Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: We are live. We are back

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: at the senate judiciary. It's February 23. I had a conversation with an individual who was in the room by the name of Charles Martin. It's my understanding from what was expressed to me that mister Martin, through the work in this firm, has had professional experience with mister Dresser. And I wanted to provide them the opportunity to testify. I believe you indicated it didn't take more than ten minutes, but Yeah. I'll tell you how to figure out that time and the floors it was.

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: At the Supreme Court, they had a track door, a sheet of limit, track door opened to people in, but they changed out a

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of work. Keep that on.

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: I've heard a lot of adversaries with this wrecking on the meeting from a lot of people, but I haven't heard the word curvy. And this is one of my biggest concerns. I was involved over the days in coming back on vacation. I took a vacation during the time of the time that Mr. McDonald's situation was. And I won't tag the economist. They had me go to the of Mr. McDonough's. I'm

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. If if you're able to, could you increase the volume of the voice

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Having Sorry.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Okay. I

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: was on vacation, and I came back. I was on vacation during the time the circumstances surrounding mister McDowell's case, came up. Andy Delaney, the partner in the firm, was representing mister McDowell on a civil matter. And so when he was picked up, he immediately went into action. And when I walked in the doorway from my vacation, he said, I hate to tell you this, Charlie, but I just sued the president. I said, okay. I then was involved in strategy and tactics and how to proceed in those games. Obviously, this was something that our firm hadn't done before, and I've been in practice for fifty five years. So as this case developed, Mr. Delaney commented on the seriousness of the case, but he also commented very much on the politeness and the courtesy shown by the nominee. However, mister Delaney didn't feel that he could come in and comment on this, so the responsibility fell on me. Looking at the case, the nominee had, in fact, done an admirable job in defending in representing a client. But the role of an attorney, especially one that is arguably in favor of or against the liberty of an individual, is higher than just simply arguing a civil matter when the issue is property or some other matter that did not affect the liberty. The nominee testified to keep the denotes to defend and retain the constitution. The constitution in the fifth amendment provide and the fourteenth amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. That's a constitutional standard. When the when one goes to the position of being a supreme court justice, one

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: the things that a supreme court justice must have in order to be an appropriate developer of the laws for the state is courage. I wanna give you some examples of courage. I was in law practice in Creedy Ford for about three years, and one thing I one of the first cases that came up was before Roe versus Wade and whether or not the abortion statute was constitutional. That was a very highly hot emotional issue. Even on the court, you can get one justice who was a faculty and could not did not compromise his moral beliefs. However, the court did say that a statute that allows a woman to perform an abortion but denies her medical care is unconstitutional. That was a courageous decision. As the court went on, it made decisions such as overturning an injunction against University of Vermont to pay anti Nixon speakers. It went on to announce that it that people of same sex in a relationship, so went through marriage, are entitled to marital privileges. That took courage. Contained the suppression rules do not have a good faith exception for making issue with the United States Supreme Court. That took courage. So when you're at the Supreme Court, it's not doing your duty simply and being a good fellow. Have to have courage. So the question that I think is before the committee, after everything that was said, if the nominee is on the Supreme Court, will he have the courage? And has he shown the courage in the past? Obviously, the question is of the different alternatives he had to make. One was resignation. That would have taken courage. Question. Does the nominee have the courage to be on the Supreme Court and looked outside, and she people were she would sign for the growing pond and make the decision to stay tuned. One moment, mister Martin. Mister Martin?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, sorry.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: One moment. Oh, I'm

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: sorry. I do wanna get the committee to ask any questions. We got several minutes. That's alright. And just wanna make it the same for everybody. So the committee, any questions? Mister Martin,

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: is there anything else?

[Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Mister Martin, thanks for

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: being here. I got two quick questions. In your opinion,

[Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: do you feel that due process will be afforded will not your client, but

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: your partner's client during this process?

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: No new process was afforded to client before the loss of liberty. That is a concern. The due process that was afforded was after the loss of liberty, and the deprivation of liberty occurred before the the process occurred.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Right. The question was we're stock talking about Denomine and his involvement with this particular case. Okay. Now prior to once your partner's client was arraigned,

[Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: was due process afforded him?

