'Fraud Upon Court' All Hell Break Loose As Dems Go After DOJ's Power Abuse, Epstein Coverup

[0:00] does not possess the authority to expand the definition of marriage to include anything but [0:05] one man and one woman end quote you said quote i agree uh senator i did fill out that survey and [0:15] provide that answer so you don't believe that there is a right to same-sex marriage under the [0:22] constitution uh senator i under the obergefell decision uh there is and that is a well this [0:29] survey came five years after obergefell do you think obergefell was correctly decided [0:36] senator as a judicial nominee it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether [0:40] a supreme court decision was correctly decided or not well you did as a nominee for the state court [0:46] you said you disagreed that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage i don't understand why [0:52] you can't respond to the question now whether obergefell was correctly decided it's well [0:58] established as law in the united states of america let me ask you another question uh who won the [1:04] 2020 election uh 2020 uh joseph biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session [1:12] of congress he was declared the winner yes the people of america declared him the winner correct [1:22] um there was an election and it proceeded through the normal uh procedures outlined in the constitution [1:29] including and he won the popular vote correct um as a judicial nominee it would be inappropriate [1:36] to come in on a disputed political and i'm asking you as a matter of fact everybody in america knows [1:41] the answer to this question why are you refusing to give it before this panel under oath he won the [1:49] popular vote in the 2020 election correct uh senator as this is a disputed political uh matter and um [1:59] there is ongoing litigation and as a judicial nominee i'm not who won the who won the electoral [2:05] college in the 2020 election uh a joint session of congress determined that uh joseph biden won the [2:11] electoral college did donald trump lose the 2020 election uh a joint session of congress determined [2:17] that president trump did not win the electoral college was the capital attacked on january 6th uh [2:25] senator there was um violence and vandalism on that day including with regard to uh law enforcement [2:32] officers i think all of that was inappropriate and wrong and illegal certainly there were court [2:39] findings of there were convictions that's correct and people were convicted of attacking the capitol [2:45] correct uh i don't know if any court used the phrase attacking the capitol i think the supreme [2:50] court wouldn't you use it to describe what happened on that day everybody in america has seen the [2:56] videos everybody in america knows that capitol police were injured some died wasn't it an attack on the [3:06] capitol senator um it was an attack on a number of individuals and that was wrong and inappropriate [3:15] why are you unwilling to say honestly and candidly to this committee that the capitol was attacked well [3:29] senator as a judicial nominee i'm here to talk about questions of law not fact i know the united [3:34] states supreme court no you're here to talk about what we ask you to talk about and questions of fact [3:41] are absolutely to the point when we are asking whether you are willing to state facts honestly and [3:51] candidly because it goes to your integrity and independence if you're going to be a lap dog to [3:58] donald trump which is exactly what you're indicating here by failing to answer these questions [4:05] we can't approve you as a judge that's one of our most solemn responsibilities to make sure [4:12] that our federal judiciary is independent above politics and in independent of donald trump and his [4:24] fixation on the 2020 election denying that joe biden won it joe biden won the 2020 election correct [4:36] judge bern uh joe biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of congress [4:42] well i think your answers speak for themselves and unfortunately you have once again adopted the can [4:49] scripted answers you've been instructed to give because you lack that essential backbone [4:59] that is necessary to be a federal judge thank you senator tillis uh good morning uh my colleague senator [5:05] hirano uh for letting me jump the line here uh mr lagrees uh congratulations on your nomination [5:13] uh you have a very important uh position to which you've been nominated uh and i want to talk about [5:20] that because it really makes a difference uh for a lot of the efforts of vermonters uh in the president's [5:25] budget uh for fiscal year 27 is proposing a reorganization uh for grant making entities within the doj [5:33] and what i understand is there's been a budget cut from 1.3 billion uh to 1.3 billion that's 30 percent [5:42] below fy 26 and the oj p funding would decrease by 22 percent in fiscal year 26. [5:52] so big cut 14 uh staff positions in vermont could or could be cut from the ovw and three programs are [6:01] being combined together the cops program which is really helpful really really helpful to our police [6:07] uh the office of justice uh programs in the office on violence against women and i know how much you [6:14] care about all those programs so i'm not debating with you about that but they have made such a difference [6:20] in the uh the the the uh uh the the violence against women programs in vermont they coordinate among [6:27] themselves and make a big impact so uh would you be leading this combined entity if confirmed thank [6:38] you senator if i can quickly start by my gratitude to your staff for spending so much time with me and [6:43] the hospitality they exhibited um i've been as you know i'm not in the department i've never worked at [6:48] the justice department um nor have i had any conversations as it relates to the consolidate [6:53] consolidation that has been discussed and proposed other than what i've seen publicly let me let me make [6:58] my point i appreciate it and i i i believe you share the concern to make these programs strong not weak so [7:05] i'm not arguing with you about that but one of the unique things we do in vermont these programs spread [7:10] around a rural straight uh state these programs coordinate there's incredible cooperation and that [7:16] cooperation they have results and women being served who are incredibly vulnerable and at a very very [7:24] difficult moment in their lives so my question and maybe you can't answer it but i'd like your uh [7:30] commitment on this to the extent you can't give it we want to continue that coordination you know it's [7:36] really worked well it's a well-oiled machine it's uh women who run these programs working together [7:43] for the benefit of all women uh so would you just do your best to allow us to keep doing what works uh [7:51] uh keep doing it senator yes uh you have my commitment that i will continue to work um with [7:59] you and your staff as i committed to them when we met in your office um i i'm a firm believer that [8:05] crime doesn't stop on state lines and i recognize the importance especially in rural areas and in [8:11] there's been a lot of talk over the years about the southern border but vermont impacts the northern [8:15] border and you have federal agents that are supporting your federal border and illicit drugs and [8:21] synthetic drugs are coming through legal ports of entry you have my commitment that uh if confirmed [8:27] i will work with you and your your team to ensure that vermont um vermont is given the appropriate [8:32] attention no i i think you will i just i do want to focus on this domestic violence uh program in vermont [8:39] because we've made progress and it's all been grassroots women coming together and doing the incredibly [8:44] hard work of answering the thousands of phone calls that come in being able to have a capacity [8:49] literally uh at a moment's notice in the middle of the night to provide shelter for a woman who's [8:54] being abused by a partner uh so we've got funding cuts that i think are going to adversely affect them [9:01] it's going to be 12 million less for sexual assault nurse examinations uh three million less in [9:07] financial assistance to victims of domestic violence and 15 million less for legal help for victims [9:13] uh you are not the one who makes these cuts but uh will you do your level best to make certain [9:21] that we're not really compromising service with any kind of reorganization plan yes senator you have [9:28] my commitment that i will use my private sector experience to make sure that irrespective of what [9:33] is ultimately appropriated that um programs will be prioritized and the funds uh the funds will reach [9:39] the communities to support those in need both of both our men and women in law enforcement victims of [9:45] crime um and victims of domestic violence and abuse and and i i don't know what role you will have in [9:51] this question of merging the the office uh of violence against women uh with the ojp do you have a position on [10:00] that i i don't at this time senator but i i will work with the justice department if confirmed well i just [10:07] want to advocate against that i think it will really compromise the delivery of service in our [10:13] state of vermont thank you i appreciate you thank you thank you senator verano senator verano [10:20] senator verano you're next thank you mr chairman i asked the following two initial questions of [10:30] all nominees before any of the committees on which i sit to refer to fitness to serve so i'll ask the [10:37] following two initial questions and we'll start with responses from uh mr burn just burn and then [10:44] mr agrees since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or [10:52] committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault over sexual nature no senator no senator [11:02] have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct no senator [11:10] no senator this is a question for uh judge burn just burn do you recall filling out an ohio right [11:18] to life pack 2020 judicial candidate opinion survey submitted january 20th 2026 and i have a copy [11:29] of that questionnaire do you remember filling out this questionnaire i do okay so in that survey [11:36] following a statement about rape or incest exceptions to abortion you checked the box indicating that you [11:44] believe abortion is not acceptable in any situation other than to preserve the life of the mother and you [11:51] check that box but in addition you commented i strongly agree however i believe that life of the mother [12:03] should be strictly defined so as to avoid creating loopholes i take it that this is not a question the [12:13] the loophole that you refer to is that there might be a doctor who might perform an abortion before [12:19] the life of the mother is at risk and that is the only loophole i can think of so uh that's just amazing to [12:31] me that that that that is the kind of standard you would apply and i assume that as a judge you may be [12:37] confronted with a case where the issue is whether the life of the mother was at risk and i believe that [12:49] you would apply your strict definition as to what constitutes a risk to the life of the mother and i just [12:55] want to mention uh to you i know to to you and others that this is a real world consequence of what could [13:02] happen with this kind of application of a determination of when our mother's life is in danger for one thing [13:09] you would have doctors afraid to perform a possibly life-saving uh care unless maybe there's a lawyer standing [13:19] there saying yeah that we think that you know you would sustain a a that the life of the mother was [13:25] actually at risk so that's what's going to happen and yesterday the real life consequences i heard from [13:31] a woman from texas she was pregnant and she was so afraid to go to a doctor or to go to a provider to [13:38] ask what they can do for her because this was a pregnancy that was endangering her but she [13:43] was very afraid to bring it up because texas law being what it is and so basically this kind of [13:50] standard that i have to conclude you would apply as a judge would truly endanger the life of the mother [13:56] because she would have to be practically at this door before you would deem that her life was in danger [14:04] necessitating medical care another question for you in 2022 you served as a visiting justice [14:17] in an ohio supreme court case concerning ohio's heartbeat act you previously helped organize [14:24] testimony in support of that same legislation and yet when you were sitting as a visiting judge on a case [14:31] that involved that that legislation your