Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clay

Attorney General Nomination

Recommended Posts

Attorney General Nomination

 

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I nominate the following individuals:

 

Tracy Hattie Butler as Attorney General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will now begin the hearing Tracie Hattie  Butler as Attorney General. This hearing will last for 72 hours. This hearing will commence once the nominee either gives their opening statement or waives it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I will passing the gavel to the Ranking Majority Member Senator Jackson Clay*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good even Gentlemen and Gentlewomen. I thank you all for having me here today. As I would like to hear more from you and asking any questions you may have, I will keep my opening statement brief. Throughout my entire career, I have devoted myself towards protecting the rights of others and upholding the rule of law. I have had the opportunity Clerk for the Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter and has spent over 16 years as a Lawyer within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. My work history over the last 23 years of my life, has tested me and given me the experience needed to work to become Attorney General of the United States and to be optimal at the position. I welcome your questions and look forward towards the hearing as we progress. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nominee having given her statement, there will now be 72 hours to question the nominee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Chairman, 


I'd like to thank Ms. Butler for coming before our committee today and congratulate her on her nomination to this position. Mrs. Butler, can you please tell me what makes you qualified to serve as Attorney General. And second, can you please give us your plan of action to address the reports of abuse in our Federal Prisons? 

 

I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the question, Senator Donelly. As I stated before, my work history over the last 23 years as a clerk from Supreme Court Justice David Souter and working as a Lawyer within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for over 16 years, has provided me with experience and insight to understand the logistics of the justice system, and how best that we tackle reforms to the justice system and implement existing mechanisms.

 

As I am sure we have all been following the Senate hearings, and I certainly commend this body for their persistence and leadership on the issue. I believe that an investigation should have been launched from the minute reports of abuse and human rights violations were announced. Too much time had been allowed to passed to allow for tampering of evidence and the destruction reports within the Bureau of Federal Prisons.

 

As Attorney General, I will have reviewed any investigative information that the administration and FBI would have gathered. Launched an investigation throughout the BOP, and within every federal prison in the United States. From the review of the records, civil and criminal lawsuits would have to be brought up to ensure the integrity of the federal prison system, and to bring to justice those who have knowingly violated the law. Former BOP Director Charles Samuels will be an example of a criminal lawsuit once I am able to launch an investigation and confirm the allegations of willful negligence. 

 

From the investigations and lawsuits, I will then seek to help the administration in coming up with possible ways to prevent such atrocities from occurring within our federal systems again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Butler,

 

Thank you for coming. Looking at your very clearly under-developed resume. What type of work did you do at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division?

 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Chairman,

 

I move to extend the hearing time by 48 hours.

 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Chairman, 

 

As no members of the majority have appeared to ask this nominee any questions, I second the motion to extend the hearing by 48 hours. 

 

I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Chairman,

 

I will also support the call to extend these hearings. There have been too few questions asked of Ms. Butler to successfully determine how to vote whether or not to recommend her to the full Senate.

 

Turning now to questioning: Ms. Butler,

 

You just singled out an individual who, while we can all agree acted inappropriately and derisively towards inmates in our prison system, is a target of yours for prosecution. How do you think you will be able to proceed impartially as Attorney General - our nation's chief law enforcement officer, after the President - if you are already targeting certain individuals in these hearings?

On 8/7/2018 at 9:24 AM, Storm said:

Former BOP Director Charles Samuels will be an example of a criminal lawsuit once I am able to launch an investigation and confirm the allegations of willful negligence. 

 

Additionally, can you specify what position your Justice Department would take on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby? In other words, how would you balance the freedom of religion Why?

 

When it comes to DAPA, do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Homeland Security, which stated that the President must seek additional, earmarked funding to carry out his deferred action program?

 

I yield in hope of answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the question, Senator Zamora. Let me clarify, that I was not singling out Former Director Charles E. Samuels. I stated that if the evidence that has been produced so far is, in fact, accurate then the may be an example of a criminal lawsuit. Surely my investigation into the matter will investigate the actions of the former director as much as the people within this governing body called him to testify for the hearing. You cannot investigate the BOP without also examining what type of impact the leadership had on the situation and whether they took the proper actions to report the allegations to the administration and any other governing body.

 

The job of the Attorney General is to be impartial, operate by the rule of law and use only the facts that are presented to come to a conclusion of what truly happened. 

 

As Burwell V Lobby is a settled manner, I don't think it is wise for me to take a stance on it unless something recently happened to warrant the attention of the Justice Department. However, the freedom of religion is part of the United States Constitution and the rule of law. Protecting the individual liberties and rights of every American will be a priority to me. 