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: He was never arraigned. Brought into the courts. He was aggressive. He was simply taken into custody and locked up. There was no arraigned. Okay. So was due process afforded that individual at the back of the street? After? When the nominee's involvement, what due process afforded to the individual? After the nominee was involved in the case, due process was afforded the individual. Thank you. One quick question. Your opinion, did the nominee do anything unethical in this case? No. I do not challenge his ethics in one degree or another. Than in service.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Anybody else? Thank you very much.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So now trying to progressor. We have about an hour and ten minutes or so for you. And this is the opportunity for you to respond to any written testimony and any live testimony that we've heard. And I suspect you may have some final questions as well. So the floor is yours.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Thank you. And thank you to everybody on the committee for giving me this opportunity to respond to the letters and emails that the committee has received opposing my confirmation. I understand I've chatted with several of your colleagues. I understand many of the senators are receiving emails from their constituents expressing similar opposition by confirmation. And I understand that these messages largely focus on my involvement in disintegration cases of Mr. Nader Ali and his daughter's interview. At the outset, I want to emphasize that I do not question the good intentions of those who have voiced their opposition to my confirmation. I appreciate that everybody is trying to do the right thing. And I appreciate that it's very important for the senators to carefully consider the views of their constituents. I have carefully reviewed the emails and letters that the committee has posted and is shared from people who both oppose and from people who support my confirmation. The letters supporting my confirmation tend to be from people with firsthand knowledge of what I did this past year, and many are from people who know me well and who know my heritage. By comparison, none of the emails opposing my confirmation have been submitted by anyone with firsthand knowledge of how I conducted myself and why, And none of them have been submitted by anyone with whom I have worked or who knows me personally. I understand many of the messages have been prompted by a campaign that urged people to speak up against me as a way to fight ICE. And it's been unnerving to be reduced to an action item by groups with whom I suspect I have no quarrel. Importantly, the messages that are opposing my confirmation appear to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I did in those cases and why, and the cases themselves. And I'm grateful for this opportunity to try to set the record straight. First, a lot of the criticism I've received stems from the misconceptions that the case support prosecution. And so it was within my power to halt the cases and release Ms. Owens Kirk and Mr. Nader. That is completely not accurate. The cases were not criminal cases. They were not prosecutions. Had they been in criminal cases, I wouldn't have had authority to dismiss them. And I have had, as a criminal prosecutor, proudly dismissed criminal prosecutions when circumstances called for. And in those cases, if the defendants were in custody, they were released. But these immigration cases were nothing like that. They were civil cases. Neither I or anyone else in the US attorney's office had anything to do with or power to influence the state department's decisions to revoke Mr. Naderawi's and Mr. O's immigration status. And the Department of Homeland Security's decisions to arrest them, we had no authority to release them. And I was gratified by mister Martin's statement a moment ago, recognizing that once I became involved, his client began receiving the process that mister Martin drawn was due. As I explained last week, these civil cases were important because their attorneys sued the government in order to challenge the legality of what was happening to their clients. Specifically, they filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, which is what a person does when they want a court to decide whether their custody is legal or not. And in the case of miss Oswald, which was the first of the two cases provided, that case arrived in Vermont when a district court in Boston had transferred it to district court in Vermont. We did have no advance notice of that case coming in, and we only learned about it after the fact. No one in our office has ever defended an immigration debates case before, but we were told by department leadership, the Department of Justice leadership, that the case was being assigned to us. Very same weekend that this that that the decision to assign the case to our to my office was made, the department started the process to fire a very well regarded career attorney who had candidly polled a judge in court that the administration had mistakenly taken Kilmar O'Grago out of the country. The reason reported for this firing and it and I encourage anybody, who questions this to look back at the news reports from April. The reasons reported was that speaking the truth in court was not considered sufficiently zealous advocacy on behalf of the government. That was shocking. Career attorneys at the justice department, especially in the civil division, are frequently called on to handle cases that they may may disagree with, but they are expected to follow legal ethics and and the professional standards set out by the legal profession. And those standards require being candid with the court. They require speaking the truth in court. And recall at this time, the still relatively new administration was demonstrating a willingness to remove people from federal employment. Doge was in full swing. Huge sectors of the federal workforce were being dismantled. So when the Oster case arrived in Vermont, federal employees were getting fired left and right. The Department of Justice had just fired a lawyer for speaking the truth in court in a high profile immigration case just like Oster's. The attorneys and staff at the United States Attorney's Office, just as the attorneys who support the burden in this committee, as well as the attorneys next door at the attorney general's office at the various state's attorneys and public defenders' offices around the state are true public servants. They don't do their jobs to get rich. They do their jobs to serve the public, to contribute to the rule of law, and to reinforce the norms of ethical legal service. In the US attorney's office, many of the AUSAs are the main breadwinners for their families and consider the US attorney's office to be their dream job. These attorneys include single parents, at the time last spring, others whose spouse or partner had just lost their job on account of new administration's changes in policies, and several with young children who and at least one who is expecting a child. Their work includes included and includes investigating and prosecuting fraud and civil rights violations, and some of the most heinous and complicated crimes. And as you know, as you heard today, at that time last spring, I had been thrust into the position of acting US attorney, a position that I did not ask for or pursue. People in that position typically do not take on individual cases. It's extremely rare for the leader of a US attorney's office to assign a case to him or herself. They let the supervising attorneys figure that out, figure out how to handle it. But it was obvious to me that whoever was going to stand up in court in these high profile immigration cases, given their deeply concerning facts, was not only going to suffer from the public's inclination to incorrectly conflate a career government attorney's advocacy with the attorney's personal opinion, they were also going to become scrutinized by an administration who was willing to fire somebody for speaking the truth. Some letters that came into the committee after last week's, hearings criticized me for understanding that I was trying to explain myself by saying I was just doing my job, and I regret leaving people with that impression. Because while I was doing my job, while while I was doing what I felt was my duty, I actually really wasn't doing my job. Just doing my job would have been simply to hand the matter to one of the supervising attorneys and let them figure out who should take the case. But that would have been egregiously unfair to the office. Every attorney is ethically bound to speak the truth in court, and as I explained last week, I was prepared to be fired for speaking the truth rather than subjecting someone else to that permission. So I assigned the cases to myself, and by doing so, I was not only trying to protect the office, I was also assuring myself that the cases would be handled in a professional and ethical manner, which would not necessarily have been the case if a political appointee had taken the case over. I was not going to explain an already difficult situation. I would argue carefully and dispassionately and thereby contribute to the process by which the difficult legal issues surrounding these cases could be resolved. In considering the messages opposing my confirmation, I request that you consider what were my choices, and you've heard a little bit about that already today. Some letters to the committee declared, and I think as mister Martin suggested, that I should have resigned. Senator Baruth, you flagged that as a possibility. It'll ask me during during one of the hearings. It's certainly an option, and I thought about doing that. But as explained in the letter submitted by a thirty plus year veteran of the office, resigning would have accomplished nothing. Resigning would have either saddled someone else in the office with this situation I was trying to avoid for them, or it would have caused the administration to send someone else from outside Vermont to handle the cases. And it would have done nothing, nothing to expedite the resolution of the cases of miss Oster or mister Hiddowen. Ironically, at the time, last spring, at the time I made the decisions to personally handle the cases, protect the office, at that time I was strongly considering pursuing the soon to be open position on the Vermont Supreme Court. It was in the front of my head. And I acknowledged to a friend the weekend the Oyster case came in, as I was starting to conclude it was the right thing for me to do to sign these cases myself, that by taking these cases, I might jeopardize my prospects for that position due to public misperception. Mister Martin suggested that the courageous thing to do would have been to resign. If my personal ambition had been my key motivation, I could have performatively resigned to make myself superficially appear like a courageous opponent of the administration. Maybe that would have looked good to the uninformed, but designing would have accomplished nothing. Indeed, it would have been counterproductive. Or I could have sat back and watched another career attorney struggle with these tough cases. That would have been the expected and easy thing to do. But by the moral standards I quote myself to, that would have been wrong. And the third option, as suggested by a question that was put to me last week in some of the messaging, was maybe I could have shown up in court and essentially thrown the cases. Any experienced litigator will explain that that would have been a violation of an attorney's duty as an advocate, and it would have been so irregular and badly received by the judges that I assure you it would have slowed the resolution of these cases down. Senator Baruth, lastly, you characterized much of what the administration in DC was and has been doing as breaking the vaccine. I hope you understand that my decision to handle these cases personally was an effort to do the opposite. I was literally trying to keep things together. Not only the office I was leaving, but our legal system and the role it plays as a potential check on executive power. And I'm gratified that Mr. Martin recognized a moment ago that after the lawsuits were filed and after I got involved, due process was accorded as I have been. I ethically and honestly advocated before the court in these highly charged cases, where it was especially important that the rule of law befallen. Some of the letters to the committee declared that the way I conducted myself in litigating those cases was unethical because they believed the administration was acting unlawfully gratified that mister Martin disagreed with those with those sentiments. But it cannot be the case that in Vermont, we have great attorneys with their clients' positions. Yesterday, chief justice Amstoy, I was watching the hearings, pointed to judge Penelo's confirmation as an example, and I've got another one that is actually, I believe, the same case that mister Martin was talking about. When I was speaking with one of your colleagues this week, I was asked to read the Vermont Supreme Court case from 1972, Beacham v. Leahy, And I'm certain that that's the case that mister Martha was referring to. I was asked to read it for its importance to the Vermont reproductive rights movement, and I did. I got home that night, and I read it. And in looking at it, it was notable who was defending the statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion. It was then state's attorney Patrick Leahy and then attorney general James Jefferson. No one doubts that both men were champions of abortion rights. But as disgraceful as that statute must have been to them, as advocates, they sought to preserve their office's authority to prosecute someone for performing abortions. In the Supreme Court, they lost. And that's because it was not up to them, the advocates. It was up to the court. And our judicial system is based on an adversarial system that requires two sides for the judges to consider to reach the right hour. Some of the letters questioning my ethics and how I litigated the case also misunderstand the issues that were before the court. So with a warning, I'm just gonna give you a little bit of detail about what some of those issues were. It involved immigration law. Immigration law is complex, and congress has passed laws that are very severe for people who are noncitizens. And the Supreme Court has upheld those laws and ruled that detention in most cases does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the executive branch may, in some cases, selectively enforce immigration laws based on the political activity of the noncitizens without violating the constitution of United Congress has also restricted which courts can review immigration decisions, and this was the principal issue I was addressing in the Osterisk and Naderakis, whether the District Of Vermont could rule on their cases after statute was done. It's an unsettled area of the law. It's an unsettled legal question. In fact, just last week, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia reviewing a case nearly identical to those of Mr. Medoway and Ms. Oates Kervin ruled that a district court should not get involved, that a federal court review of an immigration proceeding should wait until the immigration process has concluded. I'll be sure other judges, including the judges here in Vermont, have interpreted the statutes differently, but that does not mean it was unethical to argue the government's position, even if I did not agree with the administration's actions, To hopefully address for good anyone's lingering concerns about whether I acted professionally and ethically in both cases, in open court, Judge Crawford acknowledged the quality and helpfulness of the briefing that I and the other attorneys submitted. And in o's terms, judge Sessions complimented me and the other attorneys in open court with regard to the professionalism by which we already the case before him. I can guarantee you that these judges would not have made those observations if they perceived the government lawyer had acted unethically or unprofessionally or misled the court as an offense. Those emails who've questioned my judgment, professionalism, and ethics for arguing on one side of the serious questions serious legal questions appear to not understand that our legal system, our rule of law, depends on the adversarial process, and that at the end of the day, it is up to the court, not the lawyers and not public opinion, to declare what the law as passed by the legislature means. Those critics also appear to be unaware of why I put myself in that unpopular position and the risks associated with doing so. The position was so unpopular, in fact, that this week, I've been the target of a threatening phone call, and I've been advised I should be on the lookout for a vehicle that matches the one registered to the colony. Senator Norris, last week, you asked me whether I would have done anything different if I had to do it over again, and I I hope I hope, you and the rest of the committee appreciate that I am a thoughtful person, and I'm prepared to reconsider my previously held views. I had not considered the question you'd put you'd put to me previously. And when you asked it, I just meant substantive to some questions from the committee suggesting I should have done something differently. And in the past nine days, I've thought carefully about your question and my conduct this past year. It you know, it's it's you know, it hasn't been pleasant being treated as a symbol of this administration and having my integrity questioned by well meaning people, but based on an incomplete understanding of what I did and why I did it and a misunderstanding of how our legal system operates. And despite all of that, despite the stress associated with going through this process and despite the misperceptions and misunderstandings surrounding what I did and why and despite all the recent criticisms, I would do it again. Because it was the right thing to do, and all the other options were unacceptable. Another point that I wanna make is that on the one hand, of course, this is about me, but it's not just about me. I assure you there are public servants who are working in the federal executive branch, the VA, the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, many of whom are your constituents, who, like I was, are trying to keep things together. They're trying to reinforce and continue the norms of honest and ethical government service. They are trying to keep the country within the guardrails, and we want those people working for the government. If you or your colleagues vote against my confirmation based upon my efforts to protect the people under my responsibility and for my efforts to try to keep thing things from breaking further and for my efforts to reinforce the norms and institutions that have served the country and the state for generations. I suggest that such a vote would be a disservice to the public servants who you want working in the government right now. I also wanna be clear. I appreciate your dilemma. People who don't know me and who don't understand what I did and why have been sending you emails opposing my confirmation. They are your constituents, and their views warrant careful consideration. And I don't doubt their motives or intentions for a moment. And as Ms. Nolan recognized yesterday, that weighing in is part of what makes Vermont for monarchy. On the other side of the ledger, people who do know me, people who have firsthand knowledge of what I did and why strongly support my confirmation. I hope you understand that those that both incorrectly conflate my efforts to protect the people I care about and to be a responsible advocate contributing to the administration of due process. That they mistakenly conflate that with me being politically affiliated with the the administrative of me being unsympathetic to the treatment of mister mister Nader. Perception is incorrect. Rather, I I suggest my conduct as past year demonstrates that I am prepared to be unpopular. I'm prepared to take on extra work and to subject myself to risk if that is the cause of protecting and serving the people I am responsible for. I suggest those are among the traits you want in a Supreme Court justice. Yesterday, Chief Justice Almistair implored you to consider a candidate's integrity, hard work, compassion, common sense, and the importance he or she places on community, and the capacity to make an unpopular choice. As referenced yesterday, those of us, who are old enough will remember the take back Vermont signs that were everywhere after the Baker decision. To many Vermonters, that decision was very unpopular, but the court was prepared to do the unpopular and made legal history. I believe my work this past year demonstrates that I will put my belief in the legal system and our constitution over my self interest or my popularity, such as it is, and I will put the work I will put in the work to serve the public. I request that you and your colleagues base your votes not on the misunderstandings that have fueled the emails that posted my confirmation or the number of such emails, but rather on an accurate understanding of what I did this past year and for the previous thirty years as a Vermont lawyer. During that time, I had been subject to the authority of judges. I had lost and won plenty of cases, civil and criminal, in state court and federal, trials and appeals. Some of the letters the committee has received contend that I lacked state court experience. That's incorrect. I suspect I am one of the very small number of Vermont lawyers who have tried multiple jury trials in both federal and state court, and who has argued before both the Vermont Supreme Court and the Federal Appeals Court, and who has represented a criminal defendant in both state and federal court. Moreover, as referenced last week, much of the work that I did in the US Attorney's Office was extremely intertwined with state law. By way of just one example, several years ago, I investigated and prosecuted several of the executives what is now known as UBM Medical Center. Back then, it was called Fletcher Allen. The crux of their crime was making false statements to the state, to Vermont's health care regulator, then known as Bishka. So while it was a federal offense, the prosecution vindicated the importance of abiding by Vermont state law. I watched Ms. Helen's testimony yesterday. I have at least as much experience as her in Vermont state court, like her triggered by her list of courthouses that she had appeared in. I went down my own list. I recall appearing in state courts state courts across the state from Newfane and Brattleboro to Woodstock to Chelsea, Montpelier, Barrie, Hyde Park, Burlington, as well as the Vermont Supreme Court. And there should be no doubt based on my record of my skills as a legal researcher and writer. My career has taught me that our legal system requires lawyers and judges to be faithful to the law and to honor the litigants that come before them by treating them with respect and dignity, to hold to hold the government to the highest standards and to promote liberty by being a counterbalance to the imbalance of power that permeate in our law. As I observed to some of you and your colleagues already, in my view, the most important reader of the judicial opinion is the losing side. If the court does not demonstrate that it has carefully and respectfully considered their arguments, the system will lose its legitimacy. I have carefully considered the reasons behind the emails opposing my confirmation, They're all based on misunderstandings. Suggest that Ramadan wants an associate justice who has demonstrated that he or she is willing to take on the extra work, subject him or herself the personal risk if necessary, and to do the unpopular thing if it is necessary to honor the rule of law and maintain our traditions of individual liberty. Thank you.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. That's a pleasure. I have a few questions to start. One one thing that's one point that's been raised a few times is regarding public misperception, public misunderstanding, and and I understand that. I've been over the past two weeks as I've spent the time going to the pleadings and talking to the other attorneys who are far smarter than me, I have come to understand, the rationalization and the procedure, and the work that you've done. And where that butts up against my job here as a senator is the the many, many emails that I've received, which I are aware of and I know that all the other senators are aware of. And I I don't expect, frankly, any constituent to almost any constituent to have a firm understanding of complexities and the nuances of your job and and what happens in federal district court and immigration court and so on. But the the challenge for me is what I am interpreting from all of these messages, from all of these constituents, is the underlying message that any involvement whatsoever with regardless of what the justification or rationalization movement may be, any involvement with the current Trump government's policies on integration is essentially the end of the road. It's what I'm getting from constituents. And so the challenge that I'm facing is rationalizing, figuring out how to represent the message that they are sending while also coming to an understanding of why and how you did the job that you did. And I I suppose I don't have a question in all of that. It's just a comment that I I think this is one of the hardest, decisions that I've had to face. I haven't been here for very long, but at least at this point, this is the hardest decisions that I've had to face. The one question actually that I do have that'll that'll go to switching gears a little bit. We did receive one letter from a retired judge, judge Wesley, who was critical of you. And just just a disclaimer, judge Wesley is a constituent of mine. The letter came unsolicited. I've known judge Wesley for quite a long time.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: I've

