Hearings to examine the Muslim brotherhood network in America.

good morning everybody welcome all of you to today's hearing we have two panels first panel features an assay john nominated to the uh us court of appeals fifth circuit Our second panel has Gregory Cook, be Judge of the US District Court for Northern District, Alabama. Adam Kone-Dub, to be uh Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust. John Cornyn, Cronin and Jason Mannion, to be Commissioners on the US Sentencing Commission. All of today's nominees are highly qualified. and reflect diverse backgrounds in law and public service. They continue President Trump's trend of nominating top-tier people for our country's most important roles. I have a personal honor today to introduce them three of our five nominees. So I'll do that right now. Adam Kendi do uh is a uh nominated to serve as assistant attorney general to oversee the justice department's antitrust division his career spans public service private practice and academia after graduating from yale university and the university of chicago law school uh he clerked uh on the ninth circuit and practiced law at two major firms for a better part of a decade. Uh the nominee then entered public service as an attorney advisor at the Federal Communication Commission for the past uh for the two decades thereafter. He was a professor at Michigan State University Law School where he taught many areas of law, including antitrust and criminal law. Notably, at at the end of President's Trump's first term, the nominee briefly returned to public service as Acting Administrator of the uh National Telecommunication and Information Administration, and then as Deputy Attorney General with the uh Justice Department. Uh, during President's second term the nominee has served as general counsel of the federal communications commission throughout his career uh he's done important work his scholarship and legal advocacy focused on protecting children from exposure to pornography and other obscene materials he's also a strong advocate for free speech and fighting censorship by uh social security companies during the biden administration uh next judge cronin been nominated to serve as us sentencing commission as a federal judge he obviously knows a thing or two about the sentencing guidelines that the commission sets forth and his understanding of criminal law stems from his career of public service before joining the bench. Judge Cronin served as assistant US attorney for the southern district of New York. He was also the chief of the Terrorism and Inter- National Carnetics uh unit. Judge Cronin saw over oversaw more than one hundred investigations and prosecuted a wide array of crimes, including complex national security cases against foreign terrorists. His career featured additional positions with the Justice Department, serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. Uh in twenty, since twenty twenty, Judge Cronin has served 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 finally judge manion jason manion has also been nominated to the us sentencing commission he brings a distinguished career that expand all three branches of government after graduating from harvard law mister manion clerked twice on the us court of 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 committee as special counsel for my colleague, Senator Cruz. Since twenty twenty two, Mister Mannion has served as an Assistant US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. And as a uh federal prosecutor, he's handled many cases and appeals uh dealing with sentencing issues and sentencing guidelines. During President Trump's second term, Mister Mannion has held multiple significant roles on detail from the US Attorney's Office, serving as Counselor-in-Chief of Staff to the Associate Attorney General, and then the Attorney General and is currently a General Counsel and Senior Advisor of the White House, on eliminating fraud. Uh, Senator Durbin.