▶ 0:20:46Chair Grassley: Everybody, welcome, all of you, to today's hearing. We have two panels. The first panel features anna st. John, nominated to the, uh, U.S. court of appeals fifth circuit. Our second panel has gregory cook to be judge of the U.S. district court for the northern district of alabama.
▶ 0:21:13Chair Grassley: Adam candeub to be the assistant attorney general for the antitrust. John peter cronan and jason manion to be commissioners on the U.S. sentencing commission. All of today's nominees are highly qualified and reflect diverse backgrounds in law and public service.
▶ 0:21:42Chair Grassley: They continue president trump us trend of nominating top-tier people for our country bus most important roles. I have the personal honor today to introduce three of the five nominees. So, I will do that right now.
▶ 0:22:01Chair Grassley: Adam candeub is, ah, nominated to serve as assistant attorney general to oversee the justice department boss antitrust division. His career spans public service, private practice, and academia.
▶ 0:22:21Chair Grassley: After graduating from yale university and the university of chicago law school, he clerked on the ninth circuit and practiced law at two major firms for the better part of a decade. The nominee then entered public service as an attorney advisor at the federal communications commission.
▶ 0:22:51Chair Grassley: 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 the end of president's trump's first term the nominee briefly returned to public acting administrator of the national telecommunications and information administration.
▶ 0:23:21Chair Grassley: And then as deputy attorney general with the justice department. During president's second term, the nominee has served as general counsel of the federal communications commission. Throughout his career he has done important work. His scholarship and legal advocacy focused on protecting children from exposure to pornography and other obscene materials.
▶ 0:23:51Chair Grassley: He is also a strong advocate for free speech and fighting censorship by social security companies during the biden administration. Next, john cronan has been nominated to serve the sentencing commission as a federal judge.
▶ 0:24:14Chair Grassley: He obviously knows a thing or two about the sentencing guidelines the commission sets forth and his understanding of criminal law stems from his career public service. Before joining the bench, he served as assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of new york and was also the chief of the terrorism and international carnatic's unit.
▶ 0:24:43Chair Grassley: He oversaw more than 100 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.
▶ 0:25:13Chair Grassley: Since 2020, the judge has served on the U.S. district court for the southern district of new york. He's done a great job. I thank him for his service. Finally, jason manion has been nominated to the U.S. sentencing commission, bringing a distinguished career that has spanned all three branches of government.
▶ 0:25:40Chair Grassley: After graduating from harvard law, he clerked twice on the U.S. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. Served as deputy solicitor general for the state of ohio. And he has also worked in support of this committee as special consult for my colleague, senator cruz. Since 2022, he has served as an assistant U.S.
▶ 0:26:09Chair Grassley: Attorney for the northern district of ohio and as a federal prosecutor he has handled many cases and appeals dealing with sentencing issues and sentencing guidelines. During president trump's second term, he has held multiple significant roles on detail from the U.S.
▶ 0:26:36Chair Grassley: Attorney's office, serving as counselor and chief of staff to the associate attorney general, and then the attorney general and is currently a general consul and senior advisor to the white house task force on eliminating fraud. Senator?
▶ 0:26:55Sen. Durbin: Thanks, Mr. chairman. I've served on this committee for nearly 30 years and 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.
▶ 0:27:20Sen. Durbin: This constitutional duty is a critical check on the executive branch and it has never been more important that the senate exercise this duty as 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 blanche. We spent a good part of yesterday morning in this committee discussing his worthiness for that position.
▶ 0:27:46Sen. Durbin: But I do want to say that there are 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 is going on. First year in office, second term for donald trump was a good year for him.
▶ 0:28:15Sen. Durbin: 1.4 billion dollars at least, some say $2 billion. An amazing, amazing amount of money for anyone who would be president of the united states. Unfortunately, the fingerprints on those $2 billion involve the crypto industry. Cryptocurrency. They have their fingerprints on every act of corruption in washington.
▶ 0:28:39Sen. Durbin: We can see members of the cabinet, would be members of the cabinet with personal holdings trying to explain their relationship with the crypto bunch. Judges may ultimately make the decision on this, which is why nominees will be asked some important questions. Did you read about truth social? Insider-trading boost?
▶ 0:29:02Sen. Durbin: $1.2 million per year, we are going to give you the edge on information, official information from this administration. You might get 30 seconds, but maybe that's all you need to punch the right button on your computer and make it fortune. $100,000 a month. Was that a sneaky behind the scenes strategy? No way, it was advertised on the front page. Want to buy into this new information? Give the president's co. $100,000 a month.
▶ 0:29:34Sen. Durbin: Does sound right to everyone here? U.S. attorneys, for the record, in the president's force -- first-term over 80, almost 90, maybe I'm off by a few, U.S. attorneys were approved by this committee by voice vote in then approved on the floor by voice vote. I'm talking about trump administration 1.0. Now we go through each and every one of these U.S.
▶ 0:30:00Sen. Durbin: Attorneys and have a fight as to whether or not we will have the ultimate last word on their selection or whether they will be acting U.S. attorneys indefinitely. That's a change. What brought it about? I will tell you exactly. Decision by one senator from indiana, now vice president of the united states, to require separate role calls on every U.S. attorney under the biden administration. He started it. I tried three or four times to get him to reconsider and go back to the bipartisan approach.
▶ 0:30:33Sen. Durbin: He wouldn't do it and now we are stuck with it. We spend more time on the floor voting for U.S. attorney nominees then we should. I hope we can return to the days where we trusted one another in didn't have this kind of arrangement. We are wasting our time in the senate. In closing, two of these witnesses before us have been nominated to fill vacancies in the sentencing commission.
▶ 0:30:56Sen. Durbin: It was created in 1984 and charged with the critical task of promoting transparency and consistency in federal criminal sentencing. The commission collects and analyzes data and employs expertise to guide congress in setting policy to guide the federal judiciary in making important sentencing decisions.
▶ 0:31:17Sen. Durbin: Members of the commission are tasked with the responsibility of establishing practices and policies that promote proportionality in sentencing and reduce sentencing disparities. They must carefully consider revisions to guidelines as a forever impact the lives of those facing the criminal justice commission.
▶ 0:31:42Sen. Durbin: The commission has long been bipartisan, a reflection of not just 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 reestablish the commission's quorum with a full bipartisan slate of nominees so that it could continue its important work.
▶ 0:32:09Sen. Durbin: Federal judges rely on sentencing guidelines promulgated by this commission, it's one of the most important aspects of their jobs, deciding on the appropriate penalty for a defendant. It is thus critical that members confirm 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.
▶ 0:32:38Chair Grassley: Senator kennedy, introduction?
▶ 0:32:44Senator Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Judge st. John is no stranger to the 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.
▶ 0:33:09Senator Kennedy: John to fill a vacancy created by judge englehart, who has served well on the federal fifth circuit. The president chose wisely. Judge st. John's had an interesting career. She is from a small town in mississippi. She went to lsu and knocked the top out of it.
▶ 0:33:39Senator Kennedy: Magna cum laude graduate. From an assortment of law schools, predictably, tried to recruit her. She chose columbia. She knocked at the top out of it at columbia. Got a masters. She's a james caan scholar. She chirped -- clerked for judge clark dale.
▶ 0:34:10Senator Kennedy: Then she went to work for one of the premier law firms of the world, covington and burley. At that level when you practice with a firm like covington. It's a lifestyle, seven years. She would have been partner.
▶ 0:34:42Senator Kennedy: You get to make a bucket load of money. She and scott were married and she said I'm rethinking things here. I want to practice with a smaller firm. Have a family. Not many people, not many lawyers would make that choice. , you work so hard to get to become a partner.
▶ 0:35:11Senator Kennedy: But there are other ways to contribute to the practice of law. She has been in private practice with a small, boutique firm. One of the things she specializes in his class actions .
▶ 0:35:28Senator Kennedy: Thanks to her work, she has ensured that the people who are hurt and the subject of these class actions, who often don't get any money, the money often goes to all the lawyers, she has worked to ensure that people get their fair share. But, but, but more than her accomplishments, judge st.
▶ 0:35:55Senator Kennedy: John is obviously intelligent. She's patient. She's wise. She is not a politician. She didn't have a squillion people call me to encourage her nomination for the court of appeal over the district court.
▶ 0:36:27Senator Kennedy: We do get a lot of those calls. She just applied. I was going through the resumes. I saw hers and I said -- oh my god. Let me talk to this lady. I checked around and she was obviously one of the most qualified. That is why on the district court level and on the court of appeals level, I suggested her to president trump. Judge st.
▶ 0:36:57Senator Kennedy: John, she understands the law. She knows the law. But more importantly, she appreciates the beauty of the law. The elegance of the law. The nuances of american law. And the shortcomings of american law.
▶ 0:37:25Senator Kennedy: I've met a lot of smart lawyers who know the law, but they don't appreciate its application, don't understand the human consequences of the application. They don't understand as I said, it's a or its shortcomings. So, I'm happy to introduce judge st. John. Talked longer than I thought. My work here is done, Mr. chairman. I can show myself out.
▶ 0:37:52Chair Grassley: Thank you, senator kennedy. Senator britt?
▶ 0:37:57Senator Britt: Always my favorite. It's an absolute honor today to be introducing one of alabama's finest, alabama supreme court justice greg cook, who I am fortunate enough to call a friend. Welcome to you and your entire family. In my opinion, this day has been a long time in the making.
▶ 0:38:20Senator Britt: For those of you that don't know greg and have not had a chance to read up yet, I'm so delighted that president trump chose greg to fill the role there of a judgeship in the northern district of alabama. Greg has served the alabama supreme court as an associate justice since 2022.
▶ 0:38:43Senator Britt: He has reviewed and written numerous opinions on some of the state's most complex criminal and civil cases that were in front of him. He has an impeccable record of service. So, when you look at greg and you see the way he conducts himself, he applies the law fairly and diligently to everyone who comes in front of him.
▶ 0:39:08Senator Britt: Now, he's been on the bench since 2022 and prior to that he spent years at one of our most distinguished firms in the state of alabama. 32 years, to be exact, earning the rank of partner. Prior to that, he served in the air force. Greg made the rank of captain and also continued to serve our nation in the air force reserves.
▶ 0:39:34Senator Britt: This is in his blood, love of country, service to those around him and his community, his family, his state, now his nation. Greg graduated from duke. Also went on to harvard law. Despite the accolades he has received in his life, the thing that has always been most important to greg's family. I say that is because of the values that were instilled in him while he was growing up.
▶ 0:40:06Senator Britt: He loves his children, he loves his wife, his church, his community, consistently bettering himself to be able to answer the call. I had the opportunity about four years ago to really get to know him. We had traveled around the state together and I got to see him interact with the people of alabama. I got to see him connect with them. Wanted to know what was happening and how he could be helpful.
▶ 0:40:32Senator Britt: I also got to learn that he wrote the alabama rules of civil procedure book, which was quite a thick book. It shows that 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.
▶ 0:41:05Senator Britt: I know that you will uphold the constitution and apply the law faithfully in every single circumstance and that you will be thoughtful about the role that you are stepping into in a way that is going to make everyone of us proud. Thank you for answering the call .
▶ 0:41:24Senator Britt: I urge all of my colleagues to vote for greg and boy it was an honor to be able to send your resume forward and I appreciate president trump foreseeing what I saw on that piece of paper about this human being in front of us. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:41:43Chair Grassley: Before you sit, I would like to administer the oath. Thank you. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, god? Positive response. Now, sit down, give your testimony. Introduce your friends and family.
▶ 0:42:13Chair Grassley: However you want to proceed, proceed.
▶ 0:42:21Ms. St. John: Thank you. Thank you, chairman grassley, members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. Thank you to president trump for the great honor of this nomination. Senator kennedy, thank you for your kind remarks. No one could accuse you of being an easy greater. I want to thank senator cassidy for his support as well.
▶ 0:42:47Ms. St. John: I am here today with my husband, scott, an exceptional person, truly my better half, sitting with her three older children. Charles, nina, douglas. Our littlest and most energetic, jack, is home with my mother. Wonderfully supportive over the years and I'm blessed to be a part of the family. I am here today only because of the support of so many people, including my siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, and colleagues.
▶ 0:43:19Ms. St. John: Above all, my parents, lydia and chuck. I wish that 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 values. I am here today with my law clerks. I'm privileged to work every day at the U.S. district court for louisiana.
▶ 0:43:46Ms. St. John: I serve alongside an incredible group of people, including my judicial colleagues, or court security officers, everyone in the clerk's office, and so many more. Their hard work to make sure we have a strong, functioning, and efficient judiciary is a testament to the strength of our country and its people.
▶ 0:44:07Ms. St. John: Being nominated to the fifth circuit is a profound honor on its own, made more so because that is where I started my legal career clerking for judge barksdale. I strive to put into practice the lessons I learned there every day and will continue to do so if I am so honored by being confirmed. Thank you for considering my nomination. I welcome any questions.
▶ 0:44:32Chair Grassley: Judge, you have been serving as a district judge for just a few months now. You seem to be managing a docket, I'm told, of about 120 civil cases. So, you've got a lot shoved on you right off the bat.
▶ 0:44:53Chair Grassley: During your time so far, what is the most important thing you've learned about being a federal judge? Ms. st. John: you are right, I really hit the ground running. One aspect of the job that has really been pressed upon me is the impact of that my orders have on parties. As a district judge, you know, I see the criminal defendants in front of me with their families.
▶ 0:45:24Chair Grassley: I see those pro se litigants and interact with them, clients and their attorneys. It's really impressed upon me the need for judges to make sure that people have a full and fair hearing. That they feel they are getting a fair consideration of their case, and that judges provide reasoned opinions so that the parties know, so that people understand that court rulings are based in the law and not on the personal preferences or beliefs of anyone judge.
▶ 0:45:53Chair Grassley: I would think most people would agree with what senator kennedy about said on your last confirmation, saying "you are a real student of the law." beyond the law, you have spent years working with new orleans family justice center. That center is dedicated to ending family violence, child abuse, and sexual assault.
▶ 0:46:20Chair Grassley: Telus, please, why it is important for judges to prioritize victims and victims rights when presiding over a case of that nature.
▶ 0:46:34Ms. St. John: Sure. Judges and courts to represent the legal recourse at the more vulnerable in our society have access to, so it is so important for courts and judges to uphold the law and be a source for enforcement and implementation of the law as it is for intended to protect the most vulnerable in society.
▶ 0:47:00Chair Grassley: I think I am going to quote something you said in your last confirmation hearing. You stated "the best way to give effect to the will of the people is by construing the words used in the text with the meaning the words had at the time they were enacted pursuant to the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process." why is that approach so important?
▶ 0:47:29Ms. St. John: That approach is important because our constitution lays out the process by which laws are created, requiring bicameralism and presentment. What emerges from the process is the text of the law representing the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in the legislature.
▶ 0:47:53Ms. St. John: If a judge is 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, it substitutes the will of the judge for the will of the people. That is why it is so important for a judge to stick to the text of the law.
▶ 0:48:15Chair Grassley: Um, the next question, the last question, is something I have a hard time with myself, when people ask you which is the most important colleague you have had or president if you have served under. Tell us which attorney or judge you most admire and why.
▶ 0:48:35Ms. St. John: I started my career clerking for judge barksdale, as I mentioned. That was a foundational experience learn how important it is to meticulously analyze each case to understand the facts, the law, and approach it truly impartially so that you are giving each party a fair shake.
▶ 0:49:01Ms. St. John: It is also important, I learned from judge barksdale, to remember the role of the judiciary. We are not lawmakers. Have defined powers. It is for courts to stick within the power to carry rather than taking power beyond what they have.
▶ 0:49:23Chair Grassley: Thank you, congratulations.
▶ 0:49:26Sen. Durbin: Welcome back. I'm not going to revisit many of the questions I asked you several years ago when you appeared before us. I don't think that your answers were responsive then and I don't expect they would change today. There is one issue I want to return to.
▶ 0:49:46Sen. Durbin: Under previous confirmation hearing I noted that in november of 2021, when I chaired the committee, we advanced the ending enforce arbitration of sexual assault and harassment act by voice vote. I believe that at the sponsorship of this legislation it was virtually unanimous. Not completely, but close to it. Unanimous on the senate judiciary committee.
▶ 0:50:14Sen. Durbin: The membership of this committee embraces the american political spectrum from right to left. Virtually all members of the stomach for it and support of. Why? He was that said to a woman, particularly, that you cannot be held by an employment contract that limits your options if you are a victim, alleges you are a victim of sexual assault or harassment.
▶ 0:50:40Sen. Durbin: I know you are well aware of this issue, some employment contracts do not give a victim woman in that circumstance and option to take her case to court before a judge or a jury. It has to be by force arbitration and in many cases, the arbitrator is chosen by her employer, creating a real disadvantage for those alleging that they are victims of sexual harassment.
▶ 0:51:07Sen. Durbin: You testified in the house against this legislation, claiming that ending force arbitration was not in the best interests of those subjected to sexual harassment and assault. You argued that the bill turns these women into unwilling pawns leveraging their private difficulties in pursuit of public policy objectives that don't benefit them.
▶ 0:51:33Sen. Durbin: At one point you said as well that arbitration is faster, less expensive way of resolving disputes that companies may have , so they have more funds to devote to employee benefits or reducing costs for consumers.
▶ 0:51:55Sen. Durbin: Former fox news house gretchen carlson was a leaving advocate for the ending force arbitration of sexual assault and harassment act following her harassment by roger ailes and the fox. She had previously opposed your nomination to the district court, saying this," women around the country bravely share the urgency of eradicating force arbitration, st.
▶ 0:52:20Sen. Durbin: John used her power and influence to gaslight keys women and the public, downplaying their stories, minimizing their pain, instead of listening to women who were forced to suffer in silence. St. John tried to convince congress that these women's understanding of their own experience were incorrect. -- in." these are the words of a former fox news host.
▶ 0:52:46Sen. Durbin: It has been several years before you have 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 have taken on this issue?
▶ 0:52:58Ms. St. John: I appreciate those questions. I want to be clear, I think that some of my words were taken out of context. I was, I did not oppose the legislation. I didn't presume to tell any senator or congress member how to vote.
▶ 0:53:17Ms. St. John: I understood my role as providing additional context about arbitration and additional information as congress members worked through the issue and figured out where to draw the line on the issue and how to legislate. One of the comments that you quoted from my testimony referred to forced litigation. My point is that women should have a choice to choose to arbitrate or litigate. I continue to think that there can be benefits to arbitration in some instances.
▶ 0:53:46Ms. St. John: There can be benefits to litigation. At no point do I think that anyone should be forced to arbitrate their claims. Only by consent of the parties.
▶ 0:53:55Sen. Durbin: That's exactly the issue. There's no choice in force arbitration. It was a take it or leave it for the employees before the new law was enacted.
▶ 0:54:06Ms. St. John: I certainly respect that congress carved out those claims from predispute agreements and I agree that even before the law, if an employer did for someone to sign an agreement, under the law it should not be valid and people should have a choice as to whether to take their claims to court, if they wish.
▶ 0:54:31Sen. Durbin: It's a good response but inconsistent with the role that you played and the testimony you gave. Let me ask you today, do you think that force arbitration of sexual assault and harassment cases is right or wrong?
▶ 0:54:44Ms. St. John: I don't think that anyone should be forced to arbitrate their claims. I've always taken the position that it should be by consent only.
▶ 0:54:53Sen. Durbin: A dramatic change from where you were you testified before congress. Thank you.
▶ 0:54:59Chair Grassley: Before I call on senator kennedy, entering into the record a letter in support of the nominee from melissa holyoke, U.S. attorney of utah, who worked together on consumer protection litigation in private practice. The letter praises judge st.
▶ 0:55:24Chair Grassley: John, stating "as her colleague, I was consistently impressed by her disposition while engaging with our colleagues, other counsel, and of the courts, as she carefully considered differing viewpoints, approach opposing arguments with intellectual honesty, always kept her composure during the circumstances." senator kennedy?
▶ 0:55:57Sen. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Judge, your spouse is a good lawyer in his own right, isn't he? Sorry I neglected to mention that when I was introducing you.
▶ 0:56:20Sen. Kennedy: This issue about your, your, your feelings about sexual harassment and of the recourse of people who have been over harassed seems to have arisen when you testified as a private citizen back in 2021 before the house. As I understand it. I've, I've, I've read your testimony. I've read the record.
▶ 0:56:51Sen. Kennedy: 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 sexual harassment from, from, from being able to address wrongs. Um,, here's a quotation from your testimony.
▶ 0:57:20Sen. Kennedy: "-- your words, not mine -- " allegations of sexual harassment and assault should be taken seriously, accusers afforded the full protection 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?
▶ 0:57:49Ms. St. John: That is correct.
