Senate Hearing on DOJ Nominees Pivots to Comey
The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Noel Francisco for solicitor general, Makan Delrahim to head the Antitrust Division and Steven Engel to oversee the Office of Legal Counsel, but committee Democrats used their time to address the FBI director's termination.
May 10, 2017 at 02:36 PM
9 minute read
It didn't take long for a Senate committee hearing meant to provide insight into how three Justice Department nominees might run their respective divisions or handle conflicts of interest to shift to the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Noel Francisco for solicitor general, Makan Delrahim to head the Antitrust Division and Steven Engel to oversee the Office of Legal Counsel, but committee Democrats used their time to address Comey's termination. President Donald Trump fired Comey on Tuesday night.
“As I reflect on the decision to dismiss Director Comey, I become incredulous thinking about the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference with our presidential election, and possible connections to associates of the Trump campaign and administration,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the committee's ranking member.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said Comey's dismissal “smack in the middle” of the Russia investigation “raises serious questions.” She said the public “deserves to know” that Justice Department decisions are based on fact, “no matter who, and no matter what, they might lead to.”
No Republicans mentioned Comey outright during the hearing, except Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, who mentioned the nominees' strong resumes and joked that “there's an opening at FBI, if y'all are interested there.”
If confirmed, Francisco, Delrahim and Engel would oversee DOJ functions that require freedom from political leanings or personal opinion. In Engel's case at the Office of Legal Counsel, often referred to as “the president's law firm,” he'll be in charge of reviewing potential executive branch actions and whether they could run afoul of the law.
Once the hearing shifted back to the three nominees, Engel seemed to disagree with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates' assessment of the OLC's function, which she gave in a Senate hearing Monday on the Russia investigation. Asked why she refused to defend Trump's travel ban executive order even though the OLC said it was legal, Yates said the OLC's function is to “look at the face of an executive order and to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley asked Engel if he agreed. He said that while he did agree that the OLC “must look only at the law and it is not its job to consider questions of policy,” he disagreed with another aspect of Yates' description.
“I do take issue, I think, with the description Ms. Yates gave of OLC's function as being intended to review if there is some way of defending an executive order. We're not litigators in court, trying to come up with reasonable arguments.”
Grassley also asked Engel if, while he was serving on the Trump transition team, anyone asked him to commit to reaching a legal conclusion on behalf of the administration. He said no, adding that he hadn't “even discussed” with anyone the decisions he might make should he be confirmed.
Delrahim was asked how he will ensure the Antitrust Division's independence given that the president has commented on impending mergers. Klobuchar asked what Delrahim would do if he got a call from the White House asking for information about an investigation.
“The independence of the decisions made in prosecuting and reviewing mergers, as well as other conduct, is a serious one that should be free from any political influence,” Delrahim said. “They will be free, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.”
Delrahim was also asked, twice, about how he will go about recusing himself from certain investigations. Delrahim has lobbied for a wide variety of companies and worked on several merger and acquisition deals, including that of health insurers Anthem and Cigna.
Delrahim has previously promised to recuse himself from the Anthem matter, and repeated that promise Wednesday. Senators in the Wednesday hearing also pressed him on how he will weigh recusals in the future. He said one of his first actions upon confirmation will be to meet with “career ethics officials” at DOJ and examine the “contours of recusal.”
“I have three little children,” Delrahim quipped. “I have no intention of going to jail.”
Cogan Schneier covers litigation in Washington, D.C. for the National Law Journal and Law.com. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @CoganSchneier
Copyright the National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|- Solicitor General Nominee Pledges 'Independence and Candor'
- What's Next For Ex-FBI Director James Comey?
- Dechert Partnership Worth $1.8M for DOJ 'President's Law Firm' Nominee
It didn't take long for a Senate committee hearing meant to provide insight into how three Justice Department nominees might run their respective divisions or handle conflicts of interest to shift to the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Noel Francisco for solicitor general, Makan Delrahim to head the Antitrust Division and Steven Engel to oversee the Office of Legal Counsel, but committee Democrats used their time to address Comey's termination. President Donald Trump fired Comey on Tuesday night.
“As I reflect on the decision to dismiss Director Comey, I become incredulous thinking about the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference with our presidential election, and possible connections to associates of the Trump campaign and administration,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the committee's ranking member.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said Comey's dismissal “smack in the middle” of the Russia investigation “raises serious questions.” She said the public “deserves to know” that Justice Department decisions are based on fact, “no matter who, and no matter what, they might lead to.”
No Republicans mentioned Comey outright during the hearing, except Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, who mentioned the nominees' strong resumes and joked that “there's an opening at FBI, if y'all are interested there.”
If confirmed, Francisco, Delrahim and Engel would oversee DOJ functions that require freedom from political leanings or personal opinion. In Engel's case at the Office of Legal Counsel, often referred to as “the president's law firm,” he'll be in charge of reviewing potential executive branch actions and whether they could run afoul of the law.
Once the hearing shifted back to the three nominees, Engel seemed to disagree with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates' assessment of the OLC's function, which she gave in a Senate hearing Monday on the Russia investigation. Asked why she refused to defend Trump's travel ban executive order even though the OLC said it was legal, Yates said the OLC's function is to “look at the face of an executive order and to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley asked Engel if he agreed. He said that while he did agree that the OLC “must look only at the law and it is not its job to consider questions of policy,” he disagreed with another aspect of Yates' description.
“I do take issue, I think, with the description Ms. Yates gave of OLC's function as being intended to review if there is some way of defending an executive order. We're not litigators in court, trying to come up with reasonable arguments.”
Grassley also asked Engel if, while he was serving on the Trump transition team, anyone asked him to commit to reaching a legal conclusion on behalf of the administration. He said no, adding that he hadn't “even discussed” with anyone the decisions he might make should he be confirmed.
Delrahim was asked how he will ensure the Antitrust Division's independence given that the president has commented on impending mergers. Klobuchar asked what Delrahim would do if he got a call from the White House asking for information about an investigation.
“The independence of the decisions made in prosecuting and reviewing mergers, as well as other conduct, is a serious one that should be free from any political influence,” Delrahim said. “They will be free, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.”
Delrahim was also asked, twice, about how he will go about recusing himself from certain investigations. Delrahim has lobbied for a wide variety of companies and worked on several merger and acquisition deals, including that of health insurers Anthem and Cigna.
Delrahim has previously promised to recuse himself from the Anthem matter, and repeated that promise Wednesday. Senators in the Wednesday hearing also pressed him on how he will weigh recusals in the future. He said one of his first actions upon confirmation will be to meet with “career ethics officials” at DOJ and examine the “contours of recusal.”
“I have three little children,” Delrahim quipped. “I have no intention of going to jail.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJay Clayton, Ex-SEC Chief and Sullivan & Cromwell Lawyer, Eyed For Manhattan US Attorney's Office
Trump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute read'Dismissal Required'?: Trump Cites Another Supreme Court Ruling in DC Jan. 6 Case
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Which Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
- 2Two Tesla Shareholder Cases in Del. Chancery Court Consolidated
- 3Your Opinion Matters: Annual Managing Partner Survey
- 4Civility for the New Generation
- 5The Future of Law: Harnessing AI Without Compromising Integrity
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250