Auto-transcript: Hearings to examine the nominations of Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Angela Veronica Colmenero, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Michael C. Martin, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Kasdin Miller Mitchell, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, and Antonio M. Pozos, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A senator [0:04]

Because the stakes could not be higher. Leidos, outsmart, outdo. It's now 9.46. I'm Kristen Diaz.

Unidentified speaker [0:13]

I'm John Aaron. Across the region, bars are getting ready for the World Cup. WTOP's Mike Murillo reports. Ireland's four courts in Arlington is an institution for soccer fans, and the World Cup means business is doubling on most days.

Chuck Grassley [30:43]

Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. I am going to start by reading Chairman Grassley's opening statement on his behalf. Today, we'll have two panels. The first panel features Daniel Traynor, who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Our second panel has four district court nominees, Angela Colmanaro for the Southern District of Texas, Michael Martin for the Eastern District of Michigan, Kasdan Miller for the Northern District of Texas, and Antonio, is it, how do we say this correctly? Pozo. Okay. Excellent. Pozo for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In a moment, I will turn to our visitors to introduce these nominees, but first, I'd like to say a few words. Today, we are considering a pair of district court nominees from Pennsylvania and Michigan, Mr. Pozo and Mr. Martin. These are the first judicial nominees this Congress who've received blue slips from Democratic senators. I want to commend President Trump. Senators Fetterman, Peters, and Slotkin for their collaboration. these nominations. The blue slip has been a Senate practice for more than a century. It's, in part, how the Senate exercises its advice and consent role regarding judicial nominations. The practice has been defended by senators of both parties over the years. Ranking member Durbin and myself can both speak firsthand about the political pressure on the Senate. We've received from our respective colleagues wishes and retaining this long standing practice. Properly understood, blue slips safeguard one of the Senate's distinct constitutional powers. When approached in good faith, it fosters cooperation with the White House to ensure that district judges are well suited and respected in the states in which they will serve. Republicans and Democrats have successfully worked together for decades. In this regard, under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, opposing parties returned more than 180 blue slips for district court nominees. More than 180. Those blue slips weren't impediments, but instead useful tools to reach bipartisan agreements. I know this. Ranking member Durbin knows this. And all of my Senate colleagues know this as well. It's why they frequently thank me for respecting their wishes and defending the Senate's century-old practice. But in this divisive political climate, short-sighted partisans have sought to undermine the blue slip practice and sow further division in our country. Take, for example, the progressive dark right. The Democratic Money Group, known as Demand Justice. That group recently announced its plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in targeted advertising campaigns against Senate Democrats. return blue slips for any of President Trump's nominees. Demand Justice and others threatened, quote, Democrats who shrink from this fight will face consequences, end quote. So let's look at the two nominees who Demand Justice so vehemently opposes today. Mr. Pozos practiced law for nearly two decades. He served as a federal prosecutor during the Obama administration. And his time in private practice has been heralded by many, including the Philadelphia Business Journal, which gave him the Minority Business Leader Award. Like Mr. Pozos, Mr. Martin is not a political activist. He is a faithful career public servant. Who? Who prosecuted serious matters involving espionage, terrorism, and export control. Eastern District of Michigan, he served in the United States Attorney's Office under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. But Demand Justice is threatening Senate Democrats because of these nominees. Shame on them and anyone who doesn't oppose these type tactics. They seek partisan advantage at all costs, and they don't care if the casualties are good public servants or the judiciary as an institution. Groups like Demand Justice don't care about the people of Pennsylvania or Michigan or any other state for that matter. So I want to take a moment to praise Senators Fetterman, Peters, and Slotkin for their work here. It took real courage to rise above these despicable pressures to do what's right for the people of Pennsylvania. And to reach a bipartisan result that ensures safety, security, and freedom in their respective states. I also want to encourage my Senate colleagues to follow these Senators' leadership. The Blue Slip practice is under assault, and it falls to each and every one of us to do our part to uphold it. Senators tell me they want to retain the right to vote. This practice. But very often their conduct is destructive to the institution they claim to want to protect. The Blue Slip for District Judges and U.S. Attorneys has survived for a century. But this practice will become more untenable unless Senators recognize and act on the need to do the work with the White House in good faith. Before I turn it over to Senator Durbin, I'll ask everyone to keep their questions limited to five minutes. And we'll keep this hearing on schedule. I turn, that concludes Chairman Grassley's remarks, and I will now turn it over to Ranking Member Durbin.

A senator [37:05]

Thanks, Chair Britton. Let me say at the outset, when I chaired this committee during the previous administration, I respected the Blue Slip Rule, and it gave authority to members of the Senate, both political parties, to choose certain judicial candidates and nominees for their own state. The same organization that you've referred to was critical of my decision. I believe they were wrong then, wrong again now. If we can get bipartisan cooperation for the appointment of lifetime judges, we should do it. We need to try to transcend the political divisions which prevail in this country, and it should be a start in this committee. Late last week, the Republican majority forced through nearly $70 billion to fund President Trump's massive deportation campaign. Without any reforms to prevent abuses by immigration agents. Senate Republicans failed as well to put in place any guardrails to prevent the President from reviving his MAGA 1.8 million slush fund for January 6th cop beaters. Instead, they are asking us to trust Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, President's former personal lawyer, when he says the fund is no longer viable. But just days ago, President Trump made his own pronouncement. He renewed his call to create the slush fund. How long do you think it will take Attorney General Blanch, if he is appointed to that position, to do President Trump's bidding? That brings me to today's hearing. The nominees before us are considered for lifetime appointments. Judges are the last line of defense for our Constitution. Especially as this administration has weaponized the Justice Department against us. Just look at what happened in the last year. Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired after federal judges stepped... in and blocked her efforts to advance baseless prosecution against the president's enemies list. Since Todd Blanch became acting Attorney General, he has used the power of the Justice Department to bring flimsy cases against Trump's perceived enemies. In less than a year, the department has brought two vindictive, baseless indictments against former Director James Comey. One will go down in history, the famous seashell prosecution. These prosecutions were personally ordered by the president, who despises Comey for overseeing the investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The Justice Department also brought a paper-thin indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that has a long history of exposing violent, white supremacist extremists who are allied with those in the White House. Not only is this administration weaponizing federal law enforcement against the American people, it also refuses to respect the rules of the United States. of law by following court orders when the judicial system holds it accountable. Just last week, Homeland Security Secretary Mullen refused to commit to following court orders, falsely claiming, quote, we see courts over and over again use their bench for political opinion, not just the rule of law, end of quote. I would remind Secretary Mullen that a court ruling against the executive branch is not a political act. It is part of checks and balances that our founders designed in the Constitution. As I've noted before, scores of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have found this administration has broken the law. And violating a court order is not an acceptable reaction when the administration doesn't like a court ruling. Yet that is exactly what is happening. Earlier this year... A Republican appointed judge found that ICE had violated over 100 court orders in one month in Minnesota alone. More court orders than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. The more liberties this administration erodes, the more important it is for Americans to restore trust in the judicial system. That is why we need a judiciary that is not only fair and impartial, but one that rules without fear or favor. We need judges who will truly be neutral arbiters. And that is why the Senate's constitutional duty of advise and consent is so critical. Blue slips are an important part of that process, providing home state senators with a voice in selecting district court nominees. As chair of this committee for four years, I protected blue slips during the Biden administration. I'm thankful that Chairman Grassley shares my views on preserving them. This hearing marks the first time during the second Trump administration that we will hear from nominees for whom Democratic home state senators have returned blue slips. I thank Senator Fetterman and the Michigan Senators for working in good faith with... the White House. I look forward to hearing from all the nominees today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chuck Grassley [42:05]

Thank you, Raking Member. We're now going to turn to the introduction of our nominees. We'll have introductions by Senators Kramer, Hoeven, and McCormick, and then members of this committee. Because of a scheduling conflict, Senator Cruz has asked me to enter into the record his introduction for Ms. Colmanaro and for Ms. Mitchell into the record. And without objection, I will enter those into the record now. Also, because of a scheduling conflict, Senator Kramer has asked to lead us off. So, Senator Kramer, thank you for taking time to join us today. Please go ahead.

A senator [42:42]

Well, I'm sorry that the conflict has messed up the schedule, because I'd love to sit and listen to everybody else's, quite honestly. But thank you very much. Madam Chair and Ranking Member Durbin and colleagues, it is that time of the year when we're doing the National Defense. Authorization markup, so I will get back to Armed Services as quickly as I can. So thank you for accommodating that. It is a joy for me to be able to be here to introduce my friend, my partner in many noble endeavors, as far as everybody knows, Dan Traynor, Judge Dan Traynor from North Dakota, who has been nominated to the Eighth Circuit Court with not just the return of a blue slip, but strong encouragement and enthusiastic support from Senator Hogan and me. Judge Traynor has demonstrated his integrity, his character, and his intellect in magnificent ways on the bench in North Dakota, and certainly was the obvious logical choice for this advancement. And I'm grateful that he's willing to take it. And with him today is his wife, Patricia, who clearly agreed and was grateful for that, although I sure hope she could hang around Bismarck longer. remember when we first presented Dan forward for the district court, several people were sort of stunned at how popular he was with the ABA, being a mean-spirited, right-wing Republican. And yet we were delighted to know that this is a man that has certainly conviction, but also integrity and recognized and doing the hard work of being well-qualified and supported by the ABA then. As he is now, as a member of the bench, he's actually still a member of the House of Delegates for the American Bar Association, demonstrating, again, further his level of conviction and service. And I've known Dan a very long time. Obviously, we were good friends for a long time. I knew him before he went to law school. His mother almost never forgave me for delaying that decision to go to law school. by a year by having him work for me, but she got over it when he became a judge, and I was grateful for the redemption because, again, Dan is a person with a servant's heart, a heart for justice, an intellect to apply it properly in our construct, and it's just my honor to be able to be here to introduce him to you all. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Kramer.

Chuck Grassley [45:26]

Senator Hovind, go ahead.

