Grassley Exposes Democrat Hypocrisy Over Election Questioning of Trump Nominees

Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nominations
Wednesday, May 20, 2026

Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. Today, we'll have two panels. The first panel features a pair of circuit judge nominees: Benjamin Flowers, for the Sixth Circuit; and Matthew Schwartz, for the Second Circuit.

Our second panel has one nominee: Don Berthiaume to serve as the Inspector General of the Justice Department.

In a moment, I'll turn to our visitors to introduce these nominees, but first, I'd like to say a few words.

For months now, my Democratic colleagues have relentlessly attacked nominees about the 2020 election. It's unfair and it's hypocritical.

As I explained a few weeks ago, Article II and the 12th Amendment of our Constitution dictate how presidential elections are won. Under our Constitution, the electoral college casts ballots, and the Vice President certifies the winner at a joint session of Congress. There's no other way to win the election.

When asked about the 2020 election, recent nominees have all given legally correct answers - Joe Biden was certified as the winner. But my Democratic colleagues won't accept that. And they press and press for a soundbite. They don't care about the answers. They just want a clip to go viral.

So, my Democratic colleagues attack the nominees. They goad them to weigh into politically controversial topics.

When the nominees don't bite, my Democratic colleagues accuse them of being evasive.

Members of this Committee have even called them derogatory names like cowards, monkeys and puppets. The progressive media has gleefully reported about the "contempt and ridicule" the nominees are subjected to at hearings. Once again, the New York Times leans into its role as the mouthpiece of the Democratic party.

These attacks aren't just beneath our office, they're hypocritical!

If we want to talk about evasive answers, let's rewind the clock a bit. At Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearing, Senator Blackburn asked a simple question: what is a woman?

A judge must be able to assess whether a litigant is entitled to the protections that federal law affords women. Right?

Well Justice Jackson wouldn't answer that question. She simply stated that she couldn't because "I'm not a biologist."

How can my Democratic colleagues criticize nominees for giving a direct, legally correct answer, when their own nominees wouldn't answer a basic factual question that we've understood for the entirety of human existence?

We all know why. It's because my Democratic colleagues aren't concerned about evasive answers. They want political theater.

The Democrats don't like our President, and they want to poke him. So, they're attacking nominees for refusing to comment on matters of political debate regarding the 2020 election.

If that weren't true - then surely my Democratic colleagues have always demanded direct and robust answers to questions about the 2020 election. Right?

Let's take a look at how Justice Jackson responded when she was asked about the 2020 election. Put up the poster. I want everyone to see this. I want my Democratic colleagues to see this, and I want the American people to see this.

When asked if she'd ever commented on the results of the 2020 election, Justice Jackson stated, "It would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate."

Let me say that again: it would be inappropriate for me to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate.

She gave the same answer when asked whether she ever expressed skepticism about the 2016 election results.

Well, isn't that something. Justice Jackson, like every nominee to come before this Committee this Congress, didn't think it was appropriate for a judicial nominee to weigh into a political debate concerning the results of the 2020 election.

Were my Democratic colleagues outraged by Justice Jackson's suggestion that the results of the 2020 election were a matter of political debate? Did they say her statement was "Orwellian in the denial of reality?" Did the partisan progressive scribes at the New York Times publish an entire article describing her response as "astonishing?"

Of course they didn't. Her answer then-like the answers of the judicial nominees recently-was entirely prudent and unremarkable. The hypocrisy from the other side and the press is breathtaking.

My Democratic colleagues need to stop and reflect. Why have they created a months-long circus about Trump nominees for making the exact same point Justice Jackson made during her confirmation process?

I'm satisfied with how recent nominees have answered questions about the 2020 election. From here on, they should just quote Justice Jackson. They deserve better than hypocritical attacks. And the American people do too.

Turning to today's agenda, I'll introduce one of our nominees.

Mr. Berthiaume earned his law degree from SUNY University at Buffalo, School of Law in 2000. He began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan. In 2005, he transitioned to private practice, where he advised on civil enforcement matters, as well as government and internal investigations.

In 2010, Mr. Berthiaume joined the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. Since then, he's been involved in several sensitive investigations to root out misconduct, fraud, waste and abuse. These include the FBI's partisan Crossfire Hurricane probe and, more recently, an effort to determine the previous OIG's level of involvement in Jack Smith's Arctic Frost witch hunt. As my and Senator Johnson's oversight has exposed, that partisan investigation secretly sought and obtained the records of many members on this very Committee.

Mr. Berthiaume briefly served in the DEA's Office of Compliance and, since 2023, has served as an advisor to the Inspector General in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In 2025, Mr. Berthiaume returned to the Justice Department in a detail capacity. He briefly served as Acting Inspector General and is currently serving as the Senior Advisor to the Deputy Inspector General. Mr. Berthiaume brings a wealth of experience. And I look forward to hearing from him today.

Before I turn it over to Senator Durbin, I'll ask everyone to keep their questions limited to the five minutes allotted to keep the hearing on schedule.

I'll now turn it over to Ranking Member Durbin.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Post