impartiality would be i think legitimately reasonably question [14:40] why didn't you not recuse yourself from this case senator with regard to the heartbeat [14:47] case i did consider whether to recuse myself as i do in any case that comes before my court or in [14:53] that case the ohio supreme court and i concluded that there was no basis for recusal with regard to [14:59] the reference to uh arranging for testimony that you mentioned um that was something that i stated in [15:07] response to another uh maybe the same judicial questionnaire as the one so you didn't think that you had a [15:13] conflict there or a disappearance of one i did not because what happened in that circumstance thank [15:17] you well i obviously disagree you know you you tweeted you've put out a lot of tweets and you [15:27] erased a lot of them but uh you tweeted in response to senator kane's objections to the pardoning of the [15:32] january 6 rioters that senator kane should and unquote you your tweets suck it up bro do you do you [15:40] remember that tweet senator i don't believe i ever tweeted me i don't believe i ever tweeted that well you [15:45] did so um i wonder if that that tweet actually exemplifies your uh your opinion about the january 6 [15:54] rioters and that um you know that we should just suck it up if we don't like the fact that they were [15:59] pardoned is that a position is that your position i do not believe i ever tweeted anything of that nature [16:05] regarding the january 6 rioters or as you put it or pardons your time is up maybe okay i think my time [16:15] is uh time is i'm sorry i do have uh more questions for the record thank you before senator whitehouse [16:24] you got cut off answering anything do you want to respond now yes senator um with regard to the heartbeat [16:32] um recusal question the statement to me arranging for testimony was not something i was actively [16:39] involved in i believe someone asked me about how to testify and i told them how they could do so [16:44] i did not think that that was a reason that would merit my recusal in the case and as to the statement [16:49] about um exceptions for the life of the mother um that was a statement i made regarding my personal [16:57] views including my personal views as a catholic it is not my view as a judge my view is or my role as [17:03] a judge is to apply the law irrespective of my views in each and every case that comes before me [17:08] i strive to set my views aside and i would do so in any case that involved abortion should it come before [17:14] me senator white house excuse me mr chairman could i just clarify that this last question regarding the [17:21] tweet was to be uh for mr legris not for mr burns so okay but in that clarification thank you [17:29] thank you thank you chairman um mr legris were you prepared for this hearing i did prepare for this [17:41] hearing senator um you were prepared by the department of justice i did independent research [17:47] online uh as it relates to the office of justice programs and the various grant programs before this [17:52] hearing were you prepped by the department of justice and then after that i did meet with the [17:56] department of justice and conducted moot questions um during the course of that did they warn you about [18:06] for instance senator kennedy's history with respect to the tweet history of nominees did that come up [18:17] no did not come up no senator kennedy's question i'm sorry did they warn you that senator kennedy [18:25] had a history of asking about nominees tweets no they didn't were they aware of these [18:36] tweets that have been discussed here in the hearing today i don't know they did not bring it up so you [18:49] have tweets that called donald trump and kamala harris two clowns you have tweets that call senator [19:02] murkowski almost as dumb as kamala you have tweets that call senator collins a fraud you have tweets [19:15] that call senator padilla who sits on this committee a thug you have tweets that call senator schiff [19:26] a fraud he also sits on this committee and you undertook no preparation to face questions about [19:38] that as you come before the senate judiciary committee no senator you didn't tell the department of [19:43] justice about those tweets senator i tweet and respond to tweets or repost tweets regularly and [19:51] frequently but you know the stuff is going to be looked at it gets looked at all the time in hearings [19:57] our expert is senator kennedy but other senators ask questions about people's tweets as well you're [20:04] telling me here that you never disclose to the department of justice these tweets about senators who [20:11] would have to vote on your nomination and you're telling me the doj as far as you know didn't even [20:16] know about them i'm telling you that the doj never raised these with me and you never disclosed them to [20:23] the doj no well let's start with senators padilla and schiff do you know what state they represent uh california [20:36] california yeah and um california will very likely be submitting applications for various grant programs [20:49] to the office of justice programs correct i i would expect yeah and um having called senator padilla a thug [21:02] at least five times and senator schiff a fraud what reasonably could they expect about you giving [21:13] california programs a fair hearing if you're put in charge of ojp uh every state and every jurisdiction [21:24] would expect that they would go through the process of applying for grants uh with the office of justice [21:29] programs and those and those grant applications would would be administered and reviewed through the [21:36] process of the of the department yeah that's what they would expect and then there'd be a guy at the [21:42] head of the program who thinks that the senators involved are a thug and a fraud how do you convince [21:50] us that you're not going to let that personal bias against these two individuals affect your judgment about [21:56] california programs particularly programs that you know we often write in letters saying you know we [22:03] work with this program we think they do a good job please give it every due consideration consistent [22:08] with your responsibilities that's a pretty standard thing how do you respond to a letter from somebody [22:13] you've called a thug or somebody you've called a fraud when they support a program uh that you're [22:18] asked to decide on because i believe that the office of justice programs has a mission to support the [22:24] entire country every state and every city and protect our communities irrespective of the elected [22:30] leadership that exists there today or tomorrow so just trust me i guess is what you're saying well trust [22:35] the fact that i have been in the private sector and i'm a practicing i was a practicing lawyer for a [22:40] long time and i will administer these funds as a good steward for the taxpayers of this country [22:46] and ensure that they reach the ultimate recipients and the beneficiaries which are our communities our [22:52] law enforcement victims of crime our juvenile system so why should judge bozberg the chief judge of [23:00] the dc circuit be impeached i don't have an opinion on just judge bozberg you had one when you uh twice [23:08] said that he should be impeached on tweets so senator i suspect that you're quoting retweets or comments to [23:15] other tweets it would be nice to have no they're your tweets you're the one who's responsible for them [23:19] you're responsible for knowing what you said don't put it on us to have to explain to you your own tweets [23:28] this is your mess not ours you're the one who tweeted impeach him if you can't explain that [23:36] that's on you but my general question is why should judge bozberg be impeached whether you tweeted it [23:43] or retweeted it you obviously thought he should be impeached why it would be helpful for me to see the [23:49] context of the tweet you're the one who's supposed to be ready for these hearings are limited to citizens [23:55] of the united states generally i think the due process clauses are mostly for citizens but there [24:03] are protections for those who have been here in amount of time under binding current precedent let [24:09] me read you the fifth amendment which i'm sure you're familiar with no person shall be deprived of [24:17] life liberty or property without due process it doesn't say citizen it says person does that make a [24:23] difference right and there is an ongoing dispute about certain provisions that speak of the people [24:29] versus persons and i wouldn't want to prejudge that case but i do think that there is a distinction [24:35] potentially that people have argued between provisions that like you just read refer to persons [24:42] versus those that refer to the people which may be more limited but it doesn't say citizens [24:48] do you concede that point i i do so i'm trying to understand what's going on when it comes to cases [24:55] that come before you as a district court judge president trump told us over and over again we can [25:02] quote back to the president exactly what he said at his rallies he's going after the worst of the worst [25:10] criminal offenders guilty of rape terrorism murder the list goes on very specifically he's saying the effort [25:21] to deportate to deport the deportation of immigrants is for the worst of the worst to make america safer [25:30] you've heard that haven't you i've heard that yes so let me ask what what lies behind your ruling in [25:38] some of these cases around the country the trump administration has detained tens of thousands of [25:44] immigrants more than 70 percent without any criminal record overwhelmingly district court judges appointed by [25:53] both presidents republican and democrat have held that mandatory detention of these individuals is [26:01] illegal and unconstitutional according to politico's analysis judges have ruled against the administration [26:08] policy almost 14 000 times and even a majority of trump appointed judges have ruled against the [26:15] administration you however are an outlier which even you've acknowledged in several of your opinions [26:22] denying habeas petitions in your opinions you've embraced the trump administration's position [26:28] that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing no matter how long they've been in the united states [26:34] and even if they have no criminal history in light of your embrace of the trump administration's position [26:41] even when judges have ruled against the administration's policy nearly 14 000 times why should anyone have [26:49] confidence that you can be a neutral arbiter presiding over challenges to this administration's action [26:55] that you can treat immigrants in a fair manner well senator german i think um i as as i've expressed [27:03] in the opinions you referenced there is a wide range of well not a wide range there is a clear division [27:10] of opinion about how that particular statutory provision applies i did come down on that one specific [27:17] statutory question on the side that at the time was the majority there's a split of circuit opinions but [27:25] it was as you said a minority opinion among uh district judges um but ultimately i think if you look deeper [27:34] into my record on those immigration cases you'll see that i i have ruled in favor of petitioners in a [27:43] number of those cases on separate bases so i take those cases very seriously the statutory provisions are [27:51] somewhat imperfectly aligned but i think if you read my opinion i recognize that i think the best [27:57] interpretation is the one that i adopted on other issues i have in fact ruled against uh the federal [28:05] government's uh position and granted petitions a number of times i would i would like to concede that fact [28:13] to you but i can't uh for you to be in a position that you are and to deny consistently opportunities [28:22] for people to have bond uh and to be released if there are no danger but to rule consistently against [28:29] immigrants is not a good good thing to encourage on the bench mr senator bulmendahl thanks mr chairman [28:38] uh welcome judge to you and your family thanks for your service on the bench uh let me jump right [28:45] into my questions uh who won the 2020 election senator as justice jackson explained when she was asked [28:54] essentially that question about both 2020 and 2016 it would be inappropriate for me as a well let me let [29:01] me just call your attention to what she actually said and as a judge i know you want to be careful [29:07] when you cite another judge she was asked whether she had ever commented on the results she wasn't asked [29:15] about the results i'm asking you about the results of the 