Watch Ted Cruz BLASTS Biden Nominee For REPEADTEDLY FAILING To Answer Questions…

Watch Ted Cruz BLASTS Biden Nominee For REPEADTEDLY FAILING To Answer Questions…
uh Miss Freeman you disagree with the death penalty don’t you Senator I I support the rule of law and if confirmed I would apply that that was not the question I asked you you disagree with the death penalty don’t you Senator if if confirmed I would apply the law regardless of any views that I may or may not have so you’re hesitating because you’re Afra to answer honestly Senator respectfully my understanding of the code of conduct for United States judges which applies to judicial nominees is that I am to refrain from commenting of ma on matters of public policy that may be may come before me really this is this this the same person who submitted a photograph of yourself at a protest at the Philadelphia International Airport um uh labeled Ariana Freeman senator of Philadelphia cheers and chant with others during a protest to president Donald Trump’s executive order Banning travel to the US by citizens of Iraq Iran Sudan Libya Somalia and Yemen that’s refraining from engaging in public policy Senator i i attended that that public event in 2017 long before I was a Judicial nominee and subject to the the code okay well the Cannons don’t prohibit at you sharing what your views are to this committee and we have judges appear here all the time it’s not remotely credible that you don’t have a view on the death penalty you’ve devoted your entire professional career to representing criminals to representing murderers to representing rapists to representing child molesters you believe the death penalty is wrong you have been a zealot against the death penalty is is that true or false Senator I have spent 12 and a half years fulfilling my duty to zealously advocate for the interest of my client regardless of the sentence some of those sentences were uh death sentences for the past uh eight or so years I have worked on non-c Capital cases like okay well I’ll tell you let’s let’s take the case that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court talked about and Senator Holly discussed this some Terrence Williams one of your clients had a long list of violent crimes including armed robbery and another murder just months before he killed Mr Amos Norwood Mr Williams had separately be convicted of murdering a different victim by stabbing him 20 times in the head the back the chest clean through his neck before then trying to burn his body apparently this method of murder was one Mr Williams was fond of because his second victim Amos Norwood he black mailed him to meet him in a cemetery where Williams beat Norwood with a tire iron until he died and then the next night Williams returned to burn the victim’s body Terence Williams is a bad guy when you’re faced with a repeat murderer about whom there are no serious questions of guilt nobody doubts that this guy is a Serial murderer your choice you don’t feel Sympathy for the victims you don’t stand with the victims your choice you’ve spent your life trying to save that murderer and and listen here’s what the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said about your office because you keep saying zealously representing you’re right every everyone is entitled to a defense but it’s not the job of a lawyer to be obstructionist is it the job of a lawyer to be obstructionist no senator well the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court describes your office says the extraordinary Shadow capacity of the FCD your office and its demonstrated tactics give me additional pause here the Chief Justice continues almost invariably without legitimate Court appointment without any Pennsylvania authorities approval or role uh of oversight this private group of federal lawyers pursuing an obstructionist anti-death penalty agenda have essentially annointed themselves a Statewide de facto Capital defenders office common tactics of the FCD include multiple attempts to delay unstruck cases as well as attempts to un unsettle and undermine Pennsylvania law do you think it’s extraordinary that the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accuses you and your office of being zealots engaged in an obstructionist anti-death penalty agenda I I’m not aware of of how often something like that occurs Senator well I’ll tell you I’ve practiced law a lot of years this is extraordinary and you know Senator Booker asked why do you choose to do this I actually think Senator Booker’s question was a great question you said you care about public service he rightly pointed out well you could have been a prosecutor many of us both sides of the aisle have been prosecutors you didn’t want to be a prosecutor you wanted to stand with the criminals because as the chief justice has said your office is engaged in a zealotry in an agenda against the death penalty game playing and you know Senator Booker said well it’s bad for your career to be a a public defender that actually is not the case if you look at Joe Biden last night Joe Biden said we shouldn’t abolish the police and all the Democrats stood and applauded but interestingly enough Joe Biden keeps nominating some of the leading advocates for abolishing the police to senior positions the Department of Justice and every Senate Democrat confirms them Joe Biden keeps nominating Das who refuse to prosecute violent crime to be Federal prosecutors and every Democrat votes to confirm them and Miss Freeman you should