Chuck Grassley Leads Senate Judiciary Hearing With Trump Judicial Nominees

[0:01] Welcome to the meeting. We have two panels. The first panel features Daniel D'Amico, [0:12] who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Our second panel has two [0:19] nominees. Matthew Byrne to be judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. [0:29] Costa Ligrich is the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. In a moment, [0:39] I'll turn to visitors to introduce these people. First, I'd like to say a few words. The American [0:49] people deserve to have critical roles of government filled with capable people in a timely fashion. [0:58] As chairman, I've ensured efficient consideration of nominations, and under my chairmanship, [1:08] this Congress, we're processing judicial nominations at a historic pace. In fact, if you look at the [1:16] time between nomination and confirmation, we've advanced and confirmed Article III judges faster [1:24] than any times since Ronald Reagan's presidency. In 2025 and 2026, we've advanced and confirmed [1:33] circuit judges nearly twice as fast as during the first Trump and Biden administrations, and we've [1:41] even had greater success with district court nominations, where we have tripled the pace of the [1:48] first Trump administration. Under my leadership, this committee has delivered for the American [1:55] people, and I want to thank all of my colleagues on this committee and people that aren't on the [2:01] committee for their support and collaboration of advancing these nominees. I also want to thank [2:10] President Trump. He continues to select highly qualified individuals to fill important roles in our [2:17] courts and in the Justice Department, and that makes my job of leading the confirmations process easier. [2:28] Today's nominees are part of that continued and welcome trend. Both of today's judicial nominees are [2:37] already sitting judges. Judge Domenico is a federal judge, district judge in Colorado, [2:47] federal, and Judge Burns serves on Ohio's 12th District Court of Appeals. It's hard to imagine better [2:55] experience for federal judgeships than those of you that have prior experience. They already know what [3:04] it takes to do the job of judging, and their track record speaks for itself. Today, we'll be also going to [3:13] hear from Mr. Liedrich, who has been nominated to lead the Office of Justice Programs. His nomination [3:22] is a breath of fresh air from this standpoint, because for years, both Republicans and Democrats have [3:30] complained about the Office of Justice Programs. That office has seen very bad bureaucratic delays in getting [3:44] grants to law enforcement to victims of crime and the public most vulnerable citizens. I think everyone can agree that the grant application process needs improvement. And this nominee brings a unique background in management, the law and technology that may actually fix the problems in that division. [4:13] I look forward to hearing from him and these other nominees as well, Senator Durbin. [4:20] Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to the nominees. The next time this committee meets, it will be to consider the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States. [4:33] Mr. Blanche is President Trump's former personal lawyer, and in his role as Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General, he has continued to play that role. [4:44] Throughout his tenure at the Justice Department, Mr. Blanche has used the Department as a shield to protect the president and his MAGA allies and a sword to attack the president's opponents. [4:56] He's led the cover up of the Epstein files. As former Attorney General Pam Bondi herself has explained, Mr. Blanche was, quote, in charge of the process and the entire release of the Epstein files. [5:09] Mr. Blanche also established the $1.8 billion slush fund for January 6 cop beaters. And Mr. Blanche personally signed a document to provide the president and his family and his businesses with immunity, immunity from federal tax law violations. [5:30] Mr. Blanche has treated the Justice Department like a criminal defense firm whose sole client is Donald Trump, and he has abused the awesome prosecutorial power of our nation's top law enforcement agency to target anyone who dares to cross the president. [5:47] This includes baseless and vindictive investigations or indictments of members of the Federal Reserve, former FBI Director James Comey and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to name a few. [6:00] The president and Mr. Blanche's efforts to fill the department with loyalists extend far beyond Washington. [6:07] They have reported repeatedly bypass this committee to illegally appoint U.S. [6:13] attorneys whose resumes prove their devotion to the MAGA movement rather than any experience or integrity. [6:19] This leads me to the subject of blue slips. [6:22] Last week, Chairman Grassley stated that as long as he is chairman, this committee will continue to require blue slips from home state senators before considering district judges and U.S. [6:32] attorney nominations. I am thankful that the chairman Grassley shares my commitment to preserving the blue slip. [6:39] But the chairman inaccurately accused Democrats of obstruction for refusing to return blue slips for some nominees. [6:47] Now the rest of the story. For the past 18 months, the committee has considered nominees to fill dozens of judicial vacancies in red states that Republican senators held open for years by refusing to return blue slips during the previous administration. [7:02] Many Senate Republicans, though not all engaged in unprecedented obstruction, despite good faith efforts by the Biden White House to fill vacancies. [7:12] Consider this during the Trump administration, Senate Democrats return the first Trump administration. [7:19] Senate Democrats returned 130 blue slips for Trump District Court nominees. [7:24] This led to the confirmation of 84 of these nominees. [7:27] Almost half of all the Trump District Court judges in his first term. [7:31] However, during the Biden administration, Senate Republicans returned only 54 blue slips, 130 for Democrats, 54 for Republicans, leading to the confirmation of 32 District Court judges. [7:44] Less than 30 percent of all Biden District Court judges. [7:47] While I encourage Senate Democrats to work in good faith with this administration to fill vacancies in their state, it needs to be a two way street. [7:56] This administration's approach frequently involves the president or White House announcing nominees as a take it or leave it propositions with zero prior consultation with home state senators. [8:08] The Trump administration has tried to install nominees in U.S. Attorney's Office in states like New York, New Jersey and Virginia with no attempt to consult the Democratic senators representing those states. [8:21] Many of these individuals have been disqualified from serving as U.S. [8:24] Many of these individuals have been disqualified from serving as U.S. [8:25] attorneys after courts found their appointments were unlawful. [8:28] And many are simply unqualified to serve as U.S. [8:31] attorneys, including individuals with zero, zero criminal experience and whose principal qualification is political. [8:39] Blue slips are an important part of the Senate's constitutional duty of advise and consent. [8:45] And in the face of lawless administration, they help senators defend the integrity of U.S. [8:50] attorneys' offices and the independence of our judiciary. [8:53] Thank you. [8:55] Senator Cruz cannot be here to introduce Judge Domenico. [9:03] So he asked me if I would read his statement. [9:08] He says, welcome, Judge. [9:10] Judge. [9:12] Circuit judges occupy a unique place in our constitutional system. [9:18] They do not merely resolve individual disputes. [9:22] They establish precedent that governs millions of Americans across the entire region of the country. [9:29] The Tenth Circuit decision shapes the laws of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. [9:37] For many litigants, the circuit court is the final word. [9:42] That responsibility requires judges of exceptional intellect, sound judgment, humility and fidelity to the law. [9:52] Judge Domenico's career reflects those qualities. [9:59] He's a native of Colorado, born and raised in Boulder. [10:04] He graduated from Georgetown University, University of Virginia School of Law, [10:11] where he distinguished himself as editor of the Virginia Law Review. [10:17] He clerked for then Judge Tim Timikovich of the Tenth Circuit, served at the Department of the Interior, [10:26] and became the youngest state solicitor general in the nation. [10:31] I first came to know Dan during his years as Colorado's solicitor general. [10:38] Solicitors general from around the country form a relatively small professional community. [10:45] We regularly litigate some of the most significant constitutional questions affecting the states and the nation. [10:53] Reputations in that community are earned over years of advocacy, professionalism and integrity. [11:01] During his nine years as solicitor general, Dan earned a reputation for intellectual rigor, careful judgment and fairness. [11:13] He represented administrations led by both Republican and Democrat, and he did so with distinction. [11:21] Indeed, two governors from opposite political parties have submitted a letter to this committee praising his fidelity to the law, [11:31] his fairness and his commitment to public service. [11:35] That bipartisan respect is increasingly rare, and it speaks volumes. [11:42] I can personally attest that Dan enjoyed that same reputation among his colleagues around the country. [11:50] Even lawyers who disagreed with him on questions of policy respected him as a serious lawyer [11:57] who approached every case with professionalism, preparation and intellectual honesty. [12:04] Being solicitor general of Colorado is no easy task. [12:10] It requires defending the laws of the state, navigating difficult constitutional questions, [12:17] and representing the people of Colorado before state and federal courts. [12:23] Dan did that job exceptionally well. [12:26] But Dan's record of service extends beyond his professional accomplishments. [12:32] I also had the opportunity to know Dan and his wife personally during those years. [12:39] Personal service demands sacrifices from families, and few examples illustrate that more clearly than their decision [12:48] to welcome a young brother and sister from the foster care system into their home and ultimately adopt. [12:57] That is no small undertaking. [12:59] It represents generosity, compassion, and a commitment to family that deserves recognition. [13:08] Since taking the bench as a federal district judge, Judge Domenico has continued to demonstrate the qualities that made him such an effective advocate, [13:22] diligence, fairness, fairness, humility, and respect for the proper role of the judiciary. [13:30] Our nations need judges who understand that their duty is not to make policy, but to faithfully interpret and apply the law as written. [13:41] Judges who understand that the Constitution belongs to the American people and not to the judiciary. [13:50] Based on his record of public service, his years on the federal bench, and my own experience knowing him personally and professionally, [14:00] I am confident that Judge Domenico will possess the intellect, temperament, integrity, and judicial philosophy necessary to serve with distinction on the Tenth Circuit. [14:16] This nominee is exceptionally well qualified for this position. [14:21] He has earned the respect of lawyers across the ideological spectrum, the confidence of leaders from both political parties, [14:31] and the admiration of those who know him personally. [14:35] I strongly support his nomination, and I urge every member of this committee and every member of the Senate to do the same. [14:45] The end of Senator Durbin's or Senator Quincy's statement. [14:53] Chris? [14:54] Yeah. [14:55] So I ask a unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Michael Bennett, who could not be with us today, be entered into the record. [15:02] Without comment, thank you. [15:07] Let's see, Senator Husted, you're next. [15:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [15:12] And to you and the ranking member and members committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce the Honorable Matthew Byrne. [15:21] Matthew Byrne. [15:23] I've known Matt for a while, and over the course of his career, Judge Byrne has earned a distinguished reputation as a hardworking, thoughtful, and fair judge. [15:34] He has remained dedicated to upholding the reputation of the court and the rule of law. [15:42] Judge Byrne's accomplished legal career began by attending two fine Ohio universities. [15:49] He graduated magna cum laude from Xavier University in 2003 and then received his JD from Ohio State University in 2007. [16:01] During his time at both institutions, he consistently performed volunteer work and public service, demonstrating his strength of character and commitment to his community. [16:13] After graduating from law school, Judge Byrne spent several years