Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Owen Foster]: Something to go live on. Thank you, senator.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Alright. Good morning. It is January 23 here with that consent of judiciary for what is presumably the final hearing for Mr. Drescher. We have a line of witnesses who've come here to testify, some in person, some on Zoom. First one we have is Joseph Perales. And if you wanna introduce yourself and describe how you know mister Drusher,

[Joseph Perella]: and then Okay. And I do have extra hard copies of the letter I submitted if anyone would like. Yeah.

[Owen Foster]: Oops.

[Joseph Perella]: Joe Perella on Teen Pen in Vermont. I know I've worked for DOD for thirty almost thirty two years, almost twenty seven in the US attorney's office, and and we're almost in Burlington, but Brooklyn office too. And basically overlapped with my pressure for all but two years of his tenure there. So a couple of decades. So no one's well and to observe him in action in court and witness interviews and internal meetings and discussions. And I wanna go into that a little more, obviously, but I appreciate the opportunity to testify here. It's not often I get to come to the state house as such as an inspiring building, much more inspiring than the rather bland Burlington Courthouse. And one of the downsides of federal practice is you don't get to very often go into the credible state courthouses and buildings. Thank you. Luther King Junior once said, the ultimate measure of a man is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy. Mike Dresser Dresser faced a time of challenge and controversy in the first several months of the Trump administration. It was very disturbing to most all DOTA alums and probably many current folks that aren't able to be as outspoken about it. Instead of resigning, Mike Dresser rose to the occasion, rose to controversy, at sacrifice. He put his staff. He put the Department of Justice. He put the state of Vermont above everyone else. That sacrifice to him. As we're I see now, he's coming under very unfair attack, mostly from form, emails, form letters. I call them uninformed letters, people that don't know him. But those of us that know him, particularly those outside of the office, he think there's a special camaraderie for not only federal prosecutors, paralegals, anyone that has worked in that office. We are so dedicated to that mission. We're so concerned about the office's credibility, reputation, its mission. I think I I could I can represent for everyone. We were relieved Mike was at the helm there showing leadership. And I know talking informally to staff, they were so impressed with Mike's leadership. That should not count against him by people that don't help him. We're gonna learn more about my background because not about me, but I think it's important to know that I have quite a deep history in Vermont and the Vermont court system. Went to Vermont law school, graduated in 1988, decades after Henry Heath graduated from there. Clerk for judge Billings, Franklin s Billings, speaker of the house here, as you all know, in the in the mid sixties during reapportionment. Got to hear lots of stories about the Vermont judiciary, Vermont history of the Vermont House, and a very one of the ones that stuck in mind, very short, judge Billings once said when he was speaker of the house, there was a gentleman from the kingdom that said, speaker of Billings, you vote with with me on fear. I'll vote with you in front of everything else. And then Billings said, indeed, it was short and to the point. But when I worked for judge Billings, I was very basically enlightened that the US attorney's office was where I was the dream job where I wanted to work. You pursued justice. You were pursued fairness. You showed empathy that even people most people you were prosecuting, and those values were instilled in me. And I saw those values in my Drescher. He has a strong sense of empathy and fairness, and his integrity and intellect cannot be questioned. I've sat in witness interviews of of drug addicts in recovery that are struggling, and and and you can't tell. People think, often think prosecutors, robots, everything's black and white. And as as anyone who has worked in law enforcement knows, it's not all black and white. And you are sometimes distraught at the circumstances people find themselves in. You may have a witness or a defendant that's their parents, maybe even their grandparents, who are struggling drug addicts or prior felonies, and he's saying, what chance did they have? And and you have to weigh the public interest, public safety versus those mitigating factors, and Mike was so astute about that. Another area I'd like to focus on is the recovery core. And I was from the inception, which Chris Coffin supported the founding of it in his last year of US attorney, but it was a pretty unusual, at that time, unusual program. It was pretty common in state court, Vermont state courts have had it, but the whole concept of of giving this addiction to defendants an opportunity to either know or no jail sentence or even get misdemeanors was there were prosecutors that were resistant about that. Mike embraced it fully as did Christina Nolan, who I equally support. I recognize this hearing is about Michael Yusher. And I think that all those qualities, there's overlapping qualities between what's a good prosecutor and what's a good judge. You have to focus on facts, law. You also have to take into account empathy and a sense of fairness and justice. And and mister Drescher would focus intensely on all those issues, and it all and it has always impressed me. Think most howling, I hope the senate of these committee hearings. I haven't this is the first one I've ever appeared with. It's somewhat quasi judicial. You waive credibility of witnesses. You give different weight to witnesses. I it seems like everybody who has personal knowledge of Michael Grecker fully supports him, fully supports his integrity, his sense of fairness, his intellect. And from what I've read, most, perhaps, all the opposition has come from people that don't really, you know, like so I encourage and hope the committee will approve this nomination. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Any questions? Sir. Do have a question. Your first sentence strikes me very powerfully, the Martin Luther King Jr. Quote, The ultimate measure is where they stand at times of challenge and controversy. So one of the problems for me in thinking about this is the Mosul Medowin case. So as you, as we frame it here, you say, instead of resigning, which would have been an easier path, and you described what was happening as disturbing, And I agree. I think those prosecutions were disturbing, and they were kind of the tip of the spear for what we're seeing broader across the country now. But you say it would have been easier to resign, but he rose to the occasion and put the staff of the attorney's office in the state of Vermont by his own interests. But to somebody who comes at it from the opposite perspective on that prosecution, It seems as though what you're saying is by doing exactly what the people driving the disturbing prosecutions wanted, he was putting everyone's interests where they needed to be. In other words, his actions would be indistinguishable from somebody who was simply following orders. So, I had a difficult time seeing going along with the disturbing prosecution, moving to keep those people in custody and detention on the, you know, chance that they could be spirited out of the country to, you know, perhaps a place in Central Or Southern America or Africa. So I know as someone who knows him and who respects him, that strikes you as an act of courage. But to me, I'm wondering how does it differ from somebody who just would be taking orders and going along with the disturbing prosecution? The actions are the same in either case, if you see what I'm saying.

[Joseph Perella]: I I think there's nuances. I I wasn't at those hearings. My understanding is mister Drescher focused on narrow jurisdictional issues. He did not mistake the facts. And in that situation and I'll mister Gershov will, if he hasn't already, speak to this, but my opinion, he likely weighed all those things, and there was a trust in the court system and trust in our federal judges. And he someone from our office needed to stand up in court. I do not think a slew of resignations from the office would have been, helpful, to the pursuit of broader justice in Vermont. And, so there are nuances. I realized that these cases were distasteful.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Sure.

[Joseph Perella]: If my blood pressure had his preference, he wouldn't take them, but someone had to take them. And I think it's my final point. I think you have to look at the manner in which he took them. He did not fully embrace the rhetoric that was coming out of DC. He did not embrace it at all for my readings of the account. And and it's it's probably unfortunate that these pay cases are still pending because I think the judges could speak to his integrity in these cases and the difficult position he was put in. And I realized that you're saying there's a victim here, but but there's a bigger picture. And, ultimately, I believe mister Dusher trusted the judicial system. He wasn't the last the last line of defense here. And does that answer your question even though you may disagree? I find a response. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. That's the most important thing. That's it's the most long winded, but responsive.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I hear you saying that you trusted the judicial system, and I wonder if you feel like the people who were being held, frankly, my view, in violation of our constitution because it was for retaliation for exercising their first amendment rights, if they feel they can trust the judicial system or if the public feels that in that moment that was a trustworthy action.

[Joseph Perella]: I will let mister Drescher speak to most of that, but there have been cases won in Lawson. And I think at times, the the interviews I saw, they were thankful of the judicial system, but I don't have a lot of I don't have any knowledge of personal thoughts. But I think generally, the the the courts are holding. Not every case, not every case that people but would I think there is free co equal branches of government, and the court is taking that seriously.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Let me actually rephrase the question. If it were you being held for violating your, for exercising your First Amendment rights and someone argued that you should continue to be held for violate for the violating for exercising those rights, would that feel just to you?

