Transcription
Senator Booker: Good afternoon, Mr. Blanche. Our president has a very well-documented history of attempting to corruptly influence government officials to advance his own personal interest. He called the Republican Secretary of Georgia asking him to find enough votes to overturn the election. He withheld military aid to pressure Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden's son. For these things, he has been impeached. He's been criminally convicted in Georgia, ignited in Georgia because he uses his power to unjustly influence people. When a president routinely pressures public officials for his own personal benefit, the Department of Justice has to remain independent. This brings me really to you. And I think what has you at the center of so much concern is that you seek to lead the Department of Justice after being the president's personal lawyer, lawyer. The American people are really entitled to know whether your allegiance to the rule of law is your focus or your allegiance to one man who clearly has an insatiable appetite for revenge, self-enrichment and the abuse of power.
So I want to talk about your record. Under you, the department has prosecuted people that have caught folks on both sides of the political aisle by surprise. Jim Comey, Letitia James, my colleague Adam You have to go to the governor, Adam Schiff, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. This casts a shadow over were your ideas, any ideas of independence. You directed the arrest of Mayor Ras Baracka of my city of Newark. You weren't at Delaney Hall on May 9th, 2025 when he was You have a conversation with Special Agent in Charge, Ricky Patel ordering him to arrest Mayor Baracka? I had a conversation. I didn't order him to arrest. I authorized the arrest, which is my job. So you were not there. And we have body camera footage of him then moving and saying, "We are arresting the mayor right now per," this is his quote, "the Deputy Attorney General of the United States." I want to put that into the record, your comments there and the district court assessing all of your conduct, admonished the Department of Justice. This is their, this is the quote of the judge or the federal judge, "Your role is not to advance political agendas. Your allegiance is to the impartial application of the law and to uphold due process for all."
But this is just There's one example cited by over 1,200 current and former Department of Justice officials appointed under presidents of both parties who warned that you should not be in this position because of your inability to be independent from your personal allegiance to Donald Trump over the rule of law. I met yesterday with Epstein survivors, some of them are here in the room today. Congress in a bipartisan fashion passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act because the American people were demanding justice. Yet you failed to abide by that law and release the files by the deadline established by the law. And when the files were finally released, you failed to protect the survivors that that law was intended to protect. Survivors' personal information, including names, phone numbers, home addresses and images were released. Powerful people were redacted. Survivors were subjected to re-traumatization. More than 1,200 victims, yet only two people have ever been prosecuted, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, I was stunned earlier by your conversation with one of my colleagues that you wouldn't even commit to meeting with the survivors, but you did meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. Your claim that you can't meet with these victims because they're represented by counsel is utter nonsense. Counsel can be present or a client can waive their right to have counsel, but you're a lawyer. You know this. That was not truthful what you said to my colleague. You said that they should meet with the FBI. All of these women have reported their crimes decades ago, but yet you won't meet with them. What you will do is meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. Over a year ago, you sat with her and you publicly said you were seeking the truth. So let's talk about what that two-day meeting produced. Did your interview with Ms. Maxwell lead to a single additional person being charged? Yes or no? No. Did it lead to a single new investigation, yes or no? I can't talk about whether there's any investigation. I'm not asking you about an ongoing or closed investigation. I'm I'm just asking you about this unusual. I can't answer your question, yes or no. Did you or anyone else from the DOJ or associated with the president discuss a presidential pardon with Ghislaine Maxwell or her attorneys? No. Did you discuss clemency, yes or no? No. Did you discuss... She was convicted. What do you mean clemency? Did you discuss her transfer to another institution, yes or no? No, no. Well, just one week after your meeting, Ms. Maxwell was transferred from a low-security federal institution to a minimum-security prison camp. Were you involved with that transfer? When, as I've talked about before, in the time leading up to me going down to meet with her, we learned that she was receiving threats. It turned out when we were I'm going to interrupt you for a matter of time. Okay, well, it's not a question I can answer, apparently, in the chat that you're giving me. Sir, I'm going to tell you this because I deal with the issues of criminal justice. When people are under threats in a bureau prison facility, they're put into solitary confinement or protective. They're not moved to a camp. That's not always true. It is. What is what is true is someone that is accused of child sex trafficking under the Bureau of Prisons' own policies is not put in a facility like this that seems clearly like a reward.
