mr murray. So we later obtained a copy of the Murray action plan, which was in that room with Secretary Perry. It turns out that it was also provided the vice president Pence, and it was provided to former EPA administrator Pruitt. Now, you arranged for Morita meet with Perry, and you tried to schedule a meeting with Pruitt, but he fell ill in the meeting did not take place. He was skit Murray was scheduled to meet with Pruitt that same day. Can you tell me now how many meetings with Trump administration officials four Bob Murray? Did you arrange attempt to arrange or attend and with whom? Yes, sir. First of all, I didn't try to arrange the meeting with Scott Pruitt, somebody else in my firm did that on the meeting with Secretary Perry. The purpose of that meeting was to talk about the relief. And I forget what it was called got Mike. Specific which was how many meetings with Trump administration officials did you arrange or attend for? Mr murray. The meeting with secretary Carey. And then I believe we had an additional meeting at the at the White House, author an energy adviser there. I did not attempt to arrange or attend any meetings. Mike Murray, I'm sorry. Mr. Wheeler, my time has expired here what I would like to do. I don't wanna play. Gotcha. With you. Yeah. What I do want is truthful complete factual answers about this. So I'm going to expand on these questions and questions for the record. And I expect you to provide complete and truthful answers as if under oath here at the hearing. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you Senator before heading to Senator bozeman, Senator Inhofe in Cuba. Thank you, west German the. There's an editorial investor's business daily that was. Looks at the government charts that mapped out trends and hurricanes tornadoes droughts wildfires. Oh that and there's no upward trend in extreme weather. But instead shows there is no trend in any of them. And s this be made a part of the record this without objection. Senator bozeman Senate environment and public works committee hearing from EPA administrator nominee Andrew Wheeler earlier today. Thank you for being here, and your willingness to serve the first of all I wanna thank you. You and your staff your timely response. We have an issue going on in Bella vista Arkansas with a fire that has to do with that stop disposal. Your staff has been very very good. This is a state problem that you do have the expertise on staff to help them those men. Could I interrupt for just a moment? I dropped the ball here. You had agreed to help out Senator Ernst by allowing her to go. I would you like to do that. Go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry. Anyway, like you say thank you for doing that. I think it's a great example of the agency working with states in situations like that. And you know, we need more of that. So thank you very much. Thank you Senator over the years. You were an integral part of helping this committee passed many important pieces of legislation few understand the work that goes into getting comprehensive bipartisan legislation passed which this committee can be very proud of. We we've passed a bunch of that. How do you feel your role as a staff member on the EP w committee is prepared you to bring people from all walks of life. To the table to develop an implement important EPA regulations. Thank you, sir. I think it's helped helped me a lot. I worked on several IWay bills was the staff director for the for the five highway Bill that we did as well. Several were two bills. We brought together people on both sides oftentimes on the highway highway side it was people from not necessarily different parties. But different sized states in different parts of the country and learning about the issues that impact different states, small states, large, populated states. Sparsely populated states. And I'm thinking of Alaskan Wyoming in particular. Really does educate somebody on how to address large-scale problems that face the entire country. And that's how it me and my time Sephardi PA Berg. During the previous administration. There was concern that rules were developed not based on sound science than on political ideology. Under your leadership. Can we expect the EPA to be more transparent regarding how rules are developed further as administrator of the can we count on you the base all of your decisions on the rule of law and not on the administration's even your own political ideology. Absolutely. And I I look at we're following not just the statutes. But also the supreme court cases as well. And I know that there are cases where people on the left or are not happy that we're moving forward with with solutions and people are on the right or not happy. We're moving forward with solutions. But it's it's my job as minister to follow the law and follow supreme court cases. Very good and your time timing EPA, and at the W committee you worked hard to improve environmental outcomes while providing regulatory certainty for the country, can you please explain the environmental and economic benefits regulatory certainty provides. That's what we hear. Some is. You can play with good rules. You can play with bad rules. If you know what the rules are. It's very very difficult. Absolutely. And I think our Wodehouse regulation. Our proposal for Rodas is a perfect example for that. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's really important for a property owner to be able to stand on his or her own property and be able to tell whether or not they have a federal water on their property and by clearly defining. What is and is not in defining? What is not a wire the US is just as important as defining? What is we'll give that certainty to the American public, and it will allow people to use their property use their land and prosper and help the entire country. I think that's very key. And important. Chris. During the previous administration was the agency's disconnect with rural America. Many hardworking Americans in real estate's felt that they did not have a voice in their opinions did not matter what have you done. And what do you plan to do in the future facilities stronger level of trust between EPA in rural? America. You just mentioned waters of the US. Yes, I I've tried to get out of DC out of the office as much as I can travel around the country. I've met with farmers leading up to our waters proposal. I've met with farmers all over the country was on California meeting with farmers and Kentucky and Montana. Tennessee. It's really important for me to hear from people as to what their issues are with their concerns about and particularly the farmers and the agricultural community. They're good stewards of the land. And we need to make sure that we're working in conjunction with them to protect the land. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Senator bozeman fish, Karen. Senator corporal, Mr Cameron, I ask unanimous consent to submit an article in lighter regarding EPA's dismissal. Are there particular matter review panel agencies insistence on moving forward with its secret? Science proposal limiting scientists input from advisory panels while with tempting to nor scientific studies where the underlying data has not been made public will greatly hinder repays ability to use the best available science to protect human, health and the environment. Thank you without objection. Senator merkley. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler yesterday, when we talked I laid out all the things that are affecting Oregon through climate chaos. So in our forests affecting our farming affecting our fishing, and I asked you how concerned are you about these impacts on my constituents the people of the United States, and you shifted to sane. I my job is to follow rules and and work to obey lawsuits..
