Meeting internet connecticut. His constituents asked about health care, trump ties to russia and the Justice Department criminal said theme guidelines. This is an hour and a half. [applause]. [applause]. Sitdown. Sitdown. Thank you, everyone. Thats very very nice. I have a massive cold and it that makes me feel better today. I feel more well given the introduction. Thank you martin. I asked what i should say it he said whatever i say make it short. We have a lot to cover and i think he reference to we have, but i want to thank all the folks here at stanford. You do a fantastic job every single day bringing Educational Opportunities to kids and adults in stamford. Thank you for opening this up. Representative caroline simmons, thank you for being here and i want to get right to the meat of this because im sure you have loads of questions about whats happening, what has happened and i want to answer them. We are going to talk about a lot of things, but i think at the foundation we will talk about the rule of law. [applause]. We are going to about the simple idea thats been at the root of this country since our founding that no individual, no matter how powerful, no matter what title stands before their name is supposed to be above the said rules we all played by. That has certainly been the topic of discussion in this country for the last week, but frankly we been talking about it in some way shape or form in the last 110 days. I went to turn this over to your questions. First, thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this a job. I dont come from a family that has background and politics my mom mom grew up in the housing projects of new britain, connecticut, and one generation removed from poverty i get to be a United States senator and whether you voted for me or not in this room that i did people of the state place their faith in me to be one of voices in the senate is an honor and to be honest its a thrill and so im so thankful to you for giving me this chance. Im Getting Better at it every day because im learning from you about what the priorities are about what you care about, about how i should prioritize the fights before i sanded this is an exercise for me in trying to learn and listen and i do a lot of these town halls and as many of you know i try to engage proactively in innovative ways as well. I am one of the few members of the senate that does my own twitter feed and facebook and snapchat. I walked across the state of connecticut this last summer going 130 miles from [applause]. One side to the other talking to lots of people that would have never taken to themselves to show up to a town hall or write or email, so i try to engage in learning creative ways as well as in traditional ways, so first, thank you for giving me the chance to do this job. We are going to talk today about the rule of law and checks and balances. I first want to admit why we are here. We are at this moment in part because donald trump fairly transparently advertise to people he was going to blow up the way things were done in washington and advertised he said famously in his nomination speech that i alone can fix this and people were drawn to that whether we like it or not. He won a lot of votes in part because there is this i dont know how to put it any other way, but theres this tiring of democracy and that sounds like a hard phrase to handle, but, i mean, for a long time people understood the trade you gotten democracy that you got all this inefficiency and it took a long time for something to become a law from an idea, but the trade was in exchange for that inefficiency you that outcomes that benefited the whole rather than the elite. In a dictatorship you have policy made much faster, but you tended to get results that were the good for the elite rather than everyone else so people were saying i dont get that trade anymore. Its more inefficient than ever and yet the results coming out of washington still seem to accrue to the top one or 2 , not me so people started asking themselves whether weise should still be invested in this big great experiment and trump with his advertisement of a high alone can this started to look more attractive than he would have 10, 20, 30 years ago, so we need to recognize this is a moment not just to take on enormous policy challenges that trump confronts us with, but also to remind people why we are engaged in this exercise of selfdetermination and to talk about how we could make our democracy healthier, so we will talk about immigration and healthcare in the fbi, but i also want to be reminded that you shouldnt take for granted this democracy is inevitable, that is just something you will live under for the rest of your lifetime. We have to breathe new health into it and remind why we are invested in it. I will say there are parts of this experiment that have been holding. There are checks and balances inside this endeavor that have worked. The president out of the gate tried to pass immigration order that was plainly unconstitutional, the idea you would stop people from coming into this country based upon religion violates the basic premises of the original document and the amendments attached to it and of course, recognize that you cannot do that. The president is in the midst now along with republicans of trying to push through a healthcare bill that is an absolute humanitarian catastrophe waiting to happen. 24 Million People could lose insurance and rates could go up on everyone. They thought they were going to get this done in february. They thought they would pass this thing, tied up in a neat though and walk onto the next priority, but they have been stopped over and over again because the legislature in interesting ways is responding because people are rising up and saying if you vote for this monstrosity we will vote you out. Means its taken a lot longer to get the vote bill vote through and its kind of stuck in the senate right now because republican senators know there are consequences for voting for something that is this cruel and so the checks and balances in a legislature thats ultimately responsible for the people is holding for the time being, but there are other places where checks and balances are not holding and i know thats where we will spend time talking today we will clearly spend time talking about what happened the last week. You cannot have a functioning democracy when the president of the us can dismiss body horsemen individuals and leaders carrying out investigations against the chief executive and im sorry, but the explanation donald trump offers does not hold water. Jim komi did not get dismissed because he unfairly treated Hillary Clinton in the election. He was fired because he was onto something and getting closer and closer to a very damaging story about the Trump Campaign interaction with the russian government and we dont know what the end of that story is, but we know that director call me was going director james komi was pursuing the investigation in the end and its hard for me to think its a coincidence that a week later he was fired. We will have the Deputy Director who wrote the memo before the u. S. Senate next week in a closeddoor hearing to ask questions and we will get closer to the truth during that meeting, but this is a direct threat to the rules of law and i hope as my republican friends go home this weekend and talk to their constituents they will choose to rise to the location. As i said on social media this week and there are rare moments when you choose between your party and the republic and my advice to my republican friends is that you will never regret choosing the republic if that choice comes to you, so this [applause]. You know what i think the path forward is here. I ultimately believe the investigation and the department of justice is for the time being fatally compromised and we need a independent prosecutor. [applause]. Lets give the weekend for republicans to think through this and make the decision, but if they choose not to than democrats and likeminded republicans in the house and senate will have to consider all the tools at our disposal to try to push this country forward. [applause]. Recognizing the gravity of this moment. Let me talk about the other threat to rule over law and one thats not in the news as much as it should be and then i want to move on to your questions and thats when it comes to the conduct of Foreign Affairs and international relations. Jim hines and i have thought about the americas role in the world and quietly covers over the course of the last 10 to 15 years has abdicated its responsibility to be a coequal branch of foreignpolicy. I simply did not believe that there was authorization, legal authorization for this administration to take military action against isis. I did not think it was wrong for the administration to take military action. Thought they