▶ 0:00:13Test
▶ 0:01:32>> outsmart, outdo. >> it is now 9:46. I'm kristin ds. >> bars are getting ready for the world cup. Mike merlot reports. >> an institution for soccer fans and the world cup means business is doubling.
▶ 0:32:10>> I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. I will read chairman grassley's opening statement on his behalf. "today we will have two panels. The first features daniel traynor, nominated to the U.S. court of appeals for the eighth circuit. The second panel has four district court nominees. Angela colmenero for the southern district of texas. Michael martin for the eastern district of michigan.
▶ 0:32:39Kasdin mitchell for the northern district of texas. And antonio pozos and antonio po -- how do we saye strictly? Pozos for the eastern district of pennsylvania. I will turn to our visitors to introduce these nominees. First I would like to say a few words. Today we are considering a district court nominees from pennsylvania and michigan. Mr. pozos and Mr. martin.
▶ 0:33:12These are the first nominees this congress who received blue slips from democratic senators. I want to commend president trump, senators federman, peters, and slotkin for their collaboration on these nominations. The blue slip has been a senate practice for more than a century. It is in part how the senate exercises its advice and consent role regarding judicial nominees.
▶ 0:33:40The practice has been defended by senators of both parties over the years. Ranking member durbin and myself can both speak firsthand about the political pressure we have received from our respective colleagues retaining this long-standing practice. Properly understood, blue slips safeguard one of the senate's constitutional powers.
▶ 0:34:05When approached in good faith it fosters cooperation with the white house to ensure district judges are well suited and respected in the states in which they will serve. Republicans and democrats have successfully worked together for decades in this regard. Under the first trump administration and the biden administration, senators from opposing parties returned more than 180 blue slips for district court nominees. More than 180.
▶ 0:34:37Those blue slips were not impediments, but useful tools to reach bipartisan agreements. I know this. Ranking member durbin knows this. All of my senate colleagues know this as well. It is why they frequently thank me for respecting their wishes and defending the senate's century-old practice.
▶ 0:35:01But in this divisive political climate shortsighted partisans have sought to undermine the blue slip practice and so further division -- sew further division in our country. Take demand justice.
▶ 0:35:16That group recently announced its plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in targeted advertising campaigns against senate democrats who dared to return blue slips for any of president trump's nominees.
▶ 0:35:33Demand justice and others threatened, "democrats who shrink from this fight will face consequences." let's look at the two nominees who demand justice so vehemently opposes today. Mr. pozos practiced law for nearly two decades. He served as a federal prosecutor during the obama administration.
▶ 0:36:00His time in private practice has been heralded by many, including the philadelphia business journal, which gave him the minority business leader award. Like Mr. pozos, Mr. martin is not a political activist. He is a faithful, career public servant who prosecuted serious matters involving espionage, terrorism, and export control.
▶ 0:36:28In the eastern district of michigan he served in the united states attorney's office under the obama, trump, and biden administration's. S. Demand justice is threatening senate democrats because of these nominees. Shame on them and anyone who does not oppose these type of tactics. They seek partisan advantage at all costs.
▶ 0:36:54They don't care if the casualties are good public servants or the judiciary as an institution. Groups like demand justice don't care about the people of pennsylvania or michigan or any other state for that matter. I want to take a moment to praise senators federman, peters, and slotkin for their work here.
▶ 0:37:20It took real courage to rise above these despicable pressures to do what is right for the people of pennsylvania and michigan. And, to reach a bipartisan result that ensures the safety, security and freedom in their respective states. I want to encourage my senate colleagues to follow these senators leadership. The blue slip practice is under assault and it falls to each and every one of us to do our part to uphold it.
▶ 0:37:49Senators tell me they want to retain this practice. But the very -- but very often they are conduct is destructive to the institution they claim they want to protect. The blue slip for district judges and U.S. attorney's has survived for sentry century, but the practice will become untenable unless senators recognize and act on the need to do the work with the white house in good faith.
▶ 0:38:16Before I turn it over to senator durbin, I will ask everyone to keep their questions limited to five minutes and we will keep this hearing on schedule. " that concludes chairman grassley's remarks. I will now turn it over to ranking member durbin.
▶ 0:38:32Sen. Durbin: Thank you, chair britt. When I chaired this committee during the previous administration, I respected the blue slip rule and gave authority to members of the senate of both parties to choose certain judicial candidates and nominees for their own state. The same organization you have referred to is critical of my decision. I believe they were wrong then and wrong again now.
▶ 0:38:59Sen. Durbin: If we can get bipartisan cooperation for the appointment of lifetime judges, we should do it. We need to try to transcend the political divisions which prevail in this country and it should start in this committee. Last week the republican majority forced through nearly $70 billion to find president trump's massive deportation campaign without any reforms to prevent abuses by immigration agents.
▶ 0:39:25Sen. Durbin: Senate republicans failed as well to put in place any guardrails to prevent the president from -- instead they were asking us to trust acting attorney general todd blanche, the president's former personal lawyer, when he says the fund is no longer viable. Just days ago, president trump made his own pronouncement. He renewed his call to create the slush fund.
▶ 0:39:55Sen. Durbin: How long you think it will take attorney general blanche, if he is appointed to that position, to do president trump spitting? That brings me -- president trump's bidding? Judges are the last line of defense for our constitution. Especially as this administration has weaponized the justice department against the american people. Look what happened in the last year.
▶ 0:40:22Sen. Durbin: Attorney general pam bondi was fired after federal judges stepped in and blocked her efforts to advance baseless prosecution against the president's enemies list. Since todd blanche became acting attorney general, he has used the power of the justice department to bring flimsy cases against trump's perceived enemies. In less than a year the department has brought two vindictive, baseless indictments against former fbi director james comey. The famous seashell prosecution.
▶ 0:40:54Sen. Durbin: These prosecutions were personally ordered by the president who despises combing for overseeing the investigation of russia's interference in the 2016 election. The justice department brought a paper indictment against the southern poverty law center, a civil rights organization that has a long history of exposing violent white supremacist's extremist allied with those in the white house.
▶ 0:41:19Sen. Durbin: Not only is this administration weaponizing federal law enforcement against the american people, it refuses to respect the rule of law by following court orders when the judicial system holds accountable.
▶ 0:41:33Sen. Durbin: Last week homeland security secretary mullen refused to commit to following court orders, falsely claiming, "we see courts over and over again use their bins for political opinion, not just the rule of law." I remind secretary mullin that the court ruling against the executive branch is not a political act. It is part of checks and balances that our founders designed in the constitution.
▶ 0:41:59Sen. Durbin: As I have noted, scores of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have found this administration has broken the law and violating a court order is not an acceptable reaction when the administration does not like a court ruling. Yet that is exactly what is happening. Earlier this year, a republican appointed judge found I.c.e. Violated over 100 court orders in one month in minnesota alone.
▶ 0:42:26Sen. Durbin: "more court orders and some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence." the more liberties this administration arose, the more important it is for americans to restore trust and the judicial system. That is why we need a judiciary that is only fair but rules without fear or favor. We need judges who will truly be neutral arbiters. That is why the senate's duty of advising consent is so critical.
▶ 0:42:55Sen. Durbin: Loose lips are an important, part of the process providing home state senators with the voice in selecting district court nominees. As chair the committee for four years I protected loose lips during the bite administration and I'm thankful that chairman grassley shares my views on preserving them. This hearing marks the first time in the second trump administration we will hear from nominees for whom democratic home state senators have returned blue slips.
▶ 0:43:22Sen. Durbin: I think senator fetterman from michigan -- and the michigan senators for working in good faith with the white house. Thank you, madam chair.
▶ 0:43:30Chair Britt: Thank you, ranking member. We will turn to the introduction of our nominees. We will have introductions by senators kramer, hoban and mccormick, then members of the committee. Because of a scheduling conflict, senator cruz has asked me to enter into the record's introduction for miss colmenero and miss mitchell. Without objection, I want to those into the record now.
▶ 0:43:59Chair Britt: Because of a scheduling conflict, senator cramer has asked to lead us off. Senator cramer, thank you for the take -- thank you for taking the time to join us.
▶ 0:44:09Sen. Cramer: I'm sorry the conflict has messed up the schedule. I would love to listen everybody else's. Thank you very much, madam chair and ranking member durbin and colleagues. It is that time of the year when we do the national defense authorization act ups. I have to get back to armed services.
▶ 0:44:34Sen. Cramer: It is a joy for me to be able to be here to introduce my friend, my partner in many noble endeavors as far as everybody knows. Dan traynor of north dakota who has been nominated to the eighth circuit court. With not just the return of a blue slip strong encouragement and enthusiastic support from senator hoeven and me.
▶ 0:44:59Sen. Cramer: Judge traynor has demonstrated integrity, character, and intellect in magnificent ways on the bench in north dakota and certainly the logical choice for this advancement. I am grateful he's willing to take it. His wife patricia crilly agreed -- clearly agreed and we are thankful for that, although I hope she can hang around bismarck longer.
▶ 0:45:27Sen. Cramer: I remember when we first presented dan forward for the district court. Several people were stunned at how popular he was with the ada, being a mean-spirited white ring republican -- right wing republican. This man has certainly conviction but also integrity.
▶ 0:45:54Sen. Cramer: Recognized doing the hard work of being well-qualified and supported by the aba then, as he is now is a member of the bench. He's actually still a member of the house of delegates for the american bar association, demonstrating further his level of conviction and service. I have no dan a long time. We are good friends for a long time. Before he went to law school.
▶ 0:46:21Sen. Cramer: His mother almost never forgave me for delaying that decision to go to law school by year by having him work for me, but she got over it when he became a judge. I was grateful for the redemption. Again, dan is a person with a servant's heart. A justice. And intellect to apply it properly and are properly and a -- in our construct and it's my honor to introduce him to you all.
▶ 0:46:50Chair Britt: Senator hoeven, go
▶ 0:46:53Ahead Sen. Hoeven: I am pleased to join senator cramer introducing judge stanton traynor -- dan traynor. Are the providing members of appropriate.
▶ 0:47:08Chair Britt: I appreciate that more than you possibly know.
▶ 0:47:13Sen. Hoeven: I know the ranking member is. [laughter] chairman britt, ranking member durbin, members of the committee, thank you to let me introduce dan traynor along with senator cramer. He has with him patricia, better known as lt. Col., air force retired patricia. I always call her lieutenant colonel. She is awesome as well.