2020 election who won it so the question is [29:24] slightly different but the answer i think is well the answer is the same because you've been told what [29:30] the answer is when you prepared correct no i i was not told what to say you prepared with the white [29:38] house before you came here did you not i i prepared like i think all nominees do with the justice how many [29:45] times did you meet with the white house i never met with the white house after i was went through the [29:52] interview process well in your response to the question that was asked you you said i have been [29:59] in communication with individuals in the department of justice regarding the nomination process are they [30:06] the ones who prepared you i did engage with justice department uh yes and they gave you the canned answer [30:13] that has been provided by all the other judicial nominees here let me ask you uh who won the [30:21] popular vote in the 2020 election simply a matter of fact again uh as justice jackson explained [30:29] commenting on a matter of political debate like that is inappropriate for a single judge your honor [30:35] judge you have a lifetime job right now correct i do nobody can take it away from you you have the [30:45] independence right now to say what really factually happened in the 2020 election and you are evading [30:53] that question with the same scripted canned answer that everyone nominated so far recently has given [31:03] i think the american people ought to be deeply disappointed and members of this committee let me ask you [31:10] would you recommend that my colleagues who voted against justice jackson's nomination the united [31:17] state supreme court also vote against you uh anybody who based their decisions solely on that answer [31:24] perhaps let me ask you about the uh january 6th incident would you agree the capital was attacked on january 6th [31:38] i would agree that individuals i i've from the videos i've seen a number of individuals attacked police officers [31:45] engaged in violence vandalism well an attack on police officers who were guarding the capitol is an attack [31:55] on the capitol correct so as i uh my as i said individuals engaged in attacks on police officers which i [32:04] clearly condemn more broadly characterizing the events of that day beyond what a number of individuals did i think [32:13] would uh put me in the same position as uh justice jackson when asked about the same events which is [32:20] that commenting on that commenting on whether the united states capital our democracy the peaceful transfer [32:27] of power was attacked on january 6th is not going to be answered by you because you think justice jackson [32:41] wouldn't have commented on well she she in fact gave the same answer to that as she did about the [32:47] elections and i and and the reason is that the broader characterization of what happened that day beyond [32:54] what individuals i've seen is a matter of public debate that i was was donald trump attacked on july [33:02] 13th in butler pennsylvania someone attempted to assassinate him yes was he attacked i suppose you could [33:11] characterize an assassination attempt as an attack how about an attempted assassination of the capitol [33:18] police uh as i said at an attack on the capitol as i said the the individuals who engaged in violence [33:27] against uh officers i think you could say attacked those officers more broadly characterizing the events [33:34] of that day as a matter of public i'm willing to say that if i were in your courtroom and i gave these [33:43] kinds of answers to you as a judge on the federal bench you would throw me out of your courtroom and i'm [33:54] disappointed that you're not willing to be more forthcoming as to the facts here because one of the key [34:00] questions about any nominee for the federal bench is independence of mind and action you'd agree that's [34:09] an important quality wouldn't you i do thank you senator kennedy thanks very much uh mr chairman um i'd like [34:20] to take the time that we have here to raise an unrelated issue you can relax thank you um we as a committee [34:40] considered the nomination of an individual named emile bovy to go on to the third circuit court of appeals [34:52] at the time that we did so there was a pending proceeding in federal court uh an inquiry into whether [35:05] mr bovy and others had committed contempt of court that proceeding was stayed [35:21] by an order by two trump appointees on the dc circuit they used a device called an administrative stay [35:32] which i think lawyers know customarily is a device to hold the status quo for a short period of time [35:42] maybe a week or two sometimes only hours the two trump appointees [35:50] the committee kept this administrative stay in place for four months and it was during that period [36:00] of the stayed contempt proceeding involving now judge bovy that this committee put him through [36:09] his confirmation and sent him to the floor i think in ordinary circumstances we would have said wait a [36:19] minute there's a contempt proceeding pending against this individual we should find out about that [36:27] before we put him on a circuit court of appeals but these are not ordinary times and so mr bovy was [36:35] he was hustled through the confirmation process and then the stay was lifted um the dc circuit told [36:48] the dc district judge you can now go forward to the contempt proceeding one of the same trump judges with [36:56] another trump judge then stayed at a second time and the dc circuit has just announced that it will [37:04] consider overturning that stay and bank so that saga is going to continue but i don't think it was a high [37:14] point in the judiciary committee's history to put a candidate through the confirmation process with a [37:23] contempt of court inquiry undecided now we're moving forward into todd blanche and his potential [37:35] confirmation as attorney general of the united states well right now there is a judicial proceeding [37:43] pending in florida regarding whether blanche and other confederates committed fraud upon the court in [37:55] that federal district court just as a brief aside fraud upon the court is about as bad as it gets for a [38:03] legal officer you can be sanctioned and disciplined for misconduct for acting out in court various things [38:12] you can go to being held in contempt of court which is pretty darned serious but fraud on the court [38:20] stands apart as an allegation my view is that this is the first time that the department of justice [38:27] certainly any senior officials in the department of justice have ever been accused of committing [38:32] fraud on a federal court and that matter is pending down in florida interestingly the department [38:41] of justice chose not to respond to the court when the court said yeah i'm going to [38:47] reopen this matter and let's take a look at this fraud on the court for the first time in the department's [38:53] history you'd think they'd want to respond to that specific question about whether the actions of the [39:00] doj comported with its own policies something doj would know about and then what about a defense memo [39:08] offered by the client the internal revenue service again something the doj would know about and the [39:14] gravamen of the issue was collusion which takes two people on both sides of the case so only the [39:20] lawyers for trump his personal lawyers answered despite all of those apparent invitations from the [39:27] judge the doj didn't answer so we have no sense yet of what's going on looks like judge williams is [39:33] going to continue that investigation but i just think bad as it was to confirm a nominee to a circuit [39:43] court of appeals while a contempt of court inquiry was pending against that exact individual it would [39:49] be just as bad if not worse to go forward with blanche's confirmation while a fraud on the court inquiry [39:59] is pending against him we have asked for documents related to that first episode um and i am asking again [40:10] because we don't get a response out of the department of justice when we ask for documents [40:13] um and i hope that we can look into this adequately to be prepared for questioning [40:19] when we end up going forward but we're in a pretty terrific position to require answers from [40:26] the department of justice by simply saying look we're not going forward until we understand what [40:30] the heck happened here and if you're not answering to a federal court well you ought to consider [40:34] answering to us as we deal with your confirmation proceedings so i've gone a minute over my time and [40:42] it's not again not relevant to the candidate before us but i did want to have a chance to make this [40:47] point publicly because we're going to have to address this and now would be a good time thank you very [40:53] much chairman many college students intern in offices of senators and congressmen i did many years [41:01] ago and many others did as well what i've noticed is a change more and more of them are coming to this [41:07] experience carrying one of these with them they spend their time looking at this instead of looking at this [41:14] and i wonder what in the world is going through their minds it's all about their phones and it's [41:18] all about the messages that they're sending and receiving they're missing a life experience mr legreece [41:25] you attempted to delete thousands of posts from your x account you hit the delete button but it didn't [41:32] work it turns out they were saved in an archive i can't imagine how you can defend some of the things [41:39] that you've been posting for years some of the things that you've written you tweeted suck it up bro [41:50] in response to a post discussing senator kane's objections to the pardoning of january 6 rioters [41:57] you referred to governor walls of minnesota as a tampon tim that was your words you referred to [42:06] congresswoman elian o omar is not an american you said in response to a tweet asking is everyone in [42:14] the biden administration retarded the greece responded every single last one of them you called [42:20] you called senator collins a fraud you attacked senator murkowski and then there's this awful [42:29] tweet that you put in the record a matter of public record now in light of what you're seeking here [42:35] the greece referred in 2024 the greece referred to police officers as dumb as dirt close quote when writing [42:45] quote breach of peach typical cop dumb as dirt and now you're seeking a position to work with police [42:54] departments all over the united states and to give to these officers who risk their lives for you [42:59] and me officers which you've referred to as dumb as dirt you're going to be allocating federal funds [43:06] how could you do that um so first of all chairman excuse me a ranking member um i routinely every 90 [43:17] days purge tweets for cyber security exposure see why yeah well um i am not familiar with some of the [43:25] context or retweets that you might be referencing but i'd be happy to take a look at them that's it [43:32] well i at least address the dumb as dirt comment say something about it i hope that you say you made [43:39] a mistake you shouldn't have said something like that about law enforcement officers you want to work [43:44] with police departments across the united states and this is a matter of record that you think they're [43:48] dumb as dirt clear the record now apologize to them say something as it relates to that tweet which i [43:56] don't have specific reference as if whether it was retreated retweeted excuse me i would like to go on [44:03] the record other than my brother most of my family serves in law enforcement i don't do not believe [44:08] that law enforcement is dumb as dirt i believe that i would like to take a look at the entire post in [44:14] its context and what it was referencing you better set some time aside because there are so many posts [44:18] hundreds of posts i can't understand how you can do a real job and continue to post every day this [44:23] continuing dialogue uh that you have over the years it just seems to me inconsistent with serving [44:29] the public do you spend a lot of time on your phone every day do i spend time on my phone it's where i [44:39] work off of well that's pretty clear you displaying the ten commandments in public school you said is dumb [44:47] and then you said in 2024 any jew who votes for biden needs to have their head examined do you remember [44:53] doing that i don't no well i'll tell you there's a lot of it i can't put it all on the record [45:01] unfortunately but it makes a point i don't understand why you were chosen for this position [45:06] you're obviously loyal to the