▶ 0:57:52Sen. Kennedy: Now, do, if, if, if, if I'm a victim of sexual aggression, I have a number of options. I can file a complaint to try to resolve it privately in the workplace. My employer in the alleged perpetrator. Can I not?
▶ 0:58:12Ms. St. John: Yes, you can.
▶ 0:58:14Sen. Kennedy: Or I could choose to mediate the dispute, could I
▶ 0:58:19Not Ms. St. John: Ms. st. John:? Yes.
▶ 0:58:22Sen. Kennedy: Or I could choose to arbitrate, could I not?
▶ 0:58:26Ms. St. John: Yes, that's correct, senator.
▶ 0:58:30Sen. Kennedy: Now, do you oppose removing any of those, of those options for someone who is an alleged victim?
▶ 0:58:39Ms. St. John: No, victims should have their choice on how to deal with these issues.
▶ 0:58:47Sen. Kennedy: Tell me if I read your testimony wrong, I did look at it carefully, what you are saying is that as I appreciated it, all forms of redress should be available to the alleged victim? Right?
▶ 0:59:05Ms. St. John: Yes, senator.
▶ 0:59:07Sen. Kennedy: Would you elaborate on that a little more? Honestly, I don't get it. I mean, I get the politics. The folks, the democrats, the republicans and all that, but my experience is that you are not a very political person. You were asked to come testify as a lawyer and expert in the law. So, tell me what you said.
▶ 0:59:32Ms. St. John: When I hear these criticisms it feels disconnected from my actual testimony. I would never try to silence a victim of sexual assault or harassment.
▶ 0:59:45Ms. St. John: My point in my testimony was to provide some context for how there are many different options for resolving and addressing these claims that should be available to women, yet forcing them into litigation and taking away their choice of one option or another is not actually supporting the victims and a congress should do as it sees fit to make sure that these victims still have options for resolving these terrible events.
▶ 1:00:10Sen. Kennedy: I want to be sure I understand your testimony. Um, do you consider acts of sexual harassment to be repugnant?
▶ 1:00:25Ms. St. John: Yes, of course.
▶ 1:00:30Sen. Kennedy: And a you support the right of anyone who claims to be sexually harassed two, too, to be able to have their allegations heard in accordance with the rule of law and due process?
▶ 1:00:45Ms. St. John: Yes, absolutely.
▶ 1:00:48Sen. Kennedy: Are you coming your testimony did you support all forms of redress? Did you want to preclude some button from going to court, arbitrating, not arbitrating, mediating or not mediating?
▶ 1:01:04Ms. St. John: No, I didn't take anything off the table.
▶ 1:01:07Sen. Kennedy: I didn't think you did. I read it carefully. All right. Well, thank you, judge. I appreciate your candor. I'm done.
▶ 1:01:18Sen. Durbin: By the temporary power vested in me, I recognize senator whitehouse.
▶ 1:01:27Senator Whitehouse: Thank you, Mr. temporary chairman. I'm not going to be up to vote for this nominee and I wanted to explain why. Her history with the 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
▶ 1:01:58Senator Whitehouse: Inhabited the leonard leo coke brothers judicial political operation machine. I think that that group of interwoven organizations has a very specific goal, to put people onto court to, when the time is right, can be relied upon to make the decisions they want.
▶ 1:02:29Senator Whitehouse: I don't think that that is what being a judge is about, I don't think that that is 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 have come out of that same coke brothers leonard leo network of judicial political influence.
▶ 1:03:02Senator Whitehouse: The competitive enterprise institute, a frequent dark money amicus in court, has taken roughly $10 million from donors trust and donors capital from 2012 to 2022. 400,000 from coke organizations from 2013 to 2021.
▶ 1:03:26Senator Whitehouse: And its president became the president of donors trust in 2015, described as the dark money atm of the far right. The hamilton lincoln law institute took at least 1.2 $5 million in litigation grants since 2021.
▶ 1:03:48Senator Whitehouse: The independent women's forum took $300,000 from the leonard leo judicial education project and more than $13 million from donors trust from 2017 to 2018. I don't know why donald trump called leonard leo a sleaze bag. Something is going on that's a little weird there.
▶ 1:04:15Senator Whitehouse: But what I do believe is that a persistent effort by the far right wing funded by a lot of billionaires who anonymize their money through donors trust into front groups is a very, very powerful force in judicial appointments right now. Miss st. John, I'm sorry to say that based on that record, I can't help but believe that when the time comes, when the right amicus comes before you, that will be the signal for you to render the decision they want.
▶ 1:04:45Senator Whitehouse: That is why I'm not going to be voting for this nominee. I would also like to add, as it was just in the news recently, comment on the situation with the U.S. attorney, jeanine pirro , and the action that the district of columbia U.S. attorney's office took in the reflecting pool case.
▶ 1:05:12Senator Whitehouse: We saw an awful lot of love lying take place -- awful lot of lying take place. The secretary of the interior on cnn a month ago was asked about that mining. "it peeled off, why did that happen, do you know"? "it didn't peel off," she said.
▶ 1:05:35Senator Whitehouse: "there was vandalism, there were vox cutters." the question came back, "you are 100% sure that it is vandalism, you can prove it?" absolutely, he said. The U.S. attorney said the same thing in a big press splash announcing an indictment against the olympian who just had their charges dropped. Why were they dropped? The case ran into a wall.
▶ 1:06:06Senator Whitehouse: A wall based on a decision called brady versus maryland that creates a constitutional duty on the government to disclose exculpatory evidence to anyone it has charged with a crime. The U.S.
▶ 1:06:24Senator Whitehouse: Attorney's manual that they call the justice manual now has a robust section directing prosecutors not just to adhere to the minimum constitutional standard but go out of their way to make sure 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 U.S.
▶ 1:06:53Senator Whitehouse: Attorney's own pleading was withheld from them by the department of the interior. So, a U.S. citizen was falsely indicted based on incomplete information while the government , at least at the department of the interior, held information it did not disclose to the department of justice that would have blown up the indictment,
▶ 1:07:25Senator Whitehouse: Which should have been disclosed to the grand jury. This entire exercise was disgraceful and the fact that senior government officials continue to lie about the vandalism after what they have seen just makes it worse. Thank you, chairman.
▶ 1:07:40Sen. Durbin: Senator blumenthal?
▶ 1:07:45Senator Blumenthal: Thank you, senator. Judge st. John, you are here just months ago, february 4, 2026. I asked you a number of questions. I am going to ask you the same questions. Beginning with who won the 2020 election.
▶ 1:08:09Ms. St. John: Senator, excuse me, pursuant to the 12th amendment, the electoral process by which a president is selected , in january of 2020 joe biden was certified by the electoral college.
▶ 1:08:25Sen. Blumenthal: You are unwilling again to answer the question truthfully, correct?
▶ 1:08:31Ms. St. John: I provided a response that is ethically appropriate and legally correct.
▶ 1:08:37Sen. Blumenthal: It's 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. Was the U.S. capitol attacked on january 6, 2021?
▶ 1:09:02Ms. St. John: I have reviewed testimony and news reports showing that there were some physical assaults on law enforcement and I completely condemn any kind of violence against law enforcement.
▶ 1:09:16Sen. Blumenthal: Was the capital attacked?
▶ 1:09:19Ms. St. John: I would be careful with the specific language I use as I'm a federal judge. Subject to conduct.
▶ 1:09:26Sen. Blumenthal: Judge st. John, you are a federal judge, but federal judges have not only acknowledge, but stated clearly that the capital was attacked. Justice amy coney barrett in her dissent in fisher versus the united states said, and I'm quoting, "a mob of writers breached the capital on january
▶ 1:09:57Sen. Blumenthal: 6, 2021, and the rioters "conduct, including trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement was a part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of election results." do you agree with justice coney barrett?
▶ 1:10:17Ms. St. John: I was going to agree that the supreme court has used the term the capitol is breached, that's language that has been used by the courts uncomfortable adopting that language, yes.
▶ 1:10:29Sen. Blumenthal: So, you agree the capitol was attacked.
▶ 1:10:34Ms. St. John: I again want to be careful with my language as it's a politically controversial subject and I'm subject to the judicial canons. As you noted, the supreme court described it as a breach of the capital.
▶ 1:10:48Sen. Blumenthal: Justice barrett set a mob of writers breached the capital. Judge timothy kelly, also a trump appointee, said "as the court has said many times, the attack on the capital was a perilous event, it was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured." do you think that judge kelly is being less careful than he
▶ 1:11:18Sen. Blumenthal: Should be, calling it an attack?
▶ 1:11:20Ms. St. John: I want to be careful with my own personal response. All of the attacks against law enforcement I completely condemn.
▶ 1:11:31Sen. Blumenthal: Other judges have similarly acknowledged an attack on the capital, jittery, 2021. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to the capitol police, who fought back against the attack. It is disrespectful to the truth of what happened on that day.
▶ 1:11:53Sen. Blumenthal: Most important, it indicates that you are continuing, 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. It indicates a lack of independence.
▶ 1:12:16Sen. Blumenthal: I think the lack of independence is disqualifying for you to be a judge on the district, not to mention the court of appeals. It's the reason I voted against your nomination for the district. But now that you are on the district court, you have a lifetime appointment. President trump can't do anything to you.
▶ 1:12:41Sen. Blumenthal: You have no reason to fear his vaunted vindictiveness against anyone who would defy his illusion about january 6. 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.
▶ 1:13:10Sen. Blumenthal: The rehearsed and regurgitated language you have given us today I think is disqualifying, and I regret that, I regret that you cannot do better. Thank you. [inaudible]
▶ 1:13:38Ms. St. John: Thank you.
▶ 1:14:18Chair Grassley: One more nominee to come here. Then I'll administer the oath. I'd like to swear you at this point. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? All answered in the affirmative. Please sit down. We'll start off with you, Mr. cook, and go across.
▶ 1:14:52Chair Grassley: Make your opening statement, say whatever you want to do at this point.
▶ 1:14:59Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate the time that 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.
▶ 1:15:18Mr. Cook: I want to thank my wife of 38 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. My dad also an air force veteran, passed away when I was running for the alabama supreme court, but my mother is here today.
▶ 1:15:44Mr. Cook: I would like to introduce some of my many friends and family who are here today with me. My son jeffrey and his wife mary of virginia. Her mother, lisa cline of delaware. My daughter mary katherine and her husband, sam jenkins of alabama, and his parents. My son will cook at alabama. My brother steve cook of florida, also an air force veteran. My cousin jamie of florida.
▶ 1:16:16Mr. Cook: My senior staff attorney and my law clerk and his wife. 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 four partners in my firm of 31 years, 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.