Unidentified speaker [45:27]

I'm pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kramer, here in introducing Judge Dan Traynor. I do have to check, though, is the presiding member sufficiently of age so that we meet all the requirements here and pass the rules?

Chuck Grassley [45:41]

I appreciate that more than you possibly know.

Unidentified speaker [45:44]

I know the ranking member is. Chairman Brett, ranking member, Durbin members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to introduce. Dan Traynor as well, along with my colleague, Senator Kramer, but also he has with them Patricia, or better known as Lieutenant Colonel, Air Force retired Patricia. I always call her Lieutenant Colonel, you know, the proper decorum. She's awesome as well. And their children, Mary, Mark, and Joe. And they are, it's just a great family. And I knew Dan's folks really well too. And they, you know, I've known them for a long time. They're fantastic. So this is, this is just, Dan's a great guy, but he's surrounded by great people. It's a privilege to introduce him today. And, and I will tell you right up front, he's a man of great integrity, intellect, and deep faith in our Constitution. He understands the Constitution very well. And he understands that his job is to enforce the law, not try to interpret it. He's earned a reputation as a thoughtful and a fair jurist, whose commitment to justice is respected by all of the people that know him. He's lifelong North Dakota. Through and through. We love that. Common sense all the way. Born in Devils Lake. Attended University of North Dakota both for his Bachelor of Arts and his Juris Doctorate. And he's been involved in so many things in the state and his family too. If you ask, if you say the name trainer, it's known statewide. It's known statewide for good deeds in many different ways and many different areas. He's demonstrated an unwavering commitment throughout his career to public service and, as I said, faithful application of the law. Since his confirmation as judge for the United States District Court in North Dakota, he really has distinguished himself, not only for making decisions on the facts and the law, but doing it decisively, clearly, expeditiously, and very, very well. His judicial record reflects a deep respect, as I said, for the Constitution. so important as he heads to the Eighth Circuit. Again, he will enforce the law, not interpret the law, and that is exactly what our founding fathers intended. His professional accomplishments are too numerous to name here. I can say I'm already beyond my time. I haven't even gotten through my notes, but I better wrap up and just tell you that we could now. We could not have a better nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court than Dan Treanor. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Chuck Grassley [48:33]

Thank you very much, Senator Hoeven. And now we'll move to Senator McCormick.

A senator [48:37]

Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking member. Really a pleasure, and members of the Judiciary Committee, it's really a pleasure to be here to introduce Antonio Pozos, nominee to the United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to welcome him and Claire, his wife, and their lovely family. Tony's a successful attorney, a strong Pennsylvanian, a decorated public... servant, and he's eminently qualified for this role. President Trump has made a strong and wise selection in nominating Tony. In fulfillment of our duty to advise and consent, my colleague and I, Senator Fetterman, established a commission of legal and civic leaders in Pennsylvania to review and propose potential candidates for this critical position. The commission interviewed a number of excellent candidates, and even among this group of extraordinary people, Tony excelled and stood out. Colleagues, you know as well as I that we stand at a particularly consequential moment. Our nation must further the President's progress in stopping the scourge of fentanyl. We must wrestle with extraordinary technological change and the complexities that that creates for the law. We must bring safety to our communities, curb gang violence, and restore the rule of law across. Our great country. In these moments, the rule of law is paramount. It is, to quote President Lincoln, political religion of our nation at this time. blind enforcement of the law and the firm hand of justice will depend on men and women of discernment, sound judgment, and honor. And I really have the utmost confidence that if confirmed, Tony will more than meet this moment. He's a former federal prosecutor. He has a formidable track record of rooting out fraud, prosecuting those who abuse taxpayer dollars, and protecting Americans from predatory healthcare systems. He's built a strong practice as a partner at a prominent law firm. He commands the respect of his colleagues across this field of law, but also particularly in Pennsylvania. His academic credentials, degrees from Harvard and Michigan, are unimpeachable. And thank you, Tony, for stepping up and stepping back into the arena of public service at this uniquely consequential moment. I trust you will serve the people of Pennsylvania honorably. And I urge my colleagues to support this exception. Thank you.

Chuck Grassley [50:54]

Thank you so much, Senator McCormick. We will now turn to Senator Cornyn.

A senator [51:03]

And it's my honor to introduce two outstanding Texas, Angela Cominero and Kasdan Mitchell, who are a product of the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee that Senator Cruz and I have set up on a bipartisan basis to evaluate the credentials of nominees or potential nominees to the federal bench. And and both of them came through that process with flying colors. And so both have earned the recommendation of both Senator Cruz and I to the White House. And I'm pleased the president has seen fit to to nominate these two fine individuals. Some of the finest attorneys and judges in the nation's hail from the great state of Texas. And I'm glad to be able to sing the praises of these two. Angela received her bachelor's degree from the University of Texas at Austin with a JD from Notre Dame. After law school, she served as a law clerk for a federal judge, Judge Fish, on the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas and then entered private practice, focusing on trial practice and complex commercial litigation. In 2009, she entered public service with the Texas Office of Attorney General as an assistant attorney general in the general litigation division. After nine years of service, she joined the office of the Texas governor as deputy general counsel, where she coordinated with agency executives on internal investigations, employment matters and state law compliance. She directed litigation strategies for the for the governor. And advised the governor on clemency applications in capital cases. And she currently serves as Governor Abbott's deputy chief of staff. I know Governor. standards when it comes to legal matters, having served with him myself. And I think his commendation of Miss common arrow for this job speaks loudly. Today, she's joined by cast and Mitchell, who's another one of the Lone Star State stars who received her BA and law degree from Yale University. She began her legal career as an assistant solicitor general in Alabama, handling civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate levels. She clerked for my friend and a great judge, Judge Bill Pryor, on the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas on the US Supreme Court, in addition to working in the private sector, most recently at Kirkland and Ellis, where she was elevated to partner in 2018. With some such exceptional credentials, it's no surprise. that President Trump has selected both of these great lawyers and Texans to serve as U.S. District Judges, and I'm honored to say a few words on their behalf. So, congratulations, Angela and Kasdan, and to your families, who I know are proud beyond measure of your accomplishment here today, and I look forward to supporting both of your confirmations here in the committee and on the Senate floor. I do want to just take a second just to reflect a little bit on our current political climate insofar as it affects the judiciary and the rule of law that we talk about all the time. And just reflect on the fact that, as Justice Scalia famously said, the one thing that preserves our great country is not necessarily the rule of law, it's the independence of the judiciary. of course, once you're confirmed, we can't cut your pay, and you can't be fired, except for extraordinary reasons. That would be through impeachment, which we know we don't have to worry about. But we know that in this political climate, judges are frequently objects of criticism in the public domain. And that's fine. We all enjoy the freedom of speech in this country. But the problem is, judges can't really defend themselves against criticism. It takes other people to speak on their behalf. And sadly, the organized Bar Association has abdicated their responsibility to speak on behalf of judges who are doing nothing more and nothing less than their job. And not putting their finger in the wind to see which way the political wind blows, but what the correct outcome is according to the facts and the law in the case. So, shame on the organized Bar for not speaking up. when judges are unfairly criticized. And I know some people have gone so far as to say, well, judges should be impeached for decisions that they don't like. Well, there is a remedy for a judicial decision that you don't like. It's called an appeal. It's an appeal. It's not impeachment. So, we can all argue about judicial decisions, and having been in that role myself at one time in my life, it always happens. There's always controversy, but somebody's got to decide it. And as Justice Jackson on the U.S. Supreme Court said, that in the case of the Supreme Court, the decisions of that court are final not because they're always right, but they are right because they're final. And there has to be some place. Where Americans can go and get a decision made by an independent. member of the judiciary, irrespective of politics or popular opinion, and have a decision made according to the law and the facts. And that's going to be your responsibility, as you know. And so I just wanted to say a few words to impress upon you and everybody else here the importance of the independence of the judiciary. So thank you, and Madam Chair, I will yield the floor. Madam Chair.

Chuck Grassley [57:28]

Senator Kennedy.

A senator [57:30]

Madam Chair, I know I'm out of the regular order here, but I wanted to raise a point of personal privilege. I sat here and listened to Senator Cornyn, and there are not words in English for me to express how much I am going to miss him on this day. And so I want to make a motion to approve. so much from John Cornyn, and he's the same person today as he was when I got here 10 years ago. Whip smart, even-tempered, even-handed, exercises power materially, not emotionally, unafraid, but never ugly, never vindictive. God, we're going to miss you, John. And it is such a privilege to have served on this committee with you, and I mean that. I don't know why, if I make it to heaven, this isn't a political comment. how I feel in my heart. If I make it to heaven, I'm going to ask God, why bad things happen to good people. You're a good man. We're going to miss you. Madam Chairman, if I could briefly respond, I would just tell the nominees that the fact that there are not many people here on this side of the dais is actually a great sign. The thing that you should fear if you're going to be a nominee or a witness in a Senate hearing is when every one of these seats are full. But beware, when Senator Kennedy's here, anything can happen.

Chuck Grassley [59:40]

That's right. Thank you both for your comments, and I echo your words, John. On Chairman Grassley's behalf, I now introduce Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin. He earned his B.A. from Miami of Ohio University, his master's degree from Georgetown University, and his. After law school, Mr. Martin clerked for Judge Edward Harrington on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He spent the bulk of his career in public service under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In 2005, Mr. Martin joined the Justice Department's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice's counterespionage section. He then joined the U.S Mr. Martin was also selected for many leadership positions, including chief of the National Security Unit. The executive assistant of the U.S. attorney and the chief, the criminal chief. The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan sent a letter to the committee praising Mr. Martin. It stated, quote, Mike is a public servant of the highest order. He has been an assistant U.S. attorney in this office for 18 years. He has excelled at every role. As a trial attorney, Mike secured some of our most important convictions in national security and violent crime, end quote. Without objection, I will enter this into the record. Senator Portman, who previously served the state of Ohio, also asked me to convey that he knows Mr. Martin personally and fully supports his. Nomination. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Martin today. And before we move on to swearing in Judge Traynor for our first panel, I wanted to take a. brief moment of personal privilege to say how personally thrilled I am to see Kasdan Miller Mitchell before the committee today while she's been nominated from Texas. Alabama is proud to claim her. Kasdan watching you through the years has been remarkable. I mean, you are truly one of a kind. I mean, from her time at U.S. Hill to her time in the Solicitor General's office to the clerkships that you spoke of with Judge Pryor and with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She has always exceeded every mark in front of her. I have the privilege of living where Kasdan grew up and she is still a legend walking the halls where my kids go to school. And she is someone that Alabama always looks to for your integrity, your class, your grit, your intellect, and your passion for serving those around you. We were both alumni of Girl State. She was Girl State Governor in 2002, and then Girls Nation President, so she's been no joke since the beginning. And you are someone that every year, when all of those young girls from across our great state come together and think about what's possible, you show them to think even bigger, even brighter, and that their future and potential is endless. So knowing you and your sister Tori has been a privilege. My only regret of today's hearing is that you will not be serving in the great state of Alabama, but Texas and our country is immensely grateful, and you should be really proud to have her serve on the federal judiciary. I certainly look forward to it. So congratulations on your well-deserved nomination. There are many of us who knew this day was coming for quite some time.

