[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 134 (Saturday, August 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5499-S5502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Jeanine Pirro
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a little while, later this
afternoon, we will consider confirmation of Jeanine Pirro as U.S.
attorney for the district of Washington, DC.
Now, I have a particular feeling about appointments as U.S. attorney,
having served as one in Connecticut and having seen how profoundly
impactful it can be on the lives of everyday Americans.
Obviously, it is a position that is integral to justice in the United
States. It is the top Federal prosecutor in that district. In DC, it is
the largest office in the whole country and probably one of the two or
three most important because it has jurisdiction over all of the
Federal Agencies, Federal employees, Federal issues that arise in this
profoundly significant place.
Like any prosecutor in the Federal system, it is a position of
absolutely staggering importance and power. I learned as U.S. attorney
that probably the most important decision I made was whether to bring
an indictment; that is to say, whether to charge somebody with a crime.
Most--almost all--were convicted. But convicted or not, speaking
generally, somebody charged with a crime suffers damage for life--
financial harm, reputational impact, families often disrupted. And that
is no reason to avoid bringing charges but only to make sure that
someone who is making those final decisions is independent, objective,
and nonpolitical in the way they go about the job.
Jeanine Pirro is unqualified to be U.S. attorney. She is unfit for
this role. She is simply a loyal political acolyte and sycophant of the
President. Loyalty is the reason she has been nominated, not
experience. She is not objective. She is not independent. In fact, she
is essentially an entertainer. Nothing wrong with being an entertainer,
but it is not a qualification for being U.S. attorney.
In fact, on her show, she has made Islamophobic comments so offensive
that FOX News temporarily suspended her from the air. She has promoted
a wide variety of damaging, offensive conspiracy theories, including
the thoroughly debunked allegation that some pro-choice States allow
doctors to kill fully delivered, breathing babies. She was a key figure
in promoting the entirely baseless claim that the 2020 election was
stolen. Her public record essentially disqualifies her from serving as
the chief Federal prosecutor.
Her nomination is more serious and more profoundly important than
just her particular place. It is, in a sense, a symbol of what
President Trump is doing to the U.S. justice system. My Republican
colleagues are simply not only willing to place her at the head of the
largest U.S. Attorney's Office in the country, last week, they moved
her nomination forward by a party-line vote. They rallied behind her,
not in spite of her record but because of it--again, simply because she
is loyal to the President.
So the issue here is not only about her; it is about whether loyalty
will qualify somebody for this kind of powerful position in the U.S.
Department of Justice, which is supposed to be above politics, when she
has demonstrated that, in fact, she would be totally unfit for any such
office.
How loyal is she? Well, she was individually discussed in the
defamation lawsuit against FOX News for promoting 2020 election
conspiracies. Her totally false comments were at the center of that
defamation case. FOX News canceled an episode of her show after the
2020 election with a FOX executive producer, saying: ``I don't trust
her to be responsible.'' A FOX producer called her a ``reckless
maniac'' in an internal email. These were her colleagues, her
coworkers, her producers. One of them asserted that ``she should never
be on live television'' and described her draft of a monologue as
``rife w[ith] conspiracy theories.''
That defamation case ended in a settlement in which FOX News agreed
to pay $787 million, in part, because of statements she made on the
air.
The history of peddling conspiracy theories on cable news should be
fundamentally disqualifying for any prosecutor, let alone the head of
the largest
[[Page S5500]]
U.S. Attorney's Office. Her record should preclude her from receiving
even an interview for an assistant U.S. attorney position. Instead, her
loyalty at the expense of truth has won her a nomination for one of the
most powerful Department of Justice positions in the whole country.
And her specific record around the work of the very U.S. Attorney's
Office she is now nominated to lead reveals how unqualified and
unsuitable she is for this role.
