Immediately following the speech, deliberations on Matthew Whitaker’s nomination to serve as ambassador of NATO resumed on the Senate floor, resulting in the Senate confirming his nomination later that evening 52–45.[25] However, Booker’s speech was not technically a filibuster to prevent a piece of legislation from passing.[16]
No, any source where Booker states that it was his intent to block the Whitaker nomination. Bumping up to it in the schedule seems to be reported as coincidental, and not the intent of the Booker stunt.
Stating it was his intent would draw attention away from so much more of the focus on Trump’s havoc. “his speech technically isn’t a filibuster because they’re debating a confirmation” doesn’t sound like “it’s coincidental” to me.
No, any source where Booker states that it was his intent to block the Whitaker nomination. Bumping up to it in the schedule seems to be reported as coincidental, and not the intent of the Booker stunt.
Stating it was his intent would draw attention away from so much more of the focus on Trump’s havoc. “his speech technically isn’t a filibuster because they’re debating a confirmation” doesn’t sound like “it’s coincidental” to me.