▶ 1:16:45Mr. Cook: I'm honored to be here and welcome your questions.
▶ 1:16:52Chair Grassley: Mr. candeub? Push the red button.
▶ 1:16:56Mr. Candeub: Thank you, chairman grassley, for your kind introduction, as well as ranking member durbin, who welcomed me to the committee. I thank president trump for this nomination, which is a tremendous honor. Allow me to introduce my family, who came from michigan to be with me. My wife of 27 years, julie. My son jonah and my two daughters, lucy and georgia. As well as my sister debbie.
▶ 1:17:22Mr. Candeub: I would also like to acknowledge a michigan of state alumni in the chamber. They are my former students who showed up here for their old professor. I'm touched by their 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 the city in private practice, and then worked for the federal communications commission.
▶ 1:17:45Mr. Candeub: My practice focused on the remains of the old at&t telephone monopoly, merger policy, and remedying anti-competitive behavior. In 2004, I was disappointed to assistant professor at the michigan state university college of law, teaching technology, antitrust, and free speech. Eventually earning tenure. Starting with telephones, my work shifted from competition issues related to a new technology, broadband.
▶ 1:18:09Mr. Candeub: More recently my attention shifted to another dominant technology, internet platforms and social media. But this time I took a more active role, litigating cases concerning social media censorship with consumers and the protection of children.
▶ 1:18:24Mr. Candeub: I was asked to enter the first trump administration as deputy, later acting assistant secretary of commerce for ntia, the national telecommunications and information administration, and served briefly as deputy associate attorney general at d.o.j. After the first trump administration, I continued to work on cases, as well as scholarship and policy work focused on protecting americans' free speech rights and protecting kids from the power of dominant online platforms.
▶ 1:18:51Mr. Candeub: I am currently serving as general counsel for the federal communications commission. My career centered around law's responses to market power and has taught me a few things. It is competition and innovation that best remedy market power. The amazing development I just described from the at&t rotary dial telephone I grew up with to a.I.
▶ 1:19:13Mr. Candeub: Mediated online experience happened because of free markets, because american antitrust chose to unleash competition and encourage innovation. Antitrust enforcement, therefore, should proceed with the greatest care. At the same time, consumers must be protected against market power that hurts consumers. And especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
▶ 1:19:39Mr. Candeub: If confirmed, I will bring to the antitrust division what I've learned from my career as a public servant, academic and lawyer. First, given limited resources and this administration's commitment to affordability, the antitrust division must direct its limited resources to those pocketbook issues that matter most to americans. For instance, food prices, and what I term the three h's, housing, healthcare, and higher ed. If confirmed, I will make these issues my priority.
▶ 1:20:08Mr. Candeub: Second, I believe despite the dizzying technological changes I've seen in my lifetime, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The sherman act of 1890, the foundation of american antitrust law, passed largely through the efforts of farmers and ranchers. They sought to combat the railroads and shippers and grain elevators who fused their anti-competitive position. Today farmers and food producers face different anti-competitive threats. But the antitrust division must remain vigilant.
▶ 1:20:39Mr. Candeub: Finally, I am committed to protecting everyday americans against market power that would deprive them of their free speech rights and their ability to speak to their fellow americans. The possibility of serving this country as assistant a.g. Humble me. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
▶ 1:20:56Chair Grassley: Thank you, Mr. candeub. Now judge cronan.
▶ 1:21:01Mr. Cronan: Good morning, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin, thank you for convening this hearing, and good morning as well to the rest of the committee. It is an honor to appear again before you. At my hearing about 6 1/2 years ago, I was introduced by senator lindsey graham, who was chair of the committee at that time. I was thinking back this morning to the kind words he said that day. At the outset, I wanted to express my condolences to the committee.
▶ 1:21:30Mr. Cronan: I know everyone is doing their jobs with heavy hearts. Over my six years on the district court and my long career as a federal prosecutor before that, I've come to appreciate the critical role of the united states sentencing commission. The commission's work is tremendously valuable. As district judges perform far and away the most difficult task.
▶ 1:21:54Mr. Cronan: Deciding whether another person should lose their liberty, and if so, for how long and under what conditions. I am humbled to be considered for the commission. I am joined this morning by my amazing wife, michelle. I thank her for always supporting my career and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, agreeing to let me take on this additional responsibility.
▶ 1:22:19Mr. Cronan: I thank my mother, who raised me with my grandmother, and together they instilled in me any positive qualities I may have. My mother was at my hearing in 2020, but today she is home taking care of our 3-year-old son, so michelle is able to join me this morning. I would like to acknowledge the wonderful judges that I had the honor of clerking for, the second circuit, whom we lost in 2021.
▶ 1:22:48Mr. Cronan: I thank my current and former colleagues. My family, outstanding law clerks and interns, and my long-term deputy, megan, who is at home with her newborn. Also some of my clerks and interns are here today. Finally, I am extremely grateful to president trump for the trust he has placed in me with this nomination. I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
▶ 1:23:18Chair Grassley: Thank you, judge. Mr. manion?
▶ 1:23:21Mr. Manion: Good morning. Thank you to chairman grassley, ranking member durbin, the members of this committee for holding this hearing. I want to start by thanking president donald trump for the honor of this nomination. I am proud to have served in his administration, first at the justice department, and now on the white house task force to eliminate fraud. I'd like to thank a few people who helped make that possible. Attorney general pam bondi, acting attorney general todd blanche, f.t.c.
▶ 1:23:48Mr. Manion: Chairman mike ferguson, and vice president jd vance. I look forward to continuing my public service on the sentencing commission if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. I started at the justice department during the previous administration as a career federal prosecutor in cleveland, ohio. In that role, I litigated dozens of complicated sentencing guidelines issues, both in district court and on appeal.
▶ 1:24:11Mr. Manion: My service as a federal prosecutor gave me a deep appreciation for the important role that the sentencing commission can play in our criminal justice system, included by implementing new sentencing legislation from this body, resolving circuit that arise in the lower courts, and responding to supreme court decisions involving the guidelines. It would be a great honor to serve alongside judge cronan and the bipartisan group of commissioners led by chairman reeves, who currently serve on the commission.
▶ 1:24:41Mr. Manion: In closing, I want to express my gratitude just to be sitting here today. I have lived the american dream. I grew up a poor kid in the middle of cornfields in central ohio. The choicest town had a couple of spot lights, fewer than 2,000 people. I would not be here except for the blessing and grates of god and help and generosity of too many people to count. A few of those people are here with me today, and I'd like to rise them. First my parents are here.
▶ 1:25:11Mr. Manion: They instilled in me faith, patriotism, and a strong work ethic. For that I am really grateful. Second, I'm joined by several colleagues from the justice department and the white house, whom I've been lucky to serve alongside. I appreciate their support and friendship. Finally, certainly not least, I'm joined by my wife, who also serves serves in the justice department. He's an extraordinarily good lawyer, the best life partner I could ask for. Thank you again to the committee for holding this hearing. I look forward to answering your questions.
▶ 1:25:39Chair Grassley: Thank you. Mr. candeub, you mentioned in your opening statement some of my first questions, but let's zero in. Farmers generally can't set prices or the prices they receive for their crops. They depend on real competition among seed and other ag suppliers to keep costs down and make sure that there are options to choose from.
▶ 1:26:09Chair Grassley: Smaller, independent ag companies help provide that competition. When larger actors don't play by the rules, these smaller companies need to feel confident that they can speak with their members of congress and report legitimate competition concerns to the federal authorities without fear of unlawful retaliation.
▶ 1:26:31Chair Grassley: How will the antitrust division help protect independent agriculture companies from monolith retaliation for reporting possible anti-competitive behavior?
▶ 1:26:46Mr. Candeub: Thank you for the question, senator. I'm from philadelphia. I'm from pennsylvania. We don't do much food production there. But my wife of 27 years is from northeast iowa, from waverly, born and bred. Her grandparents were farmers, and her uncle still farms.
▶ 1:27:08Mr. Candeub: In my many years of marriage, I spent countless hours in beautiful rolling hills of northeast iowa, and I've learned about the difficulties and challenges of farming life, of the dedication and hard work of our farmers, and what they do to make sure that we have food every day to eat. You can be assured, senator, that these issues will be a top priority if I'm so confirmed.
▶ 1:27:39Mr. Candeub: As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is the need to treat farmers correctly and to protect them from anti-competitive abuses. It's one of the motivations and the genesis of the sherman act.
▶ 1:27:54Chair Grassley: Thank you. They need an honest referee. I hope you can be that. Also to you, I remain concerned about p.d.m. Consolidation, drug prices, steering favoritism and hidden competition. I'm also concerned about abusive drug companies tactics that are generic and similar competition.
▶ 1:28:19Chair Grassley: How will the antitrust division use its authority to address this sort of anti-competitive conduct of prescription drug markets that especially harm rural patients and independent ?
▶ 1:28:40Mr. Candeub: As I mentioned, the issues that are most important to americans, to everyday americans and their everyday lives will be the top priority should I be fortunate to be confirmed. And of course, healthcare is one of those issues. The problems and issues that you discussed about drug pricing will be a priority of the division should I be confirmed.
▶ 1:29:07Mr. Candeub: I look forward with working with your office to help the american people.
▶ 1:29:15Chair Grassley: Justice cook, please tell us what you've learned as a state judge that you'll take with you to the federal bench.
▶ 1:29:24Mr. Cook: I hope I've learned judicial humility, Mr. chairman. I've learned I don't know everything, and to listen very carefully in every case. I tell my law clerks when they come in every year, our job is to make sure we get the answer right, and that may reading every page of the record, it may mean double checking the research we get. It may mean doing independent research. Our job is to get the answer right.
▶ 1:29:50Mr. Cook: I've learned when I first start, when I first read the briefs, I'm going to have it often.
▶ 1:29:57Chair Grassley: I'm going to have senator britt take over now. I congratulate all of you. I have to go to another committee to ask questions. Senator durbin?
▶ 1:30:15Sen. Durbin: Thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Judge cronan, the sentencing commission is focusing on reducing sentencing disparities and promoting transparency and propositionallity in sentencing. And certainly one of the elements of that is the issue of race.
▶ 1:30:42Sen. Durbin: You wrote an article in 2001, in which you claimed it was "easy" to forecast whether a prison inmate will become a sexual aggressor or victim while incarcerated, based on physical characteristics, socioeconomic status, criminal history, and other factors.
