At Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Adam Schiff tried something different. Instead of asking Trump judicial nominee Gregory Carl Cook directly who won the 2020 election — a question that has produced the same scripted non-answer from every single one of Trump’s second-term nominees — he started earlier. Much earlier.
Who won the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain?
“I believe President Obama was sworn into office, so I’m certain he won, Senator,” Cook said.
And John McCain lost?
Cook agreed.
2012? Obama again, Cook confirmed. 2016? Well, with the popular vote and electoral vote being split took a moment to drill down on. “[Trump] was sworn into office,” Cook said. “So, as a matter of law, he was elected to that office.”
“So Donald Trump won that election,” Schiff verified.
“That would be the natural assumption,” Cook said. “Yes, Senator.”
Schiff followed up on that one, “Is it really an assumption you have to make? Did Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College?”
“He did,” Cook said. Schiff continued, “Do you have some uncertainty about whether he won that election?”
“No. I’m trying to be precise about what I’m saying,” Cook said, “Yes, he won in the Electoral College.”
All perfectly sensible. All perfectly easy. And then:
2020?
Cook — a sitting Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Harvard Law graduate, former Trump delegate to the 2020 Republican National Convention, and, critically, a man who traveled to Florida in 2000 as a volunteer attorney for Bush v. Gore to personally oversee the hand recounting of ballots — suddenly developed an epistemological crisis about the nature of electoral certainty.
Cook’s said, “Well, Joe Biden was certified by a joint session of Congress, and so, as a matter of law, he was the elected president,” Cook said.
Schiff wasn’t satisfied with that, “As a matter of fact, who won that election? Just as a simple matter of fact, somebody asked you out on the street, who won the election in 2020? What would your answer be? Who won and who lost?”
This is a man who counted hanging chads. He understands how elections work. He understands what “winning” means. He is choosing not to say it, as a condition of his nomination to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
Schiff’s exchange with Cook is the sharpest illustration yet of what former prosecutor Sean Murphy described just this week at a Capitol Hill press event: “This is not a problem of perspective or political persuasion. It is a fundamental question of competence.” And you can see how Schiff really focuses on this fact.
“Why is it difficult for you to answer a simple factual question about who won presidential elections?” he asked. “When did it become so difficult to answer such a simple question? And how can we expect you to rely on the facts when you’re evaluating a case?”
This is getting absurd. Even Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, was caught on a hot mic recently wondering aloud: “What would be wrong if they said Biden won?” Great question, Senator. Truly.
Watch the exchange below.
Earlier: Former Federal Prosecutors To Senate: Stop Confirming Election Deniers To The Federal Bench
The Dems Helping Donald Trump Load Up The Federal Bench
Donald Trump’s Second Shot At Remaking The Federal Judiciary Has Officially Begun
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
The post Adam Schiff Has Had It With Trump’s Election-Denying Judicial Nominees. Same, Honestly. appeared first on Above the Law.