‘Yes or No?’: Democrats Corner Trump Nominees Over 2020 Election — Full Senate Judiciary Hearing

[0:01] Good morning everybody. Welcome all of you to today's hearing. We have two panels. [0:11] First panel features Anna St. John nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. [0:21] Our second panel has Gregory Cook be judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern District [0:28] Alabama. Adam Coney Dube to be Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust. John Cronin and Jason [0:40] Mannion to be Commissioners on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. All of today's nominees are highly [0:49] qualified and reflect diverse backgrounds in law and public service. They continue President Trump's [0:59] trend of nominating top-tier people for our country's most important roles. I have a personal [1:07] honor today to introduce in three of our five nominees. So I'll do that right now. Adam Coney Dube [1:19] is nominated to serve as Assistant Attorney General to oversee the Justice Department's Antitrust [1:30] Division. His career spans public service, private practice, and academia. After graduating from [1:39] Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School, he clerked on the Ninth Circuit and practiced [1:49] law at two major firms for a better part of a decade. The nominee then entered public service [1:57] service as an attorney advisor at the Federal Communication Commission for the past uh for the [2:09] two decades thereafter. He was a professor at Michigan State University Law School where he taught many [2:17] areas of law including antitrust and criminal law. Notably at at the end of President Trump's first term, [2:26] the nominee briefly returned to public service as Acting Administrator of the National Telecommunication [2:35] and Information Administration and then as Deputy Attorney General with the Justice Department. During [2:44] President's second term, the nominee has served as General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. [2:52] Throughout his career, he's done important work. His scholarship and legal advocacy focused on [3:01] protecting children from exposure to pornography and other obscene materials. He's also a strong advocate [3:10] for free speech and fighting censorship by social security companies during the Biden administration. [3:20] The next Judge Cronin has been nominated to serve as U.S. Sentencing Commission as a federal judge. He [3:28] obviously knows a thing or two about the sentencing guidelines that the commission sets forth and his [3:36] understanding of criminal law stems from his career of public service. Before joining the bench, Judge Cronin [3:44] served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was also the Chief [3:52] of the Terrorism and International Carnatics Unit. Judge Cronin oversaw more than 100 investigations [4:04] and prosecuted a wide array of crimes including complex national security cases against foreign terrorists. [4:15] His career featured additional positions with the Justice Department serving as Principal Deputy Assistant [4:22] Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. Since 2020, Judge Cronin has served [4:34] on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He's done a great job and I thank him for his service. [4:42] Finally, Judge Manion. Jason Manion has also been nominated to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He brings a distinguished [4:52] career that has spanned all three branches of government. After graduating from Harvard Law, Mr. Manion clerked twice on the U.S. Court of [5:05] Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He served as Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Ohio and he's also worked in support of this [5:17] committee as Special Counsel for my colleague, Senator Cruz. Since 2022, Mr. Manion has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the [5:28] Northern District of the Northern District of Ohio and as a federal prosecutor. He's handled many cases and appeals [5:37] dealing with sentencing issues and sentencing guidelines. During President Trump's second term, [5:45] Mr. Manion has held multiple significant roles on detail from the U.S. Attorney's Office, serving as [5:55] Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Associate Attorney General and then the Attorney General and he's [6:01] currently a General Counsel and Senior Advisor of the White House Task Force on eliminating fraud. [6:11] Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I've served on this committee for nearly 30 years. In that time, [6:19] I've attended countless nomination hearings, providing an opportunity for members [6:24] to determine if nominees are qualified. Nomination hearings like this one today are an essential part [6:31] of the Senate's role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominees. This constitutional duty [6:37] is a critical check on the executive branch and it has never been more important that the Senate exercise [6:44] this duty because we now have a president and an administration determined to use every opportunity [6:50] to push the bounds of power. I'm not going to revisit the nomination of Todd Blanche. We spent a good [6:58] part of yesterday morning in this committee discussing his worthiness for that position. But I do want to [7:05] say that there are some elements underway in this administration that need to be addressed by Congress, [7:11] I hope, if not by the courts. Dramatic changes. Corruption. Corruption used to happen behind closed doors. [7:20] Now the doors are wide open. You can see exactly what's going on. First year in office, second term [7:28] for Donald Trump was a good year for him. $1.4 billion at least. Some say $2 billion. An amazing, [7:37] amazing amount of money for anyone who would be president of the United States. And unfortunately, [7:44] the fingerprints on that $2 billion involves the crypto industry. Cryptocurrency. They have their [7:51] fingerprints on every act of corruption in Washington. And we see members of the cabinet, [7:58] would-be members of the cabinet, with personal holdings who are trying to explain their relationship [8:04] with the crypto bunch. Judges may ultimately make the decision on this. That's why nominees will be asked [8:10] some important questions. Insider trading boost. Did you read about Truth Social? For $100,000 a month, [8:18] just $1.2 million a year. We're going to give you the edge on information, official information, [8:25] from this administration. You may get 30 seconds. Maybe that's all you need to punch the right button [8:30] on the computer and make a fortune. $100,000 a month. Was that sneaky, behind-the-scenes strategy? [8:38] No way. It was advertised on the front page. Want to buy into this new information for insider training? [8:45] Give the president's company $100,000 a month. Does that sound right to everybody here? [8:51] The third thing is U.S. Attorneys. For the record, in President Trump's first term, over 80, almost 90, [8:59] maybe I'm off a few, U.S. Attorneys were approved by this committee, by voice, vote, and then approved on [9:08] the floor, by voice, vote. I'm talking about Trump administration, 0.1, 1.0. Now we go through each and [9:17] every one of these U.S. Attorneys and have a fight as to whether or not we're going to have the [9:21] ultimate last word on their selection or whether they'll be acting U.S. Attorneys indefinitely. [9:28] That's a change. What brought it about? I'll tell you exactly what brought it about. The decision [9:33] by one senator from Indiana, now Vice President of the United States, to require separate roll [9:38] calls on every U.S. Attorney under the Biden administration. He started it. I tried three or [9:44] four times to get him to reconsider it and to go back to the bipartisan approach. He wouldn't do [9:49] it, and now we're stuck with it. We spend more time on the floor voting for U.S. Attorney nominees [9:55] than we should. I hope we can return to the days where we trusted one another and didn't have this [10:01] kind of arrangement. We're wasting our time in the Senate. In closing, I want to note that two of the [10:06] witnesses before us have been nominated to fill vacancies in the U.S. Sentencing Commission. [10:12] Congress created the Sentencing Commission in 1984, charged it with the critical task of promoting [10:17] transparency and consistency in federal criminal sentencing. The Commission collects and analyzes [10:24] data and then employs its expertise to help guide Congress in setting sentencing policy to guide the [10:30] federal judiciary in making important sentencing decisions. Members of the Commission are tasked with [10:37] the responsibility of establishing practices and policies that promote proportionality in sentencing [10:44] and reduce sentencing disparities. They must carefully consider revisions to sentencing guidelines [10:51] as they forever impact the lives of those facing the criminal justice system. The Commission has long [10:58] operated in a bipartisan manner, a reflection not just of the statutory mandate for bipartisanship among [11:06] commission members, but also of the consensus driven approach embraced by those who have served on this [11:12] important body. During the Biden administration, I was proud to lead the effort to reestablish the [11:17] Commission's quorum with a full bipartisan slate of nominees so that it could continue its important [11:24] work. Federal judges rely on sentencing guidelines promulgated by this commission for one of the most [11:31] important aspects of their jobs, deciding on the appropriate penalty for a defendant. Thus, it is [11:37] critical that members confirmed to the Commission have the technical expertise, experience, and [11:43] understanding so that they can face the gravity of their work and understand its impact on the criminal [11:49] justice system. I look forward to hearing from the nominees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kennedy for [11:54] introduction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge St. John is no stranger to this committee. She was before us in [12:10] February where she was being considered for a position on the United States District Court in New Orleans on [12:21] which she presently serves. President Trump has nominated Judge St. John to fill a vacancy created by Judge [12:31] Engelhardt who has served honorably and well on the Federal Fifth Circuit. The President chose wisely. [12:41] Judge St. John has had an interesting career. She's from a small town in Mississippi. She went to LSU [12:52] and just absolutely knocked the top out of it. Magna cum laude graduate. An assortment of law schools, [13:00] predictably, tried to recruit her. She chose Columbia. She knocked the top out of it at Columbia. [13:11] She got a J.D. and a master's. She was a James Kent scholar. She then clerked for a year for Judge [13:20] Barksdale on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a very distinguished jurist. [13:28] And she went to work for one of the premier law firms in the world, Covington and Burley. At that level, [13:39] when you practice with a firm like Covington, it's not a job, it's a lifestyle. She was there seven [13:48] years. She would have been partner, which just means, well, it means you get to work harder. You also make a [13:58] bucket load of money. But she and Scott were married and she said, you know, I'm rethinking things here. [14:07] I want to practice with a smaller firm and have a family. And not many people, not many lawyers would [14:22] make that choice. You work so hard to get to become a partner. But there are other ways to contribute to [14:32] the practicing of law. She has been in private practice with a small boutique firm. One of the [14:39] things she specializes in is class actions. And thanks to her work, she has ensured that the people [14:53] who are hurt and are the subject of these class actions, who oftentimes don't get any money, all the [14:59] money goes to the lawyers. She has worked to ensure that people get their fair share. But more than [15:10] than her accomplishments, Judge St. John, she's obviously intelligent. She's patient. She's wise. [15:25] She is not a politician. She didn't have a squillion people call me to encourage her, [15:37] nomination, either for the court of appeal or for the district court. We do get a lot of those calls. [15:45] She just applied. And I was going through the resumes and I saw hers and said, oh, my God, [15:54] I need to talk to this lady. And I checked around and she was obviously the most, one of the most [16:03] qualified. And that's why for the district court level and the court of appeals, I suggested her to [16:10] President Trump. Judge St. John, she understands the law. She knows the law. But more importantly, [16:28] she appreciates the beauty of the law, the elegance of the law, the nuances of American law, [16:38] and the shortcomings of American law. I've met a lot of smart lawyers who know the law, [16:44] but they don't really appreciate its application. They don't really understand the human [16:49] consequences of its application. They don't understand, as I said, its beauty or its shortcomings. [16:57] And so I'm happy to introduce Judge St. John. I talked longer than I thought. [17:04] My work here is done, Mr. Chairman. I can show myself out. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Now, Senator [17:10] Britt. Always my favorite. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is an absolute honor today to be able to [17:18] introduce one of Alabama's finest, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Greg Cook, who I am fortunate to call [17:29] a friend. Welcome to you and your entire family. In my opinion, this day has been a long time in the [17:36] making. For those of you who don't know Greg and haven't had a chance to read up yet, I am so delighted [17:44] that President Trump chose Greg to fill the role there in the judgeship in the Northern District [17:52] of Alabama. Greg has served at the Alabama Supreme Court as an Associate Justice since 2022. He has [18:01] reviewed and written numerous opinions on some of the state's most complex both criminal and civil [18:08] cases that were in front of him. He has an impeccable record of service. So when you look at Greg and you [18:16] see the way he conducts himself, he applies the law fairly and diligently to everyone who comes in front [18:24] of him. Now, he's just been on the bench since 2022. But prior to that, he spent years at one of our [18:31] most distinguished firms in the state of Alabama, 32 years to be exact, earning the rank there of partner. [18:38] But prior to that, he served in the Air Force. Greg made the rank of Captain and also continued to [18:48] serve our nation in the Air Force Reserves. This is in his blood, love of country, service to those [18:55] around him, in his community, and his family, and his state, and now for his nation. Greg graduated from [19:04] Duke, also went on to Harvard Law. And despite the accolades that he's received in his life, the thing [19:12] that has always been most important to Greg is his family. I say that's because of the values that were [19:18] instilled in him and the Shoals growing up. He loves his children, he loves his wife, his church, his [19:26] community, and he has consistently bettered himself to be able to answer the call. I had an opportunity [19:33] about four years ago to really get to know Greg. We had traveled around the state together and I got [19:40] to see him interact with Alabamians. I got to see him connect with them, want to know what was happening [19:47] and how he could be helpful. I also got to learn that he wrote Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure book, [19:54] which was quite a thick book. That shows he not only knows the law, he loves the law. And I have every [20:04] faith and confidence in his ability to answer this call. Greg, thank you for being willing to serve. [20:13] You are such a fine human being. Your character is unmatched, your diligence, your intellect. I know [20:22] that you will uphold the Constitution and you will apply the law faithfully in every single circumstance [20:29] and that you will be thoughtful about the role that you are stepping into in a way that's going to make [20:36] every one of us proud. So thank you for answering the call. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for Greg [20:43] and boy, it was an honor to be able to send your resume forward. And I appreciate President Trump [20:50] for seeing what I saw on that piece of paper and in this human being in front of us. So thank you, [20:54] Greg. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to introduce him. Thank you. Judge St. John's, [21:00] would you please come? And before you see, I'd like to administer oath. Thank you. You swear that the [21:09] testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, [21:14] and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Very positive response. Now sit down and give your [21:22] testimony and introduction of friends and family, however you want to proceed. Proceed. [21:32] Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, ranking member Durbin. And thank you to all members of [21:44] the committee for having me here today. Thank you to President Trump for the great honor of this [21:50] nomination. Senator Kennedy, thank you for those very kind remarks. No one could accuse you of being [21:56] an easy grader. And so I'm just especially grateful for your support. I also want to thank Senator Cassidy [22:01] for his support. I am here today with my husband, Scott. He's an exceptional person, truly my better half. [22:09] He is sitting with our three older children, Charles, Bertie, and Anna Douglas. Our littlest and most [22:15] energetic, Jack, is home with my parents-in-law, Joyce and Doug St. John. They have been wonderfully [22:22] supportive over the years, and I'm very blessed to be a part of their family. I'm here today only because [22:27] of the support of so many people. Those include my siblings, aunts and uncles, friends and colleagues. [22:35] Above all are my parents, Libby and Chuck Wagner. I wish they were still with us for so many reasons, [22:41] but I know I didn't need to become a judge to make them proud. I just needed to be a good person. I [22:48] continue to be inspired by their sacrifices and the values they live by. I'm also here today with [22:55] my law clerks. I'm privileged to go to work every day at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District [23:00] of Louisiana. I serve alongside an incredible group of people. Those include my judicial colleagues, [23:07] our court security officers, everyone in the court clerk's office, and so many more. They're hard work to [23:14] make sure we have a strong, functioning, efficient judiciary is a testament to the strength of our [23:19] country and its people. Being nominated to the Fifth Circuit is a profound honor on its own, [23:28] made more so because that's where I started my legal career, clerking for Judge Risa Barksdale. [23:33] I strive to put into practice the lessons I learned from that clerkship every day and will continue to do so [23:39] if I am so honored by being confirmed. Again, thank you for considering my nomination. I welcome any [23:47] questions. Judge, you've been serving as a district judge for just a few months now. You seem to be [24:00] managing a docket, I'm told, of about 120 civil and criminal cases, so you got a lot shoved on you [24:08] right off the bat. During your time so far, what's the most important thing that you've learned about [24:15] being a federal judge? Well, Senator Grassley, you're right. I really hit the ground running and I learn [24:22] more every single day. One aspect of the job that's really been impressed upon me is the impact that the [24:31] courts work, that my orders have on the parties. As a district judge, you know, I see the criminal defendants [24:38] right in front of me with their families. I see the pro se litigants and interact with them. I see [24:44] clients with their attorneys and it's really impressed upon me the need for judges to make [24:49] sure that people have a full and fair hearing, that they feel that they're getting a fair [24:55] consideration of their case, and that judges provide reasoned opinions so that the parties know, [25:02] that people understand that the court's rulings are based in the law and not on any judge's personal [25:08] preferences or beliefs. I would think most people would agree with what Senator Kennedy said on [25:16] your last confirmation. He said, quote unquote, you were real student of the law. Beyond the law, [25:24] you've spent years working with New Orleans Family Justice Center, and that center is dedicated to ending [25:32] family violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. Tell us, please, why it's important for judges to [25:42] prioritize victims and victim rights when presiding in a case of that nature. Sure. So judges and courts do [25:52] represent the legal recourse that the more vulnerable in our society have access to. And so it's so important [26:01] for courts and judges to be to uphold the law and be a source for enforcement and implementation of the [26:10] law that's intended to protect our most vulnerable in society. I think I'm going to quote something you [26:19] said during your last confirmation hearing. You stated that, quote, the best way to give effect to [26:27] people's will is by construing the words used in the text with the meaning these words had at the time [26:35] they were enacted pursuant to the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process. End of quote. Why is that [26:45] approach so important? That approach is important because our constitution lays out the process by which [26:53] law is created. And that requires bicameralism and presentment. What emerges from that process is the [27:01] text of the law. And that text represents the will of the people as expressed through their representatives [27:08] in the legislature. If judges are to add meaning to that or change the meaning of the text that was agreed [27:15] upon through the legislative process as prescribed by the constitution, that constitutes judges enacting their [27:23] will rather than the will of the people. And so that's why it's so important for judges to stick to the text [27:29] of the law. The next question and last question is something that I have a hard time with myself when people [27:39] ask you which is the most important colleague you've had or president you've served under. So tell us which [27:48] attorney or judge you most admire and why? Well, Chairman Grassley, I started my career clerking for Judge [27:57] Barksdale, as I mentioned, and that was really a foundational experience where I learned how [28:02] important it is to meticulously analyze each case and make sure you understand the facts and the law [28:09] and have approached it with a truly impartial approach so that you are giving each party a fair shake. [28:17] It's also important. I've learned from that from Judge Barksdale to remember the role of the judiciary. [28:24] We are not lawmakers. Courts have defined powers and it's important for courts to stick within [28:32] the powers that have been granted to the judiciary rather than taking powers beyond what they have. [28:38] Thank you and congratulations, Senator Durbin. Judge St. John, welcome back. I'm not going to revisit [28:48] many of the questions that I asked you several years ago when you appeared before us. I don't think your answers [28:54] were responsive then. I don't expect they would change today. But there is one issue I want to return [29:01] to. At your previous confirmation hearing, I noted that in November 2021, when I chaired this committee, [29:08] we advanced the ending forced arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act by voice vote. I believe [29:17] that the sponsorship of this legislation was virtually unanimous, not completely, but close to unanimous on [29:26] the Senate Judiciary Committee. And of course, the membership of this committee embraces the American [29:31] political spectrum from right to left. Virtually all of the members of the committee voted for this [29:38] and supported it. Why? It was legislation that said to a woman, particularly, that you cannot be held by [29:48] an employment contract which limits your options if you're a victim, alleged you're a victim of sexual [29:54] assault or sexual harassment. Some employment contracts, and I know you're well aware of this issue, [30:00] some employment contracts do not give a victim, woman in that circumstance, an option to take her case [30:07] to court before a judge or jury. It has to be by forced arbitration. In many cases, the arbitrator is [30:15] chosen by her employer. It creates a real disadvantage for those who are alleging that they're victims of [30:23] sexual harassment. You testified in the House against this legislation, claiming that ending forced [30:31] arbitration was, quote, not in the best interests of those subjected to sexual harassment and assault. [30:38] You argued that the bill, quote, turns these women into unwilling pawns, leveraging their private [30:45] difficulties in pursuit of public policy objectives that don't actually benefit them. You said at one [30:52] point as well, arbitration is faster, less expensive way of resolving disputes companies may have, [31:02] so they have more funds to devote to employee benefits or to reducing lowering costs for consumers. [31:08] Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson was a leading advocate for the ending forced arbitration of [31:17] sexual assault and sexual harassment act, following her harassment by Roger Ailes at Fox. [31:23] She previously opposed your nomination to the district court, and this is what she said. [31:29] While women around the country bravely share the urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, [31:36] St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women and the public. [31:42] She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain instead of listening to women who were forced [31:48] to suffer in silence. St. John tried to convince Congress that these women's understanding [31:54] of their own experience were incorrect. These are the words of