Calls out his Democrat colleagues for continually voting for Biden judicial nominees who support defunding the police and refuse to prosecute crimes
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today participated in a committee markup on President Biden’s nominee to be U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Rachael Rollins. Sen. Cruz pointed to her policy while serving as District Attorney for Suffolk County, where she declined to prosecute certain dangerous crimes and pushed for ‘reallocating’ police funding. He then urged his Democrat colleagues to consider the safety and security of their constituents and vote against this radical nominee. Read excerpts of his remarks in committee below.
“The debate over abolishing the police is sadly and astonishingly to me a real debate in today’s Democratic Party, because there are multiple elected Democrats who vocally embrace abolishing the police. It’s not just at the local level. It’s not just the mayor of New York City. It’s not just the mayor of Minneapolis. It’s not just the mayor of Portland that advocated abolishing the police. Sadly, it is now senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice. The number two official at the Department of Justice and the head of the Civil Rights Division at Department of Justice. Both are among the leading advocates in the country for abolishing the police, both in writing repeatedly and emphatically advocated for abolishing the police last year. One year ago in writing they advocated abolishing the police.
“Now, every Democratic member of this committee maintains, ‘Oh, no, no, no, no, I don’t support abolishing the police.’ At the same time, every single Democrat in the United States Senate voted to confirm not one but two senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice who are among the leading advocates of abolishing the police. And now we get a third time, where – listen, our votes have consequences. By the way, I voted hell no on both of them, because I think abolishing the police is insanity. And I’m emphatically against it. That’s an easy vote. And I’m very comfortable telling the people of Texas why I cast that vote. Now we have the nomination of Ms. Rollins. I’ll confess, a week ago I had no idea who Rachel Rollins was. I’d never heard of her, never encountered her. Then I looked at her record and it takes your breath away. We’re dealing with an individual nominated to be a U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts, who has been vocal and aggressive against prosecuting crime. Look, part of abolishing police is getting rid of the men and women in blue that keep us safe. Another part of abolishing police is telling prosecutors, ‘You no longer prosecute crimes. We’re not in the crime business anymore.’”
“Well, let’s look at her record. First of all, Ms. Rollins in February, she was very candid that she came into the job of DA as a crusader. Here’s what she said: ‘If you want to change the criminal legal system, become a prosecutor.’ Why? She explains why. Because you have, ‘the power to determine charges and what crimes to decline to prosecute.’ So that’s what Ms. Rollins tells you matters about a prosecutor, the power to say, ‘I won’t prosecute these crimes.’ Well, surely she exercised it with reason and restraint. That’s what our Democratic colleagues on this committee are suggesting. Well, let’s look in writing, and I will say this document, it is entitled Appendix C. SCDAO declination and diversion policy. Boy, what an incredibly boring title designed to mask a horrific policy.”
“Let me suggest something to you: go read this document, I’ll tweet out this document, just read it, read it yourself and then ask who’s telling the truth. Because for all the Democrats saying, ‘No, no, no, no. What do you mean she won’t prosecute crimes?’ Let me read from the document she prepared: ‘Charges on the list of 15 should be declined or dismissed pre arraignment.’ So even before the proceedings start, ‘without conditions.’ So we’re not going to put any conditions on that, no matter what, just get it and throw it out. We don’t even want to see these cases, and in fact, the next sentence says, ‘The presumption is the charges that fall in this category should always be denied.’ Always. So no wiggle room of, ‘oh just in some cases.’ ‘Always is what she wrote.’ Even when attached to another charge. So if you have a multiple criminal, we just throw out these crimes. Basically, this is the prosecutor saying, ‘I’m the legislature. Those pesky elected legislators that actually voted on the Criminal Code. I don’t care what they say, I am erasing these crimes from the Criminal Code.’”
“What’s the first one on the list? Trespass. Okay, I want everyone to think about this. And by the way, what’s interesting is this is not just in red states. I want the people at Delaware to think about this. The people of Connecticut, the people of Hawaii, the people California, Georgia. Do you want laws against trespass enforced in your community? Well, according to this individual that the Democrats want to make the top federal prosecutor in the state of Massachusetts – trespass is no longer against the law. Someone comes into your house, onto your property, ‘No, biggie, it ain’t a crime anymore.’
“Alright, what else isn’t a crime? Shoplifting. You know, all of us have seen the videos, I think exclusively in Democratic cities, of shoplifters brazenly breaking into stores and stealing and running out. And why do they do it? They do it, for example, in San Francisco, because you have a prosecutor that won’t prosecute him. So you know what, ‘Hey, I like stores where the price of everything is zero, that’d be a pretty amazing thing.’ Not very good for the stores, not very good for the community. But this prosecutor says there is no shoplifting. Now, if you want to steal a bunch of stuff, this is your person. If you’re actually a small business owner, if you’d like to not have it, [it’s] open season on people breaking into your store and stealing everything in it – that might concern you.
