'Can You Define The Word Woke?': Hirono Has Testy Exchange With Top Trump Judicial Nominee

[0:01] Thank you. I ask the following two initial questions of all nominees coming before any [0:09] of the committees on which I sit to ensure the fitness of the nominee to serve, so I will ask [0:16] you the following two questions. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests [0:22] for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? [0:31] No. [0:32] Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? [0:39] No. [0:41] Mr. Smith, on July 30th, 2024, you wrote a post on Breitbart endorsing a Missouri [0:50] Attorney General candidate. Do you recall that post? [0:55] I do, Senator. [0:58] So in that post, you wrote, quote, Republican attorneys general are critical in the fight [1:04] against the radical left. We need true conservatives to defeat the abortion industrial complex, [1:12] the lawlessness plaguing blue cities, and the woke ideology invading our schools, end quote. [1:22] Can you define the word woke? [1:25] Senator, I was very proud to support my friend who was running in that election. [1:31] That was a piece of political advocacy, and as I was explaining to one of your colleagues earlier, [1:35] the partisan views or political activity I've had before would play no bearing on my [1:40] role as a judge. [1:41] Well, you're not responding to my question. Can you define for me what constitutes woke ideology? [1:49] Senator, you wrote it. You meant something. I'd just like you to tell us what you meant by that. [1:56] Senator, in the course of a political campaign, that was a piece that I put out in support of [2:04] my friend. But as a judicial nominee, I don't think it's appropriate for me to start commenting [2:09] on political views, because as a judge, I would not be applying those partisan or personal views [2:17] vibes on the bench. [2:18] Well, the thing is that this whole idea of woke ideology and DEI, you know, the president has [2:27] issued an executive order telling all of his administrative agencies to eliminate any support [2:33] of DEI. And so you're going to get cases that use terms like woke or DEI, et cetera. And so I think [2:42] it would be good for us to know what you mean by what you wrote, and you're not going to respond [2:47] so, okay, there you go. You've been asked a number of questions by a number of my colleagues about [2:53] who won the 2020 election. And you testified today that it is the electoral college that matters [3:01] in determining who is the president. So the House and Senate was in the process of certifying the [3:08] electoral votes on January 6th. Do you acknowledge that rioters on January 6th [3:15] sought to stop this process to prevent Joe Biden from being the president? That's a yes or no question. [3:24] So I understand that the counting electoral votes was interrupted on January 6th. I want to be very [3:32] careful in getting too much further beyond that, because there is still active litigation. [3:36] I think it's pretty clear what the rioters' intents were. And in fact, if you don't want to, [3:42] you won't answer that straightforward question. I have another one. Do you also acknowledge that [3:49] a number of these rioters, some 1,500 or so of them, were convicted and that President Trump [3:56] pardoned them? Do you acknowledge that fact? Yes or no? I think that is what happened, Senator. [4:05] So you represented, I'm glad that you actually acknowledged a factual question that he pardoned. [4:15] All these rioters who were very intent on beating up our police here and trying to stop the counting [4:23] of the electoral college. So Mr. Smith, you have represented President Trump in multiple lawsuits [4:30] in which he has been found liable for defaming and committing sexual battery against E.G. and Carroll. [4:39] In these cases, you represented the president in his personal capacity. [4:44] If a case comes before you in which President Trump's personal interests are heavily implicated, [4:52] will you recuse yourself? Senator, I've been very proud to represent the president. [4:57] Well, will you recuse yourself? I will recuse from any case I've been personally involved in. [5:02] For any other case, I would consult the judicial canons and the appropriate recusal rules. I may [5:08] need to consult with my colleagues. Well, considering the kind of representation that you've provided, [5:13] President Trump, you do cite to the canons of ethics and the code of conduct for United States [5:19] judges requires a judge to disqualify himself, quote, in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality [5:26] might reasonably be questioned, end quote. I would say that in any case involving President Trump's [5:31] personal interests, you should recuse yourself because it is very clear where your loyalties lie. [5:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hawley.