former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. [32:02] It's been several years since you've thought about this issue before one of these committees. [32:07] Today is an opportunity for you to answer the question, do you have any second thoughts about the [32:13] position you've taken on this issue? Senator Durbin, I appreciate those questions and I want to be [32:20] clear. I think some of my words were taken out of context. I did not oppose the legislation. I didn't [32:29] presume to tell any senator or congress member how to vote. I understood my role as providing additional [32:35] context about arbitration and additional information as congress members worked through this issue and [32:42] figured out where to draw the line on these issues and how to legislate. One of the comments you quoted [32:48] from my testimony was referring to forced litigation. My point is that women should have a choice to choose [32:54] to arbitrate or litigate and I continue to think that there can be benefits to arbitration in some [33:02] instances. There can be benefits to litigation and at no point do I think anyone should be forced to [33:09] arbitrate their claims. Arbitration is only by consent of the parties. That's exactly the issue. There's [33:15] no choice in forced arbitration. It's a take it or leave it for the employees before this new law was [33:21] enacted. I certainly respect that congress took carved out those claims from the from any kind of [33:28] pre-dispute arbitration agreement and I agree even before the law if an employer did force somebody to [33:37] sign an agreement then under the law that should not be valid and people should have a choice as to [33:43] whether to take their claims to court if they wish. I think it's a good response but it really is [33:48] inconsistent with the role that you played and the testimony you gave before the house of representatives. [33:54] So let me just ask you today do you think forced arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment [34:00] cases is right or wrong? I don't think anyone should be forced to arbitrate their claims. You've changed your [34:05] position. I've I've always taken the position that arbitration is by consent only. Well that is a [34:12] dramatic change from where you were when you testified before congress. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Before I call [34:18] on Senator Kennedy enter in a record a letter in support of the nominee from Melissa Holyoke U.S. Attorney [34:29] District of Utah. They worked together on consumer protection litigation in private practice. The letter [34:38] praised Judge St. John and stated quote as her colleague I was consistently impressed by Anna's [34:47] disposition while engaging with our colleagues other counsel and the courts she would carefully consider [34:55] differing viewpoints approach opposing arguments with intellectual honesty and always kept her composure [35:06] during the circumstances. End of quote. Senator Kennedy. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Judge your spouse Scott's a pretty [35:26] good lawyer in his own right isn't he? Yeah I'm sorry I neglected to mention that when I was introducing you. This issue about your feelings about sexual harassment and the recourse of people who have been harassed seems to have arisen [35:49] when you were testifying as a private citizen when you were testifying as a private citizen back in 2021 before [35:57] the house so I understand and and I've I've read your testimony I've read the record um I don't see how any fair-minded person [36:11] can conclude that you were trying to do anything to impede someone who's a victim of of sexual harassment from [36:24] from from from from being able to address the wrongs um here's a quotation I want to from your testimony quote your words not mine [36:39] allegations of sexual harassment and assault should be taken seriously and accusers afforded the full protections of the law [36:51] as they seek to hold those responsible to account removing one form of dispute resolution however does not [37:02] further those goals did I read that correctly that is correct now do you do if if I am a victim of sexual [37:14] harassment I have a number of options I can file a complaint and try to resolve it privately if it's in the [37:23] workplace with my employer and and the alleged perpetrator can I not yes you can or I could choose [37:33] to mediate the dispute could I not yes senator or I could choose to arbitrate the dispute could I not [37:40] yes or I could choose to go to court could I not that's correct senator now do you oppose removing any [37:51] of those uh of those options for someone who's an alleged victim no senator victims should have their [37:59] choice of how to deal with these issues and as I understand your testimony tell me if I read it wrong [38:06] but I looked at it pretty carefully what you were saying is that at least as I appreciate it that [38:15] that all forms of redress should be available to the alleged victim right yes senator I mean would you [38:26] elaborate on that a little more because I honestly I don't get it I mean I get the politics you know the [38:33] folks that democrat and republican and all that but my experience you're not a very political person and [38:40] you were asked to come testify as a lawyer and an expert in law so tell me what you said thank you [38:50] senator and when I hear these criticisms it feels very disconnected from my actual testimony I would [38:55] never try to silence a victim of sexual assault or harassment my point of my testimony was to provide some [39:02] context for how many different options for resolving these claims and addressing these claims should be [39:09] available to women um and you know forcing them into litigation or forcing you know taking away [39:14] their choice of one option or another um is not actually supporting the victims and and congress [39:20] should do as it sees fit to um make sure that these victims still have options for resolving this [39:26] these terrible events okay well let me be sure I understand your testimony um do you consider acts of [39:37] sexual harassment to be repugnant yes of course and do you support the right of anyone who claims to be [39:52] sexually harassed to to to be able to have their allegations heard in accordance with the rule of law [40:01] and due process yes absolutely are you in your testimony did you support all forms of redress do you think [40:11] well to preclude somebody from going to court or not going to court or arbitrating or not arbitrating [40:18] or mediating or not mediating no I didn't take anything off the table okay I didn't think you did [40:25] I read it pretty carefully all right well thank you judge um I appreciate your candor I'm done [40:35] Mr. Chairman by the temporary power vested in me I recognize Senator Whitehouse thank you Mr. Temporary [40:43] Chairman um I'm not going to be able to vote for this nominee and I wanted to uh explain why um her [40:56] history with uh Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Center for Class Action Fairness Competitive Enterprise [41:05] Institute and Independent Women's Forum creates concerns for me that she has simply for too many years [41:16] inhabited the Leonard Leo Koch brothers judicial slash political operation machine I think that [41:30] group of interwoven organizations has a very specific goal which is to put people onto courts who when the [41:39] time is right can be relied on to make the decisions that they want and um I don't think that's what being a [41:48] judge is about I don't think that's what this committee should be about it has nothing to do with conservative [41:57] versus activist I think some of the most activist decisions that have been rendered have come from [42:06] judges who've come out of that same Koch brothers Leonard Leo network of judicial slash political influence [42:17] um competitive enterprise institute a frequent dark money amicus in courts has taken roughly 10 million [42:29] dollars from donors trust and donors capital from 2012 to 2022 400 000 from Koch organizations from 2014 [42:39] to 2021 and its president became the president of donors trust in 2015. donors trust is described as the [42:49] dark money atm of the far right Hamilton Lincoln law institute took at least 1.25 million dollars in [43:00] litigation grants from donors trust since 2021 independent women's forum took 300 000 from Leonard Leo's [43:10] judicial education project in 2018 and more than 13 million dollars from donors trust from 2017 to 2018. [43:22] I don't know why Donald Trump called Leonard Leo a sleazebag something's going on that's a little [43:29] weird there but what I do believe is that a persistent effort by the far right wing funded by a lot of [43:38] billionaires who anonymize their money through donors trust and in two front groups is a very very powerful [43:45] force in judicial appointments right now and Miss St. John I'm sorry to say that based on that record I [43:53] can't help but believe that when the time comes and the right amicus comes before you that'll be the [43:59] signal for you to render the decision that they want so that's why I'm not going to be voting for this [44:06] nominee I'd also like to add because it's just been in the news recently comment on the situation with [44:15] the U.S. Attorney Jeanine Perrault and the action that the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's office [44:22] took in the reflecting pool case we saw an awful lot of lying take place for instance the Secretary of [44:34] the Interior just a month ago on CNN was asked about that lining it peeled off why did that happen do you [44:43] know it didn't peel off he said there was there was vandalism he said there were box cutters he said [44:55] the question came back you're 100 sure that what happened with the liner was vandalism you can prove [45:00] it oh yes absolutely he said U.S. Attorney Perrault said the same thing in a big press splash announcing [45:10] the indictment of the former Olympian against whom the charges were just dropped why were they dropped [45:17] they were dropped because the case ran into a wall a wall based on a decision called Brady versus [45:26] Maryland which creates a constitutional constitutional duty on the government to disclose exculpatory [45:36] evidence to anyone it is charged with a crime and the U.S. Attorney's Manual which they now call the [45:43] Justice Manual actually has a robust section directing prosecutors not just to adhere to the minimum [45:50] constitutional standard but to go out of their way to make sure that all exculpatory evidence gets [45:55] delivered to the defendant so the actual lawyer is going to actual court we're looking at having to [46:02] turn over exculpatory evidence that according to the U.S. Attorney's own pleading was withheld from [46:14] them by the Department of Interior so a U.S. citizen was falsely indicted based on incomplete information [46:29] while the government at least at the Department of Interior held information that it did not disclose [46:36] to the Department of Justice that would have blown up the indictment that should have been disclosed to [46:42] the grand jury this whole exercise was disgraceful and the fact that senior government officials still [46:49] continue to lie about the vandalism after what they've seen just makes it worse thank you chairman [46:56] Senator Brumenthal thanks thanks Senator Durbin uh just say John you were here just months ago [47:10] February 4th 2026 and I asked you a number of questions I'm going to ask you the same questions [47:19] beginning with who won the 2020 election Senator excuse me pursuant to [47:31] the 12th amendment and article 2 the electoral process is the process by which a president is [47:36] selected and in January 2020 Joe Biden was certified by the electoral college insert so you are unwilling [47:44] again to answer that question truthfully correct senator I've provided a response that is ethically [47:51] appropriate and legally correct and it is ethically inappropriate for you to fail to be candid with this [48:01] committee and to give us the canned rehearsed answer that you have been programmed by the trump white [48:09] house to provide let me move on was the united states capital attacked on january 6 2021 senator I have [48:20] reviewed some testimony and news reports excusings of videos and news reports um showing that there were some [48:27] physical assaults on law enforcement and I completely condemn any kind of violence against law enforcement [48:34] was the capital attack you know I wouldn't be careful with the specific language I use because I am [48:40] a federal judge and subject you're a federal judge judge st john but federal judges have not only [48:50] acknowledged but stated clearly that the capital was attacked justice Amy Coney Barrett in her dissent in [49:04] fischer versus the united states said and I'm quoting a mob of riders that breached the capital [49:13] on january 6 2021 and that the riders quote conduct which includes trespassing and a physical [49:21] confrontation with law enforcement was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of [49:29] election