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I've served on this committee for nearly thirty years. In that time I've attended countless nomination hearings, providing an opportunity for members to determine if nominees are qualified. Nomination hearings like this one today are an essential part of the Senate's role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominees. This constitutional duty is a critical check on the executive branch. And it has never been more important that the Senate exercise this duty because we now have a president and an administration determined to use every opportunity to push the bounds of power. I'm not going to revisit the nomination of Todd Blanch. We spent a good part of yesterday morning in this committee discussing his worthiness for that position. But I do wanna say that there's some elements underway in this administration that need to be addressed by Congress, I hope, if not by the courts. Dramatic changes. Corruption. Corruption used to happen behind closed doors. Now the doors are wide open. You can see exactly what's going on. First year in office, second term for Donald Trump was a good year for him. one point four billion dollars at least, some say two billion dollars, an amazing, amazing amount of money for anyone who would be president of the United States. And unfortunately, the fingerprints on that two billion dollars involves the crypto industry, cryptocurrency. They have their fingerprints on every act of corruption in Washington. And we see members of the cabinet, uh, would-be members of the cabinet, with personal holdings who are trying to explain their relationship with the crypto bunch. Judges may ultimately make the decision on this. That's why nominees will be asked some important questions. Insider Trading Boost, did you read about Truth Social? "For a hundred thousand dollars a month, just one point two million dollars a year, we're gonna give you the edge on information, official information from this administration. You may get thirty seconds, maybe that's all you need to punch the right A hundred thousand dollars a month. Was that sneaky behind the scenes strategy? No way. It was advertised in the front page. Wanna buy into this new information for insider training? Give the president's company a hundred thousand dollars a month. Does that sound right to everybody here? The third thing is US attorneys. For the record, in President Trump's first term, over eighty almost ninety, maybe I'm off a few, US attorneys who were approved by this committee, by voice vote, and then approved on the floor, by voice vote. I'm talking about Trump administration zero point one, one point zero. Now we go through each and every one of these US attorneys, and have a fight as to whether or not, we're going to have the ultimate uh last word on their selection, or whether they'll be acting US attorneys indefinitely. That's a change. What brought it about? I'll tell you exactly what brought it about. The decision by one senator from Indiana, now Vice President of the United States, to require separate roll calls on every US attorney under the Biden administration. He started it, I tried three or four times to get him to reconsider it, and to go back to the bipartisan approach, he wouldn't do it, and now we're stuck with it. We spend more time on the floor voting for US attorney nominees than we should. I hope we can return to the days where we trusted one another and didn't have this kind of arrangement. We're wasting our time in the Senate. In closing, I wanna note that two of the witnesses before us have been nominated to fill vacancies in the US Sentencing Commission. Congress created the Sentencing Commission in nineteen eighty-four, charged it with the critical task of promoting transparency and consistency in federal criminal sentencing. The commission collects and analyzes data, and then employs his expertise to help guide Congress in setting sentencing policy to guide the federal judiciary in making important sentencing decisions. Members of the commission are tasked with the the responsibility of establishing practices and policies that promote proportionality in sentencing and reduce sentencing disparities they must carefully consider revisions to sentencing guidelines, as they forever impact the lives of those facing the criminal justice system. The Commission has long operated in a bipartisan manner, a reflection not just of the statutory mandate for bipartisanship among Commission members, but also of the consensus-driven approach embraced by those who have served on this important body. During the Biden administration, I was proud to lead the effort to re-establish the Commission's quorum with a full bipartisan slate of nominees. so that it could continue its important work. Federal judges rely on sentencing guidelines promulgated by this commission for one of the most important aspects of their jobs, deciding on the appropriate penalty for a defendant. Thus, it is critical that members confirmed to the commission have the technical expertise, experience, and understanding so that they can face the gravity of their work and understand its impact on the criminal justice system. i look forward to hearing from the nominees thank you mr. chairman