in the private sector practicing law at Taft Statinius and Hollister and Jackson Lewis. [16:25] During his time at these firms, Judge Byrne developed a sterling reputation, being named to the Super Lawyers Rising Stars list nine consecutive years. [16:40] Over the past five and a half years, Judge Byrne has served the state of Ohio honorably as a judge in the 12th District Court of Appeals. [16:50] Hearing cases from eight counties in southwestern Ohio, he decided more than 800 appeals and had written majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in nearly 250 cases. [17:04] He's been recognized for his leadership and expertise by being selected to train new judges by the Ohio Judicial College and by being elected presiding judge of the court. [17:17] Judge Byrne is not only a distinguished legal scholar, but also a loving husband and father. [17:24] He lives in Deerfield Township with his wife of 18 years, Julie, and their three kids who are here today. [17:31] And I am certain that Judge Byrne will continue to serve the people of Ohio with honor and distinction in his new role as United States District Judge from the Southern District of Ohio, should my colleagues confirm him. [17:43] And that's a confirmation I strongly support. Judge Byrne, thank you for being here today. [17:48] And thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for allowing me to introduce Judge Byrne. [17:54] Thank you. Thank you, Senator Husted. And you may leave if you want to or stay. [17:58] Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Senator Husted. [18:04] I have the distinct pleasure of introducing this morning, Mr. Costa Ligris. [18:11] He is a lawyer, a businessman and a technologist. [18:15] When I was the Attorney General of Florida, I was constantly engaging with associations around Florida, with attorneys in the private sector, asking them to personally evaluate what this country, what our state had given to them in terms of opportunities for success. [18:34] And evaluate what they might do to come into government service and give back using the expertise and work experience that they had acquired over the course of their successful career. [18:48] And so this morning, I get to introduce someone who is doing just that, which I spent years trying to recruit people to do. [18:56] Mr. Ligris has worked in law and financial services industry, combining his skills and education to innovate and lead. [19:03] And I know that is what he's going to do upon his confirmation at the Department of Justice. [19:08] Mr. Ligris brings extensive experience in legal compliance, risk management, data privacy, and the governance of complex regulatory environments. [19:18] Over the course of his legal career, he has worked in all of those areas. [19:25] At the start of his career, he did criminal law, general litigation, transactional law, and then he went on to build and lead one of New England's largest real estate law practices. [19:36] And he oversaw that to success. [19:39] Beyond his legal career, he has experience in technology and finance, a track record that provides him with a deep operational expertise in technology, commercialization, federal regulatory compliance, data privacy, and security. [19:53] In 2016, he served in multiple roles at MIT Sloan School of Management and one of the longest tenured entrepreneurs in residence at the MIT Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship. [20:04] Today, he is a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan where he teaches courses on entrepreneurship. [20:09] And as if I needed any more credentials to convince my colleagues to support him or those in attendance or Americans watching today, that this is the kind of private experience that we need in-house, in government, to bring up to speed the efficiency and performance and accountability of our agencies, let me go on. [20:31] He also holds a BS in human physiology from Boston University. [20:35] He earned his JD with honors from Sulphic University Law School where he served on the dean's cabinet and a university trustee. [20:41] He got his MBA from MIT Sloan School of Management and received an MS in information systems and cybersecurity from the University of California, Berkeley. [20:49] I could go on and on about all of the experiences that I have had working in government and seeing what it means to the success of our agencies and our accountability to those that put us in office to deliver and be efficient and succeed in what we promised to do. [21:09] I wish I could give you every single performance metric where I saw someone that came in with fresh eyes and the right experience and they were able to serve the people that trust us in these roles using all of that and hit those metrics, hit that accountability that the people so desperately want right now. [21:32] Every day, not a day goes by that we don't hear dealing with one of our grant programs or some government program of fraud or inefficiency or waste or abuse and the people don't want just to learn about these things and for us to uncover them. [21:50] They want us to do something about it. And so we've got to bring in great people. And so that is why it is my absolute honor to introduce to my colleagues here today, Mr. Costa Ligris as President Trump's nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Office of Justice Programs. [22:07] I know he will serve the people well using everything that he has learned over the course of his incredibly successful career. [22:15] And I not only introduce him, but I encourage my colleagues to support him and the American people to realize what this administration is doing to make sure we are living up to the demands and expectations of the American people. [22:29] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. [22:31] Thank you, Senator Moody. Now would Judge Domenico come to the table, please. And before you sit down, I'd like to administer the oath. [22:42] Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you. [22:55] Now the floor is yours to say whatever you want to say, but most of our nominees take time to talk about family and friends and supporters. And so the floor is yours. [23:13] Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Thank you. [23:16] Maybe move the microphone straight to your mouth. Thank you. [23:19] Is that better? Yes. [23:20] I can hear it better. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin. [23:26] Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. I want to, of course, thank the president for the honor of this nomination. [23:33] And I also want to thank the members of this committee and of the Senate for their careful consideration of it. Having received the Senate's advice and consent to a prior nomination is perhaps the greatest professional honor I've received. [23:49] It's something I take very seriously and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to receive it again. There are a number of people here to support me. I'm grateful for all of their support and presence. [24:03] They include a number of my current and some former clerks and others that I've worked with over the years. Thank you all for your hard work and thoughtful efforts. I know I would not be here without all of you. [24:18] My wife, Janelle, is here. She is the unsung star and the glue of our family. And I would not be in this position, were it not for her wisdom, dedication, and relentless hard work for me and our family. [24:33] We will be celebrating 26 years of marriage later this summer. She has sacrificed a lot for me and our kids and I am eternally grateful for her and to her. [24:47] Our children, Ellie and Michael, are both home in Colorado, involved in important summer jobs and volunteer projects and couldn't be here today. [24:56] But I do want to take a moment to say how blessed I've been that God brought them into our lives, first as foster children and then now our adoptive children. [25:05] How much I've learned from their example over the years of overcoming obstacles about perseverance, about love, and about family. [25:15] I'm very proud of what they've become and very excited to see where they take their lives in the future. [25:22] My parents, Ben and Fran, also could not make it here today, but they're watching from the home I grew up in back in Colorado. [25:30] My father is a retired astrophysicist. My mom had the much more demanding and challenging job as a public middle school teacher and counselor. [25:41] I want to thank them for all the advantages, guidance, and wisdom they provided me and my siblings with over the years. [25:50] Finally, I hope you'll just allow me a moment to say a few words about Judge Timkovich, whose seat I am being nominated to take. [26:00] A number of his former clerks are here, including, I think, Congressman Jeff Hurd may have had to leave, but he was here. [26:07] All of us former clerks of Judge Timkovich are incredibly grateful for the opportunity to have worked for Judge Timkovich. [26:15] I went to work for him over 20 years ago. [26:19] Literally everything in my professional career since then is thanks to his mentorship, friendship, and example. [26:30] Being nominated to his seat is a humbling honor and responsibility. [26:37] I know I cannot fill his shoes, but if confirmed, I will do my best to follow in his footsteps. [26:44] Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. [26:49] Judge, you've been a federal district judge for many years. [26:54] You've resided over hundreds of cases and issued thousands of orders. [27:00] Two questions to start with. [27:04] What have you learned from your time as a judge, and what do you think will be the biggest challenge that you'll face transitioning from a district to circuit court? [27:15] Well, Senator Grassley, one thing that comes to mind about things that I've learned as a judge, first of all, the importance of treating every case as the most important case that you will confront at the time you're dealing with any case. [27:34] It is the most important case that you'll deal with, and having that attitude as to every case is important. [27:42] I've also learned to really appreciate the role of the jury and fact finding. [27:48] It's one thing that when I started this job, I didn't have a lot of experience with juries, but I've really come to appreciate the role that they play after every trial I meet with the juries. [27:59] And one thing I usually tell them is how inspiring it is, frankly, to go through the process of jury selection and then a week or two or multiple week trial with a truly random cross section of people. [28:16] It's very rare anymore for a CEO and a housemaker, a student, a laborer, a group of people who have very little in common to come together and work on an important project like that. [28:32] And it's really an inspiring process to watch, and it's something I will miss as a circuit judge. [28:39] But it's one thing I've really appreciated. [28:42] As to the transition that I'm going to have to make, obviously, one big part of the transition, one big difference is that instead of just making my decision, writing what I think is the correct result, [28:54] I'm going to have to work with at least one or two other colleagues on a panel, sometimes with an en banc court. [29:03] So that is one important transition. [29:05] Of course, the lack of kind of interaction on a day to day basis in court on the Court of Appeals is something that will be quite a bit different. [29:16] It's much more sort of behind the scenes reading and writing. [29:20] So those are things I know I will have to adjust to, but as much as I appreciate the opportunity of being a district judge, I do look forward to that. [29:29] Okay. [29:30] We've seen recent reports about certain federal judges who demean their law clerks or treat them abusively. [29:40] In contrast, nine of your former law clerks sent the committee a letter praising your commitment to mentorship. [29:49] The letter stated that you, quote, treat your clerks with the same respect and patience and good humor with which you treat colleagues and litigants, end of quote. [30:02] So I'm going to put this letter in the record without objection. [30:06] So, Judge, please tell us why it's important for federal judges to treat law clerks with dignity and respect. [30:14] Well, Senator Grassley, I think that's perhaps one thing that we could at least thank in part Judge Timkovich for. [30:22] He was an example of that. [30:23] When I clerked for him, he treated all of us with respect and dignity, and I try to do the same. [30:30] I think, obviously, law clerks come to work for us at the beginning of their careers. [30:37] A judge has incredible power over what will happen to them in their careers, so there is a real power dynamic there that can be abused, and avoiding that sort of abuse is important to me. [30:50] I also say, you know, frankly, my parents were big proponents of the golden rule, so I try to treat everybody I interact with, including my law clerks, including other employees of the court, litigants, attorneys, even defendants that come before me who've committed pretty terrible crimes sometimes. [31:12] I try to treat them with respect and dignity. [31:15] This will be my last question. [31:18] You were, I'm told, the youngest and longest-serving solicitor general in Colorado's history. [31:25] During that time, you served under state administrations of both political parties. [31:30] Regardless of who sets the policies, you were an effective advocate for your state. [31:36] How would these experiences prepare you to set aside your personal views and apply the law impartially as a judge? [31:47] Well, thank you for those words, Senator Grassley. [31:52] And I do think that that experience prepared me quite well for that job. [31:56] Colorado, of course, passes both through initiative and its legislature a wide range of laws, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. [32:07] As solicitor general, as a matter of policy, as a solicitor general, my duty was to defend those laws, which I did to the best of my ability. [32:16] And so I spent nine years really being driven home to me that your duty comes to the law and to the Constitution comes before your personal preferences and your policy preferences. [32:30] There are, of course, other avenues. [32:32] If someone wants to impose their policy preferences, they can run for political office. [32:39] But as a judge or as an attorney in an attorney general's office, your duty is to, as an attorney, it's to advocate on behalf of your client. [32:48] As a judge, it's to follow the rule of law wherever it may lead, even if it's to a place you ultimately disagree with. [32:56] I think that has been very useful training, if you will, for my role as a judge. [33:03] And I would expect it would continue to be a useful background for me. [33:07] Thank you, Senator Durbin. [33:09] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [33:10] Judge Domenico, let me ask you a couple basic questions. [33:14] Do you believe that the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to due process are limited to citizens in the United States? [33:22] Generally, I think the due process clauses are mostly for citizens, but there are protections for those who have been here in amount of time under binding current precedent. [33:34] Let me read you the Fifth Amendment, which I'm sure you're familiar with. [33:38] No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. [33:44] It doesn't say citizen. [33:46] It says person. [33:47] Does that make a difference? [33:48] Right, and there is an ongoing dispute about certain provisions that speak of the people versus persons, and I wouldn't want to prejudge that case. [33:57] But I do think that there is a distinction, potentially, that people have argued between provisions that, like you just read, refer to persons versus those that refer to the people, which may be more limited. [34:11] But it doesn't say citizens. [34:14] Do you concede that point? [34:15] I do. [34:16] So I'm trying to understand what's going on when it comes to cases that come before you as a district court judge. [34:23] President Trump told us over and over again, and we can quote back to the president exactly what he said at his rallies. [34:31] He's going after the worst of the worst, criminal offenders guilty of rape, terrorism, murder, the list goes on. [34:44] Very specifically, he's saying the effort to deport the deportation of immigrants is for the worst of the worst to make America safer. [34:54] You've heard that, haven't you? [34:56] I've heard that, yes. [34:59] So let me ask what lies behind your ruling in some of these cases. [35:04] Around the country, the Trump administration has detained tens of thousands of immigrants, more than 70% without any criminal record. [35:13] Overwhelmingly, district court judges appointed by both presidents, Republican and Democrat, have held that mandatory detention of these individuals is illegal and unconstitutional. [35:27] According to Politico's analysis, judges have ruled against the administration policy almost 14,000 times. [35:36] And even a majority of Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the administration. [35:41] You, however, are an outlier, which even you have acknowledged in several of your opinions, denying habeas petitions. [35:49] In your opinions, you've embraced the Trump administration position that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing. [35:56] No matter how long they've been in the United States and even if they have no criminal history. [36:02] In light of your embrace of the Trump administration's position, even when judges have ruled against the administration's policy nearly 14,000 times, [36:12] why should anyone have confidence that you could be a neutral arbiter presiding over challenges to this administration's action? [36:19] That you can treat immigrants in a fair manner? [36:23] Well, Senator German, I think, as I've expressed in the opinions you referenced, there is a wide range of, well, not a wide range, [36:34] there is a clear division of opinion about how that particular statutory provision applies. [36:39] I did come down on that one specific statutory question on the side that at the time was the majority. [36:47] There's a split of circuit opinions, but it was, as you said, a majority opinion among district judges. [36:54] But ultimately, I think if you look deeper into my record on those immigration cases, you'll see that I have ruled in favor of petitioners in a number of those cases. [37:08] on separate bases, so I take those cases very seriously. [37:13] The statutory provisions are somewhat imperfectly aligned, but I think if you read my opinion, I recognize that. [37:21] I think the best interpretation is the one that I adopted on other issues. [37:26] I have, in fact, ruled against the federal government's position and granted petitions a number of times. [37:34] I would like to concede that fact to you, but I can't. [37:41] For you to be in a position that you are and to deny consistently opportunities for people to have bond and to be released if there are no danger, [37:51] but to rule consistently against immigrants is not a good thing to encourage on the bench. [37:57] Mr. Chairman, I yield. [37:59] Okay. [38:04] Before I call on Senator Lee, I'd like to enter into the record of letters supporting the judge's nomination from Bill Owens and Bill Ritter. [38:13] One is, these are former Colorado governors, one's a Republican, one's a Democrat. [38:20] They endorse a judge and stated, quote, while we come from different parties and often have different divergent policy views, [38:31] we're aligned on the critical importance of affirming highly qualified judges who will consistently apply the law as written. [38:40] Federal judges must maintain the highest character, legal acumen, and selfless dedication to public service. [38:49] We believe that judge embodies these qualities in his confirmation to the Senate. [38:56] Tenth Circuit would be a credit to our state and to the federal bench without objection. [39:02] I'll put that in the record, Senator Lee. [39:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [39:07] Thank you, Judge Domenico, for being here and for your great service to our country, both as a district judge and now we hope, [39:14] should you be confirmed to this position on the Tenth Circuit, a court near and dear to my heart, not only because it includes my state, [39:20] but because I've argued dozens of times before that court. [39:23] Beautiful courthouse, by the way, as you know very well. [39:27] Let's talk about the major questions doctrine for a moment. [39:31] When you see an executive action taken within the federal government, [39:36] how do you ascertain whether it runs afoul of the major questions doctrine? [39:39] Well, as I understand the major questions doctrine, [39:44] it is a way for federal courts to look at if an administrative agency is asserting that it has the authority to address, [39:56] has essentially can regulate over a major question, something involving large questions of policy, [40:05] that you look at that and you say if that's what the administrative agency is doing, Congress has to have said so clearly. [40:14] It can't be just something that was sort of ambiguously there and then the regulatory body asserts that through that ambiguity, it can assert a wide swath of authority. [40:25] How do you ascertain where the major questions doctrine ends and the non-delegation doctrine begins? [40:31] In other words, to what degree is there overlap between them? [40:33] As I understand it, the major questions doctrine is a principle not of constitutional law, but rather of administrative law. [40:40] Whereas the non-delegation doctrine is constitutional, rooted in the vesting clause of Article 1, Section 1, [40:47] giving Congress the status of the sole law-making organ within the US government in Article 1, Section 7, [40:54] providing the two-part formula for passing a federal law, bicameralism plus presentment. [40:59] So where does one end, where does the other begin, or is there substantial overlap? [41:04] It seems to me there's probably substantial overlap. [41:07] I mean, they do both serve a similar purpose, which is to say that it's Congress who has the authority to make law, not a regulatory body, [41:16] and that Congress simply passing some ambiguous language doesn't meet the bicameralism and presentment requirement. [41:28] Non-delegation is that you can't simply pass off that law-making authority. [41:34] So Congress, under non-delegation, could, I think, intentionally, I guess, try to pass a bill [41:42] that would just let an administrative agency sort of do whatever it wants, and that non-delegation would negate that. [41:51] Whereas the major question would be if Congress maybe writes an ambiguous statute, and so I think there may be overlap. [41:57] And they both serve that purpose of reinforcing that it's Congress that has to pass the laws that bind citizens and the rest of us. [42:09] When INS v. Chata, the Supreme Court of the United States, invalidated legislative vetoes. [42:13] There were hundreds of legislative vetoes on the books. [42:17] They were put on the books between the New Deal era and the mid-1980s when Chata was decided. [42:22] The Supreme Court concluded, in essence, that in order to make or change a federal law, [42:27] you've got to have bicameral passage followed by presentment to the president for signature veto or acquiescence. [42:32] And that if a change to that is wrought thereafter, that has to be brought about through the same process involving bicameralism and presentment. [42:41] One could argue that this analytical framework could be brought into, merged with, or be made part of the non-delegation doctrine. [42:49] Because if an act of Congress, either chamber or both chambers acting together, can't change the law after the enactment of a statute, [43:00] one could argue that the same could be said with regard to an administrative act, a regulation imposing affirmatively binding legal obligations on the public [43:10] that had themselves not independently been subjected to bicameralism and presentment. [43:15] Does that seem like an analytical framework that may overlap there? [43:18] Senator Lee, I can't say I've thought about it exactly that way before. [43:24] But off the top of my head, it would certainly be the kind of thing that seems worth giving serious consideration if it were to come before me. [43:31] But as I said, I can't say I've thought about it in exactly that way before. [43:36] Great. [43:37] All right. [43:38] Then finally, I'd like to ask you about what you view as the proper role of dissents and en banc review. [43:45] You're now a seasoned federal district judge. [43:49] Federal district judges are both unique and distinct from appellate court judges, even where you'll be serving the same jurisdiction just at the higher level. [44:00] It'll be different in a number of respects, including the fact that you won't be conducting trials, including the fact that you won't be sitting in a [44:06] alone with very rare exceptions, exceedingly rare. [44:11] Federal district judges don't sit on three judge panels or on 10 or 12 judge panels in the en banc variety. [44:18] So it'll be a new experience for you. [44:20] There are those who take different approaches, both to dissents and to en banc review. [44:25] There are those who view dissents and en banc review as something to be avoided as an indication of failure. [44:31] There are those who view the absence of those things or the rarity of those things, where they are rare, as an indication that people might be playing color by numbers. [44:40] They might be checking the box, punching the card too much. [44:43] What's your view on these things? [44:44] And what do you make of the fact that the Tenth Circuit has, for a very long period of time, had fewer en banc review cases relative to its caseload, [44:57] certainly than the national average and than, I believe, most of the circuits? [45:01] Well, Senator Lee, obviously that's something that, as you say, is not something I've had to deal with exactly. [45:08] So I'm not sure I have sort of a settled position that I can share with you. [45:12] I do think my general view is that both dissents and en banc, seeking en banc, I guess, or voting in favor of it, serve a valuable purpose. [45:23] Obviously, written opinions, a large part of the entire reason