results do you agree with justice Coney Barrett well I was going to um agree that the supreme [49:37] court has used the term the capital was breached and given that I'm subject to supreme court precedent [49:42] that's language that has been used by the courts I'm comfortable adopting that language yes senator so [49:48] you agree that the capital was attacked on january 6th you know I again I want to be very careful with [49:54] my language because this is a politically controversial subject and I'm subject to the judicial canons as I as [50:01] you noted the supreme court has described it as a breach of the capitol justice barrett said that a mob [50:08] of rioters breached the capitol and judge timothy kelly also a trump appointee said quote as the court [50:16] has said many times the attack on the capitol on january 6 2021 was a perilous event it was an attack on [50:25] people including police officers many of whom were injured do you think judge kelly is being [50:35] less careful than he should be calling it attack I wouldn't be careful with my own personal response [50:41] and in all of the attacks against law enforcement again I completely condemn you know other judges [50:48] have similarly acknowledged that there was an attack on the capitol on january 6 2021 I think it is [50:57] fundamentally disrespectful to the capitol police who fought back against that attack it is disrespectful [51:05] to the truth of what happened on that day but most important it indicates that you are continuing [51:14] and emphasize continuing to adopt the president's distorted and inaccurate illusion about what happened [51:25] on that day that he has in effect used to try to rewrite history [51:31] and it indicates a lack of independence I think that lack of independence is disqualifying for you [51:39] to be a judge on the district court not to mention the court of appeals it's the reason that I voted [51:47] against your nomination for the district court but now that you are on the district court you have a [51:53] lifetime appointment president trump can't do anything to you you have no reason to fear his vaunted [52:01] vindictiveness against anyone who would defy his illusion about january 6th and your failure to [52:10] basically speak truth to this committee I think indicates that you will fail to speak truth to power [52:19] if you are confirmed as a judge on the court of appeals uh the the rehearsed and regurgitated language that you've given [52:30] us today I think is disqualifying and I regret that I regret that you can't do better thank you thank you [53:32] if you'll uh got one more nominee to come here I'll administer the oath uh I'd like to swear you at this [53:48] point do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth all [53:54] truth enough but the truth so help you god all answered in the affirmative please sit down and [54:03] we'll start out with you uh mr cook and go across you can make your opening statement introduce your [54:12] family and friends what say whatever you want to do at this point thank you mr chairman I appreciate the [54:20] time of everyone today on this committee I want to thank president trump for this nomination which is [54:28] the honor of my lifetime I want to thank senator Tuberville and senator Britt who lent their support [54:35] and made this nomination possible I want to thank my wife of 38 years Kimberly who has been with me [54:42] every step of the way through my time in the United States Air Force through law school and through [54:49] raising our three children I am truly blessed I would like to thank my parents Jean and Dottie Cook my dad [54:56] also an Air Force veteran passed away when I was running for the Alabama Supreme Court but my [55:02] mother is here today I would like to introduce some of my many friends and family who are here today [55:09] with me my son Jeffrey and his wife Mary of Virginia her mother Lisa Klein of Delaware my daughter Mary [55:18] Catherine and her husband husband Sam Jenkins of Alabama and his parents Steve and Carla Jenkins of [55:25] Arkansas my son Will Cook of Alabama my brother Steve Cook of Florida also an Air Force veteran my cousin [55:33] Jamie Estes of Florida my senior staff attorney Claire Veal and my law clerk Alan Crisola Crisola go and [55:39] his wife Caroline I also want to thank my many friends and family watching back in Alabama including [55:47] my wonderful colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court who taught me how to be a judge and my former [55:53] partners in my firm of 31 years Balcha Bingham who taught me how to be a lawyer most importantly I want to [56:00] thank Jesus Christ my personal savior who is the reason I am here today I'm honored to be here and [56:06] welcome your questions thank you chairman Grassley for your kind introduction as well as ranking member [56:21] Durbin for welcoming me to the committee I thank president Donald J Trump for this nomination which [56:28] is a tremendous honor allow me to introduce my family who came from Michigan to be with me my wife of 27 [56:35] years Julie Tiber my son Jonah and my two daughters Lucy and Georgia as well as my sister Debbie [56:42] I would also like to acknowledge a gaggle of Michigan State College of Law alumni in the chamber [56:47] they are my former students who showed up here for their old professor I'm incredibly touched by their [56:52] support if I didn't give you all A's I'm sorry I should have almost 30 years ago I began my career in [56:59] the city in private practice and then worked for the Federal Communications Commission [57:04] my practice focused on the remains of the old AT&T telephone monopoly merger policy and remedying [57:10] anti-competitive behavior in 2004 I was appointed assistant professor at the Michigan State University [57:16] College of Law teaching topics such as technology antitrust and free speech and eventually earning [57:22] tenure though starting with telephones my work shifted from competition issues related to a new [57:27] technology broadband and more recently my attention shifted to another dominant telecommunications [57:32] technologies internet platforms and social media but this time I took a more active role litigating [57:39] cases concerning social media censorship of consumers and the protection of children I was asked to enter [57:45] the first Trump administration as deputy later acting assistant secretary of commerce for NTIA the [57:50] national telecommunications and information administration and served briefly as deputy associate attorney general [57:56] at DOJ after the first Trump administration I continued to work on cases as well as scholarship [58:03] and policy work focused on protecting Americans free speech rights and protecting kids from the power of [58:09] dominant online platforms I'm currently serving as general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission [58:16] my career centered around laws responses to market power has taught me a few things it is competition and [58:22] innovation that best remedy market power the amazing development I just described from the AT&T rotary dial [58:29] telephones I grew up with to AI mediated online experience happened because of free markets because American [58:35] antitrust enforcers chose to unleash competition and encourage innovation anti-entrust antitrust enforcement [58:43] therefore should proceed with the greatest care at the same time vigilance is necessary consumers must be [58:50] protected against market power that hurts consumers and especially when constitutional rights are at stake [58:58] if confirmed I will bring to the antitrust division what I've learned from my career as a public servant [59:03] academic and lawyer first given its limited resources in this administration's commitment to affordability [59:09] the antitrust trust division must direct its limited resources to those pocketbook issues that matter most to Americans [59:17] for instance food prices and what I term the three H's housing health care and higher ed if confirmed I [59:24] will make these issues my priorities second I believe despite the dizzying technology technological changes [59:30] I've seen in my lifetime the more things change the more they say the same the Sherman act of 1890 the [59:37] foundation of American antitrust law passed largely through the efforts of farmers and ranchers they sought to [59:43] combat the railroads and shippers and grain elevators who abused their anti-competitive position today [59:48] farmers and food product processors producers face different anti-competitive threats but the antitrust [59:56] division must remain vigilant finally I am committed to protecting everyday Americans against market power [1:00:02] that would deprive them of their free speech rights and their ability to speak to their fellow Americans [1:00:08] the possibility of serving this country as assistant AG humbles me I look forward to answering your [1:00:14] questions thank you thank you Mr. Gandalf now uh Ms. Judge Cronin good morning chairman Grassley and [1:00:22] ranking member Durbin thank you for convening this hearing and good morning as well to the rest of the [1:00:27] committee it is an honor to appear again before you at my hearing about six and a half years ago I was [1:00:35] introduced by senator Lindsey Graham who was chair of the committee at that time I was thinking [1:00:41] back this morning to the kind words he said that day at the outset I wanted to express my condolences [1:00:48] to the committee I know everyone is doing their jobs with heavy hearts over my six years on the [1:00:55] district court and my long career as a federal prosecutor before that I've come to appreciate [1:01:00] the critical role of the united states sentencing commission the commission's work is tremendously [1:01:06] valuable as district judges perform far and away our most difficult task deciding whether another person [1:01:15] should lose their liberty and if so for how long and under what conditions I am humbled to be [1:01:22] considered for the commission I'm joined this morning by my away my amazing wife Michelle I thank [1:01:31] her for always supporting my career and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed agreeing to let me [1:01:35] take on this additional responsibility I thank my mother who raised me with my grandmother and together [1:01:42] they instilled in me any positive qualities I may have my mother was at my hearing in 2020 but today [1:01:48] she is home taking care of our three-year-old son so Michelle is able to join me this morning [1:01:53] I would like to acknowledge the wonderful judges that I had the honor of clerking for Judge Barrington [1:02:00] D. Parker of the Second Circuit and Judge Robert A. Katzman of the Second Circuit whom we lost in 2021 [1:02:07] and I thank my current and former colleagues my family of outstanding law clerks and interns and my long-term [1:02:15] corporate deputy Megan Henrich who is at home with her newborn and I also should note that some of my [1:02:21] clerks and interns are here today Ben Kessler, Dory Fyfe, Hyeongju Han and Abby Garden and finally I am [1:02:30] extremely grateful to President Trump for the trust he has placed in me with this nomination I look forward [1:02:35] to answering the committee's questions thank you Judge Mr. Manon good morning thank you to Chairman [1:02:42] Grassley ranking member Durbin and the members of this committee for holding this hearing I want to [1:02:47] start by thanking President Donald Trump for the honor of this nomination I am proud to have served in his [1:02:53] administration first at the Justice Department and now on the White House Task Force to eliminate [1:02:57] fraud and I'd like to thank a few people who helped make that possible Attorney General Pam Bondi acting [1:03:04] Attorney General Todd Blanche FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Vice President JD Vance I look forward to [1:03:12] continuing my public service on the Sentencing Commission if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed [1:03:17] I started at the Justice Department during the previous administration as a career federal [1:03:21] prosecutor in Cleveland Ohio in that role I litigated dozens of complicated sentencing guidelines issues [1:03:28] both in district court and on appeal my service as a federal prosecutor gave me a deep appreciation for [1:03:34] the important role that the Sentencing Commission can play in our criminal justice system including by [1:03:39] implementing new sentencing legislation from this body resolving circuit splits that arise in the lower [1:03:45] courts and responding to Supreme Court decisions involving the guidelines it would be a great honor to [1:03:51] serve alongside Judge Cronin and the bipartisan group of commissioners led by Chairman Reeves who [1:03:57] currently serve on the commission in closing I want to express my gratitude just to be sitting here today [1:04:04] I have lived the American dream I grew up a poor kid in the middle of cornfields in central Ohio [1:04:10] the closest town had a couple stoplights fewer than 2,000 people I certainly would not be here today [1:04:16] except for the blessing and grace of God and the help