▶ 0:47:43Sen. Hoeven: And the children, mary, mark, and joel. It's a great family. I knew dan's folks really well. They were fantastic. Dan is a great guy but he surrounded by good people. It is a privilege to introduce him today. I will tell you right up front he's a man of integrity, intellect, and deep faith in the constitution. He understands the constitution very well.
▶ 0:48:09Sen. Hoeven: He understands his job is to enforce the law, not interpret it. He's earned a reputation as a thoughtful and fair jurist whose commitment to justice is respected by all the people that know him. He's a lifelong north dakota and. We love that -- north dakotan.
▶ 0:48:31Sen. Hoeven: Born in devils lake, attended the university of north dakota for a bachelors of arts in juris doctor. He has been involved in so many things in the state, and his family. If you ask -- say the name traynor, it is no statewide for good deeds in many different ways.he has demonstrated a commitment to his grid to public service. As I said, faithful application of the law.
▶ 0:49:01Sen. Hoeven: Since his confirmation in north dakota, he really has distinguished himself not only for making decisions on the facts of the law but doing it decisively, clearly, expeditiously, and very well. His judicial record reflects a respect for the constitution. That is so important as he heads to the eighth circuit.
▶ 0:49:29Sen. Hoeven: He will enforce the law, not interpret the law and that is exactly what our founding fathers intended. His professional accomplishments are too numerous to name here. I'm already beyond my time. I have not even gotten through my notes. I better wrap up and just tell you we could not have a better nominee for the eighth circuit court then dan traynor. Thank you so much, madam chair.
▶ 0:49:59Chair Britt: Thank you, senator hoeven. Now senator mccormick.
▶ 0:50:05Sen. Mccormick: , thank you, madam chair. And members of the judiciary committee, it's a pleasure to be here to introduce antonio pozos, nominee for the eastern district of pennsylvania. Welcome him and claire, his wife and his lovely family. Tony is a successful attorney, a decorated public servant, and eminently qualified for the role. President trump has made a strong and wise selection in nominating tony.
▶ 0:50:34Sen. Mccormick: Entanglement of our duty to advise and consent, my colleague and I, senator fetterman, established a commission of legal and civic leaders in pennsylvania to review and propose potential candidates for this position. The commission interviewed a number of excellent candidates. Even among this group of extra ordinary people, tony excelled and stood out. You know as well as I that we stand at a particularly consequential moment. Our nation must further the president's progress stopping fentanyl.
▶ 0:51:05Sen. Mccormick: We must wrestle with extraordinary technological change and the complexities that creates for the law. We must bring safety to communities, curb gang violence, and the rule of law is paramount. It is political religion of our nation at this time. The blight enforcement of the law and firm hand of justice depend on men and women's sound judgment.
▶ 0:51:33Sen. Mccormick: I have the utmost confidence that it confirmed, tony will more than meet this moment. He's a former federal prosecutor. He is a formidable track record of rooting out fraud, prosecuting those who abuse taxpayer dollars, and protecting americans from predatory health care systems. He has built a strong practice as a partner at a prominent law firm. He commands the respect of his colleagues across this field of law but also in pennsylvania.
▶ 0:52:02Sen. Mccormick: His academic credentials, degrees from harvard and michigan, are unimpeachable. Thank you for stepping up and stepping back into the arena of public service at this uniquely consequential moment. I trust you will serve the people of pennsylvania honorably and I urge my colleagues to support this exceptional nomination. Thank you.
▶ 0:52:20Chair Britt: We will now turn to senator cornyn.
▶ 0:52:26Sen. Cornyn: Thank you, madam chairman. It is my honor to introduce two outstanding people from texas. Angela colmenero and kasdin mitchell, a product of the evaluation committee that senator cruz and I set up on a bipartisan basis to evaluate the credentials of nominees for the federal bench.
▶ 0:52:55Sen. Cornyn: Both of them came through that process with flying colors. Both have earned the recommendation of both senator cruz and I to the white house. I am pleased the president has seen fit to nominate these two fine individuals. Some of the finest attorneys and judges in the nation hail from the great state of texas. I am glad to be able to sing the praises of these two.
▶ 0:53:27Sen. Cornyn: Angela received her bachelor's degree from the university of texas at austin with a jd from notre dame. After law school, she served as a law clerk for federal judge fish on the U.S. district court of the northern district of texas, then entered private practice focusing on trial practice and complex commercial litigation. In 2009, she entered the texas office of attorney general as an assistant attorney general and the general litigation division.
▶ 0:53:57Sen. Cornyn: After nine years of service, she joined the office of the texas governor as deputy general counsel where she coordinated with the agency executives on internal investigations, employment matters, state law compliance. She directed litigation strategies for the governor and advised the governor on clemency applications and she serves as governor abbott's deputy chief of staff.
▶ 0:54:25Sen. Cornyn: I know governor abbott has high standards when it comes to legal matters. Having served with him myself. I think his commendation of miss colmenero for the job speaks loudly. Today she is joined by kasdin mitchell, another one of the lone star state's stars who received her ba in law degree from yale university. She began her legal career as an assistant solicitor general in alabama.
▶ 0:54:58Sen. Cornyn: Handling civil and criminal cases of both trial and appellate levels. She clerked for my friend, judge bill prior, on the U.S. court of appeals for the 11th circuit, and justice clarence thomas on the U.S. supreme court. In addition to working in the private sector most recently at kirkland and ellis were she was elevated to partner in 2018.
▶ 0:55:23Sen. Cornyn: With such exceptional credentials as no surprise president selected both of these great lawyers and texans to serve as U.S. district judges. I wanted to say a few words on their behalf. Congratulations, angela and kasdin, and to your families who are proud beyond measure of your accomplishment here today. I look forward to supporting both of your confirmations here in the committee and on the senate floor.
▶ 0:55:52Sen. Cornyn: I want to take a second just to reflect a little bit on our current political climate in safari that it affects the judiciary and the rule of law that we talk about all the time and reflect on the fact that as justice scalia famously said, the one thing that preserves our great country is not necessarily the rule of law.
▶ 0:56:21Sen. Cornyn: It is the independence of the judiciary. Once you are confirmed we can't cut your pay and you can't be fired except for extraordinary reasons through impeachment, which we know we don't have to worry about. In this political climate judges are frequently objects of criticism and the public domain. That's fine. We enjoy the freedom of speech in this country.
▶ 0:56:50Sen. Cornyn: The problem is judges can't really defend themselves against criticism. It takes other people to speak on their behalf and sadly the organized bar association has abdicated their responsibility to speak on behalf of judges who are doing nothing more and nothing less than their job. And not putting their finger in the wind to see which way the political wind blows, but what the correct outcome is according to the facts of the case.
▶ 0:57:22Sen. Cornyn: Shame on the organization bar for not speaking up when judges are unfairly criticized. I know people have said judges should be impeached, or decisions -- for decisions they don't like. There is a remedy for a judicial decision that you don't like. Is called an appeal. It is an appeal. It is not impeachment.
▶ 0:57:52Sen. Cornyn: We can all argue about judicial decisions and having been in that role myself at one time in my life it always happens. There is always controversy but someone has to decide. As justice jackson of the supreme court said, in the case of the supreme court, the decisions are final not because they are always right but they are right because they are final.
▶ 0:58:18Sen. Cornyn: There has to be someplace where americans can go and get a decision made by an independent member of the judiciary irrespective of politics or popular opinion. And have a decision made according to the law and the facts. That will be your responsibility, as you know. I wanted to say a few words to impress upon you and everybody else here the importance of the independence of the judiciary. Thank you.
▶ 0:58:51Sen. Cornyn: Madam chair, I would yield the floor.
▶ 0:58:53Chair Britt: Senator kennedy.
▶ 0:58:57Sen. Kennedy: I know I'm out of the regular order here but I wanted to raise a point. I sat here and listened to senator cornyn and there are not words in english for me to express how much I'm going to miss him on this committee.
▶ 0:59:24Sen. Kennedy: I have learned so much from john cornyn. He is the same person today as he was when I got here 10 years ago. Whip smart. Even-tempered. Evenhanded. Exercises power maturely, not emotionally.
▶ 0:59:56Sen. Kennedy: Unafraid, but never ugly. Never vindictive. God, we are going to miss you, john. It is such a privilege to have served on this committee with you. And I mean that. I don't know why -- if I make it to heaven -- this is not a political comment.
▶ 1:00:27Sen. Kennedy: It is how I feel in my heart. If I make it to happen, I will ask god why bad things happen to good people. You are a good man. We are going to miss you. >> if I can briefly respond, I would tell the nominees the fact they are not many people here on this side of the dais is actually great sign.
▶ 1:00:51Sen. Kennedy: The thing you should fear if you're going to be a nominee or witness in a senate hearing is when every one of the seats are full. But beware. When senator kennedy is here, anything can happen. [laughter]
▶ 1:01:05Chair Britt: Thank you both for your comments. I echo your words, john. On chairman grassley's that half, I now introduce Mr. martin. Mr. martin earned his ba from miami of ohio university, his master's degree from georgetown university, and his law degree from boston college law school. After law school, Mr. martin clerked for judge edward harrington on the U.S.
▶ 1:01:34Chair Britt: District court for the district of massachusetts. He spent the bulk of his career in public service under both republican and democratic administrations. In 2005, Mr. martin joined the justice department's counterespionage section. He joined the U.S. attorney's office in the eastern district of michigan where he has remained for nearly two decades. As a federal prosecutor, Mr.
▶ 1:02:00Chair Britt: Martin handled a wide array of criminal offenses, including terrorism, espionage, export control, drug trafficking, firearm offenses, and violent crimes. He has tried 11 cases to final verdict and handled important appeals. Mr. martin was also selected for many leadership positions, including chief of national security -- of the national security unit, the executive assistant of the U.S.
▶ 1:02:27Chair Britt: Attorney, and the chief -- criminal chief. The U.S. attorney for the eastern district of michigan sent a letter to the committee praising Mr. martin. It stated, "mike as a public servant of the highest order. He has been an assistant U.S. attorney in this office for 18 years. He has excelled at every role.
▶ 1:02:55Chair Britt: As a trial attorney, mike secured some of her most important convictions and national security and violent crime." without objection, I will enter this into the record. Senator portman also asked me to convey he knows Mr. martin personally and fully supports his nomination. I look forward to hearing from Mr. martin today.
