[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 82 (Thursday, May 14, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2290-S2291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATIONS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will move 1 step
closer to confirming 50 Executive nominees without the consent or
agreement of the Senate Democrats.
Last year, Senate Republicans made a change in the Senate's rules
that has fundamentally undermined Senators' ability to fulfill our
constitutional duty of advice and consent. They gave away this body's
authority in order to appease the White House.
Now, I have been in the Senate long enough to remember a time when
this was not even a major issue. It was rare that people would question
a nomination. They would usually threaten to but not reach a floor
vote. That has changed dramatically.
U.S. attorneys--let me use that as an example. Under President
Trump's first term, virtually every U.S. attorney of the 94 vacancies
was filled by voice vote--no record vote necessary. There was maybe one
exception in that period, but virtually all of them were by voice vote.
Then came President Biden and a decision by the man who is now Vice
President of the United States to force a vote on every single U.S.
attorney. It was Vice President Vance who insisted on that, and I came
to the floor repeatedly, saying: Why are you doing this? We have done
this on a bipartisan basis up until now.
He said: We want to vote on every one of them.
Well, he got his way, and we stopped filling the vacancies of U.S.
attorneys under President Biden. Now, under President Trump's second
term, we are having individual votes on each one. I don't believe it
should ever have reached that point, but it has, and I just described
to you how it reached that point. Still, we have this situation where
there are objections and demands for votes time and time and time
again. We waste too much time on that.
Now, some of these nominees are controversial, and they would have
separate votes, but that is rare. By and large, we can have agreement
if we do it on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this kind of voting
we are going to have today basically says that we are throwing in the
towel, that we are not even going to try to make this a bipartisan
process, and I am sorry for that.
I warned that this new Republican precedent would open the door to
jamming through extreme nominees whose only qualification is loyalty to
the President.
U.S. attorneys are the top Federal prosecutors in 94 districts across
the country. We rely on them to be above politics, fairmined
prosecutors who protect victims and hold bad actors accountable. They
should not be instruments of political retribution ever. But, as I
feared, several U.S. attorney nominees in this en bloc package are
extreme and, I am afraid to say, unqualified.
Last year, President Trump nominated people like Ed Martin, Alina
Habba, Lindsey Halligan, and others who are not qualified for the post
but committed to carrying out his retribution campaign against
President Trump's political enemies.
As an interim U.S. attorney, Ed Martin led an unprecedented purge of
dozens of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice and FBI
agents simply because they did their jobs investigating and prosecuting
the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
I sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am embarrassed for the
nominees that come before us. They are so afraid that they are going to
say one word or the other that is going to trigger the ire of the
President.
When you ask them basic questions--who won the election between Trump
and Biden in 2020?--they refuse to answer that question. You could take
that question to any eighth grade classroom in my State or Montana--you
pick it--and those kids know the answer: President Biden won. Of course
he did. He got more votes than President Trump. But these nominees are
afraid to say it because President Trump has never acknowledged the
obvious. He has been engaged in this Big Lie strategy ever since. And
they are afraid that if they cross him by saying the obvious, they are
going to invoke his resistance and maybe even lose his support for
whatever they are seeking--the nomination.
The same thing is true when you ask about January 6. Mr. President,
you weren't here. I was here, and I will tell you exactly what
happened. A mob came to the Capitol and started coming into the
building, and we were warned in the Senate Chamber that the Vice
President of the United States had to leave because of the danger to
him personally.
Then they told us: Stay in the Senate Chamber. The mob is going to
stay outside.
Ten minutes later, they stood up and said: Forget what we just said.
Everybody file out as quickly as possible. They have broken the
containment and are moving toward this Chamber.
And off we went to an adjoining building, waiting until the mob
subsided.
Over 140 policemen were physically attacked. Two of them died a day
or two later. It was a serious moment, and these men and women risked
their lives to protect us.
That happened, and it was all captured on videotape. We know what
happened. As a result of that, some 1,500 people were arrested for
their participation in this mob action, and some of them were actually
sentenced to time in prison.
What happened when President Trump was elected? Full, unconditional
pardon of every single one of them. Even those that were physically
assaulting the policemen in the Capitol were given a full and
unconditional pardon by President Trump. That is a fact.
So when we ask these people who want to be lifetime appointments to
the Federal bench what happened to the Capitol on January 6, they say:
Oh, it was sunny, and there was a little wind outside.
Well, didn't you see the videotapes?
Of course they did, but they are afraid to acknowledge what actually
happened for fear that President Trump will turn on them.
The latest is, when we ask them about the 22nd Amendment to the
Constitution, which says that a President can only serve two terms--we
ask them
[[Page S2291]]
a basic question--now, get this--President Trump is serving his second
term, right?
Yes, he is.
Can he run for a third term?
I am sorry, I can't answer that. That may be a question that comes
before the Federal court.
Once again, take it to the eighth graders in my State or yours and
ask them the basic question: How many terms can a President serve? Two.
The Constitution says it, and the President is in his second term.
They are afraid to say that for fear that this President will try
somehow to enter into a third term in office. I can't imagine how he
would. But they are afraid to answer the questions.
Those are the kinds of nominees we are getting before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. I have never seen, in 20 years of service on that
committee, people who are in such an embarrassing position that they
embarrass themselves, their families, and friends who have gathered for
them and refuse to answer fundamental, basic questions about the
Constitution. I have just never seen anything like it.