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: my encounters were him with him were about the state grouper, and I've geared in front of him that capacity a number of times. And I hold great respects, to. And the letter that he sent was very powerful. I was wondering if you could respond to that letter.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Yes. I spent a lot of time with that letter. That letter reflects a misunderstanding of what the case was about. It reflects that a and it misstates the role of an advocate. And I think that letter is a symptom of how passionately people feel about the Trump administration, as the chief justice analyst. That letter states almost explicitly that because judge Sections and judge Crawford decided that Ms. Ochskirk and Mr. Vadawi should be released, I was unethical in litigating the case from the get known. Because of the result, because I was on the losing side as an advocate, I was unethical. That's the logic behind the statement. That statement is wrong as a matter of how the the legal system works, as as my comments earlier today tried to explain. And it also misapprehends how close the legal questions are in these cases, as last week's decision from Philadelphia indicates. It also, I believe a verb he uses in his letter is he claims I could have discharged the case, which I think reflects the commonly held misperception that it was a case I was prosecuting, that I had authority over, that I that I actually could have done something to cause their release. So it's based on an incorrect understanding of what the case was about. It's based on incorrect understanding of what my role and authority in my case. And it, frankly, misstates what the role of an advocate is and should be in our adversarial system. I took a very hard look at that case because he's a retired gun or that letter rather. I'll note that another retired judge, a judge before whom I appeared on a regular basis, Judge Sean Conroy, has written a letter, supported my confirmation. And I would urge the court to consider, the letter from a judge who before whom I've appeared on a regular basis over the letter from a judge who, by virtue of his letter, demonstrates he's not familiar with the details of the case. Another example, I believe Judge Leslie's letter declares I have no state court experience. And and and I have a lot of state court experience. And judge Wesley's experience judge Wesley's statement in that letter, I think, displays that he had not read my application and was not familiar with my application, nor was he familiar with my own. I don't begrudge him writing that letter at all. Like anybody else who's weighing in, it's their prerogative. And the more perspectives you hear from, the better. And I and I'm glad you're carefully considering it. And then I and and and just like everybody else who's with him, I don't question anybody's intentions. Everybody's trying

