Sen. Booker EXPOSES Trump Judge Nominee Over Conflict of Interest

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:01]Okay, so Trump is nominating his personal criminal defense attorney to a lifetime federal bench seat. While his PAC might still owe that attorney's firm $400,000.

[00:00:14]And this man showed up to his own confirmation hearing to explain why that's fine. I could not write this if I tried. Senator Cory Booker versus Matthew Schwartz, Trump's lawyer Sullivan & Cromwell partner, second circuit nominee, Judiciary Committee, May 20th, 2026. Watch how he defends the debt. Hit subscribe before this starts.

[00:00:38]>> Senator Booker.

[00:00:41]Thank you very much.

[00:00:43]Um I I Mr. Schwartz The The independence of the judiciary is vital.

[00:00:50]Um sacrosanct that would even say.

[00:00:54]And I I have some concerns um that right now today are you personally representing Donald Trump in his criminal appeal in New York?

[00:01:06]>> I am, Senator.

[00:01:08]>> And the man who's nominated you to a lifetime appointment as your client he owes his PAC owes you is it $400,000?

[00:01:21]For legal bills?

[00:01:23]>> Senator, I I actually have no idea what the financial amount is.

[00:01:26]>> But But he has paid all his bills now?

[00:01:31]>> Senator, I I don't handle that aspect of the relationship. Um so I I really couldn't confirm what you're saying.

[00:01:37]>> So, can you name in all of American history one fellow federal appellate nominee in any time in modern history who was actively representing the president who nominated him at the moment of his nomination?

[00:01:57]Can you name in any time in modern history that we've ever had a situation in our democracy where a president has nominated someone who is representing them?

[00:02:09]Can you?

[00:02:13]>> So, Senator, start out as as I said earlier, uh if I'm confirmed, I will recuse my myself from all cases in which I've represented the president and be very cognizant of my duties. Um second, Senator, sitting here, yes, there have been obviously two prior nominees in this administration who have been nominated.

[00:02:32]And then obviously presidents have from time to time nominated justices and judges with whom they are very close, they may have worked with previously. Um so, it's not an unusual circumstance, Senator, and as I said, uh my oath of office will be sacrosanct, and I will recuse myself as a >> So, why not disclose any financial obligations this president might have to you?

[00:02:54]Don't you think that's germane to our evaluation of your objectivity? If the president of the United States owes you $400,000?

[00:03:03]>> So, Senator, any amount of money the president would pay would be to my firm, which is obviously a a very large firm.

[00:03:09]>> But isn't some of your I mean, a lot of us were involved in firms, isn't some of your compensation based upon the clients that you represent? Yes or no? Is it compen- Is your compensation based upon the income your firm receives from the clients you represent? Yes or no?

[00:03:25]>> Yes, Senator.

[00:03:26]>> So, you're telling me that this body of senators should not know about any financial obligations the president has to your firm and the actual pecuniary, the actual financial benefits that you stand to get from this case when that very president has nominated you? Can I ask you another question? Do Do know, yes or no, does the president pay all of his legal bills to the firms that have represented him in the past?

[00:03:56]Yes or no? Do you Do you know if he's been a good client in paying his bills?

[00:04:01]>> Uh Senator, I couldn't speak to other law >> It's well reported, and I'm from New Jersey, he stiffs firms constantly.

[00:04:10]So, this president potentially owes your firm money, you have a financial stake in that, and he nominates you to the bench. It objectively, as a objective person, would that not raise questions to this committee, and shouldn't we ask you what your financial tie is to the president of the United States?

[00:04:34]>> I'll be happy to clarify that, Senator.

[00:04:36]My firm has We've been I've been very fortunate. My firm has revenues of almost $2 billion a year. The amount that we take in or might take in from President Trump, I don't know how much that is, but it would be an extraordinarily small amount, even though it's obviously a very small >> a small amount. To the average American, $400,000.

[00:04:56]If somebody has a stake in with the president to $400,000, a president that has personal lawyers all over his uh uh administration. We now see that in the Justice Department, we have his former personal lawyer that has allowed him to set up a slush fund that is being paying out people that potentially could have attacked this capital. America is seeing right now that this president is turning out to be a grifter who uses his financial relationships to appoint people who have financial ties to them.

[00:05:33]And then, from the people that are negotiating in the Middle East, financial ties to the president. The people in our Justice Department, financial ties to the president. Don't you think you should be more transparent with your financial ties to this president before we have to vote on you to confirm you?

[00:05:48]>> So, Senator, if I'm confirmed, I will resign my partnership at Sullivan & Cromwell. I will make no money whatsoever going forward from any representation that the firm has.

[00:05:57]>> have made money from the President of the United States in representing him now.

[00:06:02]>> So, Senator, to be clear, the $400,000 that you mentioned, which obviously is a lot of money for the average American, goes to my firm. If there is profit at the end of the year my firm, I receive a minuscule amount of that of that money.

[00:06:16]>> Mr. Schwartz, Senator, you wrote if if I may finish in your college magazine long time ago in 1997 titled Married in the Eyes of God, you argued against same-sex marriage and criticized the first same-sex wedding held in my state in Princeton University in Princeton Chapel between two university alumni. Do you still hold those views that you represented in that article back in 1997?

[00:06:40]>> So, Senator, you're asking about personal and religious views. What I will say is the language that I used in that article was harsh, unacceptable, and reflected my views as a teenager.

[00:06:51]>> think it's germane for me to ask if you wrote an article that said I hate black people? Do you think it's relevant for me to know your views today about your views on African-Americans, on Italian-Americans, on Catholic-Americans, or gay Americans?