[Joseph Perella]: Of course not. But I would also have faith that my rights would be vindicated through the judicial system and firmly believe in that. And, you know, ultimately, the article three judges are a check on the executive branch. And this was a delicate delicate situation, and my trust did and he'll speak to this, the judicial branch to do its job. And he I think you should look again at how he conducted himself in this hearing and whether he did so credibly or not. And and I finally I said there are times that people can argue the stances at the US attorney's office is unjust. There's no question about it, but and I disagree with what justice you pursue justice, that's your intent, but that's kind of bonafice at times, so.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Rostrad.

[Joseph Perella]: Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Up, have Owen Foster.

[Owen Foster]: Good morning. My name is Owen Foster. I'm the chair of the Green Care Board and Safe Healthcare Regulator. I'd like to thank the chair and committee for making the time for me to speak today. Prior to my appointment at Green Mountain Care Board, I was an assistant United States attorney for the District Of Vermont, and at that office, I was a healthcare fraud coordinator, also a tactics officer and professional responsibility officer for the office. As a healthcare fraud coordinator, I've led investigations across the country and as the ethics officer, professional responsibility officer, it's my job to make sure that the assistant US attorneys comply with all ethical obligations. As I a colleague to both Supreme Court nominees for many years, later Ms. Nola was appointed by the president to be US attorney and she was my boss. Both are highly competent, ethical lawyers with extensive experience that make them well qualified to serve as associate justices on our Supreme Court. My comments today will focus on mister Drescher's nomination, as I have observed some of the hearings and learned of the advocacy campaign against his appointment. Based on my personal experience and observations, I believe that many of the letters against mister Drescher's appointment lacked an understanding of how the US Attorney's Office works and seemed to inaccurately paint him as something that he is not. I'm hoping my testimony today provides you important context and accurate facts on which to exercise your obligation to provide advice and consent on Mr. Drescher's appointment. Much of the opposition to Mr. Dresser's appointment stems from two cases he did in a twenty four year career in the US Attorney's Office. I want tell you about a couple other cases, if you will. Around 2018, I discovered a kickback scheme between an electronic medical record company, Prudhovar. Prudhovar is an opioid manufacturer and made the product OxyContin that led to rampant addiction across The United States Of America. It was an important complex case, and I needed a US attorney to assign one of our best prosecutors. I went to The US attorney, miss Nolan, and said, please do me our best. And Chittenden should be my dress. For two years, Mr. Drescher and I traveled around the country, taking testimony, reviewing documents, and building up a criminal case. Mr. Drescher was a remarkable partner. He's not only one of the most talented lawyers I've ever worked with, but he has immense integrity and is incredibly outstanding. If ever a gray area on how to handle an issue, Mike would always take the conservative side and make sure that it's been in fair shape. His tenacity led to an enormous recovery, criminal accountability of key executive, and ultimately ultimately resulted in billions of dollars of recovery and tons of money to the state of Vermont through the bankruptcy process that was enabled to our resolution of the Free Farming case. Mike also led many other significant cases that were critical to public safety in the state of Vermont, including violent crimes, murder, and cases of sexual assault against young children. He prosecuted John Griffin, a CNN producer, who was luring and grooming children at his Okemo Steenhouse. It's important to know that Mike also was a strong advocate for drug recovery programs. He's not a right wing zealot. He really believed in those programs and stood out to them. He also supported our other civil rights work and as the acting US attorney, oversaw the investigation and resolution of Americans with Disabilities Act violation by Vermont Hospital recently. I do want to speak briefly to Mike's demeanor and interpersonal relationships. Mike worked well with everyone in the office, with the court, with defense counsel, with defendants, with everyone with whom he interacted. When cancer struck a couple of families in the office, it was Mike that organized a meal train and gift cards for the families. I understand some are concerned about Mike's politics because of his role as the acting US attorney under the current administration and his handling of those two defensive immigration matters. I'd like to address both. First, Mike was not appointed by president Trump. He was elevated to be the first assistant US attorney under the Biden administration. Colo Paris, who I think is going to speak later today, was appointed by president Biden. He selected personally Mike to be his first assistant, essentially his deputy. Mike did not apply to be the US attorney under president Trump. He did not. He did, however, apply for a presidential appointment under president Biden. Mike was a finalist for the US district court judgeship, the federal judgeship that was appointed under President Biden and it was led by Senator Sanders and Welch. So I think there has been a misconception because with role of the acting US Attorney by some people who are voicing opposition, that they have concerns that he's a Trump person, and they don't agree with the Trump politics. But that's actually inaccurate. Second, US attorney's office did not have an option not to defend the immigration cases that have been brought out. It's important to know that they were not prosecutions. There is no prosecutorial discretion. Somebody has to go into court on those cases. There's no option not to. So if had done the cases, somebody else would have done the cases. And if Mike were to resign, somebody else would have been appointed. I don't know that from the perspective of people who are concerned about his appointment, it would have been ultimately better for Mike to resign and have a political person appointed. I think that's an important distinction. I think when we're talking about these issues, we're really narrowly focused on this one situation where there's actually even bigger and broader picture, where we have a really talented, apolitical, career public servant who's worked across many, many administrations in the politics. And now he's being attacked for politics, which he never had. And if we think about the precedent, do we really want our apolitical public servants resigning if they don't like the current administration or current administration's views? Let's take it a different way. Let's say in this example, rather than mister Drescher, it was a democrat, and it was a democrat following a democratic president's prerogatives. When the president changes, DOJ's priorities have to change. That's what the president's allowed to do. They put in their US attorney, they put in their attorney general, and they change the priorities. It happens all the time. So when every time there's a switch, do we actually want the apolitical career public servants to resign or to not move cases? I think that's a really bad precedent. If we had the Democrat, would the Republicans vote against that person because they found the Democratic priorities objectionable? I don't think that's a good approach. I recognize you've received considerable constituent outreach, but I do want to highlight that there's been a number of people who've supported Mr. Gresher's confirmation, including the federal public defender. Many of the letters he received, as Ms. Imprella pointed out, were not from people who've ever had a case with Mike or ever worked with him or ever even known him. Federal public defender is a primary adversary to the US attorney's office. We do cases against them. Mister Destel has been there many, many years, and he submitted a letter with firsthand knowledge of opposing Mr. Dresser in numerous cases. To have your primary adversary submit a public letter in support of your appointment speaks volumes, and in my opinion, she received far more weight than a series of template letters sourced from people who never had a case with Mike. However, quote Mr. Desdetell, He found Mr. Drescher be intelligent, honest, fair, full of integrity, and consistently directed to results that achieve justice. End quote, one of the opposing attorneys for whom I have the highest regard and respect. Everyone who has worked with Mike Drescher for, against, with, believes the exact same thing. I strongly urge you to confirm, mister Drescher. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you. One question. You mentioned the federal judge position. When when was that?

