>>5145483 (PB #6572) Transcript from C-span of Mark Warner's speech - Worth the Read these people are shitting bricks.

I rise today to oppose the nomination of welcome[sic] Barr to be Attorney General, a nomination that the senate will – a nomination that the senate will be taking up later today.

I have a number of concerns about the nominee on policy. I echo my colleagues said about Mr. Barr's troubling records with America's – he – he wanted the Muslim ban. I have serious concerns about his past statements will LGBTQ equality and the role of government in women's reproductive health care.

Equality and the role of government in women's reproductive health care.

As one telling example, he testified in his 1991 confirmation hearing that roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. On all of these issues this nominee, i believe, is out of step with the views of the vast majority of the American public.

But for me this nomination and my objection to this nomination is not simply an objection based on policy grounds, nor is it a question of Mr. Barr's experience.

As a former attorney general, Mr. Barr has long been well respected within the legal community. But, frankly, the nominee for our nation's highest law enforcement position must be measured by more than his resume. Instead, for me, particularly at this moment in time, this is a question of Mr. Barr's fidelity to our constitution.

I find Mr. Barr's actions in the months leading up to his nomination to be deeply disturbing, and as a result,

i have serious doubts about this nominee's independence and willingness to stand up for rule of law.

Last June Mr. Barr wrote a secret, unsolicited memo attacking special counsel Robert Amul's investigation into

potential obstruction of justice by the President. Mr. Barr then took this unsolicited memo and passed it on to administration officials.

We all know what happened afterwards. In November president Donald Trump fired attorney general jeff sessions

after months of public abuse over Attorney General Sessions' unwillingness to rein in or kneecap the Mueller investigation.

For a temporary replacement, he chose Matt Whitaker, whose qualification to be acting attorney general

appears to be an op-ed he wrote decrying the scope of the Mueller probe. It has become again clear, and we heard it in some of the president's comments last night in El Paso, that the president's major concern in choosing a new attorney general will be to choose someone who will shield him from the special counsel's investigation.

And, to me, Mr. Barr's unsolicited memo looks much like a job application to try to appeal to the president on those qualifications. The president has reportedly dangled the possibility of pardoning potential witnesses

in the special counsel's investigation. Now, in Mr. Barr the president has a nominee who has been outspoken about

his expansive views of the appropriate use of pardon powers. Let's be very clear. Any attempt by this president to pardon himself, his family, or key witnesses in the Mueller or

the Southern District of New York's investigations would represent an abuse of power that would require a response by congress.

Special counsel Mueller's investigation, as we already have seen from the record, has led to numerous indictments and convictions,

convictions that even include the president's own campaign chairman from the 2016 campaign. We must make sure, although we have no idea when the Mueller investigation will finish, we must make sure that the Mueller investigation remains free from political interference

until it gets to the truth, and then we need to ensure that its findings must be released to congress and the American public. Under our constitutional system no one is above the law, not even the president. We need an attorney general willing to vigorously defend that principle. Consequently, i will oppose the nomination of Mr. Barr and encourage my colleagues to consider the same. Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.