he became president on november 22, 1953 after the assassination of john f. kennedy president lyndon johnson cap kennedy's cabinet in place and continue to push for taxes and civil rights. he also declared a war on poverty in america. watch our american history tv series first 100 days saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> three a president trumps executive nominees have divided their confirmation hearing. u.s. solicitor general attorney and assistant attorney general

for legal policy. the question was asked to beach whether they would defy court order. the hearing is almost two and a half hours

we will call on the senators to introduce the nominees. after that, they will have a chance to give an opening statement. then we will proceed to a single five and it round of questions. i asked the members to do their best to adhere to that limit. our three nominees have been tapped to serve in important rolls in the justice department. we congratulate all of you on your nomination. if confirmed, your work will impact the lives of millions of americans at home. each of you has impressive qualifications and we are looking forward to hearing from you. we think your family and friends for coming today to be with you. and i'm sure they are very proud of you. i have said many times that the department of justice is in inflection point. over the last four years public trust in the department has

declined. any americans feel that the justice system is not working for them. if confirmed, we expect you to work with attorney general pam bondi to fulfill her promise to turn things around. mr. sauer, you are particularly well-qualified to serve as the nation's chief appellate lawyer. you started your career clerking for justice scalia. justice scalia spent his life teaching lawyers to faithfully interpret constitutions and laws according to original meeting he had i have no doubt that you learn this lesson very well. after clerking in private practice, leaving d.c. behind to go home and serve as assistant united states attorney of missouri. working diligently to prosecute criminals and keep communities safe. 2017 you joined the missouri attorney general's office as a

solicitor general where you served under two members of this committee, senators holly and schmidt. serving as a state chief appellate officer during the pandemic and across to presidential administrations you undoubtably prepared you will for the role that you will walk into after confirmation. there is a lot of work to be done defending our nation's laws and it seems like you are well prepared. ms. dillon, you are one of the nation's formal experts on civil rights. your journey started a long ways from here. emigrating from india went to dartmouth at a very young age of 16 i am told. and then went to law school at the university of virginia. throughout your career, you

never shied away from unpopular but just causes. you served as director of aclu chapter after 9/11. they are often skeptical. they also started your own law firm and founded a nonprofit. some of the most important cases of free speech, religious liberty, voting rights and discrimination. discrimination is wrong. common sense ought to tell us that the our constitution, our civil rights laws do not tolerate determination on the basis of race as the supreme court recently said and students for fair admissions. unfortunately, the previous administration not only about discrimination to take place but openly encouraged it under diversity and inclusion. that administration imposed

nationwide regime of discrimination in the civil rights division completely failing to enforce our nation of laws. president trump has put an end to this and if confirmed i know that you will work to help him execute his promise. americans do not pick winners and losers based on color of skin, sex or the name of their god. fighting for everyone to be treated equally. fighting against colleges shutting down free speech for political reasons against stakes restriction of freedom of religion and big tech companies engaged in censorship. you have won many victories defending freedom in our constitutional rights and if confirmed, you will need, we will need your continued leadership to protect the civil rights of all americans. does not spend much time talking

about people's characteristics. we care about character and we care about merit. making you particularly suited to return the justice department to its proper role of enforcing our civil rights laws and ending discrimination. you are an immigrant, a religious minority, a woman, a business order a civil rights leader and accomplished lawyer and i have learned also that you do a lot of knitting. you are an example of what is great about america. you have an impressive and dedicated career of service to our country. you attended the college of texas a&m university on an rotc scholarship that served our country as a marine including tour in afghanistan. upon your return, attending law

school to the university of texas where you excelled after time in private practice you decided to serve your country again. clerking now for the chief justice texas supreme court and he ran for a seat in the texas house of representatives and campaigned on what you believed in. you continued gaining legal experience during this time in private practice. you eventually joined the office of the attorney general of texas as deputy attorney general for legal strategy. in that role some of the offices most litigation during the fight ended in a strange and weird you fought to secure the border to hold big tech accountable. to protect integrity at the ballot box and concern in social values. today, you continue to serve texas and your country is a member of senator cruz's staff.

you are currently his chief of staff and i think that i will not offend my colleagues when i say that this is no easy job. this is particularly true because you continue to serve in the marine core reserve. holding the rank of major. your relentless work ethic and love of country are obvious and short for all three of you. these nominees before us have impressive careers and life stories and i look forward to hearing from them today. now, senator durbin. >> making a brief opening statement here. it relates to an issue which is very personal to me and to some members on the dais here. you are gathered in this room today for an important hearing of the senate judiciary hearing. when you entered this conference you were protected from the first step you took until this moment by the capitol police.

these are men and women, some in uniform, some not that are risking their lives to keep you and be safe. we should never ever take that for granted. those of us that were witness to the riot here in the capital have an experience we will never forget. you have seen it, you cannot miss it videos that have been played over and over again. as a result, four police officers died over 140 were assaulted. 1600 people were arrested and convicted of crimes that day. for those of us that witnessed that occurrence, we know what was at the heart of it. it was an attempt while we went through the constitutional exercise of counting electoral votes. it could have been worse, i guess, but to think that we had that happen in the united states capital is almost unthinkable. imagine if you had just heard the news that the house of commons in parliament in london

had the door broken down and overrun by a mob. you would have said that that is impossible. not in london, not in england. we ended up postponing the session of the senate in the house to complete the constitutional duty until later in the evening and we cleared these writers out of the capital i tell you that because the president recently announced that they were not in fact guilty of any crime. they were being assaulted it assaulted by whom? the capitol police? the national guard that was here it was on the face insulting to the men and women that protect us every single day. the bottom line is they are not stopping now that they have been released. they are not stopping in their assault on the capital. they are now revisiting the capital holding press conferences, harassing the men and women in uniform who protect us here every single day.

this has got to come to an end. they have to stand up for the men and women who are risking their lives to keep us safe every day and to say to these people that were pardoned by president trump, please take your press conference someplace else. i think that it is essential that we move in that direction and do it quickly. if we care for these men and women it's time that we speak out when it relates to capital policing. let me also say that i'm concerned as i have been in the past that we are seeing some transformation of law enforcement in this country that most people do not imagine. there was a time where they had one political appointee. for 50 years the director was the only political appointee given a 10 year term and expected to be at least mindful of his or her responsibility. the choice that was made by this committee and the senate ratified by the president is now

putting a new person in charge, mr. patel. in his proceeding with this effort to cleanse the ranks of the fbi of people that could have shown any conduct in the past. disloyal to donald trump. honest-to-goodness. that is the first time in history we have gone through this. and to think that we will see a politically loyal ranking in this federal bureau of investigations is an embarrassment to this nation and really, it is hard to imagine that that is happening. we are seeing the same thing happening in the military. i do not think that it will be good for this country at all. they should be apolitical top to bottom. i think that we will work hard to make it happen. i will be asking what these witnesses responsibilities are the reaction to the statement. i yield. >> now we go to senator lee for an introduction. >> thank you so much, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin and all of my colleagues.

it is really an honor to introduce who has been nominated by president trump to serve as the assistant general for the civil rights division. if confirm she will serve every american with integrity and dedication. fearless long-time defender of constitutional rights with decades of litigation experience and civil rights advocacy. she has taken on some of the toughest cases. those that many others. standing up for the forgotten and holding power to account and every step. her family immigrated from india by the age of 16 she was attending dartmouth college at the university of virginia where she excelled in every way. after clicking on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit experience at top law

firms before soon going on to found her own incredibly successful practice, the founder of the dillon law group, one of the nation's most respective attorneys known for her unwavering commitment of justice , free speech, civil rights and election integrity. complex cases and take some powerful institutions with fearless dedication to her clients. championing government accountability, and civil liberties. three years the aclu board demonstrated to pin -- principle of her partisanship. they command her for her meticulous program policy. they admire her tenacity and even adversaries cannot help but admire her resolve and professionalism. additionally, she has been a beacon of hope for a number of persecuted communities as a true leader in the community she has fought against post- 9/11 discrimination and religious

intolerance. making sure that no one is entitled their basic rights. it embodies principles over politics. challenging institutions accountable, fighting for fair elections. she leads with integrity, fearlessness and day relief in the rule of law and the importance of sticking with the constitution. truly an inspiration. she embodies the traits and characteristics that are needed to help her succeed in this new role. her career reflects an unapologetic pursuit no matter the cost. moaning enthusiastically on the senate floor. thank you, chairman. >> now we go to senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i am proud to introduce my friend. aaron has been nominated to be the assistant attorney general at the department of justice as chairman grassley observed he is currently my chief of staff and has virtually impossible job of keeping me out of trouble. in that regard, he has failed spectacularly. [laughter] but it may not be possible to succeed. he is fleeing instead to the department of justice where i have absolute confidence that he will diligently and vigilantly defend the rule of law at the department of justice. before i get in there, a professional background, i want to note that he is here with his beautiful wife meredith, with two of his four kids. william and caroline are both sitting behind their dad.

