Hearing Goes Silent After Dan Goldman Grills GOP About Deporting Kids With Cancer

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) asked Republican lawmakers to raise their hand if they believe American kids with cancer should not be deported.

Transcript

00:00Thank you, Chairman. The silence. I want to talk a little bit more about the silence. I'm going to invite Professor Raskin in on this.

00:10Professor, we have alleged that this legislation, which would further deport kids with cancer who are American citizens,

00:22that would deport and exile American citizens, that would allow the firing of veterans who work at the Department of Justice,

00:30that would allow the hiring of January 6 rioters at the Department of Justice.

00:34We've alleged that that is cruel and incompetent. My colleagues across the other side have said nothing.

00:42We've given them multiple opportunities to defend it.

00:46And now, I do my CLE, my continued legal education, but I'm a little rusty. I've been here for 13 years.

00:56You're not rusty. In the law, I remember something called like an adoptive admission.

01:03So if I say to the other side, what you're doing is cruel, what you're doing is incompetent,

01:08and it's just like zip, heads down, kind of like what my kids do when you catch them with their hand in the cookie jar

01:15and they don't want to talk about it, what is an adoptive admission?

01:19What does it mean that they're being so silent?

01:21And what could you conclude in the law that they've been accused of being cruel and incompetent

01:27and deporting kids with cancer who are citizens, and they say nothing?

01:32What's an adoptive admission?

01:34Well, an adoptive or a constructive admission, as it's sometimes called,

01:37means in certain contexts that you can construe someone's silence as agreement with a particular proposition.

01:47In criminal court, of course, you can't do that.

01:49If someone chooses not to testify in criminal court,

01:53the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment means that the prosecutors can't get up and say-

01:59I'm going to challenge you, though, Professor.

02:01Now, say somebody's accused of murdering their wife, and it's not in court, and it's, you know, proceedings have not happened yet,

02:08they're a suspect, and you say very publicly to that person,

02:11you murdered your wife, and you say it in front of like 10 people, and they just put their head down.

02:16Doesn't the law say that an ordinary innocent person in that environment, not in court, would defend themselves and say,

02:22no, I didn't do that?

02:24Absolutely.

02:24And in fact, in civil court, a refusal to testify can be used against you,

02:31and your silence can be constructively ascribed to your agreement with the proposition.

02:38Okay, let me try it one more time.

02:40Your bill will deport more kids who are American citizens with cancer.

02:54I don't think they want to answer that.

03:08The silence is deafening me.

03:10It tells us everything we need.

03:11Would the gentleman yield?

03:13Yes.

03:14Let's do it a different way.

03:15How about this?

03:18Raise your hand if you do not think children with cancer who are American citizens should be deported.

03:33Do nothing.

03:36Hmm.

03:37Looks like it's all the Democrats and none of the Republicans.

03:41Now, Mr. Swalwell, if I could just continue and ask a question,

03:47because you raise an interesting point on the sort of adoptive or constructive admission,

03:57especially the distinction between a criminal investigation and a civil investigation.

04:03So, if a president orders the Department of Justice to criminally investigate his former administration officials

04:16because they spoke out against him,

04:22does that mean in a criminal context that if they are asked a question and they remain silent,

04:29that it can or cannot be used against them?

04:33In a criminal context, it cannot be used against them.

04:36I see.

04:37Okay.

04:37So, they really benefit, I guess, from being under criminal investigation

04:43for speaking out against the president, dissenting, as they say.

04:52So, luckily for them, and I guess unluckily for our colleagues over there

04:57who are not under criminal investigation.

04:59They could just speak up and say something.

05:00They could.

05:01They could.

05:01And they don't get it.

05:02Okay.

05:02You're back.

05:03You're back.

05:04You're back.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended