Five years after January 6, Trump’s judicial nominees won’t talk about it
“They have self-selected themselves as people who are willing to compromise their integrity,” one advocate said.
Five years after the attack on the U.S. Capitol and American democracy, Trump’s nominees to the federal bench will not directly respond to questions about certain subjects that may anger the president who nominated them — a president who demands and expects loyalty above all else.
To date, 33 judicial nominees during Trump’s second term have dodged any inquiry related to the outcome of the 2020 election and what happened on January 6, 2021 — an insurrection fueled by white supremacy.
While these questions are often posed in writing, they have also come up during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. On December 17, for example, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked three judicial nominees who won the 2020 election, and none would respond directly — only saying that President Biden was “certified” or “declared” the victor, but not that he won or received more votes. Blumenthal noted that this was “a matter of historical record. I don’t know how I can vote for someone who declines to answer a clear, factual question and who seems unwilling to recognize the truth. We’re not talking about the politics of the issue. It’s a matter of fact.”
Blumenthal also asked whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6, 2021. All three nominees declined to answer. One nominee stated that “The January 6 events are a matter of public controversy and debate,” adding that “individuals entered the Capitol, and some of them were charged. And there were cases that arose as a result of those events.” But when pressed by Blumenthal, he wouldn’t say the Capitol was “attacked.”
“I am incredulous,” Blumenthal responded. “If you are so much in fear of answering these questions, how will you have the courage to be a fair and impartial judge who follows the law without fear or favor?”
Written questions
A Demand Justice report — released in November after 27 nominees responded to written questions for the record — noted the following:
No judicial nominee would affirmatively state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
No judicial nominee would speak to the events that transpired on January 6, 2021, with most describing them as a “political issue” that they couldn’t comment on further.
Nominees answered almost identically to avoid answering questions about the results of the 2020 election, instead commenting on the congressional “certification” process or saying that Biden “served” as president.
As they observe, “nominees’ responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events.”
In my reporting, I’ve also noted that Senator Cory Booker started asking nominees whether they believe the vote count was accurate in 2020. While most nominees simply referred to their previous nonresponses, several others, bizarrely, wrote that they weren’t personally aware of the accuracy.
Kyle Dudek: “I have no knowledge about the accuracy of the vote count in the 2020 election.”
Jordan Pratt: “I have no personal knowledge of the accuracy of the vote count.”
Edmund LaCour: “I have no personal knowledge as to whether vote counts for the 2020 election were accurate.”
James Maxwell: “I have never personally inquired into the vote counts for the 2020 election. As a sitting judge and judicial nominee, it is not appropriate to provide a personal view of the accuracy of a political election.”
David Bragdon: “I have no personal knowledge as to whether vote counts for the 2020 election were accurate.”
It is alarming that these nominees — who are all white men from southern states — went out of their way to say that they didn’t know whether the vote counts were accurate. All have since been confirmed.
A test of loyalty
On the most recent episode of Strict Scrutiny, Demand Justice’s president, Josh Orton, described why he believes nominees are responding — or rather, not responding — to questions in this way.
“If one of these nominees was asked point-blank in an open hearing, ‘Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election,’ and they said yes, I don’t think anyone disagrees that their nomination would be pulled within hours,” Orton said on the podcast. “Our assertion here is essentially that it’s not just that all of these folks are extreme, and they are…but I think what’s interesting about this group is they have self-selected themselves as people who are willing to compromise their integrity, their independence, and basically commit to a litmus test and say, ‘I’m not willing to contradict the president on the overthrow of an election or the violent attack on the Capitol.’”
Orton said that this is disqualifying and calls into question what could happen when these nominees are confirmed and there’s an election interference case before them — especially given that some of them will have “bipartisan credibility” because one or more Senate Democrats voted for them.
To date, 18 Democratic senators — Senators Coons, Durbin, Fetterman, Gallego, Hassan, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Kelly, King, Klobuchar, Peters, Reed, Rosen, Schiff, Shaheen, Welch, and Whitehouse — have voted to confirm at least one judicial nominee during Trump’s second term despite their refusal to answer these questions honestly.
“They need to sort of accept that the politics is the reality and that the Trump administration is nominating people for political reasons. This process has become politicized,” Orton said. “To sort of imagine that you can exist in this world where these nominees are qualified or not qualified based on their jurisprudence or their behavior is just false. They have to accept the premise that these have been politicized, and they need to stand their moral ground to vote against them.”
Last month, Demand Justice launched a $1 million campaign targeting those Senate Democrats who have supported at least one of Trump’s judicial nominees.
“Trump has made the terms clear: if you want a lifetime judgeship, you must prove to him how far you’re willing to go to profess your loyalty. Trump knows: if you excuse the attack on January 6th, 2021, you’ll let him get away with anything,” Orton said in a statement last night. “It’s outrageous and it’s unacceptable.”