senator kennedy for introduction

thank you uh mr. chairman um judge saint john is no stranger to this committee she was before us in february um where she was being considered for a position on the united states district court in new orleans on which she presently serves. President Trump has nominated Judge St. John to fill a vacancy created by Judge Engelhardt, who has served honorably and well on the federal fifth circuit. Uh, the president chose wisely. Um, Judge St. John's had an interesting career. She's uh, she's from a small town in Mississippi. She went to uh LSU and just absolutely knocked the top out of it. Magna cum laude graduate. An assortment of law schools, predictably tried to recruit her. She chose Columbia. Um she knocked the top out of it at Columbia. She got a JD and a master's. She was a James Kent scholar. She uh then clerked for a year for Judge Barksdale on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, very distinguished jurist. Then she went to work for one of the premier law firms in the in the world, Covington and Burley. Um At that level, when you practice with a firm as like Covington, um it's not a job, it's a lifestyle. Uh, she was there seven years. She would have been partner. Um, which just means, well, it means you get to work harder. You also make a bucket load of money. Uh, but she and Scott were married and she said, " You know, I'm, I'm rethinking things here. I, I wanna, I, I wanna practice with a smaller firm and have a family and uh not many people uh not many lawyers would would make that choice i mean you work so hard to to get to become a partner but there there there are other ways to in to uh contribute to the practicing of law she has been in in private practice with a small boutique firm one of the things she specializes in is class actions. And thanks to her work, um, she has ensured that that that the people who are hurt and are the subject of these class actions, who oftentimes don't get any money, all the money goes to the lawyers. She uh, she has worked to ensure that people get their fair share. Um, but but more than then her her accomplishments uh judge saint-john is uh she is obviously intelligent she is patient she is wise she is not a politician um she didn't have a squillion people call me to encourage her nomination either for the court of appeal or for the district court we do get a lot of those calls. She just applied. And I was going through the resumes and I saw hers and said, oh my god, um, I need to talk to this lady. And uh, I I checked around and she was obviously the most, one of the most qualified. And that's why for the district court level and the court of appeals, I I suggested her to president trump um judge st. john she understands the law she knows the law but more importantly she she appreciates the beauty of the law the elegance of the law the nuances of american law and the shortcomings of american law i i met a lot of smart lawyers who know the law but they don't really appreciate its application they don't really understand the human consequences of its application they don't understand it's as i said it's beauty or its shortcomings and so i'm happy to introduce judge st. john i talked longer than i thought um my work here is done Chairman, I can show my myself out.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Now, Senator Brett.

Always my favorite. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is an absolute honor today to be able to introduce one of Alabama's finest, Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Greg Cook, who I am, um, fortunate to call a friend. Welcome to you and your entire family. Uh, In my opinion, this day has been a long time in the making. For those of you who don't know Greg and haven't had a chance to read up yet, um, I am so delighted that President Trump chose Greg to fill the role there in the judgeship in the Northern District of Alabama. Greg has served at the Alabama Supreme Court as an Associate Justice since twenty twenty two. Uh, he has reviewed and written numerous opinions on some of the state's most complex, both criminal and civil cases that were in front of him. He has an impeccable record of service. So when you look at Gregg and you see the way he conducts himself, he applies the law fairly and diligently to everyone who comes in front of him. Now, he's just been on the bench since twenty twenty two, but Prior to that, he spent years at one of our most distinguished firms in the state of Alabama, thirty-two years to be exact, earning the rank there of partner. But prior to that, he served in the Air Force. Uh, Greg made the rank of captain and also continued to serve our nation in the Air Force reserves. This is in his blood, love of country, service to those around him, in his community, and his family and his state and now for his nation. Greg graduated from Duke, uh also went on to Harvard Law. And despite the accolades that he's received in his life, the thing that has always been most important to Greg is his family. I say that's because of the values that were instilled in him and the Shoals, growing up. He loves his children. He loves his wife, his church. his community, and he has consistently bettered himself to be able to answer the call. I had an opportunity about four years ago to really get to know Greg. We had traveled around the state together and I got to see him interact with Alabamians. I got to see him connect with them. Wanna know what was happening and and how he could be helpful. I also got to learn that he wrote Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure book, which uh was quite a thick book, that shows he not only knows the law, he loves the law. And I have every, I have faith and confidence in his ability to answer this call. Greg, thank you for being willing to serve. You are such a fine human being. Your character is unmatched, your diligence, your intellect. I know that you will uphold the Constitution and you will apply the law faithfully in every single circumstance, and that you will be thoughtful, um, about the role that, that you are stepping into in a way that's going to make every one of us proud. So thank you for answering the call. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for Gregg, and boy, it was an honor to be able to send your resume forward. And I appreciate President Trump um for seeing what i saw on that piece of paper and in this human being in front of us so thank you greg and thank you mister chairman for allowing me to introduce him

thank you um judge st johns would you please come and before you seat i'd like to uh administer oath thank you uh you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god very positive response now sit down and give your uh testimony uh and uh introduction of friends and family however you wanna proceed the uh proceed