▶ 1:03:20Chair Britt: Before we move on to swearing in judge traynor, I wanted to take a moment of personal privilege to say how personally thrilled I am to see kasdin mitchell today. While she has been nominated from taxes, alabama is proud to claim her. Watching you through the years has been remarkable. You are truly one-of-a-kind.
▶ 1:03:50Chair Britt: From her time at yale to her time in the solicitor general's office to the clerkships you spoke up with judge prior and the supreme court justice clarence thomas, she has always exceeded every mark in front of her.
▶ 1:04:06Chair Britt: I have the privilege of living where kasdin grew up and she is a legend and some in alabama always looks to your integrity, your class, your grit, your intellect, and your passion for serving those around you. We were both alumni of girl state. She was girl state governor in 2002, then girls nation president. She has been no joke since the beginning.
▶ 1:04:36Chair Britt: You are someone that every year when all of those young girls from across our great state come together and think about what is possible, you show them to think bigger, even brighter, and that their future potential is endless. Knowing you and your sister tori has been a privilege. My only regret about today's hearing is that you will not be serving in the great state of alabama, but texas and our country is immensely grateful.
▶ 1:05:06Chair Britt: You should be really proud to have her serve on the federal judiciary. I certainly look forward to it. Congratulations on your well-deserved nomination. There are many of us who knew this day was coming for quite some time. Our first panel, please come forward and stand before the witness table. I will get to administer the oath of office. Judge traynor, if you will raise your right hand and answer this question.
▶ 1:05:34Chair Britt: Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? Thank you very much. You may be seated. It is our normal process if you desire to introduce the people that are with you, including your family. Then you may get your opening statement. Judge traynor, congratulations, and the floor is yours.
▶ 1:05:59Judge Traynor: Thank you very much, chairman britt and ranking member durbin, for scheduling this hearing to consider my nomination to the eighth circuit court of appeals. I would like to thank president trump for the honor of this nomination and for nominating me to the district court. I want to thank senator john hoeven and senator kevin cramer for their many years of friendship and their support and encouragement in this process.
▶ 1:06:27Judge Traynor: I am thankful to be joined by my wife patricia who gave up and active duty career in the united states air force to stay in north dakota and marry me. She retired as a lieutenant colonel after more than 20 years of active and reserve service in the air force. She teaches at the university of mary in north dakota.
▶ 1:06:48Judge Traynor: Patricia and I have been blessed with -- blessed with three great children, our daughter mary, our sons mac and joe, and I'm grateful my family is able to be here today to support me. My parents, jack and jane traynor, are not alive to see this day but I'm grateful for the support they gave me throughout my life. I'm also grateful to my brother tom, sister-in-law julie, and their granddaughter olivia from north dakota.
▶ 1:07:17Judge Traynor: My brother paul, a professor at the law school in north dakota is also here. My brother mike and sister la mary beth planned to be here but mary beth was blocked off her horse and broke eight ribs. We continue to pray for her recovery. My father-in-law tony long and by law kathy langer here from their home in dewey, maryland. I'm grateful that many of the laying gang are here today.
▶ 1:07:53Judge Traynor: My wife patricia grew up in maryland. As a result we have a large contingent of family here to support me, and support us. I'm also doing them a three law clerks, connor, sarah, and robert and it might provide an unexpected boost to their resumes. I would like to thank and honor three significant people in my life and career as a lawyer and judge.
▶ 1:08:22Judge Traynor: First, judge ralph erickson who has served at the lowest and highest levels in both the state and federal judiciary. He's a good man, good friend and a living legal legend in our great state. The second is my former boss, chief justice gerald vander wall for whom I clerked. A true icon in north dakota. He let our state courts for decades with great skill and humility. Since my clerkship he has been my mentor and friend.
▶ 1:08:50Judge Traynor: I am grateful he is alive to see one of his law clerks nominated to the eighth circuit. Finally, I would like to thank in order my brother tom. He helped raise me when I was in high school. I practiced law with him for more than 20 years. He's is the finest man I know. He struggles today with parkinson's and I pray for him every day. I'm so grateful he is here to support me.
▶ 1:09:20Judge Traynor: Thank you again, chairman britt, ranking member durbin, for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to answering your questions this morning.
▶ 1:09:28Chair Britt: Thank you for that thoughtful introduction of the people with you. I'm so glad all of you are here and congratulations on this big day and the role you played in helping create a foundation for him to be in front of us. I will turn to ranking member durbin for the question portion.
▶ 1:09:51Sen. Durbin: Thank you very much, chair britt, and thank you judge traynor for being with us. Thank you to your family and friends were showing their support. You were a author and signatory of the letter to columbia university criticizing the university's response to protest on campus following hamas' october 7 attack. You vowed not to hire anyone who joins the columbia university community, beginning with the entering class of 2024.
▶ 1:10:17Sen. Durbin: In denying it recusal motion in thunder hawk versus county of morton, brought by the columbia law school initially for the just society, you said, "I reaffirm my lack of bias toward any student or columbia faculty or initiatives of his law school." that statement seems contradictory. Stating at one point he would not hire anyone from columbia and second, you have no bias against those from columbia. Can you explain?
▶ 1:10:47Judge Traynor: Senator, the letter was targeted and directed to the president of columbia university. The reason why is because they were jewish students who had enrolled in the educational system at columbia and were having to shelter-in-place.
▶ 1:11:12Judge Traynor: The administration, some of the professors, were engaging in the conduct of trespassing, violent conduct, and making these students feel they could not obtain an education. I'm a former member of the north dakota board of higher education. It is important that when students are able to be educated that they have the opportunity to pursue that education.
▶ 1:11:43Judge Traynor: That type of conduct was not appropriately handled, and as described in the letter, the cauldron of bias that was being promoted on that campus. That is why I signed on the to that letter.
▶ 1:12:00Sen. Durbin: Can you explain why you reversed your position?
▶ 1:12:05Judge Traynor: Senator, I don't live I reversed my position. I stated in the recusal order with regard to an application from some -- I believe there were graduates of columbia -- that I don't hold a bias against graduates of columbia or against who attend the institution. The purpose of the letter was to do what one can do is a federal judge.
▶ 1:12:32Sen. Durbin: You are saying he would not hire them because they were from columbia, and then saying you have no bias against columbia, I don't follow that.
▶ 1:12:42Judge Traynor: These lawyers had graduated long ago. They were in practice. As a result the boycott of the letter I signed on to did not apply to them.
▶ 1:12:54Sen. Durbin: I'm not a graduate of polonia but I have trouble trying to understand your logic. You volunteered to hear devious petitions from immigrants rounded up as part of operation metro surge. The notorious I.c.e. Action, nicholas -- in minneapolis. The trumpet administration has detained tens of thousands of immigrants. 85% of them without any criminal record.
▶ 1:13:24Sen. Durbin: Overwhelmingly district court judges appointed by both republicans and democrats have held mandatory detention is illegal and unconstitutional according to politico's analysis, judges rule because the policy of mandatory detention more than 10,000 times. Even a majority of trump appointed judges have ruled against the administration's position. You are in extreme outlier on this issue, which you acknowledged in several opinions.
▶ 1:13:55Sen. Durbin: In your opinion you have embraced the trump position that it can detain any immigrant no matter how long they have been in the united states, even with no criminal history. Where did you volunteered to preside of these cases in minnesota and the light of your embracing of this position when judges have ruled against the administration policy more than 10,000 times. Why should we have confidence that you can be a neutral arbiter when it comes to presiding over challenges to the trump administration action?
▶ 1:14:30Judge Traynor: I volunteered to help in minnesota because I was previously licensed in minnesota. I was assigned to handle the case and conducted a trial in the district of minnesota. When north dakota was down to one federal district judge, judges from throughout the country including many from minnesota were helpful in handling matters pending in the district of north dakota. That is why I signed up.
▶ 1:14:54Sen. Durbin: The bottom line on the issue of habeas corpus, the issue of detention, why is it you are such an outlier when it comes to policy?
▶ 1:15:06Judge Traynor: I reviewed the law. I felt the administration was acting within their limits. I made my decision. I based it on the law. I also basted upon what I expected the eighth circuit court of appeals would do. Indeed the position I took in the ruling I made was upheld by the eighth circuit.
▶ 1:15:32Chair Britt: Thank you. I would like to enter into the record six letters from community leaders. They were written by legal academics in the state, leaders of the state bar associations, and the former chairman of the spirit lake tribe. They all praise judge traynor's judicial temperament.
▶ 1:15:59Chair Britt: One letter stated, "I have a great deal of confidence that he would be a trustworthy and highly ethical circuit judge and exhibits of perp temperament -- exhibit suburb temperament and wisdom performing the duties of his judicial office." the other letters shared similar sentiments. Without objection, I would like to enter these into the record. So ordered. I will call on senator cornyn.
▶ 1:16:31Sen. Cornyn: Judge traynor, as you are introducing your family, I think it's more like a clan. Congratulations on your nomination. Welcome to all of your biggest fans here to the hearing today.
▶ 1:16:48Sen. Cornyn: My first question is, you know, a federal district judge sitting in a courtroom deciding an individual case is probably the most powerful person in the country in so far as the country in so far as thhat particular subject that is concerned. Why would you want to give that up to be an appellate court and not be able to -- why relinquish all that power?
▶ 1:17:15Judge Traynor: Senator, you remind me of a speech I gave to a member of the state district court bar who became a member of our state supreme court. I said you are giving up all this authority. You have to find anybody else to agree with you and now you have diminished your ability to make decisions because you have got to find at least two or three other justices who agree with you. It is a change of pace.
▶ 1:17:46Judge Traynor: I think justice alito described district court judges, it's a great job. I have enjoyed being a federal district judge. It's the greatest honor of my life to hold that position. Justice alito described it as monarchs in our own courtroom. That may be correct.
▶ 1:18:10Judge Traynor: I will miss it, but I was a law clerk on an appeals court at the north dakota supreme court. I know and respect and admire any members of the court, including the person who will be my predecessor if I'm confirmed, judge ralph erickson.
▶ 1:18:36Sen. Cornyn: You may have heard this description before. Someone who hides in the hills while the battle rages below and then swoops down to kill the wounded. Well, that sounds like something senator kennedy would say. The point is that appellate judges are not just -- they don't serve the same function as trial judges.