The Department of Justice is also responsible that powerful corporations play by the same rules. Let's take a proposed merger between Paramount, Warner Brothers and Discovery. This is no ordinary transaction. It was a proposed $111 billion merger involving two of the last remaining legacy Hollywood studios. As deputy attorney general and later acting attorney general, you all exercise oversight of the antitrust division. You approved the decision to close the department's investigation into that merger, yes or no? I was part of the decision. You were involved in that. You don't even let me answer, man. That's incredible. Did the career attorneys who investigated that deal recommend closing that investigation? I didn't have a conversation with the career, but as I was saying earlier━ I didn't ask you that. I asked you, did the career attorneys who investigated the deal recommend closing the investigation? I have no idea what they were YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF THAT DEPARTMENT, YET YOU HAVE NO IDEA. WELL, THIS IS... I DIDN'T SAY I HAD NO IDEA. IT'S NO IDEA ABOUT THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ABOUT WHAT THE CAREER ATTORNEY'S VIEW WAS. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT the career attorney's view was. I'm not sure what the view was with respect to closing it or not closing it. Let me tell you why ethics laws that bind you about the appearance of impropriety are so, so damning in this case on the same day that Paramount shareholders voted to approve the merger David Ellison, the head of the acquiring company, hosted a dinner that you attended honoring the president United States while you were at that AT DINNER, THE DOJ WAS STILL INVESTIGATING A MERGER. DID YOU SPEAK WITH MR. ELLISON ON THAT EVENING? NO. DID YOU DISCUSS WITH ANYONE INVOLVED IN THAT ORGANIZATION THAT EVENING THE DEPARTMENT'S ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS? NO. WELL, SIX WEEKS LATER, AFTER THAT DINNER, THAT INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED THAT YOU'RE STATING YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ATTORNEY in charge even finished their investigation. That's not what I said. What did you say? You asked me a question about whether the attorneys recommended that the investigation be closed, and I said I wasn't sure. That's different than what you just threw back at DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT CREATES AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THAT YOU WERE AT A DINNER? NO. OKAY? THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ETHICS RULES ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT A PROVE, ABOUT A OF IMPROPRIETY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, I THINK THAT'S IMPROPER. EVERY ELECTED AND THE POWERFUL ARE GETTING A CHANCE TO RUB SHOULDERS. It would seem appropriate that you avoid those kind of appearances and dinners like that. Every appearance or dinner or speech that I give are cleared by ethics So your attendance at that dinner was cleared by ethics officials? Everything that I do. I didn't ask you everything you do. Was your appearance at that dinner cleared? You can ask the questions, but you cannot control my answers. I'm under oath and I can answer the questions I choose to answer them were you so what I will tell you is what I yes or no were you approved when I do things outside of the outside of the department whether it's a speech whether it's a dinner whether it's an event they are approved by ethics officials. You did not answer whether that attendance was approved. Every time I go out it's approved yes.
You know Lincoln, it was said about him that if you want to see the true character of a man, don't view him in adversity, give him power. I believe you've had a lot of power. And so we don't have to speculate about what has been revealed with your time in that office. We don't need to worry about what kind of attorney general. You've already had that power. This isn't a job interview like usually. You've sat before this committee before. You've made promises time and time again before. You got the job actually to be the number two and the acting director. So this isn't a confirmation hearing. This is more of a performance review. And clearly, when it comes to the treatment of Epstein victims, when it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, when it comes from avoiding appearance of impropriety with corporations, you failed. You're asking this body for a promotion. And you've spent today making a lot of promises, promises to follow the law, promises to be independent, promises to serve the American people and not the president. But we don't need your promises. We have your record. We have watched you exercise one of the greatest powers entrusted to any public servant. And what have you shown us? 1,200 victims waiting for justice. What have you shown us? There's two prosecutions. While the party, while the people involved, the victims are waiting for action, one of the people prosecuted gets the most cushy arrangement possible. After you visit with her again and again, you seem to be favoring the interest of a president and the powerful. You've chosen Trump over truth. You've chosen corporations over the Constitution. And you fail to meet the test. I'll say this in closing. This is why your nomination should fail. The attorney general's client is not the president. It's the American people. You've been protecting one man for most of your career, for years and years and years. He has demonstrated himself to put undue pressure. This is why he was impeached. This is why he was criminally indicted. If your record and your testimony today should show us anything, it should show you, in my opinion, that you should not be confirmed to this job. Thank you, Senator Booker.