thank you uh great

thank you thank you chairman grassley ranking member Durbin and thank you to all members of the committee for having me here today Thank you to President Trump for the great honor of this nomination. Senator Kennedy, thank you for those very kind remarks. No one could accuse you of being an easy grader, and so I'm just especially grateful for your support. I also wanna thank Senator Cassidy for his support. I am here today with my husband, Scott. He's an exceptional person, truly my better half. He is sitting with our three older children, Charles, Bertie and Anna Douglas. Our littlest and most energetic Jack is home with my parents-in-law, Joyce and Doug St. John. They have been wonderfully supportive over the years and I'm very blessed to be a part of their family. I'm here today only because of the support of so many people. Those include my siblings, aunts and uncles, friends and colleagues. Above all are my parents, Libby and Chuck Wagner. I wish they were still with us for so many reasons. But I know I didn't need to become a judge to make them proud. I just needed to be a good person. I continue to be inspired by their sacrifices and the values they live by. I'm also here today with my law clerks. I'm privileged to go to work every day at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I serve alongside an incredible group of people. Those include my judicial colleagues, our court security officers, everyone in the court clerk's office, and so many more. Their hard work to make sure we have a strong, functioning, efficient judiciary is a testament to the strength of our country and its people. Being nominated to the Fifth Circuit is a profound honor on its own, made more so because that's where I started my legal career, clerking for Judge Reissa Barksdale. I strive to put into practice the lessons I learned from that clerkship every day, and will continue to do so if I am so honored. with by being confirmed again thank you for considering my nomination i welcome any questions

judge you've been serving as a district judge for just a few months now uh you seem to be managing a docket i'm told of about a hundred and twenty civil and criminal cases so you got uh a lot shoved on you right off the bat Uh, during your time so far, what's the most important thing that you've learned about being a federal judge?

Well, Senator Grassley, you're right. I really hit the ground running and I I learn more every single day. One um aspect of the job that's really been impressed upon me is the um impact that the court's work that my orders have on the parties as a district judge, you know, I I see the criminal. right in front of me with their families. I see the pro se litigants and interact with them. I I see clients with their attorneys. And it's really impressed upon me the need for judges to make sure that people have a full and fair hearing, that they feel that they're getting a fair um consideration of their case, and that judges provide reasoned opinions so that the parties know, that people understand that the court's rulings are based in the law, and not on any judge's personal preferences or beliefs.

I would think most uh people would agree with what senator Kennedy about said on your last confirmation he said quote unquote you are real student of the law uh beyond the law you've spent years working with new Orleans family justice center and that center is dedicated to ending family violence child abuse and sexual assault. Uh, tell us please uh why it's important for judges to prioritize victims and victims' rights when presiding in a case of that nature.

Sure. So judges and courts do represent the legal recourse that the more vulnerable in our society, um, have access to. And so it's so important for courts and judges to be, um, to uphold the law and be a source uh for enforcement and implementation of the law that's intended to protect our most vulnerable in society.

I think I'm going to quote uh something you said during your last confirmation hearing. You stated that quote " the best way to give effect to people's will is by construing the words used in the text with the meaning these words had at the time they were enacted pursuant to the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process end of quote uh why is that approach so important

that approach is important because our constitution lays out the process by which law is created and that requires bicameralism and presentment what emerges from that process is the text of the law, and that text represents the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in the legislature. If judges are to add meaning to that or change the meaning of the text that was agreed upon through the legislative process as prescribed by the constitution, that constitutes judges um enacting their will rather than the will of the people. And so that's why it's so important for judges to, you know, stick to the text of the law.

Um, the next question and last question is something that I have a hard time with myself when people ask you which is the most important colleague you've had or president you've served under. Uh, so tell us which attorney or judge you most admire and why.

Well, Chairman Graslie, I started my career clerking for Judge Barksdale, as I mentioned, and that was really a foundational experience. where I learned how important it is to meticulously analyze each case, and make sure you understand the facts and the law, and have approached it with a truly impartial approach so that you are, um, giving each party a fair shake. It's also important, I've learned from that, from Judge Barksdale, um, to remember the role of the judiciary. We are not lawmakers. Uh, courts have defined powers. And it's important for courts to stick within the powers that have been granted to the judiciary rather than um taking powers beyond what they have.

Thank you and congratulations, Senator Erbut.

Judge St. John, welcome back. I'm not gonna revisit many of the questions that I asked you several years ago when you appeared before us. I I don't think your answers were responsive then. I don't expect they would change today. But there is one issue I wanna return to. At your previous confirmation hearing, I noted that in November twenty twenty one, when I chaired this committee, we advanced the ending forced arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment act by voice vote. I believe uh that the sponsorship of this legislation on was virtually unanimous, not completely, but close to unanimous. on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And of course, the membership of this committee embraces the American political spectrum from right to left. Virtually all of the members of the committee voted for this and supported it. Why? It was legislation that said to a woman, particularly, that you cannot be held by an employment contract which limits your options if you're a victim, uh, alleged you're a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Some employment contracts, and I know you're well aware of this issue, some employment contracts do not give a victim, woman, in that circumstance an option to take her case to court before a judge or a jury. It has to be by forced arbitration and many cases the arbitrator is chosen by her employer. It creates a real disadvantage for you, those who are alleging that they're victims of sexual harassment. You testified in the House against this legislation, claiming that ending forced arbitration was quote, "not in the best interests of those subjected to sexual harassment and assault." You argued that the bill quote " turns these women into unwilling pawns, leveraging their private difficulties in pursuit of public policy objectives that don't actually benefit them." You said at one point as well, arbitration is faster, less expensive, way of resolving disputes companies may have, so they have more funds to devote to employee benefits, or to reducing, lowering costs for consumers. Former Fox News host, Gretchen Carlson, was a leading advocate for the ending forced arbitration of sexual assault, and sexual harassment act. following her harassment by Roger Ailes at Fox. She previously opposed your nomination to the district court, and this is what she said. "While women around the country bravely share the urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women and the public. She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain instead of listening to women who were forced to suffer in silence." Saint John tried to convince Congress that these women's understanding of their own experience were incorrect. These are the words of former Fox News host, Gretchen Carlson. "It's been several years since you've thought about this issue before one of these committees. Today is an opportunity for you to answer the question. Do you have any second thoughts about the position you've taken on this issue?"

Senator Durbin, I appreciate those questions, and I I wanna be clear, I think some of my words were taken out of context. Um, I was I did not oppose the litigation the legislation. I didn't presume to tell any senator or congress member how to vote. I understood my role as providing additional context about arbitration and additional information as congress members worked through this issue and figured out where to draw the line on these issues and how to how to legislate. one of the comments you you quoted from my testimony was referring to forced litigation my point is that women should have a choice to choose to arbitrate or litigate and i i i um continue to think that there can be benefits to arbitration in some instances there can be benefits to litigation and at no point do i think anyone should be forced to arbitrate their claims arbitration is only by consent of the parties

but that's exactly that's exactly the issue There's no choice in forced arbitration. It's a take it or leave it for the employees before this new law was enacted.

I certainly respect that Congress took, carved out those claims from the, um, from any kind of pre-dispute arbitration agreement. And I, I agree, even before the law, if an employer, um, did force somebody to sign an agreement, then under the law, that should not be valid. And, um, people should have a choice as to whether to take their claims to court if they wish.

I think it's a good response, but it it really is inconsistent with the role that you played and the testimony you gave before the House of Representatives. So let me just ask you today, do you think forced arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment cases is right or wrong?

I don't think anyone should be forced to arbitrate their claims.

You've changed your position.

I've I've always taken the position that arbitration is by consent only.

Well, that is a dramatic change from where you were when you testified before congress. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Yeah. Uh, before I call on Senator Kennedy, entering in a record, a letter in support of the nominee from Melissa Holyoke, uh, US Attorney, District of Utah. Uh, they worked together on consumer protection lit litigation in private practice. The letter praised Judge St. John and stated Quote, " As her colleague, I was consistently impressed by Anna's disposition while engaging with our colleagues, other counsel, and the courts. She would carefully consider differing viewpoints, oppose, approach opposing arguments with intellectual honesty, and always kept her composure during the circumstances." End of quote, Senator Kennedy.

thank you mister chairman um judge uh your your uh spouse scott's a pretty good lawyer in his own right isn't he

clearly

yeah i'm sorry i neglected to mention that when i was introducing you um this issue about

heard some proposals from

uh your your feelings about sexual harassment and

no i don't think it's

the recourse of people who have been harassed seems to have arisen

position of the title

when you were testifying as a private citizen back in two thousand and twenty one

but i don't know

before the house

agree

so i understand

excellent

and and i've i've read your testimony i've read the record

hold on it

um uh i don't see how any fair minded person can conclude that you were trying to do anything to impede someone who is a victim of of sexual harassment from from from being able to address the wrongs um uh uh here's a quotation i wanna from your testimony quote Your words, not mine. Allegations of sexual harassment and assault should be taken seriously.

Where's the information? Sexual.

And accusers afforded the full protections of the law as they seek to hold those responsible to account. Removing one form of dispute resolution, however, does not further those goals. Did I read that correctly?

That is correct.

Now, do you do i- if if I am a victim of sexual harassment, I have a number of options. I can file a complaint and try to resolve it privately if it's in the workplace with my employer and and the alleged perpetrator. Can I not?

Yes, you can.

Or I could choose to mediate the dispute. Could I not?

Yes, Senator.

Or I could choose to arbitrate the dispute, could I not?

Yes.

Or I could choose to go to court, could I not?

That's correct, Senator.

Now, do you oppose removing any of those uh uh of those options for someone who's an alleged victim?

No, Senator, uh victims should have their choice of how to deal with these issues.

And, i- as I understand your Tell me if I read it wrong, but I looked at it pretty carefully. What you were saying i- is that at least as I appreciate it, that that all forms of redress should be available to the alleged victim. Right?

Yes, Senator.

I mean, would you elaborate on that a little more? Cuz I I honestly, I don't get it. I mean, I get the politics. You know, the folks that democrat and republican and all that but my experience uh you're not a very political person and you were asked to come testify um as a lawyer and an expert in the law so tell me what you said

thank you senator and when i hear these criticisms it feels very disconnected from my actual testimony i would never try to silence a victim of sexual assault or harassment my point in my testimony was to provide some context for how many different options for resolving these claims and addressing these claims should be available to women. Um, and you know, forcing them into litigation or forcing, you know, taking away their choice of one option or another, um, is not actually supporting the victims and and Congress should do as it sees fit to um, make sure that these victims still have options for resolving this these terrible events.

OK. Well, let me be sure I understand your testimony. Um, do you do you consider acts of sexual harassment to be repugnant?

Yes, of course.

And do you support the right of anyone who claims to be sexually harassed to to to be able to have their allegations heard in accordance with the rule of law in due process?

Yes, absolutely.

Are you d in your testimony, did you support all forms of redress? Do you think we ought to preclude somebody from going to court or not going to court or arbitrating or not arbitrating or mediating or not mediating?

No, I didn't take anything off the table.

OK, I didn't think you did. I read it pretty carefully. All right, well, thank you, Judge. Um. i i appreciate your candor i'm done mr. chairman

by the temporary power vested in me i recognize senator whitehouse

thank you mr. temporary chairman um i'm not gonna be able to vote for this nominee and i wanted to uh explain why um her history with uh hamilton lincoln law institute center for class action fairness competitive enterprise institute and independent women's forum creates concerns for me that she has simply for too many years inhabited the leonard leo coke brothers judicial slash political operation machine um i think that group of interwoven organizations has a very specific goal, which is to put people onto courts who, when the 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 judge is about. I don't think that's what this committee should be about. It has nothing to do with conservative versus activist. I think some of the most activist decisions that have been rendered have come from judges who've come out of that same Koch brothers, Leonard Leo network of judicial slash political influence. Um, competitive enterprise institute, a frequent dark money amicus, in courts, has taken roughly ten million dollars from donors' trust and donors' capital from twenty twelve to twenty twenty two, four hundred thousand from Koch organizations from twenty fourteen to twenty twenty one, and its president became the president of donors' trust in twenty fifteen. Donors' trust is described as the dark money ATM of the far right. Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute took at least one point two five million dollars in litigation grants from donors' trust since twenty twenty one. Independent Women's Forum took three hundred thousand dollars from Leonard Lio's judicial education project in twenty eighteen, and more than thirteen million dollars from donors' trust from two thousand seventeen to two thousand eighteen. I don't know why Donald Trump called Leonard Leo a sleazebag. Something's going on that's a little weird there. But what I do believe, is that a persistent effort by the far right wing, funded by a lot of billionaires who anonymized their money through Donor's Trust, and in two front groups, is a very, very powerful force in judicial appointments right now. And, Miss St. John, I'm sorry to say that, um, based on that record, I can't help but believe that when the time comes, and the right amicus comes before you, that'll be the signal for you to render the decision that they want. So that's why I'm not gonna be voting uh for this nominee. Um I'd also like to add, because it's just been in the news recently, um comment on the situation with the US Attorney uh Junine Pirro and uh the action that the District Columbia, t- US Attorney's Office took in the reflecting pool case. We saw an awful lot of lying take place. For instance, the Secretary of the Interior just a month ago on CNN was asked about that lining. It peeled off. Why did that happen? Do you know? It didn't peel off, he said. There was "There was vandalism", he said. "There were box cutters", he said. The question came back, you're one hundred percent sure that what happened with the liner was vandalism. You can prove it. "Oh yes, absolutely", he said. US Attorney Pero said the same thing in a big press splash announcing the indictment of the former Olympian against whom the charges were just dropped. Why were they dropped? They were dropped because the case ran into a wall. A wall, based on a decision called Brady versus Maryland. Which, creates a constitution constitutional duty. On the government. To disclose exculpatory evidence to anyone it is charged with a crime. And the US Attorney's Manual, which they now call the Justice Manual, actually has a robust section directing prosecutors not just to adhere to the minimum constitutional standard, but to go out of their way to make sure that all exculpatory evidence gets delivered to the defendant. So the actual lawyers going to actual court were looking at having to turn over exculpatory evidence that according to the US attorney's own pleading was withheld from them by the Department of Interior. So a US citizen was falsely indicted based on incomplete information while the government, at least at the Department of Interior, held information that it did not disclose to the Department of Justice that would have blown up the indictment, that should have been disclosed to the grand jury. This whole exercise was disgraceful. And the fact that senior government officials still continue to lie about the vandalism, after what they've seen, just makes it worse. Thank you, Chairman.

Senator Brumethal.

Thanks. Thanks, Senator Durbin. Uh, just say, John, you were here just months ago. february fourth twenty twenty six and i asked you a number of questions i'm gonna ask you the same questions beginning with who won the twenty twenty election

senator excuse me pursuant to the twelfth amendment and article two the electoral process is the process by which a president is selected and in january twenty twenty joe biden was certified by the electoral college and served for four years

though you are unwilling again to answer that question truthfully correct

senator i've provided a response that is ethically appropriate and legally correct under the the judicial code

it is ethically inappropriate for you to fail to be candid with this committee and to give us the canned rehearsed answer that you have been programmed by the trump white house to provide let me move on uh was the united states capitol attacked on january sixth twenty twenty one

senator i have reviewed some testimony and news reports excuse me some videos and news reports um showing that there were some physical assaults on law enforcement and i completely condemn any kind of violence against law enforcement

was the capitol attacked

You know, I wouldn't be careful with the specific language I use because I am a federal judge and subject to the codes of conduct.