▶ 1:19:07Sen. Cornyn: You don't retry the case or refined of the facts all over again. There are certain standards of review that would apply and defer and in some instances the fact-finding made in the trial court below. What lessons would you take with you from your experience on the trial bench in terms of the decision-making process that judge goes through?
▶ 1:19:38Sen. Cornyn: And the somewhat deferential -- not a matters of law not a matters for the evidence is clearly to the contrary, but how you approach dealing with an individual case where the standards of review don't allow you to retry the case?
▶ 1:19:56Judge Traynor: Senator, you are right. Appeals court judges are limited, and they should be. The trial court is the place where the action is. One of the perspectives I hope to bring to the court of appeals is the perspective of the trial court judge. Judge erickson from north dakota is a federal district -- former federal district judge.
▶ 1:20:20Judge Traynor: He has talked about the fact that as a district judge he approaches issues somewhat differently than some of the other members of the appeals court who may be academics, may have positions in government will stop the fact that somebody like me has been nominated, I am hoping I bring a perspective as a 20-year trial lawyer who represented people and brought cases to trial in front of a jury or judge.
▶ 1:20:51Judge Traynor: And also now six years as a federal district judge.
▶ 1:20:55Sen. Cornyn: I heard all the nice things that senator cramer and senator hoeven said about you. Do you have anything that is not public that we can use in our various negotiations with them in the senate?
▶ 1:21:09Judge Traynor: I don't know if I want to get into that. I might lose their vote.
▶ 1:21:15Sen. Cornyn: I think there were a couple of gifts in life. One is the statute of limitations. The other is a fading memory. They are great colleagues and we listen very carefully to their high praise and qualifications and I look forward to supporting the nomination. Thank you. >> senator blumenthal.
▶ 1:21:38Sen. Blumenthal: Thanks, Mr. chairman. Thank you for your service was up -- your service. Who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:21:56Judge Traynor: Justice jackson who previously was confirmed by the senate for a position --
▶ 1:22:06Sen. Blumenthal: If I might interrupt because my time is limited, it is political controversy only because the president refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election. I'm asking you as a matter of fact, who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:22:28Judge Traynor: Senator, as justice jackson stated in her responses to questions of the record, it is not appropriate to engage in discussion regarding that as a judge.
▶ 1:22:39Sen. Blumenthal: You will use the same script other nominees have used before this panel to avoid the question?
▶ 1:22:45Judge Traynor: Senator, I think there is precedent established by justice jackson and other nominees and it's something I need to follow.
▶ 1:22:53Sen. Blumenthal: Who got more votes I 2020n? Which of the presidential candidates?
▶ 1:23:03Judge Traynor: As I stated before, this is an issue that justice jackson and other nominees have been asked. They have not provided a response.
▶ 1:23:13Sen. Blumenthal: You understand what I am asking you to state as a simple matter of fact who got more votes? The reason is that the president seeks to perpetuate a lie. You are in effect protecting the lie if you fail to take an independent position as a matter of simple fact. Everybody in this room knows the answer. You are unwilling to state it.
▶ 1:23:45Sen. Blumenthal: Instead adopting a script that has been dictated to you by the white house. You prepared this answer with the white house, did you not?
▶ 1:23:58Judge Traynor: Senator, I prepared the answer based upon the response provided by justice jackson.
▶ 1:24:00Sen. Blumenthal: You consulted with the white house before you invoked justice jackson. That is the script that nominees sitting where you are right now have used again and again and again. Let me ask you, was the capitol attacked on january 6?
▶ 1:24:21Judge Traynor: Senator, the actions on january 6 were deeply troubling to watch, but I'm not going to characterize it beyond --
▶ 1:24:38Sen. Blumenthal: You watched the videos. You have seen the pictures. You know about the injuries done to the capitol police and law enforcement. They took the same oath that you did and you are unwilling to say the capitol was attacked on january 6?
▶ 1:25:02Judge Traynor: As a federal district judge I had cases related to that issue pending before me.
▶ 1:25:07Sen. Blumenthal: Let me be very clear, judge. I am absolutely astonished, because you are in a position of trust right now. You are supposed to be in a position of consummate independence.
▶ 1:25:25Sen. Blumenthal: You sit here already with a lifetime appointment and you are unwilling to state an independent view on a factual matter that everybody in this room, everyone watching knows the right answer to.
▶ 1:25:44Sen. Blumenthal: You are here to demonstrate your independence, and instead you are, in effect, perpetuating a lie that the capitol was not attacked. That is what the president seems to believe. That is the loyalty he demands of you. You are putting loyalty to the president of the fidelity to the constitution and the truth.
▶ 1:26:11Sen. Blumenthal: I don't know how you can continue as a district court judge, let alone serve on the court of appeals. You have the protection already of a lifetime appointment and you are unwilling to tell the truth to this committee. I think that frankly it is shameful. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> [indiscernible]
▶ 1:26:39Chair Grassley: You have just seen political theater demonstrated here with a lot of people that are for nominations for the judiciary. I think I would like to quote justice jackson on another point when she was asked about january 6 during her nomination.
▶ 1:27:02Chair Grassley: "it would be inappropriate to publicly way into any subject of political debate." senator kennedy.
▶ 1:27:12Sen. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Congratulations, judge. I think we ought to clear the air here. We all know what is going on. President trump believes passionately that he won the 2020 election.
▶ 1:27:42Sen. Kennedy: You are being asked this question in hopes that you will say that he didn't. Or, in hopes you will say that he did, regardless of what you actually think. The further hope is that it will cost the president to twist off and pull your nomination. That is what is going on here.
▶ 1:28:12Sen. Kennedy: I'm not saying my good friend doesn't have the right to do that. Some would say it is kind of clever. I don't think we ought to kid ourselves about what's going on. Number two.
▶ 1:28:31Sen. Kennedy: My job -- this business of confirming judges has become too much of a shirts versus skins game for my taste. If I could change it I would, but I can't. Taking somebody for the federal bench is as serious as four heart attacks and stroke. We better get it right.
▶ 1:29:02Sen. Kennedy: My job is to be, as I see it, and equal opportunity antagonist. Some would use another a word to describe me, and I realize that, because that is my job.
▶ 1:29:23Sen. Kennedy: The two biggest things going for you, judge, are john hoeven and kevin cramer. If they tell me you should be on the court of appeals, I believe them.
▶ 1:29:54Sen. Kennedy: Because they understand the role of a united states senator. There are a couple of questions I want to ask you. I heard your answer to senator durbin but you were a sitting federal judge. You wrote a letter to columbia saying because of what I see happening at columbia, I'll never hire one of your graduates. Why did you do that?
▶ 1:30:19Judge Traynor: Senator, I was asked to sign the letter. It was indicated over a period of time. The reason why is because it was not simply a student protest that was occurring. It was a protest that was resulting in violent contact.
▶ 1:30:42Sen. Kennedy: I know what happened. I guess what I'm getting at is our federal judiciary has lost some of its legitimacy. Some of the americans now feel because they are told that judges are just politicians in robes.
▶ 1:31:13Sen. Kennedy: They are just mini legislatures. That is not what our founders intended and I don't think that is what they are. When a federal judge expresses a political opinion like you did and your colleagues, how does that help our effort to help the public understand that judges are not politicians?
▶ 1:31:40Judge Traynor: Senator, I have been told a lot that judges have a lot of power. Our power is it definitely limited. We don't have the power of an executive. We do not even have the power to change laws like you do as a legislator.
▶ 1:31:57Sen. Kennedy: I get that, judge. You are a judge, you can do what you want. I hope that you won't do something like that again. I am not saying you don't have the right. But when you adopt a political position, which I have been to believe with, to do that as a private lawyer is one thing. To do it as a sitting federal judge is quite another. I just don't think it's a good thing.
▶ 1:32:27Sen. Kennedy: That's my personal opinion. You do not tweet anymore, do you?
▶ 1:32:32Judge Traynor: I do not.
▶ 1:32:34Sen. Kennedy: We don't go on social media?
▶ 1:32:37Judge Traynor: I go on social media to follow other people.
▶ 1:32:40Sen. Kennedy: But not to post?
▶ 1:32:42Judge Traynor: Not at all. I think I know the name of your elliptical.
▶ 1:32:48Sen. Kennedy: Yes. Margaret and I have a date sunday night. Thank you, I am over. I'm sorry, Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:33:07Sen. Kennedy: I want to follow-up on senator kennedy's question because that did disturb me, the idea that 12 judges would write a pretty political letter to the university. First of all, you would be in a position to hire law clerks from columbia, right?
▶ 1:33:28Judge Traynor: That's correct. >> and you sent this letter saying you would not hire any law clerks even though no specific law clerks at that point you were aware of who may have been involved in what was going on at columbia, right?
▶ 1:33:49Judge Traynor: Senator, I signed the letter because of the nature of the conduct of the university and the treatment of particular students. >> I understand that and a lot of people have felt strongly about it. What senator kennedy is talking about is one of the limitations one has as a judge is the limitation on commenting on public matters.
▶ 1:34:21Judge Traynor: There is a contrast I see when senator blumenthal was asking whether there was an attack on the capital on january 6 and you felt you could not comment on that because there might be some controversy before you. Doesn't that same rationale apply to your letter to the administration of columbia?
▶ 1:34:46Judge Traynor: Senator, the signatories on the letter were from the districts where they signed it were from a particular complaint and the complaints were all dismissed. One of the things I understand --
▶ 1:35:05Sen. Welch: You are a smart person. I just asked isn't there a very similar rationale that you used in answering the january 6 question from senator blumenthal. You might have a case or controversy before you and then the events at columbia. Why doesn't that rationale applied to the columbia letter that you and your colleagues sent?
▶ 1:35:32Judge Traynor: Senator, the hiring of law clerks is not a case or controversy.
▶ 1:35:39Sen. Welch: It is not a case or controversy if there is a riot at the capitol. There may be a case or controversy. That is a very political letter. You are entitled to your political point of view. It is just as a judge, you are writing to columbia and demanding a mark on that letter that they hire more conservatives.
▶ 1:36:09Sen. Welch: What role do you have as a sitting judge to tell columbia or holy cross college where I went, who they should be hiring?
▶ 1:36:20Judge Traynor: Senator, academic freedom and academic diversity -- case or controversy --
▶ 1:36:31Sen. Welch: I am asking you what route you have as a sitting judge to send a letter to any college telling them who they should hire.