Unidentified speaker [1:03:54]

Thank you.

Chuck Grassley [1:03:54]

All right. Our first panel, please come forward and stand before the witness table. I will get to administer the oath of office. Judge Traynor, if you will raise your right hand, please, and answer this question. 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. Excellent. Thank you very much. You may be seated. It is our normal process if you desire to introduce the people that are with you, including your family, and then you may give your opening statement. So Judge Traynor,

A senator [1:04:30]

congratulations, and the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Chairman Britt and Ranking Member Durbin, for scheduling this hearing to consider my nomination to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I'd like to thank President Trump for the honor of this nomination and for nominating me to the district court. I also want to thank Senator John Hoeven and Senator Kevin Cramer for their many years of friendship and friendship. I also want to thank Senator John Hoeven and Senator Kevin Cramer for their many years of friendship and their support and encouragement in this process. I'm thankful to be joined by my wife, Tricia, who gave up an active duty career in the United States Air Force to stay in North Dakota and marry me. She retired as a lieutenant colonel after more than 20 years of active and reserve service in the Air Force. Today, she teaches at the University of Mary in North Dakota. Tricia and I have been blessed with three great children. Our daughter, Mary, our sons, Mac and Joe, and I'm grateful my family is able to be here today to support me. My parents, Jack and Jane Traynor, are not alive to see this day, but I'm grateful for all the support they gave me throughout my life. I'm also grateful my brother, Tom, sister-in-law, Julie, and their granddaughter, Olivia, came from North Dakota. My brother, Paul, who's a professor at the law school in North Dakota, is also here. My brother, Mike, and sister-in-law, Mary Beth, plan to be here. Mary Beth was bucked off her horse and broke eight ribs. We continue to pray for her recovery. My father-in-law, Tony Lang, and mother-in-law, Kathy Lang, are here from their home in Bowie, Maryland. I'm grateful that many of the Lang gang, Bria, Juliana, Jamie, Susie, Eva, Jacob, Liam, JP, Liz, Patty, and Nolan, are here today to pray for Mary Beth. My wife, Trisha, grew up in Maryland, and as a result, we have a large contingent of family here to support me. And to support us. I'm also joined by my three law clerks, Connor Cannelli, Sarah Belliston, and Robert Schmidt. They are hopeful that the Senate will act quickly on this nomination, as it might provide an unexpected boost to their resumes. Finally, I'd like to thank and honor three significant people in my life and career as a lawyer and as a judge. First, Judge Ralph Erickson. Who has served at the lowest and highest levels in both the state and federal courts. He's a good man, a good friend, and a living legal legend in our great state. Second, my former boss, Chief Justice Gerald Van De Waal, for whom I clerked, a true icon in North Dakota, who led our state courts for decades with great skill and humility. Since my clerkship, he has been my mentor and friend. And I'm grateful that he is alive to see one of his law clerks nominated to the Eighth Circuit. Finally, I'd like to thank and honor my brother, Tom. He helped raise me when I was in high school. I practiced law with him for more than 20 years. He is the finest man I know. He struggles today with Parkinson's, and I pray for him every day. I'm so grateful he's here to support me. Thank you again, Chairman Britt, Ranking Member Turbin, for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to answering your questions.

Chuck Grassley [1:08:02]

Judge Treanor, thank you for that thoughtful introduction of the people with you. We are certainly so glad that all of you are here, and congratulations on this big day and the role that you've played in helping create a foundation for him to be in front of us. I will now turn to Ranking Member Durbin for the question portion.

A senator [1:08:20]

Thank you very much, Chair Britt. Thank you, Judge Treanor, for being with us, and thank you to your family and friends for showing their support. Judge, you were a contributing author and signatory of a letter to Columbia University criticizing the university's response to protests on campus following Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel. In that letter, you vowed not to hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community, beginning with the entering class of 2024. Yet, in denying a recusal motion in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, which was brought by the Columbia Law School Initiative for Adjustment, quote, I reaffirm my lack of bias toward any student or Columbia faculty or initiatives of its law school. With all due respect, Judge, this statement seems contradictory, stating at one point that you would not hire anyone from Columbia, and second, that you have no bias against those from Columbia. Can you explain? Senator, the letter was targeted and directed to the president of Columbia University, and the reason why is because there were Jewish students who had enrolled in the educational system at Columbia and were having to shelter in place. The administration, some of the professors, were engaging in the conduct of trespassing, violent conduct, and making these students... that they could not obtain an education. I'm a former member of the North Dakota Board of Higher Education. It is important that when students are able to be educated, that they have the opportunity to pursue that education. That type of conduct was not being appropriately handled, and it was, as described in the letter, a cauldron of bias that was being promoted on that campus. And so that's why I signed on to the letter. You've explained why you signed the letter. Can you explain why you reversed your position? Senator, I don't believe that I reversed my position. What I stated in the recusal order with regard to an education... ...application from some, I believe they were graduates of Columbia, but I don't hold a bias against graduates of Columbia. I don't hold a bias against people who attend... the institution. The purpose of the letter was to do what the little one can do as a federal judge. So you're saying you wouldn't hire them because they're from Columbia and misconduct, and then saying you have no bias against Columbia. I don't follow that. Senator, these lawyers had graduated from Columbia long ago. They were in practice, and as a result, the boycott of the letter that I signed on to did not apply to them. I'm not a graduate of Columbia, but I'm still troubled trying to understand your logic. You volunteered to hear habeas petitions from immigrants who were rounded up as part of Operation Metro Surge, the notorious ICE action in Minneapolis that led to the deaths of two innocent individuals. Around the country, the Trump administration is now detained tens of thousands of immigrants, 85% of them without any criminal records. Overwhelmingly, district court judges appointed by both... ...Republicans and Democrats have held that mandatory detention is illegal and unconstitution. According to Politico's analysis, judges have ruled against the Trump administration's policy of mandatory detention more than 10,000 times. And even a majority of Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the administration's position. You are an extreme outlier on this issue. Which you've even acknowledged in several of your opinions. In your opinions, you embrace the Trump position that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing, no matter how long they've been in the United States, and even if they have no criminal history. Why did you volunteer to preside over these cases in Minnesota? And in light of your embrace of the Trump administration's position, even when judges have ruled against the administration policy more than 10,000 times, why should we feel or have confidence you can be detained? Why should we be a neutral arbiter when it comes to presiding over challenges to the Trump administration action? I volunteered to help in Minnesota because I was previously licensed in Minnesota, I was previously assigned to handle a case and actually conducted a trial in the district of Minnesota, and when North Dakota was down to one federal district judge, judges from throughout the country, including many from Minnesota, were very helpful in handling matters that were pending in the district of North Dakota. And so that's why I signed up. But the bottom line on the issue of habeas corpus, the issue of detention, why is it you're such an outlier when it comes to Trump policy? Senator, I reviewed the law, I felt that the administration was acting within their limits, and I made my decision. I based it on the law, and I also based it upon my own experience. What I expected the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals would do, and indeed the that I took, and the ruling that I made, was upheld by the Eighth Circuit.

Chuck Grassley [1:14:07]

Thank you. I'd like to enter into the record six letters supporting Judge Treanor's nomination from community leaders in Minnesota. These letters were written by legal academics in the state, leaders of the state bar associations, and the former chairman of the Spirit Lake tribe. They all praised Judge Treanor's character and judicial temperament. One letter stated, quote, I have a great deal of confidence that he'd be a trustworthy and highly ethical circuit judge, and exhibit superb temperament and wisdom in performing the important duties of his judicial office, end quote. The other letters shared similar sentiments. Without objection, I'd like to enter these letters into the record.

A senator [1:14:58]

So ordered. Now I'll call on Senator Cornyn. Judge Traynor, as you were introducing your family, I think it's more like a clan. Congratulations on your nomination and welcome all of your biggest fans here to the hearing here today. I guess my first question is, you know, a federal district judge sitting in a courtroom deciding an individual case is probably the most powerful person in the country insofar as that particular subject matter is concerned. So why would you want to give all that up to be on an appellate court and not be able to? Why would you relinquish all that power? Senator, you remind me of a speech that I gave to a member of the state district court bar who became a member of our state. I said, you're giving up all of this authority. You don't have to find anybody else to agree with you. And now you've diminished your your ability to make decisions because you've got to find at least two or three other justices to agree with you. It is a it is a change of pace as I think Justice Alio described district court judges. And I told the judicial nominee for the district court, it is a great job. And I've enjoyed being a federal district judge. It's the greatest honor of my life, Senator, to hold that position. Justice Alito, I think described us as monarchs in our own courtroom. And that may be correct. I will miss it. But I was a law clerk on on an appeals court at the North Dakota Supreme Court. I know and respect and admire many members on our circuit court. including the person that hopefully will be my predecessor if I'm confirmed, Judge Ralph Erickson. And so I look forward to working with them collaboratively. So you may have heard this description of an appellate judge before that it's someone who hides in the hills while the battle rages below and then swoops down to kill the wounded. Well, maybe that sounds like something Senator Kennedy would say. But but the you know, the point is that appellate judges are not just don't serve the same function as trial judges, right? And you don't retry the case and refine the facts all over again. Once it's appealed, there are certain standards of review that would apply and defer in some instances, you know, in some cases to the fact finding, of course, made in the trial court below. lessons will you take with you from your experience on the trial bench in terms of the decision-making process that that judge goes through and the somewhat deferential, not obviously on matters of law and not on matters where the evidence is clearly to the contrary, but how will you approach dealing with an individual case where the standards of review are different? How will you approach dealing with an individual case where the standards of review don't allow you to retry the case? Senator, you're right. Appeals court judges are limited and they should be. The trial court is really the place where the action is. And one of the perspectives that I hope to bring to the Court of Appeals is the perspective of a trial court judge. Judge Erickson from North Dakota is a former federal district judge. And he's talked about the fact that as a district judge, he approaches issues. somewhat differently than some of the other members of the appeals court who may be academics or may have positions in government. The fact that somebody like me has been nominated, I am hoping that I help to bring a perspective as a 20-year trial lawyer who actually represented people and brought cases to trial in front of a jury or a judge. And also now six years as a federal district judge. Well, I heard all the nice things that Senator Kramer and Senator Hogan said about you. Do you have anything you can share with us that's not public that we can use in our various negotiations with them here in the Senate? I don't know that I want to get into that. I might lose their vote. Well, I think there are a couple of gifts in life. One is the statute of limitations. And the other is fading memories. So, no, they're great. colleagues. And we listen very carefully to their high praise of your qualifications and certainly look forward to supporting your nomination. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Judge Treanor, thank you for your service. Thanks for being here today. You were going to go over there. Thank you. You got here early. Who won the 2020 election, Judge Treanor? Senator, this issue has become a question of political controversy. I'm a sitting federal district judge. I'm a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Justice Jackson, who previously was confirmed by the Senate for a position on the United States. Well, if I may interrupt you, Judge, because my time is limited. It's political controversy only because the president refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election. I'm asking you, as a matter of fact. Who won the 2020 election? Well, Senator is. Jackson stated in her responses to questions in the record. It is not appropriate to engage in discussion regarding that as a judge. So you're going to use the same script that other nominees have used before this panel to avoid the question. Senator, I think this precedents established by Justice Jackson and other nominees. Is something that I need to follow. As a matter of fact, who got more votes in 2020? Which of the presidential candidates? Senator, as I stated before, this is an issue that Justice Jackson and other nominees have been asked. They've not provided a response. You under you understand why I'm asking you to state as a simple matter of fact. Who got more votes? The reason is that the president. Seeks to perpetuate a lie. You are in effect protecting the lie. If you fail. To take an independent position as a matter of simple fact. Everybody in this room knows the answer. You're unwilling to state it. Instead adopting a script that's been dictated to you. By the White House. You. You are in effect. Protecting the lie. You prepared this answer. With the White House. Did you not. Senator I prepared the answer based upon the response provided by Justice Jackson. You. Consulted with the White House before you invoke. Justice Jackson. That's the script. As you well know. That. Nominees sitting where you are right now have used. Again and again and again. Let me ask you. Was the capital attack. On. January 6th. Senator. The. Actions on. January 6th. Were. Deeply troubling to watch. But I'm not going to characterize it. Beyond. You've watched the videos. You've seen the pictures. You know about. The injuries. Done to. Capital police. Law enforcement. Who took the same oath you did as a district court judge. And you are unwilling to state. That the capital was. Attacked on January 6th. Senator. I. As a. Federal district judge. I've had cases relating to. That issue. Pending before me. I just don't know that it. Let me just be very clear judge. I am. I am. Absolutely astonished. Because you are. In a position of trust. Right now. You are supposed to be. In a position of. Consummate independence. You sit here. Already with a lot. Like. And you are unwilling to state an independent view. On a factual matter that everybody in this room everyone watching. Knows the right answer. To. You're here to demonstrate your independence. And instead you are. In effect. Protecting and perpetuating. A lie. That. The capital was not attacked. That's what the president. Seems to believe. That's the loyalty that he demands of you. And you are putting. Loyalty to the president. Above. Fidelity to the constitution. And the truth. I don't know how you can continue as a district court judge. Let alone serve on. The. Court of appeals. You have the protection already. Of a lifetime appointment. And you're unwilling to. Tell the truth. To this committee. You have the protection already. Of a lifetime appointment. And you're unwilling to. Tell the truth. To this committee. That. Frankly. It's shameful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to. Comment. I think you've just seen some political theater that's been. Demonstrated here with a lot of people that are up for nominations for the judiciary. I think I'd like to quote Justice Jackson on another. Point when she was asked about January 6th or her nomination. Quote. It would be inappropriate. To me. To publicly weigh into any subject. Of political debate. End of quote. Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations. Judge. I think we ought to. Clear the air. here. We all know what's going on. President Trump. Believes. Passionately that he won the 2020 election. And. You're being asked this. These questions. In hopes you will say. That he didn't. Or in hopes that you will say. That he did. Regardless of. What you actually think. The further hope is. That it will cause the. President. Twist off. And pull your nomination. And that's what's going on here. I'm not saying my. My good friend. Doesn't have the right to do that. Some would say it's kind of clever. But I don't think we. Ought to kid ourselves. About what's going on. But I don't think we. Ought to kid ourselves. About what's going on. Number two. My job. I don't. This business of. Confirming judges is. Become too much of a. Shirts versus skins game. From my taste. If I could change it. I would but I can't. Picking somebody for the federal bench. Is as serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. You're there for life. We better get it right. And my job. Is to be in. As I see it. Is to be an equal opportunity antagonist. Now some would use another a word to describe me. And I realize that. That's my job. And. The two. Biggest thing. That's my job. And. The two. Biggest thing. going for you judge. I don't know. You have Richard Mays impressive. Or John Hoven. And Kevin Kramer. If they tell me you ought to be on the court of appeal. I believe. Because they understand. The role of the United States Senate. There are a couple of questions I want to ask you. Why did you. I understand. I heard your answer to Senator Durbin. But you were. A sitting federal judge. And I know some other judges joined you. But. You wrote a letter to Columbia. Saying. Because of what I see happening at Columbia. I'll never hire one of your graduates. Why did you do that? Senator. I was asked to sign the letter. It was indicated over a period of. time. And the reason why is because it wasn't simply a student protest that was occurring. It was a protest that was resulting in violent conduct. Well, I know. I know what happened. I guess what I'm getting at is our federal judiciary has lost some of its legitimacy. I'm not laying it at your doorstep, but it has. And so many Americans now feel because they're told that judges are just politicians in robes. There's just many legislatures. And that's not what our founders intended. And I don't think that's what they are. And so. So when a federal judge expresses a political opinion like you did and your colleagues did. How does that help our effort to help the public understand that judges aren't politicians? Senator, I've been told a lot that federal judges have a lot of power and you've said it, I think, in other contexts, but our power is limited. It's significantly limited to the case or controversy before us. We don't have the power of an executive. We don't even have the power to change laws like you do. As a legislator. I get that, Judge. And you're a judge. You can do what you want. I hope you won't do something like that again. I'm not I'm not saying you don't have the right. But when you when you adopt a political position, which I happen to believe with, frankly, to do that as a private lawyer is one thing. To do it as a sitting federal judge is quite another. And I just I just don't think it. a good thing. That's my personal opinion. You don't tweet anymore, do you? I do not. OK. You don't go on social media at all. I go on social media to follow other people, but not to post. Not at all. In fact, I think I know the name of your elliptical. Yeah. Margaret and I had a date Sunday night in the carport. She in my carport. She won. Thank you. I'm over. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Unidentified speaker [1:31:37]

Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to follow up on Senator Kennedy's question because that did disturb me. The idea that 12 judges would write a pretty political letter to the university. First of all, what you would be in a position to do is hire law clerks from. Columbia, right? That's correct. And you sent this letter saying you wouldn't hire any law clerks, even though no law clerks, specific law clerks, at that point, you were aware of who may have been involved in what was going on at Columbia, right?

A senator [1:32:20]

Senator, I signed the letter because of the nature of the conduct of the university in the treatment of particular students.

Unidentified speaker [1:32:34]

I understand that, and a lot of people have felt very strongly about it, and that's a legitimate point of view. But I think what Senator Kennedy is talking about is one of the limitations one has as a judge is the limitation on commenting on public matters. And there's a contrast I see. Senator Blumenthal was asking whether there was an attack on the Capitol on January 6th. felt that you could not comment on that because there may be some case or controversy that will come before you. That was your answer to him. But doesn't that same rationale apply to your letter to the administration of Columbia?

A senator [1:33:18]

Senator, the signatories on the letter were referred in all of the letters. All of the districts where they, or the circuits where they signed it with regard to a particular complaint, the complaints were all dismissed. And one of the things that I understand.

Unidentified speaker [1:33:36]

You're a smart person, okay? And that was like gobbledygook, what you just said. I just asked, isn't there a very similar rationale that you used in answering the January 6th question from Senator Blumenthal? You may have a case. You may have a case or controversy that comes before you. And then, of course, there were these events at Columbia. Why doesn't that rationale apply to the Columbia letter that you and your colleagues sent?

A senator [1:34:07]

Senator, the hiring of law clerks is not a case or controversy. What? The hiring of law clerks is not a case or controversy.

Unidentified speaker [1:34:13]

Well, it's not a case or controversy if there's a riot at the Capitol. There may be a case or controversy. I mean, that's a very political letter. And, you know, you're entitled to your political opinion. It's just as a judge where you're writing to Columbia and you're demanding in that letter that they hire more conservatives. You know, what role do you have as a sitting judge to tell Columbia or Holy Cross College, where I went, who they should be hiring?

A senator [1:34:55]

Senator, academic freedom and academic diversity of viewpoint is in.

Unidentified speaker [1:35:00]

No, I'm asking you what right you have as a sitting judge to send a letter to any college telling them who they should hire.