[Owen Foster]: It was at the tail end of the Biden administration. Judge Lanfier would ultimately receive the position. There's public reports of the finalists, and this regressor was identified in those public articles as one

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: of the finalists of that position. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I guess more of a comment, I mean I guess for me one of the issues is not, you know, why didn't he why didn't mister director resign or just ignore the case and then have it go to somebody else in the office. The the question that I've been grappling with over the last few weeks now at this point is the response and the position that was taken and the arguments presented which worked for the purposes of vindicating the detention of these two individuals. So there isn't a question in there, that's that is one of the pieces that's a challenge for me.

[Owen Foster]: Understand, and I was at the US attorney's office when these cases were brought, and it is important to remember though they are civil, defensive cases, and ultimately defendants prevailed, the plaintiffs actually rather prevailed in those matters. Did Mr. Gresher have not taken the cases and somebody else had the argument's statement or strategies? I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: did, might as well as bit more of a comment, but maybe there's a question at the end. I have spoken to people who do know and have worked with or experienced Mr. Dredcher who are not in support, but they are afraid to put their name on the record because they fear retribution. That to me is telling in and of itself. And I don't know if we have any response to that, but that gives that perks my heart to hear people saying, I don't feel like I've come

[Owen Foster]: forward. Would agree that it's unfortunate people feel that they're not safe to come forward. Certainly a Supreme Court justice is a very powerful position. I can understand that feeling. I would be very surprised if they, the basis for being certain as to Mr. Drescher, having retribution towards anyone that's completely, completely out of character. I had to observe him and work with him with defendants incredibly fair, incredibly empathetic. I mean, his primary adversity to meet the US Springs office submitted a strong letter to court. It would be very out of character for him to have any sort of negative relationships with other people.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I have my own comment, but just on that one, I don't think necessarily it's Mr. Drescher that people are afraid of. They're afraid of putting their name on the record because these days, one's name in the record can lead unexpectedly to being sued, indicted, etcetera. So, and again, this is a comment, it's not much a question, but the first Trump administration, there was widespread rationalization among people who retained their jobs in that administration that it was better for them to be there than to step down and have someone worse. And I'm fully of the opinion that it gets worse and worse with the Trump administration. So a second term, he came in with people that I, in my mind, still boggles that they are wielding the authority that we're gaining. With that said, again, how is one to distinguish between a good person who's staying in there to prevent the office from going to a bad person. So they're going to forward the disturbing actions of the administration rather than someone else forwarding them. I feel in my own mind, logically, and in my own heart, that there is a moment where cooperation is simply no longer viable. And that's, I think, the question for me in these cases, miss Oster and mister Medalli. They were high profile on purpose meant to chill activism, meant to send a message to college campuses and faculty across the country in the case of Mr. Nader Hashim. So that's what I struggle with is testimony from people who know Michael Pressure. My experience in his testimony is that he's a very nice person. But back to that quote from Martin Luther King Junior, where are they at times of challenge and controversy? I find it hard in this particular moment to limit my consideration to somebody needed to be there and he was protected by junior subordinate. So that is something I'm considering and I'm glad to

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have your, your thinking for us.

[Owen Foster]: I think it's an excellent question. How do you distinguish someone who's actually advocating for these policies that you may find objectionable and somebody who's there to do the right thing? And I think what I'd recommend is you look at the totality of their work and their experience in America. Right? So first, look at all of Richard Dretcher's record. Is this a history of these kinds of cases and this kind of ethos? No, it's not. He's advocated for civil rights cases. He's advocated for drug recovery programs. He's advocated for white collar criminals being held accountable. The record that you have before you is not one of somebody who's died in the bowl of the policies that you may find objectionable. Right? That's not what you have before you in the totality of this experience. Second, I would look towards the people who have worked with him and who vouch for his character. And then third, if he really was of the strike that you're concerned about, would he have applied to be the Trump US Attorney? Would he have Also keep in mind the context, these were civil defensive cases. They were not cases where he could have said, We're choosing not to prosecute. I think that is a really, really important distinction. If you look at the case the US attorney's office did, they were not out very affirmatively pursuing criminal immigration cases when the administration changed. That was under Mr. Gresher's leadership. So you have two cases, civildefensive, you do not have the huge glut of cases of affirmative criminal prosecution that they were choosing to take on. So think that's really important to keep in mind. So if you're trying to draw that distinction, was he going along to do the right thing in your mind, or was he going along because he was in alignment with all these policies? I'd consider those things. Senator Baruth looks good.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I guess my question to that is if one is going along with particularly unconstitutional actions, does it matter if it's because they agree or because they're they don't like, does that does the intent matter or the ultimate action is there going along with it?

[Owen Foster]: So I think sometimes they say constitutional, unconstitutional. It's it's not always as black and white as it may seem. There are tons of cases in district court in the second circuit where they go both ways. What is constitutional is not, is not always a bright line. I'm not talking about these cases in particular, just in general. And again, I'd go back to focusing on these two cases for the bigger picture and the long game. If he had resigned or had not taken the cases, an appointment would have been made. And I'm not sure that ultimately that would have been consistent with what he would perceive as the right way. The cases would not have gone away.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Was

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the General Sarah Mattos or Senator Norris. Was happening?

[Owen Foster]: Thank you. Thank you very much for your time.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Next up, we have Nicholas Sorry if I'm mispronouncing the last name.