Here is the most important part of her background. Four and a half
years ago, as we all know, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol,
contributing to the deaths of Capitol Police, injuring them severely,
disrupting the vote-counting for President, and leaving devastation in
their wake.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for DC was primarily responsible for
bringing the January 6 rioters to justice, with praise from both sides
of the aisle for the diligent and dedicated work they did to make sure
that justice was done. For years, those prosecutors worked alongside
the FBI to investigate, to build cases, to bring prosecution against
the rioters. They didn't choose those roles or assignment; they were
chosen by the Department of Justice to do their duty and enforce the
law.
But on her radio show, Jeanine Pirro agreed with a guest who said the
Department of Justice prosecutors handling the January 6 cases should
be criminally prosecuted. She said:
I absolutely agree with that.
In her responses to this committee's questions, she failed to disavow
this position. In fact, she failed to directly answer whether she
believed Federal prosecutors assigned to work on the January 6 cases
should, themselves, be prosecuted. In other words, she sided with the
criminals.
She criticized the prosecutors who now will be in the office that she
has been nominated to lead. Her criticism of them was to side with the
conspiracy theorists and the call-in guests to her show as Judge Pirro.
Rather than condemning pardons for people who committed violence
against law enforcement, she simply wrote:
The decision to issue a pardon is a power that belongs to
the President. That is what she answered when she was asked
about pardons for January 6 rioters who had been convicted of
violence against law enforcement.
Again, she refused to answer key questions. And, unfortunately, the
Judiciary Committee failed to bring her forward as a witness, despite
our requests and demands that she be a witness in her nomination
proceeding. That is really regrettable on the part of the Judiciary
Committee and, I think, an avoidance of responsibility that we owe the
American people to scrutinize somebody who plainly raises such profound
questions of qualification, even if you prize loyalty to Donald Trump.
This person who Donald Trump has nominated to be in this position of
trust and responsibility, plainly is not just unfit but would disgrace
this office and diminish the credibility of the entire Department of
Justice. That is the more profound question here, whether someone so
unqualified will be confirmed after no testimony, after inadequate
consideration, after simply agreeing because she is loyal to the
President.
Rather than support the prosecution and conviction of people who
assaulted law enforcement officers, she believes that the Federal
prosecutors bringing those cases should, themselves, be investigated.
The U.S. Attorney's Office that did those cases, the dedicated
professionals who investigated them and the people of the District of
Columbia--indeed, our Nation--deserve better.
I oppose her nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I am one of the newest Senators in this
esteemed body. In fact, I just marked my sixth month here in the U.S.
Senate.
Over and over and over again, you could just plug and play the same
speech because, apparently, everyone nominated by President Trump to
every position that we have to confirm as a body is wholly unqualified.
That is what the Democrats would have you believe. In fact, I don't
think we heard much else about any of the nominations.
If you look at the statistics going back administration after
administration, Democrat and Republican, at this point in time, you saw
90 percent of nonmilitary civilian nominees confirmed. And how many of
President Trump's administration have we confirmed? Zero. It is almost
as though they are trying to thwart the will of the American people.
I stand here to reflect on a situation that I am astounded by as the
newest U.S. Senator. In November 2024, the American people elected
President Trump to be the 47th President of this Nation. And with that
election, the people expressed their willingness to see this country
move down a new path, a better path, a stronger and safer path, a path
where leaders actually looked at the well-being of this country and the
security of this country and the interests of our people and made
commonsense policy decisions based on that and not some radical wish
list that filled some Marxist governing philosophy. How about we get
back to the founding ideals of this Nation?
How did the colleagues on the other side of the aisle respond to that
election? What have we seen since January of this year when the 119th
Congress set out to do the people's work? We have seen obstruction. It
was the same response they have always had, a blend of histrionics and
performance theater.
Instead of committing to the calls for reflection from within their
own party in the aftermath of an electoral loss, they resorted to
obstruction in the name of democracy--in the name of democracy. I find
it strange that in protecting democracy, it requires ignoring the will
of the people.