president to some extent but in terms of dealing with police departments [45:11] based on this giving away millions of dollars to law enforcement it just seems inconsistent to me [45:19] mr president and mr chairman i yield [45:21] for senator welcome judge byrne uh and your family uh you currently serve on the state court correct [45:33] that is correct the ohio 12th district court of appeals it's it's an elected position that's correct [45:38] you ran as a republican i did all in january of 2020 a judicial candidate survey survey on the cincinnati [45:50] right to life organization which stated to you quote the judiciary does not possess the authority [46:00] to expand the definition of marriage to include anything but one man and one woman and quote you [46:09] said quote i agree uh senator i did fill out that survey and provide that answer so you don't believe [46:16] that there is a right to same-sex marriage under the constitution uh senator i under the obergefell [46:24] decision uh there is uh there is and that is a well this this survey came five years after [46:31] obergefell do you think obergefell was correctly decided senator as a judicial nominee it would [46:36] be inappropriate for me to comment on whether a supreme court decision was correctly decided or not [46:41] well you did as a nominee for the state court you said you disagreed that there was a constitutional [46:48] right to same-sex marriage i don't understand why you can't respond to the question now [46:53] whether obergefell was correctly decided it's well established as law in the united states of [46:59] america let me ask you another question uh who won the 2020 election uh 2020 uh joseph biden was [47:08] declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of congress he was declared the winner yes [47:14] the people of america declared him the winner correct um there was an election and it proceeded through [47:25] the normal uh procedures outlined in the constitution including and he won the popular vote correct um [47:33] as a judicial nominee it would be inappropriate to come in on a disputed political and i'm asking you [47:37] as a matter of fact everybody in america knows the answer to this question why are you refusing to [47:43] give it before this panel under oath he won the popular vote in the 2020 election correct uh senator as [47:53] this is a disputed political uh matter and um there is ongoing litigation and as a judicial nominee i'm [48:00] not who won the who won the electoral college in the 2020 election uh a joint session of congress [48:07] determined that uh joseph biden won the electoral college did donald trump lose the 2020 election [48:14] uh a joint session of congress determined that president trump did not uh win the electoral college [48:20] was the capitol attacked on january 6th uh senator there was um violence and vandalism on that day [48:27] including with regard to uh law enforcement officers i think all of that was inappropriate [48:33] and wrong and illegal uh certainly there were court findings of there were convictions that's correct [48:41] and people were convicted of attacking the capitol correct uh i don't know if any court used the [48:46] phrase attacking the capitol i think the supreme court wouldn't you use it to describe what happened [48:51] on that day everybody in america has seen the videos everybody in america knows that capitol police [48:59] were injured some died wasn't it an attack on the capitol senator um it was an attack on a number of [49:11] individuals and that was wrong and inappropriate why are you unwilling to say honestly and candidly to [49:23] this committee that the capitol was attacked well senator as a judicial nominee i'm here to talk [49:29] about questions of law not fact i know the united states supreme court no you're here to talk about [49:35] what we ask you to talk about and questions of fact are absolutely to the point when we are asking [49:44] whether you are willing to state facts honestly and candidly because it goes to your integrity and [49:53] independence if you're going to be a lap dog to donald trump which is exactly what you're indicating [50:00] here by failing to answer these questions we can't approve you as a judge that's one of our most [50:07] solemn responsibilities to make sure that our federal judiciary is independent above politics and in [50:17] independent of donald trump and his fixation on the 2020 election denying that joe biden won it joe biden [50:31] won the 2020 election correct judge bern uh joe biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by [50:38] a joint session of congress well i think your answers speak for themselves and unfortunately you [50:46] have once again adopted the can scripted answers you've been instructed to give because you lack that [50:54] essential backbone that is necessary to be a federal judge thank you senator tillis uh good morning uh my [51:03] colleague senator hirano uh for letting me jump the line here uh mr ligries uh congratulations on your [51:10] nomination uh you have a very important uh position to which you've been nominated uh and i want to talk [51:18] about that because it really makes a difference uh for a lot of the efforts of vermonters uh in the [51:23] president's budget uh for fiscal year 27 is proposing a reorganization uh for grant making entities within the [51:31] doj and what i understand is there's been a budget cut from 1.3 billion uh to 1.3 billion that's 30 percent below [51:41] fy 26 and the oj p funding would decrease by 22 percent in fiscal year 26. so big cut 14 [51:53] staff positions in vermont could or could be cut from the ovw and three programs are being combined [52:00] together the cops program which is really helpful really really helpful to our police uh the office [52:07] the justice uh programs in the office on violence against women and i know how much you care about [52:13] all those programs so i'm not debating with you about that but they have made such a difference in [52:18] the uh the the the uh uh the the violence against women programs in vermont they coordinate among [52:26] themselves and make a big impact so uh would you be leading this combined entity if confirmed thank you [52:36] senator if i can quickly start by my gratitude to your staff for spending so much time with me and [52:41] the hospitality of the exhibited um i've been as you know i'm not in the department i've never worked [52:46] at the justice department um nor have i had any conversations as it relates to the consolidate [52:51] consolidation that has been discussed and proposed other than what i've seen publicly let me let me make [52:56] my point i appreciate it and i i i believe you share the concern to make these programs strong not weak so [53:03] i'm not arguing with you about that but one of the unique things we do in vermont these programs [53:08] spread around a rural straight state these programs coordinate there's incredible cooperation and that [53:15] cooperation they have results in women being served who are incredibly vulnerable and at a very very [53:23] difficult moment in their lives so my question and maybe you can't answer it but i'd like your [53:28] uh commitment on this to the extent you can't give it we want to continue that coordination you know [53:34] it's really worked well it's a well-oiled machine it's uh women who run these programs working together [53:41] for the benefit of all women so would you just do your best to allow us to keep doing what works uh keep [53:50] doing it senator yes uh you have my commitment that i will continue to work um with you and your staff as [53:58] i committed to them when we met in your office um i i am a firm believer that crime doesn't stop [54:05] on state lines and i recognize the importance especially in rural areas and in there's been a lot of [54:10] talk over the years about the southern border but vermont impacts the northern border and you have federal [54:16] agents that are supporting your federal border and illicit drugs and synthetic drugs are coming through [54:21] legal ports of entry you have my commitment that uh if confirmed i will work with you and your [54:26] your team to ensure that vermont um vermont is given the appropriate attention no i i think you [54:32] will i just i do want to focus on this domestic violence uh program in vermont because we've made [54:38] progress and it's all been grassroots women coming together and doing the incredibly hard work of [54:43] answering the thousands of phone calls that come in being able to have a capacity literally uh at a [54:49] moment's notice in the middle of the night to provide shelter for a woman who's being abused by a [54:53] partner uh so we've got funding cuts that i think are going to adversely affect them it's going to be [55:00] 12 million less for sexual assault nurse examinations uh 3 million less in financial assistance to victims [55:07] of domestic violence and 15 million less for legal help for victims uh you are not the one who makes [55:14] these cuts but uh will you do your level best to make certain that we're not really compromising service [55:22] with any kind of reorganization plan yes senator you have my commitment that i will use my private [55:28] sector experience to make sure that irrespective of what is ultimately appropriated that um programs [55:34] will be prioritized and the funds uh the funds will reach the communities to support those in need [55:39] both of both our men and women in law enforcement victims of crime um and victims of domestic violence and [55:46] abuse and abuse and i i don't know what role you will have in this question of merging the the office [55:53] uh of violence against women uh with the ojp do you have a position on that i i don't at this time [56:01] senator but i i will work with the justice department if confirmed well i just want to advocate against [56:07] that i think it will really compromise the delivery of service in our state of vermont thank you i appreciate [56:14] you thank you mr chairman and thank you senator ronald senator ronald you're next thank you mr chairman [56:26] i asked the following two initial questions of all nominees before any of the committees [56:31] on which i sit to refer to fitness to serve so i'll ask the following two initial questions [56:37] and we'll start with responses from uh mr burn just burn and then mr agrees since you became a legal [56:46] adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical [56:53] harassment or assault of a sexual nature no senator no senator have you ever faced discipline or entered [57:03] into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct no senator no senator this is a question for uh judge [57:12] burn just burn do you recall filling out an ohio right to life pack 2020 judicial candidate opinion [57:20] survey submitted january 20 20 2026 and i have a copy of that questionnaire do you remember filling out [57:30] this questionnaire i do okay so in that survey following a statement about rape or incest exceptions [57:38] to abortion you checked the box indicating that you believe abortion is not acceptable in any situation [57:46] other than to preserve the life of the mother and you checked that box but in addition you commented [57:56] i strongly agree however i believe that life of the mother should be strictly defined so as to avoid [58:05] creating loopholes i take it that uh this is not a question the the loophole that you refer to is that [58:13] there might be a doctor who might perform an abortion before uh the life of the mother is at risk and that is [58:21] the only loophole i can think of so uh that's just amazing to me that that that is the kind of standard [58:32] you would apply and i assume that as a judge you may be confronted with a case where the issue is whether [58:40] the life of the mother was at risk and uh i believe that you would apply your strict definition as to [58:50] what constitutes a risk to the life of the mother and i just want to mention uh to you i know to to you [58:56] and others that this is a real world consequence of what could happen with this kind of application [59:03] of a determination of when a mother's life is in danger for one thing you would have doctors afraid to [59:09] but perform a possibly life-saving uh care unless maybe there's a lawyer standing there saying yeah [59:18] that we think that you know you would sustain a that the life of the mother was actually at risk [59:25] so that's what's going to happen and yesterday the real life consequences i heard from a woman from texas [59:30] 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 [59:38] for her because this was a pregnancy that was endangering her but she was very afraid to bring [59:44] it up because texas law being what