needed authorization from congress in order to do that and my worry is that today its much harder to declare war against an enemy than it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. These are shot a week enemies that we face today. Its not two armies marching against each other over time with a peace treaty that something thats harder to define with victory that is much harder to get your head wrapped around, so i worry that if congress does not authorize war against isis and allow for the president to take military strikes against bush are all assad without justification then we will never authorize work again as a congress and you will lose your voice and making those decisions. Whats happening in syria today should be worrisome. Reports that the president has ceded his responsibility for setting sending troop levels, a slow creep of us troops inside that country from a number that was close to zero a year ago to a number that now looks like a thousand, a mission that is very hard to define extensively about helping local groups retake rocca, but looking like a mission that will also encapsulate the holding of rocca and the intervention of accounts that will happen after isis is removed from rocca between all that exists around that town. If that is the case, then syria looks a lot more like iraq and yet with no debate in congress about whether its a worthwhile endeavor for this country to participate in, so i really worry about checks and balances falling apart when it comes to Foreign Policy in this country getting into another major major intervention in the middle east without a full debate in congress and we can talk about the situation of north korea as well presenting challenges for the question of rule of law, also. Unhappy the checks and balances have held in part. I think this massive uprising of activists across the country is making a difference. It sort of creating this molasses around the trump agenda that doesnt naturally mean there are parts that will be able to push its way through, but its slowing everything down anyway thats meaningful and making their allies in Congress Stop and think as to whether they want to endorse some of the most reckless parts of this agenda. Im trying to raise my voice. Obviously my first obligation is to represent this state and i would be happy to talk about important wins week on for connecticut and southwestern connecticut in the last appropriations bill in the Mental Health reform act that i was the author of last year and im also trying to raise my voice on a National Level to be part of what i think is a defining moment for this country im perpetually glass halffull guy like you can begin this job and not ultimately see the light at the end of the tunnel and heres how i view this moment. You know, im stealing a bit of this from a colleague of mine who talks about these words and declaration of independence which are in a way on our north star is a country that says all men are created equal and raise the flawed phrase from the beginning because at the time all men were not created equal and the phrase just said men, but it was a radical idea, this idea of the quality and you can kind of read our entire countrys history as trying to get a bit closer to that reality , that reality of full equality. Equality of existence, opportunity, equality of experience and yet you can also read this nations history as one of two steps forward and then one step back that when you make enormous amounts of progress in a short time theres this natural tendency for americans we shouldnt forget how much progress we have made over the last 10 years with the election of the first africanamerican president , the ability to think about healthcare as a human right rather than a privilege, hundred years of talk about universal healthcare and enactment of a law that is closer than ever in the decision to allow people to marry whoever they love upon who they love rather than sexual orientation, our ability to bring in waves of immigrants in the tradition of those we brought from europe and asia before this progress in a short time and there has been this decision amongst parts of the American Public to just put a pause on it, a trench for the time being and yet i would argue the definition of this country in the end is not about the two steps forward and step back, but our ability to decide to build a ladder out of that trench. After the pause to decide to move once again on the road to the north star and thats one of these moments. Thats what it is, a moment in which we decide whether we are still on that journey or not and i just fundamentally believe we will make the decision that we are and this resistance movement, whatever you want to call it thats been built up over the course of the last 110 days across the country is a collective effort to build that ladder out of that trench and get back on that journey and if that is the case then count me as part of that resistance movement. Thank you very much. So, hello to the overflow room. We have two microphones, so if folks could line up at the microphone and we will take as many as we can. Sorry we will take as many as we can. The roads as you know are awfully jammed it today. I will take as many as i can in the next hour and lets get to it. We will rotate from there to their end upstairs. Held the is at the microphone they are. Quick questions and ill give quick answers. Talk into the microphone. Joanna, Founding Member [inaudible] seem at first, thank you for all you do and i will address the independent commission issue. In the face of the comey firing the Washington Post yesterday ran a piece entitled Senate Democrats can stop trump russia scandal from becoming the new normal reviewing the Senate Strategy to get to the bottom of trumps tactics such as asking mcconnell during leader time to yield for a question. Use of the filibuster and withholding of consent. In light of the front of this weeks events to the underpinnings of our democracy will you agree to use these measures until such time as your republican counterparts agreed to an independent commission and special prosecutor to investigate trump russia ties . Thank you for the question. I have not read that article, so i cant a pine on it, but i think you heard me say my opening comments that i think we absolutely will have to use every tool at our disposal to try to translate our colleagues in the senate and house and the American Public how serious this moment is. If they dont join us i dont think we should underestimate what a tight close make moment this is for the republican party. We are asking them to step outside of their party to directly challenge this president to call for the appointment of an independent counsel and i understand they might not be able to make that decision on a dime and it might take them a couple days to figure out the gravity of this moment so im going to give them a little bit of stage, but we dont have the luxury. The betrayal will grow cold. The message being sent to the fbi is a chilling message about pursuing truth if it accrues to the detriment of the chief executive will get solidified, so i went to give my republican colleagues time to understand what they need to do here, but that cant be limitless and then we will ultimately have to use whatever power we had. You teased out some of the tools we have. You know, they have limits of efficacy excuse me you are talking about asking questions of the majority leader in the problem is we dont control the house or senate so we have procedural tools at our disposal that ultimately arent this positive in the end, but we should look at using anything we have. Hello. Good afternoon. Diane from stanford. The conservatives have them a phenomenal job over the last few decades of controlling and shaping the messaging to the public. Now they are attacking the democrats as the party of no, no new ideas, the party attached to obama and the clinton machine. Can you provide us with a bit of confidence that the democrats have a strategy or progressives i should say have a strategy, brush bold ideas, press fresh messengers, some people in the pipeline who will be attractive to the general public and said of the whole person, you know, anti messaging thats been going on . Thank you for your fantastic work here at stanford. So, i mean, im not here to deliver a sermon on the state of the democratic party, but i will take the premise of your question and try to answer. You know, listen, i think we have to understand that people have watched this economy technically recover and they just dont believe its recovered for them and ultimately we have to be a party of Economic Growth, but not just for the top 1 . We had to be a party of Economic Growth for everyone, not just millionaires and billionaires and we have to be a party of inclusion, a country including everyone. It does