▶ 1:36:41Judge Traynor: As a sitting judge, I have the right who do -- to decide who works for me as a law clerk.
▶ 1:36:51Sen. Welch: Did I ask you that question? I asked you what right you have to tell a college or university who say that -- who they should hire. I did not ask you if you had the right to hire what clerk you want to hire. You want to answer the question I asked?
▶ 1:37:11Judge Traynor: Senator, certain positions are career starters for people.
▶ 1:37:18Sen. Welch: You wrote a letter with the living colleagues and you told columbia that they better hire more conservatives. A lot of people would agree with you on that. And I am asking you this question. What right do you have as a judge to tell an academic institution who they should hire?
▶ 1:37:41Judge Traynor: Senator, when this matter was reviewed by the eighth circuit and other courts around the country, they concluded that judges do not surrender their first amendment rights when they become judges.
▶ 1:37:57Sen. Welch: That answer would suggest that you believe that you have the right to be sending letters with colleagues to universities telling them who they should hire. You believe that?
▶ 1:38:09Judge Traynor: I believe that the letter was appropriate and consistent with my role.
▶ 1:38:16Sen. Welch: That gets us back to the concern that senator kennedy expressed. A lot of people would agree with you on what was said in that letter. But not federal judges would agree that they could be getting involved in what is an incredible political controversy. I yelled -- I yield back.
▶ 1:38:41Chair Grassley: To the record, a letter supporting judge traynor 's nomination from a former U.S. attorney from the district of north dakota. The letter praised judge traynor 's work.
▶ 1:38:57Chair Grassley: The letter stated, "he distinguished himself as a thoughtful and partner with diverse political views." without objection, and it will be entered into the record. The record.
▶ 1:39:26Sen. Schiff: Thank you. I want to follow up on my colleagues questions. You were asked about january 6 and correct me if I'm wrong because I was not here at the time you were asked. Would you go into whether this was an insurrection, the nature of the attack because you said it might involve a case or controversy that will come before you, is that correct?
▶ 1:39:54Judge Traynor: Senator, it did not evolve case or controversy. We have people in the district of north dakota who were charged.
▶ 1:40:03Sen. Schiff: So you felt it would not be appropriate to express your views on what took place on january 6?
▶ 1:40:10Judge Traynor: I stated that what I saw was deeply troubling. Any attack on law enforcement should be condemned.
▶ 1:40:16Sen. Schiff: So why are you reluctant to answer questions about what took place on january 6? On the other hand you say that judges do not form it -- forfeit their fourth member rights. You feel free to write a university to tell them who they should hire. You feel free to immerse yourself in that controversy. But here you will not talk about your views on january 6. Can you reconcile that for me?
▶ 1:40:45Judge Traynor: The difference is that there is no case or controversy with regard to hiring law clerks.
▶ 1:40:53Sen. Schiff: There is no case or controversy involving columbia involving efforts by the administration to publish columbia, all the litigation around columbia, that was not the case or controversy?
▶ 1:41:06Judge Traynor: That was far afield from the letter that was signed.
▶ 1:41:08Sen. Schiff: Really? Why? Weren't you complaining about what was taking place on the columbia campus and as a result that you were not going to a higher law clerks and the other judges on your letter were not going to hire law clerks. Was that the issue of your correspondence?
▶ 1:41:22Judge Traynor: Yes.
▶ 1:41:23Sen. Schiff: So you feel free to immerse yourself in that exercise your first amendment rights there but when it comes to asking basic questions about january 6, you won't answer those questions?
▶ 1:41:34Judge Traynor: The difference is that there are cases or controversies before me as a district judge relating to individuals that have been charged for conduct that occurred on the date at the capital.
▶ 1:41:51Sen. Schiff: Does that mean any litigation you are prepared to recuse yourself from regarding columbia?
▶ 1:41:59Judge Traynor: I hold no bias against the institution.
▶ 1:42:05Sen. Schiff: Whether you hold a bias or not, you are saying today that you cannot discuss any of the january 6 stuff because there are pending cases or controversies even though they have all been pardoned by the president. I am not sure what case or controversy you are referring to. But nevertheless, you are unwilling to say, you recuse yourself from a case or controversy involving columbia when you specifically wait in -- weighed in.
▶ 1:42:36Sen. Schiff: How do we reconcile that?
▶ 1:42:37Judge Traynor: Senator, I indicated that I held no particular bias.
▶ 1:42:42Sen. Schiff: You can say you hold no particular bias about january 6 too but it is easy to say. Your letter demonstrates a very clear bias. I'm not saying that it is an unreasonable bias but it is a bias. It is a prejudice in favor of one view that would cause people to question your impartiality if that case came before you.
▶ 1:43:08Sen. Schiff: That seems to me a stronger, much stronger case for recusal than the one you are making to refuse to answer questions about january 6. Let me just make sure I understand the limits of what you are prepared to say. Who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:43:23Judge Traynor: As I indicated in response to questions from senator blumenthal, justice jackson is a sitting circuit court judge and at the time of her nomination was asked this question.
▶ 1:43:36Sen. Schiff: I'm asking you the question.
▶ 1:43:38Judge Traynor: Yes and as a sitting judge I will tell you that it is not appropriate for a judicial nominee to engage in discussion regarding a matter of political controversy.
▶ 1:43:49Sen. Schiff: This is lately inconsistent -- completely inconsistent with your involvement in the columbia controversy. Completely inconsistent because you involve yourself in that controversy. You went out of your way. No one asked you to write that letter. You took this upon yourself to do. To insert yourself into that.
▶ 1:44:13Sen. Schiff: What you are saying here you cannot answer a question about who won the 2020 election because it would somehow implicate you in controversy. I'm sorry. There is no way to square those two things. I yield back.
▶ 1:44:26Chair Grassley: Senator whitehouse. >> like to take a moment to say something about the U.S. role in U.S. attorneys.
▶ 1:44:58Chair Grassley: Just recently we had a U.S. attorney in an acting role who came before this committee and then went to the floor to be voted on as part of a panel of around 50 candidates. Voted through en masse. We were not told that just four days earlier that U.S.
▶ 1:45:27Chair Grassley: Attorney had been harshly rebuked by their home court for egregious abuse of their office. That is something we should have been told. We voted on a U.S.
▶ 1:45:50Chair Grassley: Attorney, first hidden in the vote but second without being informed of this development that has taken place and rebuked, I believe by the entire court.
▶ 1:46:08Chair Grassley: Not just one irate judge, which puts a spotlight on the problem on how these interim and acting U.S. attorneys come up. We have seen over and over again illegal U.S. appointments and there is a general problem with that is that you would like to see the department of justice follow the law. Should not be expecting too much.
▶ 1:46:38Chair Grassley: When it does not follow the law with respect to the management of its own personnel, that's a pretty bad sign. It has happened over and over again. One of the prices that is paid when these illegal U.S. attorney appointments are made that this committee loses its ability to have any oversight over their installation in that office.
▶ 1:47:07Chair Grassley: Our blue snips -- our blue slips no longer matter. They just get sent in under a variety of legal theories. If this were done by a democrat administration, there would be head exploding down the panel. But we are actually silent about that. Now we have the U.S.
▶ 1:47:35Chair Grassley: Attorney in nevada, an article about her. I would like to ask unanimous consent that we put that article into the record. A prosecutor who pushed to launch investigations at the behest of former client and friends while bypassing justice department orders, recusing her from cases.
▶ 1:48:02Chair Grassley: She opened a probe targeting her past political foe, one of many circumstances in which she leveraged her role to advance personal interests. She frequently saw status updates on cases despite recusals that barred her involvement. She just by the way has publicly accused her home state senators of public corruption with no evidence for that.
▶ 1:48:33Chair Grassley: The letter goes on through the details of many of these various incidents but it concludes by saying that she had assured the court and defense counsel in her district that she would cease supervising cases while her just qualification as U.S. attorney is under appeal. She is one of these illegally appointed U.S. attorneys.
▶ 1:49:02Chair Grassley: Despite having made that promise and despite the recusal decisions from even the deputy attorney general's office, she has nonetheless remain involved. There is a very real mess and a lot of U.S.
▶ 1:49:19Chair Grassley: Attorneys offices around these nominees who are brought in illegally where the courts have determined were appointed illegally with potential risk to cases that are brought by illegally appointed acting or interim U.S. attorneys. It is important that this committee takes interest in that.
▶ 1:49:41Chair Grassley: Not only should we have a general interest in a department of justice that is breaking the law with respect to its own personnel matters, but we have a direct interest in this in that the constitution gives us the oversight authority to look into all of this and to police the appointment of potentially unqualified U.S. attorneys with our blue slips and our hearings.
▶ 1:50:08Chair Grassley: And when we walk away from that responsibility, I think we've done something pretty grievous. Thank you for hearing me out on that. My time has expired. >> Mr. chairman,?
▶ 1:50:25Chair Grassley: Quickly. >> I just wanted to add to what senator whitehouse was studying. In the central district of california we have no U.S. attorney. We have no acting U.S. attorney because the person who was acting, their tenure expired. To get around the confirmation requirement, they have been made the first assistant U.S. attorney and are receptively running the office from that post.
▶ 1:50:56Chair Grassley: This is someone who has demonstrated their unfitness for the job by going to the grand jury so often. And getting a no bill, they have taken to calling him it was heard that he was heard shouting at the justice department.
▶ 1:51:25Chair Grassley: Vis-a-vis the justice manual's requirement that you do not seek an indictment unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone's guilt to trial, shouting at the justice department over the phone that they can f the justice manual. And this is who is left in charge of this very important office. I just want to acknowledge the concern that senator whitehouse raised and because we are seeing very much the same problem in california. Thank you, Mr..
▶ 1:51:54Chair Grassley: You're done, nominee. Thank you for your participation. Will the second panel come?
▶ 1:52:40Chair Grassley: I would now like to administer old. Do you swear that the testimonies you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? Everybody has responded positively. Please sit down and we will start with you, Ms. colmenero. All of you can introduce. Say whatever you want to. Introduce family and friends.
▶ 1:53:10Chair Grassley: Make your statement and then we will go to questions. You are going to start.
▶ 1:53:15Ms. Colmenero: Thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin for scheduling this hearing and to all the members of this committee for for considering my nomination. I would like to thank president trump for the honor of this nomination. This is the greatest honor of my professional career and I am humbled by the trust and confidence he has placed in me.