it is and so basically this kind of standard that i have to [59:50] conclude you would apply as a judge would truly endanger the life of the mother because she would have to [59:56] be practically at this door before you would deem that her life was in danger necessitating medical care [1:00:05] another question for you in 2022 you served as a visiting justice in an ohio supreme court case [1:00:17] concerning ohio's heartbeat act you previously helped organize testimony in support of that same [1:00:25] legislation and yet when you were sitting as a visiting judge on a case that involved that that [1:00:31] legislation your impartiality would be i think legitimately reasonably a question why didn't you [1:00:39] not recuse yourself from this case uh senator with regard to the heartbeat uh case i did consider [1:00:48] whether to recuse myself as i do in any case that comes before my court or in that case the ohio supreme [1:00:53] court and i concluded that there was no basis for recusal with regard to the reference to uh arranging [1:01:01] for testimony that you mentioned um that was something that i stated in response to another uh [1:01:07] maybe the same judicial questionnaire as the one so you didn't think that you had a conflict there or [1:01:12] at least appearance of one i did not because what happened in that circumstance thank you well i [1:01:16] obviously disagree you know you you tweeted you've put out a lot of tweets and you erased a lot of them [1:01:27] but uh you tweeted in response to senator kane's objections to the pardoning of the january 6 rioters that [1:01:32] senator kane should and i quote you your tweet suck it up bro do you do you remember that tweet [1:01:39] senator i don't believe i ever tweeted that pardon me i don't believe i ever tweeted that well you did [1:01:45] so um i wonder if that that tweet actually exemplifies your uh your opinion about the january 6 rioters [1:01:53] and that um you know that we should just suck it up if we don't like the fact that they were pardoned [1:01:58] is that a position is that your position i do not believe i ever tweeted anything of that nature [1:02:04] regarding the january 6 rioters or as you put it or pardons your time is up maybe okay i think my time [1:02:13] is uh the time is i'm sorry i do have uh more questions for the record thank you before senator [1:02:22] whitehouse you got cut off answering anything do you want to respond now yes senator um with regard to the [1:02:30] heartbeat um recusal question um the statement to me arranging for testimony was not something i was [1:02:37] actively involved in i believe someone asked me about how to testify and i told them how they could [1:02:42] do so i did not think that that was a reason that would merit my recusal in the case and as to the [1:02:48] statement about um exceptions for the life of the mother um that was a statement i made regarding my [1:02:55] personal views including my personal views as a catholic it is not my view as a judge my view is [1:03:01] or my role as a judge is to apply the law irrespective of my views in each and every [1:03:06] case that comes before me i strive to set my views aside and i would do so in any case that involved [1:03:11] abortion should it come before me senator whitehouse excuse me mr chairman could i just clarify that [1:03:18] this last question regarding the tweet was to be uh for mr legris not for mr burns so [1:03:24] okay put in that clarification thank you thank you chairman um mr legris were you prepared for this [1:03:36] hearing i did prepare for this hearing senator um you were prepared by the department of justice [1:03:44] i did independent research online uh as it relates to the office of justice programs and the various grant [1:03:49] programs before this hearing were you prepped by the department of justice and then after that i did meet [1:03:55] with the department of justice and conducted moot questions um during the course of that did they [1:04:03] warn you about for instance senator kennedy's history with respect to the tweet history of nominees [1:04:13] did that come up uh no did not come up no senator kennedy's question i'm sorry did they warn you [1:04:22] that senator kennedy had a history of asking about nominees tweets no they didn't were they aware of [1:04:33] these tweets that have been discussed here in the hearing today i don't know they did not bring it up so [1:04:48] you have tweets that call donald trump and kamala harris two clowns you have tweets that call [1:05:00] senator murkowski almost as dumb as kamala you have tweets that call senator collins a fraud you have [1:05:13] tweets that call senator padilla who sits on this committee a thug you have tweets that call senator [1:05:23] schiff a fraud he also sits on this committee and you undertook no preparation to face questions about [1:05:36] that as you come before the senate judiciary committee no senator you didn't tell the department [1:05:42] of justice about those tweets senator i tweet and respond to tweets or repost tweets regularly and [1:05:49] frequently but you know the stuff is going to be looked at it gets looked at all the time in hearings [1:05:55] our expert is senator kennedy but other senators ask questions about people's tweets as well you're [1:06:03] telling me here that you never disclosed to the department of justice these tweets about senators [1:06:09] who would have to vote on your nomination and you're telling me the doj as far as you know didn't [1:06:15] even know about them i'm telling you that the doj never raised these with me and you never disclosed [1:06:22] them to the doj no well let's start with senators padilla and schiff do you know what state they [1:06:32] represent uh california yeah and um california will very likely be submitting applications for various [1:06:47] grant programs to the office of justice programs correct i i would expect yeah and um having called [1:06:58] senator padilla a thug at least five times and senator schiff a fraud what reasonably could they expect [1:07:08] about you giving california programs a fair hearing if you're put in charge of ojp uh every state and [1:07:21] every jurisdiction would expect that they would go through the process of applying for grants uh with [1:07:27] the office of justice programs and those and those grant uh applications would would be administered [1:07:33] and reviewed through the process of the of the department yeah that's what they would expect and then there'd be a [1:07:40] guy at the head of the program who thinks that the senators involved are a thug and a fraud how do [1:07:48] you convince us that you're not going to let that personal bias against these two individuals affect [1:07:53] your judgment about california programs particularly programs that you know we often write in letters [1:07:59] saying you know we work with this program we think they do a good job please give it every due consideration [1:08:06] consistent with your responsibilities that's pretty standard thing how do you respond to a letter from [1:08:11] somebody you've called a thug or somebody you've called a fraud when they support a program uh that [1:08:17] you're asked to decide on because i believe that the office of justice programs has a mission to support [1:08:22] the entire country every state and every city and protect our communities irrespective of the elected [1:08:28] leadership that exists there today or tomorrow so just trust me i guess is what you're saying well trust [1:08:34] the fact that i have been in the private sector and i'm a practicing i was a practicing lawyer for a long time [1:08:39] and i will administer these funds as a good steward for the taxpayers of this country and ensure that [1:08:45] they reach the ultimate recipients and the beneficiaries which are our communities our law [1:08:51] enforcement victims of crime our juvenile system so why should judge bozberg the chief judge of the dc [1:08:59] circuit be impeached i don't have an opinion on just judge bozberg you had one when you uh twice [1:09:06] said that he should be impeached on tweets so senator i suspect that you're quoting retweets or comments [1:09:14] to other tweets it would be nice to have no they're your tweets you're the one who's responsible for [1:09:18] them you're responsible for knowing what you said don't put it on us to have to explain to you your own [1:09:25] tweets this is your mess not ours you're the one who tweeted impeach him if you can't explain that [1:09:34] that's on you but my general question is why should judge bozberg be impeached whether you tweeted it [1:09:42] or retweeted it you obviously thought he should be impeached why it would be helpful for me to see the [1:09:48] context of the tweet you're the one who's supposed to be ready for these hearings this are limited to [1:09:53] citizens in the united states generally i think the due process clauses are mostly for citizens but there [1:10:02] are protections for those who have been here in amount of time under binding current precedent let [1:10:08] me read you the fifth amendment which i'm sure you're familiar with no person shall be deprived of [1:10:16] life liberty or property without due process it doesn't say citizen it says person does that make a [1:10:21] difference right and there is a an ongoing dispute about certain provisions that speak of the people [1:10:28] versus persons and i wouldn't want to prejudge that case but i do think that there is a distinction [1:10:34] potentially that people have argued between provisions that like you just read refer to persons [1:10:40] versus those that refer to the people which may be more limited but it doesn't say citizens you can [1:10:47] see that point i i do so i'm trying to understand what's going on when it comes to cases that come before [1:10:55] you as a district court judge president trump told us over and over again we can quote back to the [1:11:02] president exactly what he said at his rallies he's going after the worst of the worst criminal offenders [1:11:11] guilty of rape terrorism murder the list goes on very specifically he's saying the effort to [1:11:20] deportate the deport the deportation of immigrants is for the worst of the worst to make america safer [1:11:29] you've heard that haven't you i've heard that yes so let me ask what what lies behind your ruling in [1:11:37] some of these cases around the country the trump administration has detained tens of thousands of [1:11:43] immigrants more than 70 percent without any criminal record overwhelmingly district court judges appointed by [1:11:52] both presidents republican and democrat have held that mandatory detention of these individuals [1:11:59] is illegal and unconstitutional according to politico's analysis judges have ruled against the [1:12:05] administration policy almost 14 000 times and even a majority of trump appointed judges have ruled [1:12:13] against the administration you however are an outlier which even you've acknowledged in several of [1:12:20] your opinions denying habeas petitions in your opinions you've embraced the trump administration position [1:12:27] that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing no matter how long they've been in the united [1:12:32] states and even if they have no criminal history in light of your embrace of the trump administration's [1:12:39] position even when judges have ruled against the administration's policy nearly 14 000 times why [1:12:47] should anyone have confidence that you could be a neutral arbiter presiding over challenges to this [1:12:52] administration's action that you can treat immigrants in a fair manner well senator german i think [1:12:59] um i as as i've expressed in the opinions you referenced there is a wide range of well not a wide range there is a clear division of opinion about how that particular statutory provision applies [1:13:12] i did come down on that one specific statutory question on the side that at the time was the majority there's a split of circuit opinions but it was as you said a majority opinion among [1:13:26] uh district judges um but ultimately i think if you look deeper into my record on [1:13:34] those immigration cases you'll see that i i have ruled in favor of petitioners in a number of those cases [1:13:43] on separate bases so i take those cases very seriously the statutory provisions are uh somewhat imperfectly aligned but [1:13:52] i think if you read my opinion i recognize that i think the best interpretation is the one that i adopted [1:13:59] on other issues i have in fact ruled against uh the federal government's uh position and granted petitions a [1:14:07] number of times i would i would like to concede that fact to you but i can't uh for you to be in a position that you are [1:14:16] uh for and