Auto-transcript: Hearings to examine pending nominations.

Chuck Grassley [0:04]

The first panel features Lee Rodofsky, who's nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The second panel has three district court nominees, Robert Long, Middle District, Florida, Peter Mansfield for Eastern District, Louisiana, and Ohosete for the Western District of Missouri. I'll keep my remarks briefly since we have multiple panels, but first I'd like to address an issue related to this committee's review process in the lead-up to every hearing. My staff and the staff of Ranking Member Dillinger review each nominee's FBI background investigations, sometimes through no fault of a nominee. There are delays in getting that paperwork from the FBI. That's what happened here for one nominee who isn't on our panel today. Mr. Kelly was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I want to be very clear. His absence today does not reflect on him or his qualifications. Based on our review so far, he appears to be an extraordinary qualified nominee. Extraordinary nominee, qualified to be very good. This was a delay in getting paperwork from the FBI, and I'm confident that Mr. Kelly will sit at our next hearing. Turning to today's nominees, they're all exceptional in their own right, and they reflect diverse backgrounds in the law and public service. Indeed, today's nominees have served as attorneys at the local, state, and federal levels. Their profiles include legal work with a local law enforcement office, state advocacies with attorneys general offices. federal service with U.S. Attorney's Office and also the Federal Justice Department. Our nominees also include judges at both state and federal level. I'd also note that like our last hearing, one of today's nominees has prior military service, Judge Long. President Trump continues to tread the trend of making excellent nominations to our country's most important roles, and I look forward to hearing from each of today's nominees. That said, I have the honor of introducing one of them today. Judge Rudofsky has been nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. His career spans public service, private practice, and academia. Judge Rudofsky graduated from Cornell University and Harvard Law School. He then clerked on both the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Federal Court before entering private practice. In 2014, Judge Rudolfsky joined Walmart, serving for a year as Assistant General Counsel. He then entered public service as Solicitor General of Arkansas. He served with distinction in handling complex constitutional and appellate matters. After three years in that role, he rejoined Walmart. as the senior director of its global anti-corruption compliance team, but his return was short-lived. In 2019, President Trump nominated Judge Rodolfsky as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where he continues to serve today. In addition, he is taught at George Mason University. the University of Arkansas, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He's also educated future lawyers and law clerks at the Judicial Clerkship Writing Conference held at Catholic University Columbus School of Law. Judge Rodolfsky's experience spans from the courtroom to the classroom and back again. I look forward to hearing him today. Senator Durbin.

Richard J. Durbin [5:18]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the nominees, their families, and friends. President Trump has made it clear he believes judges appointed by him should be reliable votes for his MAGA agenda. He said, and I quote, it's really okay for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them. Most judges, whether appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents, recognize that the rule of law is paramount to any political agenda. and that partisan politics should not influence their decision-making. But we're living in a different era. When judges don't rule his way, President Trump, the President of the United States, attacks him, calling them, quote, rogue judges that are criminals, the words of the President, and demanding that Republicans pass a, quote, tough crime bill that cracks down on rogue judges. He has repeatedly attacked his own Supreme Court nominees. Most recently saying, quote, they are merely a shell of their original selves. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new normal in Washington, D.C. For President Trump, it's not enough that a judicial nominee be a principled conservative. Nominees must now demonstrate fealty to him and his MAGA agenda. So President Trump has resorted to nominating ideologically extreme nominees in some cases. regardless of whether they have the qualifications to serve as a lifetime appointee. The chairman has said that President Trump, quote, has a history of nominating highly qualified jurors to the bench. However, many of the nominees who've come through this committee in the second Trump administration simply do not have the experience to serve on the bench. Look no further than today's panel. One of the nominees had only been out of law school for a decade. and has been practicing for a grand total of seven years. Why should litigants have faith in these nominees that they'll have the knowledge and experience to adjudicate the cases? That is not a matter of concern to the president. He only cares if they will be loyal. That loyalty is particularly important to President Trump at a time when jurists nominated during the first Trump administration had been ruling against the president. including dozens who've ruled against this administration's illegal mandatory immigration detention. Just last week, Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee and former counsel to the chairman of this committee, ordered the White House to immediately restore credentials for three press outlets after the president barred the reporters from the White House. Unsurprisingly, President Trump branded Judge Kelly as, quote, disloyal. This is new. I've been in Congress for a few years. I've heard comments on judges, but none as blatant politically as these. And judges across the country, nominated by presidents of both parties, have found the Trump administration repeatedly defying court orders. As Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George Bush appointee who clerked for Justice Scalia, found, ICE violated hundreds of court orders in Minnesota alone. In rare interviews earlier this month, Judge Schultz and other judges spoke out about the, quote, grave threat to the rule of law posed by this administration's attacks. Last week, Chairman Grassley chastised Judge Schultz and others, claiming they'd violated judicial canons by granting these interviews. In fact, the advisory opinion that the chairman cited specifically permits, quote, the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law. As Judge Nancy Brazell, a Trump appointee, said, quote, we are allowed to speak out about judicial independence. She continued, and we should, in order to keep it. Judge Rizal is right. Judges don't give up First Amendment rights when they assume the bench, particularly when it comes to preserving the rule of law. And now I'd like a minute to reflect on yesterday's hearing. We've been trying for a year to get Mr. Jack Smith, the special counsel, to appear before this committee under oath. For some reason, the majority was not ready. Since October of last year, we've been waiting for the chance. And yesterday was that moment. When Mr. Smith came before us, took the oath of office, and submitted himself to questioning from both sides of the aisle for a lengthy period of time, what I found curious was the underlying charges which he was investigating, the instigation of the January 6th attack on the Capitol of the United States, as well as questioning the results of the 2020 election. together with the disposition of classified documents at the Mar-a-Lago State in Florida, was never raised on the Republican side of the aisle. Those substantive issues which led to indictments were not contested or questioned. Rather, it was Mr. Smith who was on trial for acting as a prosecutor in this case. A curious outcome. I look forward to questioning the nominees today to understand if their loyalty is going to be to the president and his agenda or to the rule of law and the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chuck Grassley [11:04]

I'm prepared to respond to what you said about yesterday's hearing. It made public for the American people more records proving Jim Jack Smith's political work and abuse of authority. Data point after data point proved in their own words. that Smith and his team of partisans were out to just simply get Trump. They were also out to get Republicans. To my Democratic colleagues that think it's appropriate for a prosecutor to want to repeal the speech and debate clause, do you think it's appropriate to obtain congressional records in secret? and not just toll records. I'm talking about content or what about getting thousands of Americans personal checks. Where's outrage from the partisan media that Smith and his partisans obtained their communications? The silence on all these points is deafening. I'm not going to call a hearing unless the foundation is properly set, and that's what Congressional Oversight 101 is all about. If we held the hearing when my Democratic colleagues wanted it to months ago, none of those records would have been known, and neither would the partisan origins of Arctic Frost, an FBI agent who violated the Hatch Act. for anti-Trump political conduct started Arctic Frost. When I exposed his political conduct in 2022, Ray reassigned him, and then he was effectively forced to retire, but not before he created the case that Smith would take over as special counsel. Let's recall the email that I made public that shows that FBI personnel Tebow admitted that he created the roadmap. That's the FBI agent said he created the roadmap to investigate Trump. See that the real elector case was approved in April 2022 while Tebow was at the helm. and a matter that the committee addressed yesterday. The Rio case wasn't about January 6th, like the Democrats want us to think it is. Rather, this was a pretext to expand way beyond to members of Congress. and about 400 conservative organizations. Even so, this committee looked at January 6th and the events surrounding it in 2021. We looked at the underlying case. I issued a committee report at that time. Jack Smith cited the committee's transcribed interviews as part of his work, although he excluded information exonerating Trump. As an example, a former deputy attorney general from the first Trump administration testified to this committee. He took notes of a phone call with Trump, and in those notes, Trump said, don't expect The Deputy Attorney General testified to this committee that Trump meant that he's not asking the Justice Department to change the outcome of the election. Smith failed to include that exonerating sentence in his report. So let me be clear. Smith obtained our constitutionally protected constitutions, protected under the speech and debate clause. And one of these persons working for Smith said we ought to repeal the speech and debate clause. Smith obtained the same from the media. Can you imagine? I think about 20 or 25 media people I mentioned yesterday, they had their records. subpoenaed as well. And Smith obtained very invasive personal information about thousands of Americans because they happened to be Republicans. Jack Smith has absurdly publicly defended his conduct and that of his staff, that same staff who targeted whistleblowers who exposed the special counsel's misconduct. I'm saying that was a letter to the Department of Justice OIG. And when I asked Smith about targeting whistleblowers, he played dumb. Of course, he knew the issue had been public for months. I asked him a simple question about protecting whistleblowers, and he couldn't even muster a proper response. Also, a note about the classified document case, how the FBI initially was going to treat it like spillage, not a criminal case. Biden admitted to mishandling classified information. Hillary Clinton was proved to have done the same, and there were zero indictments in those cases and government raids for them. My Democratic colleagues haven't joined any of my record requests to better understand what happened in the classified document case. So my and Senator Johnson's investigation will continue. The chair recognizes Senator Cassidy.

Bill Cassidy [17:26]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Durbin. It's my privilege to recommend Peter Mansfield to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Peter is a native Louisianian and a dedicated public servant. For the past two decades, he has served the United States as an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District of Louisiana, representing the United States before the very court he is now nominated to serve on. Before joining the United States Attorney's Office, Peter was an attorney at Adams and Reese, a law firm in New Orleans. Peter was born in New Orleans area. He was a top student at Jesuit High School and a National Merit semifinalist. He continues his academic excellence as a student in college and law school, graduating with Magna Cum Laude honors from each. He is compassionate. Despite the demands of a professional career, the greater demands of being a devoted husband and father of five, He contributes a lot of time to the community, including serving on the board of directors for Gigi's Playhouse, a Down syndrome achievement center in Metairie, Louisiana, volunteering notary services to the homeless, supervising the Boy Scouts of America as an adult leader, and instructing peers through training seminars and published advocacy articles. He has spent the lion's share of his career in the Justice Department. For the past 13 years, Peter has served as the chief of civil division, working in the senior office management under the leadership of United States attorneys appointed by presidents of both parties. In the conversations I've had with Peter's colleagues at the Justice Department and with several judges before whom he appeared as an advocate, Peter's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District was met with universal enthusiasm, excitement, and praise. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I'm confident that Peter Mansfield has the breadth of experience, caliber of intellect, spirit for liberty, and compassion that this committee has come to expect from nominees to the federal bench. I fully support his nomination. With that, I yield.

Chuck Grassley [19:28]

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Now, Senator Scott.

Rick Scott [19:32]

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin. Today is my honor and pleasure to introduce one of Florida's finest legal minds, Judge Bobby Long, to this committee. I've known Bobby since I was governor, and in 2016, I had the distinct opportunity and the privilege of appointing him to the Second Judicial Circuit Court. Bobby's entire professional life has been dedicated to upholding the rule of law, serving our communities, and defending our country. After earning his undergraduate degree from Florida State University and his law degree from the University of Florida, Bobby went on to dedicate his career to serving Floridians. In his work in the Leon County Sheriff's Office, he oversaw all litigation, internal affairs, and legislative affairs. He also worked in the private sector, handling civil litigation for Floridians across our great state. Bobby is a patriot. He served as a Navy JAG officer and currently serves as commander in the Navy Reserves. He understands what it means to answer the call to serve and I believe he will show the same dedication in this role. He's also a dedicated husband to Jenna and father of four boys. He gives back even more of his time as a coach for their baseball, soccer, basketball and football teams. He and his wife have led children's Sunday school, and he has worked with his son's Boy Scout troop. He's truly one of Florida's best, and his body of professional work speaks for itself. I've seen firsthand that Bobby understands the Constitution and the importance of the rule of law. He understands that our Constitution protects the rights and liberties of the American people while placing meaningful limits on government power. That understanding has guided his career in public service, and I'm confident it will guide him on the federal bench. Our freedom, our prosperity, and the American dream all rely on the rule of law to survive. Because the rule of law protects the American people by keeping both criminals and government itself in check. Bobby understands that, all that. It has guided his work in Florida and the rest of his impressive career. I have no doubt that Bobby has experience, integrity, judgment, and commitment to the rule of law to serve with distinction on the federal bench. I fully encourage all members of this committee to advance his nomination and confirm him on the floor. I want to thank you again, Chairman, ranking member, for this opportunity.

Chuck Grassley [21:28]

Senator Scott, now Senator Kennedy.

John Kennedy [21:36]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual, my senior senator, Senator Cassidy, was eloquent. I can't do any better. I adopt his remarks. I'll simply add to that the observation that Mr. Mansfield is well known in his community and his state. as a legal rock star, and I commend him to you. Senator Schmidt.

Eric Schmitt [22:11]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to introduce a fellow Missourian, Jesus Ocete, who has been nominated to serve as a United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Missouri. I know Jesus well and opportunity worked with him when I served as Attorney General of Missouri. He served first in my office as Deputy Solicitor General and then later as Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation, and I saw firsthand what kind of lawyer he is. Jesus is the kind of lawyer you wanted in the hardest cases, the cases where the law was difficult, the stakes were high, and Missouri needed someone who could get the answer right and defend it in court. During our time together, he helped represent Missouri on some of the most consequential constitutional litigation in our country. That included standing before the United States Supreme Court to argue Missouri's challenge to the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers. And by the way, just as a bit of an aside, we wanted to be the first state to file that lawsuit. And I think Jesus was up at 4 a.m. to make sure the case was filed before anybody else. That is an extraordinary responsibility for any lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court, and Jesus handled it just a few years out of law school and did it very, very well. But his experience goes well beyond one argument in our office. After graduating from Washington University School of Law, he's used clerk for Justice Zell Fisher on the Missouri Supreme Court and Judge Bobby Shepard on the Eighth Circuit. He has practiced law at one of Missouri's leading law firms, litigated commercial cases in both state and federal court. He served as general counsel to the Missouri Secretary of State, where he advised on election law, administrative law, and other issues of enormous importance to our state. And today, he serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, helping lead the division and shape its legal strategy. So Jesus comes before this committee, having seen our legal system from nearly every angle. as a judicial law clerk, a private practitioner, a state government lawyer, a federal official, a trial lawyer, and an appellate advocate. He has tried cases. He has argued appeals. He has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And he's actually stood at that court lectern and defended the position of the state of Missouri. A federal district judge exercises enormous power over the lives and liberties of the people who come before the court. The job demands legal ability, sound judgment, seriousness, and respect for the proper role of a judge. I had a chance to see Jesus practice law when the pressure was real and the consequences really mattered. And I'm glad the committee has the opportunity to hear from him today, and I'm proud to introduce a talented Missouri lawyer who has devoted so much of his career to public service. Jesus, welcome.

Chuck Grassley [24:56]

Will Judge Rodolfsky come to the table, please? And before you sit down, I'd like to administer oath. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you. Now you may proceed with your opening statement and introduce any family and friends that you want to. That's kind of a tradition of this committee.

A senator [25:26]

Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I want to thank you and Senator Durbin, Ranking Member Durbin, and the other members of this committee for holding today's hearing and for considering my nomination. I also, of course, want to thank President Trump for the honor of that nomination and for the faith that he's now twice placed in me to uphold fairly and dispassionately the rule of law and our Constitution. I'm particularly humbled by the nomination this time around because the seat to which I've been nominated has recently been filled by two titans of the Arkansas bar, Judge Bobby Shepard and Judge Morris Arnold. If I could serve Arkansas and our country and the rule of law and the Constitution half as well as Judge Shepard and Judge Arnold, I will consider myself to have had a resounding success of a career. I also want to thank my home state senators, Senator Bozeman and Senator Cotton, especially for their service to our state. Those two gentlemen worked tirelessly up here on the Hill for the great people and the great state of Arkansas, and we back home appreciate it immensely. But there's one person here today who deserves more thanks than anyone else. That's my wife, Soraya. Soraya is the love of my life, an incredible lawyer in her own right, a wonderful mother to our three children, and without a doubt, the only reason that I'm sitting here in this chair today. I'm pleased to introduce you to our three children, Vivian, our competitive rock climber, Charlotte, our horseback rider, and Teddy, our soccer star. I want to say an extra word about Teddy. Teddy is an incredibly bright boy on the autism spectrum. We've worked very, very hard to make sure that he knows he has a very bright future ahead of him and that he can and is expected to do anything that his sisters can do, including sitting through a confirmation hearing. On the other hand, if for any reason Teddy needs to excuse himself today, I ask for the committee's indulgence in advance. I also want to recognize my mom and dad, Roz and Ed Rudofsky, and my in-laws, Salaya and Richard Freed. I could never possibly thank them enough for the love, support, and guidance that they have given me and Soraya over the last 47 years. That they're all here today, especially my dad, who is fighting a courageous and winning battle with cancer, means the world to me. Dad is a First Amendment lawyer. my original legal and political sparring partner, and the person who taught me from the earliest age to love all Americans and to love this country. I hope it's as special for him to be here today as it is special for me to have him here. Lastly, and because I promised them I would, I want to introduce you to my niece and nephews, Rhea and Chloe Salama, and Annabelle and Anthony Freed. I'm overjoyed that they and my entire family, some of my closest friends, and many former colleagues are here today. I hope especially the kids will take this opportunity to really watch our Constitution and government in action. The only other thing I want to say before fielding your questions is that I'm here in this chair for the same reason I believe you are all here. I love my state, I love my neighbors, I love my country, and I love my fellow citizens. And I believe I've found the way to serve them that makes the best use of the skills and abilities that God has given me. I'm not suggesting that the United States has ever been or is now perfect. No country is or ever was. But in my view, this country has been the greatest force for good and right that the world has ever known. And I thank God every day that I was born in this country and that 13 years ago, Soraya and I made our way to our adopted home of Arkansas. I want to do my very small part to put our constitutional republic on the path to survive. and thrive and continue as a force for good and right in this country and in the world. As a federal judge, that small part is to maintain the rule of law, dispassionately interpret the laws as they are written, and uphold the structural protections of and the individual liberties in the Constitution. With that, I'm happy to answer your questions.

Chuck Grassley [30:12]

Thank you, Judge. You've served as a district judge in Arkansas. For a better part of a decade as a judge you've presided over many civil and criminal cases What have you learned from your time as a judge and if confirmed? What do you think will be the biggest challenge you'll face? transitioning from district to circuit court Chairman

A senator [30:41]

Grassley, I think the Best lesson I have learned over my years as a district judge is how important each case is to the litigants that come before me. One of the special things about being a district court judge and one of the things I'm going to miss if I'm lucky enough to be confirmed is that we spend time every day or at least every other day with real life litigants in front of us, not just the lawyers, but the litigants. defendants in criminal cases, their families. It's a reminder every day that these cases matter. They matter to real people. I think sometimes, and this goes to the second part of your question, at the appellate level, because I've argued there a bunch, it's easy to forget that. And it's easy to just think in terms of abstract principles. And while abstract principles are certainly important, it's also incredibly vital to remember that there are real live flesh human beings who care about the decisions you make. And even if it might not be the most important case in terms of the issue or the subject matter, it is always the most important case to that litigant. That's what I've taken away from my district court service and what, quite frankly, I'm going to miss a little bit on the appellate court, if I'm lucky enough to be confirmed.

Chuck Grassley [32:06]

You served as State Solicitor General. In that role, you handled complex constitutional and appellate matters, which involved the most significant issues facing Arkansas. What has your public service to the great people of Arkansas meant to you?

A senator [32:27]

Chairman, as I sort of adverted to in my introductory remarks, my wife and I came to Arkansas 13 years ago because we believed that it was the type of place with the type of people and the type of culture that we wanted to. raise our family in and that we wanted to spend the rest of our life in. We were right in that judgment. I am very glad we did that. The people of Arkansas have welcomed us with open arms. They have been truly wonderful to us. And that is the reason, or I should say one of the big reasons, that I decided that I wanted to serve the public, both as Solicitor General and now as a district court judge. I should say when I came to Arkansas, there wasn't such a role as solicitor general. It wasn't even something I was thinking about. But once our neighbors and the state sort of, you know, gave us everything, it was really my desire to give back. And I was blessed every day for those three years. to be able to stand up in court and say that I represent the state of Arkansas. And that's really why I've dedicated the better part of a decade to public service in Arkansas and also for the country.

Chuck Grassley [33:50]

My last question. You've written extensively and spoken on the topics of originalism and textualism. Tell us about your views on those two matters and why it's important to enforce the law as written.

A senator [34:08]

So, Chairman, I don't think it would surprise anybody here today that I am a committed textualist and originalist. For me, the appropriate version of that is an original public meaning, originalist and textualist. I will say that while there are some nuances between the two, as a general matter, they're two sides of the same coin, originalism being a methodology with respect to interpretation of the Constitution. and textualism being a methodology with respect to the interpretation of statutes or regulations. In terms of why it is important, I think originalism and original public meaning, whether we're dealing with the Constitution or a text, comes from three features of the Constitution. One is separation of powers. One is bicameralism and presentment. And one is the procedural due process protections in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. All of those get at the same point, which is that the only authority a judge has and has been given by the Constitution is to interpret the law as written, not to rewrite the law, not to make. new law, either intentionally because it aligns with his or her policy preferences, or unintentionally. And originalism and textualism is the best method I have found to do that. When people ask me this question, I often am reminded of Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially what Hamilton said is that individual liberty has little or nothing to fear from a judiciary in its proper role. But on the other hand, if the judicial power and the legislative power are combined, or if the judicial power and the executive power are combined, that would be judges sort of acting as legislators or acting as the enforcement authority. That is a grave, grave danger to individual liberty. And I think that's the best and right justification for originalism and textualism.

Richard J. Durbin [36:19]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Judge Rudofsky, thanks for joining us and bringing your family. You've got a great story to tell about those kids. We appreciate it. You've been involved in interpreting and ruling on the Voting Rights Act. How would you explain that law to a layman?

A senator [36:39]

I would say that the Voting Rights Act was a seminal piece of legislation that helped to ensure, in a worse time in our history, helped to ensure the rights of everyone to vote, including minorities.

Richard J. Durbin [37:00]

And so is the statute directed at other elected officials and appointed officials who have the authority, for example, to draw legislative maps?

A senator [37:12]

I think that is one part of the Voting Rights Act, yes. And

Richard J. Durbin [37:17]

clearly, if you have a government of a state presenting a congressional map with lines drawn or a legislative map, it is... Fair to say that that has gone through the ordinary process, and if it's challenged under the Voting Rights Act, it is an effort to either question or overturn the state governmental decision. I

A senator [37:44]

think that would be true, sir.

Richard J. Durbin [37:47]

For 60 years under the Voting Rights Act, individuals could bring causes of action under that act. I imagine the theory behind it, I think I'm right. is that that's the only way for an individual to have a voice questioning government action which denies or limits a person's right to vote. Is that your understanding?

A senator [38:11]

Senator Durbin, not exactly my understanding. So I think that that is a good policy justification for it. Were I a senator, that might be something I would vote for, meaning I'd have to consider the policy options. But that's not my job. My job was to decide. A, whether there was an express right of action in the statute, which I think everybody agrees and everybody's agreed for 60 years that there isn't. Congress didn't write a private right of action into the statute. And so then the next question is, is there an implied right of action? Excuse me, Judge. For 60 years, would you repeat that sentence? Yes. Everybody has agreed that Congress did not write an express right of action into the statute. The real question is, was there an implied right of action? In a different era, courts would imply rights of action fairly easily. But since Sandoval, the court has retrenched from that, and that is no longer true. Now, the assumption had been for a very long time that there is an implied right of action in the Voting Rights Act. But that had just been an assumption and just been dicta. And when I looked at the issue, I decided that there was not. And obviously, as you know, the Eighth Circuit affirmed me and nobody sought review in that case in the Supreme Court.

Richard J. Durbin [39:38]

Let me ask you this. In 2022, and you referred to the case, you presided over a case that challenged Arkansas' House of Representatives redistricting map for diluting the voting power of Black Americans. In your own words, there was, quote, strong merits case that at least some of the districts are unlawful under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. End of quote. Yet you claimed you could not reach the merits of the case and instead ruled the private citizens have no private right of action to enforce Section 2. For 60 years before your decision, courts recognized private plaintiffs, individuals, for example, who may have lived in some of those districts that were being contested. They were able to bring cases under Section 2. challenging the policies and practices that made it more difficult for people to vote. To the detriment of voters of color in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit embraced your fringe reasoning. The Eighth Circuit is the only appeals court in the nation to adopt your extreme position. Even the conservative Fifth Circuit declined to stray from precedent, which allowed individuals to bring causes of action under the Voting Rights Act. That means state and local politicians can now freely violate the Voting Rights Act of their constituents, knowing they'll go unchallenged by private citizens, and without a doubt be ignored by this Department of Justice. So, as you reflect on the practical impact of denying to individuals in all of the states that I've mentioned, an opportunity to use the Voting Rights Act to assert the protection of their right to vote. Do you have any misgivings about your ruling?

A senator [41:31]

Senator, I to this day believe that my ruling was correct, correct according to the law. The outcome may not be one you liked, but that doesn't change whether or not my ruling was correct. I will also tell you, I think it's important to know, in that situation, I did everything I could. to give the plaintiffs a chance to keep the case live. I gave time for the government to intervene. The government chose not to intervene. I also dismissed the case without prejudice so that a new case could be brought under, for example, potentially Section 1983. That was not done by the plaintiffs either. I ruled according to what I thought the law required, and I did whatever I could to allow the plaintiffs a fair shot to bring a new case.

Richard J. Durbin [42:18]

Well, I thank you for your candor and your answer. But I have to say that for 60 years, individuals could protect their own right to vote through the Voting Rights Act. Your position is a deviation from that precedent to the detriment of the voters and their rights in the future. I think that is significant. Thank you, Judge.

Chuck Grassley [42:40]

Senator Kennedy.

John Kennedy [42:51]

Judge, why do we have stare decisis?

A senator [42:57]

Senator. There are important reliance interests that are served by stare decisis. It's incredibly important, among other things, that the country can have faith in the rule of law. And so when an issue has been decided, generally it is a good thing for people to understand that that decision, and here I'm talking about a decision from the Supreme Court, when the Supreme Court has decided an issue, Generally, it's a good idea that the country understands that is the rule and that's going to be the rule going forward. It's not in any way an inexorable command. And there are sometimes very good reasons to overrule precedent. But as a general matter, I think sticking with precedent is the appropriate approach. Now, of course, if you're asking about vertical stare decisis in the sense of lower courts being bound by what the higher courts have said. That, I think, is an inexorable demand. And lower courts are best. So I would be bound by the Eighth Circuit. Were I on the Eighth Circuit, were I lucky enough to be confirmed, I would be bound by the Supreme Court. And I couldn't change those decisions even if I wanted to.

John Kennedy [44:15]

Well, I still don't understand what you mean by it's important for reliance. I mean, if stare decisis. is so swell, and I'm not suggesting that it isn't, why doesn't, why does the Supreme Court sometimes change its mind?

A senator [44:41]

Senator, I think the Supreme Court does and can change its mind. So I certainly don't want to suggest that stare decisis is an absolute straitjacket for a court not to change its mind. It's not, and it should never be treated like that. Stare decisis, in my view, is a default principle that unless Unless you as a judge or a panel of judges or the Supreme Court have decided that a prior judgment of the court is not only wrong, but really wrong, considerably wrong, then I think judicial humility suggests that you stick with the rule you've created. But I do want to emphasize, I don't think that is an inexorable command. I think it's a default presumption that... when you've decided something is egregiously wrong, you should fix.

John Kennedy [45:38]

Well, as a district court judge, suppose you have a case of first impression. Does stare decisis bind you there?

A senator [45:52]

It does not at all. I mean, because it's a case of first impression, definitionally, no higher court has decided it in a way that binds you. And I do want to be clear. So you can just do what you want? Well, I think it would be a bit much to say you can do what you want. I think you have to do what the law requires. And when I say what the law requires, at least from somebody with a judicial philosophy like mine. But I thought

John Kennedy [46:21]

you just said there was no precedent. No,

A senator [46:25]

I guess, Senator, what I mean to say is that with a judicial philosophy like mine, what binds you there is the original understanding of the Constitution or the original understanding of a statute, if we're talking about a textualist analysis. That is the kind of law that would bind your decision. If there's no Supreme Court case law.

John Kennedy [46:48]

Well, it's a case of first impression. That means no law binds your decision. I thought that's what you said.

A senator [46:54]

Senator, we may be having a sort of respectful disagreement about what I mean by law.

John Kennedy [46:59]

No, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand.

A senator [47:02]

When I say law, there I am not talking about case law. I'm talking about law as Congress has written it or the Constitution says it. What I was trying to react to was... I don't think judges should ever be in a position of just doing what they want. I think what judges do is follow the law, whether that be a statute or the Constitution, or if there's binding Supreme Court precedent or binding Eighth Circuit precedent.

John Kennedy [47:30]

Let me interrupt you, Judge. I apologize, but I'm about to run out of time. I just wanted to ask you about one comment you made in 2001, and I know this has been a while ago. You wrote a letter to the Cornell Review. You were at Cornell at the time, and you called yourself, I'm going to quote, a libertarian-minded Republican who has more than once privately questioned President Bush's intellectual and ideological ability to govern our nation, end quote. Now, I realize back at that time, Some newspapers, I'm thinking of the Washington Post, tried to portray President Bush as being not very smart, but I think we all know that the Washington Post would endorse a dead armadillo for any office over a Republican if the dead armadillo had a D behind its name. My experience with President Bush is that he's one of the smartest people I've ever met. Why did you? Why did you say that?

A senator [49:04]

Senator, I don't remember that particular quote, but that sounds like a very dumb thing to say. That would be said by a dumb college student. I can tell you that I had the same experience that you did with President Bush. I was a very small cog in the wheel in his White House counsel's office at one point. I don't want to overstate things. I was an intern. But having said that, I have interacted with him on a number of occasions, both then and since then. And if that's what I said, I'll tell you just one of the things that, you know, in college, I wish I could take back.

John Kennedy [49:45]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Blumenthal.

Richard Blumenthal [49:49]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Judge, thank you for being here today. And thank you to your family. Thank you, Senator. As will not surprise you, I have a couple of questions that I've asked. every other nominee to come before us. First, who won the 2020 election?

A senator [50:09]

Senator, as you know, under our Constitution, the way you win a presidential election is you're certified the winner of the Electoral College. Joe Biden was certified the winner of the Electoral College. But who won the popular vote? Senator, as a long line of nominees, including Justice Jackson, said, I don't think as a sitting judge, this is a sort of issue for me to get into. This feels like a very political and policy related issue. I can tell you what I've told you, which is Joe Biden was the certified winner of the election.

Richard Blumenthal [50:47]

It may surprise you to learn that there is a new AI powered. Search tool that was launched yesterday. And it actually reaches the conclusion that Joseph Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Are you familiar with it?

A senator [51:09]

I am not, but I will say it's not bound by the judicial canons. Well,

Richard Blumenthal [51:15]

you're not bound by the judicial canons to state the facts and the truth as a nominee. Who won the 2020 election? I

A senator [51:24]

can't do better than the answer I've given you already, sir. This was

John Kennedy [51:29]

taken

Richard Blumenthal [51:31]

down, apparently, and something else replaced it, at least. for a while off and on but I think you have an obligation to be forthcoming and tell the truth to this panel and to the American people about what the facts are rather than hiding behind the judicial canons which frankly as you and I both know do not apply to your answers stating facts here let me ask you this Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th, 2021?

A senator [52:11]

I want I'm going to answer your question, but I want to start by saying that I condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and lawlessness that took place on January 6th. From what I saw. on TV. This was a protest that turned violent. It included assaults on police officers. It included trespass on the Capitol, and even in some instances, desecration of the Capitol. I hesitate to go any further. I think going any further gets into the politics of it.

Richard Blumenthal [52:45]

Well, this panel yesterday heard testimony from a prosecutor who investigated and then sought criminal charges in connection with that attack on the Capitol. Why are you unwilling to use the word attack?

A senator [53:05]

Senator. This feels very much like in terms of the word attack. This feels very much like a political back and forth between you all and the president. And I just don't think a sitting judge should get involved. I've already told you that I'm going

Richard Blumenthal [53:21]

to interrupt you because I'm going to run out of time because obviously you don't want to answer the question. I think that's pretty apparent. We're all smart people in this room and we can recognize what your goal is here. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, said on July 10th, 2026, quote, as the court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021 was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured. Likewise, Judge United States District Court Judge Royce Lamberth. said on December 6, 2024, on, and I'm quoting, January 6, 2021, an angry mob of rioters invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, intending to interrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results and thwart the peaceful transition. a power that is the centerpiece of our Constitution and the cornerstone of our Republican legacy. Do you agree with those two district court judges?

A senator [54:33]

Senator, without violating what I think are the requirements of the canons, I can just repeat to you that I condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and lawlessness of that day.

Richard Blumenthal [54:47]

You know, I think you are degrading the canons of ethics. by invoking them frivolously. I think that's a disservice to your fellow district court judges and others throughout the country who will want to legitimately rely on the cans of ethics when they apply. And I'm really disappointed because obviously you're articulate, you're smart, you have a great education, and you're unwilling to be more forthcoming when you've been appointed. We're nominated to a job that requires, above all, independence and integrity, not just intellectual integrity, which unfortunately I think you're betraying here, but also a sense of duty and integrity to the country. So I'm disappointed, and I think it's grounds to vote against you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chuck Grassley [55:46]

This is all the questions we have orally for you. You get a lot of questions in writing, so please answer those just as fast as you can and answer them fully. You can be dismissed now, and I'll call the next panel.

A senator [56:04]

Thank you.

Chuck Grassley [56:20]

Thank you for standing so I didn't have to tell you that. I want to administer the oath. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you very much. Please be seated. And Judge Long, and then we'll go to Mr. Mansfield, and then Mr. Osele. And we will let you give your opening statements and introduce any of your... Friends and family that you want to do as you saw it with Judge Rodolski

Hon. Robert E. Long [57:33]

Good morning. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to first begin with some thank yous. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for his nomination. I'd like to thank my home state senators, Senator Rick Scott and Senator Ashley Moody, for their support. throughout this process. And thank you to Senator Scott for his introduction this morning. I would like to introduce some of the folks that I have here with me today. First and foremost, I have my beautiful wife. who is my rock and partner as we've attacked all the challenges of life and all of the wild adventures, including this one today. She has back with her our four sons. We have four school-age sons, elementary through high school, and they are all bright boys, hardworking boys that we love and cherish. We're very proud of them. I also have my mother and father here with me today. And they, of course... made me who I am today, and have over the years, right up to today, helped to carry the load when things get heavy. I also have my sisters and their husbands and my nieces and nephew here, and I am so thankful to all of them for their love and support throughout this process. Finally, I have some other friends and family that are both here and those that are watching from home. And I want to say thank you to all of you. Although I can't mention everyone by name, please know how much I appreciate your prayers and support throughout this process. So thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank

Chuck Grassley [59:43]

you, Judge Long. Now, Mr. Mansfield.

Peter Mansfield [59:46]

Thank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin and the entire committee for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for the tremendous professional honor of this nomination to serve on the bench in the Eastern District of Louisiana, a court where I have been privileged to practice for the last 23 years. I thank my two home state senators for their indispensable support. Specifically, I thank Senator Cassidy for recommending me to the White House for his warm and generous introduction as well. I'd also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Senator Cassidy for his two decades of dedicated public service as an elected official, both in our state capital, Baton Rouge, and here in Washington, D.C., serving in both houses of Congress. Senator Kennedy, thank you for your support, for your personal words of encouragement to me, and the manner in which you always articulate your unique love of the law that lies at the heart of our common calling to this great profession. My parents, Al and Patty Mansfield, provided me a perfect example of selfless service over the course of 50 years working together in lay ministry for the Catholic Church. They have always been a source of prayerful encouragement to me throughout my life, and I thank them for that. I'd like to thank my wife of 23 years, Lisa, for her love, support, patience, and tireless work keeping our family of seven functioning on a daily basis. She is a licensed social worker in the state of Louisiana and works full-time as a job coach and special education teacher. And in the midst of all that, despite all that, she still has somehow finds time to raise our five children, including our youngest, who has special needs. As a large family, we're frequently in divide and conquer mode. This week is no exception. So she's back home in Louisiana with my youngest three school-age children, Claire, James, and Paul. I love the four of you very much. I am pleased to have with me here in Washington, D.C., my two oldest children. Over my left shoulder is Catherine. She graduated with honors from LSU earlier this year and holds the distinction of being only the fourth female drum major in the 125-year history of LSU's legendary golden band from Tigerland. Very proud of her. My son John is a sophomore at the University of Southern Mississippi. He is a political science major, a very talented drummer, and has a bright future ahead of him for sure. I appreciate my three siblings traveling to support me here today. My older brother, Mark, is a member of the Louisiana Bar. My younger sister, Marie Therese, lives in Chicago and is a member of the Illinois Bar. My younger brother, Patrick, owns a business. He lives in Metairie, Louisiana. He is here with his son, my nephew, Michael. I'd also like to take a moment to recognize my boss, David Cursell. He is the presidentially appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I thank him and all of my talented colleagues at that great office for their support, their assistance, their patience as this process has unfolded over the past few months. And in conclusion, I thank God as the author and source of all good things in life for the many gifts and blessings I've been given, this nomination included. I know upon reflection that God's providential hand has been steering me along at key points in my life that have ultimately led me to this privileged seat at the table. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to bring to the bench hard work, humility, and steadfast fidelity to the rule of law. Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to answering any questions from the committee.

Chuck Grassley [1:03:15]

Thank you, Chairman

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:03:20]

Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguished members of this committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for the honor of this nomination. I'd also like to thank my two home state senators, Senator Hawley and Senator Schmidt, for their support and recommendation and their service to the great people of Missouri. I specifically want to thank Senator Schmidt for the warm and kind introduction. It was an honor to work for him at the Missouri Attorney General's office, and I couldn't believe that I'm sitting here in this chair and he's sitting on the opposite side of the dais. I am proud and privileged to be joined by many family members and friends, both here in this room and also watching from afar in Kansas City and Arizona and many other places. There are too many of them to name individually, but I do want to highlight a few folks. First and foremost, my beloved wife, Kirsten, who's here with me today. She and I have been married almost seven years. She is the love of my life, and I could not be sitting in this chair right now without her love and support. We have three wonderful children who are also here with us today, and I ask the committee's indulgence. They're under seven, so they're... trying to stay entertained back there, so if there's a little bit of noises, that's what they're doing. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, by the way, for the notepads for the kids. I'm not from Louisiana, but the people of Louisiana have always been very warm and kind to me when I was clerking in southern Arkansas and was making trips to Shreveport and Homer, so thank you for that. I also have, well, and first let me just say that I... I'll never be able to thank my family enough for the sacrifices that they have made so that I could pursue a career mostly in public service. I'm very grateful for them. I'm honored to have my dad here in this room, Pedro Ocete, and his wife, Patty. They're traveling from Nogales, Arizona, my hometown in southern Arizona where I grew up. It's about 86 kilometers south of Tucson. I'm an American because of my dad. And in 1995, he took a chance and adopted a young toddler from Mexico. And I'm so grateful that because of that action, I'm sitting in this chair today. Also with us today, my brother -in -law, Cole Millard. He's an attorney at the FAA. He lives here in Washington, D .C. I know my sister -in -law is watching as well. My in -laws, Lori and Bill Millard, who are watching from Kansas City, I'm very grateful for their love and support and for accepting me into their family. I also want to thank my various colleagues who are here today, various DAGs and trial attorneys. My secretary, Grace Johnson, has been extremely helpful to me during this process and just being at the Civil Rights Division as well. I want to thank the judges I clerked for, Judge Bobby Shepard and Zell Fisher on the Missouri Supreme Court, who taught me how to be a good judge or what a good judge looks like. I'm grateful for their lessons and their mentorship. And I also want to thank Judge Greg Case. If I'm fortunate to be confirmed, I will be taking his seat. I thank him for his decades of service to the federal judiciary. And if confirmed, I'm acutely aware that I have enormous shoes to fill, and I very much look forward to that task. There's so many other people I can thank, but time is limited. But I just want to reflect and just give my thanks to all the friends and family who got me in this chair today. I love you all very much, and I thank you for your support. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for what I consider to be a privilege to testify before you today. I welcome your questions. I'm

Chuck Grassley [1:06:57]

going to ask questions, and when I'm done, Senator Kennedy is going to take over because I have a previous appointment. Judge Long, you've spent the last decade as a state judge. four years as a trial judge and six appellate. You presided over thousands of civil and criminal cases and hundreds of opinions you've written. Describe your jurisprudence and please tell us what you've learned as a state judge that you'll take with you to the federal bench.

A witness [1:07:30]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had the tremendous honor over the last decade to serve the people of Florida as a state court judge. I have had the opportunity to serve as both a trial court judge and an appellate court judge. And while in many respects those jobs share some commonalities, they're also different in some important ways. As a trial court judge, I had the opportunity. to learn how to manage a courtroom, to select juries and manage the wildness that is a courtroom. I had the opportunity to try hundreds of cases presiding over criminal matters, civil matters, family law matters. On the appellate court, I've had the opportunity to... dive deeply into particular areas of the law. It's a place where you can really do the academic intellectual work of the law. And so if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed, it would be my hope to bring both of those experiences to bear in the federal courtroom.

Chuck Grassley [1:08:48]

Thank you, Judge Long. Now, Mr. Mansfield, you spent your entire career as a U .S. attorney. You've handled approximately 800 cases. You've served as civil chief since 2013. Please tell us your experience in the U .S. attorney's office, how that's prepared you for the type of cases you'll see as a judge of

Peter Mansfield [1:09:15]

the district court. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. To be a civil litigator for the United States, especially in a U.S. attorney's office, is by necessity and definition to be a generalist. We represent the United States as both plaintiff and defendant across a number of diverse practice areas arising under a number of different federal statutory regimes. We can't turn cases down. We don't control what cases get served on our office. We can't trade them in for something more interested or perhaps easier. So that means when we get a case in the door, we have to quickly triage it. We have to identify the disputed issues of law and fact. We have to do the initial research to educate ourselves on the law. We have to develop a record to resolve disputed issues of fact. Then we have to determine a litigation strategy that will ultimately lead to a just result in the case. In my view, the role of a federal district court judge is also by necessity and definition the role of a generalist. They do not control the cases that appear on their docket on the civil or criminal side or what the clerk of court may randomly assign them. So for that reason, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I certainly anticipate using that same skill set. that I've developed over the course of the past 23 years as a generalist litigator to move my docket efficiently and achieve timely justice in each case or controversy that may come before me.

Chuck Grassley [1:10:38]

Thank you. Now, Mr. Oceti, you've held numerous leadership positions in Missouri Attorney General's office, Secretary of State's office, and currently the Justice Department. During your career, you've managed many attorneys and oversee hundreds of important cases on a wide array of different judges. From your perspective as an advocate, what attributes... makes you what attributes make you a good judge.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:11:14]

Well, Senator, I believe the Constitution is the strongest guarantor of liberty, which is a core American value. But as we all know in this room, the Constitution doesn't enforce itself. It relies on fair, experienced judges to uphold it. And it similarly involves public servants and many litigators and many attorneys to take an oath to the Constitution. And that's something that I have done from the beginning of my career. I did it as a law clerk at the federal level. I did it as a law clerk at the state Supreme Court level, state judiciary. I did that as a general counsel for a statewide elected official at the attorney general's office when Senator Schmidt was in the attorney general's office. And I just, and similarly today, just at the Justice Department as well, taking a note to the Constitution. To me, fairness and humility. You know, the cases that these judges decide are not academic. They affect real lives and livelihoods. And so you need somebody who understands that adjudicating a case in a fair and impartial manner that the public can be confident about. And even if you disagree with the ruling, you understand it. But that's a system at work because without the rule of law, you have tyranny, you have anarchy. And I think having fairness, a fair outcome and. a fair and impartial jurist to uphold those principles, uphold the Constitution, is of paramount importance.

Chuck Grassley [1:12:35]

Thanks to all three of you, and congratulations, Senator Durbin. And Senator Kennedy, thank you for taking over. Thank you. Thanks,

Richard J. Durbin [1:12:53]

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mansfield, could you clarify something? In describing your family and children, did you say that you had two drummers?

Peter Mansfield [1:13:02]

Well, I have four musicians. My oldest daughter, Catherine, was the drum major, so she led the entire 325 members of the LSU Golden Band from Tiger Land. Her initial instrument was piano, then she took up flute and piccolo. My son, John, immediately to her left, is a drummer. He played on the drum line at Jesuit for five years, Jesuit High School in New Orleans. And now he's behind the kit, and he has his own band in New Orleans, and look to see big things coming from them very soon.

Richard J. Durbin [1:13:29]

If your nomination depends on being found a proud and patient parent you're doing quite well Thank You ranking member. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Mr. Rossetti I'd like to ask you a question or two, but I'd like to preface those remarks by saying that Not exactly those tables, but that particular spot the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Judge Roberts appeared before this Judiciary Committee, and in two days, I thought, gave one of the most amazing performances, if you can characterize it, and that's not a negative term I've never seen of a nominee. Without a note, without a pen in his hand, he proceeded to answer every question and hit it out of the park. One of the things he said stuck with me. He said, the right to vote is preservative of all rights. The right to vote is preservative of all rights. In 2016, you wrote an article entitled, Voter Suppression Rears Its Ugly Head. In it, you criticized the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder and its consequences. And among other things, you wrote, and I quote, We frequently see examples of post-Shelby County repercussions in legislation, calling for strict voter ID requirements. that effectively cause disparate treatment among certain groups of people. Then you went on to say, the justifications being put forward are that of cost efficiency and fraud prevention, which both likely serve as pretext, your words, for discriminatory actions against minorities. Now at the Justice Department, you have advocated to further change, and I believe lessen, The Voter Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, building on the first major blow that came over a decade ago in Shelby County Holder. The administration also continues to attack voting rights and undermine confidence in our elections, often under the guise of preventing voter fraud or ensuring so-called election integrity. So where do you stand today as a person working at the Justice Department, having made very clear in your statements in 2016 your feeling about voter suppression?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:15:53]