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: to do the right thing.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: And I hope as the senators are trying to do the right thing, they keep their eye on the signal, not the noise, as you mentioned yesterday, senator Mattos. What did I do, and why did I do it? People might disagree with, maybe I should have resigned. I hope I took that on earlier today, or maybe I should have assigned it to somebody else or or done any of these other lousy options. I don't think anybody can. Well, I hope that everybody understands at a minimum the choice I made was reasonable, And it was an effort to be principled, and it was an effort to protect And it was a hard choice. It was a hard choice. Know, Mr. Martin said he hadn't heard anybody use the word courage. And, you know, people choose their own their own their own adjectives to describe what I was doing. Part of me was scared. I get my face off, but I was trying to do the right thing. I knew it was gonna be unpopular, and I knew it was gonna separate the scrutiny from multiple sides. And I suggest that what I did was a was a sign of courage, even if you disagree with what I did. I was making I was putting myself in an unpopular position because I was trying to do the right thing. Thank you. That's all I

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have for now. I need to

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: turn the.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you again. And I know this is a very emotional process that gets to in a similar way for us, when when we are public figures, it gets to this perceptions perhaps about oneself, feels very personal, very insulting. I just I I just wanna go to three different things. First, about the email campaign, I understand that for somebody outside the state house, it may seem that receiving 500 or a thousand emails must determine our positions. We are all very used to receiving hundreds of emails. Speaking only for myself. I will say that I know them. I count them mentally because there's some value in that data. But they don't determine my vote. Ultimately, I voted to confirm Secretary Saunders last year. It was a very controversial nomination, and I would say the majority of people in my district do not understand my vote. But I believe that the governor having been duly elected, especially for as long as he has by the margins that he's shown, he has the right to nominate who he wants. And in the absence of something that I truly trampled by, I will push nominations. I am trampled as you understand that this honorably by, in particular, the medallic case. And that comes from any part, you know, our assistant majority leader was there when he was taken into custody. And it became a case that I was involved in from that point, from the outside, from the state house perspective. But I went with Senator White to an event at a church in her district. Hundreds of people there agreed and were wrecked following that arrest and with real fear about where the country was headed. They they felt that it it was a vent in their community. And so then comes a candidate for the Supreme Court who was in part acting on behalf of the Justice Department in that case. So I tried to get at this before, and I think this goes under the heading of people of good intent and good heart can see things completely differently. So you mentioned the pressure from Justice Department leadership in terms of how these cases were being handled. You also said it was extremely rare for you to take it as a smear. And I don't question, you know, you're the expert on what is rare or what is not the right thing. But I think about how that would look to the people in the justice department. So they are putting pressure and now in an extremely rare move, the head of the office takes on the case and attempts to defend them. That might seem like self advocates on their part. In other words, they're not experiencing resistance. They, in fact, have a rare instance where the head of the office takes a volley and according to what we've heard, does a fine job with that. So for somebody who's in that church in Windsor County, they see what you're doing as advocacy maybe above and beyond what you need, extremely rare with your phrase, from your point of view and from the witnesses that have come forward for you, it's harrows for you to have done that extremely rare move, moving the administration's case in in the narrow context that we have in. So so for me, it's and and I hate to keep referring back to mister Perella's statement beginning with Martin Luther King. That is an attempt to report not just to say this wasn't a bad thing. It's it's to invoke Martin Luther King. This was, you know, a huge act of corruption. I have a hard time seeing that one. I can understand that it would be a difficult decision and that it might have had good mothers if it does not start as, you know, Martin Luther King, Jr. Level decision to take the trust yourself. So I find myself mostly challenged by that question. At this moment in our history with this administration, how much cooperation with, you know, what gets to be a metastasizing immigration operation that is slowly becoming a domestic, you know, force. I understand. And the president is now talking about sending an active duty troops in the office. My question is what what constitutes given out the courage and thought for the situation, how it exceeds all this?