Here in the Senate, both on the floor and in our committees, we have
found that carrying out the people's will is being stymied every step
of the way. We have seen Presidential nominees and legislation as
opportunities for a performance. And every day this goes on, important
positions critical to the national security and the well-being of this
country and improving the lives of our citizens, those positions go
left unfilled.
So while China continues to staff their diplomatic postings abroad
and undercut the prosperity of our country, our Embassies go without
Ambassadors. As our domestic Departments seek to unleash the American
economy for the benefit of the working-class Americans, they are left
without leadership. Our colleagues have sought to protect this country
by obstructing the very exercise of the people's will, ensuring it is
incapable of meeting the challenges of the moment.
So here we are, on a Saturday in August, voting on the President's
nominees because our colleagues continue to hold out. This ultimately
places this body and our Nation at a crossroads.
If we continue down this path, if we continue to allow obstruction at
every turn or continue to allow people on the other side of the aisle
to gain personal points or even political points, we weaken this body
created by the Framers to carry out the responsibilities the American
people have asked of us, protecting our liberty and protecting this
Union.
I hope that our colleagues will avoid this path and join us in moving
forward with putting Americans and America first.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, today marks day 212 of this new
Congress under Republican leadership. I would offer to my colleagues
this has been the most successful--the most successful--beginning of a
Congress.
When you look at the nearly 750 hours that we have spent working and
the 450 votes that we have taken, when you look at how we have pushed
to move forward and how we have fought obstruction from our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, you do realize that we, indeed, are
helping to fulfill the promise President Trump made when he said: We
will make America safe, secure, healthy, productive, and great again.
Do you know what? That is precisely what the American people voted
for. They want action. They want things to be done differently. Indeed,
with a Republican House and Senate and this administration, led by
President Trump and Vice President Vance, they are delivering on this.
[[Page S5501]]
Look at the border. What we are seeing is a border that is secure. We
know that we have some of the best numbers--the lowest illegal
crossings that are coming across those borders. We are returning to
building a wall. We are getting the Border Patrol what they need to do
their job.
We have the Laken Riley Act, which Senator Britt led here in the
Senate. This helps to detain those criminal illegal aliens. We have the
HALT Fentanyl Act that Senator Grassley led, and we have Senator
Hagerty with the GENIUS Act to give us that first crypto bill to make
certain that we retain the lead in that emerging technology
legislation.
Those are all a few of the things that have been accomplished.
Of course, look at what we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Tennesseans are really looking forward to this bill because of what it
does.
When you look at the fact that we got rid of a lot of that far-left
Green New Deal spending, we have put money into modernizing our
military for 21st century warfare and into Border Patrol agents, and we
have the funding there that is needed. It is all there.
The people said: Let's get back to addressing our debt and restoring
some fiscal sanity to this country. We have $37 trillion of debt. We
didn't get there overnight, and it is going to take a dedicated,
focused, intentional process to get us out of this debt, to address it.
Of course, we are delighted--absolutely delighted--and we are so
pleased to know that June was the first month in not a year or a decade
but in three decades that this government ran a surplus.
Those are good signs.
Indeed, last night on this floor, we moved forward three of the
appropriations bills. There are eight bills that have already come out
of committee, and we processed three of those last night to make
certain that we get onto a budget; that we get off of the Biden-era
CRAs and onto the numbers that President Trump and our Appropriations
Committee have moved forward on.
This marked the first time since 2018 that the Senate passed
appropriations bills before the August recess. Now, that is so
significant because what are the first things that we are supposed to
do? One of them is to fund the government. And for my colleagues who
always want to reduce Federal spending, which I am one of them, we have
to go through the appropriations process to be able to do that.
Of course, in addition to the One Big Beautiful Bill, we also had the
rescissions bill, which gave us an additional $9 billion in cuts.
We need to realize, when we do these rescissions, that is the
equivalent of taking that red pen and marking through those line items
and saying: They are gone.