that we judges write written opinions is to explain our position to serve sort of a public purpose. [45:34] So even though a dissent isn't going to change the law, it can serve sort of an educational purpose. [45:40] I think there's that value. [45:42] It can perhaps lay out reasons why the court should in the future reconsider things. [45:49] En banc processes, I think, are similar. [45:52] There are certainly opportunities to change the law if circuit precedent is wrong. [45:57] I'm not sure you need to, every time a panel gets it wrong, you may not need to go to en banc. [46:03] But sometimes, if the circuit's law is just causing problems, is out of step with what constitutional law is or ought to be, [46:14] it's certainly an appropriate thing for a circuit court to do. [46:18] Thank you. [46:19] Senator Bulmerbaugh. [46:20] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [46:23] Welcome, Judge, to you and your family. [46:25] Thanks for your service on the bench. [46:29] Let me jump right into my questions. [46:32] Who won the 2020 election? [46:36] Senator, as Justice Jackson explained when she was asked essentially that question about both 2020 and 2016, it would be inappropriate for me as a... [46:45] Well, let me just call your attention to what she actually said. [46:49] And as a judge, I know you want to be careful when you cite another judge. [46:55] She was asked whether she had ever commented on the results. [46:59] She wasn't asked about the results. [47:02] I'm asking you about the results of the 2020 election. [47:06] Who won it? [47:07] So the question is slightly different, but the answer, I think, is... [47:12] Well, the answer is the same because you've been told what the answer is when you prepared, correct? [47:18] No, I was not told what to say. [47:21] You prepared with the White House before you came here, did you not? [47:24] I prepared like I think all nominees do with the Justice Department. [47:30] How many times did you meet with the White House? [47:32] I never met with the White House after I went through the interview process. [47:37] Well, in your response to the question that was asked you, you said, I have been in communication with individuals in the Department of Justice regarding the nomination process. [47:49] Are they the ones who prepared you? [47:52] I did engage with Justice Department, yes. [47:55] And they gave you the canned answer that has been provided by all the other judicial nominees here. [48:02] Let me ask you, who won the popular vote in the 2020 election? [48:08] Simply a matter of fact. [48:09] Again, as Justice Jackson explained, commenting on a matter of political debate like that is inappropriate for a sitting judge. [48:18] You know, Your Honor, Judge, you have a lifetime job right now, correct? [48:25] I do. [48:27] Nobody can take it away from you. [48:28] Nobody can take it away from you. [48:29] You have the independence right now to say what really factually happened in the 2020 election. [48:36] And you are evading that question with the same scripted canned answer that everyone nominated so far recently has given. [48:48] I think the American people ought to be deeply disappointed and members of this committee. [48:54] Let me ask you, would you recommend that my colleagues who voted against Justice Jackson's nomination to the United States Supreme Court also vote against you? [49:04] Anybody who based their decisions solely on that answer, perhaps. [49:10] Let me ask you about the January 6th incident. [49:19] Would you agree the Capitol was attacked on January 6th? [49:23] I would agree that individuals, from the videos I've seen, a number of individuals attacked police officers engaged in violence, vandalism. [49:32] Well, an attack on police officers who were guarding the Capitol is an attack on the Capitol, correct? [49:41] So, as I said, individuals engaged in attacks on police officers, which I clearly condemn. [49:51] More broadly, characterizing the events of that day beyond what a number of individuals did, I think would put me in the same position as Justice Jackson when asked about the same events, which is that commenting on that... [50:06] Commenting on whether the United States Capitol or democracy, the peaceful transfer of power, was attacked on January 6th is not going to be answered by you because you think Justice Jackson wouldn't have commented on it? [50:28] Well, she, in fact, gave the same answer to that as she did about the elections, and the reason is that the broader characterization of what happened that day beyond what individuals I've seen is a matter of public debate that I... [50:44] Was Donald Trump attacked on July 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania? [50:50] Someone attempted to assassinate him, yes. [50:53] Was he attacked? [50:54] I suppose you could characterize an assassination attempt as an attack. [50:59] How about an attempted assassination of the Capitol Police? [51:03] As I said... [51:05] Not an attack on the Capitol? [51:06] As I said, the individuals who engaged in violence against officers, I think you could say attacked those officers. [51:17] More broadly, characterizing the events of that day is a matter of public... [51:23] I'm willing to say that if I were in your courtroom and I gave these kinds of answers to you as a judge on the federal bench, you would throw me out of your courtroom. [51:38] And I'm disappointed that you're not willing to be more forthcoming as to the facts here, because one of the key questions about any nominee for the federal bench is independence of mind and action. [51:52] You'd agree that's an important quality, wouldn't you? [51:55] I do. [51:57] Thank you. [51:58] Senator Kennedy. [52:01] Senator Kennedy. [52:02] Judge, this is not what I want to talk about, but... [52:13] And this is not directed toward my good friend, Senator Blumenthal. [52:23] He served honorably, and he's a clever fellow. [52:29] But one of the tricks up here is to try to muddy the water to make it look deep. [52:35] President Trump is in his second term, is that right? [52:43] That's right. [52:44] Who was the president before President Trump? [52:50] Joe Biden. [52:52] That's what I thought. [52:54] I just wanted to clear that up. [52:58] Are you happy about what happened on January 7th? [53:06] January 6th. [53:09] Could you speak closer to the mic? [53:11] No. [53:12] I mean, obviously, that is a dark day. [53:15] As I said, there was violence and vandalism that I think every American would condemn. [53:22] So it wouldn't be fair if someone concluded from your answers to my friend Senator Blumenthal that you somehow approved of what happened on January 7th? [53:36] No, I don't believe that would be fair. [53:39] Yeah, you condemn it, don't you? [53:41] I do. [53:42] Yeah. [53:45] And just to clear up any confusion, I was here on January 7th. [53:48] It was a riot, and it was very inappropriate. [53:59] But I digress. [54:03] I just wanted to clear that up. [54:06] I don't want to ask how you're going to rule on a case, but I do want to understand how you think. [54:12] Tell me a little bit about Section 230. [54:15] I believe Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act. [54:23] I think it is an immunity for service providers, like Facebook, for immunity from being sued for certain types of defamation that some others might post on their websites. [54:40] Well, I mean, let's take Facebook. [54:43] I don't mean to pick on Facebook. [54:45] Millions and millions and millions of people post on Facebook, and they say some deeply weird stuff, sometimes defamatory. [54:56] Section 230 just says, look, Facebook, these social media platforms, we're not going to hold them responsible under the law for what somebody else posted, right? [55:07] That's all it is, right? [55:08] That's my understanding, yes. [55:10] Because, purportedly, the social media companies don't have anything to do with the post. [55:16] You just open an account and you post whatever you want to, right? [55:20] Right. [55:22] Okay. [55:23] Here's, here's, but the world's, this whole issue, which has become more and more important, becomes clouded a bit. [55:35] At least it does in my mind, because these social media platforms are so powerful. [55:42] I mean, let me put it in, when social, when Facebook started, it was this little group at Harvard. [55:51] But today, it's billions of people, isn't it? [55:54] It has enormous power, doesn't it? [55:57] It does. [55:58] I mean, who do you think is more powerful, the state of Louisiana or Facebook? [56:04] That's something I'm not sure I could say in certain areas. [56:08] Well, I can. [56:09] Facebook. [56:10] I'll take your word for it. [56:12] Now, should it make a difference if Facebook, through algorithms, makes a decision about what I see? [56:27] Facebook can't show me all squillion posts out there. [56:31] So Facebook decides which posts it wants me to see. [56:37] That's an intentional act by Facebook. [56:43] Why doesn't that subject them to liability? [56:47] Senator Kennedy, so I understand the question. [56:50] And I think without having the text of Section 230 in front of me, I'm not sure whether... [56:56] Sorry about it. [56:57] It doesn't cover it. [56:58] Okay. [56:59] Well, then, so... [57:00] I'm just asking how you analyze that. [57:01] So, well, my understanding, as you characterized it, is that the rationale behind Section 230 [57:08] is that since these services, Facebook and others, don't actually edit, it's not their speech... [57:15] But you do edit it if you decide what I see, don't you? [57:18] So some of that rationale, at least some of the rationale, then wouldn't apply in those circumstances. [57:24] And... [57:25] But as you say, if it doesn't cover it, then that would lead potentially either to a different result [57:31] or perhaps be a reason for this body to consider amending the statute. [57:35] Because I agree with you, the rationale behind it is different. [57:39] Well, I'm about to run out of time, but let me give you a concrete example. [57:46] My spouse, my wife hates guns. [57:49] Okay? [57:51] She believes love is the answer. [57:54] I believe love is the answer, but I also own a handgun. [58:00] Suppose Facebook decided that it wanted to change my wife's mind. [58:04] And they started showing her video after video after video, post after post after post on Facebook [58:11] to convince her that guns aren't dangerous. [58:14] That shouldn't be covered by Section 230, should it? [58:18] Well, again, I'm not sure whether I would say whether it should or shouldn't. [58:24] But I will say I agree with the sentiment that the rationale behind it would not seem to apply [58:30] in the same way that it would if Facebook or others were truly neutral. [58:35] Okay. [58:36] I'm almost done, Mr. Chairman. [58:37] I promise. [58:38] I swear to God. [58:39] Just to check. [58:40] I don't remember if I brought this up. [58:42] Who was the president before President Trump? [58:46] This last time it was Joe Biden. [58:50] Okay. [58:51] We get that cleared up. [58:52] Thank you. [58:53] All right. [58:54] Thank you. [58:56] Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. [58:58] I'd like to take the time that we have here to raise an unrelated issue. [59:06] You can relax. [59:08] Thank you. [59:10] We, as a committee, considered the nomination of an individual named Emile Bovey [59:24] to go on to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. [59:29] At the time that we did so, there was a pending proceeding in federal court, an inquiry into whether [59:42] Mr. Bovey and others had committed contempt of court. [59:51] That proceeding was stayed by an order by two Trump appointees on the DC circuit. [1:00:06] They used a device called an administrative stay, which I think lawyers know customarily is a device to hold the status quo for a short period of time, maybe a week or two, sometimes only hours. [1:00:24] The two Trump appointees kept this administrative stay in place for four months. [1:00:32] And it was during that period of the state contempt proceeding involving now Judge Bovey that this committee put him through his confirmation and sent him to the floor. [1:00:51] I think in ordinary circumstances, we would have said, wait a minute, there's a contempt proceeding pending against this individual. [1:01:02] We should find out about that before we put him on a circuit court of appeals, that these are not ordinary times. [1:01:10] And so Mr. Bovey was hustled through the confirmation process and then the stay was lifted. [1:01:21] The DC circuit told the DC district judge, you can now go forward to the contempt proceeding. [1:01:31] One of the same Trump judges with another Trump judge then stayed at a second time. [1:01:37] And the DC circuit has just announced that it will consider overturning that stay and bank. [1:01:46] So that saga is going to continue. [1:01:48] But I don't think it was a high point in the Judiciary Committee's history to put a candidate through the confirmation process with a contempt of court inquiry undecided. [1:02:04] Now we're moving forward into Todd Blanche and his potential confirmation as Attorney General of the United States. [1:02:15] Well, right now there is a judicial proceeding pending in Florida