▶ 1:53:38Ms. Colmenero: I am grateful to senator cornyn and senator cruz for their generous introductions, their support of my nomination and all that they do for the great state of texas. I would like to introduce my family who has traveled from texas to support me. My wonderful husband is here today with my two sons. I want to thank my husband for his unwavering support and encouragement during our marriage. He is the best role model and will always be the best lawyer in our family.
▶ 1:54:09Ms. Colmenero: Our two boys have been good sports. They are a constant reminder that even as I sit here today, the most important role I ever expect to have in this world is being their mom. I am joined by my parents, sister, my brother and his family and my mother-in-law. I have another sister back home who is watching with her family.
▶ 1:54:31Ms. Colmenero: I lack the time to properly thank them for all they have done today, for their love and support but I am truly grateful for everything they have done in my life to help me reach this moment. I am joined by friends from college and law school, professional colleagues from the texas attorney general's office and the texas governor's office. Judge david morales from the southern district of texas is here today.
▶ 1:54:55Ms. Colmenero: He is a former colleague from the texas attorney general's office and I am blessed to have had the friendship and support of all of these individuals throughout my career. I would especially like to thank judge alan shope fish. He has been a great role model for me and taught me that a judicial role demands independence and commitment to the constitution and the rule of law. I hope to emulate these qualities if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
▶ 1:55:25Ms. Colmenero: Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here today and I look forward to answering your questions. >> good morning, thank you, Mr. chairman, ranking member durbin and the entire committee. I would like to begin by thanking president trump for nominating me to this position. I am deeply honored and humbled by the nomination.
▶ 1:55:48Ms. Colmenero: I would like to think senator peters and senator slotkin for their support and senator grassley and senator britt for their introduction. I would like to get a special thanks to my wife. We first met as lab partners in freshman year of high school biology class and it is no exaggeration to say she has been my partner in life ever since. I could not have pursued my career in public service without her sacrifices and support and I cannot thank her enough.
▶ 1:56:20Ms. Colmenero: My three children who I am so proud, I would like to thank them for inspiring me in my professional life, inspiring me to work hard, to keep our community, our state and our country safe. My daughter could not be here today. She is starting her first job after graduating college.
▶ 1:56:40Ms. Colmenero: My two boys are here today and I would say boys, I hope that getting to watch today our great constitution in action inspires you as you enter adulthood and a life of citizenship in our great country. I would like to thank my parents for all their years of love and support. Lastly, I would like to thank the late hugh bounds and the late edward harrington, both of whom I clerked for.
▶ 1:57:11Ms. Colmenero: They were great american heroes. I know they are looking down on me today and smiling. Thank you. >> thank you chairman grassley, ranking member durbin and all of the members of the committee for holding this hearing. I would like to thank president trump for the great honor of this nomination.
▶ 1:57:33Ms. Colmenero: I would like to think senator cornyn and senator cruz for taking the time to get to know me through this process and for their kind introductions. I would like to take a special thanks to senator britt. It was a personal privilege to have her chair in the beginning of this committee. I have admired her since I was 15 years old. I appreciate the kind words that she shared. Her service to alabama where I grew up and our country.
▶ 1:58:04Ms. Colmenero: May I also thank the judges for whom I clerked. Justice clarence thomas and chief judge william prior on the U.S. court of appeals the 11th circuit. They installed to me the greatest respect for our judiciary. I am grateful for their example and encouragement and support over the past decade. I would also like to thank my colleagues at kirkland and ellis, many of whom are here as well as where I started private practice in birmingham, alabama.
▶ 1:58:32Ms. Colmenero: They showed me what it means to be excellent in this profession and I sincerely appreciate their support. I would like to introduce some people here with me today. First, my husband. After having a successful practice as an attorney, he is now the assistant general counsel for environmental matters at district based in texas. His selfless support of my career and our family is the reason I'm here today. I am so grateful to him.
▶ 1:59:00Ms. Colmenero: He is here with our three children who are our greatest blessings. I would like to introduce my parents who are here from montgomery, alabama. My father drove ours to watch me deliver my first cross-examination in front of a jury. He has taught me to never be deterred and to always keep dreaming. My mother's pursuit of her law degree at night when I was in grade school inspired by own path in the law and she taught me to always try my best.
▶ 1:59:29Ms. Colmenero: I appreciate their support throughout my life. I am joined by my sister and her husband. They met working on the house rules committee and she is no stranger to this room having served as communications director for senator sheehy from alabama where she also served as the communications director for the senate rose committee which typically meets in this room, the senate banking committee and the senate appropriations committee. She also served as chief of staff.
▶ 1:59:58Ms. Colmenero: She and her husband are now in the private sector raising my two nephews in charlottesville and I appreciate them being there to support me. I would like to thank my mother and father-in-law who are here from houston, texas where they raised my husband and his three siblings. They welcomed me into their family and have provided an unwavering example of steadfast faith. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to be here and I welcome your questions about my nomination.
▶ 2:00:29Ms. Colmenero: >> thank you, chairman grassley, members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. I would like to begin by thanking president trump for the honor of this nomination. I would like to thank senator mccormick for his kind introduction and recommending me to the president. I would like to thank senator mccormick and senator fetterman throughout this process.
▶ 2:00:53Ms. Colmenero: It would be impossible to thank everyone who has made this day possible for me so I'm going to thank my parents who are watching at home and my in-laws who are watching at home. I would also like to thank my colleagues who supported me throughout my career. Friends, mentors, first and, the honorable anthony j who I was fortunate to clerked.
▶ 2:01:16Ms. Colmenero: He really drove home the importance of inspiring confidence in the legal system at every term and if confirmed, I would bring that lesson with me to the bench. I have had the benefit of amazing mentors and to have learned from colleagues at the department of justice and law enforcement and to have the support of my partners which has allowed me to have a practice where I represented large organizations and individuals facing serious legal challenges. Thank you all.
▶ 2:01:45Ms. Colmenero: I would like to thank my family who are here in the gallery. Our two children along with my wife who has been my rock since college. She is a former federal prosecutor who shares my commitment to public service and the rule of law. I am blessed to have her by my side today and every day. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to get back to my country and our community which have given so much to me and my family by devoting my life to public service, upholding the rule of law and expiring confidence in our legal system.
▶ 2:02:16Ms. Colmenero: Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 2:02:18Chair Grassley: I'm going to start with you Mr. pozos. I am the author of an act that has brought 35 billion dollars back into the taxpayers. The supreme court has long upheld the constitutionality but some lower courts have ignored president and gotten it wrong.
▶ 2:02:40Chair Grassley: I hope I can count on you to study the history of the act, what it has done, it's intent and precedence with respect to everything good about this legislation.
▶ 2:02:59Mr. Pozos: Thank you for the question. In my career I have served as a federal fraud prosecutor. I am aware of the challenges this country faces from fraud and abuse and the important role that whistleblowers play in protecting taxpayers from fraud. One of my main cases at the department of justice I was part of a team that achieved recovery of over 500 million dollars for taxpayers. I am proud of that work.
▶ 2:03:27Mr. Pozos: If confirmed, I would apply the false claims act equally and fairly.
▶ 2:03:31Chair Grassley: Thank you. Ms. colmenero, I have a question for you. You have had numerous leadership positions in the attorney general's office and the governor's office. You even served as the state supervision no attorney general. In those roles you have managed many attorneys and overseeing hundreds of cases involving the united states.
▶ 2:03:56Chair Grassley: What have you learned from your public service and in texas that best prepares you for the federal badge?
▶ 2:04:03Ms. Colmenero: Yes, senator. I have spent the majority of my career serving the public. I have had the privilege to serve in the texas attorney general's office representing the interests of the people of texas as well as defending the laws passed by our legislature. That experience has really shown me a variety of different legal issues that I expect I will see in the federal courts if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed.
▶ 2:04:31Ms. Colmenero: It has helped me to hone my legal skills in the program as well. Adherence to the rule of law has been a centerpiece of my practice. I have also had the opportunity to serve in the executive branch as a legal advisor. If I have advised the chief executive officer and the executive branch agencies on the implementation of statutes.
▶ 2:04:53Ms. Colmenero: That role has given me great exposure to the legislative process and it has taught me that the text is what survives after bicameralism and that experience has shaped how I've view statutory interpretation. Two principles will help me as I ascended to a different role and that is adherence to the rule of law and the strengthening commitment and my continue to desire to serve the public.
▶ 2:05:20Ms. Colmenero: If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will commit to handle all cases in a fair and impartial way. Thank you.
▶ 2:05:27Chair Grassley: Mr. martin, you have also been a career public servant. Federal prosecutor under obama, trump and biden. You have earned the trust and respect of U.S. attorneys appointed by presidents from both parties. What did you learn from working with people that held different points of view that you will bring to the bench?
▶ 2:05:52Mr. Martin: Senator, I've had the privilege of working in leadership roles under different U.S. attorneys, under different administrations. I have learned from all of that experience to follow the law, to look at and analyze issues from different angles, to listen to other people who might have a few points that are different than yours and always to do the right thing under the law.
▶ 2:06:21Mr. Martin: If I'm privileged enough to be confirmed, those qualities will help me as a judge.
▶ 2:06:25Chair Grassley: Ok. Ms. mitchell, you have had an impressive career. Trial and appellate litigator. At the beginning of your clerking for two legendary jurists, you mentioned them today, what did you learn from these clerkships that shape your later career and how have you shape your views of the law because of your clerkships?
▶ 2:06:54Ms. Mitchell: Thank you. I learned a great deal for the judges for home I clerked personally and professionally. Two things that stand out as it applied to my private practice is the simple notion that there is no substitute for doing the work. In those chambers the task before us was to dig and dig until we found the right answer. There were no shortcuts and that is the approach I have taken to my private practice. I also saw from them models of integrity.
▶ 2:07:25Ms. Mitchell: They took their oaths seriously and applied it faithfully and I have tried to represent my clients consistent with my responsibilities in private practice for their example.
▶ 2:07:35Chair Grassley: Senator durbin? Senator coons, can you take over?
▶ 2:07:44Sen. Durbin: Let senator blumenthal go ahead.
▶ 2:07:48Chair Grassley: Senator blumenthal.
▶ 2:07:53Sen. Blumenthal: I appreciate senator durbin yielding. I want to be clear about the questions I'm going to ask you. They are not political theater. They are not being clever. These issues are a matter of right and wrong. There are issues in life that involve right and wrong, as you know. Attacking the capital is wrong. Lying about whether it happened is wrong.