and at home they are watching i'm sure on tv. unless they have fallen asleep or doing something else that has distracted them. excelling in everything he has put his hand to. he went to texas a&m. his wife meredith went to the university of texas. divided households. he went on to serve as an officer in the marine core. he spent five years in active duty, diploid and afghanistan where he was embedded with the afghan national r&d -- army in

one of the most dangerous regions in the world. to this day he remains in the marine corps reserve. he left active duty and went to the university of texas at austin where he served as president of the society and editor-in-chief for the texas tribune along politics. after that he went into private practice and then clerked on the texas supreme court. and then he returned with public service going to the texas attorney general's office where he was for legal strategy. in that role, he was the driving force in many of the most consequential legal battles for my home state. for the last two years he has been my chief of staff and he has demonstrated to number one fight for my legislative agenda. protecting people from online water. bringing justice to victims of crime.

he has worked well with both republicans and democrats. he has brought people together behind a shared mission and he now has been nominated to leave at the department of justice and i've every confidence that he will do that job with great distinction. and he will serve as a critical right hand to pam bondi. i would in college -- i would encourage all of you to vote for him. >> it is my privilege to introduce john sauer, my friend my colleague who has been nominated to solicitor general of the united states. i have known him for years and years now. he has been incredibly

distinguished. let me just walk through a few of them. he was a rhodes scholar. and a jd from senator cruz as law school. we will try not told any of that accountable. >> after graduating and completing his education he clerked for the fourth circuit and then as the chairman mentioned who i continue to believe is the most influential of the 21st century anti-serve there with distinction. coming back to his native st. louis and was for five years a federal prosecutor where he prosecuted violent crimes, white-collar crimes and more and then he briefly and between that and joining the attorney general 's office he followed a small firm where he represented all manner of clients.

and then they really began to intersect in 2017. the missouri attorney general not having an office. i thought that it was important to have what we are facing. all of the attorneys that i had had the privilege of working with, so i went to john and this may say something about my recruiting habits, i said, we sat down at a cracker barrel over chicken fried steak is that jim, john, you have the ability and record to be solicitor general of the united states. would you at least consider coming. to my great delight and i think to the great benefit he said yes also my first assistant in the office overseeing all of my criminal and civil litigation including record numbers of predictions in the win rate in

the appellate court. he has changed multiple times of course the missouri courts and handled all of that with the greatest. he went on to observe for noble or of years. now my good friend in college will say more about that in just a minute. here is an opportunity. which of the attorney general on this dais was your favorite and why is it me? >> be thinking on that. he has served his state with the greatest of distinctions. he has served his country with the greatest of distinctions. i do not know a better lawyer in private practice federal prosecutor, name it. i do not know a better lawyer in this country than john sauer. i'm a delighted to see him here today and i support your nomination. iredell my colleagues to do the same. >> only because of seniority did you get asked that question

first. it is an honor and privilege to introduce the smartest lawyer i have ever met. president trumps nominee to be solicitor general of the united states and my former solicitor general of missouri john sauer. born and raised amanda the personal set faith a devoted husband to his wife and father to his five children. he ventured east to attend duke oxford as a rhodes scholar, notre dame, harvard law school, i mentioned it. after graduating from harvard law he clerked for judge as senator holly mentioned in the late great justice school he. after clerking he worked out the most influential law firms in the eastern district of missouri and started his own law firm. during my time john was my solicitor general. as solicitor general of missouri his performance was nothing short of exemplary. he demonstrated the ability to win on behalf of the american

people. a homerun choice to be our nation solicitor general. he possesses a very rare combination but brilliance on parallel work ethic and humility i do not know many people that combine all three of those traits, but john certainly does. he defended the rights litigating numerous cases during the covid era helping them be back the forces of the united states of america post mass mandates on young children to make americans choose whether to take a vaccine or their livelihoods. he also helped told the people republic of china. he helped the office take on big tech giants who in an unholy alliance with the biden administration colluded to censor in science -- silence dissent in our country. murphy versus in our nations history. we brought the student loan in

this case in one of the supreme court. he has defended the unborn, the rule of law, constitution in the last few years president trumps legal champion while he defended himself from the most weapon eyes and politicized prosecutorial onslaughts in american history. so, now, and once again, he is called to venture back east. this time by president trump to be our solicitor general of the united states. as solicitor general key will be the nation's chief courtroom advocate for the high-stakes, high-profile cases that will arise over the years to come in the courtroom. he will be the man in the legal arena arguing before the supreme court on the most important cases that come before it. the constitution's legal champion. professional track record demonstrates the skill and aptitude to wendy's most important cases. on a personal note i can think of no one that i trust more to

do the right thing every single time. he is a man of great virtue. i can personally attest to his prudence, fortitude and temperament, temperaments as well. he is honest, hard-working and as i said earlier quite simply the smartest lawyer i've ever known. i can think of no one better suited to fight for justice and the biggest courtroom in the country. i urge my colleagues to support his nomination. thank you. >> with the three of you stand and take this oath? do you swear that 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. let the record show that they all responded. now be seated, please. and then you can give your opening statements and you have an opportunity to introduce

family and friends if you want to. >> please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those kind adjustments. thank you for taking the time to meet with and discuss the thoughts and concerns about the challenges facing our nation. if i'm concerned i will look forward to working together with you and the administration to address these challenges. today of so many other people to think. first and foremost i offer my thanks to president trump for this nomination in the great vote of confidence that it reflects. the nomination in the privilege of representing president trump has been the greatest honors of my professional life. next i expressed my deep gratitude to my former bosses

both of whom i love and adore equally. forgiving me the opportunity to serve as solicitor general of the great state of missouri. your leadership in mentorship has meant the world to me. i think my family and friends many present here today for their love and support out this process without that support i could have never arrived at this moment today. indeed as i sit here today are marvel at how the american dream but take a kid and give him the opportunity to sit before this committee and address some of the legal challenges facing our nation. in my legal career i've been blessed with a long string of amazing opportunities. each of these drove home to me in a unique way the importance of fidelity to the constitution and the rule of law. for example is the chairman mentioned shortly after law school i had the privilege of clerking for skill leah the

united states supreme court i will always remember the presentation i received. suing on behalf of the lady

justice. the opportunity in this role i was called apart of the reaches of the federal government that trampled the fundamental rights of ordinary american citizens. i began to see as our founders did that fidelity to the constitution and the rule of law required constant vigilance and struggle. then during the most recent two years i've had the great honor to represent president trump. prosecutions and campaigns against him. to me, these cases reflected a profound and dangerous perversion of the ideals department of justice where proudly served as a young prosecutor. they manifested the weaponization of the federal government at its worst. in an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the 2024

presidential election by trying to prosecute and imprison the main political opponent. i learned that fighting for the constitution and the rule of law requires courage, perseverance and sacrifice. fortunately, that campaign failed to president trump was reelected in a historic landslide. in his inaugural address president trump promised that the scales of justice will be rebalanced. the vicious violent and unfair weaponization of the justice department and the government will and. and never again will the immense power of the k -- state the weapon eyes. instead, president trump pledge that we will restore fair, equal and impartial justice under the unconstitutional rule of law. i pledge to work with attorney general bondi to support them proceed the provision of fair

equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin for convening this hearing and providing my fellow nominees and be the opportunity to participate in the time-honored advice and consent rule under the constitution. the predominant feeling that i have today is gratitude and because of that i want to say thank you to several people. thank you to each of the individual members of this committee both republican and democrat as well as their staffs for taking time to visit with me over the past couple of weeks. as i hope i've made clear during the meetings it is my goal to earn your support. thank you to my boss, senator cruz not only for your very kind introduction buffer your past two years the mentor ship while i served as your chief of staff. you have shown me not only to be

a fierce defender of the constitution and the rule of law but also to work with the wide diversity of people with different perspectives on both sides of the aisle to serve the american people. thank you to my family for supporting me and having my back today we have witnessed my wife of 16 years, meredith. we have known each other since we were 12 and i was reminded while preparing the paperwork for this hearing how much we have been through together. moves, careers, deployments, kids, one public service pay cut after another and now this new adventure. a hopeful opportunity to serve at the justice department. we also have two of our four children here, william, my oldest was born while i was in afghanistan and his younger sister caroline. back at home in texas there were two literal -- littler ones who we decided would be a bit too squirmy for a judiciary committee hearing.

