Chuck Grassley Holds Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing For Judicial Nominees

[0:01] Welcome, everyone. Today's hearing will involve Sharia Clark, District of South Carolina, Kathleen Lane, District of Montana, Evan Rickey, District of Virgin Islands, and Kara Westerkamp to the Court of International Trade. [0:32] Today's nominees boast a diverse set of backgrounds. Each has extensive litigation experience, but their career paths reflect varying practices that are uniquely tailored to the courts for which they've been nominated. [0:53] Before we turn to our visitors to introduce Ms. Lane and Ms. Clark, I'll introduce two of our nominees. [1:02] Their nominations are to the court that this committee does not consider. [1:07] They're not considered too frequently, like the District of Virgin Islands and the Court of International Trade. [1:14] Mr. Rickey earned his law degree from American University, working with the Federal Election Commission before spending the bulk of his career with the Justice Department. [1:26] In 2004, Mr. Rickey began as an attorney advisor with the Office of Legal Policy. [1:36] He helped prepare federal judicial nominees. [1:40] In 2006, Mr. Rickey served as the Chief Justice of the United States, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. [1:45] In 2006, he transitioned into a litigation role. [1:52] He spent two years as a trial attorney with the criminal section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. [2:01] Thereafter, he spent a decade and a half as a federal prosecutor in a pair of U.S. attorney's offices, [2:10] including the U.S. Attorney's Office of Legal Policy. [2:11] In 2007, Mr. Rickey served as the Chief Justice of the United States, including the District of Virgin Islands. [2:14] He investigated and prosecuted a wide array of criminal offenses and diligently protected victims of fraud, drug trafficking, and violent crimes. [2:26] He also briefly worked on detail as an attorney advisor to two U.S. embassies. [2:35] In 2024, Mr. Rickey, since then, has served as Senior Counsel. [2:44] With Walmart, he led the company's investigations. [2:50] Mr. Rickey is an accomplished attorney. [2:53] He has significant experience protecting the people of the Virgin Islands. [2:59] I look forward to hearing from him today. [3:02] I am fortunate to have a native Iowan with me, [3:06] Mrs. Nees blessed hoist winter camp. [3:09] She received her undergraduate law degree from The University of Iowa. [3:14] She chose school legal. [3:15] She got a cop with her. She canceled her time in school. Mr. Rickey was a beautiful faculty. He formed friends and became friends with the rest of the students. Mr. Rickey hasшего wonderful friends in college. He worked at San F dass earlier this year. He is a première artiste, amongst his friends in the United States. Unfortunately, his Wort comes not to add that he is not able to collect İşte [3:16] Camp clerk for Judge John Garvey on the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa. [3:24] 2011, she went into private practice at Jones Day. She litigated insurance recovery, [3:32] security regulation, and financial disputes. Since 2014, Ms. Westerkamp transitioned to public [3:40] service as a trial attorney with the National Court Section of the Justice Department Civil [3:46] Division. In that role, she defended federal agencies and lawsuits before and appeals arriving [3:54] out of the United States Court of International Trade. Her expertise in matters before the court [4:01] is unparalleled. Ms. Westerkamp litigated trade disputes until late last year when she [4:10] transitioned [4:11] into the White House Counsel's Office. Needless to say, Ms. Westerkamp is highly qualified to [4:17] serve as a judge on the Court of International Trade, and I look forward to hearing from her [4:24] today. I'd ask everyone to keep their questions limited to five minutes, [4:30] allotted to keep the hearing on schedule. Senator Durbin. [4:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I make a statement about this morning's business, [4:40] I want to call the attention of the [4:43] members of the House Judiciary Committee to a ruling yesterday in New Mexico, [4:49] where the Attorney General there filed a lawsuit, civil lawsuit under New Mexico law, [4:55] against Meta, Facebook, and Instagram for endangering children with their content on [5:01] social media. There isn't a parent or grandparent alive who isn't fearful of what the hell these [5:06] kids are looking at all day long and what's happening to them as a result. [5:10] We have had lengthy hearings in this committee with the victims, [5:13] and the families of victims of these practices, promises by the industry to clean up their act [5:19] and protect children, and failure after failure. This decision, which involved a verdict, [5:25] a civil verdict of almost $400 million against Meta, Facebook, and Instagram, is an indication [5:34] that Section 230 is not impregnable. That section has protected these social media vendors for a [5:41] decade or more, and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't [5:42] be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't [5:43] be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. It should be brought down. [5:44] I bring that to the attention of the committee because this is one of the few issues where we [5:49] universally agree on a bipartisan basis that we should act. We have voted for that over and over [5:55] again and failed to be bringing it to the floor. This ought to be a call to action to this committee [6:02] to respond on the Senate floor and actually legislate for a change instead of what we do [6:07] day after day, legislate for the benefit of these children and our grandchildren. [6:12] I commend Raul Torres, the Attorney General of New Mexico, for his leadership on this issue. [6:18] He points the way and I think we ought to follow through. And now to address the business of the [6:23] day before this committee, I want to congratulate the nominees and their families. Today's hearing [6:29] serves an important purpose. As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's our responsibility [6:34] to determine if nominees before us have the experience, independence, and temperament, [6:41] and temperament, [6:42] for a lifetime appointment to the bench. We evaluate each of these nominees with the first [6:47] basic question, will they follow the rule of law? That is all the more crucial now with a president [6:54] who is constantly trying to break the law and defying court orders. In his second term, President [7:00] Trump has accelerated a pattern from his first term, put in place a patently illegal policy, [7:07] dare the courts to strike it down, and when the courts uphold the rule of law, respond by [7:13] attacking the judges. President Trump's tariff policy is a perfect illustration of this. Just [7:20] two weeks after he returned to office last year, he invoked the International Emergency Economic [7:27] Powers Act, also known as IEPA, to impose tariffs. This law gives the president authority to impose [7:34] sanctions or freeze assets in response to certain emergencies. IEPA never mentions the word tariffs, [7:42] and had never been used before to impose tariffs. [7:45] President Trump announced, quote, reciprocal tariffs on almost every country in the world, [7:50] claiming without evidence that trade deficits were an unusual and extraordinary threat [7:55] to our national security. Immediately, American small businesses challenged these tariff [8:01] taxes as exceeding the scope of the president's legal powers. [8:06] Lower courts disagreed with the president and agreed with the plaintiffs, the business [8:11] community, finding that only the Congress had the power to impose tariffs. [8:15] Not the president. Just a few weeks ago, a 6-3 decision in the Supreme Court affirmed the lower [8:22] court's position and held that IEPA does not authorize President Trump to impose [8:27] these illegal and costly tariff taxes. Right on cue, President Trump went on the attack, [8:33] ranting on social media that the Supreme Court, quote, unnecessarily ransacked the United States [8:39] by ruling against him. He took special aim at the three conservative justices in the majority, [8:45] calling them, quote, disloyal, unpatriotic, fools, and lapdogs for the rhinos and their [8:53] radical left Democrats. While the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, major questions remain [8:59] with respect to how American businesses will receive the refunds for tens of billions of [9:04] dollars they lost to President Trump's illegal tariff taxes. The Court of International Trade, [9:11] or CIT, a specialized court that hears international trade cases, will hear many of the [9:17] suits filed by the plaintiffs seeking to recoup their losses. So President Trump is resorting to [9:23] his typical, usual, normal practice for him. After losing before the Supreme Court, he wants [9:29] to stack the courts, including the CIT, with MAGA loyals who will rule in his favor and not give [9:35] their refunds back to businesses and individuals. Today, the committee will consider the nomination [9:41] of Kara Westerkamp for a lifetime appointment to this court. Based on her record, it appears she [9:48] will be appointed to the Supreme Court on January 6th, 2021, when she claims that Democrats are [9:52] perfecting the art of cheating. Westerkamp's social media account reads like a Trump fan fiction, [9:56] questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, whitewashing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, [10:02] and attacking Chief Justice Roberts for not being sufficiently conservative. [10:07] For example, on Election Day in 2020, Ms. Westerkamp tweeted, and I quote, [10:12] if you cheat, you will win. On January 6th, 2021, she claimed that Democrats are [10:17] perfecting the art of cheating. [10:21] She has attacked senators on both sides of the aisle if they dare to cross the president. [10:26] For example, one member of this committee she spoke of, Senator Graham, she said is true to [10:32] no one but his own self-preservation. She repeatedly called Senator Mitch McConnell, [10:38] quote, cocaine Mitch, close quote, and retweeted posts accusing him of, quote, [10:45] betraying Trump, unquote. She's also accused Senator Collins, a Republican member of the [10:52] Senate, of prioritizing, quote, her own personal political power over loyalty to Trump. [10:59] This shameless display of extreme rhetoric does not reflect independence or judicial temperament [11:05] required for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. I look forward to hearing from her [11:09] personally when we ask her questions. I yield. Senator Tim Scott to introduce his [11:15] nominee from his state. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [11:18] and thank you to the members of the Judiciary Committee. I am proud to introduce and strongly [11:24] recognize the nomination of Sharia Clark to serve as the United States Senate, United States [11:29] District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Her background is not typical for judicial [11:35] candidates. She was homeschooled, and as I think of it, that's a great way to be valedictorian. [11:41] And she attended Liberty University, majoring in psychology and graduating with honors. [11:48] She worked her way through law school at the University of North Carolina and clerked for judges [11:53] before finding her way to Washington. [11:56] Sharia has built a distinguished legal career rooted in service, [12:00] both in the courtroom and in her community. She has held several roles with increasing [12:05] responsibility from her time at the Ethics Committee to eventually leading one of the [12:10] most high profile and consequential committees in Congress as a staff director for the House [12:16] Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Her experience also includes serving as an assistant [12:23] United States attorney in the District of South Carolina, where she worked [12:27] as a federal prosecutor focused on upholding the rule of law. Today, she continues her legal [12:33] career as a partner at Nelson Mullins in Greenville, South Carolina. Her commitment to serve [12:39] extends into the community, where she serves on the board of directors of Jasmine Road, supporting [12:45] women recovering from trafficking, addiction, and exploitation. She also serves as chair of the [12:51] Miriam Foundation and has supported organizations like the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center and the [12:58] School for Science and Mathematics Foundation. These roles are clear evidence of her deep and [13:04] consistent commitment to strengthening communities across South Carolina. Sharia's faith is central [13:10] to who she is and is reflected in her approach to justice, her respect for others, and her [13:16] commitment to fairness. She understands that the law requires not just intellect, [13:22] but sound judgment, restraint, and a deep awareness of how decisions impact people's [13:28] lives, and she brings those qualities to the bench. Beyond her professional accomplishments, [13:35] Sharia's devoted wife and mother, balancing family life with an exceptional career in public service. [13:45] I met Sharia Clark nearly 15 years ago through a mutual friend, Trey Gowdy, who was a congressman [13:51] in the House at the time, and she is one of the most outstanding people, character I have ever met. [14:00] She brings a rare combination of humility and conviction to her work, with a clear understanding [14:07] of the responsibility and trust required by a federal judge. In the decade plus since we've met, [14:15] I have never heard her utter a single negative word about anyone, at all, not even about my bad [14:24] singing voice the one time a bunch of us called and tried to sing Happy Birthday to her. She has a quick mind, [14:33] she picks up complex concepts with remarkable speed and ease. She is modest and never seeks [14:40] attention or accolades. To the contrary, she deflects them in a genuine way. I cannot say [14:48] she is slow to anger, because in more than a decade, I have never seen her angry. And trust me, [14:57] in this town and with the friends that I have, she's had plenty of opportunities to show it. [15:04] What I can say is that she was a frequent, [15:07] dinner guest when she was in Washington, joining an often bipartisan table of friends, [15:13] and she earned the respect and affection of everyone there. The ranking member of the [15:19] committee she worked on had as much respect for her as the chairman who employed her. [15:26] I am very proud to support her nomination without hesitation, and am confident she will be an [15:32] outstanding addition to the judiciary. And most importantly, I am proud to call her. [15:38] My friend, if more people were like Sharia Clark, the world would be a better place. [15:45] No problem. You're the chairman. We do whatever you say. Thank you very much. [15:49] Yeah. And you're free to go or stay, whatever you want to do. [15:52] I might go ahead and depart. [15:54] Senator Daines. [15:57] Chairman Grassley, thank you. I want to thank ranking member Durbin as well. [16:03] It is my honor to introduce Katie Lane and support her nomination to serve as the next judge [16:09] of the United States District Court for the District of Montana. [16:14] Katie's distinguished record of public service and experience in the federal and state judiciary [16:22] makes her well qualified to serve on the federal bench. I appreciate a ranking member Durbin's [16:28] comments about temperament. And I will tell you, Katie Lane has the right temperament as well [16:34] to serve as United States District Court judge. She grew up in Montana. In fact, [16:39] she grew up in Bozeman, my hometown. She attended kindergarten through 12th grade, [16:45] as I did in Bozeman, although I went a little before her, and graduated from my alma mater, [16:51] Bozeman High School. She spent her summers during those formative years skiing, camping, [16:57] hiking in Montana, which instilled in her a deep love of the treasure state [17:01] and the values that make Montana the last best place. Although we both went to the same high [17:08] school, Katie's a lot smarter than me, because she graduated magna cum laude from George Mason University's [17:16] Antonin Scalia Law School. Katie clerked at both the trial and appellate levels of the federal [17:22] judiciary for two federal judges. She then returned to Montana to serve as the Deputy [17:30] Solicitor General under our current Montana Attorney General Austin Knutson from 2021 to 2023. [17:39] In fact, during that time in our state capital, Helena, [17:42] Katie worked zealously to defend Montana's laws and challenge federal overreach. She litigated [17:49] in both state and federal courts on issues important to Montanans, including defending [17:55] the Second Amendment, multiple land use and grazing rights cases, as well as defending [18:00] Montana's coal industry. As Montanans know very well, federal judges play a critical role in our [18:08] daily lives. For many years, we've dealt with an activist judiciary that repeatedly [18:16] rules against the interests of Montana. And that's why it's essential we pick [18:22] the right jurors who are committed to upholding the Constitution and making decisions based on [18:28] the rule of law, not personal politics or viewpoints. With this in mind, Senator Tim [18:35] Sheehy and I are confident that Katie is the right choice to serve Montana as our next [18:41] federal judge. Katie's values, and by the way, I've known her family since she was a little girl, [18:50] Katie's values are rooted in Montana and grounded in Montana. [18:54] I'm confident she'll be fair-minded, principled, and bring honor, decency, and integrity to the [19:03] bench. I cannot recommend Katie highly enough and urge the committee to approve her nomination [19:12] and for the Senate to confirm her without delay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. [19:16] Thank you. We'll ask our nominees to come. Senator Graham is going to speak about Ms. Clark, [19:25] but he's not here yet. When he comes, I will interrupt the hearing to hear from Senator Graham. [19:40] The nominees, please come to the table. And before you get seated, I'd like to swear, [19:53] raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this [20:04] committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? [20:09] I do. All have answered affirmatively. [20:14] We'll start with, I think we'll start with Sharia, Ms. Clark. And besides your opening [20:25] statement, if you've got guests and friends you want to introduce, for all of you, that's [20:30] very appropriate. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Good morning. Chairman Grassley, [20:38] Ranking Member Durbin, members of this committee, thank you for convening this hearing [20:43] and for considering my nomination to be a District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina. I am [20:51] truly honored for this opportunity, and I appreciate you considering my nomination. [20:56] I'd also like to thank the President, President Trump, for nominating me to this position. [21:02] It is an honor of my lifetime. I'd like to thank Senator Scott. [21:07] I believe he's already left, but I want to thank him for such a kind welcome. [21:14] He's one of my dearest friends, and I appreciate all the support that he's given me over the last [21:20] 15 years. [21:22] I do have some people that I'd like to introduce today. Today with me are my parents, [21:27] Wayne and Deborah Aikens, who will be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary this fall. [21:33] And I'm so proud of them. Also with me is my wonderful husband, Javon Clark. [21:41] He has been my rock for almost 17 years, and I don't deserve him. We have three beautiful [21:50] children. I know my middle son will not like me calling him beautiful, but they are beautiful to [21:54] me. [21:55] My oldest is 14, my second is 11, and my baby girl is 8. Also with me is my mother-in-law, [22:04] and she keeps the Clark household running. And so I appreciate everything that she's done. [22:10] There are so many friends here today, I won't take the time to introduce them, but I do want to [22:16] highlight the Hamiltons who came up from South Carolina and their son Asa. My friend from law [22:22] school, Adrian DeLorme-Thinkley. I think that's him. He was a really good friend of mine. He was a [22:24] good friend of mine, and he's my brother-in-law. And my brother-in-law is my youngest. My oldest is 14, [22:24] Storm Finkley, I still want to call her her maiden name, who flew all the way from Texas. [22:29] And then there was a number of people that came today and took time out of their busy schedules [22:35] from the House Ethics Committee, from the Oversight Committee, and from the Benghazi [22:39] Committee. And so I just thank them for their time. I look forward to answering your questions. [22:44] Thank you. Ms. Lane. [22:47] Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of this committee [22:51] for considering my nomination. I also want to thank President Trump for nominating me [22:56] and both Senator Daines and Senator Sheehy for their support. Senator Daines especially has [23:02] been a tremendous supporter of my career, and I thank him for his kind words today. [23:06] I'll take a moment to introduce my family in the room. My wonderful husband, who has been my [23:12] biggest champion, so much so that he took a red eye from a conference in California last night [23:17] to come straight to this hearing. I appreciate him being here. My parents and one of my [23:22] brothers are here from Montana, and there's really not enough time to thank my parents for [23:27] everything they've given me. But suffice it to say, I'm here today because of the example they [23:32] set and the sacrifices they made. I also have my husband's wonderful family here from Missouri, [23:39] including my two sisters-in-law, who are graduating law school themselves in a few short [23:43] weeks, one from Southern Methodist University and the other from Loyola, Chicago. I have a great [23:48] many friends and colleagues in the room here as well, and many of them are here to support me. [23:52] Watching online, including the two judges for whom I clerked, I can't fully express my gratitude for [23:58] their mentorship throughout my career and for the example they set of what it means to be a federal [24:03] judge. It's a privilege to sit before this committee. It's a privilege to be considered for [24:08] this role. And if I have the honor of being confirmed, I will spend the rest of my life [24:14] faithfully upholding my solemn duty under Article 3 and Article 6 and living up to the standards set [24:21] by my judicial mentors and those who have been with me throughout my life. Thank you. [24:23] Thank you, Ms. Lane. Now, Mr. Rickey. [24:30] Chairman Grassley, good morning. Thank you so much for your generous introduction earlier today. [24:36] Ranking Member Durbin, thank you as well. And thank you to all members of the committee for [24:40] the careful consideration that you have given to my nomination. I'm truly humbled and truly [24:45] grateful for this opportunity. I also want to take a moment to thank President Trump for nominating [24:50] me to serve as a district judge in the District of the Virgin Islands. The President of the [24:54] United States, the word of the law does not exist. I am sorry that some of the Vice President has [24:59] done me the singular honor of my professional career by nominating me to serve in this capacity. [25:05] And I'm truly humbled by the trust and the confidence that he has shown in me. I'm joined [25:11] today by my family, and I'd like to just take a moment to introduce them to the members of [25:16] the committee. First and foremost, my wife of 28 years, Annalisa, who has steadfastly supported and [25:23] us around the country around the globe and back again very grateful to her [25:27] joined by my eldest daughter Sheila who graduated from Georgetown last year and [25:32] she's now pursuing a career on Wall Street in New York and then my two [25:37] younger children Mira and Evan they're both in school and this is spring break [25:43] week for them so they're getting a real-life civics lesson and truly [25:48] grateful to have them here and with that chairman Grassley I look forward to [25:53] answering any questions that the members of the committee have and again thank [25:57] you all so much for this opportunity Thank You mr. Rickey now miss Westerkamp [26:04] Thank You chairman Grassley and ranking member Durbin and thank you members of [26:09] the committee for considering my nomination I want to begin today by [26:12] thanking President Trump for the great honor of this nomination to the United [26:16] States Court of International Trade and thank you again chairman [26:20] Grassley for that very kind introduction and for your support with [26:23] me today from Iowa the Hawkeye State is my family my mother Barbara Westerkamp [26:29] and and she said this morning she shouldn't have worn such a bright color [26:32] red but she's a retired kindergarten teacher and my father Keith Westerkamp [26:38] passed away seven years ago but I know he's with me today in spirit I couldn't [26:43] have asked for better role models growing up and I am very grateful for [26:46] the love of education hard work and public service that they [26:50] both instilled in me and my siblings I'm joined as well by my brother [26:55] Jonathan and my sisters Laura and Gerilyn and Gerilyn and I know they are [27:00] very happy to see that the cherry blossoms are nearly at peak bloom my [27:04] sister-in-law Jessica and my nieces Isabelle and Olivia are supporting me [27:09] from my hometown of Cedar Rapids Iowa my life has been blessed by the [27:13] generosity of so many mentors colleagues and friends who have shared their [27:18] knowledge experience and time over the years I would like to give special [27:22] thanks to my colleagues and friends who have shared their knowledge experience and time over the years I would like to give special [27:22] thanks to my colleagues and friends who have shared their knowledge experience and time over the years I would like to give special thanks to judge John Jarvie of the Southern [27:25] thanks to my colleagues and friends who have shared their knowledge experience and time over the years I would like to give special thanks to judge John Jarvie of the Southern [27:25] thanks to my colleagues and friends who have shared their knowledge experience and time over the years I would like to give special thanks to judge John Jarvie of the Southern District of Iowa for whom I clerked my [27:27] thanks to judge John Jarvie of the Southern District of Iowa for whom I clerked my [27:27] thanks to judge John Jarvie of the Southern District of Iowa for whom I clerked my two-year clerkship was a foundational [27:29] District of Iowa for whom I clerked my two-year clerkship was a foundational [27:29] District of Iowa for whom I clerked my two-year clerkship was a foundational experience where I had the opportunity to [27:31] see judicial integrity in action, and I strive to model myself after him if I am [27:36] so fortunate to be confirmed. Although he passed away two years ago, I would be [27:40] remiss if I didn't mention Professor William Bucky Buss of the University of [27:45] Iowa College of Law for his support and encouragement throughout my career. I [27:48] also thank my many colleagues over the past 12 years at the National Court [27:54] section of the Department of Justice for their support. About a decade ago, the [28:00] first trade case I was assigned to was honey from China because I was the 2003 [28:04] American Honey Princess. I never could have imagined that that honey case would [28:09] set me on a path to where I would specialize in international trade and be [28:12] sitting before you today. Thank you also to my colleagues at the White House [28:17] Counsel's Office and to my many friends and extended family who are here today [28:21] are watching from afar. I am so honored to be here and I look forward to the [28:25] committee's questions. [28:28] We'll have five-minute rounds and I [28:30] have a few questions. [28:30] I'll ask the members for a second time to stay within the five minutes [28:35] and I'll hope I set a good standard for that. I'm going to go to [28:42] Westerkamp. You were born in Iowa. You were educated in Iowa. I assume [28:47] your first job was with Judge Harvey of the Southern District. Tell me how the [28:54] Court of International Trade is so important to the average person in Iowa. [28:59] Senator I think [29:01] the Court of International Trade is important to this great state of Iowa [29:12] because Iowa is an agricultural state soybeans corn but it also has [29:18] manufacturing again I grew up in Cedar Rapids and my dad could tell which [29:21] cereal Quaker Oats or General Mills was making on any particular day but more [29:26] importantly in the context of the court itself the court hears disputes arising [29:32] from the international trade laws and it also considers anti-dumping and [29:36] countervailing duties that the Department of Commerce assesses as well [29:40] as certain determinations by CBP and in addition the court also reviews certain [29:46] executive actions or proclamations by the president but importantly the [29:51] international trade it's a it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:56] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:57] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:57] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:58] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:58] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [29:59] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:00] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:01] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:02] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:03] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:04] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:06] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:08] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:09] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:10] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:11] connected to the state of Iowa and it's an ecosystem that is incredibly [30:30] You're examining the record and making sure that any decisions that, again, Commerce or CBP did [30:37] or other agencies are supported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law. [30:42] And there are no jury trials, so there's only bench trials, Your Honor, Senator, Chairman. [30:48] And I've also had multiple, argued multiple motions before the court. [30:52] And it's a very collegial court as well because from day to day, I could have, it could be opposing counsel, [30:59] but then the very next week, it might be defendant-intervener in a case. [31:02] And so I enjoy that about the court as well, where the bar is so congenial. [31:05] Ms. Clark, during your decade on Hill, you developed a reputation for working well with people on both sides of the aisle. [31:17] Former Representative Gowdy stated that Democrats like then-Chairman Cummings respected your work as much as Republican did. [31:28] How did... [31:30] What did you learn from work... [31:31] What did you learn from working with people that held different viewpoints that you're going to bring to the bench? [31:40] Chairman, first, I fail to thank Mr. Gowdy for all of his support. [31:45] And so I want to make sure I say that today. [31:47] Throughout my career on the Hill, I try to treat everyone with humility and respect. [31:55] I try to be fair and impartial in my dealings with everyone. [31:59] And I try to... [32:02] Continue that throughout my career. [32:03] And so I hope that my experience on the Hill building relationships and being kind to those will carry with me if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed. [32:14] Okay, and Ms. Lane. [32:17] You spent years working as Solicitor General in Montana for that person. [32:25] During your career, you also litigated many cases that arise from rural jurisdictions [32:30] involving land use. [32:32] grazing rights and coal mining leases how will these experiences prepare you for arriving [32:40] and serving as a federal judge in montana the cases that i had the opportunity and privilege [32:49] to work on in montana often involved really complicated regulatory schemes [32:55] in those cases the facts were often very complicated we were dealing with large [33:00] administrative records and of course very complicated and complex regulatory schemes [33:06] and oftentimes those cases were moving on very fast timelines and so as a representative of the [33:13] state of montana i had to get up to speed very quickly on both the legal and factual issues [33:19] and if i have the privilege of being confirmed to the district of montana i would take that same [33:24] diligence with me working very hard to get up to speed on the cases before me understanding [33:30] both the facts and the law and deciding the cases uh before me senator graham to introduce [33:37] uh thank you mr chairman i apologize being late the budget committee is doing a hearing on [33:42] trying to shore up social security which is a worthy topic uh thank you very much for giving [33:47] me this opportunity miss sharia clark we're very proud of you sharia you're a friend of trey and [33:52] in spite of that i think you're gonna make it uh graduated from liberty university uh jd from the [34:02] university of north carolina school of law [34:03] you've introduced your wonderful family already uh law clerk on the court of appeals in north [34:09] carolina served for a decade on capitol first as counsel to the house ethics committee which [34:16] you probably learned a lot about bipartisanship there and then as counsel the select committee [34:20] on benghazi before uh returning to the ethics committee and that's where you met trey from [34:27] 2017 to 2019 she served as staff director for the house committee on oversight and government reforms [34:34] uh she has served as assistant u.s attorney in the u.s attorney's office for the district of south [34:40] carolina where she handled both civil and criminal cases she is currently a partner at nelson mullins [34:47] which is one of the bigger more prestigious firms in the state she's been described by our colleagues [34:54] as someone who's highly intelligent even killed and humble you're going to make it in spite of [35:03] being humble i believe of all the law enforcement agencies in the state of california there's a lot [35:06] of law enforcement in the state of california there's a lot of law enforcement in the state of california [35:06] the people we could have picked to serve at the district court federal district judge in south [35:15] carolina we could not have done better than you trey thank you very much for pointing [35:22] her distinguished career out and to the colleagues on the committee we've tried to [35:28] make sure our judges are going to stand the test of time and reason and you are absolutely lived [35:35] a stellar life you deserve this nomination and the people of south carolina would benefit [35:40] from the fact from the your ability to be a fair-minded judge if you get on that court [35:47] and i'm hoping you will and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle thank you for paying [35:53] attention to this nominee i hope and pray we can get a good bipartisan vote for her just to [36:00] reaffirm that the committee can function that way thank you senator gerben thank you mr chairman [36:08] miss westerkamp throughout your prolific inflammatory social media career [36:15] you launched personal attacks on multiple members of the senate you repeatedly referred to senator [36:20] mitch mcconnell as quote cocaine mitch you also retweeted a post post which accused him of quote [36:29] embodying everything that's wrong with politics you once told senator graham that he is quote [36:36] true to no one but your own self-preservation you accused senator collins of prioritizing her [36:42] own personal political power over the president's priorities would you like to apologize to the [36:48] senators and others which you've referred to in your social media today yes senator and if i may [36:58] any comments i made were in my personal capacity as a private citizen but in hindsight [37:02] i think that using twitter is not the right platform especially retweets from someone i [37:07] don't know regarding political opinions