▶ 2:08:22Sen. Blumenthal: Stating truth is right and pardoning people who attacked the capital is wrong. Failing to call it out is wrong. It is not theater. Not being clever. It is right or wrong. Let me begin with you, Mr. martin. Who won 2020 election?
▶ 2:08:41Mr. Martin: Senator, as a matter of law, joe biden was the winner of the 2020 election.
▶ 2:08:49Sen. Blumenthal: Who got more votes?
▶ 2:08:51Mr. Martin: My focus as a judicial nominee is on the law and as a matter of law, joe biden won the election.
▶ 2:08:59Sen. Blumenthal: Who got more electoral college votes?
▶ 2:09:02Mr. Martin: Joe biden received more electoral college votes.
▶ 2:09:06Sen. Blumenthal: And he was the capital attacked on january 6?
▶ 2:09:09Mr. Martin: Senator, as part of my work as an assistant united states attorney, pardon me, I have the opportunity to look at pictures and videos from that day and what I saw was that officers, law enforcement officers were attacked and the building was damaged and vandalized.
▶ 2:09:33Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. pozos, Sen. blumenthal blu who won the 2020 election? W ? >> I will stick with my colleagues answer.
▶ 2:09:56Sen. Blumenthal: Who got more popular votes? >> my understanding is that joseph biden received more votes in the electoral college.
▶ 2:10:06Sen. Blumenthal: Was the capital attacked on january 6?
▶ 2:10:10Mr. Pozos: I have certainly seen videos of what occurred on the capital at that date. There was violence and trespasses as my fellow nominee said. It was troubling.
▶ 2:10:21Sen. Blumenthal: So the capital was attacked?
▶ 2:10:24Mr. Pozos: I would hesitate to characterize.
▶ 2:10:27Sen. Blumenthal: You hesitate to tell the truth come here. Ms. colmenero, who won the 2020 election?
▶ 2:10:36Ms. Colmenero: As a matter of law, joe biden won the 2020 election.
▶ 2:10:41Sen. Blumenthal: Who got more votes in the popular election?
▶ 2:10:46Ms. Colmenero: As a matter of law, joe biden won the 2020 election.
▶ 2:10:52Sen. Blumenthal: Who won more votes?
▶ 2:10:56Ms. Colmenero: Joe biden received more electoral votes.
▶ 2:11:00Sen. Blumenthal: Who won more votes in the election among the american people?
▶ 2:11:05Ms. Colmenero: As a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election.
▶ 2:11:09Sen. Blumenthal: Was the capital attacked on january 6?
▶ 2:11:14Ms. Colmenero: I have seen videos --
▶ 2:11:16Sen. Blumenthal: Like your other nominees, you are going to adopt a new script? The new script, the new edge, the new white house pre-negotiated script. Mr. martin, let me ask you. Why is it a matter of law? Isn't it a matter of popular vote that an official is elected?
▶ 2:11:45Mr. Martin: No. Under the constitution the popular vote is not the operative factor.
▶ 2:11:50Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. pozos, don't the people elect a president?
▶ 2:11:58Mr. Pozos: Senator, under our constitutional system the electoral college elects the president.
▶ 2:12:04Sen. Blumenthal: Let me be absolutely clear. You have a new script. A new pre-negotiated effort to thread the needle, avoid question because the president refuses to acknowledge the loss. He declines to accept the truth that he lost the 2020 election.
▶ 2:12:33Sen. Blumenthal: You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth. It all goes to your independence. If you are unwilling to show us that you are independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees. The president is still trying to prove he won, sending officials to georgia trying to concoct evidence.
▶ 2:13:05Sen. Blumenthal: If he were not putting his thumb on the truth, you would be able to stated here. And you are putting loyalty to him above the fidelity to the law and the constitution. The law does not dictate the results of an election. The people do. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> senator kennedy.
▶ 2:13:32Sen. Kennedy: Thank you. Are any of you going to be dependent upon president trump or any president? >> no, senator. >> no, senator.
▶ 2:13:44Sen. Kennedy: Before you render a decision, or any of you going to pick up the phone and call the president of the united states and ask him or her how you should rule? >> no, senator. >> no, senator. >> no, senator. >> no, senator.
▶ 2:14:06Sen. Kennedy: Mr. martin, tell me about section 230 of the communications decency act on the internet, social media.
▶ 2:14:15Mr. Martin: Senator, I have not come across section 230 of the communication's act during the course of my career as a prosecutor. I cannot comment on it.
▶ 2:14:30Sen. Kennedy: In your career as a human being, you have not heard any references to section 230 and immunity for members from social media companies?
▶ 2:14:44Mr. Martin: No, sir, I have not.
▶ 2:14:48Sen. Kennedy: How about you, Mr. pozos? Am I saying that right?
▶ 2:14:54Mr. Pozos: You are. My understanding generally while I have practiced in this area is that it affords a level two protection to internet service providers who publish content of other parties.
▶ 2:15:07Sen. Kennedy: Kid says if I post on face big and I defame somebody, facebook is not at fault, right? >> I have a very rough understanding with his -- which is consistent with what you have expressed.
▶ 2:15:25Sen. Kennedy: Is that a yes?
▶ 2:15:29Mr. Pozos: Yes, sir.
▶ 2:15:31Sen. Kennedy: That seems fair to you, doesn't it? Hundreds of thousands of people posting on facebook, their opinion, right?
▶ 2:15:44Mr. Pozos: Senator, --
▶ 2:15:50Sen. Kennedy: I am not trying to trick you, counselor.
▶ 2:15:54Mr. Pozos: My understanding is that congress was trying to balance the entrance of fostering speech through the internet with the potentially chilling effect of liability. I understand that there is a debate ongoing about the appropriate scope of those.
▶ 2:16:08Sen. Kennedy: I love you like it? But you are using up all of my time. Do you think to dirty it makes sense to you -- do you think 230 makes sense to you?
▶ 2:16:24Mr. Pozos: I think congress could choose to take a different approach as well.
▶ 2:16:29Sen. Kennedy: Do you think it was a good idea?
▶ 2:16:34Mr. Pozos: Senator, I think that as a matter of law we have a legal system that regulates speech and I think it is fair, robust --
▶ 2:16:41Sen. Kennedy: Let me put it this way. You are sounding a lot like a lawyer. It seems to me it is fair to say facebook cannot be responsible for the content of what all the people who use it to post, fair? I'm willing to say it is. But does it make a difference if facebook picks and chooses what I see?
▶ 2:17:09Sen. Kennedy: Doesn't that seem like putting your thumb on the scale?
▶ 2:17:14Mr. Pozos: It would certainly be favorable, yes.
▶ 2:17:18Sen. Kennedy: What does that mean?
▶ 2:17:20Mr. Pozos: It would afford additional protection beyond what may exist independently. For example, if somebody is carrying speech --
▶ 2:17:30Sen. Kennedy: Counselor, I have no idea what you are talking about. No offense. You are better off just answering the questions. Ms. mitchell, tell me about the qualified immunity doctrine.
▶ 2:17:43Ms. Mitchell: The qualified immunity doctrine is the one that protects officers who are executing their duties have a reasonable basis for the actions that they are taking and it typically is something that courts decide at the outset to protect those officers from liability.
▶ 2:17:59Sen. Kennedy: Ok. So if a cop, if somebody runs from a cop and the cop does not feel threatened, he just cannot -- he does not think he can catch the guy and he shoots him in the back, is he immune from liability?
▶ 2:18:18Ms. Mitchell: About like to engage on this hypothetical but because it is a pattern that might come before me if I am confirmed --
▶ 2:18:26Sen. Kennedy: Come on, counselor. If I am a cop and I am talking to a suspect and turns and rabbits on me and I don't think I can catch him and I shoot him in the back, and my immune from liability?
▶ 2:18:47Ms. Mitchell: What I can tell you is on an objective basis --
▶ 2:18:55Sen. Kennedy: Does it apply on a civil case?
▶ 2:19:01Ms. Mitchell: These are typically 1983 actions.
▶ 2:19:03Sen. Kennedy: So I cannot shoot him in the back?
▶ 2:19:06Ms. Mitchell: I cannot comment on a simple fact pattern. I have not encountered that specific fact pattern but I would look at the developed body of precedent on qualified immunity and ask the question that they understand the supreme court has settled about whether there is an objective basis for the officer's actions.
▶ 2:19:23Sen. Kennedy: Ok. You are smart. I have read your resume. I just caution you all when you go back to your friends at the white house that got you ready for these hearings, do not dodge the questions. Just answer them. You are very qualified, counselor.
▶ 2:19:49Sen. Kennedy: I cannot believe you would dodge a question, can a cop shoot somebody in the back who is running away just because he does not think he can catch him on foot. But anyway. I am over. Thank you Mr. chairman, you are a rock star. Some days. >> thank you, Mr. kennedy. I appreciate you not asking about the rule against perpetuities.
▶ 2:20:14Sen. Kennedy: We were going to get to that. I ran out of time.
▶ 2:20:20Sen. Cruz: Senator durbin.
▶ 2:20:21Sen. Durbin: In april the justice department's working group issued a report detailing weaponization's by the biden justice department. The report focused on prosecution rising out of the district of michigan involving the face act. Are you familiar? >> yes.
▶ 2:20:41Sen. Durbin: The report included that communicators demonstrated anti-christian bias and prosecute a defendant who blocked access to the reproductive health care clinic in michigan. One day before this report was published two prosecutors in your office were terminated for their alleged misconduct in this case. Do you believe that a political career civil servants should be terminated because they are resigned to work on? ? Certain matters?
▶ 2:21:11Sen. Durbin: >> I do not believe that prosecutors should be terminated because they decided to work on the case.
▶ 2:21:17Sen. Durbin: Did you have any role in determining these two prosecutors who decided not to work on the cases?
▶ 2:21:24Mr. Martin: I had no role in the decision to terminate them.
▶ 2:21:28Sen. Durbin: Thank you. Ms. colmenero, are you familiar with daca?
▶ 2:21:36Ms. Colmenero: Yes, senator.
▶ 2:21:39Sen. Durbin: Do you realize it was created by president obama and more than 800,000 individuals have taken advantage of the program and every two years they are required to register and re-register with the federal government to pay a filing fee of $600, go through a criminal background check that allows them at the end of the day to be able to work legally in the united states and not be deported during that period.