A senator [1:35:15]

Senator, as a sitting judge, I have the right to decide who works for me as a law clerk.

Unidentified speaker [1:35:20]

Did I ask you that question? I asked you what right you had to have to tell a college or a university who they should hire. I didn't ask you, did you have the right to hire whatever clerk you want to hire? Do you want to answer the question I asked?

A senator [1:35:41]

Senator, federal judicial positions are important career starters for people.

Unidentified speaker [1:35:47]

Look, you will not answer the question, and you know what the question is. You read a letter with 11 colleagues. And you told Columbia that they've got to hire more conservatives. A lot of people would agree. with you on that. But you're a judge. And I'm asking you this question. What right do you have as a judge to tell an academic institution who they should hire?

A senator [1:36:18]

Senator, when this matter was reviewed by the Eighth Circuit and other courts around the country, they concluded that judges do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they become judges.

Unidentified speaker [1:36:30]

Okay, so then that answer would suggest you believe that you have the right to be sending letters with colleagues to universities telling them who they should hire. You believe that?

A senator [1:36:44]

I believe that the letter was appropriate and consistent with my role as a public official.

Unidentified speaker [1:36:51]

That gets us back to the concern that Senator Kennedy expressed. There's a lot of people who would agree with you on that. On what was said in that letter. but not federal judges would agree that they could be getting involved in what is an incredible political controversy. I yield back.

A senator [1:37:08]

A letter supporting Judge Trainor's nomination from the former U.S. Attorney for the District of North Dakota. The letter praised Judge Trainor's work in North Dakota community programs. The letter stated, quote, he distinguished himself as a thoughtful and courteous partner for participants with diverse political views and those with no political views at all, end of quote, without objection. I hear none. It'll be entered in the record. I was wrong. Not White House. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trainor, I just want to follow up on. colleagues questions and make sure that I understand this. You were asked a series of questions about January 6th. And correct me if I'm wrong, because I was not here at the time you were asked those questions. And you declined to go into whether this was an insurrection, the nature of the attack on the Capitol, because you said it might involve a case of controversy that would come before you. Is that correct? Senator, it did involve cases or controversies. We had people in the District of North Dakota that I believe were charged. So you felt it wouldn't be appropriate for you here today to discuss your views on what took place on January 6th. Is that right? I stated that what I saw was deeply troubling, Senator. The attacks on law enforcement, any attack on law enforcement should be condemned. So why are you reluctant to answer questions about what took place on January 6th? On the one hand. And on the other hand, you say judges. Don't forfeit their First Amendment rights. You feel free to write to a university to tell them who they should hire or not hire, who you're going to hire or not hire. You feel free to immerse yourself in that controversy. But here you won't talk about your views of January 6th. Can you reconcile that for me? Yes. The difference, Senator, is that there is no case or controversy with regard to hiring of law clerks, but handling matters. Well, you're saying you're saying there's no case or controversy involving Columbia, involving the efforts by the administration to punish Columbia, all the litigation around Columbia? That wasn't the case or controversy? That was far afield from the letter that was signed, Senator. Really? Why is it far afield? Weren't you complaining about what was taking place on the Columbia campus and as a result that you weren't going to hire law clerks and the other judges on your letter weren't going to hire law clerks? Wasn't that the nature of your correspondence? Yes, that was the nature of the correspondence. So you feel perfectly free. to immerse yourself in that, exercise your First Amendment rights there, but when it comes to asking you basic questions about January 6th, you won't answer those questions? The difference, Senator, is that there are cases or controversies that I have before me as a district judge relating to individuals that have been charged for conduct that occurred on that date in this Capitol. So does that mean that any litigation involving Columbia you're prepared to recuse yourself from? Senator, the limitation on Columbia was in regard to hiring law clerks. I hold no bias against the institution itself. Well, whether you hold a bias towards it or not, you're saying today that you can't discuss any of the January 6th stuff because there are pending cases or controversies, even though they've all been pardoned by the president. I'm not sure what case or controversy. You're referring to, but nevertheless, you're unwilling to say you recruit. You recuse yourself from a case or controversy involving Columbia when you specifically weighed in there. How do we reconcile that? Senator, as I stated in the recusal order that ranking member Durbin raised, I indicated that I held no particular bias. Well, that's fine. You can say you hold no particular bias about January 6, too. I mean, it's easy to say your letter demonstrates a very clear bias. I'm not saying that it's an unreasonable bias, but it is a bias. It is a prejudice in favor of one view that would cause people to question your impartiality if that case came before you. That seems to me a stronger, much stronger case for recusal than the one you're making to refuse to answer questions about January 6. So let me just ask to make sure that I understand the limits of what you're prepared to say. Who won the 2020 election? Senator, as I indicated... in response to questions from Senator Blumenthal, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, as a sitting circuit court judge at the time of her nomination, was asked this question in questions to the record. I'm asking you the question. Yes, and as a sitting judge, I will tell you that it is not appropriate for a judicial nominee to engage in discussion regarding a matter of political controversy with that. This is completely inconsistent with your involvement in the whole Columbia controversy, completely inconsistent, because you involved yourself in that controversy. You went out of your way. Nobody asked you to write that letter. You took this upon yourself to do, to insert yourself into that. But you're saying here you can't answer a simple question about who won the 2020 election because it would somehow implicate you in controversy. I'm sorry. There's no way to square those two things. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Now we go to Senator Weigel. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take my time this morning to say a word about U.S. attorneys and what's happened to this committee's role in the nomination of U.S. attorneys. Just recently, we had a U.S. attorney in an acting role who came before this committee and then went to the floor to be voted on as part of an en banc panel of around 50 different candidates voted through en masse. We were not told that just 50 different candidates would be voted on. Four days earlier, I want to say, that U.S. attorney had been harshly rebuked by their home court for egregious abuse of their office. That's something we should have been told. We voted on a U.S. attorney, first hidden in the en masse vote, but second without being informed of this development that had taken place of a rebuke, I believe, by the entire court, not just one irate judge, which puts a spotlight on the problem of how these interim and acting U.S. attorneys come up. We have seen over and over again illegal U.S. attorneys. And there's a general problem with that, which is that you'd like to see the Department of Justice follow the law, shouldn't be expecting too much, and when it doesn't follow the law with respect to the management of its own personnel, that's a pretty bad sign. And it is happening over and over and over again. And one of the prices that is paid when these illegal U.S. attorney appointments are made is that this committee loses its ability to have any oversight over their installation in that office. Our blue slips no longer matter. They don't get a proper hearing. They just get sent in under a variety of specious legal theories. And if this were done by a Democrat administration, I would think there'd be heads exploding the whole way down. But we're absolutely silent about that. Now, we have the U.S. attorney in Nevada, an article about her. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that we put that article into the record. Without objection. So ordered. A prosecutor who pushed to launch investigations at the behest of former clients and friends while bypassing Justice Department orders recusing her from cases. She opened a probe targeting her past political foe, one of many circumstances in which she leveraged her role to advance personal interests. She frequently sought status updates on cases despite recusals. That barred her involvement. She just, by the way, has publicly accused both of her home states. senators of public corruption, with no evidence for that. The letter goes on through the details of many of these various incidents, but it concludes by saying that she had assured the court and defense counsel in her district that she would cease supervising cases while her disqualification as U.S. attorney was under appeal. She is one of these illegally appointed U.S. attorneys. And despite having made that promise, and despite the recusal decisions from even the Deputy Attorney General's office, she has nonetheless remained involved. There is a very real mess in a lot. Of U.S. attorney's offices around these nominees who are brought in illegally, who the courts have detained. determined were appointed illegally, with potential risk to cases that are brought by illegally appointed acting or interim U.S. attorneys. And I think it's important that this committee take some interest in that, because not only should we have a general interest in a Department of Justice that is breaking the law with respect to its own personnel matters, but we have a direct interest in this and that the Constitution gives us the oversight authority to look into all of this and to police the appointment of potentially unqualified U.S. attorneys with our blue slips and with our hearings. And when we walk away from that responsibility, I think we've done something pretty grievous. So thank you for hearing me out on that, and my time has expired. Mr. Chairman? May I just add on to... Let me do it quickly. I just wanted to add on to what Senator Whitehouse was saying. In the Central District of California, we have no U.S. attorney. We have no acting U.S. attorney because the person who was acting, their tenure expired, and to get around the confirmation requirement, they have been made the first assistant U.S. attorney and are presumptively running for office. This is someone who has demonstrated their unfitness for the job by going into the grand jury so often. His name is Bill Assele, and getting a no bill, that is the grand jury refusing an indictment when the bar is only probable cause, that they have taken to calling him no Bill Assele. It was reported in the L.A. Times that he was heard shouting at the Justice Department over the phone within earshot of the grand jury. Vis-a-vis the Justice Manual's requirement... you don't seek an indictment unless you believe you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone's guilt at trial, shouting at the Justice Department over the phone that they can F the Justice Manual. And this is who's left in charge of this office, this very important office. So I just want to acknowledge the concern that Senator Whitehouse raised, and because we're seeing very much the same problem in California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're done, nominee. Thank you for your participation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now would the second panel come? I would now 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? Everybody has responded positively. Please sit down, and we'll start with you, Ms. Calamaro. You can, all of you can introduce, say whatever you want to, introduce family and friends, and make your statement, and then we'll go to questions. So you're going to start, yes.