to deny consistently opportunities for people to have bond uh and to be released if there [1:14:24] are no danger but to rule consistently against immigrants is not a good good thing to encourage [1:14:30] on the bench mr senator blumendall thanks mr chairman uh welcome judge to you and your family thanks for your [1:14:40] service on the bench uh let me jump right into my questions uh who won the 2020 election senator as [1:14:50] justice jackson explained when she was asked essentially that question about both 2020 and [1:14:55] 2016 it would be inappropriate for me as a well let me let me just call your attention to what she [1:15:02] actually said and as a judge i know you want to be careful when you cite another judge she was asked [1:15:09] whether she had ever commented on the results she wasn't asked about the results i'm asking you about [1:15:17] the results of the 2020 election who won it so the question is slightly different but the answer [1:15:24] i think is well the answer is the same because you've been told what the answer is when you [1:15:31] prepared correct no i i was not told what to say you prepared with the white house before you came here [1:15:38] did you not i i prepared like i think all nominees do with the justice how many times did you meet with [1:15:45] the white house i i never met with the white house after i was went through the um interview [1:15:51] process well in your response to the question that was asked you you said i have been in [1:15:58] communication with individuals in the department of justice regarding the nomination process are they [1:16:04] the ones who prepared you i did engage with justice department uh yes and they gave you the canned [1:16:11] answer that has been provided by all the other judicial nominees here let me ask you uh who won the [1:16:20] popular vote in the 2020 election simply a matter of fact again uh as justice jackson explained [1:16:27] commenting on a matter of political debate like that is inappropriate for us you know judge your honor [1:16:34] judge you have a lifetime job right now correct i do nobody can take it away from you you have the [1:16:43] independence right now to say what really factually happened in the 2020 election and you are evading [1:16:52] that question with the same scripted canned answer that everyone nominated so far recently has given [1:17:02] i think the american people ought to be deeply disappointed and members of this committee let me ask you [1:17:09] would you recommend that my colleagues who voted against justice jackson's nomination the united [1:17:15] state supreme court also vote against you uh anybody who based their decisions solely on that answer perhaps [1:17:24] let me ask you about the uh january 6 incident would you agree the capital was attacked on january 6th [1:17:36] i would agree that individuals i i've from the videos i've seen a number of individuals attacked police officers [1:17:43] engaged in violence vandalism well an attack on police officers who were guarding the capitol is an attack [1:17:53] on the capitol correct so as i uh my as i said individuals engaged in attacks on police officers which i [1:18:03] clearly condemn more broadly characterizing the events of that day beyond what a number of individuals did i think [1:18:11] would uh put me in the same position as uh justice jackson when asked about the same events which is [1:18:18] that commenting on that commenting on whether the united states capital our democracy the peaceful transfer [1:18:26] of power was attacked on january 6th is not going to be answered by you because you think justice jackson [1:18:40] wouldn't have commented on well she she in fact gave the same answer to that as she did about the [1:18:46] elections and i and and the reason is that the broader characterization of what happened that day beyond [1:18:53] what individuals i've seen is a matter of public debate that i was was donald trump attacked on july [1:19:00] 13th in butler pennsylvania someone attempted to assassinate him yes was he attacked i suppose you could [1:19:09] characterize an assassination attempt as an attack how about an attempted assassination of the capitol [1:19:16] police uh as i said had an attack on the capitol as i said the the individuals who engaged in violence [1:19:26] against uh officers i think you could say attacked those officers more broadly characterizing the events [1:19:33] of that day as a matter of public i'm willing to say that if i were in your courtroom and i gave these [1:19:42] kinds of answers to you as a judge on the federal bench you would throw me out of your courtroom and [1:19:52] i'm disappointed that you're not willing to be more forthcoming as to the facts here because one of the [1:19:59] key questions about any nominee for the federal bench is independence of mind and action you'd agree [1:20:07] that's an important quality wouldn't you i do thank you senator kennedy thanks very much uh mr chairman um [1:20:18] i'd like to take the time that we have here to raise an unrelated issue you can relax thank you um we [1:20:34] as a committee considered the nomination of an individual named emile bovie to go on to the third [1:20:46] circuit court of appeals at the time that we did so there was a pending proceeding in federal court [1:21:00] an inquiry into whether mr bovie and others had committed contempt of court that proceeding [1:21:15] was stayed um by an order by two trump appointees on the dc circuit they used a device called an [1:21:28] administrative stay which i think lawyers know customarily is a device to hold the status quo for a short period of [1:21:39] time maybe a week or two um sometimes only hours the two trump appointees [1:21:50] kept this administrative stay in place for four months and it was during that period of the stayed [1:21:59] contempt proceeding involving now judge bovie that this committee put him through his confirmation [1:22:10] and sent him to the floor i think in ordinary circumstances we would have said wait a minute there's [1:22:18] a contempt proceeding pending against this individual we should find out about that before we put him on [1:22:27] a circuit court of appeals but these are not ordinary times and so mr bovie was hustled through the [1:22:35] confirmation process and then the stay was lifted um the dc circuit told the dc district judge you can [1:22:50] now go forward to the contempt proceeding one of the same trump judges with another trump judge then stayed at a [1:22:57] second time and the second time and the dc circuit has just announced that it will consider overturning [1:23:05] that stay and bank so that saga is going to continue but i don't think it was a high point in the judiciary [1:23:14] committee's history to put a candidate through the confirmation process with a contempt of court inquiry [1:23:24] undecided now we're moving forward into todd blanche and his potential confirmation as attorney general of [1:23:35] the united states well right now there is a judicial proceeding pending in florida regarding whether [1:23:46] blanche and other confederates committed fraud upon the court in that federal district court just as a [1:23:57] brief aside fraud upon the court is about as bad as it gets for a legal officer you can be sanctioned and [1:24:05] disciplined for misconduct for acting out in court various things you can go to being held in contempt of [1:24:13] court which is pretty darned serious but fraud on the court stands apart as an allegation my view is that [1:24:22] this is the first time that the department of justice certainly any senior officials in the department of [1:24:27] justice have ever been accused of committing fraud on a federal court and that matter is pending down in florida [1:24:38] interestingly the department of justice chose not to respond to the court when the court said yeah [1:24:45] i'm going to reopen this matter and let's take a look at this fraud on the court for the first time in the department's [1:24:52] history you'd think they'd want to respond to that specific question about whether the actions of the doj comported with its own policies [1:25:01] something doj would know about and then what about a defense memo offered by the client the internal [1:25:08] revenue service again something the doj would know about and the gravamen of the issue was collusion [1:25:14] which takes two people on both sides of the case so only the lawyers for trump his personal lawyers answered [1:25:22] despite all of those apparent invitations from the judge the doj didn't answer so we have no [1:25:29] sense yet of what's going on looks like judge williams is going to continue that investigation [1:25:35] but i just think bad as it was to confirm a nominee to a circuit court of appeals while a contempt of [1:25:43] court inquiry was pending against that exact individual it would be just as bad if not worse [1:25:51] to go forward with blanche's confirmation while a fraud on the court inquiry is pending against [1:25:59] him we have asked for documents related to that first episode um and i am asking again because we [1:26:08] don't get a response out of the department of justice when we ask for documents um and i hope that [1:26:14] we can look into this adequately to be prepared for questioning when uh we end up going forward but [1:26:22] we're in a pretty terrific position to require answers from the department of justice by simply saying [1:26:26] look we're not going forward until we understand what the heck happened here and if you're not [1:26:30] answering to a federal court well you ought to consider answering to us as we deal with your [1:26:37] confirmation proceedings so i've gone a minute over my time and it's not again not relevant to the [1:26:42] candidate before us but i did want to have a chance to make this point publicly because we're going to [1:26:49] have to address this and now would be a good time thank you very much chairman many college students [1:26:54] intern in offices of senators and congressmen i did many years ago and many others did as well [1:27:01] what i've noticed is a change more and more of them are coming to this experience carrying one of [1:27:07] these with them they spend their time looking at this instead of looking at this and i wonder what [1:27:13] in the world is going through their minds it's all about their phones and it's all about the messages [1:27:18] that they're sending and receiving they're missing a life experience mr legreece you attempted to delete [1:27:25] thousands of posts from your x account you hit the delete button but it didn't work it turns out [1:27:32] they were saved in an archive i can't imagine how you can defend some of the things that you've been [1:27:39] posting for years some of the things that you've written you tweeted suck it up bro in response to a [1:27:50] post discussing senator kane's objections to the pardoning of january 6 rioters you referred to governor [1:27:57] walls of minnesota as a tampon tim that was your words you referred to congresswoman elian o omar [1:28:07] is not an american you said in response to a tweet asking is everyone in the biden administration [1:28:14] retarded the greece responded every single last one of them you called senator collins a fraud [1:28:22] you attacked senator murkowski and then there's this awful tweet that you put in the record a [1:28:30] matter of public record now in light of what you're seeking here [1:28:35] the greece referred in 2024 the greece referred to police officers as dumb as dirt close quote when [1:28:43] writing quote breach of peach typical cop dumb as dirt and now you're seeking a position to work with [1:28:52] police departments all over the united states and to give to these officers who risk their lives for [1:28:57] you and me officers which you've referred to as dumb as dirt you're going to be allocating federal funds [1:29:04] how could you do that um so first of all chairman excuse me a ranking member um i routinely every [1:29:16] 90 days purge tweets for cyber security exposure see why well um i am not familiar with some of the [1:29:23] context or retweets that you might be referencing but i'd be happy to take a look at them that's it well i [1:29:32] at least address the dumb as dirt comment say something about it i hope that you say you made a [1:29:38] mistake you shouldn't have said something like that about law enforcement officers you want to [1:29:42] work with police departments across the united states and this is a matter of record that you [1:29:47] think they're dumb as dirt clear the record now apologize to them say something as it relates to [1:29:54] that tweet which i don't have specific reference as if whether it was retreated retweeted excuse me [1:30:00] i would like to go on the record other