Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 10 months ago
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) questioned Reed Rubinstein, Trump's nominee to be the Legal Advisor to the State Department, about his commitment to following federal law, and his past statements about conspiracy theories.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00Mr. Rubenstein, your job at the State Department, as I understand, is not to form policy but
00:07to provide legal advice to Secretary Rubio and President Trump on their proposed policies.
00:13In your opening statement, you talked about working in a way that was lawful, about your
00:19faithful commitment to the Constitution.
00:22So can I just ask, do you commit to following the law, to advising against any policy or
00:28action that would violate federal law, if confirmed?
00:40I'm sorry, any action that would violate federal law?
00:43Any policy or action that would violate federal law.
00:47Doesn't seem like a difficult question.
00:54Thank you for that question, Ranking Member Shaheen.
00:58I commit to applying the law, working with my colleagues internally at the Department
01:04of State on more complex issues, the way that we did it before was to reach outside and
01:12consult with the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel, and providing
01:17our client with the best possible legal advice outlining various options and potential consequences
01:25of different courses of action.
01:27Well, again, let me ask if you can give me a yes or no question.
01:33Do you commit to following the law and to advising against policies or actions that
01:38would violate current federal law?
01:42Well, so I'm not sure it lends necessarily a yes or no answer, Senator.
01:47The law is a conversation.
01:48It's one of the great things about it.
01:51It's why it's been so interesting to me these 40 years.
01:54I'm married to an attorney for 56 years.
01:56I understand what you're saying, but that's...
02:00So when you say...
02:01But what I'm asking you is a yes or no question to this.
02:04But again, I mean, yes, the job of the federal government writ broadly is to follow the law.
02:13That is not a controversial proposition at all.
02:17The kind of where the rubber hits the road, though, is when you're looking at the margins,
02:23and particularly, I know this is of interest in talking with staff, talking with your staff,
02:29your questions about the relative legalities, for example, of certain separation of powers
02:34issues on matters that are likely to come up before the department.
02:38And there, it gets into a gray area.
02:41You end up into discussions about what the relative balance is between Congress, say,
02:46and the executive with respect to various powers.
02:49And often, there isn't an absolutely clear answer.
02:53So I'm not trying...
02:54Yes, the federal government...
02:55I take that as a no, actually, based on what you just said.
02:59And I have to say that that makes me concerned.
03:05And given some of your past online postings, for example, last year, you posted alleging
03:11that the Biden administration was engaged in a massive program to overthrow the Israeli
03:15government in the middle of a multi-front war.
03:18Do you really believe that?
03:20Well, I don't have the checks that were written.
03:24I do believe that there are sufficient facts to support that statement.
03:28We know that in 2015, actually, a committee of this Senate did a report on an outfit called
03:35One Voice.
03:36During the Obama administration, the State Department was running money to fund an anti-government
03:43operation inside of Israel.
03:45Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations did this work.
03:48The report was not acknowledged much in the United States, but it sure made an impact
03:53in Israel when it was issued.
03:56Many of the same people who were involved in the Obama administration's State Department
04:02came back under President Biden.
04:07And it appears to us, it appears to me, based on emails that I obtained through the Freedom
04:13of Information Act and that we read, that the same playbook was being run.
04:18We have emails, for example, from an American NGO, and all of this is public record, Senator.
04:23I invite you to read it.
04:24I can provide it.
04:25But we have emails from an American NGO.
04:26Oh, I have heard these conspiracy theories before, but I've been here through the Obama
04:33administration, through the first Trump administration, through the Biden administration, and I can
04:38tell you that I never heard anybody in any of those administrations talking about a multi-front
04:46war trying to overthrow the Israeli government.
04:49I don't believe it.
04:50And I hear you're saying that and trying to justify that as a conspiracy theory.
04:58And so I guess, what confidence can you give me, can you give this committee, that you
05:03can provide impartial, unbiased legal advice that's grounded in facts and the law?
05:11And so far, you're not convincing me.
05:14Well, Senator, with respect to the Senate report from the Permanent Subcommittee on
05:18Investigations, that wasn't, I didn't write that.
05:22That came out of this body.
05:24With respect to the emails that I read between these NGOs and Barbara Leaf, I didn't write
05:29those either.
05:30I just read them.
05:31And they say what they say.
05:33And perhaps they lend themselves to different interpretations.
05:35I'm willing to concede that.
05:37But I believe there was a good faith basis for what I said.
05:41Now with respect to my legal advice, there's a difference between advocacy and providing
05:46careful, you said you've been married to a lawyer for 56 years, there's a difference
05:51between advocacy and providing a client with careful, proper legal advice.
05:58The way that I have worked in private practice, the way that I worked in my last stint in
06:04government, the way that I work here is to, as I said, rigorously review the facts, learn
06:10as much as you can about the situation, apply the relevant authorities, consult with your
06:16colleagues, look for the subject matter experts at the Department of State.
06:20We are blessed, as I said, with some of the best international law experts in the world.
06:25To be able to draw on that knowledge, to consult with my colleagues at the Office of the Legal
06:30Counsel in the Department of Justice, and then provide the decision makers with the
06:34best possible legal advice.
06:36And that is what I will do.
06:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Comments

Recommended