Unidentified speaker [1:51:50]

Okay. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin, for scheduling this hearing, and to all the members of this committee for considering my nomination. I would first like to thank President Trump for the honor of this nomination. This is the greatest honor of my professional career, and I'm humbled by the trust and confidence he has placed in me. I'm also grateful to Senators Cornyn and Cruz for their generous introductions, their support of my nomination, and all they do for the great state of Texas. I would also like to introduce my family who's traveled here today from Texas to support me. First, my wonderful husband, Jeff, is here today with my two sons. I want to thank my husband for his unwavering support and encouragement to me during our marriage. He is the best role model my boys could have and will always be the best lawyer in our family. My two boys have been good sports during this whole process, so thank you, sons. They are a constant reminder that even as I sit here today, the most important thing is that you are a part of this family. role I ever expect to have in this world is being their mom. I'm also joined today by my parents, sister, my brother, and his family, and my mother-in-law. I have another sister. back home in San Antonio who is watching with her family. I lack the time to properly thank them for all they have done today, for their love and support, but I'm truly grateful for everything that they have done in my life to help me reach this moment. Additionally, I'm joined today by dear friends from college and law school, professional colleagues from the Texas Attorney General's office, and the Texas Governor's office. Judge David Morales from the Southern District of Texas is here today. He is a former colleague and mentor of mine from the Texas Attorney General's office, and I am blessed to have had the friendship and support of all of these individuals throughout my career. I would especially like to thank Judge Alan Joe Fish, for whom I clerked for right out of law school. He has been a great role model for me and taught me that the judicial role demands independence and a steadfast commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. I hope to emulate these qualities if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. Again, thank you to the committee for the opportunity. forward to answering your questions. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Durbin, and to the entire committee for inviting me to be here today. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for nominating me to this position. I am deeply honored and humbled by his nomination. I'd like to thank Senator Peters and Senator Slotkin for their support and Senator Grassley and Senator Lerner for their support. I'd like to thank Senator Britt for the very kind introduction. I'd like to give a special thanks to my wife. We first met as lab partners in freshman year high school biology class, and it's not an exaggeration to say she's been my partner in life ever since. I could not have pursued my career in public service without her sacrifices and support, and I cannot thank her enough. To my three children, who I am so proud, I would like to thank them for inspiring me in life. In my professional life, work hard, to keep our community, our state, and our country safe. My daughter could not be here today. She's starting her first job after graduating college, but my two boys are here today, and I would say, boys, I hope that getting to watch today our great Constitution in action inspires you as you enter adulthood and a life of citizenship. I'd like to thank my parents for all their years of love and support, and lastly, I'd like to thank the late Hugh Bounds, federal circuit judge, and the late Edward Harrington, federal district court judge, both of whom I clerk for. They were mentors in the law to me. They were great American heroes, and I know that they're looking down on me today and smiling. Thank you.

A senator [1:55:55]

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and all the members of the committee for holding this. hearing. First of all, I'd like to thank President Trump for the great honor of this nomination. I'd like to thank Senators Cornyn and Cruz for taking the time to get to know me through this process, for Senator Cornyn's kind introduction this morning, and for the one that Senator Cruz entered into the record. I'd also like to take a special personal thanks to Senator Britt. It was a personal privilege to have her chair at the beginning of this committee. I have looked up to her and admired her since I was 15 years old, and it made a very special day so much more special to have her, and I appreciate the kind words that she shared, her service to Alabama, where I grew up, and our country. I'd also like to thank the judges for whom I clerked, Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. They instilled in me the greatest respect for our judiciary. I'm grateful for their example, encouragement, and support. Over the past decade. I'd also like to thank my colleagues at Kirkland and Ellis, many of whom are here. as well as where I started private practice at Maynard Nexen in Birmingham, Alabama. They showed me what it means to be excellent in this profession, and I sincerely appreciate their support. I'd also like to introduce some people who are here with me today. I'm first and foremost my husband, David. After having a successful private practice as an attorney, he's now the Assistant General Counsel for Environmental Matters at Vistra Corp., based in Irving, Texas. His selfless support of my career and our family is the reason I'm here today. He never complains, and I'm so grateful to him. He's here with our three children, who are our greatest blessings. I'd also like to introduce my parents, Deborah and Jeff Miller, who are here from Montgomery, Alabama. My father, Drew. He drove hours to watch me deliver my first cross-examination in front of a jury. He's taught me to never be deterred and to always keep dreaming. My mother's pursuit of her law degree at night, while I was in grade school, inspired my own path in the law, and she taught me to be a good lawyer. I'm joined by my sister, Tori Matus, and her husband, Kyle. They met working on the House Rules Committee, and she's no stranger to this room, having served as communications director for Senator Shelby from Alabama, where she also served as the communications director for the Senate Rules Committee, which typically meets in this room. The Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. She also served as chief of staff to U.S. Representative Roby. She and her husband, Kyle, are now in the private sector, raising my two nephews in Charlottesville, and I really appreciate them being here to support me as well. I'd finally like to thank my mother and father-in-law, Kay and Lee Mitchell, who are here from Houston, Texas, where they raised my husband and his three siblings. They've so graciously welcomed me into their family and have provided an unwavering acknowledgement. I'm grateful again to the committee for the opportunity to be here, and I welcome your questions about my family.

Unidentified speaker [1:59:05]

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, members of the committee. Thank you for having me here today. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for the profound honor of this nomination. I'd also like to thank Senator McCormick for his kind introduction this morning and for recommending me to the president. I'd also like to thank both Senator McCormick and Senator Fetterman for their support throughout this process. It would be impossible to thank everybody who's made this day possible for me, so I'm just going to thank my parents, who are watching at home, and my in-laws, who are also watching at home. I'd also like to thank my colleagues that have supported me throughout my career, friends, mentors, first and foremost among them the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga, for whom I was fortunate to clerk. Judge Trenga was an amazing mentor and teacher, and he really drove home the importance of inspiring confidence in the legal system at every turn. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would bring that lesson with me to the bench. I've also had the benefit of amazing mentors as a young lawyer at Cleary Gottlieb, to have learned from colleagues in the Department of Justice and in law enforcement, and to have had the support of my partners at Fagery Drinker, which has allowed me to have a practice where I've represented both large organizations and individuals facing serious legal challenges. Thank you all. You know who you are. Finally, and most importantly, I'd like to thank my family who are here in the gallery. Our two children are here today, along with my wife, Claire, who's been my rock since college. She's a former federal prosecutor as well, who shares my commitment to public service and to the rule of law, and I'm blessed to have her by my side today and every day. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to give back to my country and to our community, which have given so much to me and to my family, by devoting my life to public service, upholding the rule of law, and inspiring confidence in our legal system. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

A senator [2:00:50]

Thank you. I'm going to start with you, Mr. Pozzuolozo. I'm the author of the False Claims Act. It has brought $85 billion to the U.S. back into the taxpayers. The Supreme Court has long upheld the law's constitutionality, but some lower courts have ignored precedent and gotten it wrong. I hope I can count on you to study the history of the False Claims Act, what it's done, its intent, and its precedents with respect to everything good about this legislation. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for the question.

Unidentified speaker [2:01:31]

In private practice, I've certainly defended clients in False Claims Act litigation, but in my career, I've also served as a federal fraud prosecutor. I'm very well aware of the challenges that this country faces from fraud and abuse and the important role that whistleblowers and others play in helping achieve justice and protect taxpayers from fraud. Notably, in one of my main cases at the Department of Justice, I was part of a team that achieved recovery of over $500 million. For American taxpayers, I'm very proud of that work, and if I'm fortunate enough to I would apply the False Claims Act equally, fully and fairly to all who come before me.

A senator [2:02:05]

Thank you. Mr. Colomero, I have a question for you. You've held numerous leadership positions in both the Texas Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Office. You've even served as the state's provisional attorney general. In those roles, you've managed many attorneys. You've overseen hundreds of cases involving the United States. What have you learned from your public service and leadership in Texas that best prepares you for the federal badge?

Unidentified speaker [2:02:38]

Yes, Senator. I have spent the majority of my career serving the public. I've had the privilege to serve in the Texas Attorney General's Office, representing the interests of the people of Texas, as well as defending the laws passed by our legislature, no matter their political valence. That experience has really helped me. It's really shown me a variety of different legal issues that I expect I will see. if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. And it has also helped me hone my legal skills in the courtroom, as well. Adherence to the rule of law has been a centerpiece of my practice in that role. Additionally, I've also had the opportunity to serve in the executive branch as a legal advisor. I've advised the state's chief executive officer, and I've also advised executive branch agencies on the implementation of the law. That role has given me great exposure to the legislative process, and it's taught me that the text is what survives after bicameralism and presentment. And that experience has really shaped how I view statutory interpretation. I think two principles will help me as I ascend into a different role, and that is adherence to the rule of law, and just a strengthening commitment in my continued desire to serve the public. If I am fortunate enough to be able to serve the public. I will commit to hear and handle all cases before me in a fair and fair manner.

A senator [2:03:59]

and impartial way. Thank you, Mr. Martin. You've also been a career public servant, federal prosecutor under Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. You've earned the trust and respect of US attorneys appointed by both presidents from the parties. What did you learn from working with people that held different

Unidentified speaker [2:04:22]

points of view that you will bring to the bench? Senator, I've had the privilege of working in leadership roles under different US attorneys, under different administrations. And I've learned from all of that experience to follow the law, to look at and analyze issues from different angles, to listen to other people who might have viewpoints that are different than yours on the law, and always to do the right thing under the law. And if I'm privileged enough to be confirmed, I think those qualities will help me as a judge. Thank you, Mr. Martin. You've also been a career public servant, federal prosecutor under Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. You've earned the trust and respect of US attorneys appointed by both presidents from the parties. You've earned the trust and respect of US attorneys appointed by both presidents. And I think those qualities will help me as a judge.

A senator [2:05:00]

And Ms. Mitchell, you've had an impressive career, a trial and appellate litigators. At the beginning of your career, you clerked for two legendary jurists. You've already mentioned them today in your opening remarks. What did you learn from these clerkships that shaped your later career? And how have you shaped your view of them? Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I learned a great deal for the judges for whom I clerked both personally and professionally. Two things that stand out as it applied to my private practice is the simple notion that there's no substitute for doing the work. In those chambers, the task before us was to dig and dig and dig until we found the right answer. There were no shortcuts. And that is the approach that I've taken to my private practice. I also saw from them models of integrity. They took their oaths seriously. that faithfully. And I have tried to zealously represent my clients consistent with my responsibilities in private practice from their example. Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, let's let Senator Blumenthal go ahead. I just came in from a vote. Okay. Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Senator Durbin yielding. I want to make clear about the questions I'm going to ask you. They're not political theater. They're not being clever. These issues are a matter of right and wrong. There are issues in life that involve right and wrong, as you know. Attacking the Capitol is wrong. Lying about whether it happened is wrong. Stating truth is right. And pardoning people who attack the Capitol. Failing to call it out is wrong. It's not theater, not being clever. It's right or wrong. So let me begin with you, Mr. Martin. Who won the 2020 election? Senator, as a matter of law, Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election. Who got more votes? Senator, my focus as a judicial nominee is on the law.

Unidentified speaker [2:07:28]

And as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Who got more electoral college votes? Joe Biden received more electoral college votes. And was the Capitol attacked on January 6th? Senator, as part of my work as an assistant United States attorney, pardon me, I had the opportunity to look at pictures and videos from that day. And what I saw in those was that officers, law enforcement officers, were attacked. And what I saw in those was that officers, law enforcement officers, were attacked. And the building was damaged and vandalized.

A senator [2:08:03]

Mr. Pozos, who won the 2020 election?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:07]

Senator, I would agree with my fellow nominee.

A senator [2:08:09]

Can you get closer to the mic or turn it on?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:11]

My apologies, Senator. I would agree with my fellow nominee's answer, Senator.

A senator [2:08:16]

You're going to stick with that script?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:18]

Senator, I don't believe it's a script. President Biden was certified as the winner. Who got more popular votes? Senator, with respect to the popular vote, my role as a nominee here is to speak to the law.

A senator [2:08:31]

Who got more votes in the Electoral College?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:34]

Senator, my understanding is that Joseph Biden received more votes in the Electoral College.

A senator [2:08:38]

Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:41]

Senator, I've certainly seen videos relating to what occurred at the Capitol on that date. From what I saw, it appeared that there was violence and trespass, as my fellow nominee said. It's profoundly troubling. So there was violence and trespass.

A senator [2:08:54]

The Capitol was attacked?

Unidentified speaker [2:08:56]

Senator, I would hesitate to characterize what occurred. You should have said that. You'd hesitate to tell the truth here. Senator? Ms. Colomero, who won the 2020 election? Senator, as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Who got more votes in the popular election? Senator, similar to my fellow nominees, I'm here also to speak about the law. And as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election. As a matter of law? Yes, Senator.

A senator [2:09:27]

Who won more votes?

Unidentified speaker [2:09:30]

Well, Joe Biden received more electoral votes.

A senator [2:09:34]

Who won more votes in the election among the American people?

Unidentified speaker [2:09:39]

As a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

A senator [2:09:42]

Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th?

Unidentified speaker [2:09:46]

Senator, like my other nominees, I have seen videos.

A senator [2:09:49]

Like your other nominees, you're going to adopt the script, the new script, the new hedge, the new White House, pre-negotiated. Senator, you're going to adopt the script, the new script, the new hedge, the new White House, pre-negotiated. script. Mr. Martin, let me ask you, why is it a matter of law? Isn't it a matter of popular vote that an official is elected?

Unidentified speaker [2:10:17]

No, sir. Under the Constitution, the popular vote is not the operative fact.

A senator [2:10:23]

Mr. Pozo, don't the people elect a president?

Unidentified speaker [2:10:30]

Senator, under our constitutional system, the electoral college elects the president.

A senator [2:10:38]

Let me just be absolutely clear. You have a new script, a new pre-negotiated effort to thread the needle, avoid the question, because the president refuses to acknowledge that he lost. He declines. to accept the truth that he lost the 2020 election. You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth, and it all goes to your independence. If you're unwilling to show us that you're independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees. And the president is still trying to prove he won, sending officials to Georgia, trying to concoct evidence. If he were not putting his thumb on the truth, you'd be willing to state it here, and you are putting loyalty to him. If he were not putting his thumb above fidelity to the law and the Constitution, the law doesn't dictate the results of an election. The people do. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are any of you going to be dependent upon President Trump or any president as a federal district court judge? No, Senator. No, Senator. Okay. Before you render a decision, are any of you going to pick up the phone and call the president? No, Senator. Are any of you going to pick up the phone and call the president of the United States and ask him or her how you ought to rule? No, Senator. No, Senator.

Unidentified speaker [2:12:32]

No, Senator.

A senator [2:12:32]

No, Senator. All right. Mr. Martin, tell me about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the Internet, social media.

Unidentified speaker [2:12:51]

Senator, I have not come across Section 230 of the Communications Act during the course of my career as a prosecutor. executor, I can't.

A senator [2:12:59]

comment on it. Well, as your career as a human being, you haven't heard any references to Section 230 and immunity for members of social media companies? No, sir, I have not. Okay. All right. How about you, Mr. Poslos? Am I saying that right? You are, Senator. How about you, sir? Senator, my understanding generally, while I haven't practiced in this area, is that it affords a level of protection to Internet service providers that publish content of other parties. It says if I post on Facebook and I defame somebody, Facebook is not at fault, right? Senator, I have a very rough understanding, which is consistent with what you've expressed. Is that a yes? Yes, Senator, subject to the caveat that I am certainly not an expert in the area. Well, what if, and that seems fair to you, doesn't it? I mean, thousands, hundreds of thousands, a million, millions, squillions of people post on Facebook and they offer their opinion, right? Senator, I think that the approach that was...

Unidentified speaker [2:14:21]

I'm not trying to trick you, Counselor. No, Senator, I'm trying to articulate that my understanding is that when Congress enacted that provision of the law, it was trying to balance the interests of fostering speech through the Internet with the potentially chilling effect of liability. I understand, Senator, that there is a debate ongoing about the appropriate scope of those.

A senator [2:14:41]

Yeah, but, Counselor, I love you, man, like a taco, but you're using up all my time here. Do you think 230 makes sense to you?

Unidentified speaker [2:14:51]

Senator, I think that it is an approach that could be rationally achieved by Congress, and Congress could if it chose to take a different... If it chose to take a different approach, likely do so... think it was a good idea? Senator, I think that as a matter of law, we have a legal system that regulates speech, and I think that it is fair, robust, and I would have no hesitation...

A senator [2:15:14]

Well, let me put it this way, Counselor. Yes. You're sounding an awful lot like a lawyer. It seems to me it's fair to say Facebook can't be responsible for the content of what all the people who use it post. Okay? Fair? I'm willing to say it is. But does it make a difference if Facebook picks and chooses what I see? Doesn't that seem like putting your thumb on the scale?

Unidentified speaker [2:15:48]

It would certainly be favorable, it would seem, Senator, yes. What does that mean? It would afford additional protection beyond what may exist at law independently for... example, Senator, if somebody is curating speech...

A senator [2:16:02]

Counselor, I have no idea what you're talking about. No offense. You're better off here just answering the questions, you really are. Ms. Mitchell, tell me about the Qualified Immunity Doctrine. The Qualified Immunity Doctrine is one that protects officers who, in executing their duties, are reasonable, or have a reasonable basis for the actions that they're taking, and it typically is something that courts decide at the outset to protect those officers from liability. Okay. So if a cop, if somebody runs from a cop, and the cop doesn't feel threatened, he just can't, he doesn't think he can catch the guy... And he shoots him in the back. Is he immune from liability? Senator, I'd like to engage on this hypothetical, but because it's a fact pattern that may come before me if I'm confirmed... a cop and I'm talking to a suspect and he turns and rabbits on me and I say, ah, I don't think I can catch this guy, but I know how to stop him and I shoot him in the back. Are you telling me I'm immune as a cop from liability? Come on, Counselor. What I can tell you is the legal test, Senator, for qualified immunity, which is whether there was an objective basis... Does it apply in a criminal case? It is a... It's a... Apply in a criminal case, does it? No, Senator. These are typically in 1983 actions. So I can't shoot him in the back, right? Again, I don't want to comment on a specific fact pattern. I principally have practiced in civil law and haven't encountered that specific fact pattern, but I would look at the developed body of precedent on qualified immunity and ask the question that I understand the Supreme Court has settled about whether there is an objective basis for the off... Officer's actions. Yeah, okay. I get what... Look, you're smart. I've read your resume. I just caution y'all when you go back to your friends at the White House who've gotten you ready for these hearings, don't dodge the questions. Just answer them. Okay? If you don't know, just say, I don't know. I just think you're very qualified, Counselor, but I can't believe you dodge on the question. Can a cop shoot somebody in the back who's running away just because he doesn't think he can catch him on foot? But anyway, I'm over. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You're a rock star. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Some days. And I appreciate you're not asking the Texas nominees about the rule against perpetuities. I'm waiting for someone to get there. We're going to get to that. I ran out of time. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, in April, the Justice Department's weaponization... Working Group issued a report... Detailing weaponization of the Biden Justice Department. The report focused on prosecution rising out of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan... Involving the FACE Act. Are you familiar with the FACE Act?

Unidentified speaker [2:19:12]

Yes, sir.

A senator [2:19:13]

Okay. The report claimed that career prosecutors working on this case demonstrated anti-Christian bias in prosecuting defendants who blocked access to a reproductive health care clinic in Michigan. One day before this report was published, two prosecutors in your office were terminated for their alleged misconduct in this case. Do you believe that apolitical career civil servants should be terminated simply because they were assigned to work on certain matters?

Unidentified speaker [2:19:43]

I do not believe that. Career prosecutors should be terminated simply because they decided to work on a case.

A senator [2:19:49]

Did you have any role in terminating these two prosecutors who were assigned to work on the FACE Act cases?

Unidentified speaker [2:19:55]

No, Senator. I had no role whatsoever in the decision to terminate them.

A senator [2:19:59]

Thank you. Ms. Calmanero, are you familiar with DACA?

Unidentified speaker [2:20:06]

Yes, Senator.

A senator [2:20:07]

You realize it was created by President Obama 14 years ago?

Unidentified speaker [2:20:12]

Yes, Senator.

A senator [2:20:13]

And more than 800,000 individuals have taken advantage of that program, and every two years they are required to register and re-register with the federal government to pay a filing fee of $600, go through a background check, criminal background check, that allows them at the end of the day to be able to work legally in the United States and not be deported during that period. If they commit a crime between registration periods, they can lose all DACA protection. Are you familiar with that?