[Nikolas P. Kerest]: That's fine. It's Nicholas Carrest, and I go by colo, but it's it's good to be here. Thank you. Good morning, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Michael Drescher's nomination to the Vermont Supreme Court, and thank you very much for allowing me to appear remotely. I've prepared a statement. I'm also happy to try to answer any of your questions at the end. I recognize that some of the things I will say you've heard already, and I suspect you will hear again. But I think that I do offer somewhat of a unique perspective on this, given my interactions with Mike over the years. So my name is Nicholas Karist. I'll I'll give you a little bit about my background. I moved to Vermont from Maine in 2010 to join the US attorney's office. I was a career assistant US attorney in Vermont from 2010 to 2021. From 2010 to 2019, I had various roles in the US attorney's office in the civil division. I was the civil rights coordinator, and I was the civil chief. From 2019 to 2021, I moved to the criminal division of the US attorney's office where I was a federal prosecutor. In the 2021, president Biden nominated me to be the United States attorney for the District Of Vermont. I was confirmed by the US Senate and took office in late twenty twenty one. I was US attorney until 01/20/2025 when the Biden administration ended. Now I'm a partner at the law firm of Striss and Maher. And I'm here today to offer my strongest support for Michael Dresser's candidacy to be a justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. I've known Mike since late two thousand nine when he interviewed me to be an assistant US attorney in the civil division of the US attorney's office. In my opinion, Mike is an ideal fit to take the bench because of his intellect, his temperament, and his experience. I'll give you some details on the on Mike's qualifications. He's litigated complex civil defensive cases, affirmative civil fraud matters, and prosecuted countless criminal cases. As a result of Mike's experience and his reputation, junior lawyers at the US attorney's office regularly sought out Mike's advice on how to handle complicated matters in both civil and criminal cases. Mike is the kind of lawyer who methodically assesses each case that crosses his desk, not leaping to conclusions, letting the facts and the law lead the way. Mike is also an excellent explainer of legal concepts and often demonstrated this quality during training sessions in the US attorney's office. There is no doubt in my mind that his demeanor and his intelligence would be welcome on the bench. As mister Foster noted, Mike is also recognized by the defense bar as a fair and zealous advocate. He understands and values the collegiality that makes Vermont practice special. And I as mister Foster did, I specifically refer you to the letter of the former federal public defender, Mike Desertels. Mike Drescher recognizes the deep significance of the cases that he handled as an assistant US attorney. I know this as a fact because Mike talked with me and his colleagues about the life changing events that happened daily in the courtrooms of Vermont. As a small but significant gesture of this awareness, I've often seen Mike take a moment to offer best wishes to defendants at the conclusion of their cases. These interactions in the courtroom, which last all but a few seconds, speak volumes about the person Mike is and his awareness of the impact of the choices made by prosecutors and the court. If you spend any time in the courtrooms of Vermont, you know that this kind of gesture that Mike made a habit of is unusual and is emblematic of his humanity and the person that he is. Thirteen years after I joined the US attorney's office, I had the good fortune to lead that great office and its team of unmatched public servants. When I needed to appoint a first assistant, the number two in the office, a confidant and a counselor for me and a chief operating officer for the whole office, I asked Mike to take on that role. Fortunately for me and even more fortunately for the office team, Mike said yes. I was honored to have Mike as my deputy, and he performed that role with distinction while I was still in the office. As examples of Mike's dedication and excellence when there were budget impasses and threats of government shutdowns, I recall Mike going door to door to try to assuage people's concerns, especially the people new to federal service. I also have strong memories of Mike joining me on visits to the Islamic Society of Vermont in South Burlington, where he made connections of his own and helped explain federal civil rights law to the members of the mosque. After president Biden lost the election, I knew I'd be leaving as is the normal course for presidentially appointed US senate confirmed US attorneys when there is a party change in the White House. On my last day in the US attorney's office last January 17, almost exactly one year ago, I wished Mike and the office regular days in the years to come. None of us could have imagined how few regular days there have been in the past year. Instead of regular days pursuing justice, career public servants at the Department of Justice and in the US Attorney's Offices around the country have been under siege. The US Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont under Mike Drescher's leadership has been no exception. Many public servants, dedicated public servants at the US attorney's office and elsewhere in the department of justice have debated leaving behind their dream jobs due to the pressures imposed by this administration. They've heard friends and family and community members say, it's important for you to stay. We need good people like you to remain and protect our treasured institutions. Mike was one of those people who chose to remain and do his best to protect the best traditions of the Department of Justice and our local US Attorney's Office. In the past year, Mike's leadership of that office was nothing short of heroic. At every turn, Mike has prioritized the office and the rank and file career public servants over his personal