” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been trying for months to stop Democrats from asking President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees who won the 2020 election, a basic question that none will answer like a normal human being.”
“It’s been an embarrassing exercise for all of these federal judicial nominees, who will forever have it on their records that they were the people too afraid to cross Trump — and too determined to advance their own careers — to tell the truth and prove that their loyalties lie with the Constitution over any particular president.”
“His insistence that it’s normal for Trump’s nominees to keep saying Biden was *certified* as president, when asked who *won* the election? He’s undermined this argument himself, at one point making forceful comments about a president being determined by [who gets the most electoral votes](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-committee-nominations-hearing), not by who is certified: “Under Article II and the 12th Amendment of our Constitution, the electoral college dictates who wins presidential elections.”
“This week, Grassley tested out a new and absurd defense of Trump’s court picks who won’t say who won in 2020: citing Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who declined to discuss the election in her nomination process.”
“His “gotcha” moment appeared highly coordinated with the two judicial nominees before the committee that day. Both invoked Jackson when asked who won the 2020 election.”
“I’ll incorporate the answer that Justice Jackson gave that Chairman Grassley referred to earlier,” Benjamin Flowers, Trump’s pick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, said in response to the question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).”
“I think the answer that Justice Jackson gave is the only legally and ethically correct answer,” said Matthew Schwartz, Trump’s nominee to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, to Blumenthal.”
“Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond and a frequent commentator on federal judicial nominations, said it made no sense to bring up Jackson’s nomination process in Wednesday’s hearing.”
“What the GOP and Grassley were saying was not very clear. [Wednesday’s] nominees are NOT sitting judges,” Tobias said in an email. “At best, it was disingenuous to invoke her testimony as a nominee.”
“This has been ridiculous,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the committee, told HuffPost on Thursday.”
“For anyone who has been following these hearings, watching Republicans now insist this is the real reason Trump’s nominees shouldn’t have to say who won in 2020 is laughable.”
“The thrust of the GOP’s new argument — that Jackson declined to discuss the results of the 2020 election as a nominee, so Trump’s judicial nominees can, too — is also ridiculous. Jackson was a sitting judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, meaning she was bound by the [Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges](https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges). It requires federal judges to uphold the independence of the courts and avoid even the appearance of impropriety”.
“Neither Flowers nor Schwartz is a sitting judge; Schwartz is currently Trump’s personal lawyer, which is a conflict in its own right, and Flowers is a former Ohio solicitor general, most recently in private practice. Federal judges are legally mandated to follow the judicial code, but federal judicial nominees are not. Instead, the code is “designed to provide guidance” to them, in addition to the judges required to follow it.”
“Durbin, a longtime member and former chairman of the committee, said he thinks the GOP’s frustrations with all the 2020 questions show that Democrats are doing this right.”
” I think he is a little bit embarrassed by the answers that have been given by nominees,” Durbin said of Grassley. “They’re clearly rehearsed, carefully choosing their words. They want to sound credible, but they don’t dare say anything that might offend Trump and his MAGA leaders.”
“They’re embarrassed. They know that, at the end, there’s going to be a composite video that shows these painful moments of those people trying to avoid saying the truth, and everyone knows it,” said the Illinois senator. “It’s going to haunt them for the rest of their careers.”
CouchCorrespondent on
Culty cult members doing culty things.
Simmery on
I wonder if there could be legal cases in the future that determine these judges are unreliable because of these answers.
OpenImagination9 on
Record the video of every single answer.
math-yoo on
This is purposeful. It’s not to please Trump. It’s part of a plan to subvert the election. It’s not a cult, it’s a plan being executed.
AcanthisittaNo6653 on
Nominees are no longer willing to express their fidelity to trump by claiming the election was stolen.
AmbitiousProblem4746 on
It’s pretty crazy living through history and witnessing how “Trump won in 2020” has become an ardent belief for some, while “that election was such a mess” is official policy for others. The thin skin and narcissism of one man is rewriting history in real time. It’s remarkable.
LolaSupreme19 on
Chuck Grassley is a walking, talking argument for mandatory retirement and term limits.
apathy420 on
I know it seems bleak now, but rest assured once trump is gone and the cult collapses, these people will be reminded of how spineless they really are
teddykaygeebee on
Corrupt, lying enablers who only care about themselves and their donors.
AttitudePlane6967 on
The fact that they can’t answer a basic factual question tells you everything about what these nominations actually are. It has nothing to do with judicial ethics and everything to do with loyalty tests
Calm_Ad1460 on
It’s just pathetic. All for one dumb asses fragile ego.
ranchoparksteve on
Maybe that’s why Trump wasn’t president for those four years. He lost. 🤔
RazzmatazzSuch7459 on
Between these replies and the “moves to table this motion” on every discussion anyone without an (R) after their name, I don’t know how Republicans can take any of these people seriously.
soingee on
Are they allowed to answer if Trump won in 2016 and 2024? I wonder if they are told to just insist that the guy sworn in is not necessarily the electoral college winner.
ExcitingRound4990 on
Epstein Files
espinaustin on
More evidence the USA is an autocracy and the president is a dictator. The new normal.
al_swedgen01 on
WTF do people keep referring to the Republican Party as the GOP?
There is absolutely NOTHING grand about their last few decades.
Objective-Win on
Here’s your reminder that Chuck Grassley is 92. No more dinosaurs in Congress.
19 Comments
” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been trying for months to stop Democrats from asking President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees who won the 2020 election, a basic question that none will answer like a normal human being.”