and generosity of far too many people to count [1:04:21] but a few of those people are here with me today and I'd like to briefly recognize them first my [1:04:26] parents Joseph and Cynthia Mannion are here and they instilled in me faith patriotism and a strong work [1:04:33] work ethic and for that I am really grateful second I'm joined by several colleagues from the [1:04:38] Justice Department in the White House whom I've been lucky to serve alongside and I appreciate their [1:04:42] support and friendship finally certainly not least I'm joined by my wife Sarah Welch who also serves in [1:04:48] the Justice Department she's an extraordinarily good lawyer the best life partner I could ask for thank you [1:04:54] again to the committee for holding this hearing I look forward to answering your questions thank [1:04:59] you uh Mr. Candio I'm going to you mentioned in your opening statement uh my some of my first question [1:05:08] but let's zero in farmers generally can't set prices they pay for inputs or the prices they receive for [1:05:15] their crops they depend on real competition among seed and other egg suppliers to keep costs down and make [1:05:24] sure that there are multiple options to choose from smaller independent ag companies help provide that [1:05:31] competition when larger actors don't play by the rules these smaller companies need to feel confident [1:05:39] that they can speak with their members of congress and report legitimate competition concerns to the [1:05:45] federal authorities without fear of law unlawful uh retaliation how will the antitrust division help [1:05:53] protect independent agriculture companies from unlawful competent uh retaliation for reporting possible [1:06:00] anti-competitive behavior uh thank you for the question senator um uh i'm from philadelphia from [1:06:10] from pennsylvania we don't do much food production on there but my wife of 27 years is from northeast [1:06:17] iowa um from waverly born and bred uh her grandparent great grandparents were farmers her grandparents were [1:06:24] farmers and her uncle um still farms um in my many years of marriage i've spent countless hours in the [1:06:33] beautiful uh rolling hills of northeast iowa and i've learned about the difficulties and challenges [1:06:39] of of farming life um of the the dedication and hard work of our farmers um and and what they do to make [1:06:48] sure that we have food every day to eat um you can be assured senator that these issues will be a top [1:06:55] priority um if i'm so confirmed um as i mentioned in my opening statement um it is the need to treat [1:07:03] farmers correctly and to protect them from anti-competitive abuses um it was one of the the motivations [1:07:12] in the genesis of the sherman act thank you they need an honest referee i hope you can be that uh also [1:07:20] to you i remain concerned about pbm consolidation drug pricing steering favorite uh favoritism and hidden [1:07:29] competition i'm also concerned about abusive drug company tactics that delay generic and biosimilar [1:07:37] competition how will the antitrust division use its its authority to address this sort of anti-competitive [1:07:46] conduct and prescription drug markets that especially harm rural patients and independent [1:07:53] pharmacies as i mentioned in my opening statement um the issues that are most important to americans to [1:08:02] everyday americans in their everyday lives will be the top priority should i be so fortunate as to be [1:08:09] confirmed and of course and of course health care is one of those issues um the problems and issues that [1:08:15] you discussed about drug pricing um will be a priority of of my my my um of the division should [1:08:24] i be so confirmed um and i look forward with working with your office um to um help out the american people [1:08:33] justice cook cook please tell us what you've learned as a state judge that will you'll take with you to [1:08:41] the federal branch i hope i've learned judicial humility mr chairman i've learned i don't know [1:08:49] everything i need to listen very carefully in every case i tell my law clerks when they come in every year [1:08:55] our job is to make sure we get the answer right and that may mean reading every single page of the record [1:09:01] that may mean double checking the research that we get it may mean doing independent research our job is to [1:09:07] get the answer right and so i've learned when i first start when i first read the briefs i'm going to [1:09:13] have my mind changed often um i'm going to have senator britt take over now and i'm thank you congratulate [1:09:23] all of you i'm glad to go to another committee to ask questions uh senator durbin thank you very much [1:09:37] mr chairman um judge cronin the sentencing commission is focusing on reducing sentencing disparities [1:09:51] and promoting transparency and proportionality and sentencing and certainly one of the elements [1:09:58] of that is the issue of race you wrote an article in 2001 in which you claimed it was quote easy to [1:10:08] forecast whether a prison inmate will become a sexual aggressor or victim while incarcerated based on [1:10:15] physical characteristics socioeconomic status criminal history and other factors you wrote and i quote [1:10:23] black inmates are predominantly members of lower economic classes end of quote you also wrote [1:10:29] quote black inmates are most likely to become sexual aggressors end of quote i'm deeply troubled by these [1:10:38] statements in light of the position which you're seeking why should people of color believe that [1:10:45] you've changed from the statements that you made in 2001 senator let me say a few things about that first [1:10:52] of all you're referring to an article that i co-authored uh back in law school i believe one of the [1:10:57] quotes there and i have not reread this article in a long time um was a survey of studies that my co-author [1:11:04] and i did the um statistic that you mentioned was not our study we were quoting another author's study [1:11:10] every do you believe it do i believe that what you published do i believe the accuracy of that study or [1:11:17] i'm sorry you believe the conclusion of that study my the i am not in position to opine on the conclusion of [1:11:24] that study but i certainly do not feel that black inmates are more violent than white inmates my the [1:11:29] point of that article with that prisons can be violent institutions and that prison officials need [1:11:35] to be mindful of that risk now in terms of my my service on the bench i think it speaks to myself [1:11:41] speaks for itself over my six years on the bench i've treated everyone before me as individuals and [1:11:48] equally under the law i i treat them equally regardless of their race gender religion or any [1:11:55] other immutable characteristics senator mr kandube thanks for dropping by my office we had a good [1:12:03] conversation i thought and i raised a question about some of the partners you've chosen to write [1:12:09] commentaries and articles and law review in 1994 you wrote a law review comment in which you extensively [1:12:17] criticized the landmark violence against women act you also extensively discussed rape in your comment [1:12:25] at one point writing and i quote feminists have advanced the theory that rape is an act meant to [1:12:31] perpetuate male domination and they quote the feminist claim seems difficult to maintain in light [1:12:38] of the growing body of empirical evidence coming mostly from researchers of socio-biological bent [1:12:45] that rape has sexual and reproductive motivations do you still oppose the violence against women act [1:12:54] senator that was a student article um and um i i haven't really thought about the issue but i [1:13:02] the violence against women act has been here for decades and i think this served america well [1:13:09] the quote i read was 32 years ago let's get recent three years ago in a 2023 interview with a right-wing [1:13:19] hungarian news magazine in which you failed initially to disclose to the committee you said and i quote [1:13:27] the ideological bias of universities the extensive harassment laws that regulate the workplace [1:13:34] and the gradual spread of self-censorship are leading to a society in the united states [1:13:40] that is intellectually more comfortable duller more deceitful and more timid timid was your word [1:13:50] than in previous decades so let's clarify your position do you oppose laws that protect against [1:13:56] harassment in the workplace absolutely not senator why did you say that any workplace harassment laws [1:14:04] are leading to a society that is quote more comfortable duller more deceitful and more timid [1:14:10] i have spent much of my career as an academic um and for me the most important part about being an [1:14:22] academic is the ability to exchange ideas freely um sometimes i think we've seen in campuses um situations [1:14:32] in which um over um over enthusiastic bureaucrats and enforcers can chill free speech and i think that [1:14:42] was my impetus i want to protect free speech do you stand by your words which word senator you want me to [1:14:49] read it a third time that harassment laws that regulate the workplace make the united states more [1:14:59] comfortable duller more deceitful and more timid than in previous decades i stand by my words because [1:15:05] i believe in free speech thank you madam chair senator kennedy yes sir the state action doctrine means that [1:15:35] normally uh a uh private actor is not subject to the constitution it has to be something done by the [1:15:42] state whether it be the state or or the or the america or the federal government right and why is that [1:15:51] it's because the constitution relates to the government rather than to uh individuals constitution [1:15:58] supposed to protect individuals um does that mean that a private actor can never be uh successfully [1:16:11] accused of violating my constitutional rights no section 1983 is a statute and it has uh it says that if [1:16:20] someone's acting under color of law even if they're a private actor they can be violating your [1:16:25] constitution what if section 1983 doesn't apply what if um what if it's just a uh well let me put it [1:16:37] another way let's suppose uh the white house under a particular uh president called google no strike that [1:16:49] but let's call facebook and said um if you don't stop publishing comments um that question the covet vaccine [1:17:04] we're going to punish you the rest of your natural life and facebook says gotcha we'll stop and they do [1:17:16] now meta meta facebook is a private actor right it is senator can i sue them if they take one of my [1:17:28] comments about the covid vaccine off as a violation of my rights i believe if the private actor is [1:17:35] actually inactive conspiracy with the government they could be sued as acting under the color of law [1:17:40] yeah what's the standard what does what does color of law mean it means that that they're acting [1:17:48] as if they were the government senator okay well um let's take a public utility they're heavily [1:17:56] regulated by the government are they a government actor no sir why not because they're a private [1:18:05] entity and that doesn't mean they're not heavily regulated they're not subject to statutes the [1:18:10] government can pass the government can impose all kind of requirements on them um but they are a private [1:18:15] entity okay you know the law don't you judge i hope so i'm glad i'm passing this national bar exam [1:18:23] mr kandube am i saying your name right yes you are senator mr kandube [1:18:29] you're your general counsel of the fcc that is correct sir all right explain to me like you're [1:18:35] talking to a 10th grader what business it is of the fcc if a uh if a television network [1:18:47] criticizes a political figure uh senator um as general counsel of the federal communications commission [1:18:56] um i i i don't think it would be appropriate for me to to venture into that issue i do um explain the [1:19:05] law to me i mean why why why why doesn't uh i mean this stuff scares me yeah sometimes the fcc scares me [1:19:18] right now um i don't like some of the stuff that that is said on television but why doesn't what what [1:19:30] business is it of the fcc educate me um radio and television broadcasters um hold licenses from the [1:19:43] federal government um through a scheme that this body created um beginning in 1927 in the radio act [1:19:49] and then carried on in 1934 in the communications act well we haven't given the fcc the right to [1:19:56] regulate freedom of speech have we you have required the fcc to regulate broadcasters pursuant to the [1:20:04] public interest and who decides what the public interest is it is the judgment of the of the fcc [1:20:12] following precedent and following the law doesn't that scare you what what what what if the fcc is [1:20:20] in the hands of of of someone whose politics you disagree with senator as general counsel of the [1:20:31] federal communications commission it's my job to follow the law i will do so um in good faith um [1:20:37] carefully studying precedent and um applying the