[00:07:05]>> So, Senator, I think it's a fair question and what I would say is throughout my adulthood over the last 20, 30 years and as a professional, I've always treated everybody equally and with respect whether they are gay or straight. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for many of >> your views are germane to the job. I would like to ask the chairman right now and thank you for the latitude, sir. We should know the fullness of his financial entanglements with the President of the United States of America. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Senate continues to confirm people that have financial entanglements with the president. That goes to their objectivity when it comes to issues regarding the president of the United States and his interest when it comes to separation of the powers and more. And I'm hoping that my QFRs will be answered candidly and in detail. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[00:07:59]>> Okay.

[00:08:00]Uh you folks are dismissed now. Thank you for your service and thank you for your >> So, here's the setup. Senator Cory Booker pulls Trump's personal attorney, Matthew Schwartz, Sullivan and Cromwell partner, into the Judiciary Committee hot seat and asks the obvious question, "How does your firm stay impartial toward a president who might still owe you $400,000?"

[00:08:26]That's not a hypothetical ethics exercise.

[00:08:29]That's an active debt from the exact person handing out the lifetime judgeship. All right, let's unpack that.

[00:08:35]You just watched a man auditioning for a lifetime seat on the second circuit try to explain why it's completely fine that the president who nominated him might owe his law firm $400,000.

[00:08:49]Yeah, that is the appropriate response.

[00:08:54]And here's how Schwartz handled it.

[00:08:56]He called the $400,000 minuscule. Sullivan and Cromwell pulls $2 billion a year. So, what's a mere $400,000 between friends? His words.

[00:09:09]But, judicial conflict of interest isn't an accounting question.

[00:09:13]It's about whether any financial relationship creates even the appearance of bias.

[00:09:19]Those are different standards, and Schwartz just answered the wrong one.

[00:09:24]Receipts. Per Bloomberg, Trump announced Schwartz's nomination April 10th, 2026.

[00:09:31]Formally submitted April 27th. Hearing May 20th, 2026. At that hearing, Schwartz was still actively representing Trump on the hush-money case appeal.

[00:09:42]Present tense, not past. And per notice, Save America PAC owed Sullivan and Cromwell roughly $400,000, while the PAC carried $1 6 million in total unpaid legal debt against just $1 19 million cash on hand.

[00:10:00]Active client, active debt, active nomination.

[00:10:04]All at once. And here's the bigger problem. Progressive advocates labeled Schwartz the third of Trump's personal defense attorneys nominated to a federal circuit court. Third, Emil Bov is on the third circuit. Justin Smith is up for the eighth circuit. Schwartz is up for the second.

[00:10:23]Critics call it exactly what it looks like. Build a judicial firewall around the executive branch, one loyal personal lawyer at a time. So, let me make the math clear. If a Democratic president's personal criminal defense attorney, whose firm was still owed $400,000 by that president, sat before this committee seeking a circuit court seat, that hearing would not have lasted 30 minutes. Every outlet, done. But here we get a full committee debate and the nominee calling the debt minuscule.

[00:10:56]That's not a debatable standard. That's a double standard. Right there on C-SPAN. So, who exactly is Matthew Schwartz? Columbia Law grad, Sullivan and Cromwell partner, former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, career built on high-profile corporate litigation. But what's defining this confirmation fight isn't any of that. It's his role as Donald Trump's personal attorney in criminal and civil matters. That is the headline.

[00:11:25]And he was still actively working Trump's criminal appeals the day he sat in front of this committee. Here's the layer people are skipping. If a confirmed federal judge owned $400 of stock in a company appearing before his court, recusal is mandatory. $400, not $400,000.

[00:11:46]The conflict of interest standard isn't about whether the amount feels big to a billion-dollar firm. It's about whether any financial relationship creates even the appearance of bias. You don't need to squint to see that appearance here.

[00:12:01]It's right there on camera under oath.

[00:12:04]And Booker went further. He called out Trump's documented history of stiffing his lawyers. Multiple firms sent invoices, filed suits, got nothing. The argument wasn't just about this $400,000.

[00:12:19]It was about leverage. If Trump decides whether to pay your firm's outstanding bill, and you're sitting on the federal bench, you're not independent. You're financially exposed to the goodwill of the man whose cases could reach your courtroom. Here's the moment. Schwartz tells the committee Trump has been a good client who pays his bills. Then admits, in the very next breath, that he's not personally tracking every invoice from the firm. That's the collapse. Your defense is, "Trust my impartiality." Your follow-up is, "I don't actually have the receipts." In a hearing that is specifically about the receipts, the central argument just fell apart in real time on camera. Now, Schwartz did make a specific commitment.

[00:13:07]He'd resign his Sullivan & Cromwell partnership and recuse from any Trump case if confirmed. I'll acknowledge that it's more concrete than most nominees offer. But committee Democrats pushed back hard. Cultural and financial ties don't disappear with a resignation letter. Years of representing a sitting president don't get severed because you handed in your partnership key. Here's the zoom out. This is not really about $400,000.

[00:13:37]Trump has now nominated three of his personal criminal defense attorneys to federal circuit courts.

[00:13:42]Third, eighth, and second circuit.

[00:13:45]Courts that hear appeals on executive branch actions. Lifetime appointments.

[00:13:50]The recusal pledge is paper over a structural problem.

[00:13:55]"Trust me" is not a judicial independence standard, and it never has been. So, here's the line if someone brings this up. Trump isn't nominating judges. He's installing his legal team on the appellate bench at the exact level that reviews what his administration does. And we're just supposed to trust that none of that matters. Hit like, subscribe, and share it with someone who needs to see this.

[00:14:20]I'll catch you in the next one.