not have to be rocket science. With a be a party of Economic Growth for everyone and inclusion, a country that includes everyone and then we have to be a party thats not scared of big ideas. The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders during the campaign talking about free college because it was unrealistic. So what if its unrealistic . Its a great idea that everyone should be able to afford to go to college in this country. So, as a party i think we have to be consistent about our messaging and make sure its based in peoples real economic fears and we cant be afraid of putting really big revolutionary ideas on the table that might not be realistic tomorrow, but the country about the division of where we wanted to go deep into the future, so i think right now, we are at a crisis moment in which this Republican Congress is trying to jam down our throats legislative measures that would be absolutely cataclysmic for our constituents, so a lot of our effort is around opposing that agenda, but ultimately we have to be better at translating who we are and not being afraid of big ideas to tell people about where we want to go. Hello. How are you . My name is Jeffrey Stewart and i represent medicare for all coalition and our main function and reason we created the group is to attain the passage of a bill thats already in the house in committee, which is hr 676, medicare for all. I just want to repeat that for everyone, hr 676. Its worth reading. This bill will provide healthcare, real Quality Health care to every child, woman and man in the us and it will not only do that, but it will provide a savings of over 600 billion per year, not over 10 years, 600 billion per year with a promise of increased savings in the future and will also Save Companies thousands of dollars per employee per year and make our companies more competitive overseas and help our balance of payments, so we had several requests for you. We would like to ask if you would commit to introducing this bill in the senate as an alternative to the horrendous bill that was passed in the house. If you will become its champion in the senate. If you will meet with us and work with us to figure out ways we can support you and you can sport as an support a national to pass medicare for all. Lets me i would be happy to talk with you more about the bill or come not familiar with the house bill. Heres my approach to this issue about where we go once we hopefully defeat this terrible, cruel republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care act. Im a believer in the public option. What is the public option . The ability for anyone in this country to choose if they want to be on a private plan or a medicare plan and originally conceived the public option would be its own medicare like plan, but you could shortcircuit that give people direct access to medicare and allow them to buy into medicare or allow them to get a discounted price. Ultimately, i think that is the fastest way towards the system you want, which is a system in which everyone in the country is on a medicare product. Give individuals a choice as to whether they want to be on medicare or stay on their privatesector health care plan. I will look at the house bill, but the reason either been supportive of public option is because i think from a policy and political standpoint it probably makes more sense to give people the option to get into that system if they want. I do think that the bulk of our attention right now has to be focused on defeating the proposal before the house and senate. [applause]. I will just tell you, republicans as diane mentioned republicans are saying democrats are not for anything. Why are they telling us their 20 step plan that is the alternative to our disastrous Health Care Bill . Thats because they want us to spend all of our time talking about what we would do differently rather than stop what they are on the precipice of passing and they want to do it quickly a jam this bill through the senate and house before people can understand it. Is their preemptive action in the senate to prevent trump from withdrawing the Paris Climate Accord . [applause] well, yeah, there is theoretically there is. Practically there is not. There is not support in a Republicancontrolled Senate to pass legislation that would buy into the United States to staying in the paris accord. As you know the Paris Agreement was not conceived as a treaty. So it was not ratified by the United States senate because it was constructed as a voluntary executive agreement of nations. So yes, theoretically the United States senate could pass that but you have a United States senate right now by and large controlled by the oil and gas industry and thus no interest in, in supporting the United States staying in paris. You have a couple of republican senators we can work with on that but not enough ultimately to get you to 50 or 51. I know we will probably have more questions on climate. We are putting as much pressure as we can in as many innovative ways as we can on this administration to stay in paris. I spend a little time every week thinking how i organize and private sector pressure on administration to stay in paris, i think it is important, but we do have to think in ways to work around the administration. Ways states and localities can lead building green. Pressure we can all put on companies we do business with, buy things from to make their supply chains green. I will give you one piece of good news before i move on to other know question, that there is hope is not all loss with republicans. We go through congressional review acts, congress within 90 days of a regulation being passed to overturn regulation with 50vote majority. All the legislative successes trump claims, they are all under this very narrow window that congress has 90 days after regulation is passed to overturn it. That is what congress has been doing, overturning late era obama regulations. Republicans successfully overturned every single one of these they brought before the senate to a vote except for this week. This week they brought a cra overturning a regulation obama passed end of last year regulating methane emissions from oil and gas discovery and Distribution Systems. They brought it up for a vote and it failed. [applause] three republicans joined 48 democrats and the regulation, which restricts the amount of methane that can escape from oil and gas Distribution Systems stayed in place. So you do have republicans that occasionally are willing to work with us, probably not enough to work on a standalone bill on paris but maybe on smaller efforts like we saw this week on methane. Well go to the overflow room. Hi, good morning. Good afternoon actually. Im joe williams here from stamford with my wife patricia. Thank you for your doing with us. Your hard work is very evident and weve seen it on the news shows and everything. I do appreciate, we do appreciate that. But, one thing about in regards to the health care i do believe that the democrats should have been able to walk an chew gum at the same time, fight the republican agenda, as well as prepare a plan to fix what the Affordable Care act had, to present it to the American People on what would have been able to fix as well as to, you know, fight against. So i do believe we could have done Something Better with that but this week we listened to the grandiose, strong, affirmative words of our president , as he fired comey, and we listened to him speak and fear, uncertainty, is felt through the bones in our country because he isnt a focused individual. He is very scattered, and it is very fearful in the position that he holds. Now i really would like to know what options are there that can secure us that can our government is a functioning government so that we do have hope that things will get better because right now there is fear there . Thanks for the question. [applause] and, listen, by the way, dont buy this line that democrats dont have ideas how to make the Health Care System better. Were all united around many of them. Add a public option to every Single Exchange so you have a medicare chose inside every Single Exchange that will make every Single Exchange cost viable and competitive. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices with the drug industry. That will save the country, that will save the country 50 billion a year every single year, right . I can go on and on. This is a republican talking point. Democrats dont have a plan how to make the Health Care System better. That is bs. We do. If you want to sit down with us and talk about ways to improve upon the Affordable Care act were ready to negotiate with but lets be clear about what is happening. The republicans are not talking to us about health care. Not because we dont have ideas, because they have zero interest in our ideas, they want to ram through their version of repeal and devastate, not talk to us about our plans for reform. So this is a great talking point the republicans have that some of democrats picked up on but that is just not reality of how this thing is playing out. Listen, im not going to be able to deliver you satisfactory message on how we fix all of this without talking about elections, right . Ultimately, ultimately, right now, republicans control the white house, the house of representatives and the senate and they are doing some stuff it that is way out of step with what the American People want. And, while we can grow this activist movement as big and as loud as we can, ultimately you have to win elections. And we have special elections happening all over the country. We have a midterm happening in 2018. This is not a split can rally or meeting but i just, i want to, i, well talk about a lot what we can all do to try to make the incomes two years turn out as well as we can for us but ultimately, you have to change the power balance and power dynamic if you want a different result. Everybody that is trying to be part of this movement has to keep an eye on that as well. My name is irene. Im from westin and chair of ict4. We appreciate very much everything you do for us. Trump admitted he fired comey because of the russian inquiry. Do you consider that to be obstruction of justice which the only remedy is impeachment . Yeah. [applause] so, it is always hard to figure out what trump is saying when he speaks. [laughter] but it is certainly appeared in his comments that he was telegraphing that he fired comey because of his conduct in the russia investigation. Of course he said Different Things on different days about it. Listen, it seems pretty clear this is a part of, this is part of a pattern of obstructing the ability of the department of justice to get to the truth. It is not just the firing of comey. It is firing of sally yates. Firing of every prosecutor across the country including Preet Bharara in manhattan. I think we are going to try to glean information over the course of the next week to try to better understand what the true motivation of the firing was, what the plans are in the fbi to continue this investigation going, what the commitment of the department of justices to give the fbi what they need. Ben this happened just a few days ago. We have the Deputy Attorney general coming to the senate in closeddoor briefing next week well ask him many of these questions. So it is a very, very troubling pattern. Im going to seek to get all the information that i can before i decide what strategy to and path to pursue. Hi, thank you, senator murphy, for holding a town hall. Im erin bedello action together connecticut and i live in fairfield. I want to thank you for the assistance in the luis barrios immigration case. [applause] thank you to all of your staff and what they did with us. Because of an interview i heard on npr yesterday with senator ben sasse i found unsettling. He seemed to imply, he implied the path to appointing an independent special prosecutor, it would be influenced or the call would be made by the attorney generals office. I just wanted to get some clarity from you on how, what the path forward really is for that . Yeah. Well, i mean there is different, theres different ways that special prosecutors can be appointed but it is hard for that process it happen outside of the attorney generals office, lets be honest. Chuck schumer is not going to be the person that appoints the special prosecutor. Will be someone from inside of the department of justice, that does that. Obviously we would expect that, that anyone that does the appointment would do in consultation with both parties. So that there is someone that we truly believe is independent. We would want a commitment that individual is going to be given all resources that they need. But again, youre back to this original problem which is, so long as you are operating under a structure in which every branch of the government controlled by is donald trump or friendly to donald trump, it is hard to guarranty that complete outside independence. So that is part of what were meeting with the Deputy Attorney general about next week. He said in his confirmation hearing he would, as the technical head of the russia investigation given that sessions recused himself, he would appoint a special prosecutor if time came when that was appropriate. Well, if this is not the moment, right, then when would that moment be . [applause] and, so, were going to obviously want safeguards and some assurances surrounding that appointment. You know that will be part of our discussion next week so. Senator, thank you for doing such a wonderful job representing connecticut. My name is ethan parker. Im from westport, sophomore in high school and i have a question regarding the Health Care Bill. I know it cleared the house. Even though the republicans have majority in congress what specific powers do the house and Senate Democrats to radically revise or completely block the Health Care Bill . Thank you. So, as you know the Senate Republicans have convened a group of 13 men that are all, that are, they dont have a lot of women to pick from in their caucus but they do have women republican senators they could have chosen. They have 13 republican male senators meeting secretly behind closed doors to craft their version of a Health Care Reform bill. Ultimately they can pass pieces of Health Care Repeal with 50 votes but anything that is not budgetrelated, they can not pass with 50 votes. They need 60 votes. That does limit what they can do without democratic support. So for instance, allowing states to get around the protections for people with preexisting conditions, that is not budgetrelated. So that would need 60 votes in our opinion. I believe that would be the opinion of the parliamentarian as well. So there are limits to what they can do, but they could cut in half the subsidies, they could radically transform medicaid, with only 50 votes. And you know, they are very concerned about what the political ramifications are. There are some republican senators who actually, you know, are approaching this in intellectually honest way, an want to pass something that will actual work and they will have a devil of a time even coming to that 50 number, never mind the 60 theyre going to need to do the kind of dramatic, broadbased reform that the the house did. Thank you. Lets do a document more in here. Well go to the room across the street. Thank you, senator. I am sandy, from grenwich connecticut. As an attorney of course i am in total agreement with the notion of an independent counsel. But beyond that, as a former official of the department of justice i am particularly concerned about the politicizing of the department of justice. Without regard to what the president said or what he meant, there are two things that are inescapable. Number one, Jeff Sessions participated in and he event from which he was allegedly recused. His nonrecusal recusal. [laughter]. Number two, Rod Rosenstein, without regard to what you may think of him, the plain truth is, he engaged in or allowed himself to be engaged in a charade to justify the wrongful termination of the head of the fbi as the president later admitted. So my question to you is, given those two facts why not ask the ig to investigate, the ig at the department, to investigate both sessions nonrecusal recusal and rosensteins willing participation in what the president has admitted was a charade . That besmirches the department of justice . [cheers and applause] wellsaid. [laughter] yeah, no, i think thats a worthy idea. I will give it some thought. It is of course, a little muddy because, you know, sessions recusal is not a recusal under law. It is a political commitment he made, right . It was at, im going to say insistent, it wasnt, it was at the direction and recommendation of the ethics people in the department of justice. Right. Which recommendation he allegedly accepting. Yeah. You cant accept and then renege when it is convenient. Legally, legally you can, right . So i think, let me think about it, because i think that makes a lot of sense. You have to really think about what standard you are asking the ig to hold either sessions or rosenstein too. Youre not talking about legal standards. Youre not talking about statutory standards. All of these expectations that we have for individuals at the highest level of Law Enforcement are often, let me make sure i get to other questions here, often informal ones. If you see anything i said on this i dont disagree with anything you said. Clearly sessions did not recuse himself if he was weighing in on the decision. Rosenstein many of us voted for he had reputation of being independent honest straightshooter, clearly wrote a memo he knew would be used to perpetuate a fraud. And he has to answer for that. Hopefully as i said, when he appears before us next week well get some of those answers. Thank you. [applause] senator, thank you very much for being here. My question is regarding the strength of congress right now because im terrified. Our democracy is being threatened, just the core values of it, liberty, equality, and justice in every single realm. Donald trump created instability everywhere. When a citizen is arrested sentenced to a year of prison for disorderly disrupted conflict because she laughed at confirmation hearing, a reporter is jailed for wilful disrupts of the government process because he pressed a snort for an answer, president ial chants and slogans instigate political divide and civil unrest. Those dont pledge to loyalty to remove potus from the office, when the one news youd let is favored by the government while the others are discredited as fake news, and when factions are encouraged within the congressional body to weaken its power by creating disunity and confusion, when potus threatens to cut off publics access to white house coverage by suspending press conference in my mind he is not making America Great again, he is making america russia. [applause] or maybe even any of those other dictatorships he is at lining himself with. He is intentionally seeking to change the system. And he is undermining all the checks and balances you were talking about earlier today. So what, how can you assure us, the American Public that, you know, the strength is there when there is so much disunity and he keeps perpetuating it . Listen, i cant individually assure you of that, right . I mean i cant. This is collective exercise. And, you know, ultimately, i opened by talking about checks and balances. Your ultimate check here is elections. And heres the flip side of that. It means that at the top of all of our agenda has to be assuring the legitimacy of the electoral process which is under assault as well, right . So we can, one of the ways you can perhaps sleep at night is know hing, okay if the democratic minorities in the house and senate cant stop all of this, at least the American Public, right, who right now register trump at about 38 approval rating, can stop this in 2018. Can stop it again in 2020. But that is not true if millions of americans have their right to vote robbed from them. That is not true if the census doesnt go forward as planned so we have an accurate count as to who actually should be eligible to vote and who should get representatives in proportional amounts. So, i think part of the answer to your question is, of all of the things that we have to spend time thinking about today, making sure that we are guard ians of free and fair elections. Even if we cant stop all this dangerous slide away from the rule of law in the next yearandahalf, that we have the ability to rise up the American Public in the election and put their stamp of disapproval on it. So, again, none of this will be satisfactory answer because we wont be able to stop all of this, but elections are supposed to be your final and most complete check on this dangerous set of precedent that youre talking about. [applause] all right. I cant tell if we have anybody there. Lets stay do we have somebody . Somebody from the overflow room. Good afternoon, senator murphy. My name is susan im from stamford and with the southwest regional Mental Health court. I would like to know, and i thank you for writing and passing the Mental Health care reform act of 2016. I would like to know if the advances put forth by that bill will be in jeopardy if the ahca is actually passed, thank you . So, i mentioned, i mentioned a little bit about this earlier. Its, its such, its such an uncomfortable moment because you know, i felt like i was just getting good at the end of 2016 figuring out how to work across partisan lines, how to get big things done with republicans that were good for the country as was mentioned. I spent all of 2015 and 2016, working on a huge rewrite of the countrys Mental Health laws. I worked with very conservative senator who has gotten a bill of the press because in the middle of health care debate, bill cassidy of louisiana, he have and i wrote the Mental Health reform act of 2016 which radically changes a lot of our laws surrounding Mental Health care, maybe the most important way pushing Insurance Companies to pay for more Mental Health care telling them youre in violation of federal law if youre denying treatments under Mental Health side when youre not denying treatments on physical health side. We think this will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in new care being authorized. Yes, the short answer to that question is of course it is all in jeopardy, because the protections in mental headlight reform act only work if you have insurance. If 24 Million People lose insurance, by the way, difficult to get that your head wrapped around what 24 Million People means rights because all the numbers seem big these days. That is the equal equivalent of 17 u. S. States put together. That is 1u. S. States all losing their health care, right, at one time. And losing their access to the protections that are built into that act. The second risk is that a lot of things in that act are only work if the administration actually does them. Sos those provisions that force the Insurance Companies to spend more on Mental Health care, they actually only work with the department of health and Human Services using power we gave them to force Insurance Companies to do it. The good news is that we set up a new position in that act, a new assistant secretary for Mental Health. One person standing right next to the commissioner of hhs that is has oversight of all Mental Health policy in the federal government and though trump has not filled 90 of the positions available to him, he actually did nominate a pretty good person who was trained here in connecticut to be the new assistant secretary of Mental Health who actually seems like she is going to be a pretty prong strong advocate for the provisions of bill. Looks like that will stay out of the political crosshairs and well get those provisions implemented. Thank you, senator. So sorry. Feel better. My question about race and senators, sessions we all knew pretty much what he was nominated he was a racist and this past week [applause] he has basically [inaudible]. That is out of order. I dont think so maam. Were not going to make commentary. Made a rule for minimum mandatory drug sentences that was discriminatory practice, what we can do to counteract that, what would you like us to do to help you as we move forward in the next two to four years. Thank you. [applause] yeah. So, listen, what senator sessions testified you know to us was that he had done and said some things, right, that he regretted in the past. I, i reserve the right to, listen, i voted against him. I was strong opponent of him but i reserve the right to believe that people can change and i dont know that its, i dont know that i would characterize him that simple of a set of terms but i do think he has policies that he is pushing as attorney general that are deeply, deeply troubling. Theyre are all these republicans who came out over the last few years and claimed that they were for criminal Justice Reform the said that they understood that detriment of minimum mandatory sentences, and yet, crickets from them when sessions comes out and says he will start pushing judges to enforce the highest potential punishments under the law, so again, you know, this is, this is something i wish we did in 2016. We came very close to passing criminal Justice Reform bill that would have limited the power of judges and the department of justice to impose these overly draconian sentences on nonviolent offenders. We werent able to. I think his announcement means we you should double down on the effort to see if we restart talks to find that bipartisan consensus because its there. There are enough republicans that will vote with us in order to pass Something Like that. So, yeah, im not sort of big into namecalling. I hope that jeff has changed from who he may have been and hopefully we can, get a Bipartisan Group together to try to pass criminal Justice Reform. Go upstairs . Okay, great. Hi. My name is beth from reading ton, connecticut. I want to thawing not just for being here today, but serving in the role that you serve. I pounded pavement for you. I made phone calls on your behalf. I am proud that you are the person i thought you would be in the senate. [applause] in my work im a pastoral counselor, im a leadership consultant, and i run, i started a coalition at the United Nations on behalf of gender equality for girls who are without a doubt most oppressed people in our planet in just about every country. [applause] how difficult is it for me to realize when we talk about