WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Thursday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to object to a Republican request for unanimous consent to pass a resolution that claims to condemn domestic terrorism but instead gives special treatment to Elon Musk. Murphy slammed the hypocrisy of condemning violence against Musk’s businesses while excusing the January 6th rioters who brutally attacked Capitol Police officers.

“Come on, this resolution is not about violence or domestic terrorism. It just isn't,” said Murphy. “This is a resolution that says one thing and one thing only: Elon Musk is in charge. He matters more than anybody else. Musk is subject to a different set of rules than everybody else. The Trump administration serves him, not us. The Republican Party serves him, not us. Elon Musk right now is effectively stealing from the American people. He is combing through our government, awarding himself contracts, canceling contracts for his competitors. He is shutting down agencies that stand in the way of his business [and] his growth. He's giving himself access to secret information about government enforcement actions against his competitors.”

“He is also, at the same time, currently the largest funder of Republican politics in the nation,” Murphy continued. “He spent a quarter of a billion dollars backing President Trump’s campaign. He recently told the president that he would contribute another $100 million to the president's political arm, and guess what? At that same time, the president stood on the White House lawn to give a taxpayer-funded commercial for Elon Musk's cars. That's corruption at a scale that we have not seen before in this country. The integration of the Trump White House and the Republican Party and the business interests of the richest man in the world. It's wrong.”

Murphy highlighted the resolution’s pandering to Elon Musk despite thousands of other domestic terrorism incidents: “This resolution claims to say something about domestic terrorism, but the only terrorism, the only violence it mentions, is violence carried out against – you guessed it – Elon Musk. On an annual basis, there are 11,000 reported incidents of domestic terrorism. 11,000. Only a handful of them impact Tesla dealerships, but they're the only acts of violence mentioned in this resolution. 52% of the reported attacks were based on racial or ethnic targeting by radicalized attackers, but they aren't mentioned in this resolution. Only Elon Musk is mentioned in this resolution. Because a different set of rules apply to him. Because he is in charge, and he deserves protection that no one else gets. He deserves a White House TV commercial for his cars. He deserves to give himself contracts and steal from his competitors. He deserves to have his own resolution.”

Murphy proposed the Senate also agree to a resolution expressing disapproval of the pardons of January 6th rioters: “This resolution just says that the specific set of people who viciously attacked police officers – the ones that hit the police officers over the head with metal poles – that those people shouldn’t have been given a get-out-of-jail-free card. And so why don't we just be consistent? We don’t we say that violence matters when it's committed against Elon Musk's dealerships, and it matters when it's committed against the people that protect us? And so my offer is to just pass both resolutions right now. Right now, we could just agree by unanimous consent to your resolution, and we could agree as a body that you shouldn't pardon the people who brutally beat the people who show up every day to protect us. They matter, too. Elon Musk isn't the only person that matters.”

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

MURPHY: “Mr. President, thank you. Reserving the right to object. Come on, this resolution is not about violence or domestic terrorism. It just isn't. This is a resolution that says one thing and one thing only: Elon Musk is in charge. He matters more than anybody else. 

“Musk is subject to a different set of rules than everybody else. The Trump administration serves him, not us. The Republican Party serves him, not us. Elon Musk right now is effectively stealing from the American people. He is combing through our government, awarding himself contracts, canceling contracts for his competitors. He is shutting down agencies that stand in the way of his business [and] his growth. He's giving himself access to secret information about government enforcement actions against his competitors. 

“He is also, at the same time, currently the largest funder of Republican politics in the nation. He spent a quarter of a billion dollars backing President Trump’s campaign. He recently told the president that he would contribute another $100 million to the president's political arm, and guess what? At that same time, the president stood on the White House lawn to give a taxpayer-funded commercial for Elon Musk's cars. That's corruption at a scale that we have not seen before in this country. The integration of the Trump White House and the Republican Party and the business interests of the richest man in the world. It's wrong. 

“This resolution claims to say something about domestic terrorism, but the only terrorism, the only violence it mentions, is violence carried out against – you guessed it – Elon Musk. 

“On an annual basis, there are 11,000 reported incidents of domestic terrorism. 11,000. Only a handful of them impact Tesla dealerships, but they're the only acts of violence mentioned in this resolution. 52% of the reported attacks were based on racial or ethnic targeting by radicalized attackers, but they aren't mentioned in this resolution. Only Elon Musk is mentioned in this resolution. Because a different set of rules apply to him. Because he is in charge, and he deserves protection that no one else gets. He deserves a White House TV commercial for his cars. He deserves to give himself contracts and steal from his competitors. He deserves to have his own resolution. 

“And people are asking why? Why does the richest man in the country get this special treatment? To most people it feels pretty fishy. It definitely feels wrong. Now I hate violence of any kind, whether it's perpetrated against right, left, or center. I’ve spent my life on this floor fighting violence. But I also hate inconsistency. 

“So I'm going to make my colleague a pretty reasonable offer here. At the same time that President Trump is saying that he's going to vigorously pursue people that attack Tesla dealerships, he's giving pardons to the people who beat the hell out of Capitol Police officers. So I don't think we should consent to a resolution that says we care about violence but only when it is committed against the business interests of the richest man in the world. 

“I have a way to solve that problem. Senator Murray has a really simple resolution. A resolution that expresses our disapproval of the pardons that were issued for the very specific set of individuals who on January 6th brutally attacked Capitol Police officers. Now I understand that many of my Republican colleagues think that the people who trespassed here shouldn’t have been prosecuted. Let’s set aside that disagreement. This resolution just says that the specific set of people who viciously attacked police officers – the ones that hit the police officers over the head with metal poles – that those people shouldn’t have been given a get-out-of-jail-free card. And so why don't we just be consistent? We don’t we say that violence matters when it's committed against Elon Musk's dealerships, and it matters when it's committed against the people that protect us? And so my offer is to just pass both resolutions right now. Right now, we could just agree by unanimous consent to your resolution, and we could agree as a body that you shouldn't pardon the people who brutally beat the people who show up every day to protect us. They matter, too. Elon Musk isn't the only person that matters. Capitol Police officers matter, too. 

“So I'd ask the Senator to modify her request to add the following: that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 42, a resolution condemning the pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. If we agree to move forward on this unanimous consent, I think we can move forward on the Senator's request as well.”

###