also at home or my parents donna and paul. my father is undergoing surgery on friday for kidney cancer. we lift him up in prayer. thank you to those that have had an outside influence in developing me professionally over the years. my first commander and company commander isaac moore now chief justice of the texas supreme court, texas attorney general and of course senator cruz. thank you to attorney general pam bondi for answering the call to serve as our attorney general already making historic strides in restoring law and order and to increase for the justice system. i am honored to serve under her. lastly and most of all thank you to president trump for entrusting me for the legal policy.

testing by transparency, integrity and devotion to the constitution that inspired millions of americans to overwhelmingly voted him into the white house. i look forward to doing my part to carry out that vision under his and attorney general bondi's leadership. the office of legal policy has a broad mission. it plays an important role in advising the attorney general on legal policy. coordinating the review process and assisting the white house and senate with judicial nominees. in each of these missions i commit to the senate the following. with respect to legal policy you can expect me to pursue the president and attorney general's agenda with energy, impartiality , independent thinking and faithfulness to the constitution and all federal laws. with respect to regulatory law, you can expect me to closely coordinate with rulemaking authorities to ensure the department is effectively

ensuing justice for all. you can expect me to assist the president, identified that a processes judicial nominees. this necessarily means working collaboratively with the judiciary committee as well as home state senators. lastly, in all things, the senate, the president and the american people have my absolute commitment to excellence, fairness, integrity, lined justice, the observance of the best legal practices and adherence of the highest standards of conduct send efforts. thank you again to the committee for considering my nomination. i look forward to answering your questions and hopefully earning your support. >> chairman grassley, ranking member durbin and members of the judiciary committee, i would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to respond to your

questions. thank you to senator the for the very kind introduction. i am grateful for the time that committee members have taken to meet or speak with me before this hearing and i value tearing their concerns and ideas about the civil rights division. i think him for nominating me to this important division. he knows all too well how they may be weapon eyes to for the wrong ends, for political prosecution, for payback, for punishing protective speech and ideas. as his lawyer for several years, i, too, am keenly aware of how quickly they have become unjust. i also want to thank attorney pam bondi for her inspiring leadership and trust in me. i am deeply honored to be joined by members of my immediate family here today. my mother, my brother and two of his children and other dear family members. with me in spirit as well as my

husband who passed away last summer and to have supported me in every way. many have come around to support me as well and i am so grateful. i everything i have in this world to god and my family. they brought me to the bronx new york and to rural smithfield north carolina where he simple goal was to raise his family in a small town with traditional values. practice orthopedics, play a little tennis and enjoy the american dream. when we moved in 1975 there was a sign on the highway as you enter town that said they welcomed visitors to smithfield. my parents did not know what the plan was when they moved to smithfield. we did find out. thankfully the sign came down in 1977 in the clan did not affect me directly. i was bullied as a child for my long braids, my funny name, my

unusual face -- faith. what i learned from my parents was that in america anybody could be anything with hard work and determination. i am before you today because of these life experiences. my faith teaches me that it is a duty to stand up for the defenseless. my career i've honored this teaching through my legal work. i have been an advocate for domestic violence for over a decade in private practice. i have advocated in the courts for asylum-seekers facing religious persecution. this work has taught me deep compassion for the oppressed as well as a daily appreciation for the liberty that americans often take for granted. i was a lawyer private practice when the 9/11 terror attack struck. from handling intellectual property litigation i pivoted to legal memos understanding their

legal rights in the face of attacks from fellow americans. two casual slurs shouted at my brother in san francisco calling him osama and telling him to go back to his country. this is our country, senators, and it is the greatest on god's earth. today, the promise of equal opportunity which i fought for my entire career in the courtroom is being robbed for millions of americans in the workplace. enabled by corrosive government dictators. young girls and women are seeing their dreams of hard-fought equal access to opportunities. even basic privacy modesty and dignity and private spaces being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. generations of young people have been denied educational opportunities before their characteristics instead of merit even the supreme court precedent

which banned such admission policies. our elections are consistently at risk of becoming ad hoc coronations were government officials and power achieving preferred outcomes. our democracy is a life blood of our product. this trust breeds anxiety and anarchy. we must remain forever vigilant in entering the results of the ballot box reflect the will of the people, not the preferences of the elite. it is 2025 in america. just selected with the historic amount of support from latinos, african-americans, asian americans and americans without college degrees. there is no greater chance to be alive to be an american dan today. i am honored to be confirmed as an assistant attorney general for civil rights, this is my promise. i will bring my decades of experience every day. i will start every analysis for the constitution.

i will respect statutes and teachings of the court even if i disagree with them though i will act within the law to challenge legal rulings i believe are wrong or statutes i believe are unconstitutional. what i will never do is use the doj as part of a tool to push a political agenda. the department of justice stands for justice for all americans. my parents crossed to oceans to bring me as a small child to america. i can think of no higher honor as a lawyer as advancing all american citizens. thank you. >> we have five-minute rounds of questions. i will start and then go to senator durbin. i would apologize to the three of you because when i'm done asking my questions, the others will take over sharing. so being a marine, a major in

the marines and your service in afghanistan, how do you think your military services informed your legal career and what lessons will you take from the marine corps to your role at doj >> thank you for that question, chairman grassley. i first raised my hand and swore an oath to defend the constitution when i was 22 years old. i take that oath deadly seriously. that not only structures my philosophy of how i would approach my job at the justice department, but that commitment also shapes how i work and how i execute that mission did with integrity, excellence, high standards, morals and treating everybody with dignity the way that they deserve to be treated. and, so, not only do i bring that commitment, but i also bring a way of acting that i

think as here's to the best that our nation has to offer. >> you clerked for justice school leah, a famous champion of interpreting doctrine of original -ism and throughout his career the concept of federalism what was your most important lesson that you learned from the justice? >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. it would be very hard to reduce it to just one. i would echo the personal characteristics. not just his influence in the development of law in the united states. in my experience he exemplified a teacher and mentor. a man of great personal courage

and a person of deep humility. i think that you see humility of the justice reflected in his attraction to the legal theories which he espoused which are ultimately humble legal theories which are limited role in the interpretation of the statutes and the constitution. >> miss dylan, you will have to protect the civil rights of all americans under diversity, equity and inclusion. imposing a nationwide regime that discriminated against some people, the civil rights division completely failed to enforce our civil rights laws. so how will you approach the enforcing of our civil rights laws different from the previous administration? >> chairman grassley, thank you for that question. the civil rights division has 11 sections in each of them is charged with an important duty under the constitution and the statutes, of course.

my approach will be to meet with the section head in each of those sections, understand the work that they are doing and then assessing the extent to which that work is consistent with my view of the civil rights statutes and the priorities of the civil rights justice. i think that they have made clear that diversity equity and inclusion as it has been applied to use racial quotas to deny equal access to employment, even potentially housing and other aspects of civil rights that are covered by the civil rights statutes are inappropriate. we will certainly be taking a close look at all of those and it is forcing the law equally on favorable americans. >> would you approach title vii discrimination civil rights laws and use it against companies that discriminate on the basis of race? >> senator, if the facts support

such a prosecution or a civil litigation, i certainly would do that. i think title vii's language is clear that racial discrimination is inappropriate in hiring and, so, that is certainly a priority that i would undertake. >> the same question as it relates to title sick against universities who discriminate on the basis of race. >> senator, we have a problem throughout the united states, not just recent religion. it is very problematic that many people of the jewish faith are barred by professors and fellow students from access to the classrooms. yes, in addition to race i would see religious discrimination and other forms as an appropriate target for the civil rights division.

>> thanks to all three of you. >> congratulations to each of you. a historic opportunity. missus dillon, i thank you for coming by the office. we may not agree on many issues, i certainly respect the exchange i want to say for the record, i am still proud of the fact that the community came to me after 9/11 and asked me to introduce a resolution which said that there should not be any discrimination against those who followed your religion as a result of 9/11. passed on a bipartisan basis the george w bush president showed real leadership on that in many other issues. i also held a hearing in this committee where we have the terrible incident where white supremacist killed innocent people. we had a hearing on that we packed the room with those that were interested in making sure that it never happens again. i would like to go to specific

questions, if i can. mr. rights, have you ever expressed support of the idea that they should defy a federal court order? >> thank you, ranking member durbin. i am not aware of any instances at this time of having made such an assertion. >> let me remind you in a statement that you made. march 30, 2020 u.s. district judge, george w. bush appointee blocked leadership on this one. now let him enforce it. this was an obvious effort to the fig dishes story about language supposedly used by andrew jackson in suggestion he would defy the order. do you stand by your tweet?

