Ted Cruz

I have to say it was disappointing yesterday that Ms. Lynch also expressed no concern about the First Amendment rights of citizens.

Yesterday I asked Ms. Lynch if she thought it was appropriate to have the Department of Justice investigation into the IRS targeting and abuse of power led by a major Obama donor and Democratic donor who has given over $6,000 to President…

I want to, at the outset, extend my apology that earlier in the hearing, the Senator from Rhode Island characterized the testimony that we have heard from witnesses on this panel as 'conspiracy theories and sound bites for Fox News.'

I hope, if you are confirmed, that your conduct in office differs from the answers you have given at this hearing.

That does not auger well for this Committee's assessment of your willingness to stand up to the President when the Constitution and the laws so require.

There are many of us who are alumni of the Department of Justice, who have most respected the Department.

When the Department was willing to stand up to the President, when the Attorney General behaved not as if he or she were the personal lawyer for the President.

I was hopeful when he was appointed that he would carry that reputation forward as Attorney General. It has saddened me greatly that he has not done so.

I sent a letter to Attorney General Holder laying out the facts and asking him to follow the bipartisan tradition of his predecessors and uphold the rule of law.

If you were confirmed as Attorney General, would you commit to this Committee to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS abuse of power who, at a very minimum, is not a major Obama donor?

One of the terrific things about the Department of Justice is that it has a long and bipartisan tradition of remaining above the fray from partisan politics, of demonstrating a fidelity to law.

Is it consistent with fairly and impartially enforcing the law to have an investigation into the abuse of power by the IRS headed by a major Democratic donor?

It resolved it unanimously, 9-0. It rejected the Holder Justice Department's position.

The Federal Government cannot use lethal force from a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat.

I find it remarkable that you are unable to answer that question.

It would be patently unconstitutional for any subsequent President to refuse to enforce the tax laws, or the labor laws, or the immigration laws.

My single greatest concern with the tenure of Attorney General Eric Holder is that I do not believe he has upheld that tradition.

This is an amendment to allow expedited export of liquid natural gas to WTO member countries. It would have benefits to our country in terms of jobs and economic growth as well as substantial geopolitical benefits to our allies. I expect…

There is no authorization in law for these work authorizations.

I think the topic of this hearing is exceptionally important both as a substantive policy matter, but also more importantly as a matter of constitutional law and the threat we are seeing to our constitutional system.

The Administration will issue work authorizations to some 5 million people who are here illegally.

What the President has done is abominable. I am telling you.

The President has attempted to justify unilaterally setting aside Federal immigration laws under the aegis of prosecutorial discretion.

I want to work with everyone to get it done.

The President's action was--as he had previously admitted--unwise and unfair. I also believe that it is unlawful.