▶ 1:31:01Sen. Durbin: You wrote, and I quote, "black inmates are predominantly members of lower economic classes." you also wrote, "black inmates are most likely to become sexually aggressors, end of quote. I'm deeply troubled by these statements in light of the position in which you're seeking. Why should people of color believe that you've changed from the statements that you made in 2001?
▶ 1:31:29Mr. Cronan: Senator, let me say a few things about that. First of all, you're referring to an article that I co-authored back in law school. I believe one of the quotes there, and I have not re-read this article in a long time, was a survey of studies that my co-author and I did. The statistic that you mentioned was not our study. We were quoting another author's study.
▶ 1:31:53Sen. Durbin: Do you believe it, what you published?
▶ 1:31:56Mr. Cronan: Do I believe the accuracy of that study?
▶ 1:32:00Sen. Durbin: Do you believe the conclusion of that study?
▶ 1:32:03Mr. Cronan: I'm not in a opinion to opine on that study, but I certainly do not feel they're more violent than white animates. The point of the article is prisons can be violent institutions and prison officials need to be mindful of that risk. In terms of my service on the bench, I think it speaks for itself. Over any six years on the bench, I have treated everyone before me as individuals and equally under the law.
▶ 1:32:31Mr. Cronan: I treat them equally regardless of their race, gender, religion or any other inmutable characteristics, senator.
▶ 1:32:39Sen. Durbin: Mr. candeub, thanks for dropping by my office. We had a good conversation, I thought, and I raised a question about some of the partners you've chosen to write commentaries and articles and law review. In 1994, you wrote a law review comment in which you extensively criticized the landmark violence against women act. You also extensively discussed rape in your comment.
▶ 1:33:06Sen. Durbin: At one point, you write, and he quote, feminists have answered the theory that rape is an act meant to perpetuate male domination. And I quote, the feminist claim seems difficult to maintain in light of the growing body of empirical evidence coming mostly from researchers and sober yo biological bent that rape has sexual and reproductive motivations. Do you still oppose the violence against women act?
▶ 1:33:34Mr. Candeub: Senator, that was a student article. And I haven't really thought about the issue, but the violence against women act has been here for decades, and I think it's served america well.
▶ 1:33:49Sen. Durbin: The quote I read was 32 years ago. Let's get recent. Three years ago, in a 2023 interview with a right-wing hungarian newsmagazine, in which you failed initially to disclose to the committee, you said and I quote, the ideological bias of universities, the extensive harassment laws that regulate the work place, and the gradual spread of self-censorship are leading to a society in the
▶ 1:34:21Sen. Durbin: United states that is intellectually more comfortable, duller, more deceitful, and more timid than in previous decades. So let's clarify your position. Do you oppose laws that protect against harassment in the work place?
▶ 1:34:40Mr. Candeub: Absolutely not, senator.
▶ 1:34:43Sen. Durbin: Why did you say these laws are leading to a society that is "more comfortable, duller, more deceitful, and more timid?"
▶ 1:34:56Mr. Candeub: I spent much of my career as an academic. And for me, the most important part about being an academic is the ability to exchange ideas freely. Sometimes I think we've seen on campuses situations in which overenthusiastic bureaucrats and enforcers can chill free speech. And I think that was it. I want to protect free speech.
▶ 1:35:25Sen. Durbin: Do you stand by your words?
▶ 1:35:28Mr. Candeub: Which words, senator?
▶ 1:35:29Sen. Durbin: You want me to read it a third time? The harassment laws, that regulate the work place make the united states more comfortable, duller, more deceitful, and more timid than previous decades.
▶ 1:35:45Mr. Candeub: I stand by my words because I believe in free speech.
▶ 1:35:49Sen. Durbin: Thank you.
▶ 1:35:53Sen. Britt: Senator kennedy. >> that means that normally a private actor is not subject to the constitution.
▶ 1:36:22Sen. Britt: It has to be something by the done, whether that be the state or the federal government.
▶ 1:36:28Sen. Kennedy: Right. And why is that?
▶ 1:36:32Mr. Cook: It's because the constitution relates to the government, rather than to individuals. The constitution is to protect individuals.
▶ 1:36:43Sen. Kennedy: Does that mean that a private actor can never be successfully accused of violating the constitutional rights?
▶ 1:36:56Mr. Cook: No, section 1983 is a statute, and it says if someone is acting under color of law, even if they're a private actor, they can be violating your constitutional right.
▶ 1:37:09Sen. Kennedy: What if this section doesn't apply? What if it's just -- well, let me put it another way. Let's suppose the white house under a particular president called google, no, strike that.
▶ 1:37:33Sen. Kennedy: Called facebook and said, if you don't stop publishing comments that question the covid vaccine, we're going to punish you the rest of your natural life. And facebook says got you, we'll stop it. And they do. Now, meta, facebook, private actor, right?
▶ 1:38:03Mr. Cook: It is, senator.
▶ 1:38:07Sen. Kennedy: Can I sue if me take one of my comments about the covid vaccine off as a violation of my rights?
▶ 1:38:15Mr. Cook: I believe private actors in act with conspiracy with the government, they can be sued as acting under the color of law.
▶ 1:38:23Sen. Kennedy: What is the standard? What is color of law moon?
▶ 1:38:27Mr. Cook: It means that they're acting as if they were the government, senator.
▶ 1:38:33Sen. Kennedy: Ok, well, let's take a public utility. They're heavily regulated by the government. Are they a government actor?
▶ 1:38:41Mr. Cook: No, sir.
▶ 1:38:42Sen. Kennedy: Why not?
▶ 1:38:44Mr. Cook: Because they're a private entity, and that doesn't mean they're being regulated. There's statutes the government can pass. Government can pose all kinds of requirements on them. But they are a private entity.
▶ 1:38:57Sen. Kennedy: You know the law, don't you, judge?
▶ 1:39:00Mr. Cook: I hope so. I'm glad I'm passing this national bar exam.
▶ 1:39:04Sen. Kennedy: Mr. candeub, am I saying your name right?
▶ 1:39:08Mr. Candeub: Yes, you are, senator.
▶ 1:39:10Sen. Kennedy: You're general counsel of the f.c.c.
▶ 1:39:15Mr. Candeub: That is correct, sir.
▶ 1:39:17Sen. Kennedy: Explain to me like you're talking to a 10th grader, what business it is of the f.c.c. If a television network criticizes a political figure.
▶ 1:39:33Mr. Candeub: Senator, as general counsel of the federal communications commission, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to venture into that issue.
▶ 1:39:43Sen. Kennedy: I do. Explain the law to me. I mean, why doesn't -- I mean, this stuff scares me. Sometimes the f.c.c. Scares me right now. I don't like some of the stuff that is said on television. But why doesn't, what business is it of the f.c.c.?
▶ 1:40:14Sen. Kennedy: Educate me.
▶ 1:40:17Sen. Kennedy: Radio and television broadcasters hold licenses from the federal government through a scheme that this body created beginning in 1927, the radio act, and then carried on in 1934 in the communications act.
▶ 1:40:34Sen. Kennedy: We haven't given the f.c.c. The right to regulate freedom of speech, have we?
▶ 1:40:39Sen. Kennedy: You have required the f.c.c. To regulate broadcasters computers to the public interest.
▶ 1:40:47Sen. Kennedy: Who decides what the public interest is?
▶ 1:40:50Mr. Candeub: It is the judgment of the f.c.c. Following precedent and following the law.
▶ 1:40:55Sen. Kennedy: Doesn't that scare you? What if the f.c.c. Is in the hands of someone whose politics you disagree with?
▶ 1:41:10Mr. Candeub: Snore, as general counts -- snore, it's my job to follow the law. I will do so in good faith. Carefully setting precedent and applying the law to the facts.
▶ 1:41:22Sen. Kennedy: Ok. I'm sorry, madam chair. All I'm saying is, y'all be careful. You're getting into the -- you're getting into the foothills of violating first amendment.
▶ 1:41:40Mr. Candeub: Understood, sir.
▶ 1:41:42Sen. Kennedy: Thank you.
▶ 1:41:46Sen. Britt: Thank you. Senator welch?
▶ 1:41:49Sen. Welch: I'll continue that line of questioning from senator kennedy. I share his concerns. My understanding is the president, who had been a political candidate against kamala harris, was complaining about favoritism a cbs interview of kamala harris, and the f.c.c. Opened an investigation. Is that right?
▶ 1:42:17Mr. Candeub: Thank you for your question, senator welch. As general counsel of the federal communications commission, I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss that. It's an ongoing matter.
▶ 1:42:29Sen. Welch: Did you or did you not at the f.c.c. Open an investigation? That's public information, isn't it?
▶ 1:42:39Mr. Candeub: Again, I would have to check to see exactly the status of that case.
▶ 1:42:45Sen. Welch: I'm not asking about the status of the case. I'm asking, did you open an investigation? It's been publicly reported you did.
▶ 1:42:53Mr. Candeub: Again, general counsel of the federal communications commission, I don't think it's appropriate to comment on ongoing matters.
▶ 1:43:00Sen. Welch: I'll give the answer senator kennedy gave. I do. Did you publicly open an investigation? Are you denying that or you won't say?
▶ 1:43:13Mr. Candeub: I'm not denying that, sir.
▶ 1:43:15Sen. Welch: All right, so I'm not asking about the details of this investigation. An investigation about bias, what was the basis, what would be the basis of you opening that investigation?
▶ 1:43:30Mr. Candeub: Again, as general counsel of the federal communications commission, my job is not to make policy. My job is simply to advise the chairman and the commission as to the advisable --
▶ 1:43:42Sen. Welch: I'm commissioner of fcc, and I say to you as general counsel, I want to investigate this, what are the parameters by which you would evaluate whether my request as your boss to open an investigation about a report on a major network should be done or not done?
▶ 1:44:04Mr. Candeub: Again, senator welch, as general counsel of the federal communications commission, my job is to give legal advice about possible alternatives.
▶ 1:44:13Sen. Welch: Do you think there's a chilling effect on political speech if the agency that has the capacity to take away a license decides to open an investigation?
▶ 1:44:27Mr. Candeub: Again, senator, I'-
▶ 1:44:30Sen. Welch: I'm not asking you your capacity. You know, the fcc has the authority to issue license and even revoke them, right?
▶ 1:44:39Mr. Candeub: That's the authority the congress gave the federal communications commission.
▶ 1:44:43Sen. Welch: So the answer is yes.
▶ 1:44:45Mr. Candeub: Yes, that's correct, sir.