>> thank you for reminding me of this tweet, ranking member, durbin. what this reflects is a conservative view in the role of courts and their ability to bind parties that are not litigants to the case before it which is a mainstream view with debates and captured and, you know, 140 characters on a tweet. >> bottom line, should an elected official be allowed to defy a federal court order? it would be too specific for me to send a blank statement about that. a legal court order should not be followed under some circumstances. >> what i'm saying is that there

are some instances in which a public official is lawfully bound by the holding of a particular court. i cannot think them for all instances in the dynamic for a certain lawsuit. the hypothetical. such a hypothetical. a direct court order that binds a federal official. >> an exception that would be to you. i cannot think of a hypothetical

one way or another. i just suppose one could handle in extreme cases. you think they are relieved officials from obeying a court order. >> i believe that there was a court order there that were repelled which has not been correctly repudiated by virtually everyone. japanese civilians. >> as bad as it was, that court order was followed for years, was it not? >> i just wonder whether they may think it would be better off it had not been followed. >> i do not want to get into it because i think it goes to the heart of the question of the future constitutional challenge that we face as a nation. many people, academics and people in the legal profession, as to whether or not this president would defy a court order which basically would put

him above the law at least in his own eyes. i want to know what circumstances, what they believed justified that conclusion. >> very quickly i represented president trump for two years. i just think that that is not a plausible scenario. >> you have ran out of time, ranking member, thank you. >> senator holly. >> i think maybe i misunderstood this last line of questioning. i thought it sounded to me that my friend durbin was defending the decision which i think is one of the worst and most abhorrent decisions in the history of the united states. i just wanted to be clear on this. let me give you all a chance to weigh in on this. when we have a decision that is absolutely the morally abhorrent , dred scott, we can go down the line, should officials that disagree with morally

abhorrent positions just blindly follow it or do they register their disagreements, i suppose if they have to they resigned in protest. a system for this, a pattern for this, but is united states of america better off if the public officials in the face of grievous moral wrong say and do nothing push mark. >> i strongly agree, senator with your reaction to that. the only point that i was trying to make it my exchange with the ranking member was it was hard to make a very blanket sweeping statement about something without being presented with the facts and law in that scenario. i think that they are designed to illustrate the difficulty of doing that. >> thank you for your background and also 14 up that question. i stand by my earlier comments which is to say that there is no hard and fast rule about whether

, in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision. some instances in which he or she may lawfully be bound in other instances where he or she may not be lawfully bound. >> i know that everyone sitting on this panel in front of me as a firm believer in the rule of law. we can multiply these instances. we had numerous judges and other public officials and the supreme court said the fugitive slave law and absolutely abhorrent law had to be enforced in the north. there were multiple that said they could not in good conscience enforce it. the united states may be a better place if more of them had done so. standing firmly against injustice. i cannot believe that in the face of decisions like this that we should say to people, just grin and bear it, do not say anything, enforce the law, for heaven sake. good heavens. miss dylan, let me ask you, you spoke very movingly about

religious liberty. america did not invent religious liberty, it invented america. your family story is certainly a testament to that. i am mindful to the fact that in the last four years we have seen unprecedented attacks on religious liberty in this country. absolutely abhorrent attacks on people of faith. after the supreme court dobbs decision 100 pregnancy care centers, more than that, were vandalized, criminally assaulted , firebombed, over 300 churches, many of them catholic churches were targeted in the same manner. the biden justice department did nothing to defend these institutions. they let them twist in the wind. they allowed the violence to go on. indeed, members of this body encouraged this kind of violence with outrageous irresponsible rhetoric on the floor the united states senate and on the floor the united states house of representatives. will you commit to stopping the

treatment of americans on the basis of religious faith that we have seen in the last four years we make sure that people of faith are protected in the religious expression? >> thank you for that question, senator holly. i believe my career on the disclosures made to the senate would back up the fact that my entire career in 32 years has included religious liberty let litigation on both sides. i am very proud of that. i have one cases defending people of faith from government tyranny and deception. i would be committed as a top priority if confirmed to defending people of faith. >> would you investigate and where it is warranted prosecute those that carry out attacks on pregnancy care centers, places of worship, those who with religious or maybe anti- religious target people of faith in their houses of worship

and other places where frankly they are quite vulnerable. >> absolutely, senator. i do not think that there is a question about that. >> you reference this i think in your opening statement. since october 7 we have seen the most horrific explosion of anti-semitic violence. just yesterday i met in my office with the young man, a student, and rotc member, he is also jewish. his arm was in a sling because he had been physically assaulted on this campus. what was his offense? he had been tabling and support the state of israel. will you commit to enforcing this to make sure that we root out. >> absolutely. i would certainly commit to that >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your service as federal prosecutor in your people of missouri. thank you to your service to this body and colleagues. and to her nations. i appreciate your willingness to

step forward. you are all seeking critical leadership positions in a department of justice that is reeling and questioning the direction that it is being taken career prosecutors were fired for working on cases that president trump did not approve of or like. senior doj leaders have been reassigned to that the southern district of new york in the public integrity unit, a half a dozen prosecuting units resigned earlier this month and carry out what they thought to be unlawful or unethical orders in the eric adams case. miss dylan, if president trump were to ask you to do something that you believe was either illegal or unconstitutional, what would you do? >> thank you for that question, senator. first of all, i have represented him for four years and numerous different cases and i currently represent them as a private attorney and in all those years are multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions, the president has never asked me to do anything

that i found to be objectionable , immoral, unlawful or illegal. so i really cannot fathom the circumstance that you are describing. >> i do not think that it is a hypothetical. you folks in the public integrity unit and the southern district resigning over what they believed to be an unethical and an appropriate order. i put that exact question to your predecessor in the first trump administration, his first for civil rights. he did not call it hypothetical. he answered directly. they swear an oath to execute and faithfully execute the constitution and they would therefore be appropriate to refuse to follow a directive of the president if illegal or unconstitutional. exactly the same situation answering the question is there any reason you can't. not having four years of representing president trump as his lawyer. i would give him the grace of not knowing for that experience that i have had and, so, i think

that it is a hypothetical to me and so i respectfully. >> sadly it is not to currently serving members of the department of justice. if i might, mr. wright, in the exchange i was just held both between senator durbin and senator holly and yourself, dozens of the executive orders have been blocked by federal courts and recently federal district courts in a number of been reviewed on appeal, to your knowledge has the administration complied with these federal court orders? >> thank you, senator. i have not been following the procedural posture of those cases very closely. of course, i intend to do so. >> you will be centrally involved in those decisions are part of what my colleague was trying to focus on was the tweet that you apparently posted in response to a decision that you did not like.

the tweet said looking for some andrew jackson level leadership on this one. the judge has made his decision now let him enforce it. my colleague from missouri suggested that somehow senator durbin was standing up for the decision and i think buried in what he said and what my colleague said was clarity. what are the avenues appropriately available to a litigant which can include the president or the department secretary, what are the avenues available to properly challenge a duly issued federal circuit or district court order and is it ever proper to simply refuse to obey that order? >> thank you, senator. i will answer your second question first. which is what i referenced earlier. there is no hard and fast rule in all instances in which a litigant must comply with all or

some or various parts of a judicial decision. it is so fact law in case specific that one could not speak generally. >> in your view, do litigants before a federal court get to choose whether or not to obey a federal court order? >> they can appeal it, they can speak out against it, they can question it, but can they refuse ? can the president of the united states refuse as a litigant before federal court refused to follow that order which was the key implication of your tweet. >> generally speaking, senator coons, parties to a case are bound by a lawful court holding from that court. as you rightly pointed out, there are many different avenues to write a perceived wrong, appeals, re- hearings, various

motions, et cetera, if you are familiar with them. >> thank you for that answer. i think that all of us are holding our breath to see whether or not president trump and those that will be advising him correctly understand what is a foundational principle of the rule of law. may question, may challenge, but may not ignore a district court order. >> we will move to senator blackburn for question. >> thank you, madam chairman and congratulations to each of you. we are really pleased that your families are here. that you had this nomination and we are so looking forward to having you serve president trump and the american people in your position so congratulations to you. in tennessee, we follow the motto, let's make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. and, it is important for each

person to know if their vote is counted and votes are the process that is going to be a process that is true, transparent and honest. our counties have been busy cleaning up voter rolls and that's why tennessee has been ranked number one in the country for election integrity and i know that you will follow those same premises at the department of justice. so, i would like for you to talk about what you can do at the civil rights division to make certain that we restore election integrity. >> thank you for that question, senator blackburn. i really appreciate how tennessee has taken a lead and cleaning up the voter rolls. federal law provides under the national voter registration act that states to maintain their voter rolls and in an up-to-date way.