all men are created equal, people just laugh about that . What do i say to girls about that . We see 13 members of a Senate Committee completely set up with men, and not one woman there to talk about issues Like Health Care for, not one woman to be expert on issues of women . How do i talk about that with women and girls not just in our own country but other countries as well . Incredibly disappointing to me. In the meantime im an expert on this i know that those legislative bodies are parliamentary bodies who dont equally, who are far removed from the 5050 representation that would be a truly equal representation of any country or corporation for example. The further you are from that, when there are only 10 or 15 or 20 women we tend to run once we got to 26 , the issues are besmirched by what men see as issues. Women stay in mini part eses. Women who act more like men are ones listened to. The closer it gets to truly 5050, this happens across every country, more likely the country will think about infrastructure issues or think about what is best for children, will think about what is best for health. It happens over and over again. Yet we are, we are try over and over again to say were a great nation or need to be great again, we ignore that i do think it takes as you say voting but it also take as few good men to say this is important, given that we are one of the only three or four countries at the United Nations who havent even voted for convention on rights for women okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for your work. [applause] i just share a story with you. I was meeting with a group of awardees from the Carter Center this week, a group of women who are working in places like kenya, nigeria, pakistan on empowering women. They wanted to talk to me about jim comey. And i thought that was so fascinating. I didnt have time to stay in the meeting for five minutes but i ended up much longer why they wanted to talk to me about jim comey instead after account that funded their work. Listen, were in the business of prying to promote rule of law in our countries. Were trying to explain why we should move our countries towards a place in which brutal dictators cant get away with anything they want. If we dont have the Gold Standard of the United States, the rule of law starts to slip away here, how can we go about doing our work empowering women of standing up to people who are trying to, trying to eviscerate those norms . So the example we set, its incredibly powerful. Some people say, you know, that maybe it doesnt influence people at top but it gives inspiration to the people at bottom or grassroots doing a lot of that organizing work so. Hi, thank you, senator. Im roger long. Im with a group from westin, im with a group called ict4. [applause] the question ive got for you is really a practical one. We have 5248 senate, more or less. We have a couple of big issues that were facing. Health care for one. Weve got the independent investigation for another. I have look at you, youre a politician. You sold yourself. Youve done a great job in representing us, frankly in getting elected. How can you sell a couple of republicans who are already leaning our way own changes, particularly in health care, and particularly on the independent investigation . Is there a solution . Do you have a practical way of being that effective is man to that side . Yeah. Its a good, its a good question. [applause] we try to do it bunch different ways. I have the private conversations all the time with me colleagues. Were trying to explain to them the seriousness of the moment. Thats my communication of them this week about the fact that if there is a choice to be made between your party and your republic you will never regret choosing your republic. We try to make them understand the political consequences of continuing to side with trump, make them understand that you may not be a senator for another term if you continue to oppose what the vast majority of the American People want, in this case, an independent prosecutor. Part of the difficulty is that, you know thinking about how the senate process works, it is not as sim approximately just convincing two or three republicans to join us. Because that would give you a theoretical working majority, you have to get what you want on the floor of the senate for a vote, and thats is very hard to do without the leader of the senate, the majority leader who controls the agenda of the senate. So without going into the details of it, just because you convince three republicans to support an independent investigator doesnt mean that all of sudden it becomes law. You would need that passed by the house of representatives. You need to get that provision on to the floor of the senate for a vote. Mitch mcconnell, who i think for the timebeing is not going to be amongst the three that is going to join us, shocker. [laughter] he has a lot of control about that, about that agenda. So it is very difficult. You would likely have to have well more than three. Because you would have to create a real tempest within the Republican Caucus would cause mcconnell to set up a series of things on the floor that would bring that ultimately to a vote. But remember, political gravity still has applied to this administration, right . So Michael Flynn did eventually have to be forced out. Jeff sessions did have to recuse himself. So it is not outside of the realm of possibility as the story continues to unfold, that there will have to be a special prosecutor appointed if we continue to keep the conventional pressure up. That did ultimately work with respect to flynn and sessions. It is not inconceivable that it wouldnt work with respect to the independent prosecutor. Thank you. Margie lori from stamford, connecticut. I will try to be brief. Aviation is at the crosshairs of spoofing and stalking attack. This is result of two forces. One, the faas converting to open, unsecured transmission of Sensitive Data with ad sb. And two, the after vansments in electronics crowdsourcing an internet allowing this data to be published to anybody and everybody. In the past the government, congress has tried to protect the security of this data and the people who are flying in the skies. In sections of the appropriations bill and in the reauthorization of the faa. But this is a global problem and Global Alerts are being raised in business and academic world. There is a 2020 deadline, selfimposed deadline by the faa that this must take place. Everybody must transmit the Sensitive Data in openair waves by 2020. This is an artificial deadline. Weve seen past examples of what happens when groups go through with artificial deadlines. Take the challenger explosion. Im asking congress, you and congress to require the secure transmission of this Sensitive Data, and to free the faa from this selfimposed deadline and not convert to mandated ad sb transmissions until they can be secured. If you can talk to my staff and give us a little bit more information about it, i would be happy to learn more. I imagine youre talking about a competing priority on the other side which is understanding who is flying on planes so that we can check that against databases against individuals who shouldnt fly and know who is moving from country to country and obviously be require that be done in secure way. And also, theyre posting on websites. Theyre offering to stalk or track an individuals flight, a plane and theyre posting flights of military, air force one, specialops flights, diplomatic flights. Homeland security flights. Putting it up there everybody to see who is going where. Get the information. I will try to learn more about it. Thank you very much. Well go to the overflow room. Hi senator murphy, good afternoon. Hello. Hello. Thank you for coming down to stamford. My name is caitlyn. I am from connecticut, and im representing one of the many connecticut indivisible groups but specifically [inaudible]. Thank you for all your advocacy and tenacity working for all the American People and leading connecticut as blue state, as an example for the entire country. With what happened with the ahca passing the house one of the potential solutions that our group has passed around to other groups and collaborated with is a fivepoint action plan. We decided that we wanted to do this because the last time was with the momentum in the house going through and then unfortunately passing. We were waiting for some type of direction, whether that was from a federal level or whether it was from individual which many of us are a part of and we didnt have one. We would like to offer with direction which you gave, two most important things we can do as citizens in this country, is, a, showing up to our representatives office, and by calling. So we put together this action plan, you can find it on our website, fairfield standing united