law to the facts okay i'm i'm i'm i'm sorry madam chair [1:20:44] all i'm saying is y'all be careful you're getting in the to to the the the you're getting into the [1:20:53] foothills of violating first amendment understood sir thank you for the indulgence thank you thank you [1:21:04] senator senator welch uh thank you i think uh just continue that line of questioning from senator [1:21:10] kennedy i share his concern i mean my understanding is that uh uh the president who had been a political [1:21:18] candidate against kamala harris was complaining about favoritism on a cbs interview uh uh of [1:21:26] kamala harris in fcc mr kendu opened an investigation is that right thank you for your question sir [1:21:38] senator welch um as general counsel of the federal communications commission i think it would be [1:21:43] inappropriate for me to discuss that matter it's an ongoing matter well did you or did you not [1:21:49] uh at the fcc open an investigation that's public information isn't it um again um you know i would [1:21:59] have to check to see exactly the status of that case um but um i'm not asking about the status of [1:22:05] the case i'm asking you did the did you open an investigation it's been publicly reported you did [1:22:11] again as federal general counsel of the federal communications commission i don't think it's [1:22:16] appropriate to comment on ongoing matters well i'm going to give the answer that senator kennedy gave i [1:22:20] i do i mean it's publicly reported that you opened investigation you're denying that or you just [1:22:30] won't say no i'm not denying that sir all right so with not asking about the details of this investigation [1:22:40] an investigation about bias what was the basis what would be the basis of you opening that [1:22:47] investigation again as general counsel of the federal communications commission my job is not to make [1:22:54] policy my job is simply to advise the chairman and the commission as to the advisability i'm commissioner [1:23:01] of fcc and i say to you as general counsel i i want to investigate this what are the parameters [1:23:10] by which you would evaluate whether my request is your boss to open an investigation about a report [1:23:15] on a uh a major network uh should be done or not done again senator welsh as general counsel of the [1:23:26] federal communications commission my job is to give legal advice about possible alternatives do you [1:23:31] think that there's a chilling effect on a political speech uh if the agency that has the capacity to take [1:23:39] away a license uh decides to open an investigation again senator i'm i'm not asking you your capacity [1:23:50] you know if if if the fcc has authority to issue license and even revoke them right that is the authority [1:23:58] that congress gave the federal communications so the answer to that is yes yes that's correct sir [1:24:06] all right so if the fcc that has that authority goes after cbs abc nbc uh because it wants to quote [1:24:15] investigate something is there no consideration given by the general counsel of the fcc that this [1:24:22] has significant chilling impacts on the broadcast networks senator as general counsel i give legal advice [1:24:33] much of which is protected by attorney client privilege as well as other legal and professional [1:24:38] obligations civilian equivalent have taken the fifth i'm not asking you about the investigation [1:24:44] i'm asking you about public policy all right i'm asking about public policy there's fierce political [1:24:51] debate on this committee senator kennedy enough and i oftentimes disagree but neither of us gets punished [1:24:59] because he's wrong but i'm actually i'm very serious we have got a situation here where people have [1:25:11] strong points of view in this country and they express them and should a person be subject to governmental [1:25:19] action because the governmental agency or even the president of the united states doesn't like the [1:25:24] opinion they're expressing should they the senator as general counsel i'm not asking as general counsel i'm [1:25:32] asking you as a citizen can do but i am still general counsel of the federal communications commission [1:25:43] i'm under numerous legal professional you've been you haven't been made mute because you're the general [1:25:49] counsel i'm asking you as a citizen is there not a chilling impact when a government agency with enormous [1:25:57] power opens an investigation when it doesn't like the words that come out of the mouth of senator welch or [1:26:04] senator kennedy this is an issue that implicates pending matters before the federal federal [1:26:13] communications commission it's inappropriate for me to comment my time is up thank you mr chairman [1:26:20] thank you senator welch i'd like to enter into the record a press release supporting mr kendube's [1:26:26] nomination from the national association of broadcaster broadcasters this group praised him and stated [1:26:34] quote as general counsel of the federal communications commission mr kendube has brought deep legal regulatory [1:26:42] and competition policy expertise and experience and we appreciate his thoughtful engagement on the issues [1:26:49] local broadcasters face in today's media marketplace end quote without objection i will enter this into the [1:26:57] record mr holly thank you madam chair thanks to all the witnesses for being here congratulations on your [1:27:05] nominations i'd just like to note for the record i'll count against my time that senator welch voluntarily [1:27:10] stopped when his time expired something i've never seen or rarely on this committee and certainly as [1:27:18] the ranking member can attest something i have never done in my life well i object to that yeah i object [1:27:22] that he was on time all right well i'll try not to make that mistake um mr candy i enjoyed our conversation [1:27:30] the other day and congratulations on your nomination let's start if we could by talking a little bit about [1:27:34] antitrust and individual liberty something that you said recently caught my eye you said antitrust law [1:27:39] and i'm going to quote you now can combat dominant firms baleful effects on democratic institutions [1:27:45] institutions such as free speech the marketplace of ideas and shareholder control i assume that's still [1:27:52] your opinion it is senator i take that to mean that antitrust analysis under federal law is not therefore [1:27:59] limited to consumer price is that a fair inference i support the consumer welfare standard [1:28:06] of course but it can be measured by other things than simply price yeah this is my point i mean [1:28:11] the sherman act protects competition by outlawing a restraint of trade and and monopoly monopolization [1:28:17] more broadly it nowhere mentions consumer welfare now courts of course have have constructed the [1:28:22] consumer welfare standard but antitrust laws apply to products that are ostensibly free to consumers [1:28:29] would you agree with that i believe so so let me just ask you how do you think the antitrust division [1:28:36] should assess competitive impact in markets that are dominated by tech firms that do not have [1:28:41] readily comparable market prices in other words that hold out their products much of the time as being [1:28:46] completely 100 free certainly i would always look to ensure that there is an actual anti-competitive harm [1:29:01] which would require to using the traditional tests of market power and i'm not at all interested in [1:29:06] abandoning them however i do believe as you pointed out senator that there are instances um in which our [1:29:13] civil civil rights particularly free speech can be an issue and in those situations um the division [1:29:19] should act to protect americans is it fair to say then that under your leadership the division would not [1:29:26] treat uh this claim that the price is zero as a reason to close an investigation into a dominant platform [1:29:33] uh zero pricing um goods like social media um uh present a very interesting and um puzzling sometimes [1:29:46] to economists um challenge on how to value that um however i i do not believe at all um that simply [1:29:53] because something is is zero price that it necessarily escapes antitrust scrutiny good okay good i think [1:29:59] that's a very important principle to get established because that is as you know the common defense [1:30:04] of all of these tech companies as to why they should elude any antitrust scrutiny at the outset [1:30:10] let me ask you about another implication of antitrust in the social media market there are roughly [1:30:15] three firms maybe at most that dominate overwhelmingly the content that reaches the average 12 year old [1:30:23] in this country now i'm a father of three children all that age and younger let me just ask you do you [1:30:28] regard that kind of concentration as properly the concern of the antitrust division certainly um as we all [1:30:36] know from our antitrust classes bigness is not necessarily bad concentration is but the first [1:30:42] step but it's the first step and and markets that are concentrated will of course um get the attention [1:30:48] of my division should i be so fortunate as to be confirmed good that's exactly what i'm driving at [1:30:54] and let me just give you the perspective of of one parent which is that when there's no competition [1:31:01] for uh parental controls no competition out there that would allow a parent to choose greater safety [1:31:08] for his children or her children then you're leaving essentially the parents totally at the mercy of [1:31:14] the platforms in this case the fact that there's just two or three dominant platforms none of whom have [1:31:18] any real interests let me just call it like it is any real interest whatsoever in protecting children [1:31:23] online in fact who have a massive financial interest in pushing the most exploitative material possible and [1:31:31] certainly the most addictive material possible to all of our children online because it benefits them [1:31:35] financially you know that leaves me and millions of other parents like me nowhere to go and i think [1:31:42] the fact that there's no robust competition is a huge part of this problem i would just like to ask [1:31:47] you if you will commit to coordinating with the ftc which has some jurisdiction here as well as state [1:31:52] attorneys general to prioritize child safety online will that be a priority for you absolutely sir good [1:32:01] well my time has expired and a radical departure from my normal practice i will cease and desist here but [1:32:08] i will have questions for the record i'm sure other folks on the panel are just devastated i didn't ask [1:32:12] you questions so i'll give you some questions for the record as well congratulations to all of you [1:32:16] thank you madam chair thank you senator holly senator blumenthal thanks madam chair uh judge cook who won the 2020 [1:32:25] election a joint session of congress certified that joseph biden won the election and therefore [1:32:32] as a matter of law he was the winner senator how many times have you rehearsed that answer with the [1:32:37] white house i actually never spoke to the white house about that answer senator you knew what the [1:32:42] answer was going to be because you've watched all the others give that canned pre-planned answer correct [1:32:51] i have watched a lot of videos you have watched everyone before you and you know what the routine is [1:32:58] and what the president united states expects you to say regardless of whether it is the truth or not [1:33:04] correct again i've watched a lot of videos and i'm trying to be very precise who won the popular vote in [1:33:10] the 2020 election so if you uh look at each state the governor under one of our acts is required to [1:33:17] certify you're essentially unwilling to tell me who won the 2020 election who won the popular vote uh judge [1:33:27] cronin you're already on the district court who won the 2020 election senator under the constitutional [1:33:34] system and in particular the 12th amendment uh joseph biden received the majority of electoral college [1:33:40] vote and you really have nothing to lose you're on the court with a lifetime appointment and yet you're [1:33:47] unwilling to state the simple fact that joe biden won the 2020 election i do have life tenure senator [1:33:54] i'm trying to answer your question as truthfully and accurately as i can mr manion who won the 2020 [1:34:03] election senator i agree i agree with the substance of my co-panelist mr kandu who won the 2020 election [1:34:11] let's see if you can do better i agree with my panelists you agree with your the fellow panelists [1:34:17] the united states congress certified joseph biden what kind of enforcer are you going to be if you can't [1:34:24] tell the truth to a committee of congress and don't tell me that you can't answer because you're general [1:34:33] counsel of the fcc the united states congress certified joseph biden that's president mr judge cook [1:34:45] was the capitol attacked on january 6 2021 yes there was a lot of violence and vandalism at the [1:34:52] capitol and attacks on law