controversial topics or even characterizations [37:15] of people and so i do sincerely apologize for those posts and if confirmed senator [37:21] i would uh faithfully uphold the judicial canons um which include [37:27] um uh avoiding any improprierance of any appearance of impropriety and that would [37:32] include social media and i've also seriously considered senator vice ranking member [37:37] durban just completely deactivating twitter let me ask you about your tweets beyond personal [37:45] references to members of the senate and i just focused on what you had to say about republicans [37:51] you use social media to spread conspiracy theories as well [37:54] regarding the attempted insurrection of the Capitol on January 6th, [37:58] including, you said, that law enforcement was complicit in the violence. [38:03] You appeared to agree with the tweet that stated the attack was, quote, [38:07] orchestrated by members of the Senate and members of the Capitol Police, [38:13] and you have elevated a claim that those storming the House chamber were, quote, [38:16] Antifa in disguise. [38:19] In addition, you downplayed the violence of the day, including assaults on law enforcement, [38:23] by retweeting and posting, quote, [38:26] we're all supposed to be sending thoughts and prayers to traumatized members of Congress [38:30] whose workday was interrupted for a couple of hours. [38:34] Ms. Westerkamp, are you willing to denounce here and now [38:37] the violence perpetrated on January 6th in this Capitol building? [38:43] Senator, I condemn all violence that occurred on January 6th. [38:47] And in addition, I think for what you quoted, Senator, [38:51] I think that is endemic of how it is not proper [38:56] to use the term violence as a term of violence. [38:56] I think that is endemic of how it is not proper to use the term violence as a term of violence. [38:56] I think that is endemic of how it is not proper to use retweets from someone [38:58] or from people I don't know regarding such a controversial topic. [39:02] Will you apologize to the law enforcement officers [39:05] for spreading the conspiracy theory [39:06] that they were somehow complicit in the violence of January 6th? [39:12] Senator, again, I think that gets to how retweeting posts [39:17] from people I don't know on controversial topics [39:19] is, I regret doing, and again, [39:24] I condemn all of the violence that occurred on that day. [39:27] What we're trying to get to is whether, [39:29] you have the temperament for a lifetime appointment [39:32] as a judge with extraordinary authority and power [39:35] in that appointment. [39:37] We don't know, as we vote and send off judges [39:40] to do their duty, [39:41] whether they're going to keep their word before us. [39:44] We look at their background, we look at their values, [39:48] and try to draw a conclusion as to whether they are stable [39:51] and dependent, and whether or not they should have [39:54] the authority and power for a lifetime on the federal bench. [39:58] What would you like to say today [39:59] about what you put into your social media post in the past [40:03] about events and about members of the Senate [40:06] as to whether or not we should say [40:08] that's an accurate reflection of your values? [40:13] Senator, I am a native Iowan, [40:15] and I think that if you speak to any of my many colleagues [40:18] and friends that are sitting behind me, [40:20] that they would tell you that I have, [40:21] I live a life of integrity and credibility, [40:24] and I regret any of those retweets [40:27] about what occurred on January 6th, [40:29] and again, I do condemn, [40:31] all of the violence that happened on that day, [40:33] and I, if I am confirmed, would. [40:37] Last question. [40:38] If you're confirmed to the Court of International Trade, [40:42] and later decide to rule against the executive branch, [40:45] this one or a future one, [40:47] would executive branch officials be required [40:49] to comply with your decision? [40:51] Yes. [40:53] Without exception? [40:55] Senator, yes, and there are appeal mechanisms, [41:00] but otherwise any party appearing [41:01] before the Court of International Trade, [41:03] I would expect them [41:04] to comply with any court order. [41:06] Thank you, Ms. Chairman. [41:08] Before Senator Kennedy, [41:12] just a little commentary on what he is questioning. [41:18] We're here to assess your qualifications. [41:22] You have extensive legal advocacy, [41:25] and by all accounts, [41:27] I think Ms. Westerkamp has been diligent, [41:29] capable attorney throughout her career. [41:33] Politically charged statements by nominees, [41:35] Mr. Westerkamp has been diligent, capable attorney throughout her career. [41:36] Politically charged statements by nominees, [41:36] or their organizations aren't heard of, [41:40] are unheard of in this committee. [41:43] And I think that both sides of the aisle know [41:47] that this has happened, [41:49] whether we have Republican or Democrat presidents, [41:51] Republican or Democrat nominees, [41:54] my Democrat colleagues in those occasions [41:58] did not object when President Biden's nominees [42:01] like Vanita Gupta, and Nancy Abadou made inflammatory, [42:07] partisan statements criticized members of this committee or members of openly openly partisan [42:14] organizations and they supported dale ho a nominee even though he described himself as a [42:24] quote-unquote wild-eyed liberal senator kennedy i'm going to go up uh to the uh i'm going to go [42:33] up to the uh budget committee for questions can you stay here for about 15 minutes um yes sir [42:40] um i can go with your questions thank you does this mean i get extra time all right i can i can [42:54] feel the power coursing through my veins um miss westerkamp can we agree that social media [43:10] quite often is just a cesspool of snark unequivocally yes [43:20] yeah um when you made these comments about senator mcconnell and senator graham and senator [43:32] uh collins uh what what what job were you in at the time um senator uh i made the comments in my [43:43] personal capacity as a private citizen but i was at the department of justice and you're in white [43:49] house counsel's office now right uh since may of last year yes but you didn't make them while you [43:55] were working for president trump [43:58] no you were at justice well technically department of justice is an executive agency but i was at the [44:04] department of justice yeah yeah i try not to read social media too much um though one of one of my [44:14] colleagues in my office one time they know to bring to me any really cool cuts that somebody [44:24] said about me on social media probably the coolest one they brought to me somebody said one time [44:30] kennedy you look exactly like myself [44:34] second wife i said i thought that was a very cool cut um you or an expert in international trade law [44:45] yes okay tell me about the supreme court opinion opinion in learning resources v trump um yes [45:00] senator that's the commonly referred to as the aipa supreme court case and it came out i think [45:06] now we're coming up on about a month ago um in that opinion the supreme court held that [45:12] president trump did not have the authority to use aipa using the words regulate ellipses importation [45:21] to impose tariffs and the supreme court declared that the tariffs that the president had imposed [45:26] under aipa were unlawful and and what what what is the major legal doctrine that underpins the [45:35] decision um well the the president had used aipa um during peacetime but in the end the president [45:40] had used aipa during peacetime but in the end the president had used aipa um during peacetime but in [45:44] terms of the doctrine itself um he'd relied on aipa for the authority to impose tariffs [45:51] um but the majority had said that essentially the clear text said that the president did not [45:56] have that authority um it was the major questions doctrine was it not well the major questions [46:05] doctrine senator um three so a plurality of the justices said that part of another reason why the [46:12] president did not have the authority to impose the tariffs was due to the major [46:16] questions doctrine in other words that this body had not um essentially for something of such [46:23] political and economic significance um had not delegated the president the authority to impose [46:28] tariffs pursuant to aipa that's the major questions doctor right yes senator okay all right [46:34] i've got a minute or so left here we can cover it in a minute mr ricky is that how you say your name [46:41] sir yes senator tell me about the war powers clauses well senator the uh war powers clauses [46:48] require [46:49] um causes are they or which which which articles of the constitution are they well the war well the [46:57] the war powers act was an act of congress i'm sorry but bad i didn't phrase my question right [47:04] not the war powers act the war powers clauses uh let's start with which articles of the constitution [47:13] are involved uh that would be in article one giving congress the authority to declare war [47:19] and what else um well [47:22] and then congress also has the authority or the responsibility to fund whatever military actions [47:28] are being are being and the president has a play a role to play doesn't he he does the president is [47:33] the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would be article two okay in 24 seconds [47:39] how do you rec how do you reconcile that only congress can declare war doesn't say make war [47:47] says declare war but the president is commander-in-chief uh what did our founders intend [47:54] to do in order to declare war i think uh it goes along with the uh the the whole concept kind of [48:01] underpinning the entire constitutional system we have of divided government uh powers split between [48:07] the different branches and so i think there was an inherent tension built into that just as there [48:12] is in many different areas of our of our federal government okay ladies i'm sorry i didn't get to you [48:20] uh senator blumenthal i believe you're up thank you senator kennedy uh welcome everyone [48:29] thank you for your service uh ms westerkamp uh who won the 2020 election um senator under our [48:41] constitution um the electoral college uh votes for the president and then that is certified by [48:48] congress um and in 2020 um president biden was certified by the uh electoral yeah that's not my [48:57] question who won the election and again senator under our constitution um and it's actually [49:03] you know i i know who was certified and i know what you think of certification because you [49:09] tweeted on january 6th in a post saying in reference to the 2020 election results a certified [49:18] lie is still a lie i'm asking you who won the 2020 election let me make it more specific who won the [49:27] popular vote again senator um under our constitution what matters is um who the electoral college votes [49:35] as but it i'm not asking you for what the constitution says i'm asking you for your [49:42] view factually and frankly we've received this kind of canned ridiculous answer before as you [49:51] know because you were instructed to give this answer right senator i am speaking to what the [49:57] constitution under our constitution again and that is actually article two let me ask you this [50:02] who won the 2024 election um in the 2024 election um [50:08] Again, the Electoral College voted for President Trump, [50:14] and then the Congress also certified President Trump [50:16] as the winner of the- [50:17] Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? [50:19] Senator, that goes back again to under our Constitution. [50:22] The methodology is set forth in Article Two. [50:25] Let's try another question, Ms. Westerkamp. [50:29] Was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6th, 2021? [50:35] Senator, again, I condemn all of the violence [50:38] that occurred on January 6th. [50:40] We're not gonna get an answer from you. [50:42] And let me try Ms. Clark. [50:45] Ms. Clark, who won the 2020 election? [50:48] Senator, under our Constitution, [50:51] the mechanism for electing a president is- [50:53] I am amazed. [50:56] I am