under action item. It is pretty simple. Two main things we want people to walk away with, are they can pick up the phone and they can call five people that live in zetas are representative with republican senators. And we need to convince them to call their representatives to vote no. Time is of the essence. We recognize that. To move which would be number five do you have a question, we have a bunch of people i do have a question. My question is, for a being a blue state which we heard you say many times, to protect the aca, what is it that we can do here in connecticut to move forward and to also be advocates for people across the country . So i mean, listen, presence even in connecticut, it matters. The news of how many people are showing up to my town halls, to jim hime hes town halls, Rosa Delauros town halls, that, republican members on board of connecticut in new york who are swing votes on these matters. So, presence in connect cult, even though you do feel like youre preaching to the choir, it ultimately matters. Participation in national groups, you know, hooking up with national groups, giving them support where they have reach into these districts, that helps as well being constant presence online. Gumming up the works of social media, that helps as well. Yeah, listen, nice problem to have in that youre not working to convince the seven of us here in connecticut but im telling you, people notice, even when there are big turnouts happening here in connecticut, in other places. To the extent you can fill eight yourself with other national organizations, that matters too. Remember, dont, i dont want to tread too far into the political here but really there is important elections coming up here in connecticut. Dont take for granted the fact that connecticut is going to in unison, resist all of these policies. You need he to make sure you have local officials and youre sending people to hartford that are going to be active in the resistance to some of the most reckless parts of this policy. That is not something to be taken for granted for. So dont think just because you have seven people in the federal delegation who by and large are with you on this, there is no need to have a lot of really active conversations to be politically active here in connecticut. So, should we go up there . Well go up there. Hi, senator murphy my name is im from westport. Im a junior in high school. The way congress is set up, representatives are focused on immediate results instead of long term one. Mic close to your mouth. The way congress is set up, representatives maintain short term results in order to get elected. How do you plan to combat longterm problems and Climate Change, education reform, which solutions will take lodger than a senate or house term . Good question. Good question. [applause] thank you very much for being here. Thank you for caring. As you know the senate is supposed to be designed to have a little bit more of a longer term view than the house of representatives. There is nothing wrong with worrying about reelection. We want every republican in the house of representatives to worry about reelection. [applause] this is one of the most fascinating questions in democratic theory. You often hear people saying all these members of Congress Care about is reelection. As if that is bad thing, right . Youre actually supposed to be doing the things your constituents want so they will vote for you for reelection. You are also right there are sometimes decisions you have to make may have a shortterm consequence but have a longterm gain and that is one of the hardest questions of representation. Im not confronted with it every day, but probably every month im confronted with one of those decisions, a place where maybe my constituent are not totally with me right now but i know it is the right thing to do with respect to generational change. And so, you know, that said, i dont think there is any good way to answer that in the absolute. Every sort of single time youre confronted with one of those decisions you have to weigh, right . Shortterm necessity against longterm benefit. I would argue on Climate Change it is not a longterm, shortterm problem. This is a shortterm immediate crisis and that [applause] and, i can, i can tell you a story about the civil war in syria through the prism of Climate Change, right . The idea that over a course of time several severe droughts occurred in syria that were no doubt connected to Climate Change, forcing millions of farmers to leave rural areas, concentrate themselves inside of urban areas, creating a capacity for services that the regime couldnt meet, resulting in a frustration with that regime that spilled into revolution. That is a story of Climate Change, creating instability. That is a Current Crisis that we are dealing with today. It is not a simple as Climate Change story in syria, but that is a big part of that story. We have to sell Climate Change, not as a longterm problem with shortterm detriment. We have to talk about it as a problem immediate, if we solve, comes with shortterm gains, not short term payne. I appreciate the question. It often comes up in the often in the way you frame. Leslie weinberg, stamford. I would like to know, senator murphy, if you would be able to share your priorities in terms of tax reform including expanding the earned income tax credit. At the last townhall i learned, i, i very relieved that the republicans because the earned income tax credit has to do with people who work, that republicans actually support it. So, i mean my, my theory of the case on tax reform is that any tax reform should accrue to the benefit of the big middle slice of america. That trickledown tax policy has been proven to not work over and over and over again, and that when youre choosing what to tax and what not to tax, you should be taxing stuff that you dont want and you should be not taxing things you want, right . So if you, if you dont want carbon, you should tax that. If you do want corporations to locate inside of the United States, you shouldnt tax that. So you should have a conversation about what you want, what you dont want, and build your tax policy upon it as a foundation. You should just understand that the data very clearly tells you if you concentrate your tax cut on the top one or 2 of americans, it is not going to ultimately flow down to everybody else in the way that folks believe it will. And then i think you have got to bring in a conversation about the way in which we tax Investment Income today, right . This is a very different world today. We treat Capital Gains very differently than we do ordinary income. That comes from a time which people made an investment they held it for pretty substantial period of time. Now when you make an investment by and large you hold it for a very short period of time. Often that investment is not in the american economy. It is in a foreign economy. So we should start asking real tough questions about whether we should have such a differentiation in the taxation of invest income which, by and large accrues to the benefit of wealthier people versus ordinary income. That might have made cents at a time when Capital Gains came from investments that were mainly made in america, mainly made for longterm investment purposes. This is a different moment today. So i think those would be amongst the principles that i would bring to a conversation about tax reform. [applause] senator, thanks for being here. Couple of political questions. I know it is early. What odds would you give the house, democrats in the house of getting sizable returns in 2018 . For the Democratic Senators to hold the line and, how seriously are you thinking of running for president in 2020 . [applause] my body cant even sustain being United States senator as it turns out, never mind doing anything bigger than that. No, im really happy being a United States senator. I dont have any plans to run for president. I have a reelection to work through two years from now. I hope people in connecticut will give me the chance to do this job for another six years. I think the chances are very good that democrats could win back control of the house of representatives given the sort of trajectory where things are heading today. I dont understand how republicans can walk into a Midterm Election with Something Like the American Health care act around their necks and think theyre going to be able to survive. Never mind being, you know, fairly universally supportive of a president who probably will not be above the low 40s in terms of approval rating. Now the way districts are drawn do not help democrats. We have to have a broader conversation about the political gerrymandering happened in this country. [applause] we should, we should have that conversation for two reasons. One because right now, political gerrymandering accrues