than my brother most of my family serves in law enforcement [1:30:05] i don't do not believe that law enforcement is dumb as dirt i believe that i would like to take [1:30:11] a look at the entire post in its context and what it was referencing you better set some time aside [1:30:15] because there are so many posts hundreds of posts i can't understand how you can do a real job [1:30:20] and continue to post every day this continuing dialogue uh that you have over the years it just [1:30:26] seems to me inconsistent with serving the public do you spend a lot of time on your phone every day [1:30:32] do i spend time on my phone it's where i work off of well that's pretty clear you displaying the [1:30:42] ten commandments in public school you said is dumb and then you said in 2024 any jew who votes for biden [1:30:50] needs to have their head examined do you remember doing that i don't know well i'll tell you there's [1:30:57] a lot of it i can't put it all on the record unfortunately but it makes a point i don't understand [1:31:02] why you were chosen for this position you're obviously loyal to the president to some extent [1:31:07] but in terms of dealing with police departments based on this giving away millions of dollars to [1:31:13] law enforcement it just seems inconsistent to me mr president and mr chairman i yield [1:31:22] welcome judge byrne uh and your family uh you currently serve on the state court correct that is [1:31:32] correct the ohio 12th district court of appeals it's it's an elected position that's correct you [1:31:37] ran as a republican i did all in january of 2020 a judicial candidate survey survey on the cincinnati [1:31:49] right to life organization which stated to you quote the judiciary does not possess the authority to [1:31:59] expand the definition of marriage to include anything but one man and one woman and quote you said [1:32:08] quote i agree uh senator i did fill out that survey and provide that answer so you don't believe that [1:32:15] there is a right to same-sex marriage under the constitution uh senator i under the obergefell [1:32:22] decision uh there is and that is a finding this survey came five years after obergefell do you think [1:32:31] obergefell was correctly decided senator as a judicial nominee it would be inappropriate for me to comment on [1:32:37] whether a supreme court decision was correctly decided or not well you did as a nominee for the [1:32:43] state court you said you disagreed that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage i don't [1:32:48] understand why you can't respond to the question now whether obergefell was correctly decided it's [1:32:54] well established as law in the united states of america let me ask you another question uh who won the [1:33:01] 2020 election uh 2020 uh joseph biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session [1:33:09] of congress he was declared the winner yes the people of america declared him the winner correct [1:33:19] um there was an election and it proceeded through the normal uh procedures outlined in the constitution [1:33:26] including and he won the popular vote correct um as a judicial nominee it would be inappropriate to [1:33:33] come in on a disputed political and i'm asking you as a matter of fact everybody in america knows [1:33:38] the answer to this question why are you refusing to give it before this panel under oath he won the [1:33:46] popular vote in the 2020 election correct uh senator as this is a disputed political uh matter and um [1:33:56] there is ongoing litigation and as a judicial nominee i'm not who won the who won the electoral [1:34:02] college in the 2020 election uh a joint session of congress determined that uh joseph biden won the [1:34:08] electoral college did donald trump lose the 2020 election uh a joint session of congress determined [1:34:14] that president trump did not uh win the electoral college was the capital attacked on january 6th [1:34:21] uh senator there was um violence and vandalism on that day including with regard to uh law enforcement [1:34:29] officers i think all of that was inappropriate and wrong and illegal uh certainly there were court [1:34:36] findings of there were convictions that's correct and people were convicted of attacking the capitol [1:34:42] correct uh i don't know if any court used the phrase attacking the capitol i think the supreme [1:34:47] court wouldn't you use it to describe what happened on that day everybody in america has seen the videos [1:34:54] everybody in america knows that capitol police were injured some died wasn't it an attack on the capitol [1:35:05] senator um it was an attack on a number of individuals and that was wrong and inappropriate [1:35:13] why are you unwilling to say honestly and candidly to this committee that the capitol was attacked [1:35:25] well senator as a judicial nominee i'm here to talk about questions of law not fact [1:35:30] i know the united states supreme court no you're here to talk about what we ask you to talk about [1:35:37] and questions of fact are absolutely to the point when we are asking whether you are willing to state [1:35:45] facts honestly and candidly because it goes to your integrity and independence if you're going to be [1:35:53] a lapdog to donald trump which is exactly what you're indicating here by failing to answer these [1:36:00] questions we can't approve you as a judge that's one of our most solemn responsibilities to make sure [1:36:09] that our federal judiciary is independent above politics and in independent of donald trump and his [1:36:21] fixation on the 2020 election denying that joe biden won it joe biden won the 2020 election correct [1:36:33] judge byrne uh joe joe biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of congress [1:36:39] well i think your answers speak for themselves and unfortunately you have once again adopted the [1:36:46] can scripted answers you've been instructed to give because you lack that essential backbone [1:36:55] so it is necessary to be a federal judge thank you senator tills uh good morning uh my colleague [1:37:02] senator hirano uh for letting me jump the line here uh mr ligries uh congratulations on your nomination [1:37:10] uh you have a very important uh position to which you've been nominated uh and i want to talk about [1:37:17] that because it really makes a difference uh for a lot of the efforts of vermonters uh in the president's [1:37:22] budget uh for fiscal year 27 is proposing a reorganization uh for grant making entities within [1:37:29] the doj and what i understand is there's been a budget cut from 1.3 billion uh to 1.3 billion that's [1:37:38] 30 percent below fy 26 and the oj p funding would decrease by 22 percent in fiscal year 26. [1:37:49] so big cut 14 uh staff positions in vermont could or could be cut from the ovw and three programs are [1:37:58] being combined together the cops program which is really helpful really really helpful to our police [1:38:04] uh the office of justice uh programs in the office on violence against women and i know how much you [1:38:11] care about all those programs so i'm not debating with you about that but they have made such a [1:38:16] difference in the uh of the the the uh uh the the violence against women programs in vermont they [1:38:24] coordinate among themselves and make a big impact so uh would you be leading this combined entity if [1:38:32] confirmed thank you senator if i can quickly start by my gratitude to your staff for spending so much [1:38:39] time with me in the hospitality of the exhibited um i've been as you know i'm not in the department [1:38:45] i've never worked at the justice department um nor have i had any conversations as it relates to the [1:38:49] consolidate consolidation that has been discussed and proposed other than what i've seen publicly let me [1:38:54] let me make my point i appreciate it and i i i believe you share the concern to make these [1:39:00] programs strong not weak so i'm not arguing with you about that but one of the unique things we do [1:39:05] in vermont these programs spread around a rural straight state these programs coordinate there's [1:39:11] incredible cooperation and that cooperation they have results in women being served who are incredibly [1:39:20] vulnerable and at a very very difficult moment in their lives so my question and maybe you can't [1:39:26] answer it but i'd like your uh commitment on this to the extent you can give it we want to continue [1:39:31] that coordination you know it's really worked well it's a well-oiled machine it's uh women who run [1:39:37] these programs working together uh for the benefit of all women uh so would you just do your best to allow [1:39:45] us to keep doing what works uh keep doing it yes senator yes uh you have my commitment that i will [1:39:54] continue to work um with you and your staff as i committed to them when we met in your office [1:39:59] um i i am a firm believer that uh crime doesn't stop on state lines and i recognize the importance [1:40:06] especially in rural areas and in there's been a lot of talk over the years about the southern border but [1:40:11] vermont impacts the northern border and you have federal agents that are supporting your federal border [1:40:16] and illicit drugs and synthetic drugs are coming through legal ports of entry you have my commitment that [1:40:22] uh if confirmed i will work with you and your your team to ensure that vermont um vermont is given the [1:40:29] appropriate attention no i i think you will i just i do want to focus on this domestic violence uh [1:40:35] program in vermont because we've made progress and it's all been grassroots women coming together and [1:40:40] doing the incredibly hard work of answering the thousands of phone calls that come in being able to have a [1:40:45] capacity literally uh at a moment's notice in the middle of the night to provide shelter for a woman who's being [1:40:51] abused by a partner uh so we've got funding cuts that i think are going to adversely affect them it's [1:40:58] going to be 12 million less for sexual assault nurse examinations uh 3 million less in financial [1:41:04] assistance to victims of domestic violence and 15 million less for legal help for victims [1:41:11] you are not the one who makes these cuts but will you do your level best to make certain [1:41:18] that we're not really compromising service with any kind of reorganization plan yes senator you have [1:41:25] my commitment that i will use my private sector experience to make sure that irrespective of what [1:41:30] is ultimately appropriated that um programs will be prioritized and the funds uh the funds will reach [1:41:36] the communities to support those in need both of both our men and women in law enforcement victims [1:41:41] uh of crime um and victims of domestic violence and abuse and i i don't know what role you will have [1:41:48] in this question of merging the the office uh of violence against women uh with the ojp do you have a [1:41:57] position on that i i don't at this time senator but i i will work with the justice department if confirmed [1:42:03] well i just want to advocate against that i think it will [1:42:07] really compromise the delivery of service in our state of vermont thank you i appreciate you thank [1:42:13] you mr chairman and thank you senator ronald senator ronald you're next thank you mr chairman i asked the [1:42:25] following two initial questions of all nominees before any of the committees on which i sit to refer to [1:42:32] fitness to serve so i'll ask the following two initial questions and we'll start with responses from [1:42:38] uh mr burn just burn and then mr agrees since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted [1:42:48] requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault over sexual nature [1:42:55] no senator no senator have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind [1:43:03] of conduct no senator no senator this is a question for uh judge burn just burn do you recall filling out [1:43:14] an ohio right to life pack 2020 judicial candidate opinion survey submitted january 20th 2026 and i [1:43:23] have a copy of that questionnaire do you remember filling out this questionnaire i do okay so in that survey [1:43:33] following a statement about rape or incest exceptions to abortion you checked the box indicating that you [1:43:41] believe abortion is not acceptable in any situation other than to preserve the life of the mother and you [1:43:48] check that box but in addition you commented i strongly agree however i believe that life of the mother [1:44:00] should be strictly defined so as to avoid creating loopholes i take it that this is not a question the [1:44:10] the loophole that you refer to is that there might be a doctor who might perform