just amazed by the insult to this committee [51:01] of witness after witness seeking to be a federal judge, [51:07] subverting our Constitution, [51:12] and showing how you have [51:14] no independence, which is essential to a federal judge. [51:19] Ms. Lane, who won the 2020 election? [51:25] Apologies. [51:25] Again, Senator, the Constitution outlines the process, [51:28] and as a judicial nominee, [51:29] I'm here to talk about what the Constitution requires, [51:31] which is an electoral vote and certification by Congress. [51:35] And in 2020- [51:36] Who won the election? [51:38] In 2020, President Biden. [51:41] Mr. Rickey, who won the 2020 election? [51:44] Senator, as my colleagues have stated, [51:46] the process we have under the Constitution [51:49] is a vote by the Electoral College followed by certification. [51:52] Was the Capitol attacked, Mr. Rickey, on January 6th? [51:55] There was violence that occurred here on January 6th, Senator. [51:58] Was the Capitol attacked? [52:00] I would just say, Senator, [52:01] there was violence that occurred here on that day. [52:05] You've seen videos of what happened. [52:07] Yes, Senator, I have. [52:10] Was the Capitol attacked? [52:11] Again, Senator, I said- [52:13] Ms. Lane, was the Capitol attacked? [52:16] Senator, the characterization of January 6th [52:19] is subject to ongoing controversy and debate, [52:21] and as a nominee, it would be inappropriate for me [52:23] to characterize it. [52:27] Ms. Clark, who won the 2024 election? [52:33] Senator, under the process set out by the Constitution, [52:36] the Electoral College elects the president, [52:38] and it's sort of- [52:39] Can you pull that mic a little closer, please? [52:41] And the Electoral College elects the president- [52:45] You know, the answers here, which obviously are canned, [52:51] they're prerehearsed, they're Orwellian [52:55] in their denial of reality, [52:59] and they are a subversion, [53:01] of this process. [53:02] They're an insult to this committee, [53:03] but they also fundamentally show [53:06] a complete lack of independence and backbone [53:12] and impartiality, [53:13] which are the fundamental requirements [53:17] of a United States District Court judge [53:21] or a judge on any panel, Ms. Westertam. [53:26] And I'm a little bit disappointed [53:29] that you're not more original, [53:32] that you can't think of a few different words. [53:37] I'm just amazed. [53:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [53:46] Just to finish Senator Blumenthal's point, [53:49] I hope you realize how ridiculous the four of you look, [53:52] spouting these preposterous canned answers [53:58] in a forum in which, [53:59] A, you're supposed to tell the truth, [54:01] and B, you're supposed to demonstrate the judicial capacity [54:05] to make independent factual decisions in hard cases. [54:10] If you can't even sit here and say [54:12] that Joe Biden won that election [54:14] or that the Capitol was attacked, what's left? [54:23] What's left? [54:24] The hard case comes your way as a judge, [54:27] and let's say the Trump administration [54:28] is bearing down on that. [54:31] Why would we ever believe that you would give the litigants [54:34] a fair hearing and a fair decision [54:42] if the executive branch was leaning in on you [54:46] when we can't get a reasonable answer out of any of you [54:49] with the executive branch leaning in on you [54:52] to give these ridiculous answers today? [54:56] I'm really sorry to have to go through this [54:59] and that you have to go through this, [55:01] but it would be nice if you could tell [55:04] your executive branch handlers, for instance, Ms. Clark, [55:08] I'm supported by Lindsey Graham. [55:14] He's a friend of President Trump. [55:17] He's the second senior person on the Republican side [55:20] in the Judiciary Committee. [55:21] He's likely to be the next Judiciary Committee chair. [55:25] I think I'll be okay. [55:27] I don't need to make myself ridiculous at your direction. [55:31] It'd be great if you could have said that. [55:34] It'll be great if your answers were simple [55:36] and honest here today. [55:37] It's really disappointing. [55:41] Let me ask a different question, a legal question. [55:44] A judge, you want to be judges. [55:47] A judge gets a threat, a threat to the judge's life [55:50] or to the judge's family. [55:55] Can you imagine a scenario in which liability may attach [56:02] to individuals beyond the utterer of that threat? [56:10] Ms. Clark? [56:14] Senator, as a prosecutor, there are instances [56:20] where there's some responsibility [56:24] to respond to someone who is not the utterer [56:29] of a threat to an individual. [56:31] And so to answer your question, yes, I can imagine. [56:34] Do you agree? [56:37] Yes, Senator, and if confirmed to the bench, [56:39] I would follow all Supreme Court precedent [56:42] and Ninth Circuit precedent. [56:43] Mr. Rick, do you agree? [56:44] Yes, Senator, I would agree with that. [56:46] I don't know that I care what you think, Ms. Westerkamp, [56:48] because you're going to international trade [56:50] and you're probably not going to see much of this, [56:51] but do you agree? [56:54] Yes, Senator. [56:55] Yeah, and those doctrines that would provide the legal basis, [56:59] for investigation in those scenarios, [57:03] would include doctrines like, name one, Ms. Clark. [57:10] Senator, doctrines that are, [57:14] if someone is essentially carrying out. [57:19] Solicitation, would that be one? [57:21] Yes, yes. [57:22] Solicitation of a threat? [57:23] Yes. [57:24] Or a conspiracy out of which the threat emerged, [57:26] would that be another one? [57:27] Yes. [57:28] Yes, how about, and it's the product of an enterprise [57:32] under the racketeering statutes. [57:34] Would that also be another way that liability, [57:36] could extend beyond the utterer? [57:38] That is correct, Senator. [57:40] Can you think of any others, Ms. Lane, [57:41] where liability extends beyond the utterer of the threat? [57:43] What are some of the legal theories [57:45] that would support that kind of investigation and prosecution? [57:49] Senator, the doctrines you mentioned, I would agree with, [57:51] and I would just look always to the federal law [57:55] and federal statutes guiding that. [57:56] Mr. Rickey? [57:58] Senator, I would agree with that. [57:59] I think you covered the major ones, conspiracy, RICO. [58:03] There may be other avenues of potential legal liability, [58:07] but I think you covered the. [58:08] The three big ones in that scenario. [58:11] Ms. Westerkamp, you agree? [58:13] Senator, I'm not aware if there are any more. [58:15] With my practice before the Court of International Trade [58:18] and Court of Federal Claims, it doesn't touch on criminal law. [58:20] So here is why I asked you these questions. [58:22] I asked you these questions because right now, [58:24] federal judges are under the worst shadow of physical threat [58:30] in my lifetime and perhaps in the history of this country. [58:35] And in responding to those threats, [58:37] we have the United States Marshals Service, [58:39] which reports to the Department of Justice. [58:42] And I have now, over a dozen times, [58:44] asked the Marshals Service, [58:47] will you investigate behind the utterer of a threat [58:53] if the evidence justifies it? [58:56] That's a super easy question. [58:58] The answer is yeah, of course we will. [59:00] They won't answer that. [59:01] They won't answer that. [59:06] And I point this out because judges across the country [59:09] need to pay attention to the fact that the Marshals Service [59:12] won't confirm that it will investigate behind the utterer [59:18] of a threat if the evidence supports that. [59:23] And why would that be the case? [59:24] That would be the case because when [59:26] you get behind the utterer of a lot of these threats, [59:29] you run into right-wing conspiracies. [59:36] And this MAGA Department of Justice [59:38] would rather not go there. [59:40] And so they leave judges exposed with investigations [59:47] in which they aren't doing investigative 101 work [59:51] that you've all identified as plausible legal theories. [59:56] And we need to fix that. [1:00:02] We need to fix that. [1:00:16] OK, I start all of my questioning [1:00:19] by asking a fundamental question of all of the nominees [1:00:24] to any of the committees on which I sit. [1:00:26] So I'll ask this panel, and we'll start with Ms. Clark [1:00:30] and go down the line. [1:00:32] Since you became a legal adult, have you [1:00:34] ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors [1:00:38] or committed any verbal or physical harassment [1:00:40] or assault of a sexual nature? [1:00:43] Senator, I have not. [1:00:46] No, Senator. [1:00:47] No, Senator. [1:00:50] No, Senator. [1:00:52] Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement [1:00:55] relating to this kind of conduct? [1:00:58] No, Senator. [1:01:00] No, Senator. [1:01:03] No, Senator. [1:01:04] No, Senator. [1:01:06] Another question for Mr. Rickey. [1:01:10] On social media, you liked an article in which Mike Davis [1:01:16] said, and I quote Mike Davis, I have no problem [1:01:19] with President Trump pardoning almost all of those January 6 [1:01:23] defendants because they've suffered enough. [1:01:27] Now, you posted that you like that. [1:01:29] So I want to ask you, do you agree with those pardons? [1:01:32] Do you agree with the sentiment that they've suffered enough? [1:01:36] Senator, I don't recall liking that particular article. [1:01:39] I do know the article that you were referring to, however. [1:01:43] And what I would say on that is that the Constitution gives [1:01:46] the president plenary authority to issue pardons. [1:01:49] And as a. [1:01:50] Oh, no, I'm not asking about what powers the president has. [1:01:53] I'm asking whether you're telling me that you don't recall liking. [1:01:57] this post by mike davis that's correct senator you made the post so now as you sit here [1:02:05] i'm telling you that this is the information i have that this is factual that you like that [1:02:10] post well do you agree with the pardons senator when it comes to the pardons but the point i was [1:02:15] making is that given that the president has this plenary i know that you don't need to sit there [1:02:20] and lecture me about the powers of the president i would just like to know whether you agree with [1:02:25] those pardons as a nominee to serve on the court i believe it would be contrary to the canon of [1:02:32] judicial ethics for me to comment on the president's pardon power and so respectfully uh [1:02:37] well you're you are as a judge you will not be having any pardon power so um if confirmed will [1:02:43] you hold all criminal defendants accountable under the law regardless of their political affirmation [1:02:48] affiliation yes senator if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed um any uh criminal defendant who [1:02:54] comes before me [1:02:55] after it's pretty clear that the president pardoned 1500 of the the january 6 defendants [1:03:01] based on ideological reasons and yes the president has very wide-ranging part in powers but he [1:03:07] pardoned 1500 people many of whom beat up capitol police it's just so amazing to me [1:03:20] uh ms western camp you did not hold back and you were asked by my colleague about some of the [1:03:30] posts that you [1:03:31] you put out regarding various members of the senate you did not hold back now you would [1:03:36] consider those posts opinions not fact i hope senator i believe um some of what ranking member [1:03:44] durbin referred to were retweets and again i think retweeting um from other people whom i don't know [1:03:50] about uh people or controversial topics is is improper anyway okay my question is that [1:03:56] so you posted things that that you of people you didn't know including me by the way uh so i'm just [1:04:02] asking whether you understand the difference between these posts which were not facts but [1:04:10] opinions whether your opinions senator is entitled to an opinion so are you senator i do understand [1:04:17] the difference between an opinion and a fact okay so those are opinions senator um again using social [1:04:25] media as um senator kennead