You're you're a federal judge. Judge St. John. But federal judges have not only acknowledged but stated clearly that the Capitol was attacked. Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her dissent in fisher versus the united states said and i'm quoting a mob of rioters that breached the capitol on january six twenty twenty one and that the rioters quote conduct which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of election results do you agree with justice coney barrett

Well, I I was going to um agree that the Supreme Court has used the term " the Capitol is breached". And given that I'm subject to Supreme Court precedent, that's language that has been used by the courts, I'm comfortable adopting that language. Yes, Senator.

So, you agree that the Capitol was attacked on January sixth.

You know, I I w- again, I wanna be very careful with my language because this is a politically controversial subject and I'm subject to the judicial canons. As I, as you noted, the Supreme Court has described it as a breach of the capital.

Justice Barrett said that a mob of rioters breached the capital. And Judge Timothy Kelley, also a Trump appointee, said quote, as the court has said many times, the attack on the capital on January sixth, twenty twenty one was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured. Do you think Judge Kelly is being less careful than he should be, calling it an attack?

I wouldn't be careful with my own personal response and in all of the attacks against law enforcement, again, I completely condemn.

You know, other judges have similarly acknowledged that there was an attack on the Capitol on January six, twenty twenty one. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to the capital police who fought back against that attack it is disrespectful to the truth of what happened on that day but most important it indicates that you are continuing and emphasize continuing to adopt the president's distorted and inaccurate illusion about what happened on that day that he has in effect used to try to rewrite history and it indicates a lack of independence i think that lack of independence is disqualifying for you to be a judge on the district court not to mention the court of appeals it's the reason that i voted against your nomination for the district court but now that you are on the district court you have a lifetime appointment president trump can't do anything to you you have no reason to fear his wanted vindictiveness against anyone who would defy his illusion about january sixth and your failure to basically speak truth to this committee i think indicates that you will fail to speak truth to power if you are confirmed as a judge on the court of appeals uh the the rehearsed and regurgitated language that you've given us today i think is disqualifying and i regret that i regret that you can't do better thank you

if there's nobody else to ask your questions except uh sir you're gonna get a lot of questions for the record uh answer them

thank you

ok if you'll uh got one more nominee to come here then i'll administer the oath um i'd like to swear yeah at this point do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth all truth and nothing but the truth so help you god

yes sir

all answered in the affirmative please sit down and uh we'll start out with you uh mister cook and go across you can make your opening statement introduce your family and friends what say whatever you wanna do with this

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I appreciate the time of everyone today on this committee. I want to thank President Trump for this nomination, which is the honor of my lifetime. I want to thank Senator Tuberville and Senator Britt, who lent their support and made this nomination possible. I want to thank my wife of thirty-eight years, Kimberly, who has been with me every step of the way. Through my time in the United States Air Force, through law school, and through raising our three children, I am truly blessed. I would like to thank my parents, Gene and Dottie Cook, my dad, also an Air Force veteran, passed away when I was running for the Alabama Supreme Court, but my mother is here today. I would like to introduce some of my, uh, many friends and family who are here today with me. My son Jeffrey and his wife Mary of Virginia. Her mother, Lisa Klein of Delaware. My daughter Mary Catherine and her husband, husband Sam Jenkins of Alabama and his parents, Steve and Carla Jenkins of Arkansas. My son, Will Cook of Alabama. My brother, Steve Cook of Florida, also an Air Force veteran. My cousin, Jamie Estes of Florida. My senior staff attorney, Claire Veal, and my law clerk, Alan Crisol- Crisolago, and his wife, Caroline. I also want to thank my many friends and family watching back in Alabama, including my wonderful colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court, who taught me how to be a judge. And my former partners in my firm of thirty-one years, Baljib Bingham, who taught me how to be a lawyer. Most importantly, I want to thank Jesus Christ, my personal savior, who is the reason I am here today. I'm honored to be here and welcome your questions.