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"I was shocked when Mr. Komi later wrote a letter saying the based on the discovery of Clinton emails on the Weiner laptop that they were reopening the investigation that he'd already announced closed and then finally just days before the general election, November the six two thousand sixteen said we didn't find anything in the on the laptop that would change my conclusions based on the press conference of July six did you? Likewise, find that to be an extraordinary. I will use the word bizarre, but certainly unprecedented event. Yeah. The whole sequence was very herky-jerky and bizarre. But at that time, I was a little over contrary in in that I basically took the position. That once he did what he did in July and said the thing was over. And then found out it wasn't over. He you know, he had no choice, but to correct the record. So I said that he had no choice, but to do what he did. But it sort of shows you what happens when you start disregarding the normal procedures and established practice is that you sort of dig yourself deeper and deeper hole. Rod Rosenstein, memo recommending the termination of James Comey. FBI director was dated may the ninth two thousand seventeen. It's it's entitled restoring public confidence in the FBI. I take it to read the memo, and do you agree with that conclusion? I completely agree with rod Rosenstein, and I thought the important point he made from my standpoint was not that particular. Usurpation that occurred. But it was as I think he says that that director Comey just didn't recognize that was a mistake. And and so it was going to potentially be a continuing problem that his appreciation of his role vis-a-vis, the attorney general. As I said the title of the memo was restoring public confidence in the FBI. Do you agree that? Restoration of public confidence in the FBI in department of Justice as a political or non-political law enforcement. Organization is. Important. It's critical needed. It's critical. And that's one of the reasons I'm sitting here I'd like to help with that process. What do you want this job? Well, because I love the department and all its components, including the FBI, I think they're critical institutions. That are essential to preserving the rule of law, which is the heartbeat of this country. And I'd like to think that that there was bipartisan consensus when I was last in this position that I acted with with independence and professionalism, and integrity, and I had very strong and productive relationships across the aisle, which which were important, I think to try to get some things done. And I feel that I'm in a position in life where I can provide the leadership necessary to protect the independence. And the reputation of the department and serve in this administration. I am not going to do anything that. I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything. I think is wrong by anybody whether it be editorial boards or congress or the president. I'm gonna do what I think is right recognize Senator Whitehouse did you request or signal or otherwise communicate in any way that you wanted rod Rosenstein to go. Now, the president said that the decision on on the deputy was mine any- anything I wanted to do on the deputy was so we will find no William bar fingerprints on Rosenstein departure. No rod, and I have been talking about his plans. He told me that he viewed it as a two year stint and would like to use if I'm confirmed my coming in as an occasion to leave. But we talked about the need for a transition. And I asked him if he would stay for a while. And he said he would and and so as of right now, I would say there's no he has no concrete plans. I have no concrete plans in terms of his departure. And we're going to sort of play by ear and see what makes sense, and you have not undertaken to run him out in any way. Absolutely not what is your understanding right now of who at the departure. The Justice is authorized to have communications with the White House regarding pensions depends what it is. But on on criminal matters. I would just have the AG in the deputy. And what do you think the rule is now in the department?.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"But the other guys there too. And I don't like him anymore new. So the bottom line is we're starting off with something that would be good for the country. We have a vacancy for the attorney general spot. We have a chance to fill that vacancy Mr. bar is you can't hold a job. When look at what he's done in his life. It's incredible solid to thank the president. For nominating. Somebody who is worthy of the job cool understand on day. One. What the job is about you can right this ship over there. I think we all have concerns. I know Senator Whitehouse is passionate about cybersecurity in fort cyber and all of these other ideas that Sheldon has been pushing. It's just a matter of time before we hit hit hard. If somebody doesn't step up to plate was some solutions, but a little bit about the nominee. He's been attorney general before from ninety one to ninety three by voice vote. Those were the days, Deb, the attorney general from ninety to ninety one unanimous consent