regarding whether Blanche and other Confederates committed fraud upon the court in that federal district court. [1:02:35] Just as a brief aside, fraud upon the court is about as bad as it gets for a legal officer. [1:02:41] You can be sanctioned and disciplined for misconduct, for acting out in court, various things. [1:02:49] You can go to being held in contempt of court, which is pretty darn serious. [1:02:54] But fraud on the court stands apart as an allegation. [1:03:00] My view is that this is the first time that the Department of Justice, certainly any senior officials in the Department of Justice, have ever been accused of committing fraud on a federal court. [1:03:11] And that matter is pending down in Florida. [1:03:17] Interestingly, the Department of Justice chose not to respond to the court when the court said, yeah, I'm going to reopen this matter and let's take a look at this. [1:03:28] Fraud on the court for the first time in the department's history. [1:03:31] You'd think they'd want to respond to that specific question about whether the actions of the DOJ comported with its own policies, something DOJ would know about. [1:03:42] And then what about a defense memo offered by the client, the Internal Revenue Service? [1:03:49] Again, something the DOJ would know about. [1:03:52] And the gravamen of the issue was collusion, which takes two people on both sides of the case. [1:03:57] So only the lawyers for Trump, his personal lawyers, answered. [1:04:02] Despite all of those apparent invitations from the judge, the DOJ didn't answer. [1:04:07] So we have no sense yet of what's going on. [1:04:10] It looks like Judge Williams is going to continue that investigation. [1:04:14] But I just think bad as it was to confirm a nominee to a circuit court of appeals while a contempt of court inquiry was pending against that exact individual would be just as bad, if not worse, to go forward with Blanche's confirmation while a fraud on the court inquiry is pending against him. [1:04:39] We have asked for documents related to that first episode. [1:04:43] And I am asking again because we don't get a response out of the Department of Justice when we ask for documents. [1:04:52] And I hope that we can look into this adequately to be prepared for questioning when we end up going forward. [1:05:00] But we're in a pretty terrific position to require answers from the Department of Justice by simply saying, look, we're not going forward until we understand what the heck happened here. [1:05:09] And if you're not answering to a federal court, well, you ought to consider answering to us as we deal with your confirmation proceedings. [1:05:17] So I've gone a minute over my time. [1:05:19] And it's not, again, not relevant to the candidate before us. [1:05:22] But I did want to have a chance to make this point publicly because we're going to have to address this. [1:05:29] And now would be a good time. [1:05:31] Thank you very much, Chairman. [1:05:32] Thank you. [1:05:33] The questions have all been asked. [1:05:37] You may go now. [1:05:39] Thank you. [1:05:40] Mr. Judge, will the second panel come, please? [1:05:46] And before you seat, let me administer oath. [1:05:52] Would you please stand? [1:06:08] Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [1:06:15] So help you God. [1:06:16] Both answered in the affirmative. [1:06:21] We'll start with Judge Byrne. [1:06:24] You can take time now to give your opening statement and anything else you want to say. [1:06:29] Sorry. [1:06:30] Apologies. [1:06:47] Forgot about the button. [1:06:49] Good morning. [1:06:50] I'd like to thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin for scheduling this hearing and for the members of the committee for considering my nomination. [1:06:58] I also would like to thank President Trump for his nomination of me to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. [1:07:06] It's truly the honor of a lifetime. [1:07:09] I used to work in this city over 20 years ago, working on nominations at the White House, and it never occurred to me that someday I would be in this position today. [1:07:21] It's truly an honor and amazing country that we live in. [1:07:24] I'm lucky to be part of a large and loving family, and I have a number of them with me here today. [1:07:32] So I'll introduce those who are here. [1:07:36] First, my wife, Julie. [1:07:38] We've been married for 18 years. [1:07:40] Julie is a lawyer with an active practice of her own. [1:07:45] She is active in our community. [1:07:47] She's active in our church, and she is a wonderful mother to our three children and a true partner and blessing to me. [1:07:54] Our three children, ages 14, 12, and 9, are also with us today. [1:08:00] Again, they're true blessings to me and make our life just a wonderful thing. [1:08:07] My parents, Richard and Kimberly Byrne, are joining us as well, coming from the Dayton, Ohio area. [1:08:13] My parents, as I was growing up, taught us about the importance of caring for family, of faith, of hard work, [1:08:22] and I wouldn't be the person I am with them helping to mold me and guide me as a child. [1:08:29] Also joining us are my aunt and uncle, Barbara Cook and Kevin Cook, who come from Indianapolis, Indiana. [1:08:38] They're just one of many aunts and uncles and cousins in my family, and I'm thankful that they're able to join us today as well. [1:08:46] And finally, their oldest daughter, my cousin, Danielle Ellia, is here with her husband, Joey, and their four children, and I'm thankful for them as well. [1:08:56] And with that, senators, I look forward to answering your questions. [1:09:04] Same mistake. [1:09:06] Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you. [1:09:11] Before I say anything else, I want to give thanks to God for his grace, for his providence, and for every blessing that has carried me to this chair today. [1:09:18] I stand here humbled. I want to thank President Trump for the trust he has placed in me, and for the honor of this nomination. [1:09:24] To be asked to serve our country in this way is the privilege of a lifetime, and it is one that I will never take for granted. [1:09:30] I want to thank my family, some of which are seated here behind me today. Nick, Christos, Stavs, Chrissy, Tasso, Dino, I love you. [1:09:37] If you will permit me, I would like to tell you about the people who made me. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is proudly looking down today. [1:09:44] On Sundays, the only day he did not work, we would drive to a Greek market for him to read a day-old newspaper from Greece, using his grade school education. [1:09:53] On those drives, he shared the following wisdom with me that he had learned from life. [1:09:57] Don't ever help people expecting anything in return. [1:10:00] He told me on one of those rides, do it because you want to, do it because it's right. [1:10:05] And my mother, mom, thank you. None of this is mine. All of it is yours. [1:10:10] My mother came to this country with no money, not a single dollar to her name. [1:10:14] She did not speak a word of English, but what she carried instead was faith, a pair of willing hands and an unshakable belief in a country she had never seen. [1:10:23] Together, she and my father did what generations of Americans had done before them. [1:10:27] They built something out of nothing. They worked when they were exhausted. They worked when it was hard. [1:10:32] They worked through every setback this world could put in front of them so that their two sons would never grow up knowing the word impossible. [1:10:40] They did not build the American dream for themselves. They built it for me and my brother. [1:10:44] They poured every sacrifice every late night at sewing machines with calluses hardening on their hands and every comfort they went without into an education they could only imagine and a future they never may see, they might not live to see. [1:11:00] I was the first person in my family to go to college. My parents could not have described to you what the inside of a high school or college classroom looked like. [1:11:07] But by God, they made certain their sons would sit in those rooms. And when I lost my father, God was not finished writing his story. [1:11:16] He has placed remarkable people in my life, some who became influential mentors. [1:11:20] They taught me to keep an open mind, to stay curious and be malleable in an ever-changing world. [1:11:27] And I thank God every day for bringing these people into my life. [1:11:30] They taught me a truth that I will bring to this work if I'm confirmed, that even one person who chooses to believe in you can change the entire trajectory of your life. [1:11:40] I have been the beneficiary of that grace. From my parents and from mentors who believed in me, who became family, now I feel called to pay it forward. [1:11:50] This is America. This is the country we are here to serve. I believe it with all my heart that America's best days are still ahead of us. [1:11:58] I believe it because I have lived it. I am the proof. I am the son of immigrants who arrived with empty pockets and full hearts. [1:12:04] And I now stand before the United States Senate, asked to serve the cause of justice only in America. [1:12:10] The Office of Justice programs exist to keep that promise alive for others, to stand beside the victims of crime, [1:12:16] to support the brave men and women of law enforcement who keep our streets safe, including my first cousin seated behind me today, [1:12:22] who has dedicated his entire life to protecting others and to bring safety, dignity and opportunity to the communities that need it most. [1:12:29] I do not come to this work from traditional government pathways. I come to it as somebody who has spent a career building these things, [1:12:36] building people, leading people and being accountable for results. I built businesses across state lines and in regulated industries. [1:12:44] I have met payroll in good times and lean. I've answered to boards. I've managed humans through hard decisions. [1:12:51] And I have learned that good intentions are not enough. What counts is execution, discipline and results that you can measure. [1:12:58] That is the experience I would bring to the Office of Justice Programs. At its heart, OJP is a steward of taxpayer dollars, [1:13:05] of data and research and of grants that reach victims, law enforcement communities far from Washington, D.C. [1:13:12] Stewardship, accountability and the discipline use of our resources to do the most good are precisely the demands of building and running [1:13:20] organizations in the private sector. If confirmed, I will bring that same operational rigor and the same instance [1:13:26] unmeasurable impact to that role so that the government's programs deliver not just funding, but real results for the people they are meant to serve. [1:13:33] I feel called to this work, called to make a real and lasting impact for our neighborhoods, for our families and for our country, [1:13:39] called to be for others what so many have been for me. If I am confirmed, I will bring to it everything the people who raised me gave me, [1:13:46] gave me a tireless work ethic, a grateful heart, and a deep and abiding love for this country, [1:13:52] a nation that welcomed a young woman with nothing and let her raise a son who could one day be here. [1:13:57] Mom, this is yours. Dad, this is for you. And to the friends and mentors who became family, [1:14:03] thank you for showing me the way. Thank you. I look forward to the committee's questions. [1:14:07] Thank you. And I'll start with my question. With you, you've had a successful business career, a successful law career, [1:14:19] and you're a professor at MIT. As impressive as all that is, some may not see how it translates into your nomination role. [1:14:34] So from your perspective, tell us why you're a good fit to lead the Office of Justice Programs. [1:14:44] Thank you, Chairman. I believe that my experience in the private sector is actually my strength. [1:14:50] I have been studying the Office of Justice Programs through publicly available information. [1:14:55] I've had the privilege of meeting with staff on both sides of the aisle and some members themselves [1:15:00] to discuss some of the various grant components and programs within the Office of Justice Programs. [1:15:06] I believe at last count I have been part of about 32 roll-ups and or acquisitions of title companies and or lawyers or law firms. [1:15:15] I have the private sector experience to build efficient systems so that we can administer taxpayer dollars as good stewards. [1:15:25] I have the experience in building from scratch. And I am a leader of culture. [1:15:31] I believe that the men and women of the Office of Justice Programs are passionate about the work that they do. [1:15:37] We are supporting our communities across the country, our men and women in blue in law enforcement. [1:15:42] We are supporting victims of crime. And I believe that under my leadership at the Office of Justice Programs, [1:15:50] I will do what I have done so many times in the private sector, which is empower people to become the best possible versions of themselves and do good work for our country. [1:15:59] Thank you, Judge