▶ 1:44:47Sen. Welch: All right, so if the fcc has that authority, goes after cbs, abc, nbc, because it wants to "investigate something," is there no consideration given by the general counsel of the fcc that this has significant chilling impacts on the broadcast networks?
▶ 1:45:11Mr. Candeub: Senator, as general counsel, I give legal advice, much of which is protected by attorney-client privilege, as well as other obligations.
▶ 1:45:20Sen. Welch: It's the equivalent of taking the fifth. I'm not asking you about the investigation. I'm asking you about public policy. All right? I'm asking about public policy. There's fierce political debate on this committee. Senator kennedy and I oftentimes disagree. But neither of us gets punished because he's wrong. [laughter] I'm actually very serious.
▶ 1:45:49Sen. Welch: We have got a situation here where people have strong points of view in this country, and they express them. And should a person be subject to governmental action because the governmental agency, or even the president of the united states doesn't like the opinion they're expressing? Should they?
▶ 1:46:10Mr. Candeub: Senator, as general counsel --
▶ 1:46:11Sen. Welch: I'm not asking as general counts self I'm asking you as a citizen candeub.
▶ 1:46:20Mr. Candeub: But I am still general counsel of the federal communications commission. I'm under numerous legal --
▶ 1:46:27Sen. Welch: You haven't been made mute because you're general counsel. I'm asking you as a citizen. Is there not a chilling impact when a government agency with enormous power opens an investigation when it doesn't like the words that come out of the mouth of senator welch or senator kennedy?
▶ 1:46:49Mr. Candeub: This is an issue that implicates pending matters before the federal communications commission. It's inappropriate for me to comment.
▶ 1:46:57Sen. Welch: My time is up. Thank you.
▶ 1:47:01Sen. Britt: Thank you, senator welch. I'd like to enter into a record a press relief supporting Mr. candeub's nomination for the national association of broadcasters. This group praised him and stated, "as general counsel of the federal communications commission, Mr.
▶ 1:47:21Sen. Britt: Candeub has brought deep legal regulatory and competition policy expertise and experience, and we appreciate his thoughtful engagement on the issues local broadcasters face in today's media marketplace." without objection, I will enter this into the record. Mr. hawley?
▶ 1:47:41Sen. Hawley: Thank you, madam chair. Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. Congratulations on your nominations. I'd like to note for the record, senator welch voluntarily stopped when his time expired. Something I've never seen or rarely on this committee, and certainly as the ranking member can attest, something I have never done in my life. All right, well, I'll try not to make at that mistake. Mr.
▶ 1:48:08Sen. Hawley: Candeub, I enjoyed our conversation the other day, and congratulations on your nomination. Let's start by talking about antitrust and individual liberty, something that you said recently caught my eye. You said antitrust law, and I'm going to quote you now, can combat dominant firms effects on democratic institutions, such as free speech, the marketplace of ideas, and shareholder control. I assume that's still your opinion.
▶ 1:48:33Mr. Candeub: It is, senator.
▶ 1:48:37Sen. Hawley: I take that to mean antitrust analysis under federal law is not therefore limited to consumer price. Is that a fair interference?
▶ 1:48:45Mr. Candeub: I support the consumer welfare standard, of course, but it can be measured by other things than price.
▶ 1:48:51Sen. Hawley: This is my point. The sherman act protects competition by outlying trade and monopolization more broadly. It doesn't mention consumer welfare. Courts have constructed the consumer welfare standard, but antitrust laws apply to products that are free to consumers. Would you agree with that?
▶ 1:49:12Mr. Candeub: I believe so.
▶ 1:49:14Sen. Hawley: How do you think the antitrust division should assess competitive impact in markets that are dominated by tech firms that do not have readily comparable market prices? In other words, that hold out their products much of the time as being completely 100% free.
▶ 1:49:35Mr. Candeub: Certainly I would always look to ensure that there is an actual anti-competitive pawn, which would require to use traditional tests to market power, and I'm not at all interested in abandoning them. However, I do believe, as you pointed out, senator, that there are instances in which our civil rights, particularly free speech, can be an issue. In those situations, the division should act to protect americans.
▶ 1:50:02Sen. Hawley: Is it fair to say then that under your leadership, the division would not treat this claim that the price is zero as a reason to close an investigation into a dominant platform.
▶ 1:50:19Mr. Candeub: Zero pricing goods like social media presented a very interesting and puzzling pawns to economists, a challenge, how to value that. However, I do not believe at all that simply because something is zero price that it necessarily escapes antitrust scrutiny.
▶ 1:50:39Sen. Hawley: Ok, good. I think that's a very important principle to get established, because that is, as you know, the common defense of all of these tech companies as to why they should elude any scrutiny at the outset. Let me ask you about another implication of antitrust. In the social media market, there are roughly three firms maybe at most that dominate overwhelmingly the content that reaches the average 12-year-old in this country. Now, I'm a father of three children, all that age and younger.
▶ 1:51:08Sen. Hawley: Let me ask you, do you regard that kind of concentration as the concern of the antitrust division?
▶ 1:51:15Mr. Candeub: Certainly. As we all know, from our antitrust classes, business is not necessarily bad. Concentration is the first step, but it's the first step. And markets that are concentrated will, of course, get the attention of my division should I be confirmed.
▶ 1:51:33Sen. Hawley: That's exactly what I'm driving at. Let me give you the perspective of one parent, which is that when there's no competition for parental controls, no competition out there that would allow a parent to choose greater safety for his or her children, then you're leaving essentially the parents at the mercy of the platforms.
▶ 1:51:56Sen. Hawley: In this case, the fact there's two or three dominant platforms, none of whom have any real interest, let me call it like it is, any real interest whatsoever in protecting children online, and in fact, have a massive financial interest in pushing the most ex-ploy take active material possible, certainly the addicting, to all of our children online. That leaves me and millions of other parents like me nowhere to go. And I think the fact that there's no robust competition is a huge part of the problem.
▶ 1:52:26Sen. Hawley: I would just like to ask you if you will commit to coordinating with the f.c.c., as well as state attorneys general to prioritize child safety online. Will that be a priority for you?
▶ 1:52:39Mr. Candeub: Absolutely, sir.
▶ 1:52:41Sen. Hawley: Good. Well, my time is expired, and in a radical departure from my normal practice, I will cease and desist here. But I will have questions for the record. I'm sure other folks are devastated I didn't ask you questions. I'll give you some questions for the record as well. Congratulations to all of you. Thank you.
▶ 1:52:59Sen. Britt: Thank you. Senator blumenthal.
▶ 1:53:02Sen. Blumenthal: Thanks, madam chair. Judge cook, who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:53:11Mr. Cook: Joseph biden won the election, and therefore, as a matter of law, he was the winner matter of law, he was the win winner.
▶ 1:53:18Sen. Blumenthal: How many times did you rehearse that answer with the white house?
▶ 1:53:22Mr. Cook: Never spoke about that.
▶ 1:53:24Sen. Blumenthal: You knew the answer because you watched all the others give that canned, free planned answer, correct?
▶ 1:53:32Mr. Cook: I have watched a lot of videos.
▶ 1:53:36Sen. Blumenthal: You watched everyone before you and you know the routine and what the president of the united states expects to you say, regardless of whether it is the truth or not, correct?
▶ 1:53:46Mr. Cook: Again, I've watched a lot of videos, and I'm trying to be precise.
▶ 1:53:52Sen. Blumenthal: Who won the popular vote?
▶ 1:53:54Mr. Cook: If you look at each state, the governor under one of our acts is required to certify -- Sen. blumenthal . You are unwilling to tell me who won the 2020 election, who won the popular vote. Judge cronan, you're already on the district court. Who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:54:13Mr. Cronan: Under the constitutional system and in particular the 12th amendment, joseph biden received the majority of electoral college votes.
▶ 1:54:22Sen. Blumenthal: You really have nothing to lose. You're on the court with a lifetime appointment, and yet you're unwilling to state the simple fact that joe biden won the 2020 election.
▶ 1:54:34Mr. Cronan: I do have life tenure. I'm trying to answer as truthfully and accurately as I can.
▶ 1:54:42Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. manion, who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:54:45Mr. Manion: Senator, I agree with the substance of my co-panelists.
▶ 1:54:49Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. candeub, who won the election? Let's see if you can do better.
▶ 1:54:55Mr. Candeub: I agree with my fellow panelists. The united states congress certified joseph biden.
▶ 1:55:03Sen. Blumenthal: What kind of enforcer are you going to be if you can't tell the truth to a committee of congress? And don't tell me that you can't answer because you're general counsel of the f.c.c.
▶ 1:55:19Mr. Candeub: The united states congress certified joseph biden.
▶ 1:55:24Sen. Blumenthal: Judge cook, was the capitol attacked on january 6, 2021?
▶ 1:55:30Mr. Cook: Yes, sir, there was a lot of violence and vandalism at the capitol, and attacks on law enforcement. So I hesitate to use the word attacked, just because it would be something that would apply to everybody.
▶ 1:55:45Sen. Blumenthal: You're unwilling to say what justice coney barrett has said, what judge kelly has said, judge lambert has said, federal district court judges, and a supreme court justice, that the capitol was attacked. You're unwilling to say that.
▶ 1:56:03Mr. Cronan: I don't think I finished my answer, senator.
▶ 1:56:05Mr. Cook: I don't have a problem with saying some of those people attacked the capitol, and there was vandalism, and there was violence, and they attacked law enforcement. And I denounce all of that. So yes, senator, I don't think we're disagreeing.
▶ 1:56:20Sen. Blumenthal: Judge cronan? What's your answer to that question?
▶ 1:56:25Mr. Cronan: From watching videos, law enforcement officers were assaulted from what I saw. The capitol, there was trespass, there was vandalism. I would stand by what I observed, which I think made clear that there were assaults on law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:56:41Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. manion?
▶ 1:56:44Mr. Manion: Senator, I agree. There was certainly violence against law enforcement officers, violence against the capitol, and I detest such violence.
▶ 1:56:55Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. candeub?
▶ 1:56:59Mr. Candeub: I agree with my fellow panelists. It was a terrible day for america. There was violence against law enforcement, which I demother. There was vandalism. It was a terrible day.
▶ 1:57:14Sen. Blumenthal: The violence against those brave capitol police officers was because there was an attack on the capitol and an attempt to stop the lawful transfer of power.
▶ 1:57:34Sen. Blumenthal: For you to refuse to say there was an attack on the capitol, simply because donald trump characterizes it as a "innocent journal I" is disrespectful to those police officers. It is also fundamentally disqualifying for a federal district judge or anyone else seeking a position of trust.
