Grassley Roasts KBJ For Not Being Answer What A Woman Is In Defense Of Trump-Backed Nominees

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:15]Good morning everybody.

[00:00:17]We welcome you to today's hearing.

[00:00:20]We have two panels.

[00:00:22]First panel features Circuit Judge nominees Benjamin Flowers, 6th Circuit Matthew Schwart, 2nd Circuit.

[00:00:33]Our second panel has one nominee uh Don uh Burfume uh to serve as Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

[00:00:54]For months now my Democratic colleagues have relentlessly attacked nominees about the 2020 election.

[00:01:04]I think it's been unfair and been hypocritical.

[00:01:09]As I explained a few weeks ago Article 2 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution dictate how president elections are won under our Constitution the Electoral College cast ballots and the Vice President certifies the win winner at a joint session of Congress.

[00:01:35]So, it's pretty simple.

[00:01:37]There's no other way to win an election.

[00:01:42]When asked about the 2020 election recent judicial nominees and maybe others have also given legally correct answers.

[00:01:54]Joe Biden was certified as the winner.

[00:01:58]But my Democratic colleagues won't accept that.

[00:02:03]And they press and they press again for a sound bite.

[00:02:10]They don't care about the answers.

[00:02:12]They just want a clip to go viral.

[00:02:17]So, my Democratic colleagues attacked the nominees.

[00:02:23]That's the follow-up.

[00:02:25]They goad them to weigh in to political controversial topics.

[00:02:32]When the nominees don't bite my Democratic colleagues accuse them of being evasive.

[00:02:40]Members of this committee have even been called the nominees derogatory names like cowards, like monkeys, like puppets.

[00:02:56]The progressive media has gleefully reported about quote unquote contempt and ridicule the nominees are subject to at the hearings.

[00:03:10]Once again, the New York Times leaned leans into its role as a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

[00:03:21]These are these attacks are just beneath our office.

[00:03:29]They're hypocritical.

[00:03:31]If we want to talk about evasive answers let's rewind the clock Justice Jackson's hearing.

[00:03:42]Senator Blackburn asked a simple question.

[00:03:47]What is a woman?

[00:03:50]A judge must be able to assess whether a litigant is entitled to protections um that the federal law affords women.

[00:04:02]I think we all agree on that. Well, Justice Jackson wouldn't answer that question. She simply stated she couldn't because {quote} "I'm not a I'm not a biologist."

[00:04:18]How can my Democrat colleagues criticize nominees for giving a direct legal correct answer when their own nominees wouldn't answer a basic factual question that we've understood for the entire 6,000 year history of humankind?

[00:04:42]We all know why.

[00:04:44]It's because my Democrat colleagues aren't concerned about evasive answers.

[00:04:52]They want political theater.

[00:04:55]The Democrats don't like our president and they want to poke him.

[00:05:00]So, they're attacking nominees for refusing to comment on matters of political debate regarding that 2020 election.

[00:05:11]If that weren't true, then surely my Democratic colleagues have always demanded direct and robust answers to questions about the 2020 election.

[00:05:24]Right?

[00:05:26]Let's take a look at how Justice Jackson responded when she was asked about the 2020 election.

[00:05:34]So, I have a poster here.

[00:05:37]I want everyone to see this.

[00:05:40]Especially my Democratic colleagues to see this.

[00:05:45]And I want the American people to see this, and I want the New York Times to see it.

[00:05:51]When asked if she'd ever committed commented on the results of the 2020 election, Justice Jackson stated, quote, "It would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh into a subject of political debate."

[00:06:08]End of quote.

[00:06:11]Let me say that again to be very clear.

[00:06:15]Justice Jackson said it would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate.

[00:06:27]She gave the same answer when asked whether she ever expects expresses skepticism about the 2016 election results.

[00:06:40]Well, isn't that something? Justice Jackson, like every nominee to come before this committee, this Congress, didn't think it was appropriate for a judicial nominee to weigh into the political debate concerning the results of the 20 20 election.

[00:07:02]And I hope the New York Times gets that.

[00:07:06]Were my Democratic colleagues enraged by Justice Jackson's suggestion that the results of the 2020 election were a matter of political debate?

[00:07:20]Did they say her statements were, quote, "Orwellian, in denial of reality?" End of quote.

[00:07:29]Did the partisan progressive scribes at the New York Times publish an entire article describing her response as, quote, unquote, "astonishingly"?

[00:07:44]Of course they didn't.

[00:07:46]Her answer then, like the answers of judicial nominees recently, was entirely prudent and unremarkable.

[00:07:57]The hypocrisy from the other side and the New York Times is breathtaking.

[00:08:05]My Democrat colleagues need to stop and reflect.

[00:08:10]Why have they created a month-long circus about Trump nominees for making the exact same point that Justice Jackson made during her confirmation hearing?

[00:08:27]I'm satisfied with how recent nominees have answered the questions about the 2020 election. From here on, they should just quote Justice Jackson.

[00:08:38]They deserve better than hypocritical attacks, and the American people do as well.

[00:08:48]Mr. Birth Fume uh earned his law degree from New York University in Buffalo School of Law in 2000.

[00:09:05]He began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan.

[00:09:13]In 2005, he transitioned to private practice, where he advised on civil enforcement matters, as well as uh government and internal investigations.

[00:09:28]In 2010, he joined the Justice Department Office of Inspector General.

[00:09:35]Since then, he's been involved in several sensitive investigations to root out misconduct, fraud, waste, and abuse.

[00:09:46]These include the FBI's partisan Crossfire Hurricane probe, and more recently a an effort to determine the previous OIG's level of invest- invest- involvement in Jack Smith's Arctic Frost witch hunt.

[00:10:05]As my and Senator Johnson's oversight has exposed, that partisan investigation secretly sought and obtained the records of many members of this very Judicial Committee.

[00:10:21]He briefly served in the DEA's Office of Compliance, and since 2023 has served as an advisor to the Inspector General in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[00:10:37]In 2025, he returned to the Justice Department in detailed capacity.

[00:10:43]He briefly served as acting Inspector General, and is currently serving as senior advisor of deputy to the Deputy Inspector General.

[00:10:54]He brings a wealth of experience, and I look forward to hearing him today.

[00:10:59]Senator Durbin.

[00:11:01]Thanks, Mr. Chairman.