Byrne. Six years you've presided over a thousand civil and criminal appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. [1:16:13] Describe your jurisprudence, but more importantly, tell us what you've learned as a state judge that you think will take you and serve you well on the federal bench. [1:16:26] Thank you, Chair. My my years of service on the Court of Appeals in Ohio have been a real blessing. [1:16:33] I've approached each case with the idea that every case deserves close attention, careful consideration of the facts and the law and the arguments presented by the parties. [1:16:45] I have always stated publicly and and have applied in my process of judging the principles of textualism and originalism. [1:16:54] What that boils down to is the idea that I believe that my role as a judge is very limited to say what the law already is and apply that law, not to create law or apply my personal policy preferences. [1:17:05] I look to the statutes and or the Constitution or whatever text is at issue in the case and and strive to apply the actual words based on the original meaning is understood by the public. [1:17:17] In doing so, I have very I've approached cases very carefully with the idea that we need to issue opinions that are well reasoned, well written, clear because we want to serve a couple of purposes. [1:17:31] One, to make sure that the attorneys who read our opinions, either now or in the future, understand our reasoning why we reach the result that we reached, [1:17:38] whether they agreed with it or not. In the course of being on the Court of Appeals, it's given me a broad exposure to many areas of the law, things that I didn't necessarily practice in but now have seen in many cases or maybe just in the court of appeals. [1:17:57] And it's that skill that I think I will bring to the court or I'm sorry to the district court of having this experience of repeatedly learning about new issues, new legal disputes, new areas of the law, and I will be doing that in any number of cases on the district court. [1:18:26] Thank you. [1:18:27] Thank you. This will be my last question to you, Mr. Lieberts. The Office of Justice Programs administers the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. This gives compensation to families of fallen law enforcement people. One of my complaints is that these families aren't receiving adequate and timely benefits. [1:18:53] So I hope you can take a good look at that program and maybe if you can today commit to fixing this program and ensuring that families of fallen law enforcement officers get the compensation that they deserve. [1:19:09] Chairman, I will say this as clearly as possible. PSOB program will be a top priority on day one if I am confirmed. [1:19:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a time of year on Capitol Hill when many college students intern in offices of senators and congressmen. I did many years ago and many others did as well. [1:19:34] What I've noticed is a change. More and more of them are coming to this experience carrying one of these with them. They spend their time looking at this instead of looking at this. And I wonder what in the world is going through their mind. [1:19:48] It's all about their phones and it's all about the messages that they're sending and receiving. They're missing a life experience. [1:19:54] Mr. LaGreese, you attempted to delete thousands of posts from your ex account. You hit the delete button, but it didn't work. It turns out they were saved in an archive. [1:20:07] I can't imagine how you can defend some of the things that you've been posting for years. Some of the things that you've written. [1:20:16] You tweeted, suck it up, bro, in response to a post discussing Senator Kaine's objections to the pardoning of January 6 rioters. [1:20:29] You referred to Governor Walz of Minnesota as a tampon Tim. That was your words. [1:20:35] You referred to Congresswoman Eliane Omar as not an American. [1:20:41] You said in response to a tweet asking, is everyone in the Biden administration retarded? [1:20:48] LaGreese responded, every single last one of them. [1:20:51] You called Senator Collins a fraud. You attacked Senator Murkowski. [1:20:57] And then there's this awful tweet that you put in the record, a matter of public record now, in light of what you're seeking here. [1:21:06] LaGreese referred in 2024, LaGreese referred to police officers as dumb as dirt, close quote, when writing. [1:21:16] Quote, breach of peace, typical cop, dumb as dirt. [1:21:21] And now you're seeking a position to work with police departments all over the United States and to give to these officers who risk their lives for you and me. [1:21:31] Officers which you've referred to as dumb as dirt. You're going to be allocating federal funds. How could you do that? [1:21:39] So first of all, chairman, excuse me, ranking member, I routinely every 90 days purge tweets for cybersecurity exposure. [1:21:51] I can see why. [1:21:52] Well, I am not familiar with some of the context or retweets that you might be referencing, but I'd be happy to take a look at them. [1:22:00] That's it. Well, I at least address the dumb as dirt comment. Say something about it. [1:22:09] I hope that you say you made a mistake. You shouldn't have said something like that about law enforcement officers. [1:22:14] You want to work with police departments across the United States. [1:22:17] And this is a matter of record that you think they're dumb as dirt. Clear the record now. Apologize to them. Say something. [1:22:24] As it relates to that tweet, which I don't have specific reference as if whether it was retreated, retweeted. Excuse me. [1:22:33] I would like to go on the record other than my brother. Most of my family serves in law enforcement. [1:22:38] I don't do not believe that law enforcement is dumb as dirt. [1:22:41] I believe that I would like to take a look at the entire post in its context and what it was referencing. [1:22:46] You better set some time aside because there are so many posts, hundreds of posts. [1:22:50] I can't understand how you can do a real job and continue to post every day this continuing dialogue that you have over the years. [1:22:58] It just seems to me inconsistent with serving the public. Do you spend a lot of time on your phone every day? [1:23:05] Do I spend time on my phone? It's where I work off of. [1:23:11] Well, that's pretty clear. You displaying the Ten Commandments in public school, you said is dumb. [1:23:18] And then you said in 2024, any Jew who votes for Biden needs to have their head examined. [1:23:24] Do you remember doing that? I don't know. Well, I'll tell you, there's a lot of it. [1:23:31] I can't put it all on the record, unfortunately, but it makes a point. [1:23:35] I don't understand why you were chosen for this position. [1:23:37] You're obviously loyal to the president to some extent. [1:23:40] But in terms of dealing with police departments based on this, giving away millions of dollars to law enforcement, [1:23:47] it just seems inconsistent to me. Mr. President and Mr. Chairman, I yield. [1:23:52] I'm for a senator to enter into the record a letter of support for Mr. Ligeris' nomination. [1:24:02] It's from the National Narcotic Officers Association Coalition. [1:24:07] The group praised Mr. Ligeris' commitment to Edmund Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program. [1:24:18] And the letter stated, quote, we believe that the candidate will bring a thoughtful stakeholder focus approach to the position [1:24:28] and help ensure OJP continues to effectively support the agencies working on the front lines of public safety. [1:24:37] End of quote. Without objection. Entered Senator Kennedy. [1:24:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, gentlemen. Judge Byrne. [1:24:47] You were here when Senator Lee talked about the non-delegation doctrine. [1:24:54] I was. Yeah, I got a little confused. [1:24:57] What is the non-delegation doctrine? [1:25:01] The non-delegation doctrine refers to the idea that Congress may not give or delegate its lawmaking authority. [1:25:10] Excuse me, ma'am. I'm sorry. [1:25:15] It's okay. [1:25:16] It's okay. [1:25:17] The idea that Congress may not give or delegate its lawmaking authority to a regulatory body. [1:25:22] That the legislative power. [1:25:24] Can't give it to anybody, can't it? [1:25:25] True, anyone. [1:25:27] Can't give it to another branch of government, right? [1:25:29] Correct. [1:25:30] Okay. [1:25:31] And what does that have to do with the major questions, Doctor? [1:25:40] I mean, Senator Lee certainly explored some overlap between the two. [1:25:46] I had not actually considered personally the overlap between the two, but I think I can see some relationship. [1:25:53] The major questions doctrine is a little bit different. [1:25:56] It is a approach the Supreme Court and some other courts have applied in analyzing statutes in essentially reaching the conclusion that Congress would not give broad rulemaking authority to an agency just based on a few words or a short ambiguous phrase. [1:26:21] The idea is that if Congress is granting agency rulemaking authority, it would be clear in doing so. [1:26:28] And to the extent that a statute isn't clear in that respect, the courts can sometimes potentially find that the major questions doctrine was violated. [1:26:38] So it's sort of the major questions doctrine is kind of a subset of the non-delegation doctrine. [1:26:44] Would that be fair? [1:26:45] I think, yes, that would. [1:26:46] Yes, that would. [1:26:47] And basically the major questions doctrine just says, look, Congress can can give a regulatory agency, the executive branch, power over a major question of social significance. [1:27:02] But if Congress is going to do it, they've got to be clear. [1:27:05] They've got to say it big as Dallas. [1:27:07] They can't just imply, right? [1:27:09] That's correct, Senator. [1:27:10] Okay. [1:27:12] All right. [1:27:13] We'll clear that up. [1:27:14] Tell me what a suspect classification is and how you get to be one. [1:27:17] Suppose I want to be a suspect classification. [1:27:20] What do I have to do? [1:27:22] Well, suspect classification wouldn't necessarily refer to a person, but rather to the idea that in different contexts, it would be inappropriate to to treat people differently based on suspects. [1:27:39] But to get to be a suspect classification or part of one, I agree with you, it's not just a person. [1:27:49] What requirements do you have to meet? [1:27:54] Senator, I'm not sure exactly what requirements you're referring to, but there would be different examples such as treating someone different based on race or sex. [1:28:02] I know race and lineage, ethnic origin. [1:28:06] But I mean, did the Supreme Court just pick those out of the air? [1:28:10] Well, certainly there are statutes that protect those. [1:28:15] No, they didn't do it on a statute. [1:28:17] Well, the Constitution prohibits the government from treating people differently based on. [1:28:24] Yeah, but the Constitution doesn't say these are the people. [1:28:27] The Constitution doesn't find suspect classification. [1:28:32] Supreme Court did that, right? [1:28:34] I think that's correct. [1:28:35] OK. [1:28:36] And if I'm for the court arguing that a particular group is a suspect classification, what are the definitions? [1:28:49] What are the characteristics I'm going to use to define? [1:28:55] One is a history of discrimination, right? [1:28:57] Yes. [1:28:58] History of discrimination. [1:29:00] I think immutable characteristics. [1:29:02] Mutable characteristic. [1:29:03] Bingo. [1:29:04] That's right. [1:29:05] Right. [1:29:06] An absence of political power. [1:29:12] Right. [1:29:13] I believe the court has discussed that. [1:29:15] Yes. [1:29:16] Yeah. [1:29:17] And that immutable and immutable characteristic, which doesn't affect my ability, [1:29:23] or the suspect classification's ability to contribute to society, right? [1:29:30] That's correct. [1:29:33] Right. [1:29:34] And what are the suspect classifications? [1:29:36] What are they? [1:29:37] Yeah. [1:29:38] Senator, I'm not sure if I could provide a list. [1:29:41] There are only two. [1:29:45] Race. [1:29:46] Race and sex. [1:29:47] Ethnic coercion. [1:29:48] OK. [1:29:49] How come sex isn't a fully suspect classification? [1:29:54] I mean, you've got women have a history of discrimination. [1:29:57] It's an immutable characteristic unless you go get a sex change operation. [1:30:03] Traditionally, they've been politically disadvantaged. [1:30:06] And being a woman has nothing to do with your merit or your ability to contribute to society. [1:30:14] So how come gender isn't a suspect classification? [1:30:17] Senator, I'm sorry, but I don't remember the specific case if there was one when the court would discuss that issue. [1:30:22] Do you think they ought to be? [1:30:24] Certainly. [1:30:26] Is that a gavel out here? [1:30:27] Is that like a slight tapping out here? [1:30:30] Go ahead. [1:30:32] Can you finish answering? [1:30:33] Give an answer and then we want to quickly go to Blumenthal. [1:30:37] Thank you, Chair. [1:30:38] Certainly women should be protected from discrimination. [1:30:41] It's important to have laws of that nature as to whether