Unidentified speaker [2:20:49]

I am generally familiar with the contours of what you just described.

A senator [2:20:54]

Do you know what the term relevant relates? Reliance interest means?

Unidentified speaker [2:21:01]

Yes, Senator, I am.

A senator [2:21:03]

The conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recognized, quote, the immense reliance interest that DACA has created when it kept in place a stay for current DACA recipients. Do you agree with the Fifth Circuit?

Unidentified speaker [2:21:18]

Senator, as a judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to express a comment on whether or not I agree or disagree with an appellate court decision. But to the extent there was an appellate court decision that was applicable to the case in front of me, as a lower court judge, I would be duty-bound to apply that precedent.

A senator [2:21:37]

Ms. Mitchell, I want to ask you a question about the Voting Rights Act. You co-authored a brief in the Shelby County v. Holder case, did you not? It was on behalf of Alabama in which you argued against the protections of the Voting Rights Act and claimed that the law undermined, quote, state sovereignty, close quote. Do you remember that? Senator. You also claimed that certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act were inappropriate because things in Alabama and the southern states had sufficiently changed since the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Yet time and again, as soon as the Roberts Court has weakened the protections of the Voting Rights Act, we have seen southern states move to further disenfranchise black voters. Are you aware of the current controversy on redistricting and the prospect of many minority seats being eliminated? I'm not working on any of those matters, Senator, but I'm generally familiar with them. Do you still stand by your efforts to weaken the Voting Rights Act in light of what's happened since? I don't want to offer any of my personal views on that, but I stand by the arguments that Alabama made in that brief, which was an amicus brief concerning the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance requirement. And I believe we made good faith arguments under those. I believe we made good faith arguments under the law in the best interest of our client. Mr. Pozos, in 2020, you were featured in the Philadelphia Business Journal. where you were asked how the Philadelphia business community can help heal racial divisions. In part, you answered, and I quote, our divisions are particularly acute when our communities lose faith in the legal system. That trust is particularly fragile when the composition of law enforcement, the bench, and the bar do not reflect the communities they serve. I agree with you. Can you elaborate on the importance of diversity in the legal system?

Unidentified speaker [2:23:31]

Senator, I believe it's absolutely essential that we get the best possible talent for our legal system and for the men and women of law enforcement from every possible source that we can. In my career, I've been fortunate to mentor and advise many young people considering whether to enter the legal profession from a wide range of backgrounds. And I think that amidst the competition in the market for bright young minds, we need to do a great job. And I think that amidst the competition in the market for bright young minds, we need to do a great job as a legal profession to ensure that we get the best possible talent for our community. to all pockets of talent, wherever they may be in our country, and welcome them into the legal profession so that they can help us uphold the rule of law in this profession.

A senator [2:24:10]

Basic question. Do you believe that diversity is an important and worthy goal and objective in filling vacancies in the legal profession?

Unidentified speaker [2:24:19]

Senator, I think that if we are true to seeking out excellence wherever it may be, that question will be moot.

A senator [2:24:26]

I doubt it. Thank you very much. Thank you, and I want to thank all four nominees for appearing before the committee today, and I want to extend a special welcome to two nominees from my home state of Texas, Angela Cominaro and Kasdan Mitchell. I entered into the record an introduction for both of them. I apologize that I wasn't able to physically be here at the beginning of the hearing. But I will say to the two of you in particular that both nominees have gone through what is an extraordinary experience. It's been an extensive process. judicial nominees in the state of Texas, Senator John Cornyn and I together have a bipartisan federal judicial advisory committee of roughly 25 lawyers across the state. They're among the most respected members of the bar in every region of the state of Texas. It is deliberately a bipartisan group. And for every judicial vacancy in the state of Texas, we have a bipartisan committee. We post a public call for applications for lawyers practicing in Texas who wish to serve on the bench. That committee then interviews, reviews those applications, interviews the best individuals in terms of their qualifications, makes recommendations to Senator Cornyn and myself. Both Ms. Colmanero and Ms. Mitchell went through that process with flying colors, impressed the committee. And then both of you had the opportunity to sit down and interview. will say you're both very impressive lawyers. And Texas, we are blessed. We have 32 million people. We have no shortage of principled, qualified men and women who very much want to serve on the bench. And you've both risen to the top based on excellence, based on integrity, based on fidelity to law. In the course of those interviews, as a practice, I don't ask any potential judicial nominee how you would rule on any pending case. That would not be an appropriate question to ask a potential nominee. But I do try to delve into your commitment to following the law. Rather than whatever your own particular policy preferences might be. And federal judges by design, they have life tenure. They don't stand for election. They're not... political players. And many of their decisions, particularly federal district judges, which both of you are nominated for, are never appealed. And so in many instances, if and when you're confirmed, your ruling in a particular matter will be the final disposition for the parties before you, whether in a criminal case, where you could well be responsible for someone's life or death, or the entirety of their liberty, or in a civil case, for enormous consequences that can play out. And so I want to thank all the nominees, but particularly the Texas nominee. I want to thank all the nominees for your nomination. I want to give you both a chance. Ms. Colmanaro, you began your legal career by clerking for Judge Joe Fish on the District Court of the Northern District of Texas. How did that clerkship shape your understanding of the role of the federal trial judge, particularly when it comes to preparation, judicial temperament, and managing a courtroom?

Unidentified speaker [2:28:02]

Senator. I was fortunate enough to clerk for Judge Fish in the Northern District of Texas, and what he showed me is that it is important for the judge to be the most prepared person in the courtroom, more prepared than the lawyers and to know the law in all shapes and forms better than anybody. He also exhibited judicial humility and took his oath of office incredibly seriously and kind of knew that with the great responsibility that he had, he had to show fidelity to the law at all times. And so he exhibited that day in and day out and was a great role model for me when it came to ensuring that every litigant who came before him was treated in a fair and impartial way.

A senator [2:28:45]

You and I also had the opportunity early in our legal career to work for Governor Greg Abbott. I worked for him when he was Attorney General. Greg Abbott, he's a dear friend. As you know, when he's in the state capitol and he pulls on his driving... gloves and is on the slick marble floors that his wheelchair can book in. And my question is, how frequently have you had to run to keep up with him going across the state capitol?

Unidentified speaker [2:29:11]

Every single time, which is why I don't wear heels.

A senator [2:29:14]

That is wisdom. Ms. Mitchell, you clerked for Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and later for Justice Clarence Thomas. Both of them are also dear friends of mine and extraordinary jurists. Tell this committee what you learned working for both of them. I learned so much from the judges for whom I clerked. One principle that stands out as I sit here today is that the old saying that what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. And I saw them live out their oath with fidelity to the Constitution, our federal laws, judging without fear or favor, and treating everyone that came before them with respect. And that was a tremendous... opportunity as a young lawyer to be shaped by their example. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman. Welcome, everyone. The 22nd Amendment says that no person shall be elected to the presidency more than twice. Is that correct?

Unidentified speaker [2:30:27]

That's correct, Senator.

A senator [2:30:29]

Is any person elected to the presidency more than twice? Exempted from that constitutional bar?

Unidentified speaker [2:30:37]

No.

A senator [2:30:38]

So the current occupant, having been elected twice, is covered by the 22nd Amendment, correct?

Unidentified speaker [2:30:46]

Yes, sir.

A senator [2:30:48]

Does anybody disagree? No, Senator.

Unidentified speaker [2:30:51]

No, Senator. No, Senator.

A senator [2:30:54]

Thank you. I'd like to talk a little bit about fraud. upon the court. First of all, would one of you care to define it for me?

Unidentified speaker [2:31:12]

Senator, I can speak generally that fraud upon the court can take a number of forms. It could constitute perjury or obstruction or other means of deceiving the court.

A senator [2:31:21]

It, as a general proposition, covers fairly grave misconduct by an individual who has a duty to the court, customarily a lawyer, correct?

Unidentified speaker [2:31:42]

Senator, I believe that's correct. I would also add that I've prosecuted law enforcement corruption cases involving perjury, which I would also consider to have a component of fraud upon the court generally.

A senator [2:31:53]

Yeah, but those are general. Generally prosecuted as perjury, fraud on the court. is a kind of unique creature of its own that can be policed by the judge really sua sponte, like a contempt, correct?

Unidentified speaker [2:32:13]

I believe so. I believe so, Senator, yes.

A senator [2:32:15]

Does anybody disagree with that?

Unidentified speaker [2:32:18]

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

A senator [2:32:22]

And is it true that if a fraud upon the court has been committed in a particular case, that the judge has all of the sanctions available to them in the case that are provided by Rule 11 or the general contempt power of the court? Is that correct also?

Unidentified speaker [2:32:51]

Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator.

A senator [2:32:56]

Yes. And. the in the event that a fraud upon the court has been committed, not only are the disciplinary rules within the court and within the case applicable, but judges can make referrals to the bar for further disciplinary action against the license to practice law. Is that also correct? I believe so, Senator. I don't have any personal experience in this area. Well, that's good.

Unidentified speaker [2:33:36]

I believe that is correct to you, Senator.

A senator [2:33:38]

Yeah. And ultimately, as you suggested, Mr. Pozo's referrals for criminal conduct along the lines of obstruction or fraud or perjury can also be made. Correct?

Unidentified speaker [2:33:55]

Yes, Senator. The cases that I involved did not involve referrals, but that is. Either way, do you all agree that fraud upon the court is a very, very serious matter? Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator. Yes. Yes, Senator. I agree. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to enter into the record a letter supporting Ms. Mitchell's nomination from 43 former law clerks.

A senator [2:34:28]

Of Judge William Pryor, they endorsed Ms. Mitchell, stating, quote, if confirmed, we know that Kasdan will ensure that all litigants who appear before her know that their argument has been heard and considered with the utmost care and respect. As she has done in every chapter of her life, Kasdan will demand excellence of herself in this role, too, end quote. Without objection, we'll enter the letter into the record. I want to thank each of the nominees for your testimony today. Written questions for the record may be submitted until June 17th at 5 p.m. And with that, the hearing is adjourned.