Well, Senator, there's no question that as a young law student in 2016, I had many different views, and I'm not going to deny that I wrote those words in 2016. It is now 2026. If I'm fortunate to be confirmed, I will be a judge 11 years out of law school, and throughout that time, I have amassed a significant record litigating various cases. achieved many different experiences. I certainly was not an election law expert back in 2016. I certainly was not familiar with the voting rights jurisprudence and many other relevant precedents at that time. But over time now, in the last 11 years, I've done a fair bit of maturity and reflection and assessment and looking at the various laws. And I'm proud of the work that we have done to ensure that the Voting Rights Act is upheld, that it is protecting individuals from racial discrimination and many other tactics, and that we are upholding the right to vote. Let me ask you,

Richard J. Durbin [1:16:58]

I'm going to run out of time here, so I've got to ask you a question or two. So are you saying that you've matured beyond the position that you took in this article? where you said that strict voter ID requirements effectively cause disparate treatment among certain groups of people. The justifications being put forward are that of cost efficiency and fraud prevention, which both likely serve as pretexts for discriminatory action against minorities. Are you saying you've matured beyond that position?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:17:29]

I'm saying that I have litigated various cases where I've defended common sense voter ID laws and many other election integrity measures to combat fraud and to protect the rights of American citizens to vote in elections and to have confidence in our elections. That's what I've done since 2016. So

Richard J. Durbin [1:17:45]

let me put Brian on the table. There's a genuine concern by many on my side of the aisle and even some others who don't have a partisan identification that there's going to be an attempt to undermine the voting in the next election in November, just a few weeks away. At the Justice Department, can you give me your assurance that you have done nothing and will do nothing to inhibit the right of legal Americans to legitimately and fairly vote?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:18:15]

The department will ensure that the laws that have been enacted by this Congress, like the NVRA, the Help America Vote Act, and many other countless election statutes will be enforced.

Richard J. Durbin [1:18:24]

So when we hear from one of the assistant attorneys general that she's going to send a thousand observers into the precincts, what are we to make of that?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:18:33]

You're to make of it, Senator, that she's going to send DOJ monitors just like every administration has for various decades.

Richard J. Durbin [1:18:39]

Nothing different.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:18:40]

They're going to be there and they're going to be observing violations of election law, just like any other administration.

Richard J. Durbin [1:18:46]

It is the right, it is preservative of all other rights, and we ought to value and honor it as such. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

John Kennedy [1:19:03]

Mr. Ossetti, well, first, congratulations to all of you. You used to work at Brine Cave?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:19:16]

Yes, Senator.

John Kennedy [1:19:17]

It's in St. Louis? That's their main office?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:19:20]

Yes, one of the largest offices in St. Louis. It's like a merge with a British firm now, so it's like it used to be in St. Louis, now it's like all over the place.

John Kennedy [1:19:29]

Well, that's a good sign. Brian Cave doesn't hire dummies, do they? I

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:19:36]

don't think so.

John Kennedy [1:19:37]

No. One of my best friends from law school is a senior partner there, John Shaper Cotter. He would have met a great judge if I had gotten here earlier. I would have done my best to get him on the bench. You're at Civil Rights now, right? Civil Rights Division?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:19:58]

Yes, Senator. Okay.

John Kennedy [1:20:01]

I want to follow up on the points made by my good friend, Senator Durbin. I'm trying to understand the argument, legal argument, against voter ID. Suppose I filed a federal lawsuit and I said it is unconstitutional to require anyone who wants to vote to have to present an ID. It is un-American. It's arrogant. It's the government saying they don't trust me. I'm an American citizen. I'm entitled to be trusted. And if I say I am who I am, you have to take my word for it. Suppose I file that lawsuit. What do you think the judge would do based on the law?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:21:19]

Well, in my experience as a litigator, those kind of measures, like in 2022 in Missouri, that kind of was the argument, is folks thought it was going to be burdensome to have a voter ID or have to show their ID. But one of the things that we pointed out in that litigation is that IDs are used for many different things. I mean, you can't even travel in an airplane. You can't even come into some buildings, certainly not the Department of Justice. And frankly, there were also alternatives. You could vote through a provisional ballot. You could provide other forms of ID. You can sign a certification. There were other less burdensome measures, if that was the argument, not saying we accepted it or not, that courts will weigh in deciding whether or not those measures are constitutional or not. But ultimately, the courts are very... deferential and considerate to the state's sovereignty to enact its own laws. And so long as it doesn't infringe on a federal constitutional right, they tend to uphold those laws. And I think that's kind of been the trend over the last few years.

John Kennedy [1:22:21]

You, of course, have voted before, have you not?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:22:24]

I have, Senator. Very fortunate.

John Kennedy [1:22:26]

Did you present an ID?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:22:29]

I did, Senator.

John Kennedy [1:22:30]

And how long did that take for them to confirm, look at your ID?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:22:37]

I want to say probably like a minute, maybe less. Okay.

John Kennedy [1:22:49]

And if you hadn't had your ID, would they have said, go away, you can't vote? In Louisiana, if you don't have your ID, you can fill out an affidavit. Right. Is that the case?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:23:06]

So it varies by state, but in my experience in Missouri, you can vote what's called a provisional ballot, and you fill out this form and you can track your ballot. But they match your voter file. They match your signature. Once you register to vote, there's an address and other identifications that they can match. Help me

John Kennedy [1:23:26]

understand why that's unfair, why that would inhibit anybody from voting.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:23:39]

Senator, it's no secret that our country has had past instances. Certainly, we had a constitutional amendment to abolish poll taxes. We don't have a poll tax. Of course not. But my point is I think folks try to equate a lot of those common sense measures that we have today to those very draconian and racially discriminatory measures, and I just don't think that's a fair characterization. So it's largely, I think... subset of that, but again, I think it's a very common sense measure. It's very easy, and I think the state of Missouri makes it very easy to vote, and it's harder to cheat.

John Kennedy [1:24:17]

Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I'm out of time, gentlemen. I didn't get to you. I think Senator Hawley, I mean, Senator Blumenthal is next. I warn you, he's going to ask you who won the election of 1812, so be ready, okay? Senator Blumenthal, my buddy.

Richard Blumenthal [1:24:41]

Thank you for that very gracious introduction, Senator Kennedy. Judge Long, who won the 2020 election for president?

A witness [1:24:55]

Senator Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election. We'll save time if the other two

Richard Blumenthal [1:25:02]

nominees want to just say ditto.

Peter Mansfield [1:25:08]

Ditto, Senator.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:25:12]

Senator, I just want to be clear. Article 2 and the 12th Amendment. Under those provisions, Joe Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election. He served as president for four years. That's a ditto.

Richard Blumenthal [1:25:22]

You've been well instructed by the White House.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:25:25]

Sir, my answer, sir.

Richard Blumenthal [1:25:27]

Same answer. What's your reason for being reluctant to say that Joe Biden won? Judge Long.

A witness [1:25:38]

Well, Senator, just to be clear, I'm not being reluctant to say that he won. He did win by virtue of winning a majority of the Electoral College votes and being certified as a winner. Who won the popular vote? Well, I agree with past nominees that it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in to political controversy. Why would it be inappropriate

Richard Blumenthal [1:25:59]

for you to weigh in, as you say? You're a judge. You're elected to the office that you have right now.

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:26:08]

So, Senator, I think that there is an ongoing political dispute, and I don't think I could say... Really? There's an

Richard Blumenthal [1:26:17]

ongoing political dispute as to who won the 2020 election? Look at what America .gov says. Now, this is an official government website that says Joseph R. Biden Jr. won the 2020 U .S. presidential election. In fact... It was up for some period of time, taken down more recently because the Trump administration inexplicably didn't want to tell the truth to the American people on this official government website. But what's your reluctance to simply state what the facts are? The popular vote was won by who? I

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:27:05]

don't think I have anything else to add, Senator, other than what I've already said. Mr. Mansfield?

Peter Mansfield [1:27:14]

Again, Senator, I would agree with Judge Rudofsky earlier in response to this same question from you. I don't have anything more to add. There has been. Mr. Arrestee.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:27:25]

We don't elect president through the popular vote, Senator. Joe Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election. He served four years as president. Let

Richard Blumenthal [1:27:33]

me just be clear. You three are nominated to be the face and voice of justice, independent. to state the facts, to follow the truth without fear or favor. If you can't state this fact because you are so intimidated by the aura of fear created by the White House about this truth, I don't know how you can serve with integrity on the bench of the United States District Court. Let me ask you, Judge Long, was the Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:28:15]

Senator, let me be clear. I have had the opportunity to serve in law enforcement. I worked in law enforcement for 16 years. Why

Richard Blumenthal [1:28:25]

don't you just come to the point, because time is limited. If you want to evade the question, just say, I'm not answering your question, Senator.

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:28:34]

Well, I denounce violence. I denounce violence against law enforcement. Okay, you're not going to answer my question, Mr. Mansfield.

Peter Mansfield [1:28:44]

Again, Senator, it would be impossible for me to improve off Judge Rudofsky's answer to the same question to you earlier today.

Richard Blumenthal [1:28:51]

You're not going to answer it either. Mr. Arrestee?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:28:56]

Senator, I was in Kansas City, Missouri on January 6, 2021. What I witnessed was violence, trespass. assaults against police officers, and I condemn all of that violence and any and all violence against law enforcement officials. I believe the Supreme Court has described the events of that day in the Fisher v. United States case as a breach of the Capitol, and as a lower court nominee and a lower court judge, if confirmed... Okay, my

Richard Blumenthal [1:29:22]

time is about to run out, and I respect that all of you could talk for the next 15 minutes about why you won't answer the question. But you have an obligation to be truthful and forthcoming to this panel, just as you do to the American people. And for reasons that I think we understand, namely, the President of the United States has told you not to say that the Capitol was attacked. He's offended when anybody says it, and you're in fear of saying it. You simply won't answer this question. And when you dance around it this way, I think it creates the kind of distrust and dismay on the part of the American people about all of government and the judiciary, more than any other branch of government, should have the respect and credibility and trust of the American people, which is undermined when nominees fail to be completely forthcoming and truthful. So I have to say I'm... disappointed and I hope my colleagues will take note of what's happening here today. Thank you.