they should be deemed to be a suspect classification in the specific context you're talking about. [1:30:51] If that has not already been decided by the court, it would be inappropriate for me to give, I guess, an advisory opinion on that issue. [1:30:57] Okay. [1:30:58] But women certainly should not be subject to discrimination or different treatment by the government. [1:31:02] Okay. [1:31:03] I'm sorry, Mr. McGregor. [1:31:04] I'm not ignoring you. [1:31:05] I just ran out of time. [1:31:07] Senator Boomer. [1:31:09] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:11] Welcome, Judge Byrne and your family. [1:31:16] You currently serve on the state court, correct? [1:31:20] That is correct. [1:31:22] The Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals. [1:31:24] It's an elected position. [1:31:25] That's correct. [1:31:26] You ran as a Republican? [1:31:27] I did. [1:31:29] Paul, in January of 2020, a judicial candidate survey on the Cincinnati Right to Life organization, which stated to you, quote, [1:31:45] the judiciary does not possess the authority to expand the definition of marriage to include anything but one man and one woman, end quote. [1:31:57] You said, quote, I agree. [1:31:59] Senator, I did fill out that survey and provide that answer. [1:32:03] So you don't believe that there is a right to same-sex marriage under the Constitution? [1:32:09] Senator, under the Obergefell decision, there is, and that is a finding. [1:32:15] Well, this survey came five years after Obergefell. [1:32:20] Do you think Obergefell was correctly decided? [1:32:22] Senator, as a judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether a Supreme Court decision was correctly decided or not. [1:32:29] Well, you did as a nominee for the state court. [1:32:33] You said you disagreed that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. [1:32:38] I don't understand why you can't respond to the question now, whether Obergefell was correctly decided. [1:32:43] It's well-established as law in the United States of America. [1:32:47] Let me ask you another question. [1:32:49] Who won the 2020 election? [1:32:51] 2020, Joseph Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of Congress. [1:32:58] He was declared the winner? [1:33:00] Yes. [1:33:02] The people of America declared him the winner, correct? [1:33:09] There was an election, and it proceeded through the normal procedures outlined in the Constitution, including state votes. [1:33:16] And he won the popular vote, correct? [1:33:18] As a judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate to comment on a disputed political and legal issue. [1:33:24] I'm asking you, as a matter of fact, everybody in America knows the answer to this question. [1:33:29] Why are you refusing to give it before this panel under oath? [1:33:35] He won the popular vote in the 2020 election, correct? [1:33:41] Senator, this is a disputed political matter, and there is ongoing litigation. [1:33:47] And as a judicial nominee, I'm not permitted. [1:33:49] Who won the electoral college in the 2020 election? [1:33:54] A joint session of Congress determined that Joseph Biden won the electoral college in 2020. [1:33:59] Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? [1:34:01] A joint session of Congress determined that President Trump did not win the electoral college. [1:34:08] Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th? [1:34:11] Senator, there was violence and vandalism on that day, including with regard to law enforcement officers. [1:34:19] I think all of that was inappropriate and wrong. [1:34:23] And illegal? [1:34:24] Certainly, there were court findings of illegality. [1:34:26] There were convictions. [1:34:27] That's correct. [1:34:29] And people were convicted of attacking the Capitol, correct? [1:34:32] I don't know if any court used the phrase, attacking the Capitol. [1:34:35] I think the Supreme Court... [1:34:36] Well, wouldn't you use it to describe what happened on that day? [1:34:40] Everybody in America has seen the videos. [1:34:43] Everybody in America knows that Capitol Police were injured. [1:34:48] Some died. [1:34:49] Wasn't it an attack on the Capitol? [1:34:54] Senator, it was an attack on a number of individuals, [1:34:59] and that was wrong and inappropriate. [1:35:02] Why are you unwilling to say honestly and candidly to this committee that the Capitol was attacked? [1:35:14] Well, Senator, as a judicial nominee, I'm here to talk about questions of law, not fact. [1:35:19] I know the United States Supreme Court has said the Capitol... [1:35:22] No, you're here to talk about what we ask you to talk about, and questions of fact are absolutely to the point when we are asking whether you are willing to state facts honestly and candidly because it goes to your integrity and independence. [1:35:41] If you're going to be a lapdog to Donald Trump, which is exactly what you're indicating here by failing to answer these questions, we can't approve you as a judge. [1:35:54] That's one of our most solemn responsibilities to make sure that our federal judiciary is independent above politics and independent of Donald Trump and his fixation on the 2020 election denying that Joe Biden won it. [1:36:18] Joe Biden won the 2020 election, correct, Judge Byrne? [1:36:23] Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of Congress. [1:36:27] Well, I think your answers speak for themselves. [1:36:31] And unfortunately, you have once again adopted the canned scripted answers you've been instructed to give because you lack that essential backbone that is necessary to be a federal judge. [1:36:48] Thank you. [1:36:49] Senator Tillis. [1:36:50] Senator Tillis. [1:36:51] Good morning, gentlemen. [1:36:52] Congratulations on your nomination. [1:36:54] I've heard it pronounced differently watching on TV. [1:36:57] Is it Ligris or Ligris? [1:37:00] Ligris. [1:37:01] Senator Tillis. [1:37:02] I got a quick question. [1:37:04] You probably know my position on January 6th, so it probably wouldn't be a surprise to you. [1:37:09] The first thing I come to is in Ed Martin's post, which was disqualifying for me and the reason he didn't get out of this committee, read, [1:37:17] they killed Charlie, they shot President Trump, they put hundreds into DC Gulag by lying. [1:37:23] Now that would be the people that were subsequently pardoned. [1:37:28] It's not a battle of ideas. [1:37:30] They want us dead. [1:37:31] Know the fight we are in. [1:37:33] And you comment that they shot our president once, tried a couple more times to sick people. [1:37:38] I don't have a problem on the face with your response, but tell me what you think about Ed Martin's assertion there. [1:37:43] Tell me what you think about the people on January the 6th that injured police officers. [1:37:48] Tell me what you think about that day. [1:37:50] I think it was a dark day in the history of this country. [1:37:54] I condemn all violence, political violence, violence against police officers. [1:37:58] I know, Senator, you may not have been here for my opening, but my cousins are in law enforcement. [1:38:03] Me and my brother are the only ones actually in the greater Boston area that grew up in college. [1:38:07] And I condemn all violence against personal property as well. [1:38:12] The other question that I had for you, and I think some other colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have touched on these or will, [1:38:21] but what's with the precipitous deletion of thousands of posts on your social media account? [1:38:28] Was that just general housekeeping or were there things that you'd preferred you'd wish you hadn't said? [1:38:32] I use the software that I've developed that wipes every 90 days from a cyber perspective. [1:38:38] We have had countless attempts for wire fraud. [1:38:41] People find out where I travel if I speak at a conference or if I'm speaking at land title conferences or on cybersecurity issues. [1:38:47] And bad actors like to look at patterns. [1:38:50] So for several years I have had a pattern of deleting systemically every 90 days. [1:38:56] So if we look back, we're going to see events that are 90 days apart. [1:39:00] I'm a systems guy. I've got no problem with it. I do the same thing. [1:39:04] Most people don't. In fact, many people do it just before they're about to come to a hearing [1:39:08] because they're afraid they're going to get their asses handed to them. [1:39:10] So I've got no problem if that's just the best practice. [1:39:13] And we'll just go back and confirm that for the record. [1:39:16] So I'll take that at face value. [1:39:20] That's all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:39:23] Senator Welch. [1:39:27] Thank you. And I want to thank my colleague, Senator Hirono, for letting me jump the line here. [1:39:34] Mr. Ligris, congratulations on your nomination. [1:39:38] You have a very important position to which you've been nominated. [1:39:44] And I want to talk about that because it really makes a difference for a lot of the efforts of Vermonters. [1:39:49] The President's budget for fiscal year 27 is proposing a reorganization for grant-making entities within the DOJ. [1:39:58] And what I understand is there's been a budget cut from $1.3 billion to $1.3 billion. [1:40:06] 30% below FY26. [1:40:09] And the OJP funding would decrease by 22% in fiscal year 26. [1:40:15] So big cut. [1:40:18] 14 staff positions in Vermont could be cut from the OVW. [1:40:24] And three programs are being combined together. [1:40:27] The COPS program, which is really helpful, really, really helpful to our police. [1:40:32] The Office of Justice programs. [1:40:35] And the Office on Violence Against Women. [1:40:37] And I know how much you care about all those programs. [1:40:41] So I'm not debating with you about that. [1:40:43] But they have made such a difference in the violence against women programs in Vermont. [1:40:51] They coordinate among themselves and make a big impact. [1:40:54] So would you be leading this combined entity if confirmed? [1:41:01] Thank you, Senator. [1:41:03] If I can quickly start by my gratitude to your staff for spending so much time with me and the hospitality they exhibited. [1:41:09] I've been, as you know, I'm not in the department. [1:41:12] I've never worked at the Justice Department. [1:41:15] Nor have I had any conversations as it relates to the consolidation that has been discussed and proposed other than what I've seen publicly. [1:41:22] Let me make my point. [1:41:23] I appreciate it. [1:41:24] And I believe you share the concern to make these programs strong, not weak. [1:41:29] So I'm not arguing with you about that. [1:41:31] But one of the unique things we do in Vermont, these programs spread around a rural state. [1:41:37] These programs coordinate. [1:41:39] There's incredible cooperation. [1:41:41] And that cooperation they have results in women being served who are incredibly vulnerable and at a very, very difficult moment in their lives. [1:41:51] So my question, and maybe you can't answer it, but I'd like your commitment on this to the extent you can give it. [1:41:58] But we want to continue that coordination. [1:42:00] You know, it's really worked well. [1:42:02] It's a well-oiled machine. [1:42:04] It's women who run these programs working together for the benefit of all women. [1:42:10] So would you just do your best to allow us to keep doing what works, keep doing it? [1:42:17] Senator, yes. [1:42:20] You have my commitment that I will continue to work with you and your staff as I committed to them when we met in your office. [1:42:27] I am a firm believer that crime doesn't stop on state lines. [1:42:33] And I recognize the importance, especially in rural areas. [1:42:36] And there's been a lot of talk over the years about the southern border, but Vermont impacts the northern border. [1:42:41] And you have federal agents that are supporting your federal border and illicit drugs and synthetic drugs are coming through legal ports of entry. [1:42:49] You have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will work with you and your team to ensure that Vermont is given the appropriate attention. [1:42:58] No, I think you will. [1:42:59] I do want to focus on this domestic violence program in Vermont, because we've made progress. [1:43:05] And it's all been grassroots women coming together and doing the incredibly hard work of answering the thousands of phone calls that come in, [1:43:12] being able to have a capacity literally at a moment's notice in the middle of the night to provide shelter for a woman who's being abused by a partner. [1:43:21] So we've got funding cuts that I think are going to adversely affect them. [1:43:26] It's going to be $12 million less for sexual assault nurse examinations, $3 million less in financial assistance to victims of domestic violence, [1:43:35] and $15 million less for legal help for victims. [1:43:39] You are not the one who makes these cuts, but will you do your level best to make certain that we're not really compromising service with any kind of reorganization plan? [1:43:52] Yes, Senator. You have my commitment that I will use my private sector experience to make sure that irrespective of what is ultimately appropriated, [1:43:59] that programs will be