Under Article 2 and the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, presidential elections are won through the Electoral College system, where the Electoral College casts ballots and the Vice President certifies the winner at a joint session of Congress. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, judicial nominees are expected to provide direct and legally correct answers to questions about election results, as demonstrated by the criticism of nominees who gave legally accurate responses about the 2020 election while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was criticized for not answering a basic factual question about the definition of 'woman' during her confirmation hearing.
Deep Dive
Voraussetzung
- Keine Daten verfügbar.
Nächste Schritte
- Keine Daten verfügbar.
Deep Dive
Grassley Roasts KBJ For Not Being Answer What A Woman Is In Defense Of Trump-Backed NomineesHinzugefügt:
Good morning everybody.
We welcome you to today's hearing.
We have two panels.
First panel features Circuit Judge nominees Benjamin Flowers, 6th Circuit Matthew Schwart, 2nd Circuit.
Our second panel has one nominee uh Don uh Burfume uh to serve as Inspector General of the Department of Justice.
For months now my Democratic colleagues have relentlessly attacked nominees about the 2020 election.
I think it's been unfair and been hypocritical.
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.
So, it's pretty simple.
There's no other way to win an election.
When asked about the 2020 election recent judicial nominees and maybe others have also given legally correct answers.
Joe Biden was certified as the winner.
But my Democratic colleagues won't accept that.
And they press and they press again for a sound bite.
They don't care about the answers.
They just want a clip to go viral.
So, my Democratic colleagues attacked the nominees.
That's the follow-up.
They goad them to weigh in to political controversial topics.
When the nominees don't bite my Democratic colleagues accuse them of being evasive.
Members of this committee have even been called the nominees derogatory names like cowards, like monkeys, like puppets.
The progressive media has gleefully reported about quote unquote contempt and ridicule the nominees are subject to at the hearings.
Once again, the New York Times leaned leans into its role as a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.
These are these attacks are just beneath our office.
They're hypocritical.
If we want to talk about evasive answers let's rewind the clock Justice Jackson's hearing.
Senator Blackburn asked a simple question.
What is a woman?
A judge must be able to assess whether a litigant is entitled to protections um that the federal law affords women.
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."
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?
We all know why.
It's because my Democrat colleagues aren't concerned about evasive answers.
They want political theater.
The Democrats don't like our president and they want to poke him.
So, they're attacking nominees for refusing to comment on matters of political debate regarding that 2020 election.
If that weren't true, then surely my Democratic colleagues have always demanded direct and robust answers to questions about the 2020 election.
Right?
Let's take a look at how Justice Jackson responded when she was asked about the 2020 election.
So, I have a poster here.
I want everyone to see this.
Especially my Democratic colleagues to see this.
And I want the American people to see this, and I want the New York Times to see it.
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."
End of quote.
Let me say that again to be very clear.
Justice Jackson said it would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate.
She gave the same answer when asked whether she ever expects expresses skepticism about the 2016 election results.
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.
And I hope the New York Times gets that.
Were my Democratic colleagues enraged by Justice Jackson's suggestion that the results of the 2020 election were a matter of political debate?
Did they say her statements were, quote, "Orwellian, in denial of reality?" End of quote.
Did the partisan progressive scribes at the New York Times publish an entire article describing her response as, quote, unquote, "astonishingly"?
Of course they didn't.
Her answer then, like the answers of judicial nominees recently, was entirely prudent and unremarkable.
The hypocrisy from the other side and the New York Times is breathtaking.
My Democrat colleagues need to stop and reflect.
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?
I'm satisfied with how recent nominees have answered the questions about the 2020 election. From here on, they should just quote Justice Jackson.
They deserve better than hypocritical attacks, and the American people do as well.
Mr. Birth Fume uh earned his law degree from New York University in Buffalo School of Law in 2000.
He began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan.
In 2005, he transitioned to private practice, where he advised on civil enforcement matters, as well as uh government and internal investigations.
In 2010, he joined the Justice Department Office of Inspector General.
Since then, he's been involved in several sensitive investigations to root out misconduct, fraud, waste, and abuse.
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.
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.
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.
In 2025, he returned to the Justice Department in detailed capacity.
He briefly served as acting Inspector General, and is currently serving as senior advisor of deputy to the Deputy Inspector General.
He brings a wealth of experience, and I look forward to hearing him today.
Senator Durbin.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ähnliche Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29