John Kennedy [1:30:49]

You want Ashley to go next? Senator Moody.

Ashley Moody [1:30:57]

Thank you for being here. Thank you for stepping up. willing to take an appointment, a nomination. Thank you to your families for being here, supporting you. Sometimes these things are harder on the families. So we are grateful to you. This is certainly public service, and we are grateful that you are dedicating your talents and education and passion to serving your country. So thank you very much. I'm always happy to be here when there's a Floridian on the panel. Glad to see you. Congratulations to your family. I'll start with you, Mr. Long, since you're a true patriot from Florida. Do you agree that originalism and textualism, the interpreted methods that oblige a judge in America to seek out the plain meaning of the words written in our Constitution and our laws at the time they were adopted, are the correct way for American judges to go about their decision-making in our American legal system?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:31:58]

Yes, Senator, I agree in full with that.

Ashley Moody [1:32:01]

Do you agree, Mr. Mansfield?

Katie Boyd Britt [1:32:04]

Yes,

Unidentified speaker [1:32:04]

Senator, I do agree. Ditto.

Ashley Moody [1:32:08]

And we'll go back to Judge Long. Why?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:32:14]

Well, we live in a constitutional republic, and by its nature, it's founded on the positive law, on a constitution. And so it is the mechanism by which the sovereign people exercise their authority over their government. judges are not applying the positive written law as it's written, then we stray from being a constitutional republic.

Ashley Moody [1:32:46]

So you believe that method of textualism is reflective of a true democracy at work? I

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:32:53]

do. A

Ashley Moody [1:32:54]

civilized people, a free people, living together as free people, deciding what laws they will live under. You have to have judges that are willing to interpret those laws accordingly.

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:33:06]

Yes, Senator.

Ashley Moody [1:33:07]

And in fact, most proponents of this text faithful way of interpreting law deciding cases believe that. textualism is the most democratic way of judging because it's people through their elective representatives who make the laws and the laws on the books are there as a reflection of the people's will. So we are saying we're going to read the people's laws to mean what the people would have understood it to mean when their elective representatives put it on the books. Do you both agree that that is a true reflection of democracy?

Peter Mansfield [1:33:37]

Thank you, Senator. I do agree with Judge Long's reflections on this topic. And I would only add to that that under Article 1, Section 8, there's a requirement of bicameralism and presentment for something to become binding law. So interpreting the text that this body actually approved and the president signed into law is the correct way. Thank you.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:33:56]

I agree, Senator. And the only thing I would add is I think those interpretive methods do restrain judges from adopting interpretations that would contradict the text of this body. And so I think it's also

Ashley Moody [1:34:08]

important for judicial restraint, which we're seeing less and less of around the nation. And you believe judicial restraint is important. Understanding your limited power as a judge.

A witness [1:34:18]

Absolutely, Senator.

Ashley Moody [1:34:20]

So we have people now that call themselves Democrat socialists, pledge allegiance to an agenda and that way of thinking. And they are calling for a radical new system. They want to replace the Supreme Court with a judiciary that's chosen by and subordinate to Congress. And we all know our Constitution is a delicate balance, a separation of powers of three branches. Which do you think is a bigger jeopardy to democracy truly? And these are people, by the way, who claim to represent the will of the people. Textualism or making the judiciary subordinate to and answering to this place. And we'll start with you, Mr. Mansfield.

Peter Mansfield [1:35:03]

Making the judiciary subordinate to Congress, I believe, is a constitutional impossibility under a horizontal separation of powers. I do not believe textualism is a threat to liberty. As you stated in your earlier question, I believe it's a guarantor of liberty. So do you think

Ashley Moody [1:35:18]

that suggesting that and pushing for that is indeed an attack on our Constitution and the way it lays out our branches of government?

Peter Mansfield [1:35:26]

Absolutely. I think it's an attack on the Madisonian architecture of separation of powers.

Ashley Moody [1:35:31]

And I'll go back to you, Judge Long. Do you believe this is slightly insane or completely insane?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:35:38]

Well, I certainly agree with Mr. Mansfield.

Unidentified speaker [1:35:41]

It would undermine the core features of American constitutional Republican government. Would it be

Ashley Moody [1:35:47]

dangerous to the fabric of freedom by which we live as a free people?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:35:51]

I agree that it would undermine all of that. Thank you.

Chuck Grassley [1:35:57]

Senator Welch.

Peter Welch [1:35:59]

Thank you very much. Thank you all. Congratulations. Mr. Ossetti, I just have a procedural question. If the U .S. attorney was investigating a potential crime, say Burlington, Vermont, and there was Washington office involvement, normally would there be... participation of the U .S. attorney in Vermont in the process of getting a search warrant to authorize a search? I

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:36:31]

don't have the specific Justice Department provision on that, but I believe that's right, Senator.

Peter Welch [1:36:35]

All right. So do you know in the Fulton County search, who was the U .S. attorney that was responsible for drawing up the search warrant?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:36:52]

So, Senator, I want to be careful. I did not work on the criminal aspect of the Fulton County matter. There is a separate Civil Rights Act lawsuit that was filed in Fulton County, Georgia, but I am aware through public reporting that Thomas Albus was appointed to be the interim U .S. attorney for that matter, but that's the extent of my knowledge as to who was appointed. But he's not

Peter Welch [1:37:12]

from Atlanta. He's from Missouri, right?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:37:16]

He's from the eastern side of Missouri, yes. All right.

Peter Welch [1:37:20]

So it sounds like the normal procedure involving the local U .S. attorney was bypassed in the case of the Fulton County search, correct?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:37:31]

I'm not sure, Senator. The only other conceivable path that I can think of is that there's a statute that this body enacted, 28 U .S .C. Section 515, that does allow the appointment of a U .S. attorney for conflict reasons or other reasons. Was there any conflict? I don't know, Senator. I didn't work on that case. Did

Peter Welch [1:37:49]

any indictments come out of the search of the Fulton County records?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:37:55]

I have not seen anything publicly reported, and again, I'm not privy to that investigation. So

Peter Welch [1:38:00]

were you at all involved in your responsibilities at the Justice Department with the planning or the execution of the Fulton County search?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:38:09]

The only association I would have had, Senator, is that when we learned, as a civil matter, as you know as a former public defender, once as a criminal matter, and it involves the same operative nucleus of fact, for a civil matter, we ended up staying our civil case. so that the criminal case would proceed forward. So once that happened, we completely screened off the... Going back

Peter Welch [1:38:31]

to this question about the 2020 election, recently, really in the past couple of weeks, President Trump was in Ireland, and he asserted very explicitly that he won three elections, 2016, 2024, and 2020. Do you agree with that assertion by President Trump that he won in 2020? Well, Senator...

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:38:53]

Under the canons of judicial ethics, specifically canon five, it would be inappropriate for me to wane to political commentary and other comments and political activity. What I do know is illegal.

Peter Welch [1:39:04]

Look, that just doesn't smell right. Judicial canons say you can't tell me whether you agree or disagree when President Trump says explicitly that he won 2020. You agree or you disagree?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:39:19]

Well, Senator, my point is that. Clearly, some people have a certain view of that particular event.

Peter Welch [1:39:25]

He's got a very specific view. He won. He's saying that. I'm asking you whether you agree with him.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:39:31]

Senator, again, under the judicial canons, the only thing I can say is that Joe Biden was certified in 2020 as the winner of the election.

Peter Welch [1:39:38]

Next thing, he said about a week after that, that the only way Democrats can win in this upcoming election is by cheating. Do you agree?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:39:50]

Senator, I'm not familiar with the comments, and again, I can't get into political controversy. I just made

Peter Welch [1:39:54]

you familiar with the comments. He said, his words, the only way Democrats can win is by cheating. You agree or disagree?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:40:06]

Senator, again, that's a matter of political controversy that I can't get into under the Canon 5.

Peter Welch [1:40:11]

Well, I can tell you this. I think Republicans can win. because they have an argument that persuades more voters than the Democrat did in that candidate. What is the problem with you saying the same thing about Democrats?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:40:24]

I'm sitting here as a judicial nominee bound by the canons of judicial ethics, Senator.

Peter Welch [1:40:28]

You know, you say that, and that's like a cover -up. That's like taking the fifth. This doesn't smell right to everyday people. You know, Senator Hawley won the he's here because he won the election. Senator Kennedy is here because he won the election. Senator Grassley is here. He never loses an election. You can't say the same thing about Joe Biden. You agree with President Trump that the only way a Democrat can win Macy Hirono, Peter Welch is by cheating.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:41:02]

Senator, those are not my words. I've made it clear who is certified as the elector. My time

Peter Welch [1:41:06]

is up. Senator Hawley.