prioritized and the funds will reach the communities to support those in need, both our men and women in law enforcement. [1:44:08] victims of crime and victims of domestic violence and abuse. [1:44:13] And I don't know what role you will have in this question of merging the Office of Violence Against Women with the OJP. [1:44:23] Do you have a position on that? [1:44:25] I don't at this time, Senator, but I will work with the Justice Department if confirmed. [1:44:30] Well, I just want to advocate against that. [1:44:33] I think it will really compromise the delivery of service in our state of Vermont. [1:44:39] Thank you. [1:44:40] I appreciate you. Thank you. [1:44:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:44:42] Thank you, Senator Arano. [1:44:43] Senator Arano. [1:44:46] Senator Arano. [1:44:47] Senator Arano. [1:44:49] You're next. [1:44:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:44:53] I'll ask the following two initial questions of all nominees before any of the committees on which I sit to refer to Fitness to Serve. [1:45:01] So I'll ask the following two initial questions. [1:45:04] And we'll start with responses from Mr. Byrne, Judge Byrne, and then Mr. Legrees. [1:45:11] Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault over sexual nature? [1:45:23] No, Senator. [1:45:24] No, Senator. [1:45:26] Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? [1:45:32] No, Senator. [1:45:33] No, Senator. [1:45:35] This is a question for Judge Byrne. [1:45:39] Judge Byrne, do you recall filling out an Ohio Right to Life PAC 2020 Judicial Candidate Opinion Survey submitted January 20th, 2026? [1:45:50] And I have a copy of that questionnaire. [1:45:55] Do you remember filling out this questionnaire? [1:45:57] I do. [1:45:58] Okay. [1:45:59] So in that survey following a statement about rape or incest exceptions to abortion, you checked the box indicating that you believe abortion is not acceptable, [1:46:11] in any situation, other than to preserve the life of the mother. [1:46:16] And you checked that box. [1:46:17] But in addition, you commented, I strongly agree. [1:46:23] However, I believe that life of the mother should be strictly defined so as to avoid creating loopholes. [1:46:34] I take it that this is not a question. [1:46:37] The loophole that you referred to is that there might be a doctor who might perform an abortion before the life of the mother is at risk. [1:46:47] And that is the only loophole I can think of. [1:46:49] So that's just amazing to me that that that is the kind of standard you would apply. [1:47:00] And I assume that as a judge, you may be confronted with a case where the issue is whether the life of the mother was at risk. [1:47:11] And I believe that you would apply your strict definition as to what constitutes a risk to the life of the mother. [1:47:19] And I just want to mention to you, I know to you and others, that this is a real-world consequence of what could happen with this kind of application of a determination of when a mother's life is in danger. [1:47:33] For one thing, you would have doctors afraid to perform possibly life-saving care unless maybe there's a lawyer standing there saying, [1:47:44] yeah, that we think that, you know, you would sustain that the life of the mother was actually at risk. [1:47:52] So that's what's going to happen. [1:47:53] And yesterday, the real-life consequences, I heard from a woman from Texas. [1:47:57] She was pregnant and she was so afraid to go to a doctor or to go to a provider to ask what they can do for her because this was a pregnancy that was endangering her. [1:48:08] But she was very afraid to bring it up because Texas law being what it is. [1:48:13] And so basically this kind of standard that I have to conclude you would apply as a judge would truly endanger the life of the mother [1:48:22] because she would have to be practically at this door before you would deem that her life was in danger necessitating medical care. [1:48:32] Another question for you. [1:48:39] In 2022, you served as a visiting justice in an Ohio Supreme Court case concerning Ohio's Heartbeat Act. [1:48:47] You previously helped organize testimony in support of that same legislation. [1:48:52] And yet when you were sitting as a visiting judge on a case that involved that legislation, [1:48:58] your impartiality would be, I think, legitimately reasonably questioned. [1:49:04] Why didn't you not recuse yourself from this case? [1:49:07] Senator, with regard to the Heartbeat case, I did consider whether to recuse myself as I do in any case that comes before my court [1:49:17] or in that case the Ohio Supreme Court, and I concluded that there was no basis for recusal. [1:49:24] With regard to the reference to arranging for testimony that you mentioned, [1:49:29] that was something that I stated in response to another maybe the same judicial questionnaire as the one that you just provided. [1:49:35] So you didn't think that you had a conflict there or at least the appearance of one? [1:49:39] I did not because what happened in that circumstance. [1:49:41] Thank you. Well, I obviously disagree. [1:49:43] You know, you tweeted, you've put out a lot of tweets and you erased a lot of them, [1:49:53] but you tweeted in response to Senator King's objections to the pardoning of the January 6th rioters [1:49:58] that Senator King should, and I'll quote you, your tweet, suck it up, bro. [1:50:02] Do you remember that tweet? [1:50:06] Senator, I don't believe I ever tweeted that. [1:50:08] Pardon me? [1:50:09] I don't believe I ever tweeted that. [1:50:10] Yeah. [1:50:11] Well, you did. [1:50:12] So I wonder if that tweet actually exemplifies your opinion about the January 6th rioters [1:50:19] and that, you know, we should just suck it up if we don't like the fact that they were pardoned. [1:50:24] Senator- [1:50:25] Is that a position? [1:50:26] Is that your position? [1:50:27] I do not believe I ever tweeted anything of that nature regarding the January 6th rioters, [1:50:31] or as you put it, or pardons. [1:50:33] Senator, your time is up. [1:50:37] Maybe- [1:50:38] Okay. [1:50:39] My time is up. [1:50:40] I'm sorry. [1:50:41] I do have more questions for the record. [1:50:45] Thank you. [1:50:46] Before Senator Whitehouse, you got cut off answering anything. [1:50:51] Do you want to respond now? [1:50:53] Yes, Senator. [1:50:55] With regard to the heartbeat recusal question, the statement to me arranging for testimony was not something I was actively involved in. [1:51:05] I believe someone asked me about how to testify, and I told them how they could do so. [1:51:09] I did not think that that was a reason that would merit my recusal in the case. [1:51:13] And as to the statement about exceptions for the life of the mother, that was a statement I made regarding my personal views, [1:51:22] including my personal views as a Catholic. [1:51:24] It is not my view as a judge. [1:51:27] My role as a judge is to apply the law irrespective of my views. [1:51:31] In each and every case that comes before me, I strive to set my views aside, and I would do so in any case that involved abortion should it come before me. [1:51:39] Senator Whitehouse. [1:51:40] Excuse me. [1:51:41] Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify that this last question regarding the tweet was to be for Mr. Legrees, not for Mr. Burns. [1:51:52] But in that clarification, thank you. [1:51:55] Senator Whitehouse. [1:51:57] Thank you, Chairman. [1:51:58] Mr. Legrees, were you prepared for this hearing? [1:52:03] I did prepare for this hearing, Senator. [1:52:07] You were prepared by the Department of Justice? [1:52:10] I did independent research online as it relates to the Office of Justice Programs and the various grant programs. [1:52:16] Before this hearing, were you prepped by the Department of Justice? [1:52:19] And then after that, I did meet with the Department of Justice and conducted moot questions. [1:52:24] During the course of that, did they warn you about, for instance, Senator Kennedy's history with respect to the tweet history of nominees? [1:52:39] Did that come up? [1:52:40] No. [1:52:42] Did not come up? [1:52:43] No. Senator Kennedy's question? I'm sorry. [1:52:46] Did they warn you that Senator Kennedy had a history of asking about nominees' tweets? [1:52:55] No. [1:52:56] They didn't. [1:52:57] Were they aware of these tweets that have been discussed here in the hearing today? [1:53:04] I don't know. They did not bring it up. [1:53:13] So you have tweets that call Donald Trump and Kamala Harris two clowns. [1:53:25] You have tweets that call Senator Murkowski almost as dumb as Kamala. [1:53:34] You have tweets that call Senator Collins a fraud. [1:53:39] You have tweets that call Senator Padilla, who sits on this committee, a thug. [1:53:46] And you undertook no preparation to face questions about that as you come before the Senate Judiciary Committee? [1:54:05] No, Senator. [1:54:07] You didn't tell the Department of Justice about those tweets? [1:54:10] Senator, I tweet and respond to tweets or repost tweets regularly and frequently. [1:54:16] But you know the stuff is going to be looked at. It gets looked at all the time in hearings. [1:54:21] Our expert is Senator Kennedy, but other senators ask questions about people's tweets as well. [1:54:29] You're telling me here that you never disclosed to the Department of Justice these tweets about senators who would have to vote on your nomination, [1:54:37] and you're telling me that DOJ, as far as you know, didn't even know about them? [1:54:42] I'm telling you that the DOJ never raised these with me? [1:54:46] And you never disclosed them to the DOJ? [1:54:49] No. [1:54:51] Well, let's start with Senators Padilla and Schiff. [1:54:57] Do you know what state they represent? [1:55:00] California. [1:55:01] Yeah. [1:55:03] And California will very likely be submitting applications for various grant programs to the Office of Justice Programs. [1:55:17] Correct? [1:55:19] I would expect. [1:55:21] Yeah. [1:55:22] And having called Senator Padilla a thug at least five times and Senator Schiff a fraud, what reasonably could they expect about you giving California programs a fair hearing if you're put in charge of OJP? [1:55:46] Every state and every jurisdiction would expect that they would go through the process of applying for grants with the Office of Justice Programs. [1:55:55] And those grant applications would be administered and reviewed through the process of the department. [1:56:03] Yeah, that's what they would expect. [1:56:05] And then there would be a guy at the head of the program who thinks that the Senators involved are a thug and a fraud. [1:56:14] How do you convince us that you're not going to let that personal bias against these two individuals affect your judgment about California programs? [1:56:22] Particularly programs that, you know, we often write in letters saying, you know, we work with this program. [1:56:29] We think they do a good job. [1:56:30] Please give it every due consideration consistent with your responsibilities. [1:56:34] That's a pretty standard thing. [1:56:36] How do you respond to a letter from somebody you've called a thug or somebody you've called a fraud when they support a program that you're asked to decide on? [1:56:45] Because I believe that the Office of Justice Programs has a mission to support the entire country, every state and every city and protect our communities irrespective of the elected leadership that exists there today or tomorrow. [1:56:57] So just trust me, I guess, is what you're saying. [1:56:59] Well, trust the fact that I have been in the private sector and I'm a practicing I was a practicing lawyer for a long time. [1:57:05] And I will administer these funds as a good steward for the taxpayers of this country and ensure that they reach the ultimate recipients and the beneficiaries, [1:57:15] which are our communities, our law enforcement, victims of crime, our juvenile system. [1:57:21] So why should Judge Boesberg, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, be impeached? [1:57:27] I don't have an opinion on Judge Boesberg. [1:57:30] You had one when you twice said that he should be impeached on tweets. [1:57:35] So, Senator, I suspect that you're quoting retweets or comments to other tweets. [1:57:40] It would be nice to have. [1:57:41] No, they're your tweets. [1:57:42] You're the one who's responsible for them. [1:57:44] You're responsible for knowing what you said. [1:57:47] Don't put it on us to have to explain to you your own tweets. [1:57:52] This is your mess, not ours. [1:57:55] You're the one who tweeted impeach him. [1:57:58] If you can't explain that, that's on you. [1:58:01] But my general question is, why should Judge Boesberg be impeached? [1:58:07] Whether you tweeted it or retweeted it, you obviously thought he should be impeached. [1:58:12] Why? [1:58:13] It would be helpful for me to see the context of the tweet. [1:58:15] You're the one who's supposed to be ready for these hearings. [1:58:18] Thank you. [1:58:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:58:21] Thank you to all the nominees for your testimony today. [1:58:25] Written questions for the record may be submitted until July 1 at 5 p.m. [1:58:31] The hearing is adjourned.