enforcement so i i hesitate to use the word attack just because it would be [1:35:00] something that would apply to everybody and i i believe you're unwilling to say what justice [1:35:06] coney barrett has said what judge kelly has said judge lamberth has said federal district court judges [1:35:15] and a supreme court justice that the capitol was attacked you're unwilling to say that i actually [1:35:22] don't think i quite finished my answer senator i don't have a problem with saying some of those people [1:35:28] attacked the capitol and there was vandalism and there was violence and they attacked law enforcement [1:35:34] and i i denounce all of that so yes senator i don't i don't think we're i don't think we're disagreeing [1:35:41] judge conan what's your answer to that question senator from washington videos law enforcement [1:35:46] officers were assaulted um from what i saw the capital um there was trespass it was vandalism so i would [1:35:52] stand by um what i observed which i think made clear that there were assaults on law enforcement officers [1:36:00] mr manny senator i agree um there was certainly violence against law enforcement officers violence [1:36:10] against the capitol and i detest all such violence uh mr kandu um i agree with my fellow panelists it [1:36:22] was a terrible day for america um there was violence against law enforcement which i deplore there's vandalism [1:36:31] um it was a terrible day the violence against those brave capitol police officers was because there [1:36:41] was an attack on the capitol and an attempt to stop the lawful transfer of power for you to refuse to say [1:36:55] there was an attack on the capitol simply because donald trump characterizes it as a quote innocent [1:37:04] journey is disrespectful of those police officers it is also fundamentally disqualifying for a federal [1:37:13] district judge or anyone else seeking a position of trust it is chilling that people who've been nominated [1:37:25] for this extraordinary position of responsibility would be unwilling to acknowledge the truth and i was [1:37:35] with a number of career prosecutors in the department of justice former prosecutors who were responsible [1:37:43] for pursuing cases relating to the event of january 6 just this morning and received from them a letter [1:37:53] that has been written to all the members of the united states senate i ask that it be entered into the [1:37:58] record without objection they say and i agree quote this institutional denial of truth especially by potential [1:38:09] federal judges is dangerous yet it's become all too clear that president trump expects his nominees [1:38:16] to provide evasive answers about both the attack of january 26 2021 and the results of the 2020 [1:38:25] presidential election it is about the independence that you should be expected to demonstrate today [1:38:35] on the bench and in all of the positions that you have been nominated to fill i'm disappointed that [1:38:42] you've avoided that responsibility thank you madam thank you senator blumenthal senator booker uh mr [1:38:52] kandube in any other administration this hearing would be straightforward would be disgusting antitrust [1:38:58] law competition consumer welfare but this is not a normal administration this is an administration [1:39:06] where the president has repeatedly treated the powers of government as instruments to reward those [1:39:11] who help him and punish those who oppose him we've seen companies attacked because of their news [1:39:17] coverage we've seen the president weigh in on mergers before independent review was even conducted [1:39:23] we've seen companies seeking government approvals simultaneously resolving private disputes with the [1:39:30] president himself paying him millions of dollars we've seen law firms universities and corporations [1:39:36] pressured after becoming presidential targets we've seen career public servants sidelined after [1:39:41] refusing political demands again and again the message has been the same mr kandube please the [1:39:48] president and the government will work for you cross the president and the government may work against you [1:39:55] that is exactly why the independence of the antitrust division matters even more you said to me in our [1:40:02] private meeting this is about consumer protection it's about competition it's about free and fair markets [1:40:08] but we know it's not about that in the antitrust division the facts are plain gail slater and two of her [1:40:13] deputies followed the facts and the law and brought suit to block the hpe juniper merger when trump aligned [1:40:21] lobbyists went over their heads they secured a sweetheart deal and gail slater who objected to the settlement was [1:40:27] fired in the stanley woodard and todd blanche who would be your bosses cleared 111 million dollar [1:40:33] paramount warner merger without any conditions at all staff who reviewed the transaction before they could [1:40:41] even issue a formal recommendation they were going to recommend blocking the merger you can even look at [1:40:47] the live nation ticket master career attorneys were in federal court alongside a bipartisan coalition of [1:40:53] state ag's fighting that massive dominance of that venue ticketing conglomerate when senior doj officials [1:41:00] bypassed them and negotiated a backdoor deal after the president met with the ceo this is why it's important [1:41:07] for us to know will you follow the facts in the law will you listen to career staff or are you going to follow [1:41:14] the dictates of a president who's shown over and over again that he's going to abuse his position to influence the law [1:41:20] so everything comes down to a simple question it's not matter whether you know antitrust law it's [1:41:26] whether you have the courage to tell this president no when it's hard so let me make this easy show us [1:41:37] your courage show us your independence be a man be your own man right now and stand up and answer a question [1:41:44] yes or no a simple yes or no question that shows right now all of america that you're your own man [1:41:51] i don't need legalese i don't need trickery yes or no did joe biden win the 2020 presidential election [1:42:01] yes or no the united states congress oh there you go sir stop federal courts said he did president's [1:42:13] own attorney general said yes president's own cyber security director said yes republicans all over [1:42:21] this country said yes and right now you're not showing me you can't even acknowledge a fact that's [1:42:27] been established by the courts the president's own attorney general by his own election security [1:42:32] officials why should we believe that you're going to stand up to this president when billions of [1:42:37] dollars are at stake and the fate of mergers are in your hands this is the pivotal question can you [1:42:44] please tell me a yes or no answer tell me no i can't give you a yes or no answer if that's your answer [1:42:49] yes or no did president biden win the 2020 elections the united states congress certified sir you are showing [1:42:57] cowardice and that's the question are you going to choose the truth or trump law or his lies are you [1:43:06] going to choose the constitution or cowardice let me ask you one final question to maybe bring this [1:43:13] into light and show me that you're your own man i'm asking this very simply show me or tell me one time [1:43:24] one time one single occasion publicly or privately where you pushed back against this president one [1:43:32] time after he suggested that government decisions should be guided by his personal political interests [1:43:37] can you tell the american public i know you and your wife probably don't agree on a hundred out of a [1:43:42] hundred there's i have a litany of things i disagree with biden and obama on give me one thing that you [1:43:50] thought the president united states has done that you think is wrong untoward corrupt policy disagreement [1:43:58] one thing for the american public here's your chance show me your your own man i've always in my [1:44:06] government capacity and i i look forward to doing so to make all my decisions according to law and the [1:44:11] facts mr mr sir stop stop this is a game this is really a game american people have the right to be concerned [1:44:21] that this president through the facts of the antitrust committee is going to use his power to [1:44:28] influence you in your job i'm not asking you to to come out against the president i'm not asking you [1:44:35] to go against the truth i've given you opportunities here to show us in the easiest questions possible [1:44:42] that you're your own man and and you haven't given me one shred of evidence that you can stand up and [1:44:49] choose the truth over trump the law over lies the constitution over his continued corruption i i'm [1:44:58] disappointed i was looking for one thing to show independence you told me in my office i will be [1:45:04] independent and this is disappointment that you can't give me one example of you differing with a [1:45:10] person that most american knows most of america knows has lied repeatedly in his office has taken on [1:45:18] policies that have been detrimental to the independence of the judiciary and i'm not going [1:45:22] to support your nomination thank you thank you senator lee thank you madam chair uh mr kandub [1:45:29] i'd like to start with you let's um i'd like to hear just about your overall uh philosophy regarding [1:45:36] antitrust enforcement um as i i as i've mentioned um i will apply to the facts the law to the facts [1:45:47] i means judicially weighing the facts consulting with career um with the career staff developing the [1:45:55] legal theories um and then using my own judgment to come to the best solution to the problem um antitrust [1:46:02] is a very blunt instrument um it can do a lot of damage as well as a lot of good um but um i think that [1:46:09] um if i'm confirmed i i will be very cautious um it it's humbling um the wrong decision can hurt american [1:46:18] lives um the right decisions protect competition um and i will take um the decisions that i'm presented [1:46:25] with with the greatest care um recognizing their tremendous significance is is bigness disfavored or [1:46:32] presumptively suspect under antitrust law absolutely not um bigness in in in and of itself is is not [1:46:40] necessarily indicative of any antitrust harm um in fact bigness often provides efficiencies [1:46:46] um that are valuable to the american people now there are those uh who are skeptics of our antitrust [1:46:52] laws who like to say i believe in the free market i want the free market to take care of this [1:46:57] government shouldn't intervene in antitrust law uh what's your best response to that i would say [1:47:05] they're right uh free markets generally have the answer i mean and uh as i mentioned in my opening remarks [1:47:12] um what has been so wonderful about american antitrust enforcement um is that it has recognized [1:47:18] it has unleashed competition it has recognized that markets can adjust um often antitrust settlements [1:47:26] cannot and therefore for government to introduce into the economy um its own vision of what is the [1:47:32] right outcome um is very dangerous um the amazing economy we experienced we've had for 250 years is [1:47:41] because we allowed free markets to do their work right so taken to its logical conclusion one could [1:47:47] take that and say okay then let's not um let's not enforce our antitrust laws or let's enforce them with [1:47:53] rarity and with uh the extremely narrow careful stripes uh or or not at all well what's your response to [1:48:01] that well i would i would be on the let's do so but the evidence must be strong um as i said it's a blunt [1:48:11] instrument it can do harm um but when the evidence is there i i'm i just enforce the law if if i'm so [1:48:18] confirmed it's not my job to make it it's there and they the law will be enforced and does and and as i [1:48:24] mentioned earlier protecting competition ensuring um uh that our market structures maximize social welfare [1:48:33] um is the goal of antitrust okay so if bigness isn't uh isn't the triggering issue what is what is what is [1:48:40] what is the central touchstone insofar as you can boil it down to one standard that applies more or [1:48:46] less in antitrust in different antitrust contexts the only coherent standard that ensures that in any [1:48:52] antitrust decision you're benefiting all americans is the consumer welfare standard um because that is [1:48:58] the only one that ensures that there's there's more more stuff more outcome more utility rather than less [1:49:04] um so you know that is the touchstone it doesn't mean that there's certain circumstances that we [1:49:10] can have expanded or not expanded but a a a view that does not just focus on price um but um that is [1:49:19] the only coherent way to look at antitrust law because consumer welfare doesn't exclude other [1:49:23] considerations besides price correct absolutely not um it can it can include things such as privacy or [1:49:32] or i would say um when constitutional rights are issued like free speech to what extent