yes sir no you could you cannot sit there and tell me whether the posts [1:04:34] you put out uh posts relating to members of the senate that whether those were facts or opinions [1:04:44] you can't tell me that senator i should not have retweeted and i again retweeting from other people [1:04:51] should not have done that and if confirmed would um be would avoid excuse me i am asking a yes or [1:04:58] no answer and the fact that you can't to me those are opinions and of course judges are supposed to [1:05:04] be the finder of fact they're supposed to be they the people who should distinguish between fact [1:05:09] and fiction i do have a question regarding uh when you were i believe you were uh you advise [1:05:19] the president on trade matters including tariffs i take it um chairman grassley i'm out of time but [1:05:26] would you like i'm sorry i didn't hear you yes she asked the question before her time was up [1:05:33] so whatever time it takes for you to answer you've got oh i'm so sorry i was just on a roll here no [1:05:39] you you you properly i will submit i will submit for the record a question i have about her role [1:05:46] and uh providing advice on trade policy which the supreme court has said [1:05:51] that president trump's terrorists are illegal uh senator britt thank you mr chairman um and [1:05:59] congratulations to each of you on your respective nominations and and welcome to your family i know [1:06:05] that this is a proud day for all of you um i'm glad we're examining uh a nomination to the [1:06:10] u.s court of international trade which obviously plays an important role in trade and customs law [1:06:16] and trade related litigation i'd be remiss if i didn't mention the fact that this hearing is being [1:06:21] held against a backdrop of what i believe to be a reckless shutdown of the department of homeland [1:06:25] security the agencies there include things like customs and border protection that are tasked [1:06:31] with enforcing our trade and customs law and facilitating lawful trade we must find a pathway [1:06:38] forward to fully fund cvp which like the u.s court of international trade which obviously plays an [1:06:40] the court of international trade plays a central role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of [1:06:46] the international trade ecosystem with that being said mr westerkamp i will turn to you with my [1:06:53] first question the court of international trade is of course a court with limited subject matter [1:06:59] jurisdiction it is it requires judges with a specialized knowledge of trade related issues [1:07:07] and mrs westerkamp i know in your case that you have appeared before the court more than 130 [1:07:16] times can you discuss your experience practicing in front of the court and how that experience [1:07:22] will inform your work on the court as a judge and why the court's expertise is so vital to our [1:07:28] nation yes senator again it's a very highly specialized area of law and with mentioning cbp [1:07:37] i was actually [1:07:38] um honored by attorney general merrick garland for my work on the enforce and protect act which [1:07:46] defends cbp determinations regarding transshipment and transshipment is when [1:07:51] in order for perhaps a company to evade anti-dumping or countervailing duties in one [1:07:56] country they basically transship to another country in order to avoid those duties and i think [1:08:01] my experience before the court is important because clearly i'm familiar arguing before the [1:08:07] court i i know [1:08:09] the various statutes and regulations and i would also say what i've enjoyed again is [1:08:14] just the collegiality of the trade bar and i found it very helpful where some of the judges [1:08:20] issue questions in advance for the parties to answer sometimes written questions or at oral [1:08:25] argument and i think that helps all of the parties gain a deeper understanding of the issue of the [1:08:31] particular issues or facts that the judge maybe believes is not supported by substantial evidence [1:08:37] thank you mrs westerkamp [1:08:38] i appreciate that mr ricky turning to you you've been nominated to a court that's [1:08:43] unique in a number of respects one of which is geographic [1:08:50] as you know and are well aware the virgin islands along with puerto rico have been designated as a [1:08:55] highly intense high intensity drug trafficking area and the location of the virgin islands [1:09:01] makes drug trafficking an issue of particular concern that same is true when it comes to issues [1:09:08] like illegal immigration can you speak to some of those unique aspects of the district and how your [1:09:14] previous work there as assistant u.s attorney has better prepared you to assume the bench there [1:09:22] thank you senator in the virgin islands the problem of drug trafficking and controlled [1:09:27] substances takes two different forms one aspect is i can't yeah the the problem of drug trafficking [1:09:36] takes two two distinct forms the drug trafficking and controlled substances is two different forms [1:09:38] of drug trafficking and controlled substances is two different forms one area relates to sort of [1:09:41] trafficking within the islands people uh selling to users on the island the other aspect of it is [1:09:47] the interdiction on the high seas of of uh narcotics trafficking so we had the experience [1:09:53] of the virgin islands of dealing with very large uh seizures that occurred either on the high seas [1:09:59] or within the territorial waters of the virgin islands and these are very different types of [1:10:03] cases that have to be handled differently because of course when the interdictions are done at sea [1:10:08] prosecuted under the MDLEA whereas the prosecutions that happen you know on [1:10:14] land within the territory those are handled through the more traditional [1:10:17] tools of investigating and prosecuting drug offenses so I've had experience [1:10:24] dealing with both the drug boats that get interdicted on the high seas as well [1:10:28] as drug trafficking organizations within the islands who sometimes are just [1:10:33] dealing with their customers on the islands but also as a [1:10:37] transshipment point where large quantities of drugs get essentially [1:10:41] broken down into smaller retail quantities and then transshipped further [1:10:45] north so I've handled both types of cases on the immigration front I would [1:10:50] say we're very close to the British Virgin Islands so quite often illegal [1:10:55] immigrants come through the BVI's into st. John and st. Thomas the one unusual [1:11:02] thing is that even though it's very vulnerable to illegal immigration we're [1:11:06] dealing with a lot of illegal immigrants and we're dealing with a lot of illegal immigrants and we're dealing with a lot of illegal immigrants and we're dealing [1:11:07] with a relatively low volume because there's not a land border so typically [1:11:11] it's a few people at a time unlike what we see on our southern border with [1:11:15] hundreds or thousands of people so those are some of the differences and again [1:11:19] I've dealt with all of these cases as a prosecutor and I feel as though I'm be [1:11:23] well equipped to handle them if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed I [1:11:26] appreciate that I think that your experience will lend itself well on the [1:11:29] bench and I have more follow-up questions for all of you I am out of [1:11:32] time so I will submit those for the record but thank you for your willingness [1:11:34] to serve thank you Senator Schiff [1:11:36] thank you Mr. Chairman I just have a few questions Ms. Westerkamp are you [1:11:42] familiar with the term performance improvement plan sometimes referred to [1:11:46] as a PIP yes would you agree that employees subject to a PIP are [1:11:51] essentially being notified that some aspect of their performance is [1:11:55] unacceptable yes have you ever been subject to a [1:12:00] performance improvement plan in your time at the Department of Justice no sir [1:12:04] Senator I have received excellent ratings there's never been any issue your [1:12:10] superiors have ever been subject to a performance improvement plan in your time at the Department of Justice no sir Senator I have received excellent ratings there's never been any issue your superiors [1:12:11] the supervisors have had that required [1:12:13] anything like a performance improvement [1:12:15] plan no senator thank you Lane I want to [1:12:22] ask you about your experience trying [1:12:25] cases have you ever tried a case to a [1:12:29] verdict before jury um senator I've [1:12:32] worked on a bench trial and as a federal [1:12:35] law clerk I handled seven trials I would [1:12:39] a federal law clerk as well I wouldn't [1:12:40] say that I handled the trials I think [1:12:42] the judge handled the trials but let me [1:12:46] ask you about your experience with the bench trial. Were you the lead counsel in that case? [1:12:52] No, Senator. I was part of a small team of attorneys. [1:12:56] And were you the senior associate counsel on the case? [1:13:03] Yes, Senator. I was an associate on the case. There were four attorneys on the case. [1:13:10] I was responsible for helping prepare witnesses, helping second chair depositions. I also took a [1:13:16] deposition myself. I cross-examined a witness at trial, and I was responsible for all the pre-trial [1:13:21] and post-trial briefing, findings of facts, conclusions of law. [1:13:25] Of the four attorneys, how many were more senior to you on that team? [1:13:34] Senator, I believe two. There were several people who came in to assist. But again, [1:13:40] my responsibilities, I was the primary drafter for all the briefing. [1:13:43] No, no. I heard that. I just want to understand. So your trial experience consists of being [1:13:48] a lawyer? [1:13:49] The second or third senior lawyer on a bench trial? [1:13:56] Senator, yes, it was a week-long trial involving complicated constitutional issues. And my role, [1:14:02] again, was I helped draft and prepare all the briefing. [1:14:07] But you've never done jury selection. You've never done voir dire, for example. [1:14:11] When I was a law clerk, Senator, five of the trials before the judge who I clerked for [1:14:16] were jury trials. And so I had the opportunity. [1:14:19] I was a law clerk. It was a great experience. [1:14:21] But I didn't pick the jury when I was a law clerk. I didn't question the jurors. I didn't [1:14:26] seek to use a peremptory or other challenge for cause for a juror. [1:14:30] That's really not the role of a law clerk. You observe it, but you don't do it yourself. [1:14:37] And so have you, apart from the bench trial, have you cross-examined witnesses in any kind of other [1:14:46] jury trial or any jury trial? Senator, in that case, I cross-examined a lay witness. I also [1:14:51] deposed an expert. [1:14:54] And I was never before a jury. Have you ever filed or argued a motion to eliminate? [1:15:00] Yes, Senator. I've, in that matter, handled several motions and eliminate as well as in [1:15:05] other matters, particularly at preliminary injunction stage. Some of the litigation I've [1:15:09] been involved with has had extensive evidentiary records at the preliminary injunction stage. [1:15:15] So I've filed and handled several motions and many motions eliminate, Senator. [1:15:20] Many motions eliminate in that one bench trial. [1:15:22] Yes, Senator. In that one bench trial, I handled several, [1:15:26] motions eliminate, but I've also handled motions eliminate in other litigation. Again, [1:15:31] more at the preliminary injunction stage, seeking to establish a clear record going [1:15:37] into a preliminary injunction hearing where there may be live witnesses, evidentiary issues, [1:15:42] kind of at that initial stage. Okay. Thank you. I'm not trying to [1:15:45] denigrate your experience as a law clerk. I think it's a great experience and [1:15:49] I highly encourage those graduating from law school to pursue clerkships. But having tried [1:15:57] cases, I think it's a great experience. I think it's a great experience. I think it's a great experience. [1:15:58] As an assistant U.S. attorney, it's not the same thing to observe them and to do them yourself. I'm [1:16:02] sure you would agree. But thank you. I appreciate it. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:16:07] Thank you. Before Senator Blackburn, I'd like to enter into the record a letter supporting [1:16:12] Ms. Lane's nomination from 24 state attorneys general. They endorse Ms. Lane's nomination [1:16:20] and stated, quote, through our office's work on complex high state litigation, [1:16:29] we've had the opportunity to observe firsthand the caliber of lawyers best suited for the federal [1:16:36] branch. Ms. Lane stands out among them. Her experience, judgment, and temperament make her [1:16:44] superbly well suited to serve as U.S. federal district judge. Without objection, that will be [1:16:53] entered in the record. Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Lane, [1:16:59] Judge Barlin sends his regards. He reached out yesterday. He is really proud of you and the [1:17:07] work that you did. And I have no doubt he's watching this morning. So he does send his [1:17:15] regards. I want to talk with you for just a minute about some of the cases you've had the [1:17:24] opportunity to work on that include national security and constitutional [1:17:30] law. And according to 10 partners at the law firm, Consovoy McCarthy, work never fazed you. And [1:17:44] that is a statement that has been made about you, that you were able to work under pressure, that you [1:17:51] were able to stay level-headed. And of course, I've heard the same thing from Judge Barlin and your [1:17:58] work there. So talk for a minute about that skill set. [1:18:03] PAR thread you have developed in the private sector and how you would take that to the bench. [1:18:10] In my practice, I've had the privilege of litigating at every single level of state and federal court, [1:18:15] including the United States Supreme Court. I filed over 100 briefs and motions. I've [1:18:20] argued in federal and state trial courts. I've gone to trial. I've argued appeals of handled [1:18:26] numerous other appeals. And in many of those cases, these Zeyu involved, complicated [1:18:33] administrative law issues, [1:18:34] constitutional law issues, and they were often moving on a very fast timeline. And so as an [1:18:40] attorney representing my client's interests, I had to get up to speed very quickly on both the facts [1:18:45] and the law and grasp really complicated issues quickly. And if I have the privilege of being [1:18:52] confirmed to the District of Montana, I would take that same diligence with me and not only work [1:18:58] really hard to get it right, but also to manage my docket efficiently and to understand all the [1:19:04] different legal and factual issues that come before me. Thank you. Ms. Clark, good to see you [1:19:09] on this side of the hill. Thank you, Senator. And I want you to talk a little bit about, you've done [1:19:15] a lot of work in the human trafficking vein as a volunteer, and this is something we are seeing [1:19:23] more of these cases. Many of them are embedded in connections that are made on social media, [1:19:29] and young people that are being human trafficked, sex trafficked, and these predators, pedophiles, [1:19:36] groomers ending up in court. We've done a lot of work with NCMEC and other agencies on these [1:19:43] protections. So you have experience in that space and also a broad base experience in policy. And I [1:19:54] think this is something that should help shape your opinion as a judge. [1:20:00] So talk with me how you would use that experience as you move to the bench. Senator Blackburn, that [1:20:13] experience that I've had working with Jasmine Road and then also my experience as a prosecutor, [1:20:20] I got to see, you know, both sides of what is happening when it comes to human trafficking. [1:20:26] And as you mentioned, you know, there is a lot of grooming that takes place through social media, [1:20:32] through games that have access to the Internet. And so I think having that experience will allow me, [1:20:40] if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed, to be able to jump into cases that involve those issues within. [1:20:48] I think after the New Mexico decision yesterday, that verdict against Mehta, we are going to see [1:20:53] more of these that will come forward in the protection of our children. Mr. Rickey, you come [1:21:01] from an area of the United States where there is a lot of discrimination against children, and you [1:21:02] are working in a very different area that I think the Virgin Islands, it's a different district, if you will. [1:21:09] And your work as an attorney there, how do you carry that to the bench and some of the challenges. [1:21:16] A different set of challenges really that come before that district? Yes, Senator. The Virgin Islands is unique in terms of its [1:21:25] geography as well as its culture. It's also a very small place. The entire territory has about 85,000 people there. [1:21:32] And one of the things I remember from my experience is that every single federal case, even if we as prosecutors didn't think that it was a very significant case, it had a measurable, significant impact, positive impact on the community. [1:21:46] And so I know firsthand how the work that was done in the U.S. Attorney's Office there and continues to be done has a positive impact on the community, on people's lives. [1:21:55] I found that to be very rewarding, and I look forward to the opportunity to serving in a different capacity in the Virgin Islands. [1:22:02] Sounds good. [1:22:03] Ms. Westerkamp, they've kind of had their arrows pointed at you today. [1:22:08] And sometimes I think that is done in a very unfair mindset. [1:22:17] They're not happy right now. [1:22:19] But is there anything you would like to clarify that you've been asked today and were not able to give a full explanation? [1:22:27] If I may, Chairman. [1:22:29] Go ahead. [1:22:30] I appreciate that question, Senator. [1:22:33] The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have definitely rained down on me this morning. [1:22:40] And I would just like to reiterate to the entire committee, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, that I am a woman of integrity and fidelity to the law. [1:22:52] And for the past 12 years at the Department of Justice, I have devoted myself already to a life of public service. [1:22:58] And if I were confirmed to be a judge on the Court of International Trade. [1:23:03] I would faithfully adhere to the judicial canons, both with impartiality and all that that entails for any party that would appear before me. [1:23:15] Thank you. [1:23:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:23:23] I believe, am I the last senator to question? [1:23:25] No, Senator Welch. [1:23:27] Would you like me to defer to you, Senator? [1:23:29] I am happy to. [1:23:31] Yes, I'm also willing to defer to you. [1:23:37] It is not. [1:23:38] But it is a genuine offer. [1:23:43] Thank you, sir. [1:23:46] Congratulations to each of you and to your families. [1:23:48] I appreciate your willingness to step forward and serve. [1:23:51] I have just first just a general question that I've been working on with one of my colleagues. [1:23:56] The amount in controversy that creates diversity jurisdiction has been set since 1996. [1:24:03] The amount that is at issue in most cases and the volume of cases has gone up dramatically. [1:24:09] Could each of you just briefly tell me something about why you think we should or should not increase the amount in controversy required [1:24:16] to create diversity jurisdiction? [1:24:18] And why that would be an appropriate thing for this Congress to do or not? [1:24:21] Briefly, Ms. Clark. [1:24:25] Senator Coons, as you pointed out, the amount in controversy in diversity jurisdiction is $75,000. [1:24:30] And at this stage, that's a very low bar, especially when it comes to civil litigation, [1:24:36] to allow a potential plaintiff or even a defendant to remove a case from state court into federal court. [1:24:44] I have not thought thoroughly about what that number should be, but I do recognize that that is a low number. [1:24:50] Thank you, ma'am. [1:24:51] Ms. Clark. [1:24:52] Ms. Lane, forgive me. [1:24:55] Senator, I think that that would go to [1:24:57] kind of an ongoing debate about what's appropriate. And as a nominee, I wouldn't want to get too far out over my skis on that one. [1:25:03] But I would just say that, [1:25:05] you know, as a federal judge sitting in diversity jurisdiction, I would follow the $75,000 threshold until Congress changes it. [1:25:16] Thank you, Senator. My practice has been almost exclusively in criminal law, but I'm certainly aware of this low threshold that exists. [1:25:23] I think, again, in terms of Congress increasing that threshold, [1:25:28] I'm hesitant to kind of comment on potential legislation that this body might [1:25:33] take up [1:25:34] and support it or be against it. [1:25:37] But I definitely understand the concern. [1:25:39] This is not so much of an issue that we've seen in the District of the Virgin Islands, but I do understand it's a nationwide problem. [1:25:45] Does the elevation of cases from territorial court to federal district court have the same dynamics and [1:25:51] impact on volume as it might in the district? [1:25:52] It... [1:25:52] It... [1:25:53] It's not the same in the other districts being represented. [1:25:55] I think... [1:25:56] I don't have metrics for the other districts. I think this is less of a problem in the... [1:26:00] in the District of the Virgin Islands, but certainly it's an issue that's there and it is something that's been debated [1:26:05] in the bar. [1:26:07] And again, I just think it would be... [1:26:09] I'd just be hesitant to comment on potential legislation as a nominee. [1:26:14] Ma'am? [1:26:16] Senator, the Court of International Trade is a court of limited jurisdiction, and so it doesn't really apply. [1:26:23] So maybe I'll move on. [1:26:24] Senator, the Court of International Trade is a court of limited jurisdiction. [1:26:27] So maybe I'll just pause. [1:26:27] And you can look at this. [1:26:28] Do you have any comments that you would like to share? [1:26:29] I don't think this is a question that's being raised. [1:26:30] It's not a question that we're asking in вами, which is, [1:26:32] it's a question that we are answering the questions that are being asked. [1:26:34] What do you think the government's going to do, [1:26:35] because there are so many people in office who are concerned that that is not going to be a solution? [1:26:39] Senator, I think the work that we've been doing that we've been doing is we've been doing for very long, [1:26:43] you know, [1:26:45] we've been doing. [1:26:46] we've been doing for over 10 years, [1:26:49] and every month is a year. [1:26:52] And so, [1:26:53] I think that's been something that we've been doing. [1:26:54] given or to whom the advice was given. [1:26:56] So did you discuss with President Trump [1:26:59] how CIT should or might rule on the legality of these tariffs? [1:27:03] Senator, that gets, again, into areas that I can't discuss. [1:27:08] But I can tell you that I did work [1:27:10] on various executive orders citing IEPA. [1:27:14] And since the learning resources decision, [1:27:18] I have not had further work related to that. [1:27:22] And I'm also not working on any of the ongoing litigation [1:27:27] that's currently back before the CIT. [1:27:29] Given that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 [1:27:31] against the administration's position [1:27:33] and declared these tariffs illegal, [1:27:35] have you discussed with the president [1:27:37] any reviews on what should be done to refund $160 billion [1:27:41] now that the Supreme Court has invalidated those tariffs? [1:27:45] Senator, again, that is a matter of active litigation [1:27:48] before the CIT. [1:27:49] And it's a matter of public debate, [1:27:50] too, with different economists as to how [1:27:52] to tackle this. [1:27:52] So I'm not going to tackle that question. [1:27:54] And so as a judicial nominee. [1:27:56] For you, you wrote in your Senate Judiciary [1:27:58] Questionnaire you would recuse in any case [1:28:00] touching upon work you performed while in the counsel's office. [1:28:03] Would that cover