to the benefit of republicans. There are a lot of states just have drawn districts so that republicans get as many seats as possible. But we should also have a question because it accrues to the general detriment of our democracy. We have some districts just full of just democrats and just republicans. There is very little incentive for big parts of house of representatives to actually cooperate and talk to, talk to each other. So, i think the chances are good. Maybe i would put them a little better than 50 50 today you take back the house. Senate is tougher. The senate of the 48 democrats, 25 of them are up for reelection. So in the senate there just arent as many competitive seats that we can contest. So, im going to try to take a few. Why dont we try to take one more from every, want to take one more from every place and got out of here . All right. Short. So there, there, there, and there. Whoever is standing at microphone for all four spots, well take those questions. I have to book. Mine is really short. Yeah. The cassidycollins Health Care Bill in the works now, want to know if youre familiar with it and what your thoughts are . I really like both of those people individually but their bill stinks. [laughter] bill cassidy, i dont have a better friend in the room. What their bill says, what they claim their bill does is to allow for states to want to keep the Affordable Care act to keep it. For states that dont want it to get rid of it. Practically simply does not work because, you know there already is a pretty massive transfer of resources from state has havent done the Medicaid Expansion to state has have done the Medicaid Expansion. If you deconstructed all the subsidies in republican states an maintain them in democratic states it would be even bigger shift of money from red states to blue states that would be unsustainable. You couldnt keep that together because a Republican Congress would never support continuing to fund a law that only sent subsidy dollars into states that had democratic governors and democratic legislatures problem. A practical standpoint it just doesnt work. Their bill is actually silent what happens with respect to the taxes which is, kind of a big fatal flaw in their bill. What would happen under their premise for taxes in the bill, would people only in the states that maintained the Affordable Care act pay the taxes . And how would that, and how would you administer a system . There is no other tax administered at the federal level applies to only some states and no other states. Just as practice matter it doesnt work. I applaud them for trying to solve a problem that addresses some of the concerns of those of us that represents states that want to keep the Affordable Care act with improvements but, logistically it falls apart. Hi, my name is lindsey fahey. Im from greenwich, representing, individual greenwich. Ask audience to help me. Can you stand up if you have a preexisting condition or someone in your family has preexisting condition. That means if anybody in your family ever been sick before. Good for you if youre not standing. My question to you is, can you please promise all of us you wont compromise on coverage or benefits for anyone currently elgible for the aca . Yes. Great. [applause] i have one last thing kevin colely for fairfield. Wait a second. We just have a special election, you talked about. It is really important in june 6, in fairfield. We really need help. Kevin kiley, kevin kiley for fairfield on facebook. We need help, phone banking and canvasing, special elections really important, june 6. Please come help. All right. [applause] senator murphy, my name is richard dupree. My family and i live in westin. Got up to ask you a question about health care, particularly with the last question, that concern, you have addressed that concern very, very clearly so ii want to skip without any preparation to asking you about something else, having to do with judicial appointments. Just recently after judge gorsuch seating in the Supreme Court in a seat which i can say, i think with very good argument was stolen from president obamas nominee, Merrick Garland [applause] , i dont even know, i havent had a chance to do research, i dont know if youre on the Judiciary Committee and had a chance to weigh in on judge gore suchs nomination. Again risking launching a fishing expedition, what can we as citizens do to oppose judicial nominations that we find really offensive . You how can we support the representatives such as yourself who most likely would take a strong stand against them . Okay. Lets take this last one here, i will answer them together. Take the last one, short one from the overflow room. Hi, my name is im from stamford. Currently high school sophomore. I admire your progressives causes for racial and Economic Social Justice to promulgating a sensible foreign strategy on National Stage and advances reform on the possibility of assault rifles. I was deeply overjoyed seeing your victory in the 2012 general election against republican challenger, Linda Mcmahon. Individual exercised unapologetic disregard for former workers of her monopoliestic enterprise, wwe allows the flagrant intolerance. I was baffled you along with senator blumenthal publicly endorsed mcmahon who epitomizes antithesis of ideals which you firmly believe and vigorously defended since beginning of your political career and voted in favor of her confirmation for head of Small Business administration. Explain convenience for votes for her confirmation, possibly more important, that you keep coffee cup in every Committee Hearing . That is true. That is true. Let me do these quickly, both are good questions. On judicial confirmations, listen, i voted against gorsuch. So i was not on Judiciary Committee but i voted against gorsuch on the floor. Ultimately i think he is going to be the most conservative of all nine. I think he has some radical views on judicial precedent that could really unravel a lot of the protectses that we have against Supreme Court becoming a wholly, completely independent political entity. The next fight will be even bigger because to the extent that kennedy or ginsberg do create a vacancy, then thats really the swing of the court. We are going to have to have a, just tempest across this country in order to stop a gorsuchlike justice from replacing somebody like kennedy or ginsberg. On mcmahon, yeah, listen, so i, as many of you know, we both supported learned today mcmahon to be sb a administrator. We fought obviously a very tough, hard, campaigns against her. I obviously disagree with her deeply on a lot of views she had. It is question what sort of our test is when were voting on these nominees. Here is the test that i have chosen to employ. Im not going to vote for nominees for any position in the Trump Administration for people that i believe are truly radical in their views or people that have no experience in the agency or the book, portfolio theyre going to oversee. And applying that test to Linda Mcmahon as much animosity as we had for each other in that campaign, she does have experience and i dont believe that shes radical in the way that somebody like scott pruitt or judge gorsuch are radical. So, you know, it is a difficult thing because we do end up voting for people for these positions where we have deep political disagreements. But ultimately i worry about a senate in which every republican in the senate votes against anybody a democratic president ever puts up and vice versa. Im not sure how you ultimately unwind that. Every single one of these are tough calls, right. You presented a lot of, the most important issues here. And im learning constantly about how to best fight against this reckless agenda, about what issues to prioritize on a daily basis. That is the biggest part of this job, just sort of understanding how to spend 16 hours that you have every day while youre awake, and every single time i do Something Like this i think i get a little bit better. I think i refine my priorities a little bit more. Again, i just feel so lucky to have this job. And i do ultimately believe that this is a test, for this country. Were not going to win every single one of skirmishes inside broader battle. I think well win more than you think as long as you are committed to keeping this level of activism up every single day youre a part of the fight. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. [applause] the u. S. Senate today considering the nomination of rachel brand to be associate attorney general. Number three official at the Justice Department. The confirmation vote set for noon eastern today. The senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines 119 to are her confirmation. Tomorrow Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein will brief all senators meeting about the president s firing of fbi director jam