▶ 1:58:01Sen. Blumenthal: It is chilling that people who have been nominated for this extraordinary position of responsibility would be unwilling to acknowledge the truth. I was with a number of career prosecutors in the department of justice, former prosecutors who were responsible for pursuing cases relating to the events of january 6 just this morning.
▶ 1:58:32Sen. Blumenthal: And received from them a letter that has been written to all the members of the united states senate. I ask that it be entered into the record.
▶ 1:58:39Sen. Britt: Without objection.
▶ 1:58:41Sen. Blumenthal: They say, and I agree, "this institutional denial of truth, especially by potential federal judges, is dangerous. Yet it's become all too clear that president trump expects his nominees to provide evasive answers about both the attacks of january 26, 2021, and the results of the 2020 presidential election." it is about the independence that you should be expected to
▶ 1:59:16Sen. Blumenthal: Demonstrate today, on the bench, and in all of the positions that you have been nominated to fill. I'm disappointed that I avoided that responsibility. Thank you.
▶ 1:59:30Sen. Britt: Thank you. Senator booker.
▶ 1:59:34Sen. Booker: In any other administration, this hearing would be straight forward, but this is not a normal administration. This is where the president has repeatedly treated the powers of government as an instrumental to reward those who help him and punish those who oppose him. We've seen companies attacked because of their news conference. We've seen the president weigh in on mergers before independent review was even conducted.
▶ 2:00:04Sen. Booker: We've seen companies seeking government approval simultaneously resolving private disputes with the president himself, paying him millions of dollars. We've seen law firms, universities and corporations pressured after becoming presidential targets. We've seen career public servants sidelined after refusing political demand. Again and again, the message has been the same, Mr. candeub. Please the president and the government will work for you. Cross the president, and the government may work against you.
▶ 2:00:36Sen. Booker: That is exactly why the independence of the antitrust division matters even more. You said to me in our private meeting, this is about consumer protection. It's about competition. It's about free and fair market. But we know it's not about that in the antitrust division. The facts are plain. Gail satellite and radar followed the facts and the law and blocked the merger.
▶ 2:01:00Sen. Booker: When trump aligned lobbyists went over their heads, they secured a sweetheart deal, and gail slater was fired for objecting. Todd blanche, who would be your boss, cleared $111 million paramount merger without any conditions at all, staff will review the transaction before they could even issue a formal recommendation. They were going to recommend blocking the merger.
▶ 2:01:27Sen. Booker: You can even look at the live nation ticketmaster clear attorneys who were in federal court alongside a bipartisan coalition of state a.g.'s fighting that massive dominance of that venue, ticket con glom late with officials pave passed them and negotiate a back door deal after the president met with the c.e.o. This is why it's important for us to know, will you follow the facts and the law? Will you listen to career staff?
▶ 2:01:53Sen. Booker: Or are you going to follow the dictates of a president who's shown over and over again that he's going to abuse his position to influence the law? So everything comes down to a simple question. It's not a matter of whether you know antitrust law. It's whether you have the courage to tell this president no when it's hard. So let me make this easy. Show us your courage. Show us your independence. Be a man.
▶ 2:02:21Sen. Booker: Be your own man right now and stand up and answer a question yes or no. A simple yes or no question that shows right now all of america that you're your own man. I don't need legalese or trickery. Yes or no, did joe biden win the 2020 presidential election, yes or no?
▶ 2:02:48Mr. Candeub: The united states congress --
▶ 2:02:50Sen. Booker: Sir, stop. Federal courts said he did. The president's own attorney general said yes. The president's own cybersecurity director said yes. Republicans all over this country said yes. And right now you're not showing me. You can't even acknowledge a fact that's been established by the courts, the president's own attorney general, by his own election security officials.
▶ 2:03:14Sen. Booker: Why should we believe that you're going to stand up to this president when billions of dollars are at stake and the fate of mergers are in your hands? This is the pivotal question. Can you 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. Did president biden win the 2020 election?
▶ 2:03:33Mr. Candeub: The united states congress certified --
▶ 2:03:40Sen. Booker: Sir, you are showing cowardice. Are you going to choose the truth or trump? Law or his lies. Are you going to choose the constitution or cowardice? Let me ask you one final question to maybe bring this into light and show me that you're you're own moan. I'm asking this very simply.
▶ 2:04:01Sen. Booker: Show me or tell me one time, one time, one single occasion, publicly or privately, where you pushed back against this president, one time after he suggested the government decision should be guided by his personal political interests. Can you tell the american public? I know and you your wife probably don't agree on 100 out of 100. I have a litany of things I disagree with biden and obama on.
▶ 2:04:29Sen. Booker: Give me one thing that you thought the president the united states you think has con is wrong, untoward, corrupt, policy disagreement. One thing for the american public. Here's your chance. Show me you're your own man.
▶ 2:04:46Mr. Candeub: I've always, in my government capacity, and I look forward to doing so to make all my decisions according to law and the facts.
▶ 2:04:54Sen. Booker: Sir, sir, stop. This is a game. This is really a game. American people have the right to be concerned that this president, through the facts of the antitrust committee, is going to use his power to influence you in your job. I'm not asking you to come out against the president. I'm not asking you to go against the truth. I've given you opportunities here to show us in the easiest questions possible that you're your own man.
▶ 2:05:26Sen. Booker: And you haven't given me one shred of evidence that you can choose the truth over trump, the law over lies, the constitution over his continued corruption. I'm disappointed. I was looking for one thing to show independence. You told me in my office, I will be independent.
▶ 2:05:47Sen. Booker: And this is disappointing that you can't give me one example of you differing with the person that most americans know, most of america knows has lied repeatedly in his office, has taken on policies that have been detrimental to the independence of the judiciary. And I'm not going to support your nomination. Thank you.
▶ 2:06:07Sen. Britt: Thank you, lee.
▶ 2:06:09Sen. Lee: Thank you. Mr. candeub, I'd like to hear about your overall philosophy regarding antitrust enforcement.
▶ 2:06:22Mr. Candeub: As I mentioned, I will apply law to the facts, judicially consulting with career staff, developing the legal theories, and then using my own judgment to come to the best solution to the problem. Antitrust is a very blunt instrument. It can do a lot of damage, as well as a lot of good.
▶ 2:06:50Mr. Candeub: But I think that if I'm confirmed, I'll be very cautious. It's humbling. The wrong decision can hurt american lives. And I will take the decisions that I'm presented with with the greatest care, recognizing the tremendous significance.
▶ 2:07:10Sen. Lee: Is bigness disfavored or presumptively suspect under antitrust law?
▶ 2:07:18Mr. Candeub: Absolutely not. Bigness in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of any ant trust problem. In fact, it often provides efficiencies. They're valuable to the american people.
▶ 2:07:29Sen. Lee: Now, there are those who are skeptics of our antitrust laws, who would like to say I believe in the free market, I want the free market to take care of this government, and ant trust law. What's your best response to that?
▶ 2:07:45Mr. Candeub: I would say they're right. Free markets generally have the answer. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, what has been so wonderful about american antitrust enforcement is that it has recognized this competition, and recognized that markets can adjust. Often antitrust settlements cannot. And therefore, for government to introduce into the economy its own vision of what is the right outcome is very dangerous.
▶ 2:08:20Mr. Candeub: The amazing experience is because we allow free markets to do their work.
▶ 2:08:27Sen. Lee: Take it to its logical conclusion, one could say ok, let's not enforce our antitrust laws or let's enforce them with rarity and with the extremely narrow careful stripes or not at all. What's your response to that?
▶ 2:08:45Mr. Candeub: Well, I would be on the -- let's do so, but the evidence must be strong. As I said, it's a blunt instrument. It can be harm. But when the evidence is there, I just enforce the law, if I'm so confirmed. It's not my job to make it. It's there. The law will be enforced. And as I mentioned earlier, protecting competition, ensuring that our market structure maximized social welfare is the goal of antitrust.
▶ 2:09:16Sen. Lee: If big ince isn't the triggering issue, what is? What is the central touch stone insofar as you can boil it down to one standard that applies more or less in antitrust, in different antitrust context?
▶ 2:09:31Mr. Candeub: The only coherent standards that ensures any antitrust decision is benefiting all americans with the consumer welfare standard. That's the only one. There's more, more stuff, more outcome rather than less. So that touch stone doesn't mean there are certain circumstances that we can have expanded, not expanded, but a view that does not just focus on price.
▶ 2:09:59Mr. Candeub: But that is the only coherent way to look at antitrust law.
▶ 2:10:04Sen. Lee: Consumer welfare doesn't exclude other considerations, right?
▶ 2:10:10Mr. Candeub: Absolutely not. It can include things such as privacy, or I would say when constitutional rights are at issue, like free speech.
▶ 2:10:19Sen. Lee: In what ways do you think state attorneys general should play a role in antitrust enforcement?
▶ 2:10:28Mr. Candeub: If confirmed, I hope to work with state attorneys general to have a coherent and consistent antitrust enforcement.
▶ 2:10:38Sen. Lee: Are you aware of any other country or at least any other peer or near peer nation, any other developed nation that has antitrust laws, competition laws, if you want to define it more broadly, that has it antitrust enforcement agencies that are not connected to each other?
▶ 2:11:00Mr. Candeub: To be honest, I'm not an expert on antitrust --
▶ 2:11:05Sen. Lee: Neither am I. I'm not fishing for any particular answer.
▶ 2:11:09Mr. Candeub: To be honest, senator, I just don't know.
▶ 2:11:12Sen. Lee: All right. I'm out of time. These are things that need to be considered, including what happens when we end up with the two pokes problem. You try to have a two pokes at one time, it doesn't work. If we have two presidents of the united states serving simultaneously, that would cause other problems.
▶ 2:11:31Sen. Lee: I think one day congress needs to grapple with this and figure out whether it makes any sense to have these twin parallel universe antitrust enforcement agencies that often determine jurisdictional battles via coin toss.
▶ 2:11:47Sen. Britt: Senator schiff?
▶ 2:11:49Sen. Schiff: Thank you. Mr. cook, in 2008, barack obama ran against john mccain. Who won that election?
▶ 2:12:01Mr. Cook: I believe president obama was sworn into office, so I'm certain he won, senator.
▶ 2:12:08Sen. Schiff: John mccain lost that election?
▶ 2:12:10Mr. Cook: Yes, senator.
▶ 2:12:13Sen. Schiff: Four years later, barack obama ran against mitt romney who won that election?
▶ 2:12:18Mr. Cook: President obama was sworn into office, so I'm certain he was elected as a matter of law, senator.