everything that relates to IEPA or tariffs? [1:28:07] Senator, pursuant to 28 USC 455, which [1:28:10] is the statute governing recusal, [1:28:12] I would take any recusal matter very seriously, [1:28:15] discuss the matter with my colleagues, [1:28:17] and determine whether recusal is appropriate. [1:28:19] And I think with the various subject matter [1:28:22] that I have worked on at White House Counsel's Office, [1:28:24] I would very seriously consider whether recusal [1:28:27] would be appropriate. [1:28:29] Your answer in the questionnaire was not as carefully [1:28:32] cabined or constructed. [1:28:33] It was you would recuse in any case touching upon work [1:28:36] you performed in the counsel's office. [1:28:38] Was that not accurate? [1:28:40] No, Senator, that is accurate. [1:28:43] Last, if I might, to Ms. Lane, I'm [1:28:45] deeply concerned by the lack of legal experience [1:28:48] you bring to a lifetime position. [1:28:50] Senator Schiff probed a number of questions. [1:28:52] Senator Schiff probed a number of questions. [1:28:53] Your understanding is you graduated in 2017, [1:28:56] have been out of law school about nine years. [1:28:59] Putting aside your two clerkships, [1:29:00] how many years have you actually practiced law? [1:29:04] I've been very fortunate to have practiced law [1:29:06] since graduating law school and after my clerkships. [1:29:08] And I have worked on over 50 cases. [1:29:13] I've filed over 100 motions in federal and state courts [1:29:16] at every level. [1:29:17] And I currently manage a litigation docket [1:29:19] of over 100 cases. [1:29:21] I'm very grateful for the wealth of experience that I've had. [1:29:24] SEN. [1:29:25] You mentioned in your questionnaire that while at [1:29:28] Consovoy-McCarthy, you drafted outlines for direct and cross [1:29:31] examinations and cross examined a witness. [1:29:34] You only mentioned one cross examination. You've certainly conducted [1:29:37] more than one cross examination in federal court, is that correct? [1:29:40] I conducted that one cross examination, Senator, [1:29:43] but I've been very involved in the preparation of witnesses. [1:29:46] You conducted one cross examination in federal court, is that correct? [1:29:50] I have, Senator, and I have also worked extensively with preparing [1:29:53] experts, helping prepare. I also took a deposition. [1:29:56] In your questionnaire, you took a deposition of an expert witness. [1:29:59] You've certainly taken more than one deposition in your legal career, [1:30:02] is that correct? Senator, I've taken a deposition of an expert, [1:30:05] but I've also been deeply engaged in... A deposition? You've taken [1:30:09] one deposition? Yes, Senator, and I've also had the opportunity... [1:30:12] You said in response in your questionnaire that you've drafted outlines [1:30:15] for direct examinations. How many direct examinations have you conducted? [1:30:18] Senator, I have, like I said, drafted [1:30:21] outlines for direct examinations and helped prepare [1:30:24] witnesses and second chair [1:30:27] depositions. The chairman is doing his best to draw my attention [1:30:30] and get me to end. I'll simply comment in closing that [1:30:33] you've been held in contempt for flagrant [1:30:36] disregard of a court order. The legal team [1:30:39] of which you are a part, to be specific, I think the combination [1:30:42] of your lack of experience and that weighs heavily [1:30:45] against your nomination. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. [1:30:48] I'd like to enter into the record [1:30:51] before Senator Welch speaks [1:30:55] supporting Ms. Lane's nomination from [1:30:58] 33 current and former state [1:31:01] solicitors general and other [1:31:04] members of their senior staff. They [1:31:07] happen to praise Ms. Lane for her, quote, [1:31:10] rare combination of intellectual rigor, [1:31:13] practical insight, careful attention [1:31:17] to details, qualities essential [1:31:20] for a federal district judge, end of quote. [1:31:23] They also highlighted her, quote, a [1:31:26] great ability to manage demanding caseloads, [1:31:29] develop persuasive legal arguments, [1:31:32] and engage effectively with courts [1:31:36] and opposing counsels. Without objection, [1:31:39] that will be entered into the record. [1:31:42] Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:47] I want to follow up, Ms. Westerkamp, [1:31:50] on this conflict of interest [1:31:53] question and recusal. You worked, of course, [1:31:56] in the White House. You worked on the trade policies and the [1:31:59] tariffs. Is that correct? [1:32:02] Senator, I worked on, as I disclosed in my [1:32:04] Senate Judicial Questionnaire, various [1:32:06] executive orders and proclamations. [1:32:08] You had nothing to do with the tariffs? [1:32:11] Senator, some of the executive orders, [1:32:14] as I said, executive orders related to [1:32:16] trade and tariffs. Right. So, and that [1:32:19] was obviously an enormous pillar of the [1:32:22] Trump policy. Tariffs are really, really [1:32:24] important to the administration, as you know. [1:32:28] The IEPA, the core of the IEPA [1:32:30] report that you'll be serving on, [1:32:33] should you be confirmed, found that those [1:32:35] were unconstitutional, correct? [1:32:38] The CIT, with the three-judge panel, [1:32:42] yes, held that it was unconstitutional. [1:32:44] Right. And the U.S. Supreme Court [1:32:46] affirmed that decision and said the CIT [1:32:48] decided correctly, correct? [1:32:50] That is correct, Senator. [1:32:52] All right. So, just explain to me how there's [1:32:54] any question about whether you should recuse [1:32:58] yourself. You worked in the White House, [1:33:00] and one major policy of the White House [1:33:02] was the promotion of tariffs. And now [1:33:04] you'd be sitting on a court where they [1:33:06] found those tariffs unconstitutional. [1:33:09] And should there be further litigation [1:33:11] about these tariffs, you cannot tell us [1:33:15] today whether you would recuse yourself [1:33:17] in view of the fact that you were an [1:33:19] advocate for the tariffs in one case, and [1:33:21] now you'd be on a court that found those [1:33:23] tariffs to be unconstitutional? [1:33:26] Again, Senator, I would take recusal [1:33:28] very seriously. [1:33:29] I, in terms of recusing for any matters [1:33:31] executive orders that I worked on, I believe [1:33:33] the President had actually revoked those [1:33:35] executive orders via another executive order [1:33:37] after the Supreme Court's IEPA decision. [1:33:39] It's impossible for me to understand this. [1:33:41] I mean, you worked for a client on a policy [1:33:43] that has been determined to be unconstitutional. [1:33:45] And you had a right to do that. [1:33:47] Obviously, the President made his decision. [1:33:50] You were his advocate. [1:33:52] But now you're on a court where that [1:33:54] decision is unconstitutional. [1:33:56] And you had a right to do that. [1:33:58] Obviously, the President made his decision. [1:34:00] But now you're on a court where that [1:34:02] decision is unconstitutional. [1:34:04] And the Supreme Court has said those [1:34:06] are unconstitutional. [1:34:07] And there's going to be questions about [1:34:09] refunding those tariffs. [1:34:10] In fact, there are questions about that [1:34:12] right now. [1:34:13] And you can't just make a clear expression [1:34:15] to us about whether you would or would [1:34:17] not recuse yourself when you are on both [1:34:19] sides of the issue? [1:34:20] Senator, I think it would not be [1:34:22] appropriate to grade my own work, so to [1:34:24] speak. [1:34:25] And so, yes, I would, for specific [1:34:27] matters that I worked on in the White [1:34:29] House. [1:34:30] And I would add that the refund [1:34:32] litigation is actively before I think [1:34:34] it's Judge Eaton in the Court of [1:34:36] International Trade. [1:34:37] And so it would be inappropriate for me [1:34:40] to comment on how that is proceeding. [1:34:46] I want to ask you about a couple of [1:34:48] tweets. [1:34:49] George Papandopoulos, who tweeted out [1:34:51] there are but two parties now, traitors [1:34:53] and patriots. [1:34:54] And as you know, he's a former advisor [1:34:56] to President Trump. [1:34:58] And my understanding is you retweeted [1:35:01] that out. [1:35:02] Did you do that? [1:35:04] Senator, I don't have Twitter in front [1:35:06] of me right now. [1:35:07] I take you at your word that I had [1:35:09] tweeted that. [1:35:10] And as I stated previously, I think [1:35:12] that retweeting from people that I don't [1:35:14] know, including the gentleman you just [1:35:16] mentioned, is an inappropriate way to [1:35:18] express oneself on any controversial [1:35:20] political or just matter. [1:35:22] Retweeting is an indication that you [1:35:24] want to amplify what you read in the [1:35:26] tweet, right? [1:35:27] That's why people retweet, correct? [1:35:29] Senator, I don't have Twitter in front [1:35:31] of me right now. [1:35:32] I take you at your word that I had [1:35:34] tweeted that out. [1:35:35] Senator, I believe so. [1:35:36] Right. [1:35:39] Who are the traitors and who are the [1:35:40] patriots? [1:35:41] This is in your file. [1:35:42] Senator, again, I think that this, [1:35:44] as a judicial nominee, would be inappropriate [1:35:46] for me to comment on the topic of [1:35:48] controversial subject matter. [1:35:50] And I have apologized for it. [1:35:52] Unbelievable. [1:35:53] I'm asking you, you retweeted something, [1:35:55] all right? [1:35:56] You made an active decision to amplify [1:35:59] a tweet. [1:36:00] You thought other people should see it. [1:36:02] That tweet included patriots and traitors. [1:36:05] So I'm asking you, when you retweeted [1:36:07] that, who in your mind were the patriots [1:36:09] and who in your mind were the traitors? [1:36:11] Senator, I don't have any context for [1:36:13] that, and I have apologized for [1:36:15] retweeting. [1:36:16] I'm not asking you for context. [1:36:18] You did this. [1:36:19] You did it. [1:36:21] You hit send. [1:36:22] So who were the patriots and who were [1:36:25] the traitors? [1:36:26] Senator, I don't have an answer for [1:36:28] you. [1:36:34] On November 14th, you retweeted a [1:36:36] post by an account, camvtv. [1:36:38] The tweet read, in part, quote, big [1:36:40] disappointment. [1:36:41] Quote, big distinction between us and [1:36:43] the party of hate. [1:36:45] Who is the party of hate? [1:36:47] Senator, again, first of all, I'm [1:36:51] out of time, but I also, as I said, [1:36:53] don't agree with everything that has [1:36:55] been retweeted in the past. [1:36:57] Do you agree with anything you did [1:36:59] in the past? [1:37:01] You have to figure that out. [1:37:07] Senator, as to your specific question, [1:37:09] I don't have an answer for you. [1:37:11] My time is up. [1:37:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:15] Ms. Lane, when she was asked this [1:37:24] last question, so I would give you an [1:37:27] opportunity to respond to Senator [1:37:29] Koontz's comments if you want to take [1:37:32] advantage of it. [1:37:33] Thank you, Chairman Grassley. [1:37:36] At no point in any of my representation [1:37:38] in any litigation that I've been [1:37:40] involved in have I ever been held in [1:37:42] contempt, sanctioned, or formally [1:37:44] rebuked by a judge. [1:37:46] In a letter that was submitted to this [1:37:48] committee, it referenced litigation that [1:37:50] I was involved in, and that was in a [1:37:53] state trial court. [1:37:54] I was an attorney tasked with defending [1:37:56] the state of Montana, and the judge, [1:37:58] the trial judge, went out of his way to [1:38:00] say that the attorneys in the case had [1:38:02] done nothing wrong and had complied with [1:38:04] all of our legal and ethical obligations, [1:38:06] and I appreciate the opportunity to [1:38:08] clear the record. [1:38:09] Okay. [1:38:10] Now, the meeting is over. [1:38:12] I thank the nominees for their testimony [1:38:14] today, and I would expect you to answer [1:38:17] written questions, and for written [1:38:19] questions, a record may be submitted [1:38:23] until April, the questions may be [1:38:25] submitted until April 1st, 5 p.m. [1:38:28] Meeting adjourned.