The American people wanted to see the high cost of living and
inflation addressed. Indeed, with the One Big Beautiful Bill, we have
been able to get things heading in the right direction. For
Tennesseans, we know that there is going to be a $2,600 per year
savings in taxes with that One Big Beautiful Bill. We know that people
are looking forward to this and that the One Big Beautiful Bill was the
largest tax cut in our Nation's history. Indeed, we expect from the
Council of Economic Advisers' numbers to see families in Tennessee
increase take-home pay somewhere between $7,000 and $10,000. Those are
numbers that are significant.
And do you know what that does? It says to people: We want you to
have more control over your pocketbook--in how you choose to save your
money, in how you choose to spend your money. All of those things are
accomplishments. In 212 days of this Congress, those are all items that
we have been able to move forward on.
Our other committees are hard at work. We are approving judges and
getting them through the process, ready for floor votes. Indeed, the
first appellate judge--appointed by President Trump and approved by
Congress--was Whitney Hermandorfer out of Nashville. We look forward to
seeing her on the Sixth Circuit. All of this we have moved forward at a
rapid pace.
Now I want to talk about what has happened with nominees. Of course,
everyone is aware we approved the Cabinet in record time in getting
people to work. When it comes to those sub-Cabinet positions and judges
and U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals and Ambassadors, our friends
across the aisle have enjoyed playing a game of obstruction. You know,
it is as if they learned nothing on November 5.
Our friends across the aisle have lost at the ballot box; they have
lost in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate. They have lost in the
courts, and so now what we hear from many of them--and you can look at
some of their campaign websites--is that they are holding resistance
labs and encouraging people to obstruct. They think that they are
harming us. What they are doing is harming the American people,
thwarting the will of the American people.
They are trying to slow-walk these nominees. They are making a game
out of it. How many can they hold back? But what they are doing is
acting outside of the norm. What they are doing is proving to the
American people that they are not here to address the issues of the
day; they are here to see what they can stop.
I have got a chart with me that I think tells a great story. You will
see the heading ``Civilian nominees confirmed by voice vote or
unanimous consent in first term.'' That is a President's first term. In
order to provide context for what is happening in the U.S. Senate, I
think it is important that we go back and look at history and see what
that yields for us and the lessons that it yields.
As I said, these are nominees who are confirmed by voice vote or by
unanimous consent in a President's first term. That is a practice that
has been an accepted and expected practice of this body. When you have
a deputy or an Under Secretary and sometimes nominees for different
boards, they are grouped together en bloc, and then they are moved
through the process together. They receive either a voice vote, or they
move forward by unanimous consent. It simplifies the process. Many
times, as I have talked to Tennesseans, what they have said is: We are
not certain how many nominees there are. When you talk about President
Trump not getting his nominees, are we talking about 100 people or 200
or 300? No. It is about 1,200 positions.
So let's put the context on this.
President George H. W. Bush: He had 98 percent of his civilian
nominees confirmed by voice or unanimous consent.
President Bill Clinton: 98 percent.
George W. Bush: 90 percent.
President Obama: 90 percent.
President Trump's first term: 65 percent.
President Biden: 57 percent.
President Donald Trump's second term--zero--zero--not one--not one
single nominee, not one. This is the obstruction that they are
practicing within this Chamber.
Not only are they doing that, but they are wanting multiple votes.
They want cloture filed. Then they want the cloture vote. Then they
want the 2-hour period or the 4-hour for appellate judges while a
Cabinet Secretary is a 30-hour clock to run. They are doing that on
every single nominee. You can imagine how much time this would take if
you have to follow this pattern for 1,200 people.
You see why it is deemed by many people in this country to be active
obstruction by the Democrats. This is a practice that has gained steam
under the current Democrat leadership. They feel like they are hurting
the Republicans, but what they are doing is harming the American people
because the agenda they voted for--what they wanted to see
accomplished--cannot be accomplished.
Of what the American people voted for President Trump to do, our
friends across the aisle would choose to slow-walk that. What they are
doing is hurting the people they were sent here to represent.
I yield the floor.
(Mrs. BRITT assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S5502]]