Ed Martin led an unprecedented purge of all the people that I
mentioned earlier. He tweeted from the Capitol on January 6, the day of
the insurrectionist mob. I want to quote him. Ed Martin:
Like Mardi Gras today in DC today: love, faith and joy.
Ignore #FakeNews.
Dismissing the violence of the January 6 rioters, Martin said:
We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.
I want to repeat that in Police Week because of our bipartisan salute
to our men and women in law enforcement. Ed Martin, one of the top guys
in the Trump administration, said in reference to what happened on
January 6 in this building:
We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.
Get out of here. This man is at the highest level of the Trump
administration.
Although his nomination failed to advance, President Trump continues
to nominate people like Martin who defend January 6 rioters and embrace
the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
It is even more of an outrage that during Police Week, when we honor
law enforcement's bravery, service, and sacrifice, Senate Republicans
are poised to confirm nominees who continue to spread fabrications
about the police officers who protected me and other Members of the
Senate, Republican and Democrat, from the violent mob on January 6.
Take Darin Smith--Darin Smith, nominated to the District of Wyoming.
He stood by his radical and dangerous view that Vice President Pence
should not have certified the results of the 2020 election.
Smith was on the Capitol grounds on January 6--this nominee for
judgeship was on the Capitol grounds on January 6--and made the
reprehensible claim--listen to this. This is what Smith said: Hundreds
of Capitol Police officers who risked their lives that day were guilty
of ``massive incompetence.'' Smith blames the police for what happened
on January 6. Without evidence, he claimed that rioters who breached
the Capitol were victims of entrapment--1,500 victims of entrapment.
Moreover, Smith is not remotely qualified to be a U.S. attorney. He
is going to be in the package, take it or leave it. Prior to becoming
interim U.S. attorney, he had no courtroom or litigation experience
whatsoever--none.
Smith's lack of experience has had real-world consequences. At least
seven criminal defendants have filed motions to dismiss charges brought
by Smith because he told members of the grand jury that the defendants
were ``murderers'' and that every case before them involved ``bad
people.'' Even the Wyoming U.S. Attorney's Office has admitted Smith's
irresponsible and unprofessional comments were ``ill-advised.'' That is
the word they used--``ill-advised.'' Worse than that, Smith has
violated these defendants' rights and endangered public safety by
putting these prosecutions at risk.
He wasn't ready for this job. He still isn't.
Another nominee Senate Republicans are rubberstamping today is Phil
Williams, nominated to the Northern District of Alabama. He bears many
unfortunate similarities to Ed Martin. Neither one had any
prosecutorial experience prior to their nomination. Instead, like
Martin, Williams' main qualification appears to be he is a podcaster
and he makes social media posts in which he spouts MAGA orthodoxy.
Like Ed Martin, Phil Williams has whitewashed January 6 and maligned
the law enforcement officers--not the mobsters--the policemen who were
here protecting Members of Congress, our staff, and visitors. Williams
claimed that January 6 rioters were ``hunted down''--his words--by law
enforcement, whom he accused of ``prosecutorial abuse many, many times
over.''
This is a man whose nomination for a lifetime appointment to the
Federal court is going to be voted on today, during Police Week.
He went on to call the prosecution of January 6 rioters ``the Salem
Witch trials on a national scale.''
Williams criticized the 87-month sentence imposed on a rioter named
Guy Reffitt, claiming he is, according to Williams, ``nonviolent.'' In
fact, Reffitt traveled to the Capitol on that day--January 6--wearing
body armor, carrying handguns and cuffs, and planning to kidnap Nancy
Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
Prior to his arrest--listen to this--Reffitt, who has been described
as ``nonviolent,'' said to his own minor children:
If you turn me in, you are a traitor, and traitors get
shot.
Senate Republicans will also approve Dan Bishop, nominated to the
Middle District of North Carolina--another nominee who has no previous
experience as a prosecutor. Lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
As a Member of Congress on January 6, 2021, Bishop voted against
certifying the 2020 election results. He didn't accept what is clearly
the fact: The President lost the 2020 election. President Biden won.
Bishop falsely claimed that ``Democrats' attack on our elections . .
. was coordinated & widespread.''
Even today, Bishop refuses to disavow debunked theories about the
insurrection. He told me: ``I have heard credible accounts that black-
bloc/Antifa agitators were in the crowd and among the first to
vandalize the Capitol building, so I think that leftists participated
in and perhaps instigated the mayhem in part''--one of the wild
conspiracy theories which he still stands by.
There is a clear through line here with these extreme, unqualified
nominees. Their MAGA loyalty all but guarantees they will use their
post in the U.S. Attorney's Offices to go after the President's
political opponents.
President Trump has nominated these January 6 apologists for another
equally concerning reason: He wants to make the case that the 2020
election was stolen to justify interfering in the 2026 elections, and
he wants loyal foot soldiers in the U.S. Attorney's Offices who will
help him carry out this mission.
Confirming these nominees to top law enforcement positions,
particularly given their attacks on police officers simply for doing
their jobs on January 6, is disrespectful to law enforcement--even more
so during Police Week.
I urge my colleagues: Today, when this package comes before us,
oppose these nominees. And because this rancid package of nominees is a
``take it or leave it'' on nearly 50 nominees, by all means, leave it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
____________________