about the last eight years and the way they acted in congress and the way they treated president obama. so please spare me about your i can t believe this obstruction bs. the fact of the matter is these senators work for the people. the people are demanding that we stand up for our rights. a vote for senator sessions is a vote for the muslim ban. that s just what it is. and the democratic senators on that committee today made their voices heard. they voted no. and now it s going to go to the floor of the senate. and i would hope, i would hope everyone that has expressed concern about the muslim ban, about what donald trump has done, i know they read the washington post and it seems as though senator sessions was one of the main architects behind that. a vote for senator sessions is a vote for the muslim ban. senator, real quick on one other thing. you talked about a break of protocol in senate judiciary. there was a break of senate protocol in senate finance as well, you have dem
assistance and guidance, unquote, and, quote, cooperated with doj lawyers. not quite personally handled. if you ask me. and i suspect that s why he felt the need to file the supplement. but notice how senator cruz explained the supplement during the hearing. senator cruz. let me point out, here is how you describe your involvement in your written submission to this committee. and here is senator cruz quotes from the supplement. quote, from the cases described in 2, 4, 8, and 9, these are the four cases that senator sessions claimed to have personally handled, my role, like most u.s. attorneys in the nation, and with noncriminal civil rights cases, was to provide support through the department of justice civil rights attorneys. i reviewed, supported, and co-signed complaints, motions, and other pleadings and briefs that were filed during my tenure
sessions broadcasts walks back that claim and says he only provided assistance. case 6, that senator sessions claimed credit for supervising, was not a civil rights case. it was a public corruption case. senator cruz cleverly attempted to conflate the cases in order to make it seem as if senator sessions had in fact supervised litigation in a civil rights case. senator cruz neglected to point out that all four of the civil rights cases at issue here had either concluded or were still active back when senator sessions appeared before this committee in 1986. 30 years ago, though, senator sessions did not list any of these cases at all.
hand cases that mr. hebert litigated himself personally. they were filed before senator sessions was a u.s. attorney. and senator sessions was not involved. nonetheless, senator cruz attempted to conflate how senator sessions and mr. hebert interacted generally with senator sessions quite limited involvement in these civil rights cases. but since senator cruz brought up the assistance that senator sessions provided to mr. hebert, let s talk about that. after senator cruz mentioned this 1986 exchange, i called mr. hebert about it. and he explained to me that, yes, senator sessions did provide assistance. when mr. hebert and his team needed to work weekends, senator sessions gave him a key to his office. senator sessions gave mr. hebert
filed during my tenure as u.s. attorney. i provided assistance and guidance to the civil rights attoeys and had an open door policy. that s the key. with them and cooperated with them in these cases. senator cruz continues to quote the supplement. for cases described in six, i supervised litigation and signed the pleadings. now that is consistent with the 1986 testimony that you provided help every step of the way, isn t that correct, he asks senator sessions. well, i think so, yes, senator sessions says. now this is very important. cases two, four, eight and nine are the four civil rights cases at issue. the four cases that senator sessions claimed to have personally handled but, in fact, did not. in the supplement, senator