Josh Hawley [1:41:10]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here. It's great, Mr. Ossetti, to see you and to see another Missourian on this panel. I think this will be number, I think, sixth district court nominee that President Trump has gotten to appoint out of the state of Missouri in the last year and a half. So that's a pretty good record. And you have such a strong advocate in former Attorney General John Ashcroft. who is a big believer in you. So he and I have had, he must have called me 15 times about your nomination. So anyway, he's, as I said to him when I talked to him on the phone, I said, John, anybody who you're for, I'm for. So anyway, he's a great man. And it's great to see that you've got his support. I just want to give you a chance to. A follow-up on what Senator Durbin was asking about a second ago, this article, and Senator Kennedy asked you about it too. This article you wrote, were you in law school back in 2016? Is that right thereabouts? I was a 25-year-old law student, yes. And about Shelby County, and you said you disagreed with Shelby County. That's a decision written by my old boss at the Supreme Court. And at the time, you said you disagreed with it and you don't like voter ID or you didn't like voter ID. But I thought I heard you say to Senator Durbin that your views have changed. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:42:28]

That's correct. And I've litigated extensive matters defending voter ID laws like HB 1878 in 2022 when I was general counsel for the Secretary of State's office.

Josh Hawley [1:42:36]

In Missouri. Because we have a voter ID law, a very strong one in the state of Missouri. And you've litigated in defense of that. Yes. Yeah. And so you mentioned poll taxes to Senator Kennedy and you mentioned those in the article. But I just want to be clear. You're not comparing your view now is you're not comparing voter I .D. to poll taxes. I mean, you think as a matter of law, those things are not equivalent.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:43:02]

No, they're not. All I was explaining in that point, Senator, is that some of the opponents of voter I .D. today and some of the arguments they've made in court is to try to go back to, you know. some of the measures that were racially discriminatory and now outlawed, obviously, through constitutional amendments and trying to make comparisons. And, of course, that comparison doesn't hold water. Voter ID is a common -sense election integrity measure, and I've had the honor of defending voter ID laws both in federal court and in state court in Missouri. Good.

Josh Hawley [1:43:30]

Okay, good. I'm glad we got that cleared up. Let me give you a chance to clear up something else some pro -life folks in the state have raised. You said to Senator Kennedy you worked at Brian Cave. Great Missouri law firm. I'm aware that Brian Cave, as a matter of public record, represented a transgender clinic called Southampton Community Healthcare back some years ago. And I guess maybe you were there at the time at the firm, but you didn't represent that clinic. Is that correct, Mr. Osei?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:44:01]

That's correct, Senator. I was an associate, and it was a client of the firm that other partners handled.

Josh Hawley [1:44:08]

Yeah. So I think they have... Ended up suing the Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, I think maybe you worked for him for a while, to try to stop state regulations preventing transgender surgeries for minors, which I'm 100% in favor of those regulations. But that was, you were not involved. I just want to be real clear about this. You were not involved at all in that litigation, correct? No, Senator. On the merits of that litigation, no. Great. Anything else, Mr. Ossetti, you'd like to say about your judicial philosophy? Maybe you want to talk about something you learned from General Ashcroft, but talk about how you'd approach the job and what your approach is to statutory interpretation. Just give us a sense about how you think about the law. Go

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:44:53]

ahead. Well, thank you, Senator. And again, it's really hard to believe that we're both sitting across from each other. I met you. It's been a long time since I met you in Holtz Summit at your... opening ceremony when you had just been sworn in as the Attorney General of Missouri and I was a law clerk on the Missouri Supreme Court at the time and it was just truly an honor and so great to see everything you've done since 2016. I worked for some great judges, Zell Fisher and Bobby Shepard, who taught me how to look at statutes, look at the original meaning of a constitutional provision, look at its text, and having respect for the legislative bodies and the people that ratify the various provisions, both in the Constitution and statutes. And again, that's what I've learned. And so far, the best instrument, the best measure of... constitutional interpretation and textual interpretation, sexual interpretation that I've come across is originalism, is textualism. It's a powerful interpretive method to, again, restrain otherwise unrestrained federal judges and other, even at the state level. And it's not a doctrine that's been developed tremendously at the state level, but I was very proud when I was clerking that we had a huge emphasis for going back to the text, going to the original meaning, going to the structure of the Constitution, going to what the people at the time thought they were passing and they were in fact passing. So I have great respect for the legislative process. I have great respect for the courts. And again, someone like me who was born in a country that didn't have the kind of robust protections, due process and otherwise, that we do have in this country. I'm just such a proud American. I've been able to witness that firsthand, and I'm so proud to be here as a district court nominee. And to have the opportunity to even apply those principles to begin with is quite an honor.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:46:36]

Senator Ronald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by asking two questions that I ask of all nominees before any of the committees on which I sit. And this goes to Fitness to Serve and the positions to which you have been nominated. And we'll just go right down the line. We'll start with Judge Long down the line. So since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

Unidentified speaker [1:47:11]

No, Senator. No, Senator. No, Senator.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:47:15]

Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?

Unidentified speaker [1:47:21]

No, Senator. I'm not, Senator. No, Senator.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:47:26]

This is again for the whole panel. There are currently over 950 federal court cases against the Trump administration. which basically I call a regime because of its authoritarianism. And President Trump has attempted, for example, to end birthright citizenship that came before the Supreme Court. He has gutted the federal workforce and basically destroyed half of the White House. And that's just some of the things that has led to over 900 lawsuits to stop the president from continuing in this vein. Now, just recently, the OMB notified Congress that President Trump withheld almost a billion dollars. a billion dollars of funds that Congress had already appropriated. Meanwhile, the government accounting office, another office of the federal government, said yesterday, again yesterday, that this was wrongfully withheld and this money was supposed to support minority businesses, immigrant communities, and housing. So like all of President Trump's lawlessness, this recent action will likely end up in court. And the Trump regime loses the vast majority of these cases, I'm sure you are aware. And that is because of federal judges applying the law to the facts. So judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, including some of the nominees by President Trump, himself have ruled against Trump's illegal actions. So I want to ask each of you, again, we'll start with Judge Longwood on the line. Is the judiciary an independent branch of government?

Unidentified speaker [1:49:15]

Yes, Senator.

Peter Mansfield [1:49:17]

I agree, Senator, absolutely.

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:49:20]

Yes, Senator, as stated in Article 3 of the Constitution.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:49:23]

So if confirmed, will you faithfully apply the law to the facts?

Unidentified speaker [1:49:29]

Yes, Senator, I will. Yes, Senator, I will. Yes, Senator Hirono, I will.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:49:35]

Now, we all know that the president expects that the judges, that his nominees will pretty much go along with whatever he wants, including, by the way, the Supreme Court. So he has... called for the impeachment of judges that rule against him. And when I mention all of these cases, almost 1,000 cases, and 75% or so of the time, the rulings are against him. So these judges are, I would assume, asking for evidence and then ruling against this regime. So when the president says that judges who don't go along with what he wants should be impeached, in a rare rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts said, and I'll quote, For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose, end quote. So do you agree that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judges whose decisions you dislike?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:50:43]

Senator, I think that impeachment is inherently a political issue by a political body, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to weigh in on when. So

Mazie K. Hirono [1:50:55]

you think that it would be okay to impeach judges whose decisions you don't like?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:50:58]

I don't think it's my decision to decide when the House decides to impeach someone. So you

Mazie K. Hirono [1:51:04]

are not going along with what the Chief Justice is saying?

Hon. Robert E. Long [1:51:07]

I'll leave that to the Chief Justice.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:51:10]

Okay, that's pretty amazing. So, you know what, that causes me to question whether you will actually apply the law to the facts and be an independent third branch of government. Mr. Mansfield, do you think judges should be impeached because we don't agree with your decisions?

Peter Mansfield [1:51:29]

No, Senator. I think the appellate process ordinarily is sufficient to seek higher review of decisions for which a litigant may disagree.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:51:37]

So you agree with the Chief Justice?

Peter Mansfield [1:51:39]

I would agree with the Chief Justice, Senator.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:51:41]

Mr. Ossetti?

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:51:43]

Two things. Certainly, if there's a disagreement with a judge's decision, that's where the appellate process is there. But in terms of when impeachment's appropriate or not appropriate, again, as a political issue, I can't comment in pursuant to Canon 5 of the judicial canons.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:51:56]

I think it's more than a political issue. It has to do with, you know, if you don't agree with what a judge says, there is a process. It's called appealing. So I would hope that as nominees and certainly with judges, judge for life, that you would defend the independence of the judiciary. I do have a question relating to the Folsom County raid, but I'm just wondering what the heck the intention is, what the intention is with the material that was retrieved in that raid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chuck Grassley [1:52:40]

I gave you permission to ask your last question. I thought you had one more question.

Mazie K. Hirono [1:52:51]

Maybe this is for Mr. Rossetti because you were involved in the Fulton County raid in some form or other. What is the Justice Department going to do with that material that they got? All the voter rolls, etc. And that also goes to what is the Justice Department intend to do with all the voter rolls that they got from some of the states that cooperated when the Attorney General asked? States and sued some 28 29 states for their voter rolls. What is the intention with that information? So

Mr. Jesus A. Osete [1:53:25]

mr. Chairman so to two points as I told senator Walsh earlier on the Fulton County criminal case We are screened off that case. I'm not working on the criminal Raid as you described it Fulton County matter. So that's not my matter with respect to voter rolls I think the office of legal policies opinion that was released earlier this year speaks for itself

Mazie K. Hirono [1:53:46]

See, basically, the Department of Justice has no business, in my view, getting this kind of information because voting and elections are for the states to run. Thank you.

Chuck Grassley [1:53:57]

Thank you to the nominees for your testimony today. You're obviously going to get a lot of questions and writing from the members that weren't here and even some from the members that were here. And those can be submitted up until October the 7th at 5 p.m. And then answer them just as soon as you can. Meeting adjourned.