▶ 2:22:08Sen. Durbin: If they commit a crime between registration periods, they could lose all daca protection. Are you familiar? >> I am generally familiar with what you just described.
▶ 2:22:21Sen. Durbin: Do you know what relevant reliance interest means?
▶ 2:22:26Ms. Colmenero: Yes, senator.
▶ 2:22:30Sen. Durbin: The conservative U.S. court of appeals recognized the immense reliance interest that daca has created when it kept in place a stay for current daca recipients. Do you agree with the fifth circuit?
▶ 2:22:44Ms. Colmenero: It would be inappropriate for me to express or comment on whether I agree or disagree with an appellate court decision. But to the extent there was an appellate court decision, that was applicable to the case in front of me as a lower court judge I would be bound to apply that precedent.
▶ 2:23:03Sen. Durbin: Ms. mitchell, I want to ask about the voting rights act. You co-authored a brief in the shelby county versus holder case, did you not? It was on behalf of alabama in which you argued against the protections of the voting right act and claimed that the law undermined state sovereignty. Do you remember that?
▶ 2:23:25Ms. Mitchell: I do remember that.
▶ 2:23:27Sen. Durbin: Also claimed that certain provisions of the act were inappropriate because things in alabama and the southern states had sufficiently changed since the original passage of the voting rights act of 1965. Yet time and again the courts have weaken the protections of the voting rights act. We have seen southern states moved to further disenfranchise black voters. Are you aware of the current redistricting and the prospect of minority seats being eliminated?
▶ 2:23:59Ms. Mitchell: I am not working on those matters but I am familiar.
▶ 2:24:01Sen. Durbin: You stand by your efforts to weaken the voting rights act?
▶ 2:24:04Ms. Mitchell: I don't want to offer any personal views on that but I stand by the argument made in that brief which was them amicus brief concerning the constitutionality of the section five preclearance requirement and I believe we made good arguments under the law and in the best interest of our client.
▶ 2:24:23Sen. Durbin: Mr. pozos in 2020 were featured in the philadelphia is this journal where you were asked whether the division can help heal racial divisions. You answered, the divisions are particularly cute with communities who have faith in the legal system. It is fragile with the composition of law enforcement, the bench and the bar who do not reflect the communities they serve. I agree with you.
▶ 2:24:50Sen. Durbin: Can you elaborate on the importance of diversity in the legal system?
▶ 2:24:55Mr. Pozos: Senator, I believe it is essential that we get the best possible talent for our legal system and for the men and women of law enforcement from every possible source that we can.
▶ 2:25:08Mr. Pozos: In my career I have been fortunate to mentor and advise many young people considering whether to enter the legal profession from a wide range of backgrounds and I think that amid the competition and the market, we need to do a great job as a legal profession to ensure that we get to all pockets of talent where every day be and welcome them into the legal profession so they can help us uphold the rule of law.
▶ 2:25:35Sen. Durbin: Basic question, do you believe diversity is important, a worthy goal and objective in filling vacancies in the legal profession?
▶ 2:25:46Mr. Pozos: If we are true to seeking out excellence wherever it may be, that question would be moot.
▶ 2:25:52Sen. Durbin: I doubt it.
▶ 2:25:59Sen. Cruz: Thank you. I want to thank all four nominees for appearing before the committee today. I want to extend a special welcome to the two nominees from texas, angela colmenero and Ms. mitchell. I apologize for not being here at the beginning of the meeting.
▶ 2:26:24Sen. Cruz: Both nominees have gone through what is an extensive process for vetting judicial nominees in the state of texas. Senator cornyn and I together have a a bipartisan federal judiciary advisory committee of roughly 25 lawyers across the state.
▶ 2:26:41Sen. Cruz: They are among the most respected members of the bar and every region of texas is deliberately bipartisan and for every judicial vacancy in the state of texas we post a public call for applications, for lawyers practicing in texas who wish to serve on the bench.
▶ 2:27:03Sen. Cruz: That committee then interviews, reviews those applications, interviews the best individuals in terms of their qualifications, makes recommendations to senator cornyn, myself. Both Ms. colmenero and Ms.
▶ 2:27:19Sen. Cruz: Mitchell went through the process with flying colors, impressed the committee and had the opportunity to interview you both at length and you are both very impressive lawyers. In texas we are blessed with 32 million people. We have no shortage of principled qualified men and women who very much want to serve on the bench.
▶ 2:27:43Sen. Cruz: And you have both risen to the top based on excellence, based on integrity, based on fidelity to law. In the course of those interviews as a practice I do not ask any potential judicial nominee how you will rule on any pending cases. That would not be an appropriate question to ask a potential nominee.
▶ 2:28:08Sen. Cruz: I do try to delve into your commitment to following the law rather than whatever your own particular policy preferences might be. Federal judges by design, they have life tenure. They do not stand for election. They are not political players and many of their decisions particularly federal district judges are never appealed.
▶ 2:28:36Sen. Cruz: In many instances if and when you are confirmed, your ruling on a particular matter will be the final disposition for the parties before you whether a criminal case or you could well be responsible for someone's life or death or the entirety of their liberty or in a civil case , for enormous consequences that can play out.
▶ 2:29:03Sen. Cruz: And I want to thank all the nominees but particularly the texas nominees for your nomination. I want to give you both a chance. Ms. colmenero, you begin your legal career by clerking for judge joe fish. How did that clerkship shape your understanding of the role of a federal trial judge particularly when it comes to preparation, judicial temperament and managing a courtroom?
▶ 2:29:26Ms. Colmenero: Yes, I was fortunate enough to clerk for judge fish in the northern district of texas. What he showed me is it is important for the judge to be the most prepared person in the courtroom, more prepared than the lawyers and to know the law better than anybody.
▶ 2:29:47Ms. Colmenero: He also exhibited judicial humility and took his oath of office incredibly seriously and he knew that with the great responsibility that he had, he had to show fidelity to the law at all times. He exhibited that day in and day out. He was a great role model for me when it came to ensuring that every litigant who came before him was treated in a fair and impartial way.
▶ 2:30:11Sen. Cruz: You and I also have the opportunity early in our legal career to work for governor greg abbott. I work for him when he was attorney general greg abbott. As you know when he is in the state capital, he pulls on his driving gloves and he is on those slick marble floors that his wheelchair can book it. My question is how frequently did you have to run to keep up with him going across the state capital?
▶ 2:30:39Ms. Colmenero: Every single time which is why I don't wear heels.
▶ 2:30:45Sen. Cruz: That is wisdom. Ms. mitchell, your clerk for judge william pryor and later for judge clarence thomas. Tell this committee what you learned working for both.
▶ 2:31:00Ms. Mitchell: I learned so much from the judges for home I clerked. One principle that stands out is the old saying that what is bright is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. I saw them live out their old with fidelity to the constitution, our federal laws and judging without fear or favor and treating everyone that came before them with respect and that was a tremendous opportunity as a young lawyer to be shaped by their example.
▶ 2:31:33Sen. Cruz: Thank you. Senator whitehouse.
▶ 2:31:35Sen. Whitehouse: Thank you, everyone. The 22nd amendment says that no person shall be elected to the presidency more than twice, is that correct? >> that's correct.
▶ 2:31:55Sen. Whitehouse: Is any person exempted from that constitutional bar? >> note. -- no.
▶ 2:32:07Sen. Whitehouse: So the current occupant having been elected twice is covered by the 22nd amendment, correct? >> yes.
▶ 2:32:17Sen. Whitehouse: Does anybody disagree? >> no, senator. >> no, senator. >> no, senator.
▶ 2:32:26Sen. Whitehouse: I would like to talk about fraud upon the court. With one of you care to define it for me -- would one of you care to define it for me? >> senator, fraud upon the court can take a number of forms. It can constitute an perjury, obstruction or other means of deceiving the court.
▶ 2:32:49Sen. Whitehouse: If a general proposition covers fairly grave misconduct by an individual who has a duty to the court, customarily a lawyer, correct? >> I believe that is correct.
▶ 2:33:14Sen. Whitehouse: I have prosecuted law enforcement corruption cases involving perjury which I also considered to have a component upon fraud upon the court.
▶ 2:33:21Sen. Whitehouse: Yes but those are generally prosecuted as perjury. Fraud on the court is a unique creature of its own that can be policed by the judge, like content, correct? >> I believe so.
▶ 2:33:44Sen. Whitehouse: Does anybody disagree with that? >> no, senator. >> no, senator.
▶ 2:33:51Sen. Whitehouse: Is it true that if a fraud upon the court has been committed in a particular case, that the judge has all of the sanctions available to them in the case that are provided by rule 11 or the general power of the court. Is that correct also? >> yes, senator. >> yes, senator. >> yes, senator.
▶ 2:34:23Sen. Whitehouse: >> yes.
▶ 2:34:25Sen. Whitehouse: Has been committed -- in the event that the fraud upon the court has been committed, not only are the disciplinary rules within the court and within the case applicable, but judges can make referrals to the bar for further disciplinary action against the license to practice law. It is that also correct?
▶ 2:34:56Sen. Whitehouse: >> I believe so, senator. I have no personal experience in this area.
▶ 2:35:02Sen. Whitehouse: That's good. >> I believe it is correct.
▶ 2:35:06Sen. Whitehouse: And ultimately as you have suggested, Mr. pozos , referrals for criminal conduct along the lines of obstruction or fraud or perjury can also be made, correct?
▶ 2:35:20Mr. Pozos: Yes, senator. The cases that I was involved in did not involve referrals.
▶ 2:35:29Sen. Whitehouse: Either way, do you all agree that fraud upon the court is a very serious matter? >> yes, senator. >>>> yes, senator.
▶ 2:35:41Sen. Whitehouse: Very well. Thank you very much.
▶ 2:35:46Sen. Cruz: Thank you. I would like to enter into the record a letter supporting Ms. mitchell's nomination from 43 former law clerks of judge william pryor. They endures -- they endorse Ms. mitchell stating, if confirmed we are sure that all litigants who stand before her know that their argument has been heard and considered with care and respect.
▶ 2:36:13Sen. Cruz: As she has done in every chapter of her life, she will demand excellence of herself in this role, too. Without objection, we will enter the letter into the record. I want to thank each of the nominees for your testimony today. Written impressions may be submitted until june 17 at 5:00 p.m. And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
▶ 2:36:44Sen. Cruz: [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]