most states are willfully behind in doing so which creates confusion and distress among citizens who are concerned that their votes are not being equally cast. i think that there are limited enforcement mechanisms for the department of justice to necessarily take the lead on this particular issue, but there been many cases in which private organizations are state parties have been granted standing to challenge in the department of justice has the opportunity in those cases where the facts have been developed to come in and take a position as well in the position in my opinion should be 100% in favor of clean voter rolls. now, many states have evolved excellent methods for doing that in the fairway, giving citizens notice, giving them notice and multiple cycles. i think that there are many ways that states can stay up-to-date like tennessee is doing. >> i want to come to you and i appreciated the opportunity to

visit with you prior to the hearing. i want to drill down on one comment that you made. justice without fear or favor. i appreciated that because so many people that have reached out to us, members of this committee, have noted that it seems that we were in a season under the last administration where there were two tears of justice. two tears of access. two tears of treatment and the american people have spoken against this loudly. they want equal justice for all. so, i would like for you to come in on what you mean and how that concept, justice without fear or favor is essential to your role as the solicitor general. >> thank you very much for the question, senator. thank you for the opportunity to meet and speak with you.

i greatly appreciate the question as well because i think that you have asked about something that goes to the heart of the role of the department of justice. as i mentioned in my opening statement it puts both equal justice under law which is the same as justice without fear or favor central to the department of justice mission. senator holly i think refer to recent examples of situations where that was not fully upheld in the most recent administration. in my opening statement i referred to what are the most compelling and really astonishing experiences that i've had in respect to that and that really develop many of the cases that i have the privilege of litigating under the leadership with senator schmidt when he was attorney general of missouri. also representing president trump and the recent weapon eyes prosecutions that he has experienced. we have a number of examples in our recent history in the department of justice and that

is why what was really kind of a ringing call to me and president trump's inaugural address was his statements that i quoted about restoring the equal justice under law and the constitutional rule of law. >> thank you. in your role, you will be responsible for initiating policy initiatives. this is something important to addressing violence. this is a cross country. i want to get that you can do the previous trump administration through programs like operational which was very effective in memphis and tennessee. i know that my time has expired. if you will submit that one to me in writing. >> thank you, senator blackburn. thank you for respecting that time. >> thank you, madam chair. iso following two initial

questions so i will ask you starting with mr. -- i will go right down the line. since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? >> no. >> no. >> no, senator b mech have you ever place discipline or entered into this kind of conduct? be not know. >> no, senator. >> i am not, senator. >> with regards, for the record, in 2023 during in impeachment proceedings against texas attorney general, texas ranger testified that there were many complaints of sexual harassment by a female employees about the rights when he worked in the texas attorney general's office. and i will have further

questions regarding these complaints. for ms. dylan, relating to section two of the voting rights act, i think that your position is that section two of the voting rights act requires actual discrimination and basically discriminatory intent before it will be deemed unconstitutional is that correct ? is that your view of section two voting rights act? >> i would say to generalize, yes, it is. >> unless there is discriminatory intent, unless the state legislature says we are about to enact legislation that will discriminate against a group, you do not think that section two applies. >> i disagree with your characterization senator. there are many ways to prove intent other than a blanket statement from a state legislature. >> let me mention that under

president trump's attorney general garland, they have filed a number of lawsuits under section two. for example law prohibiting civil groups from providing food or water to people that are standing in line to vote. there was no discriminatory intent. would you have filed that lawsuit against that? >> i've not had the opportunity to study all of the facts underlying all of those prosecutions by the by the department of justice. >> there garland also filed a lawsuit under section two. state law limiting the use of absentee ballot drop boxes. there are number of these kinds of voting rights laws that the state enacted after shelby county. thirteen states very immediately

passing all kinds of laws. that made it a lot tougher to vote. i am just wondering, how will you decide which ones to go after? these obviously have the effect of discrimination against certain groups making it harder for them to vote. how would you decide which of these kinds of voting right laws enacted by states, the obvious. >> senator, i have to disagree with the premise of your question that all of these measures that georgia and other states took to improve confidence of all citizens and voting in fact had any -- >> obviously, there is this agreement that it is a crutch to whether or not these laws actually have an anti- discriminatory and you obviously do not think so. you stated in one of your many

tweets, thousands of tweets that you deleted before your nomination. we can go over some of them. one of them said a birthright citizenship is not a thing. is birthright citizenship in the constitution, yes or no? yes or no? >> thank you, senator. i think that there are reasonable debates to be had about the meaning and application and scope of what is commonly called birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. >> a sense of it has been 130 years where this particular provision has been deemed to confer birthright citizenship and not in the way president trump views it and apparently not you. so, will we start talking about the rule of law i do wonder what constitute rule of law in your

mind because after president trump issued all of his executive orders, some 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of his executive orders. legality is also in the minds and eyes of the beholder. thank you. >> we will turn to senator britt >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i just wanted to say congratulations to each and everyone of you for being dominated and for your family spirit i know this is a big moment and you're proud of the work that they have done to get here. when you serve, it is not just you, it is your entire family that does so we say thank you. i especially want to say something to mr. right. it has been an honor and privilege to get to work with you over the last few years. i am not only grateful to your service to the nation in the u.s. marine corps, but what i've seen you do for senator cruz firsthand. the former chief myself i know what it takes to make it all work and to make sure that your

boss and stated nation are the best place possible. you have done that in a manner that is second to none and i'm excited to see each and every one of you serve our nation at a higher level so thank you. i will start with missus dillon. to follow up on senator blackburn's comments, feeling strongly about making sure that every single person has access to vote. we make that easier whether it's providing fee voter id coming to your house allow you to register , we want to make sure that every citizen does that. we also want to make sure that that boat is protected. part of the work of the civil rights division relates to protecting the right to vote. in my view it is an important part of protecting the right of american citizens to vote and it is to ensure the that the roots are not deluded by those that actually have no right to vote. i know you have done some work on this issue during your time in private practice and it is an issue i've also worked to address here in congress. i will be reintroducing once again the citizens ballot

protection act which immense federal ball to explicitly allow states to put in place proof of citizenship to require that for federal help voter registration forms and any state failed voter registration form that they may develop. i think many people across the nation would be shocked to know that states are currently hamstrung when it comes to requiring proof of citizenship as part of voter registration processes. it is common sense to ensure that only american citizens are registering to vote in our elections. based on your experience, can you explain why it is important and necessary to take steps to ensure that noncitizens are not voting in our election and the world that you think doj and in particular the civil rights division can or should play in ensuring the votes of american citizens are not deluded. >> thank you for your question, senator britt. i want to particularly thank you for introducing the legislation that you just described.

while it does not itself of course are states from requiring proof of citizenship, courts have done that and laid that prohibition that was the subject of some conversations that i had with some of my fellow senators while we met. i do think that it would be a tremendous boost to voter confidence in the integrity of elections in the state if there was assurance that only citizens are voting. similarly only voting once. i think that that is also very important. the current self certification system has not only allowed people to maliciously vote when they were not entitled, it is led many legal immigrants to unknowingly cast a vote in thereby putting their own ability to become united states citizens in peril and we've seen this happen in pennsylvania and other states. i think it would be a tremendous boost to voter integrity and confidence. that would cause more americans to come out of vote which i

think all of us want to both sides of the aisle. >> i could not agree more. president trump signed an executive order january related to the measures to combat anti-semitism. senator holly touched on this earlier. pursuant to that order attorney general bondi announced the formation of a multiagency task force to do this, to make sure that we are doing this the task force will be correlated through the civil rights division. i have long been concerned about this issue and did not think the biden administration acted aggressively enough to address it, particularly on college campuses. once confirmed that the head of civil rights division, can you assure me you will take aggressive action via this task force to ensure that your students are protected from abuse and harassment and that those that engage in such behavior will be subject to the full force of the law. >> senator, this is a very high priority for me. i have several orthodox jews that i worked on my law firm and

have given me stories about their family circumstances and instance of discrimination on campuses and other settings. coming from a religious minority myself, i think that it is very important and crucial that the civil rights division step up to defend students on campus because it is a blow not just to those individual students, but to the entire community when they see campus administrators refuse to protect them. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, senator britt. you are so timely. >> i want to pick up with a discussion which i found a little troubling. i would love to go into a little bit more with you. it just sounds like you have been suggesting that government officials can more court order if they disagree with it. pointing to some of the worst in our nation. this would really create a constitutional crisis in this context in which we are living right now if our courts impose