“Instead of just saying “Joe Biden” and moving along, dozens of Trump’s picks for lifetime federal judgeships have given [bizarre and convoluted answers](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-nominees-trump-lost-2020-election_n_69eb7fc9e4b0d1d8ce936969) about the electoral certification process. They’ve all gone out of their way to avoid [stating the fact](https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/elections/president) that the thin-skinned president who appointed them to powerful court seats lost that election, and later incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to reverse the election results by force.”
“It’s been an embarrassing exercise for all of these federal judicial nominees, who will forever have it on their records that they were the people too afraid to cross Trump — and too determined to advance their own careers — to tell the truth and prove that their loyalties lie with the Constitution over any particular president.”
“His criticism of [Democrats](https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/democratic-party) for asking nominees [who won the popular vote](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-committee-nominations-hearing) in 2020? “Of course, none of the nominees counted ballots.”
“His insistence that it’s normal for Trump’s nominees to keep saying Biden was *certified* as president, when asked who *won* the election? He’s undermined this argument himself, at one point making forceful comments about a president being determined by [who gets the most electoral votes](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-committee-nominations-hearing), not by who is certified: “Under Article II and the 12th Amendment of our Constitution, the electoral college dictates who wins presidential elections.”
“This week, Grassley tested out a new and absurd defense of Trump’s court picks who won’t say who won in 2020: citing Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who declined to discuss the election in her nomination process.”
“His “gotcha” moment appeared highly coordinated with the two judicial nominees before the committee that day. Both invoked Jackson when asked who won the 2020 election.”
“I’ll incorporate the answer that Justice Jackson gave that Chairman Grassley referred to earlier,” Benjamin Flowers, Trump’s pick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, said in response to the question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).”
“I think the answer that Justice Jackson gave is the only legally and ethically correct answer,” said Matthew Schwartz, Trump’s nominee to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, to Blumenthal.”
“Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond and a frequent commentator on federal judicial nominations, said it made no sense to bring up Jackson’s nomination process in Wednesday’s hearing.”
“What the GOP and Grassley were saying was not very clear. [Wednesday’s] nominees are NOT sitting judges,” Tobias said in an email. “At best, it was disingenuous to invoke her testimony as a nominee.”
“This has been ridiculous,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the committee, told HuffPost on Thursday.”
“For anyone who has been following these hearings, watching Republicans now insist this is the real reason Trump’s nominees shouldn’t have to say who won in 2020 is laughable.”
“The thrust of the GOP’s new argument — that Jackson declined to discuss the results of the 2020 election as a nominee, so Trump’s judicial nominees can, too — is also ridiculous. Jackson was a sitting judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, meaning she was bound by the [Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges](https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges). It requires federal judges to uphold the independence of the courts and avoid even the appearance of impropriety”.
“Neither Flowers nor Schwartz is a sitting judge; Schwartz is currently Trump’s personal lawyer, which is a conflict in its own right, and Flowers is a former Ohio solicitor general, most recently in private practice. Federal judges are legally mandated to follow the judicial code, but federal judicial nominees are not. Instead, the code is “designed to provide guidance” to them, in addition to the judges required to follow it.”
“Durbin, a longtime member and former chairman of the committee, said he thinks the GOP’s frustrations with all the 2020 questions show that Democrats are doing this right.”
” I think he is a little bit embarrassed by the answers that have been given by nominees,” Durbin said of Grassley. “They’re clearly rehearsed, carefully choosing their words. They want to sound credible, but they don’t dare say anything that might offend Trump and his MAGA leaders.”
“They’re embarrassed. They know that, at the end, there’s going to be a composite video that shows these painful moments of those people trying to avoid saying the truth, and everyone knows it,” said the Illinois senator. “It’s going to haunt them for the rest of their careers.”
Culty cult members doing culty things.
I wonder if there could be legal cases in the future that determine these judges are unreliable because of these answers.
Record the video of every single answer.
This is purposeful. It’s not to please Trump. It’s part of a plan to subvert the election. It’s not a cult, it’s a plan being executed.
Nominees are no longer willing to express their fidelity to trump by claiming the election was stolen.
It’s pretty crazy living through history and witnessing how “Trump won in 2020” has become an ardent belief for some, while “that election was such a mess” is official policy for others. The thin skin and narcissism of one man is rewriting history in real time. It’s remarkable.
Chuck Grassley is a walking, talking argument for mandatory retirement and term limits.
I know it seems bleak now, but rest assured once trump is gone and the cult collapses, these people will be reminded of how spineless they really are
Corrupt, lying enablers who only care about themselves and their donors.
The fact that they can’t answer a basic factual question tells you everything about what these nominations actually are. It has nothing to do with judicial ethics and everything to do with loyalty tests
It’s just pathetic. All for one dumb asses fragile ego.
Maybe that’s why Trump wasn’t president for those four years. He lost. 🤔
Between these replies and the “moves to table this motion” on every discussion anyone without an (R) after their name, I don’t know how Republicans can take any of these people seriously.
Are they allowed to answer if Trump won in 2016 and 2024? I wonder if they are told to just insist that the guy sworn in is not necessarily the electoral college winner.
Epstein Files
More evidence the USA is an autocracy and the president is a dictator. The new normal.
WTF do people keep referring to the Republican Party as the GOP?
There is absolutely NOTHING grand about their last few decades.
Here’s your reminder that Chuck Grassley is 92. No more dinosaurs in Congress.