feel comfortable no matter how much your office has been called out for being anti death penalty zealots siding with capital murderers and ignoring the law every Democrat on this committee is going to vote to confirm you but I will tell you this is a three-prong strategy from the Democrats to abolish the police putting prosecutors in place who don’t follow the law putting putting judges in place who don’t follow the law and there’s a reason we see crime rates and murder rates and carjacking rates skyrocketing across this country because the job of a judge is to follow the law not to be a zealot pursuing a political agenda you think it’s appropriate for a prosecutor to decide not to prosecute uh certain classes or lines of criminal law violations in the name of social justice Senator I have not had the opportunity to review the legality of challenges to a an Executives I’m not I’m not asking your opinion about the legality some of our Das you’ve read about them I’m sure um in Philadelphia Los Angeles for example other places have said we we are going to ignore criminal statutes passed by the legislature and not prosecute certain lines of cases in the interest of social justice and I’m asking your opinion about that Senator I do not actually have a an opinion about that per se I I do recognize that constituents counselor you’ve you’re an intelligent person you spent your life in in criminal involved in criminal law you don’t have an opinion have you thought about it Senator I I’m not sure which specific instances of of categories of crime that are not being prosecuted you’re referring to sure how about shoplifting how about receiving stolen property how about resisting arrest uh how about making criminal threats do you think those are all statutes criminal violations do you think a prose it’s a very simple question counsel um do you think prosecutors should decide in the name of social justice not to ignore these criminal violations have you thought about it Senator I can’t say I have you’re telling me you not given any thought to this Senator I I none whatsoever thank you I don’t believe you I’m sorry I just don’t believe you you’re a well- read intelligent person and I don’t know why you won’t give me your opinion on this Senator I have focused on specific criminal cases uh as as an advocate as an appointed counsel I know that but I’m asking your opinion I’m going to ask it one more time do you think prosecutors should ignore criminal violations as per statutes passed by a legislative body in the name of social justice as a matter of of class of cases all I can say senator is I believe that prosecutors have a very important job I agree they their job is enormously important I’m just asking you to answer my question I can’t vote for you if you’re not going to answer my question because I don’t know what position you’re going to take if you’re on the court thank you Senator would you answer my question I would hope that prosecutors would use all of all of their tools and resources is to make important decisions about issues such as the one that you’ve raised and if confirmed I would review the legality of any challeng counselor I’m very disappointed I’m getting word Sal here and I don’t even have dressing on it we both know what I’m talking about and I I think your your refusal to answer refusal to answer gives refusal to answer gives me the answer with all due respect thank you Mr chairman thank Senator Kennedy uh I’m going to comment on that’s your question well I’m GNA want to respond I want you to okay attorneys and prosecutors make decisions every single day as to what cases will be prosecuted and which cases will not it is physically legally impossible to prosecute all cases they establish priorities they try to serve the public and establishing those priorities every prosecutor makes that choice they can’t prosecute every possible violation of the law that’s just part of their responsibility I don’t see why that is a reflection on whether or not you agree with their choices or not some are going to take a much different view than others that’s just the nature of it and in terms of summarizing what’s wrong with the criminal justice system in 60 Seconds Challenge any one of us to do the same well Mr chairman you know dick the affection that I have for you but this is the third Hearing in which you’ve made editorial comments about my questions but I’m theor open so so I want to respond um number one uh this very bright person has spent her life in criminal just the criminal justice system I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what if anything she thinks is wrong with it and get a candid answer number two of course you’re right about prosecutor discretion but you and I both know that’s not what my question was about we have a number of district attorneys that have taken the position that they are going to ignore criminal statutes passed by a legislative body and they are not going to prosecute they meaning the prosecutors an entire line of cases for example shoplifting uh receiving stolen property resisting arrest in the name of social justice Out Mr chairman we both know what I’m talking about and so does the witness and I don’t know why she won’t answer the question and that’s the point I was trying to make I I mean no disrespect to either of you but I think my questions are perfectly appropriate in this environment [Music] for [Music] Fore fore [Music] for [Music] for foreign foreign [Music] fore foreign foree for [Music]

KAYNAK