▶ 2:12:25Sen. Schiff: Did romney lose the election?
▶ 2:12:27Mr. Cook: That's the natural logical converse of that, yes.
▶ 2:12:33Sen. Schiff: In 2016, donald trump ran against hillary clinton, who won that election?
▶ 2:12:38Mr. Cook: He was sworn into office, so as a matter of law he was elected to that office, senator.
▶ 2:12:44Sen. Schiff: So donald trump won that election?
▶ 2:12:45Mr. Cook: That would be the natural assumption, yes, senator.
▶ 2:12:52Sen. Schiff: This isn't an assumption you have to make. Did donald trump defeat hillary clinton?
▶ 2:12:56Mr. Cook: In the electoral college he did, yes.
▶ 2:13:00Sen. Schiff: You have some uncertainty?
▶ 2:13:02Mr. Cook: No, I'm trying to be precise about what I'm saying. He won in the electoral college.
▶ 2:13:08Sen. Schiff: And joe biden in 2-
▶ 2:13:11Sen. Schiff: And joe biden in 2,
▶ 2:13:11Sen. Schiff: And joe biden in 2e
▶ 2:13:13Sen. Schiff: And joe biden in 20 election, who won between donald trump and joe biden?
▶ 2:13:18Mr. Cook: Joe biden was certified by joint session of congress, so as a matter of law, he was --
▶ 2:13:26Sen. Schiff: As a matter of fact, who won that election?
▶ 2:13:29Mr. Cook: We implement the 12th amendment, and under that he was elected.
▶ 2:13:35Sen. Schiff: As a matter of fact, who won that election? Simple matter of fact. I ask you on the street. Who won the election in 2020? What would your answer be? Who won?
▶ 2:13:46Mr. Cook: I would say as a matter of law he was elected, senator.
▶ 2:13:50Sen. Schiff: As a matter of fact? You're somehow separating the law and facts? As a matter of actual fact, who won the election in 2020?
▶ 2:13:58Mr. Cook: It's fact the electoral college vote was more for joe biden.
▶ 2:14:04Sen. Schiff: You have real difficulty with that question. In 2024, donald trump ran against kamala harris, who won that election?
▶ 2:14:12Mr. Cook: President trump had more electoral college votes, so the joint session of congress certified him as the winner.
▶ 2:14:17Sen. Schiff: So donald trump won that election?
▶ 2:14:19Mr. Cook: As a matter of law, he was elected, senator.
▶ 2:14:23Sen. Schiff: And kamala harris lost that?
▶ 2:14:25Mr. Cook: That's the converse, yes.
▶ 2:14:28Sen. Schiff: Mr. candeub, in 2016, when donald trump ran against hillary clinton, who won that election?
▶ 2:14:36Mr. Candeub: Donald trump was certified as the winner by the united states congress.
▶ 2:14:42Sen. Schiff: Did he in fact win?
▶ 2:14:44Mr. Candeub: He was certified as winner.
▶ 2:14:47Sen. Schiff: Did he have win? You have some doubt?
▶ 2:14:52Mr. Candeub: Under our constitutional structure --
▶ 2:14:57Sen. Schiff: Do you have doubt about the outcome?
▶ 2:15:01Mr. Candeub: I don't have any doubt he was certified.
▶ 2:15:05Sen. Schiff: Do you have doubt he won? Well, that's really not any question. In 2020, who won the election?
▶ 2:15:16Mr. Candeub: The united states congress certified --
▶ 2:15:19Sen. Schiff: Why is it difficult to answer a simple factual question? When did it become so sill to answer such a simple question? And how can we expect you to rely on the facts when you're evaluating a case? Mr. cook, when you're evaluating a merger. Mr.
▶ 2:15:46Sen. Schiff: Candeub, how can we expect to you rely on the facts when you have such difficulty stating the obvious? Mr. candeub, when you met with my staff yesterday, you said you stood by your previous comments, including op-eds you wrote for a white nationalist website like the dare.
▶ 2:16:07Sen. Schiff: In one of those, in an article titled immigration and three twitchy jewish nerves, you stated, "muslim immigrants and their children seem prone not only to terrorism, but to cultural separatism." do you stand by that statement?
▶ 2:16:26Mr. Candeub: Senator, I wrote that article in defense of donald trump's travel ban, which I thought --
▶ 2:16:31Sen. Schiff: That's not my question. You told my staff you stood by your previous statements. Do you stand by that one?
▶ 2:16:38Mr. Candeub: I stand by those articles. They were defenses against terrorism.
▶ 2:16:41Sen. Schiff: You stand by that statement what do you mean that muslim immigrants and their children are prone to terrorism?
▶ 2:16:51Mr. Candeub: I wrote this article --
▶ 2:16:57Sen. Schiff: What do you mean by that?
▶ 2:16:59Mr. Candeub: I'm trying to explain. I wrote these articles in defense of donald trump's travel ban, which protected us against terrorism. And I thought that terrorism is, continues to be a tremendous threat to all americans.
▶ 2:17:13Sen. Schiff: And you think that muslim immigrants and their children are somehow prone to terrorism?
▶ 2:17:19Mr. Candeub: I wrote it in support of the travel ban.
▶ 2:17:23Sen. Schiff: I'm aware why you wrote the article. My question is, and I would like an answer, do you stand by your statement that muslim immigrants and their children seem prone to terrorism?
▶ 2:17:34Mr. Candeub: I stand by the article I wrote. The travel ban was --
▶ 2:17:39Sen. Schiff: That's all I need to know. I yield back.
▶ 2:17:43Sen. Britt: Thank you. I'd like to enter into the record a letter supporting Mr. candeub's nomination from 22 former senior justice department officials, including former attorney general bill barr. They endorsed Mr.
▶ 2:18:00Sen. Britt: Candeub and stated that "his government service has demonstrated the leadership and management ability, the division's leadership demands, his private sector experience has given him practical judgment, and his academic work will guide him in addressing the important policy questions the department will face in the years ahead." without objection, I will enter this into the record.
▶ 2:18:31Sen. Britt: And now for your final round of questioning. I want to start with you, justice cook. We are so thrilled to have you here and very proud of the work that you've done, getting to watch you on the bench for the last four years.
▶ 2:18:52Sen. Britt: You have an impeccable record, both there and in your previous career there at the law firm, and obviously service to our nation, the air force, raising to the rank of captain and the air force reserves. I heard you say you were going to take from that experience, particularly on the bench, judicial humility, making sure you're doing all the work. I know that about you. You dig into every issue, every problem. You want to understand what's in front of and you make sure you find the right pathway forward.
▶ 2:19:24Sen. Britt: On that note, I have also heard you talk consistently about you being boring and predictable. Do you mind telling my colleagues a little bit your judicial philosophy and what you will be like on the federal bench?
▶ 2:19:38Mr. Cook: Thank you, senator. I do believe in public service. That's why I spent four years in the air force, and that's why I spent all that time on the campaign trail together, going to all 67 counties in alabama and driving 80,000 miles, because nibble public service -- because I believe in public service. I've written a treatise on the rules of civil procedure. It's frankly a boring book, but it's a great reference tool.
▶ 2:20:07Mr. Cook: It reflects, like you say, that I'm a boring and predictable person. But I've accumulated 35 years of experience now between my time in the firm and my time on the bench, and I want to be able to bring that service and that experience and that knowledge to bear in the federal system, and I think I can help the wheels of justice move efficiently and justly, senator.
▶ 2:20:33Sen. Britt: Thank you so much, and thank you to your willingness to serve. Can you talk about how you approach novel questions of law, both on your time on the bench currently on the alabama supreme court and what approach might be if confirmed here to the district court?
▶ 2:20:49Mr. Cook: Well, on the supreme court, if I get an issue, I'm always looking to the text. The text is always the first thing you look at, and you look at the public text, what did the words mean the time they got passed? Because the subject of intent of the legislators is really not relevant. What you care about is the words they passed.
▶ 2:21:13Mr. Cook: That's part of the separation of powers, that we enact the laws, and then our court determines what the law is. We don't determine what it should be. We determine what it is.
▶ 2:21:30Sen. Britt: Tell me this. What qualities, now that you've had four years on the bench, what qualities do you think are most important for a judge to have?
▶ 2:21:39Mr. Cook: Well, you need to be impartial. You need to be firm that you're not going to dent. You're not going to worry about the pressure or the consequences. You're going to get the right answer. You're going to be willing to keep researching. You're not going to stop until you're certain you're on the right answer. You're going to dig and dig and dig and be willing to change your mind if you have to change your mind to an answer.
▶ 2:22:02Mr. Cook: And like you say, my fellow colleagues in the alabama supreme court have helped teach me to be a judge, and those are the type of things I've learned from them.
▶ 2:22:11Sen. Britt: Excellent. Our last remaining minute, I'd like to ask you to take 15 seconds and tell us something that you want to make sure that this committee knows about you prior to making this decision. We'll start with you.
▶ 2:22:24Mr. Cook: Thank you, senator britt. I care a lot about the commission and the guidelines.
▶ 2:22:34Mr. Manion: When I served as prosecutor, I saw how important they were. I'm also very aware of how important it is that they be written and interpreted and revised in a way for prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges to apply them in various cases.
▶ 2:22:53Sen. Britt: Thank you.
▶ 2:22:56Mr. Cronan: Over my time on the bench, and as a prosecutor, I've come to realize the importance of the sentencing commission and their criminal justice system. Those are some of the reasons Mr. manion just mentioned, U.S. sentencing guidelines, which are important under section 35, and most valuable when they accurately or effectively capture the offense and the offender, and I would be committed to carefully examine the guidelines and see how they can improve to account for as many of the 35, 53, the other
▶ 2:23:27Mr. Cronan: Important role of the commission is as unbiased collection of data information that is vital to this body as you perform your task in consideration criminal justice legislation, and also to sentencing judges as we try to impose sentences that are sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the purpose of the sentencing.
▶ 2:23:47Sen. Britt: Thank you.
▶ 2:23:49Mr. Candeub: I have more competition issues my entire life, and I want to bring all the energy and commitment I have to making sure that the american people get great deals.
▶ 2:23:59Sen. Britt: Thank you. Judge cook?
▶ 2:24:02Mr. Cook: I'm just incredibly honored to have the opportunity, senator, and I just want to thank you and the president for that opportunity.
▶ 2:24:10Sen. Britt: Absolutely. Well, thank you to our nominees for being here and for your testimony today. Written questions for the record may be submitted until august 19 at 5:00 p.m. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.