injunctions that restrict or compel government action and then government officials go against that. to me, that is the very nature of what a constitutional crisis is. i pulled a tweed of yours that you compared the decision of the court's decision in same sex marriages. i want to know, do you think public officials have it within their right if they find it morally wrong to violate that court order or that court's conclusions? >> thank you, senator booker. i have been consistent on my position which is that parties to the litigation are bound by the lawful holdings of their respective court. i understand that there is genuine disagreement about the scope of certain holdings, whether they can apply nationally or just litigants or other litigants, but i do think

that it is a fair discussion for attorneys in good faith to discuss the scope of us holding up a case. >> i find academic discussions in our national dialogue, but you are being nominated for a very important position my question to you, i guess, if you morally disagree with a court order, do you believe you can defy that court order that the trump administration, that the government in your position can defy that court order. >> i appreciate the clarification, however, just a general reference in this hearing to a litigant morally disagreeing to the decision of the court, in my opinion, is too hypothetical for me to be able to answer with precision. >> do you understand that that is not a comfortable assurance for me when there is credible concerns about the supreme court making a decision and having an

administration that feels that it can defy that. you are not giving me great confidence by stating unequivocally that we are a nation that respects separation of powers, the role of the courts. and, far be it for me to lecture you, and i hope that you do not take it that way, but the traditions of our country if you disagree, the traditions that we exalt, to exceptions of statutes underneath the dome of the capitol martin luther king who was very clear that when you find a ball morally wrong and you break that law. you accept the consequences of that which is jail or removal from a position. i am seeing right now good-faith actors within government resigning from their position. that is a very different tradition. the tradition in our country

than a person in a position like you are nominated from willfully disregarding a court order. that is in its very nature a constitutional crisis and your failure in this form to resolutely state your commitment to abide by court orders. i hope you can understand why that would be troubling to many of the senators before you. you understand that that is troubling. >> i understand, senator booker, that that is a perspective that members of this body will have. >> very difficult for me to swallow that. honestly, you send a chill to me and my concerns about the current administration. mr. dillon, i can see you here because of the pride of the family behind you, you can see

it written all over their faces. i hope that you understand that. they are just extraordinary and for me as an american to see you sitting here in your incredible family behind you. i have some very direct questions for you that i do not have time with. i fear the chairwoman. [laughter] i will put them in writing and they have to do with your knowledge of any plans to dismiss employees and a lot of the things that are going on here that give rise concerns to me. would you commit to responding to me? >> yes, senator, i commit to responding to your questions. >> you, to our timely. thank you, madam chair. a few moments ago, one of my colleagues asked a question about abiding by the rule of law , abiding by supreme court decisions. when the supreme court ruled that president biden did not in

fact have authority to undertake is student loan forgiveness program, president biden made a statement. a statement to the effects of the following. the supreme court blocked it, but that did not stop the. clouding openly his defiance of the supreme court and the rule of law. i would like to ask each of you, we will start with missus dillon and then we will go to mr. wright in the mr. sauer, just be clear, in your view, does president biden's statement hold water and what you call the rule of law to your position? >> senator, thank you for that question. i come at two, was surprised at president biden's reaction to that order. the order itself, many lawyers would agree was entirely consistent with the law. no argument was made by the

president that the order was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, et cetera, he just simply defined it. [inaudible] >> correct. i think that that may be a little bit hard to swallow. in general, many mechanisms for a party to disagree with the ruling. you can stay, you can leave, you can appeal. in this case, the highest court in the land. in that circumstance, i disagree with the president's position. >> thank you, senator lee. yes, if confirmed, you personally, this body, the american people have my commitment to always observe the american law. i think my reaction to president biden's brazing leaf flouting a supreme court decision in which he was a litigant and thus lawfully bound to the holding of that court was disappointing and

unlawful. >> thank you, senator lee. i agree with my colleagues on a personal note as well as the senator mentioned in the introduction. we were directly involved in litigating in that issue. having taken all of the efforts, those sort of statements were particularly troubling. if confirmed, i will follow the rule of law. >> thank you. the position to which you have been appointed, to which you have been nominated, in some ways it gets to the essence of the professional obligation that we have as lawyers to represent clients as they come to us, even , especially, when the client happens to be unpopular, especially when that client does not necessarily have the window public opinion at his or her back. you have had a prestigious career and civil rights law in which you have represented unpopular clients.

....

>> congress passes and will you commit to do so even when the president may disagree with an act campaigned against its passage or call for its repeal? [inaudible] >> i believe mr. francisco stated that the duty is to defend validity of congressional enactments when there's

reasonable arguments available to do so. i think he noted exception in certain case where is there's a conflict in certain cases in article 2 authority and i will commit to following those principles that he outlined in his testimony? >> all right. i also note that on her first day an office she issued note that doj lawyers might be fellow advocates for interest and troubling to many of us and to do deprive to the president of his lawyers. when you started prosecuting in the obama administration, did you see yourself as president obama's lawyers? >> i believe as an attorney for the department of justice at any letter, the client of that attorney would be of the state, thank you, all justice lawyers

take an oath to the constitution and as you note their client is the people of the united states i asked of todd blanch and answered as true and your client will be the united states government, the united states of america and not the president, that's right? >> i stand by my briar answer. >> all right. thank you very much. >> i appreciate you being here today. certainly based on my history as a federal prosecutor and a judge and attorney general of the state of florida i think the rules in which you are allowing to serve and accepted the nominations are some of the most important roles in our government especially at this moment in time when so many people believe, so many americans believe that the department of justice and agencies within it have been used to unfairly target those

that may hold a different political preference or persuasion. it is so important for the stability and consistency and long-term success of the nation to have people like you, patriots passionate and principunless these rules to assure americans that we are going to bring this back to a place where americans can trust that you are -- that the institution at the department of justice is a shield protecting not only american safety but their inalienable rights. do you believe in its core that's one of the missions you will fulfill and i will ask each of you to answer, please.

>> i don't think i can express in quotations from president trump's inaugural address. >> i100% agree with you. >> agreed. >> i would like to introduce a letter from all four women republican attorneys general, former colleague with a voice support for you and we will enter into the record without objection. wasn't of the things that we highlighted and i know that we share in this common and most

people don't know about this about you but young lawyer and continuing to this day you have without charge free of charge using your skills as an attorney and for pro bono defended victims, sought victims of domestic violence. i remember going to the courthouse helping victims of domestic violence. i believe that shows your heart for protecting the most vulnerable in time of need that may not understand how to navigate the court's system and understand that the court system is there for their protection and i believe that's what you will bring to this role. you have spoken to this as attorney general. i was one of the first to request that large corporation be discriminated using racial and i also brought suit, one of the first in the nation when

crisis centers were being fire bombed an threatening messages were being written on them to make sure that we were protecting the life of those that are pro-life -- protecting the rights of pro-life americans, many of these would fall under the doj. i hope that you will go back and review what might not have been done in the last administration and assure this body and effort and why it was set up to be government of the free people first the and foremost to protect our rights, will you confirm for this body that you will make sure that every american is protected under your tenure and leadership? >> senator, thank you for your

question. >> thank you so much and under five minutes i'm concluding my questioning. i will model for all of my colleagues. >> all right, we will now turn it over to senator padilla. >> thank you madame chair. i was hoping that you confer to me your extra 15 seconds. >> not a chance. [laughter] >> colleagues, before i jump into my questions i just have to express not just disappointment but alarm. there's been a number of department of justice nominees that have come before us, most if not all, you know, echoing over and over again the respect for the constitution, the commitment for the constitution, a commitment to the rule of law

yet when pressed about whether or not they would loyal to the constitution versus patrol, they don't give strong answers. high ranking department not adequately defending the balance of power, coequal branches of government, the checks and balances built to the constitution is telling of the political times we are living in and alarming. i know my time is limited so let

me jump into a couple of questions for the folks before us. first mr. sour, representing the united states before the supreme court should you be confirmed as an attorney, though, admitting to any state bar in the country for defending the constitution of the united states, the president has already defied the constitution and supreme court in reference to birthright citizenship. >> thank you, senator padilla for the question. i really appreciated the cordial conversation monday evening in your offer and you asked me to look at 19th century supreme court decisions i have agreed to do that and since then given that this is a matter that would

be very likely to come within my purview -- >> thank you. ms. dylan, your record demonstrates to me and as fellow californian you oppose key voting rights protections including john lewis voting advancement act and fought against to challenge discriminatory laws, spread disinformation about 2020 election and now 2019, you sued the california department of motor vehicle alleging issues atthe motor program and that was ten lawsuits that you brought against the state when i was secretary, all unsuccessful, many dismissed. will you commit or how can you convince us that based on this track record that you would

equally enforce, fairly enforce voting right acts through the department of justice? >> thank you for your question, senator, when we had the opportunity to meet in your office yesterday, i gave you one example of california's failure to abide by the nbra and make its voter roles clean and that's 1 million voters quote, unquote, in los angeles county alone which the county of los angeles agreed in a consent decree. >> i'm sorry to disrupt because my time limited. i would like to present them for

the record and ask if they are, indeed, you as they appear to be. in february 2021 worst critic decision, we knew that would be the case but nonetheless total reliance to support insane crammed to lgbtq agenda, it's you, yes or no? >> senator padilla, it was indeed -- >> friendly reminder that birthright citizenship is not a thing. is this your post yes or no? >> that appears to be my exhandle. >> november 2020. unwilling to capitulate to fraudulent election, i wish there were others. is this you or not? >> that appears to be my exhandler.