“What else? Larceny. Larceny is not a crime. Remember, she said they should always be declined to be prosecuted. Larceny is on the list. What else is on the list? Disorderly conduct disturbing the police. So let me ask you, the amazing thing is even in blue states, in Minnesota, I promise you there are a lot of moms that are not eager to discover that if someone is drunk and screaming and trespassing on their front lawn, and urinating and defecating on their front lawn in front of their children and cursing at their kids, that, hey, according to the Democrats – not a crime, [they] won’t be prosecuted. And by the way, when that person comes back to your front lawn tomorrow, and does it again, it’s not a crime tomorrow either. Remember, always declined to prosecute. So disorderly conduct is apparently not a crime.”
“What else is not a crime? According to this radical, B&E, which all of us who watch Law and Order knows that stands for breaking and entering, into a vacant property to sleep or escape the cold. Okay, that sounds kind of reasonable. Alright, a vacant lot, it’s cold, you’re going there. Alright, that actually is on the list, you can understand the reasoning. If it’s cold, you’re breaking into a vacant lot. I get it, I mean, it’s vacant, there’s not anyone there to be hurt. You understand that one, and at least she has the good sense to say it’s got to be vacant, because that way no people, no innocent people will be hurt, right? What’s the next one on the list? B&E into a non-vacant property to sleep or escape the cold. Well, what’s a non-vacant property? Like, I don’t know, your home. So apparently, what she’s saying is, if it’s cold outside, it is no longer a crime for somebody to break into your home so they can trespass on your property. They can break into your home, they can commit larceny, and apparently sleep in your living room.
“I want each of you to imagine, look, there’s an element of, how would you answer one of your constituents if someone is doing this, and the answer from the prosecutor is we will always dismiss the case? What else won’t she prosecute? Wanton or malicious destruction of property. I don’t know about you but wanton and malicious are typically pretty bad. Isn’t a crime under her. What else? You could say well, at least none of these are violent, right? Well, breaking into a non-vacant property, that has the potential for violence. You know what else is not a crime? Threats. You can make a direct threat, you can threaten innocent people, you can threaten children, you can commit a threat. Not a crime.”
“By the way, on the question of do you support cops or not, the last one on this list is really incredibly revealing. Resisting arrest. A police officer goes to confront someone who’s violent, they’re violent, they engage with them, they resist arrest. What’s the prosecutor say? ‘Man, it really stinks to be you. I’m sorry you chose to be a cop.’ But it’s open season. Apparently resisting arrest is now the standard way of interacting with the police in Massachusetts. This is lunacy, and by the way, to make clear that her policy of not prosecuting anything is consistent with her advocacy of abolishing the police, here’s what she said at an earlier public gathering. ‘Rollins also spoke about the much discussed concept of defunding the police.’ Okay, let’s find out – where is she on defunding the police? ‘She said that defunding is not the verb she would use.’ Okay, that’s good. I’m sure every Democratic talking point is going to take that portion of the statement. ‘She wouldn’t use the verb ‘defund,’ but rather ‘reimagine.’’ Okay, ‘reimagine’ may be good, may be bad, hard to tell, ‘or ‘reallocate.’’ Now, anyone who knows anything about defund, [it] means [to] take the money out, get away their funding. Reallocate means take the money away, get away their funding. And she explains, she elaborates on this. ‘I think we’re asking the police to do far too much. I think we can reimagine and reallocate some funding.’ Take money away from the cops. Those are her views.
“I’ll give you to have a sense of just how extreme this nominee is. I want to point to Art Acevedo. Senator Cornyn knows Art Acevedo. He used to be the chief of police in Austin. He used to be the chief of police in Houston. He’s now in Miami. Art is a Democrat. He is a partisan Democrat. Art is an ambitious, partisan Democrat. He has his eyes on higher office. No one has ever missed that about Art. Art is now the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. I’ve had a lot of disagreements with Art Acevedo. Here’s what liberal Democrat Art Acevedo says about Rachel Rollins: ‘People like Ms. Rollins are going so far that they’re putting the criminal and their interests in front of the victim’s interest.’
“So I started these remarks by saying transparency matters. I assume moments from now we’re going to vote and we’re going to have a party line vote, and every Democrat is just going to go ahead and vote for this candidate. You’re not going to listen to anything the Republicans have said. And then you’re going to go tell your constituents, ‘What do you mean? I don’t support abolishing the police.’ Well, transparency matters. You now know her record. If you believe that we should actually prosecute crimes, if you believe that people shouldn’t trespass on your property at home, shouldn’t be able to break into your home, shouldn’t be able to shoplift, shouldn’t be able to resist arrest, shouldn’t be able to commit threats. And have someone who is ostensibly the prosecutor immunize them and allow that conduct, there’s only one thing to do, which is vote. And let me say I find it amusing. We’re having an argument about whether this is a roll call vote or not. I agree, it should be a voice vote, and we should unanimously reject this nominee. That would be if we were in the land of reason. That’s what we would do. But we’re instead in partisan polarization, and so every Democrat will happily like Pravda vote aye and then pretend you didn’t. But facts are stubborn things. And anyone who reads this document knows exactly what kind of radical this prosecutor is.”