an abortion before [1:44:17] the life of the mother is at risk and that is the only loophole i can think of so uh that's just amazing [1:44:28] to me that that that is the kind of standard you would apply and i assume that as a judge you may be [1:44:34] confronted with a case where the issue is whether the life of the mother was at risk and i believe that [1:44:46] you would apply your strict definition as to what constitutes a risk to the life of the mother and i just [1:44:52] want to mention uh to you i know to to you and others that this is a real world consequence of what could [1:45:00] happen with this kind of application of a determination of when our mother's life is in danger for one thing [1:45:06] you would have doctors afraid to perform possibly life-saving uh care unless maybe there's a lawyer standing [1:45:16] there saying yeah that we think that you know you would sustain a a that the life of the mother was [1:45:22] actually at risk so that's what's going to happen and yesterday the real life consequences i heard from [1:45:28] a woman from texas she was pregnant and she was so afraid to go to a doctor or to go to a provider to [1:45:36] ask what they can do for her because this was a pregnancy that was endangering her but she [1:45:41] was very afraid to bring it up because texas law being what it is and so basically this kind of [1:45:47] standard that i have to conclude you would apply as a judge would truly endanger the life of the mother [1:45:54] because she would have to be practically at this door before you would deem that her life was in danger [1:46:01] necessitating medical care another question for you in 2022 you served as a visiting justice [1:46:14] in an ohio supreme court case concerning ohio's heartbeat act you previously helped organize [1:46:21] testimony in support of that same legislation and yet when you were sitting as a visiting judge on a case [1:46:28] that involved that that legislation your impartiality would be i think legitimately reasonably [1:46:37] questioned why didn't you not recuse yourself from this case senator with regard to the heartbeat [1:46:44] case i did consider whether to recuse myself as i do in any case that comes before my court or in [1:46:50] that case the ohio supreme court and i concluded that there was no basis for recusal with regard to [1:46:56] the reference to uh arranging for testimony that you mentioned um that was something that i stated in [1:47:04] response to another uh maybe the same judicial questionnaire as the one you just provided i think that [1:47:09] you had a conflict there or at least appearance of one i did not because what happened in that [1:47:13] circumstance thank you well i obviously disagree you know you you tweeted you've put out a lot of [1:47:23] tweets and you erased a lot of them but uh you tweeted in response to senator kane's objections to the [1:47:29] pardoning of the january 6 rioters that senator kane should and i quote you your tweet suck it up bro [1:47:34] uh do you do you remember that tweet senator i don't believe i ever tweeted that pardon me i don't [1:47:40] believe i ever tweeted that well you did so um i wonder if that that tweet actually exemplifies your [1:47:49] your opinion about the january 6 rioters and that um you know we should just suck it up if we don't like [1:47:55] the fact that they were pardoned is that a position is that your position i do not believe i ever tweeted [1:48:01] anything of that nature regarding the january 6 rioters or as you put it or pardons your time is up [1:48:09] maybe okay i think my time is uh time is i'm sorry i do have uh more questions for the record thank you [1:48:19] before senator whitehouse you got cut off answering anything do you want to respond now yes senator um [1:48:27] um with regard to the heartbeat um recusal question um the statement to me arranging for testimony was [1:48:35] not something i was actively involved in i believe someone asked me about how to testify and i told [1:48:40] them how they could do so i did not think that that was a reason that would merit my recusal in the case [1:48:45] and as to the statement about um exceptions for the life of the mother um that was a statement i made [1:48:53] regarding my personal views including my personal views as a catholic it is not my view [1:48:58] as a judge my view is or my role as a judge is to apply the law irrespective of my views in each and [1:49:04] every case that comes before me i strive to set my views aside and i would do so in any case that [1:49:09] involved abortion should it come before me senator whitehouse excuse me mr chairman could i just [1:49:16] clarify that this last question regarding the tweet was to be uh for mr legrees not for mr burns so [1:49:23] okay put in that clarification thank you thank you chairman um mr legris were you prepared for this [1:49:35] hearing i did prepare for this hearing senator um you were prepared by the department of justice [1:49:43] i did independent research online as it relates to the office of justice programs and the various grant [1:49:48] programs before this hearing were you prepped by the department of justice and then after that i did [1:49:53] meet with the department of justice and conducted moot questions um during the course of that did they [1:50:02] warn you about for instance senator kennedy's history with respect to the tweet history of nominees [1:50:12] did that come up uh no did not come up no senator kennedy's question i'm sorry did they warn you [1:50:21] that senator kennedy had a history of asking about nominees tweets no they didn't were they aware of [1:50:32] these tweets that have been discussed here in the hearing today i don't know they did not bring it up so [1:50:46] you have tweets that call donald trump and kamala harris two clowns you have tweets that call [1:50:59] senator murkowski almost as dumb as kamala you have tweets that call senator collins a fraud you have [1:51:11] tweets that call senator padilla who sits on this committee a thug you have tweets that call senator [1:51:22] schiff a fraud he also sits on this committee and you undertook no preparation to face questions about [1:51:35] that as you come before the senate judiciary committee no senator you didn't tell the department of [1:51:40] justice about those tweets senator i tweet and respond to tweets or repost tweets regularly and [1:51:48] frequently but you know the stuff is going to be looked at it gets looked at all the time in [1:51:53] hearings our expert is senator kennedy but other senators ask questions about people's tweets as well [1:52:01] you're telling me here that you never disclosed to the department of justice these tweets about [1:52:07] senators who would have to vote on your nomination and you're telling me the doj as far as you know [1:52:13] didn't even know about them i'm telling you that the doj never raised these with me and you never [1:52:20] disclosed them to the doj no well let's start with senators padilla and schiff do you know what state [1:52:31] they represent uh california yeah and um california will very likely be submitting applications for various [1:52:45] grant programs to the office of justice programs correct i would expect yeah and um having called [1:52:57] senator padilla a thug at least five times and senator schiff a fraud what reasonably could they expect [1:53:07] about you giving california programs a fair hearing if you're put in charge of ojp [1:53:17] uh every state and every jurisdiction would expect that they would go through the process [1:53:23] of applying for grants uh with the office of justice programs and those and those grant uh [1:53:29] applications would would be administered and reviewed through the process of the of the department [1:53:35] yeah that's what they would expect and then there'd be a guy at the head of the program [1:53:40] who thinks that the senators involved are a thug and a fraud how do you convince us that you're not [1:53:48] going to let that personal bias against these two individuals affect your judgment about california [1:53:54] programs particularly programs that you know we often write in letters saying you know we work with [1:54:00] this program we think they do a good job please give it every due consideration consistent with your [1:54:05] responsibilities that's a pretty standard thing how do you respond to a letter from somebody you've [1:54:10] called a thug or somebody you've called a fraud when they support a program uh that you're asked to [1:54:16] decide on because i believe that the office of justice programs has a mission to support the [1:54:21] entire country every state and every city and protect our communities irrespective of the elected [1:54:27] leadership that exists there today or tomorrow so just trust me i guess is what you're saying well [1:54:32] trust the fact that i have been in the private sector and i'm a practicing i was a practicing lawyer [1:54:37] for a long time and i will administer these funds as a good steward for the taxpayers of this country [1:54:43] and ensure that they reach the ultimate recipients and the beneficiaries which are our communities our [1:54:49] law enforcement victims of crime our juvenile system so why should judge bozberg the chief judge of the dc [1:54:58] circuit be impeached i don't have an opinion on just judge bozberg you had one when you uh twice said [1:55:05] that he should be impeached on tweets so senator i suspect that you're quoting retweets or comments to [1:55:12] other tweets it would be nice to have no they're your tweets you're the one who's responsible for them [1:55:17] you're responsible for knowing what you said don't put it on us to have to explain to you your own [1:55:24] tweets this is your mess not ours you're the one who tweeted impeach him if you can't explain that [1:55:33] that's on you but my general question is why should judge bozberg be impeached whether you tweeted [1:55:40] it or retweeted it you obviously thought he should be impeached why it would be helpful for me to [1:55:46] see the context of the tweet you're the one who's supposed to be ready for these hearings [1:55:51] are limited to citizens in the united states generally i think the due process clauses are [1:55:58] mostly for citizens but there are protections for those who have been here in amount of time under [1:56:04] binding current precedent let me read you the fifth amendment which i'm sure you're familiar with no [1:56:11] person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process it doesn't say citizen [1:56:18] it says person does that make a difference right and there is a an ongoing dispute about certain [1:56:24] provisions that speak of the people versus persons and i wouldn't want to prejudge that case but i do [1:56:30] think that there is a distinction potentially that people have argued between provisions that like you just [1:56:37] read refer to persons versus those that refer to the people which may be more limited but it doesn't say [1:56:44] citizens you concede that point i i do so i'm trying to understand what's going on when it comes to [1:56:52] cases that come before you as a district court judge president trump told us over and over again [1:56:59] we can quote back to the president exactly what he said at his rallies he's going after the worst of the worst [1:57:08] criminal offenders guilty of rape terrorism murder the list goes on very specifically he's saying the [1:57:18] effort to deportate the deport the deportation of immigrants is for the worst of the worst to make [1:57:26] america safer you've heard that haven't you i've heard that yes so let me ask what what lies behind [1:57:35] your ruling in some of these cases around the country the trump administration has detained tens of [1:57:40] thousands of immigrants more than 70 percent without any criminal record overwhelmingly district [1:57:49] court judges appointed by both presidents republican and democrat have held that mandatory detention of [1:57:56] these individuals is illegal and unconstitutional according to politico's analysis judges have ruled [1:58:03] against the administration policy almost 14 000 times and even a majority of trump-appointed judges have [1:58:12] ruled against the administration you however are an outlier which even you've acknowledged in several [1:58:19] of your opinions denying habeas petitions in your opinions you've embraced the trump administration [1:58:24] position that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing no matter how long they've been in the [1:58:31] united states and even if they have no criminal history in light of your embrace of the trump [1:58:36] administration's position even when judges have ruled against the administration's policy nearly 14 000 [1:58:44] 17 000 times