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: So there's a lot in your comment and your questions, And I have a lot of thoughts thoughts in my head to respond. Focusing on on the very recent activities by this administration, what's going on in Minnesota, and it looks like it's gonna be a main thing. It's the courts that are providing some check on it. And the courts cannot do that unless there are affidavits on both sides in in the courtroom. I don't know the intricacies of the lawsuits or or or the the legal proceedings in those areas. But I read the headlines that courts have ordered put limitations on what the administration have been doing. In order for the court to be able to be an effective check on executive power under our rule of law, under our system of government, requires an advocate to stand up in court ethically and pick a position he or she does not agree with presumably. That's not easy to do. Nobody enjoys doing that as a lawyer. But is it necessary to be done just like it's necessary for a criminal defense lawyer to do the same thing, throwing the system to work? And if you don't have lawyers of good faith doing that, the system will stop. The system will not work. So I appreciate we see things differently. I suspect we see things I suspect we're more aligned and different than how we see things. But I also appreciate the optics of what it looks like, what it looked like for me to be standing up and for representing the government in the Nadawi case and in Kyrgyzstan. And and and, you know, that's the that's your dilemma. It's it's it's don't get me wrong. I'm proud of what I did, but it's also who's certain except my misfortune right then? So my first reaction was you need lawyers to do that. You need lawyers to do that on both sides, and I was doing that in these cases. You mentioned, you know, that mister Manawi's arrest to to remind you and the committee I had nothing to do with his arrest. Nothing to do with it. When mister Martin's law partner reached out the afternoon of his arrest to let me know that this case had they just filed this case and that the court had just issued a called a temporary restraint of order. It's an it's an immediate order that's issued before you hear from the other side requiring that mister Medoway be kept in Vermont, and I got a copy of that. I went to work. I went to work reaching out to the people I knew at, at Homeland Security to make sure that they were aware of that order and that it was gonna be a binding binding. I I performed a similar role in the Oster case after judge Sessions ordered her released from Louisiana, and there was a delay in that process. Eventually, judge from the lawyers late in the day. That day, you can see this on the docket, and issued a written a short written order confirming what he had set up for the bench earlier that day, and that got as those took release. And I played a material role in that order of the conditions. We need the good lawyers, ethical lawyers, picking up these cases for our for our system of government to work. I met with senator White, and I was prepared to explain myself like I've couldn't explain in this room. And, before I had a chance to do that, she wanted me to hear what her community had suffered, on account of the. And and she wanted to hear it, and I did. And I am aware of the trauma of mister Madawi's circumstance of of of the trauma the community suffered on account of the way mister Bandai was treated. I'm aware of the entire how the entire state has reacted to it and and beyond that. I recognize he was showing up for his final citizenship when he was arrested. I am I am well aware of the details of what happened in him, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it because of my role in this case. And and I appreciate the trauma. I appreciate the misfortune that it was for for mister Nader Hashim, and I appreciate the trauma, that it inflicted on the committee. And I listened to senator what senator White had to say about that. So I I guess I want I want I want you to know that I I have a sense. I wasn't in the church beginning to do work, but I have a sense for what it was like and and and for what and and I read the 200 letters that were submitted on on his behalf as part of my role as an advocate. So I'm aware of the evidence of what it was like for that community and and how many people supported it. And kind of like what we talked last week, I'm not taking credit for his release. The court did that. What I'm taking credit for is facilitating the administration of due process playing a role in my lane in that. Well, thank you for meeting with senator White. I mean, it's good to be.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just a quick time check. There's a little over fifteen minutes left. Seventeen minutes. Any other questions?

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have quite a deal. I'm not sure if I'll be there. Maybe that's. My first question is actually for you. And is that, every email we've gotten, has that been put into public testimony or only the ones that was what they asked for that?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The no. Not every single one. There are many form emails. Example of the form email form emails has been posted, but not every single one. The the one liners that just say, know about any additional substance. Those aren't updated or those aren't put on the committee page. The ones in which people request that they are updated or put on the

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: committee page and stuff. They're put on

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the committee page. And I have had an away message on my email. So anybody who sends an email with what received a written testimony, I away message says, if you have written testimony, if you'd like updated, send

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: it in a PDF to our community system. Okay. That is helpful. There has been from multiple witnesses, a characterization of the emails as form emails and all from people who don't know or have never worked or misunderstand the law. And the reason I ask is because I have seen a number of emails actually that have explicitly laid out how folks do know you that are not supportive. And I also previously pointed to people who I have spoken to who are have experience, are not supportive, but are afraid to go on the record. And I guess I wonder, one,

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: have

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: you seen those emails? And I'm hesitant to name names if they don't want them in the record, given the level of concern that has been expressed from some people. But I I'm I'm I just it's in the characterization of of all of the emails being warm emails coming from people who've never met you, that is not everything I've seen. And so I'm wondering if you have seen

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: any So of the emails I have seen are the emails that have been posted on the committee's website, and I I haven't counted them. I suspect they're in excess of 20. The ones opposing me, there are several in favor of me. And I appreciate that they don't strike me as form emails, that that people have taken the time to, like judge Wesley did, to to share their funds. I have not seen an email from anybody with whom I'm working. I've not seen an email from anybody who knows me personally. The senator is it troubles me greatly to hear that somebody would fear retribution if they had something negative to say about me. There's a lot of people whose names are in the record on account of the Canadian website who's who's who have supposed my confirmation. And I don't I don't I think would be. I mean, if they yeah. If that that one. So and and, senator Baruth, you had suggested that maybe the what they feared was some sort of convictive, politically motivated prosecution because of the times we're in. Misunderstood it. In part.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: The other things that this president has done to overturn about trying to inflame loyalists around the country, and those people reach out to anybody who raises their head up and the temperature of children are sleeping.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: So I'm not sure at this point in time. I don't know how the administration really thinks about me, if they're thinking about me at all. I'm not sure that they'd necessarily be thinking about favorably given, some of my statements right now. That's one thought. I can guarantee you. I'm not in the office anymore, but I can guarantee you based upon my personal knowledge of people in the US affairs office that they would have resigned before they were asked to initiate a politically motivated prosecution. I would have done that if I was there, and I know the leadership in the office right now, and they would do the same thing. It it it breaks my heart that somebody would fear retribution or saying something negative about you. I hope what you have heard about me gives you some comfort. I would I would certainly not initiate any It's so contrary to the way I think of things. It would it would break my heart if somebody actually taught on account of something I would do big, like, white face recognition. You know, it's not fun hearing people criticize me, but it's healthy. It's good. And if if I have weaknesses, that haven't already been aired, I'm not gonna be happy to hear them, but it's gonna be good for me to hear them. And so if there's some way you can share the comments or concerns that you've heard, whether to protect the sources or not, I request that you do, and I would love to have a chance to sit down and and try to address it with you one on one or in some other form.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I can interject on this part of what you're saying. So if there are folks who have testimony that they