>> september of 2020, i believe it was. bring back to good-old days for the record picture of the infamous joke mccarthy. was this your post yes or not november? >> that appears to be my exhandle. >> enough said, thank you. mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i do find it fascinating that my friends on the other side of the aisle are very concerned all of a sudden about an administration ignoring supreme court decisions. mr. soure you and i brought supreme court case. the supreme court blocked me, that didn't stop me. so this lawlessness we have seen over the last four years all of a sudden democrat friends have found relegion. my colleagues on the other side say you're a threat to civil rights. the truth is you're one of the most fiercest advocates of civil

rights on paper civil rights are supposed to mean protection from discrimination based on characterrist likes lake race characteristics. there's racism that exist -- it goes by a bunch of names, equity, drc, you can go on and on, but whatever you want to call it is wrong and has to

stop. stop discriminating on the basis of race. that's one of the reasons i like you. i think unlike most quote, unquote major civil rights organizations today you oppose racial discrimination in all forms. so i want to ask you, is reverse racism still racism? >> thank you for the question, senator. i don't even use the term reverse racism. it's just racism to discriminate on the basis of race. >> i agree with you. >> and do civil right protections apply to all races? >> in my view yes they do, senator. >> okay, in my view we have to root out this wokism and this discrimination that's been under the cultural marxism of dei, you have seen this play out in the privateer sector as well.

title 7 prohibits employment based on sex, national origin. does target practice raise flags for you. >> i believe the practice is illegal and unconstitutional. >> one of the things that i find fascinating from the last administration against companies like spacex, for example, the biden administration brought hundreds, hundreds of civil rights actions, how many actions did the biden administration bring against dei racial quotas, are you aware? >> i'm not aware of any, senator. >> i know the answer to it. 0.0. none because this is the truth. my friends on the other side

need to be dismantled. the left views as cultural marxism, a way to divide the room by race and it's tearing the country apart. you have a really important role that you're going to step into when you're confirmed. i think you are going to get confirmed to try to end this, we shouldn't have racial quotas. we need to bring merit back. it's not a four-letter word. you also shouldn't be held back because of your skin color either and, again, i think this leftist movement that the democrats have been captured by, they totally lost the plot and the american people have rejected it and part of what the american people did in november they sat in the jury box and they rejected it.

you, given your background and experience and, i think, your grit to fight these tough fights, i couldn't think of anybody more qualify today do the job that you're about to do. congratulations and you have my support. >> i believe this is the first time in the history in the republic that -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so you will consult the

ethics lawyers at the department. >> yes. >> you are aware that career officials have been fired, demoted, transferred. they no longer exist. the two people in that office are one of your fellow criminal defense lawyers of donald trump and political appointee that graduated from law school a few years ago. they don't exist. so who are you going to consult? are you going to go to one of other criminal defense lawyers to find out if you should recuse yourself? >> senator, i'm not aware of any personnel actions that you describe so i can't speak directly to those. i just recently within through a process where i was consulting closely -- >> those actions have taken place and the two appointees are political appointees. the people who make the recusal recommendations to you are political appointees, one was mr. bose former chief of staff, the other was a fellow criminal defense lawyer for donald trump. if that's who you're going to for recusal advice, no one can

have confidence that that judgment will be made properly but let me move onto another question. you position as donald trump's lawyer that he could order team 6 to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted for it unless he was impeached first. should the president order the use of violence against a political appointment, will that continue to be your position as the lawyer for the united states? will you represent to the court that any prosecution should be dismissed if the president is not impeached? >> i believe the change that occurred in dc circuit in presidential immunity decision. i was asked a question about that and what i responded the president may be prosecuted for an action like that but under plain language of clause, he must be first impeached and convict bid the senate.

>> he cannot be prosecuted unless impeached first. use violence against political opponent and you would defend ability to do that in any criminal prosecution unless he's impeached, is that your testimony? >> with respect to the real world example -- >> i'm giving you. >> i believe i am answering the question. president obama ordered the essential killing of u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike and my colleague of the other side of that case -- >> my question is not about president obama and using strikes against terrorist but donald trump using his office to

-- i'm not in position to address it. >> you would evidently defend him. the department move toddies miss corruption case against the mayor of new york. southern district of new york u.s. attorney refuse today undertake connection that she believe was deeply inethical. it fell on her number 2, hagan to do the dirty --

>> would you be willing to dismiss the case on behalf of the president? >> i can't speak of any official action i might or may not take in hypothetical scenario but distressing lack of letters like this. >> well, there's disturbing presence of letters like this and your answer tells me that it would be you. my colleagues have praised your legal skills. i have no doubt about the knowledge of the law but to me you're not a good lawyer if you use our system to undermine our system and i'm deeply afraid that's what you've done and that's what you will do in this position. i yield back.

>> let me say to the three of you thank you for agreeing to serve our nation, thank you for going to the department of justice. i will note my democrat colleagues are suddenly deeply concerned about the rule of law all seem to have entered the witness protection program during four years of the biden presidency when the biden department of justice was the most lawless and partisan department of justice our nation has ever seen and not a single democrat on this committee could be bothered to be concern in the slightest about the weaponization of the department of justice to attack president biden's political opponent and refusal to enforce the law including refusing to protect supreme court justices when a clear federal statute made it a crime to protest and threaten the lives and families of supreme court justices and yet the biden department of justice refused to follow the law.

now mr. saue, i will note that you have -- you and i share a lot of legal history. we both attended the same law school. we both clerked for the same judge michael on the court of appeals. you clerked for the late great justice antonin scalia. we both started our legal career practicing under chuck cooper, one of the finest supreme court litigators on the planet. it is the only position in the entire federal government that is required by statute to be, quote, learned in the law. i will note i'm grateful that is not a requirement to serve on the senate judiciary committee. but i would ask you to chair with the committee and the american people, what is the

responsibility of attorney general and how would you carry out this task if and when you are confirmed? >> thank you very much, senator, thank you for the opportunity to meet an discuss legal issues facing the united states. i believe i respond today early yes questions that the role was to defend both the statutes of the united states that are enacted by congress and the executive actions. how can that perspective enhance civil rights provision in advocating for all americans from all backgrounds? >> thank you for that question,

senator. i would put it this way, my faith itself teaches openness for all, respect for all and protecting the defenseless. that is -- those are the among the tenants and that's why you see so many volunteering in worn-torn areas and doing relief around the world. it's been my entire career that i have served in that capacity motivated by my faith, teachings and my home and my career has also demonstrated many instances as other senators have mentioned of pro bono, doing work for people who could not get a lawyer otherwise and so i'm proud of that work in the civil rights division there's long and storied history of doing exactly the same thing which is standing up for the most disadvantaged individuals in our united states and showing equal justice for all.

and so i would definitely be -- >> let me ask you, how have your experiences as someone subject today racial profiling and abuse and in particular the incident in 1995 where you and your husband were attacked on a bus, can you please briefly describe that and how that will inform how you will carry out the roles running the civil rights division? >> thank you, senator, early 90's as newlywed i got a terrible phone call from the chaplain at nyu that my husband who was resident in that program had been shot and brought to nyu. had been shot in the chest by a racist who confronted him on a crowded new york city bus during rush hour and told him to get out of his face and to apologize and use numerousnot later than

21 years of seem life in being at the creation interest. >> very good. >> i want to enter into the

record multiple letters in support of mr. wright's nomination, a letter from the national association for police organizations, a letter from former editorial board members of the texas reveal on politics, a letter from mlk association from texas, a letter from the chairman of the board of regents at texas southern university, letter from the region of valley and letter from pastor willy davis and houston city council members of willy davis and without objection these are all enters into the record and senator welch, you're recognized? >> thank you very much. very nice to visit with you. all of are amazed here. guy named cruz from texas.

