-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. I am going to object, but I think the Senator has some remarks.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. I will let the Senator explain the reasons for the motion he is making, and afterward, I will comment on the reasons for my objection.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I look forward to getting to know him as a new colleague.
But let me explain to the Senator why I am objecting. I abhor attacks on police officers--all police officers--and no matter the motive. But that is not the position of Republicans in the Senate.
On the day that President Trump was sworn into office, he pardoned scores of violent felons who beat police officers, and my Republican colleagues--almost to a Member--cheered him on and supported him. Donald Trump pardoned David Dempsey who, on January 6, beat Capitol and DC Police officers with his hands, feet, flagpole, crutches, broken pieces of furniture--anything else that he could find that could be used as a weapon. He teamed up with another rioter who pulled back one police officer's gas mask while Dempsey sprayed pepper spray in his eyes. He hit another police officer over the head with a metal crutch, with so much force that it cracked the protective shield of the officer's gas mask, causing him to collapse as his ears started ringing.
Donald Trump also pardoned D.J. Rodriguez.
On January 6, Rodriguez pushed through the crowds, found a police officer and put a Taser to his head. When the police officer screamed out in pain and recoiled from the shock, Rodriguez attacked him again, Tasering him this time in the neck. The officer was done. He collapsed unconscious. Another officer pulled his lifeless body to safety. That attack ended that officer's career.
Thomas Webster was pardoned by Donald Trump too. Webster attacked police officers with a flagpole. He tackled one officer to the ground, dragged him by the helmet, ripped off his gas mask to allow tear gas to seep inside, and held the officer down so other rioters could brutally kick him.
I oppose all violence against all police officers. So I don't understand why there seems to be an exemption for the violence that was perpetrated against the officers who protect us.
Your bill proposes a new mandatory minimum for assaults against police officers that you are not applying to the officers who beat the people who protect us. They were let out of jail free--D.J. Rodriguez, David Dempsey, Thomas Webster. Republicans cheered as they were let out of jail before their sentence was completed.
So if we are serious about protecting the police officers, we need to protect all police officers. If police officers are protecting Democrats--because that is who those rioters were here to kill or here to hurt--then those assaults should matter. If Donald Trump says the assault is OK, that shouldn't matter.
Yes, I have stood by the side of the families of slain or injured police officers. But think about the families of those officers who were brutally beaten here at the Capitol. Think about the officer who was dragged unconscious from the site. His attacker was let out of jail--no mandatory minimum.
Politics shouldn't have anything to do with our collective decision to stand up against attacks on police officers. So I offer this objection because I just don't feel like this bill is on the level until we have agreement in this Chamber that President Trump doesn't get to decide which attacks on police officers we care about and which ones we don't.
We shouldn't pass this bill until Republicans make it clear that they oppose all attacks on police, no exceptions--no exceptions, no exemptions. Republicans need to loudly oppose President Trump's pardons because if you don't, you are sending a message that if you are carrying out attacks on police officers in the name of President Trump's political agenda or you are carrying out attacks on police officers who are defending Democrats, those attacks might end up being pardoned or excused. And our Nation just fades away. What makes our Nation great fades away if violence is OK if it is in service of a particular political agenda or if the attacks are in service of the President.
So I do take attacks against our police officers seriously, but I don't think we should move forward legislation that implicitly has exemptions in it. So let's get on the same page. Let's come to a collective decision as a body that we care about all violence against police officers. Let's hear every Member of this body condemn President Trump's pardons. Let's come to the conclusion that politics should never play a role in enforcing our laws against police violence.
I look forward to working with the Senator on that endeavor, and if we can come to that conclusion jointly as a body, then I look forward to working with him on this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, you are right. The Senator from Ohio was not here on January 6, and your political affiliation mattered that day. It mattered that day. Those rioters were here to harm not allies of President Trump but opponents of President Trump. They had the gallows outside with Mike Pence's name on it. They were searching the halls of the Capitol for people who opposed Donald Trump's agenda.
So I agree with you that it would be wonderful and lovely to remove this debate from politics, but on that day--on that day--there were bad people here, seeking to do violence based upon the political affiliations of people in this building; and the reason that they were pardoned was that President Trump supported the violence so long as it was in his name. So, yes, it does matter what happened not just on that day but when Trump issued the pardons because it provides this message of endorsement to violence so long as it is violence that Donald Trump supports. That puts officers in jeopardy all over the country if the potential perpetrators of violence against police officers have an idea in their heads that, if they are doing it in support of Donald Trump, they have a pretty good chance to get away with it. I don't think anyone who assaults a police officer should get out of jail early.
So let me put the question to you. Maybe we can find common ground right now. I recited to you the violence that was perpetrated on police officers here by three specific rioters. Do you support Donald Trump's decision to let those three individuals out of jail early? I think it would be important for you as a Republican Member to say that you oppose Donald Trump's decision to let those perpetrators out of jail early, and we could have common cause today in that we both oppose all early releases of individuals who attack police officers. So do you agree with me that it was wrong to release those three individuals early from prison?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. I understand he has that power. Regardless of whether he has that power, do you agree with his decision?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Let's have common cause right now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Let's decide it was not OK for Donald Trump to let the people who brutally beat police officers out of jail early. Let's find common cause right now. That would be in service of preventing violence against police officers in the future because we could make it clear-- you and I could make it clear right now--that it doesn't matter whether you are committing violence in the name of Donald Trump or not. It is wrong if you commit violence against police officers. Why can't you just agree with that?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Just say yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. I apologize.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator is new. I will remind him you are not allowed to impugn the motives of Members of the Senate.
Listen, I think it is unfortunate that you cannot and other Republicans cannot say that the individuals who beat the living hell out of the police officers who protect us should not have gotten out of jail free. I don't think that is a separate issue from the broader concern about protecting police officers from violence because I think what you have done in endorsing violence, as long as it is perpetrated in the name of a political agenda, is to make every police officer in this country less safe and to make all of us less safe as well.
So I think, if we want to come together around an agenda to protect members of law enforcement, then, yes, it is very important--it is very important--for the future protection of the law enforcement officers, the police officers who protect us, to hear loudly from Republicans that there is no exception--no exception--to the premise that you will serve a long prison sentence if you commit an assault on a police officer.
So I look forward to continuing this dialogue with my colleague. I admit that we do not know each other. Maybe we can find common ground here, but this is not a small issue. The normalization of political violence in this country could be the defining issue of the next decade, and I think that my Republican colleagues will rue the day that they looked the other way when Donald Trump said that it was OK to beat police officers over the head with flag poles, to Taser them to the point that they were unconscious just because you were serving President Trump's political agenda. That is not a side issue. That is not a fringe issue. That issue of endorsement of political violence may be central to the question of whether this democracy survives.
I know we have a pending vote and our colleagues are eager to get home, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with my colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source