without a recorded vote. Assistant attorney general office of legal counsel voice vote. That's pretty amazing. You're going to have an actual vote. This time. Academically gifted George Washington law school, Columbia University undergraduate outside of DOJ was the general counsel legislative council for the CIA. That's how you met Bush forty one. He's been a law clerk he's worked in private practice. I'm not going to bore the committee with all the things he's done. He's been the senior vice president general counsel GTE. He's lived a consequential life general counsel for Verizon you've lived a life. Than honorable and noteworthy and accomplished, and I want to thank you for being willing to take this task on. We've got a lot of problems at department of Justice. I think morale is low and we need to change that. So I look forward to this hearing you will be challenged. You should be challenged the memo there'll be a lot of talk about it as there should be. But I just wanted to let you know, Mr. bar that we appreciate you stepping up at a time when the country needs somebody of your background and your from that to be in charge of the rule of law. And would that I will turn it over to my colleague Senator finds show there's so there's Lindsey Graham with some opening remarks, and of course, Senator Graham notable for having excoriated Democrats during the cavenaugh hearings. But the the good Lindsey there's way as he put it or the immigration Lindsay is going to try to balance that he referenced the memo, of course, he's talking about a memo that was written that were were attorney general nominee Barsha jested that a sitting president can't be prosecuted that you can't go after then that's been something you see all this all all these documentaries all the stories over the last fifty years. This isn't a new concept. They talked about that with Clinton during his impeach where they talked about it with Richard Nixon, you get to this great legal area of what a president is able to be held accountable for and what he is not. So that's the memo he's talking about. But, but we'll see, you know, again, you're going to hear a lot of showboating. From from a lot of Democrats who want to be president someday, fifteen minutes before the hour here. The relief factor dot com studios. Our number eight hundred six five five Mike, we got a lot to cover including a reminder about our trip to Israel the stand with Israel trip. Lot of people are excited and going with us Dennis Prager. And I will be your co host. It's gonna be an incredible spiritual journey. Maybe that's what James needs as a trip to Israel. Not not that. I particularly wanted to join us, but.
"senator whitehouse" Discussed on Important, Not Important
"This week's episode is a special timely replay. As the new congress is in session, hen shit is very very real. Our question was Brian. What drives the men give two hundred climate speeches every week on the day in congress. I guess to clarify this now because he doesn't give two hundred climate speeches. No, he has given two hundred climate speeches over the course of two hundred weeks to the day in congress. It doesn't matter. Our guest is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. He's the junior Senator and all around stellar human of the great state of Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse was formerly a US attorney. And then later attorney general Rhode Island and has been a member of congress since two thousand seven, and you know, what he's currently moonlighting as some sort of captain planet figure, but Binoche captain planet. No weird. Weird cat. We've talked about the feeling we could do a whole after dark on captain planet the intentions there. But creepy man anyway center White House, not only super duper smart and happy and eager to reach across the aisle. But boy have we discovered recently us in this conversation. He is not afraid to call out folks for destroying our door belittle democracy and planet from the inside out I cherish them. He's like like, just Google Senator Whitehouse like talking and congress at all he's just like, he's he's hilarious because he just gives no FOX gives zero FOX. Yeah. Yes. Fantastic. It's it's great. So gonna need that going forward pretty excited. So anyways, let's go talk to senators. Sheldon Whitehouse stood all. Our guest today is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of the great state of Rhode Island and together we're gonna ask what drives a man to give the same climate speech two hundred times. Senator Whitehouse, welcome. Thank you. It is perfect to be with you both. We are very very happy to have you. All right. So Senator just quickly. Tell us who you are. And what you do. I am Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. I'm the junior Senator from the state of Rhode Island, and obviously I work in the United States Senate. Yeah, that's pretty succinct. That'll do it. Groovy? So we're just gonna get our conversation going for today. Our ethos a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. If I think it's quite clear. But if it isn't it is a we are anytime for action right now. And and the best action comes from provocative results oriented questions..