 

The Supreme Ultimate authority of law in the land, I will not seek to challenge any supreme court decisions.  Whether I agree or not agree with the Supreme Court decisions is not my job as Attorney General. I will argue the cases that come across my desk to the best of my ability, but once a decision is made then  I will respect the rulings of the Supreme Court.  My job is to enforce the rule of law and abide by the policies and laws written by the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Conrad said:

Ms. Butler,

 

Thank you for coming. Looking at your very clearly under-developed resume. What type of work did you do at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division?

 

I yield.

(OOC- I would like the AB to rule on the validity of this question. The Bio's and the resumes of our characters are created to show a respectable path to the positions we are seeking. How is it possible for anyone to describe such things who isn't working in these positions real life) @Avner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Storm said:

(OOC- I would like the AB to rule on the validity of this question. The Bio's and the resumes of our characters are created to show a respectable path to the positions we are seeking. How is it possible for anyone to describe such things who isn't working in these positions real life) @Avner

 

((My position is that you still may be asked questions about your past. However, you are not required to answer with the sort of detail expected in RL nominations, but rather with reasonable understanding of what those jobs/tenures would involve.)) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Butler,

 

Thank you for coming. Looking at your very clearly under-developed resume. What type of work did you do at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division?

 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Saunders I thank you for your question but as both an adult woman and a professional such as yourself, I will ask for reciprocal respect in regards to your comments about your resume. As an African-American and woman, I am an anomaly to many of the positions and opportunities that are listed on my resume and I respectfully request the same type of respect that you expect me to give you.    

 

In regards to your question, I served as a civil rights lawyer in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Most of my time was spent helping the Division address cases where people's civil rights were being impeded on by due to discrimination of race, disabilities, sexual orientation, employment and more. I served proudly as a Civil rights lawyer and bring that same enthusiasm into the role of the United States Attorney General.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gentleman from Texas will treat the nominee with courtesy. Your opinions on her experience are germane to the discussion, however your insults to a nominee are not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Butler, 

 

What will be your greatest priority as Attorney General?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the question, Senator Clay. My greatest priority as Attorney General will be fully investigating the allegations of human rights abuses in our federal prisons and investigate the Bureau of Federal Prisons thoroughly for any cases of corruption. My experience and resume have equipped me well in acknowledging possible violations of both civil and human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Chairman

 

The mandatory minimum reform act was passed earlier this year which imbues considerable power in the Attorney General to effectively pick and choose which cases to prosecute at the Federal level. What assurances - if any - do we have that you'll use this power to ensure criminals aren't kept on our streets?

 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Saunders. The Mandatory Minimum Reform does indeed give the Attorney General considerable power. It allows the Attorney General to pick which cases to effectively prosecute at the Federal level but it also gives me a strict guideline line as to what I can do, such as not prosecuting someone who has been found in possession of a controlled substance that is below the criminal amount of 500 grams. I believe in such a manner there can be a scrutiny on whether the person has a record of being a repeat offender, they are known to be associated with a gang, they are involved in a drug cartel, or if that person was found with the controlled substance  below the illegal amount but was involved in a violent crime, then I believe those are offenses if the evidence permits that I may choose to prosecute.

 

As attorney general, I must remain impartial and I don't have an agenda where I want to just prosecute a certain population of people, but I will definitely use my judgment and the evidence that I acquire to make the best decision that I can to enforce the law and protect the safety of our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Chairman

 

So in using this power you will look at someone's previous history and then determine your course of action? What then, will you do if you turn out to be wrong and this person then goes on to commit a more serious crime?

 

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the  question again Mr.Saunders, but as I said  before as attorney general, I must remain impartial and I don't have an agenda where I want to just prosecute a certain population of people or just anyone who seems suspicious,  but I will definitely use my judgment and the evidence that I acquire to make the best decision that I can to enforce the law and protect the safety of our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Chairman

 

Ms Butler, in a bit of 'question transfer' from myself, admittedly. I recently asked the Secretary of State-nominee what he thought about the Helms amendment. Here it is, I'll read it out for you, in case you don't have it with you.

 

“No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”

 

If you're confirmed as Attorney General, with the office of the Solicitor General etc falling under your purview, and of course your time as an attorney, what do you think of the administrations decision to re-interpret this amendment the way in which it did... given that the amendment itself is so clear in its intention?

 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Saunders, thank you for the question and I am familiar with the Helms amendment. I believe that the Secretary of State  Kobayashi-Diaz interpreted that amendment in regards to her position of Secretary of State and the predicament she faced at the time, especially in regards of human rights abuses such a rape and incest. 

 

As I am not the nominee for Secretary of State, I am not able to give an opinion in regards to how the Secretary of State interpreted that clause, and in the off chance that this was to be picked up as a case I will have to defend in front of the Supreme Court, I must remain impartial while examining the evidence, context and the situation at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.