okay. we can imagine what it's like for the chief of staff. >> your time has expired. [laughter] >> to all of you, let me express what is a concern many of us have. it's not a democrat, republican thing. years of profoundly new set of expectations and boundaries and what the executive power is now. we've had decisions by the supreme court that gives immunity to the president. i find that shocking. ic the president has to be subject to the law and not above the law. we also have a president who has been very explicit and determined that it's my justice department and also made the statement that if he does it to save the country it's lawful. that's unique and haven't had

the point of view embedded. that causes great concern because, i think, really threatens the separation of powers and the authority of congress to be a check-in balance. all of you will have major positions that will require you basically to serve the interest of the president and we all understand that and there's real definition of that presidential authority. i want to ask a little bit about that. i know your tweet -- you were asked about that and the president can violate the law. just tell me where you come from in terms of what the limits are on presidential authority? >> thank you, and it was a pleasure visiting with you and your staff just yesterday. senator, you referenced a tweet

which the president has unlimited power? >> let me -- i will get to the tweet. i thought senator durbin had displayed it. i was told that. the decision of the supreme court. >> thank you for that and thank you for clarifying senator welch. so my position reflects a fairly mainstream view within right of center juries, presidential

policy is invalid. president said he can do anything to save the country. that's his motivation. that will include disregarding the order of the judge. so senator, first, i think the -- i'm not aware of any instance in which president trump genuinely stated that he can do anything. >> i'm asking that maybe it's a -- this is a hypothetical and hasn't happened yet but hypothetical based on very explicit decisions run by the supreme court on immunity and

another by president trump's own statements. >> to be clear, i think i've stated earlier, senator, i have had the privilege of representing president trump for much of last --

>> how about answering my question now that i'm here. >> likely exchange about that but, again, i represented president trump for two years i've never been put in any situation like that. >> i just got to say, mr. chairman, that's a little bit frustrating. i understand that he has a good relationship with the president respects him, all right, and the president has never put him in that position but we are in a new situation here. this is a very serious question that he's never had to face before. can the president disregard a decision by the supreme court? i will yield back but i wanted to show my frustration in

getting answer. >> well, i will note the witnesses did point out that president trump has been president for four years and one month now and never disregarded a court order and we just finished four years of joe biden routinely disregarding the law in no instance more flagrantly than concerning our southern where he defied federal immigration and allowed 12 million illegal immigrants to come into the country illegally. the hypotheticals that are being posed by a democrat colleague sadly we have lived in the last four years when you have a lawless president who does not follow the statutes passed by congress and sign intoed the united states code. senator kennedy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the credentials of each of you are impressive. ms. dylan, did you ever had

professor paul? >> i did, i think it was my first year. >> i introduced senator cruz to some of his supporters one time. i was asked about him and i said, well, let me tell you about senator cruz. he's brilliant but so was the unibomber. you have to watch him like a hawk. is that a fair description? you don't have to answer that? [laughter]

>> is it true that after scott, senator cruz can burp the alphabet backwards? you don't have to answer that either. [laughter] >> let me say something serious request for second and then i will have one or two questions. you're all adults. you're all officers of the court so i will give you some advice. i may be wrong but i doubt it. don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal

court, ever. now you disagree with it, within the bounds of legal etics you can criticize it, you can appeal it or you can resign. for four years, i have watched people in this town not everybody, but many try to undermine the legitimacy of the federal judiciary and triggered each and every time my gag reflects. i've watched them try to pack the supreme court. i have watched an esteemed member of this body on the steps of the first supreme court threatened justice gorsuch and

justice kavanaugh. and kavanaugh. i've seen that. i've seen this body some in good faith but some in bad faith try to impose an unconstitutional violent -- undermine legitimacy. equal branch of government has legitimacy. don't ever say you're not going to follow the order of a court. you may not agree with it, but that's my advice. mr. sauer. i'm glad to see that hawley took

you to a cracker barrel. >> i always thought he was more of a whole foods type guy. [laughter] >> i can only say that his description was accurate. it was chicken fried steak. >> i'm glad to see his taste is getting better. >> i can't think of a hypothetical as i sit here, however, i am aware that there was a line of cases holding that -- >> i am too. is there any way that a legislative body can pass legislation classifying people on the basis of race and pass

through scrutiny? >> i can't imagine as i sit here, senator. >> how does doctrine of equal protection apply to the federal government? i know the 14th amendment says that the states can't deny people equal protection of the law. how does it apply?

>> you agree with the process? >> i have criticized that doctrine and in of the legal briefs that i've filed that i disclosed to the committee. >> without it how would we have equal protections? >> you think they got the methodology wrong? >> you asked about the substantive due process doctrine, first incorporation is different than that. as i sit here today i'm not prepared to say whether they got it right or got it wrong. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kennedy in line of initial line of questioning i ask subsequent hearing kennedy be bound to gag. i will withdraw that request. >> thank you, chairman, i will

take this opportunity to put up what i consider to be a red flag of a maga takeover of the department of justice. what we regularly see is extremely good minds until we hit trump sensitivity? it's like watching people fly into the bermuda triangle, get weird and i think that's a very strong signal of what intentions are as we go into this. project 2025 author ross vote said that his purpose to impose

trauma in the federal workforce and i think we are seeing those efforts right now with respect to fbi agents who were assigned, for instance, to the january 6th cases, we see repeated signals that politics now matters. we saw attorney general bondi ask members of the department of justice to disavow their own political beliefs in favor of and i'm quoting her here, the political views that prevailed in the election. i don't think we've ever heard an attorney general say anything like that before. we see the dc u.s. attorney in office, not formerly, like you mr. sauer describe as trump's lawyer out to protect his leadership. the department actually had some

pretty noble traditions of standing against politics and for the law. recent example when the department stood against bush for wiretapping and threatened resignations if it wasn't corrected and it was corrected. that was a good thing. the department itself rejected its own secret shoty office of legal counsel opinions that -- that was the department cleaning up its own mess not just going along with the signal from the white house. most recently you saw the department stand against efforts to involve the department of justice in the georgia election subversion scheme. to me those were noble days for

the department, i don't see any chance of that happening. i see the entire initiative of the department eliminated, canceled just as we watch a president cozy up to vladimir putin, whatever trump-russia was, it still is. and to take the department sends terrible and to me unjustifiable signal. we have seen a fake grand jury investigation mounted in order to create or at least attempted

to be mounted in order to create a pretext to allow a fund that the president objects to but is way too late to veto and recently we saw a flagrant pretense that withdrawal of the prosecution of new york's mayor was not part of an agreement, the latin term for agreement is quid pro quo and you saw tom homan from the administration go right on tv and say this was an agreement and if you don't honor it, i will be -- i won't use the phrase that he used because it's vulgar. i hope that in some way i can

call to each dissency so when the moment comes which it will when you're asked to choose between the public duty of the justice and the trump administration you will turn to the right side. i'm sorry to say i don't see any indication of that. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. >> mr. chair, senator kennedy. >> i forgot to ask william and caroline if they had anything that they wanted to add. anything? how about vote for my dad? >> vote for my dad. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry for interrupting. >> excellent round to close the hearing. congratulation each of the three of you did a terrific job. senator kennedy did a terrific

job. for everyone's information, written questions for the record will be submitted by tomorrow and will ask each of the nominees to return the questions as soon as possible so we can quickly schedule committee votes and with that, the hearing is adjourned. >> thursday, c-span, bill to repeal the biden administration ener department energy efficiency standards for instantaneous -- presint trump's nomination of linda mcmahon to b education secretary. ssible bill that would overtu the biden administration rule to implement

could ocr in the afternoon. and on c-span 3 live at 10:00 a.m. eastern a hearing o the nomination for william to be dictor of federal housing agency and jonathan and at 2:10 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, chair brandon will addre rebuilding the public's trust and looking at the future of journalism. journalists from nbc, fox news, cnn and the new york timeslso scheduled to speak. l of this will stream live on the free c-span now video app and online on website c-span.org. american history tv saturday on c-span2 exploring the people and event that is tell the american story. this weekend at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, historian talks of life of

lincoln and davis, wife of civil war leaders. at 6:30 eastern, visit to aviation museum in maryland. at 7:00 p.m. watch american history tv first one hundred days as we look at the start of presidential terms. this week we focus on the early months of president lyndon johnson's term in 1963 following the assassination of john f. kennedy. johnson addressed congress shortly after kennedy's death and called on members to pass civil rights legislation and at 8:00 p.m. eastern, lectures of history, university of southern california sociology professor on the formation and evolution of american prison gangs in 20th century.

find full schedule.