[Charles Martin (Witness)]: want to provide written testimony,

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I guess it's just generally, you can submit that testimony to our committee assistant, Emory. His email is on our committee page.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate that. And I will I I'm glad to know you haven't seen them, the emails that I'm talking about, because when I hear multiple people say this is the only thing coming in, people just don't understand. Yet I'm looking at something different. I wanna make sure that we're actually looking at different things. And so I do appreciate that and certainly will circle back to the folks, because I wanna be clear, it's not all person. It's been multiple people who I've asked to come put what they have to say on the record who have said, I can't do that. And I don't think I think it's a confluence of things. I don't think all of it is simply I don't trust people. I think it's I don't trust the system. I don't think it's just I think there's a lot of things coming together right now making people, you know, rehesitant. And I'm happy to think through what the solution may be. Last week I asked if people could testify anonymously, and that was not something that we are moving forward with. So I am committed to figuring out a way if there is a way. And I will also say that some of those statements have asserted that they do think you're a nice guy, and that's not enough. And so I'll go through the emails that I've seen that it's clear you have not, and I will call back the folks that I've spoken to and see if any of them feel comfortable or if if there's a way they feel comfortable in in bringing those those stories forward.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: And if and if they wanna stay out I mean, if they wanna be public, that's their right, obviously. But if they wanna stay out of the public eye, you know, you and I can sit if you could I hope you would trust me that I would I I would treat them privately, and you and I could go over them, and we could we could talk through the concerns. And I I would welcome the chance to sit down with you and try to address them and switch your head.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Absolutely. I appreciate that. I am wondering how many trials you have with AVID in the Vermont city courts.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Jury trial's free. I and then at least two other hearings that I recall where I where I handled witness testimony. One was in a family court in Barrie, and the other oh, actually, also multiple hearings in the public service board where witness testimony is put on witnesses for Ross and Hamilton. Those are those are trial like, but they're not ethically trials. They're hearing they're administrative messages. And then, you know, a criminal change a criminal change or plea that I can recall. A lot of them were sort of ministerial status type hearings. Your question was trials. So three jury trials and lots of contested hearings in administrative tribunals.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm wondering about your role in a press conference in September 2025. I believe it was in Florida. There's some quotes of you being fairly supportive of attorney general bonding, and I'm I'm just curious.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Yeah. So it's on YouTube. It's out there. I can tell you what I'll tell you if you don't mind, I'll tell you it from my perspective, which I think is probably gonna be most responsive. So believe that was in early September, if I recall. September 4. Okay. So so far so good. The week before, my office charged a case involving a woman who was involved in an alien smuggling operation. I appreciate alien is a charged term, but that's also a statutory term, who was charging the noncitizens she was smuggling into the country, exorbitant fees, and among the the individuals she was smuggling were was at least one child who was secreted in the back of her vehicle. That's the luggage. My recollection is the child was well, I should I should be careful because I I don't wanna make a public statement about something that's not in the public domain. The Department of Justice was emphasizing, and I think it was a good thing, charging cases where children were being subject to smuggling operations and and wanted to feature a such a case for the northern border. Most of those cases come into Minnesota. I was in California visiting my 88 year old mother. And on Tuesday, I got a message from somebody at at at Pain Justice basically ordering me to be in Tampa on Thursday. If you read the text, it wouldn't look like an order. It's like, hey. I know you're out there with missing family. Really appreciate you being there. Sorry for the inconvenience. But I it was it was a message I could not say no to. I I felt very I I I was proud of the work the office did charging that case. It was a case very busy of being charged. I didn't know what was gonna be expected of me at the press conference. I knew there was gonna be I didn't know if I was gonna be called on to to speak or where I was gonna stand, but I prepared remarks just in case. And it turns out that there was a politically appointed United States attorney from Houston and from El Paso, and then the post politically appointed US attorney in Tampa who's also there. I was the only apolitical guy in the room. I went out to the and I took a red eye flight out. I bought a suit on vacation so that I could look the part. I took a red eyed flight out, got to the to to the office where the conference was happening. And shortly before, I think it was a 03:00 start time, the attorney general arrived, shut people's hands. She must be from Vermont. Vermont? Well, let's get going. We went into the, into the news conference, and shortly before we got into the room, I, the team was told, okay. Here's where people are gonna sit, and here are the people who are gonna give remarks. So I'm glad I got the remarks, prepared. The remarks I gave did thank the attorney general for bringing attention to the good work of the Vermont law enforcement community in bringing this maze. I took the opportunity, which I've come to appreciate since I've been in government management. One of the best things you can do is recognize the good work of the people you were supervising and working with, and this was a big stage. The the speakers before me were criticizing the policies of the previous administration, and they were making my eye inappropriate characterizations of the people who've been charged. It seemed like an irresponsible thing for a prosecutor to do before a case had been adjudicated. He may be very careful not to prejudice anybody who's looking at the case or learning about the case in the public eye. So I when I, well, started my remarks, I thanked the attorney general for bringing attention to the good work of the of the Vermont law enforcement community. I then explained to the public what the status of the case was with the defendant that just intrinsically arrested the potential sentence she was facing. And then one of the things I'm I'm I'm most proud about that past conference, I took the opportunity to recognize by name the work of the AUSAs who put the work in to charge the case. Nobody else in their remarks recognized the work of by name of the people who had done that. And and, you know, they also come from bigger offices. Maybe they don't know that people put it in. So I took advantage of the opportunity to to bring attention to the good work that my office was doing and that the Vermont law enforcement community was doing in that case. In the context where, I mean, I I could have said no, but that wasn't worth getting fired over. That that was that and and then I got on a flight back, and I went back to my mom's house. It was there. I was only got one there.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Quick logistical thing here. The reason I was texting, we will be going to twelve so that other senators can also have an opportunity to ask questions for you. Sam Baruth, I understand will be