comfort and his day to day stability. To put a fine point on it, Mike has demonstrated an extreme level of sacrifice over the past year. Mike has done whatever it takes to keep the US attorney's office functioning and serving its incredibly important role of protecting public safety in Vermont. On a day to day level, this meant doing things that under normal circumstances would have never happened, and none of us who have worked at DOJ could have ever imagined. And this includes representation of The United States in response to habeas petitions where the circumstances of arrest are beyond the pale, contrary to anything we'd seen before, and in violation of principles. From that lens, some may ask, why would Mike Drescher stand up in court and make arguments that to the outside observer seems supportive of those horrible arrests? Based on my experience in the US attorney's office as civil chief and then US attorney and my familiarity with Mike's leadership, I can offer a couple of reasons for your consideration. First, there was no good answer for Mike or the US attorney's office when those cases came in the door. There was no discretion not to deal with them. These are not criminal cases where there is prosecutorial discretion. There's no prosecution in these cases. They're civil cases. And second, in this administration, in civil cases like this, there's no discretion to say, no, thank you. We'd prefer not to handle this case without suffering dire consequences to your career and the careers of those around you. Once a civil case is assigned to the office, there's a duty to handle that case in an ethical manner making reasonable legal arguments. Mike had no good options to choose from. In fact, I believe there were four bad options for Mike when these habeas petitions were filed in Vermont. Before I describe those four options, I'd like to focus a little more on the role that Mike filled after I left the office and until he recently resigned. Mike took over the leadership of the US attorney's office by operation of statute, not because he was chosen by the current administration or as a so called Trump US attorney. Mike Drescher never was and never will be a Trump US attorney. He took over leadership of the office because he was the first assistant when I resigned about one year ago, full stop. Unlike me, a president Biden nominee or other US attorneys around the country who actually have been nominated by president Trump, it's incorrect to put the label of any president or political party on Mike Drescher. Turning back to Mike's four bad options when the Ozturk and Madawi habeas petitions were filed in the district of Vermont. One was to assign the cases to someone else in the office. That would have been the normal course. It's highly unusual for the leader of the office to stand up in court and take full responsibility for a civil case like this, but this isn't Mike's leadership style or how he approached the last year. He's repeatedly taken the least desirable assignments for himself, and this was definitely no exception. A second bad option was to contact the DOJ leadership in DC at the highest levels and say that the office would prefer not to handle the cases. This would have led to two things happening. One is that Mike almost certainly would have been fired. Fall fall in line or get fired is an explicit message from the current DOJ leadership, and we all know that the current DOJ administration has followed through on that threat numerous times. Two, the cases weren't going away, so Mike's firing would have led to someone else in the office having to face the same impossible quandary, or it would have led to DOJ leadership sending a Trump loyalist to Vermont to handle the cases. A third option would have been to resign in protest of the circumstances of the arrest and the irregular nature of these cases. If Mike had made this choice, it would have resulted in the same outcomes as telling DOJ leadership no thanks to the cases. What would have followed would have would have been almost certainly an office in turmoil without its leader and likely a fervent supporter of this administration's tactics arriving from DC to argue the cases. The fourth option was what Mike did, take the heat himself to prevent others in the office from having to do so or to prevent a politically motivated advocate being sent from DC to handle the cases. I know Mike wishes the circumstances leading to those habeas cases never happened, and there is no way that Mike personally supports revocation of visas based on protected first amendment speech. Mike was faced with an impossible situation and made what he considered the best choice under the circumstances, prioritizing preservation of his colleagues at the US attorney's office while also avoiding further politicization of the cases if he had removed himself. Every day that passes, I feel lucky Mike said yes when I asked him to be my main adviser and confidant, and I'm even more thankful for the sake of Vermont and the US attorney's office that Mike led the office over the incredibly difficult past year. None of this, none of it, is to minimize the suffering imposed by the current administration on miss Ozturk and mister Madawi and many others. But under the circumstances, Mike made a reasonable and ethical choice out of a list of bad choices and subjugated himself to protect his colleagues and his office. Mike Drescher is the kind of public servant that we should all wish for and honor, and Mike is the kind of public servant that those of us outside federal government since last January 20 have been asking to stay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Mike's behalf. Long committed to the well-being of Vermont, I anticipate that Mike Drescher, if given the chance, will serve on the Vermont Supreme Court with tremendous dedication, distinction, and a deep commitment to equal justice under the law.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. I hope we have a couple of minutes for any questions if there are any. Doesn't look like we have any questions for you. Thank you for your testimony.