in what [1:49:39] ways do you think state attorney generals should play a role in antitrust enforcement if confirmed [1:49:48] i hope to work with state attorney generals um to have a coherent and consistent um antitrust [1:49:55] enforcement are you aware of any other country or at least any other peer or near peer nation any [1:50:02] other developed nation that has um antitrust laws competition laws if you want to define it more [1:50:08] broadly that has um two antitrust enforcement agencies that are not connected to each other to be [1:50:20] honest i'm not an expert on comparative antitrust institutions neither am i i'm not fishing for any [1:50:26] particular answer but but uh to be honest senator i i i i just don't know yeah uh all right uh i'm out of [1:50:33] time but uh these are things that need to be considered including what happens when we end up [1:50:39] with a two popes problem uh if you try having two popes at one time it doesn't work if we had two [1:50:45] presidents of the united states serving simultaneously that would cause other problems and i think uh one [1:50:51] day congress needs to grapple with this and figure out whether it makes any sense to have uh these twin [1:50:57] siloed parallel universe antitrust enforcement agencies that often determine jurisdictional battles by [1:51:02] a coin toss thank you thank you senator lee senator shift uh thank you um mr cook in 2008 barack [1:51:13] obama ran against john mccain who won that election uh i believe president obama was sworn [1:51:21] into oath sworn into office so i'm certain he won senator uh and john mccain lost that election [1:51:29] yes senator but four years later barack obama ran against mit romney who won that election uh president [1:51:37] obama was sworn into office so i'm certain he was elected as a matter of law senator and did romney [1:51:45] lose the election that's the natural logical uh converse of that yes in 2016 donald trump ran against [1:51:54] hillary clinton who won that election he was sworn into office so as a matter of law he was elected to [1:52:00] that office senator so donald trump won that election that would be the natural assumption yes [1:52:09] senator is it a brilliant assumption you have to make did donald trump defeat hillary clinton [1:52:15] in the electoral college he did yes senator do you have some uncertainty about whether he won that [1:52:19] election no i'm trying to be precise about what i'm saying yes he won in the electoral college because [1:52:25] and joe joe biden in 20 well um in the 2020 election who won between donald trump and joe biden [1:52:37] well joe biden was certified by joint session of congress and so as a matter of law he was the [1:52:43] elected president as a matter of fact who won that election he was we we implement the 12th amendment [1:52:51] and under that i don't he was elected as a matter of fact who won that election just as a simple [1:52:56] matter of fact somebody asked you out on the street who won the election in 2020 what would your answer be [1:53:03] who won and who lost i would say as a matter of law he was elected senator and as a matter of fact [1:53:11] that you're somehow separating the law and facts as a matter of actual fact who won the election in 2020 [1:53:17] it's a fact that the electoral college vote was more for joe biden you see it have a real difficulty [1:53:24] with that question in 2024 donald trump ran against kamala harris who won that election president trump [1:53:31] had more electoral college votes and so the joint session congress certified him as the winner so [1:53:36] donald trump won that election as a matter of law he was elected senator and kamala harris lost that [1:53:41] election that was the converse yes um and mr candib um in 2016 when donald trump ran against hillary [1:53:51] clinton who won that election um donald trump was certified as winner by the um united states congress [1:54:00] did he in fact win he was certified as winner did he in fact win he was certified as winner you have [1:54:07] some doubt about whether he won well under a constitutional structure it is the states that [1:54:12] has my question is do you have some doubt about the outcome i i have no doubt that the u.s congress [1:54:17] certified donald trump no i don't ask you that question do you have any doubt that donald trump won [1:54:22] the election i have no doubt that under our constitutional structure uh well that's that's really not my [1:54:27] question in 2020 who won the election the united states congress certified why is it difficult for [1:54:39] you to answer a simple factual question about who won presidential elections when did it become so [1:54:44] difficult to answer such a simple question and how can we expect you to rely on the facts when you're [1:54:55] evaluating a case mr cook uh when you're evaluating a merger mr candib how do we expect how can we [1:55:04] expect you to rely on the facts when you have such difficulty stating the obvious um mr candib [1:55:14] uh when you met with my staff yesterday you said you stood by your previous comments including op-eds [1:55:23] you wrote for white nationalist websites like vader in one of those in an article titled immigration [1:55:30] and three twitchy jewish nerves you stated quote muslim immigrants and their children seem prone [1:55:36] not only to terrorism but to cultural separatism do you stand by that statement senator i wrote that [1:55:46] article in defense of donald trump's travel ban which i thought was that's not my question my question [1:55:51] is you told my staff you stood by your previous statements do you stand by that one i stand by [1:55:57] those articles they were defenses against terrorism and so you you stand by that statement so what do you [1:56:02] mean that muslim immigrants and their children are prone to terrorism i wrote those articles i'm not [1:56:13] asking you you've already said you stand by that statement so what do you mean by that trying to [1:56:18] explain uh i wrote those articles um in defense of donald trump's travel ban which is to protect us [1:56:24] against terrorism and i thought that terrorism was it is continues to be a tremendous threat to all [1:56:31] americans and you and you think that muslim immigrants and their children are somehow prone to [1:56:36] terrorism i wrote in support of the travel ban i'm aware of why you wrote the article my question is [1:56:45] and i would like an answer do you stand by your statement that muslim immigrants and their [1:56:51] children seem prone to terrorism i stand by by the article i wrote um the travel ban was being [1:56:58] well then that's that's all i need to know i yield back thank you i'd like to enter into the record [1:57:05] a letter supporting mr kandube's nomination from 22 former senior justice department officials including [1:57:15] former attorney general bill barr they endorsed mr kandube and stated that quote his government [1:57:23] service has demonstrated the leadership and management ability the division's leadership [1:57:28] demands his private sector experience has given him practical judgment and his academic work will [1:57:35] guide him in addressing the important policy questions the department will face in the years ahead [1:57:41] end quote without objection i will enter this into the record and now for it seems your final round of [1:57:52] questioning um i want to start with you justice cook we are so thrilled to have you here and very proud [1:58:03] of the work that you've done getting to watch you on the bench for the last four years [1:58:08] uh you have an impeccable record both there and in your previous career there at the law firm and [1:58:18] obviously service to our nation the air force raising to the rank of captain and the air force reserves [1:58:25] i heard you say you were going to take from that experience particularly that on the bench judicial [1:58:30] humility and making sure that you're doing all of the work i know that about you you dig into every issue [1:58:36] every problem um you you want to understand what's in front of you and make sure that you find the best [1:58:41] pathway forward on that note i have also heard you talk uh consistently about you being boring and [1:58:48] predictable do you mind uh telling my colleagues a little bit about your judicial philosophy and what you [1:58:55] will be like on the federal bench thank you senator i i do believe in public service that's why i spent four [1:59:03] years in the air force and that's why i spent all that time of the campaign trail together uh [1:59:09] going to all 67 counties in alabama and driving 80 000 miles because i believe in public service [1:59:15] and and i as you mentioned earlier i've written a two-volume treatise on the rules of civil procedure [1:59:21] it's frankly a boring book but it's a great reference tool and it reflects like you say that i'm a boring [1:59:29] and predictable person but i've accumulated 35 years of experience now between my time in the firm [1:59:37] and my time on the bench and i want to be able to bring that service and that experience and that [1:59:43] knowledge to bear in the federal system and i think i can help the wheels of justice move efficiently [1:59:50] and justly senator thank you so much and thank you for your willingness to serve can you talk about how [1:59:55] you approach novel questions of law both on your your time on the bench currently at the alabama [2:00:02] supreme court and what approach your approach might be if confirmed here to the district court well on [2:00:09] the supreme court if i get a novel issue i'm always looking at the text the text is always the first [2:00:15] thing you look at and you look at the original public meaning of the text what did the words mean the [2:00:21] time they got passed because the subjective intent of the legislators is really not relevant what we [2:00:28] care about is the words they passed that's part of the separation of powers is that we pat we enact [2:00:37] the laws and then i determine what the our court determines what the law is we don't determine what [2:00:44] it should be we determine what it is and tell me this what qualities now that you've had four years on [2:00:51] the bench uh what qualities do you think are most important um for a judge to have well you need [2:00:59] to be impartial you need to be firm that you're not going to bend you're not going to worry about the [2:01:04] pressure or the consequences you're going to get the right answer uh you're going to be willing to keep [2:01:09] researching and you're not going to stop until you're certain that you got the right answer uh you're [2:01:14] going to dig and dig and dig and you're going to be willing to change your mind if you have to change [2:01:18] your mind to an answer and uh like i say my fellow colleagues in the Alabama Supreme Court have helped [2:01:25] teach me to be a judge and those are the type of things i've learned from them excellent in our last [2:01:31] remaining minutes i'd like to ask each of you take 15 seconds and tell us some something that you want [2:01:38] to make sure that this committee knows about you prior to making the decision we'll start with you thank [2:01:44] you senator brit um i care a lot about the sentencing commission and the sentencing guidelines when i [2:01:51] served as a federal prosecutor i saw how important they were in each case uh i'm also very aware of how [2:01:58] important it is that they be written and interpret and uh revised in a way that makes it easy for [2:02:05] prosecutors defense attorneys and judges across the country to apply them uh in the various cases they [2:02:11] uh encounter thank you senator over my time on the bench and as a prosecutor i've come to realize the [2:02:19] importance of the sentencing commission in our criminal justice system those are for some of the [2:02:22] reasons that mr mannion just mentioned the u.s sentencing guidelines which are an important factor [2:02:27] under section 3553a and are most valuable when they accurately or at least effectively capture the [2:02:34] offense and the offender and i would be committed to carefully examining the guidelines and see how they [2:02:40] can be improved to account for um as many of the 3553a factors as we can the other important role of [2:02:47] the commission is this unbiased collection of data information that is vital to this body um as you [2:02:54] perform your task in considering criminal justice legislation and also to sentencing judges as we try to [2:03:00] impose sentences that are uh sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing [2:03:05] thank you i've been working on competition issues my entire life and i want to bring all the energy [2:03:13] and commitment i have um to making sure that the american people get great deals thank you and judge [2:03:19] cook i'm just incredibly honored to have the opportunity senator and i just want to thank you and [2:03:27] and and the president for that opportunity absolutely well thank you to our nominees for being here and [2:03:34] for your testimony today written questions for the record may be submitted until august 19th at 5 o'clock pm [2:03:43] and with that this hearing is adjourned