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: going to apologize. I'm going to be on the floor at 11:30. I'll leave you now, but I believe the committee's have to continue.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And Judge Ouyang's confirmation will be on June 7.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Rather than post

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Rather than

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Senator Pawlowski has more. Okay. Questions for the next

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I absolutely appreciate your big points. Thank you. It was pretty important. Hi. My name is. And this administration has used individual instances of real issues to conflate that all immigrants are dangerous? Did it not occur to you that you being there might legitimize their claims that immigrants are dangerous?

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: I was focused on the case we charged. I I have formed this suggestion that all noncitizens are dangerous. It's factually inaccurate, and I think it's ugly rhetoric. And I'm trying to remember the press conference. I don't recall I don't recall as I was on on the podium hearing any and I'm gonna get it. It was in my own head. But, no, the short answer is no. I mean, one reason why those cases are are important to charge, I in my opinion, is because the smugglers are exploiting the the noncitizens, even though they're entering the country illegally, who are just trying to make banana life. And they're being charged outrageous sums of money. Then sometimes they're delivered to a place in they become indentured to the group, and they're being egregiously exploited, and that's wrong on a million different levels.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Oh, I agree.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: And I'm sensitive to I'm sensitive to that.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm not questioning at all the decision to charge this.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Yes. No. I understand.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And certainly, in a previous lifetime, worked with our Vermont human trafficking Yeah. Task force as as a social worker. And what my question is is and and this administration and frankly, it hasn't only happened in this administration, picks and chooses egregious cases to paint a larger picture. And my concern is that this is a perfect example of a truly egregious case where we can bring everyone together and say, Look at this egregious case. This is what's happening everywhere, every border crossing. And that concerns me that it didn't cross your mind that that might be what the administration was doing in this instance.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean,

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: they nobody shared with me the remarks that other people were giving in advance, so I didn't have any advance notice. Honestly, I was focused on what I was supposed to say what I wanted to say, not what I was supposed to say, what I wanted to say about the work of of the Vermont Law Enforcement.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Do you think the importance is of public trust in on bodies?

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: It's certainly important.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Absolutely. And so I've heard that a lot of the outreach is coming from people who may not be attorneys or may not understand, but they are public. Yeah. And what they're expressing is that they don't trust.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Yeah. That's sad on lots of levels, but I personally admit it. But and I and I get the optics. I get the optics. I I stood up in court in those cases for the reasons I've explained. But I what I hope, if any of your constituents perceive me to be personally aligned with the administration, I hope I've been able to disabuse them of that. I hope I've been able to disabuse any of any of your colleagues of that concern. And I'm hopeful that when you decide whether to vote or not for the nomination, you you make that vote based on on the understanding of what I did, but not how it's perceived by people who don't understand it as well.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other questions? No.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: I don't know if

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: the question more is

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: in common.

[Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I don't know what dance. It'll it'll be a question or comment. But, you know, I can relate to the constituent emails that we got because I, for one, didn't know the intricacies of federal law in place with the job that you've done. And when I when I really think about it, and I've been brought up a lot across the country about, well, you can just resign. When I think through that and think about it more, pardon me, with the current administration at the top, maybe that's what they want so they can put their folks in place. Who knows? I can't stop the motives of the administration. But when I think about the job that before you and that you've done previously and what I would look for in a severe during a Supreme Court justice is when it gets it's hard to do the job, I don't want you to run away. I don't want you to resign. Here in the legislature, when the job gets tough for us, we tend to kick it to a task force or a report or a study or something like that. The Supreme Court doesn't have that option. And, you know, I appreciate you staying in and working for the people that were under you. And this whole process has been eye opening to me because I didn't fully understand what your position was before and and how that all works. So it really brought my eyes and helped settle my thoughts and concerns that have been brought up by these emails of our constituents, not just in my town, but across the state. So I appreciate all the folks that have come in and have been able to interpret that better for me, who's not an attorney. I'm not involved in the justice system. So I think it's both sided, but I appreciate your comment.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: I appreciate that it's a it's a it's a not very well it's a area of the law, and so it's it's difficult to understand it even if you are a lawyer.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Mister Jeffrey, I have one last question. It's I think it's gonna be a yes or no or perhaps you may not be able to answer it. Those are the rules of your disconduct. It was around April 4. I believe it was a lot bigger article. Governor Scott said that the country should be ashamed in response to ICE's actions. And are you able to share whether you agree the governor's statement or disagree, or are you able to answer that question? I

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: have a very I had an answer. What I'm struggling with is whether, given it, would would be the technical breach of the code of judicial conduct that applies to judicial candidates. So I will share with you my thinking in real time. As I understand the way the code operates, a judicial candidate should not make a comment that would sit his or her hand on a matter that might come before the court. Whether the conduct of ICE in April might come before the court, I think there's a sufficient possibility that somebody could get sued over something that happened. And because of that, and based upon my understanding of the code, I think I I don't think I can answer that question. For that reason.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Think we all have a lot to think about. We'll be voting next week, either Thursday or Friday. We'll be made aware of that. It looks for me to post the agenda.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Okay. I appreciate that. And and senator, if you don't mind, I'll email you my contact information, then we can if you if you'd like to meet in person or over the phone or not in your contacts, I'd be happy

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: to send it.

[Mr. Jeffrey (Supreme Court Nominee)]: Thank you. Thanks.