[Nikolas P. Kerest]: Thank you, senators. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Next up, we have Tristram Koppen also on the Zoom.

[Tristram J. Coffin]: Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to let me speak today in support of Mike Truscher's nomination to be a justice on the Vermont Supreme Court. I was a presidentially appointed US attorney under President Obama. I also served as counsel to Senator Leahy on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he worked on, among other things, judicial nominations. So I have a little experience with some of the questions you're weighing and judging. I have been essentially a lifelong democrat. I share the concerns of many Vermonters about the Trump administration's challenges to some of the important underpinnings of our democracy and his use of the Justice Department as an instrument to undermine these institutions. We are a nation of immigrants. I know Mike from working with him from about fifteen years, both as a fellow AUSA at the US Attorney's Office of Vermont and while I was US Attorney during the Obama administration. I can tell you that Mike is a person of character, integrity, and empathy. He has learned in the law, he has an excellent legal mind capable of extremely high level and thoughtful legal analysis. He is a hard worker and pretty relentless when pursuing a factual or legal issue. He's a great communicator, an excellent speaker and writer. Most importantly though, he is fair minded. He is moderate. Mike is not an ideologue. In almost fifteen years of working with him and spending a lot of time with him outside of work as well, I never heard him say or saw him do anything that was discriminatory, disrespectful, disdainful, or hurtful to another person or class of persons. He is by nature moderate, polite, civil. He is kind. Mike is well liked by his colleagues and imposing counsel, I think universally. And he's liked and respected by the federal judges that appear before in their office peers before. He has strong integrity and field to the rule of law and the need for government institutions, individuals, and judges to abide by the law. Those are the essential characteristics for the position to which he's been nominated. I know there are questions about Mike's role while serving as acting US Attorney on some immigration cases that came before the court. I do not have a lot of visibility into what happened in the US Attorney's Office during the Trump administration, so I'm limited in some of the detailed, presentations that some of the people who were in that office can provide. But I've read my public statements about them and I've thought about them a good deal. I will say that one, the situation he was in was very difficult to put it mildly. As head of the office when asked to present the government's position in court on these cases, he did not have a number of powerful options. And I think Colo's catalog of those, I think is very detailed and very equivalent to how I view those as well. It is hard to second guess the choice he made to present the government's vision of the cases and have the court rule on it, which he did fairly and honestly. Second, I read into some of the rationale for his thinking that he wanted to protect the office members from having to be in the hot seat in this decision making role if he was not going to do it. He was thus expressing loyalty to his fellow AUSAs in this role, something that is a tradition of the office, an aspect of leadership that should be recognized in a facet of the situation that made it more difficult and is a little invisible to people viewing it from the outside. Third, it is important to understand that this was not a rule for the exercise of normal prosecutorial discretion, as I think it is commonly viewed by, folks who are not as close to the situation. These were cases that were law where lawsuits had been filed, decisions have been made on arrest and detention and the nature of the immigration, action that had taken against these individuals. Mike didn't have an option to practically speaking to seek their release in defending the lawsuits. That call had made it already. There were not a lot of good options. He was called upon to represent the agencies and litigate his position in court and he did that honestly and fervently. Inclusion, as I say, for reasons separate from his role in these recent immigration cases, I think Mike would be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. I also think his position in these cases and the options he took were complex and are difficult to judge. So I hope the committee looks beyond these issues to assess Mike's fitness to be confirmed. Like Owen Foster said, I think looking at the totality of his record and his character is what needs to happen as opposed to actions in these very difficult circumstances being judged with hindsight. He's a fair minded person, he's a moderate, he's not an ideologue. I really hope that ideological considerations don't drive decision making of this committee. And I hope you'll be fair in assessing his nomination. Thank you for this opportunity.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, committee. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Kovsky.

[Tristram J. Coffin]: You're welcome, thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We're a little bit ahead of schedule, so we have a floor at 11:30. Why don't we take a ten minute break? Come back. We'll start again at 10:10 and that will provide mister Drescher with about an hour and fifteen minutes. That is my strong suit, but close close to a little over an hour before it happens. How do

[Owen Foster]: we think? Yeah. Right?