[Senate Hearing 119-286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-286
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2025
__________
Serial No. J-119-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-746 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
JOHN CORNYN, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri ALEX PADILLA, California
KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama PETER WELCH, Vermont
ASHLEY MOODY, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 1
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 2
Kennedy, Hon. John............................................... 4
Moody, Hon. Ashley............................................... 5
NOMINEES
Crain, William J................................................. 8
Questionnaire................................................ 37
Responses to written questions............................... 113
Duva, A. Tysen................................................... 6
Questionnaire................................................ 169
Responses to written questions............................... 179
Additional materials......................................... 235
Van Hook, Alexander C............................................ 9
Questionnaire................................................ 236
Responses to written questions............................... 267
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 311
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
Room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Lee, Cruz, Hawley,
Kennedy, Blackburn, Britt, Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse,
Blumenthal, Hirono, Welch, and Schiff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Chairman Grassley. Good morning. We welcome everyone.
Our panel features A. Tysen Duva, nominated to be assistant
attorney general, Criminal Division; two district court
nominees, Justice William J. Crain, Eastern District,
Louisiana; Alexander Van Hook, Western District of Louisiana.
Senators Kennedy and Moody will give introductions in a moment.
In the meantime, I'd speak about Mr. Duva.
He has been a Federal prosecutor for nearly 2 decades in
the U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District, Florida. He has
extensive experience conducting investigations, prosecuting a
wide array of criminal offenses. These include drug
trafficking, violent crime, public corruption, fraud, and
illegal immigration. Mr. Duva has prosecuted hundreds of cases,
he has tried 22 to verdict, and he has received numerous awards
for his efforts from the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as
Federal agencies, including Department of Homeland Security,
ICE, IRS, FBI, and Secret Service. Mr. Duva's success in
prosecuting difficult cases certainly commands respect, and his
real-world experience will be an asset to the Criminal
Division.
Justice Crain has been an attorney for 4 decades, served as
a judge for 15 years across every level of Louisiana State
courts, spent 3 years as trial judge for Louisiana's Second
Judicial District. Then he moved into appeals, serving on
Louisiana's First Circuit Court of Appeals for 6 years. Since
2019, Justice Crain has served as the Supreme Court of
Louisiana. As a jurist, Justice Crain has presided over and
authored hundreds of judicial opinions. With his extensive
experience as a lawyer and judge, he is extremely ``well
qualified'' to serve on the Federal branch.
Mr. Van Hook is also ``well qualified.'' He clerked for
judges on the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit and on
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Since then, Mr. Van Hook spent 25 years as a Federal prosecutor
in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District, Louisiana. He
has served as an assistant U.S. attorney, the deputy criminal
chief, and multiple stints as first assistant and acting U.S.
attorney in that office. Mr. Van Hook has extensive courtroom
experience, litigating hundreds of cases, and trying 18 cases
to verdict before a jury. He also clearly has the experience to
make a fine judge.
We will hear more about our nominees in a moment. I look
forward to hearing from each of them today.
Before I turn to Senator Durbin, I will ask everyone to
keep their questions to 5 minutes. I will also announce that
after my round of questioning, Senator Kennedy has agreed to
preside over the remainder of the hearing.
Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley.
Today, we will hear from two judicial nominees and Andrew
Tysen Duva, nominated to be assistant attorney general for the
Criminal Division. Mr. Duva, I appreciate you coming by my
office this week.
Criminal Division prosecutors handle some of the most
complex and important cases in this country, including public
corruption, child exploitation, and child sexual abuse
material, white collar crime, money laundering, violent crime.
The list is long. This mission used to have bipartisan support,
but the Trump Administration has fired, fired dozens of
prosecutors simply because they prosecuted January 6 rioters,
and he has gutted the key Criminal Division components. I
discussed this with Mr. Duva.
Look at the Public Integrity Section, also known as PIN,
which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting public
corruption cases. In March 2025, the Justice Department struck
a corrupt bargain to conditionally dismiss charges against New
York City Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for his cooperation with
the Trump Administration on the deportation campaign. In
response, several prosecutors resigned from the Department of
Justice, including the U.S. attorney herself. A staunch
conservative, she clerked for Justice Scalia and was appointed
to her position by President Trump. She quit.
According to public reporting and credible whistleblowers,
then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who is now a
circuit judge, convened a meeting where he ordered PIN
prosecutors to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against
Adams or face unspecified consequences. At the end of the Biden
Administration, there were 30 prosecutors in this Section of
Public Integrity. Now, the section has two, two.
There is a longstanding requirement that prosecution of
public officials be reviewed by PIN career prosecutors to
ensure they are not politically motivated. Attorney General
Bondi has reportedly eliminated this requirement. At the same
time, illegally appointed interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba is
bragging that she will use her position as interim U.S.
Attorney in New Jersey ``to turn New Jersey red,'' while she
prosecutes a sitting Member of Congress.
Mr. Duva, in our meeting this week, you told me you found
value in collaborating with PIN attorneys on public corruption
cases you prosecuted, and you had at least one that was
noteworthy in a trial followed nationwide. So I want to hear
from you when the questioning starts how you will rebuild this
section, the Public Integrity Section, and restore its
authority should you be confirmed.
I have heard the common refrain from Trump Administration
and its supporters that purging DOJ prosecutors will have no
effect on fighting crime. The numbers tell a different story in
the first year of the second Trump Presidency. A recent Reuters
article reported that the number of drug prosecutions under the
Trump Administration has dropped to the lowest level in
decades. The number of money laundering prosecutions has
dropped by 24 percent. Nor are gun crimes exempt. Felon-in-
possession-of-firearm prosecutions have fallen 5 percent this
year.
I want to hear from Mr. Duva how he is going to reverse
these troubling trends and how he can continue to divert
resources from the Department of Justice to the mass
deportation campaign without facing more statistics like these.
Where are the Justice Department resources going if they are
not going after narcotics and crimes like that? President
Trump's mass deportation campaign.
This isn't about reducing crime. Despite President Trump's
claims that he is going after the worst of the worst--oh, you
heard the litany: rapists, murderers, terrorists, criminally
insane, sexual predators--it turns out that just days ago, one
of my constituents, Maria Greeley, was detained by ICE agents
despite carrying documentation proving she was an American
citizen. The agents questioned the validity of her passport.
And do you know why? She looked Hispanic, and she had the name
Greeley. Their antennas went up. She must not be who she says
she is. And she said later on, I am a Latina. I am a service
worker. I fit the description of what they are looking for over
and over.
Let's be clear about what is happening in Chicago.
President Trump is abusing his power by shifting Justice
Department resources away from keeping American families safe
to fuel his mass deportation campaign. He is deploying Federal
law enforcement to zip tie children and tear gas peaceful
protesters and journalists for political theater, not for
public safety.
We need Justice Department officials who will honor their
oath, and I hope that the three of you, if you have that
opportunity, will do just that.
Let me close with a point that has been made repeatedly in
this Committee. There are some Members of this Committee who
believe that violence in the public place for elected officials
is inspired by the left. Let me say at the outset, I am opposed
to violence against public officials and others regardless of
whether it comes from the right or the left. And I don't
believe it is simply the province of the left to do these
excessive and unacceptable things.
Yesterday, Christopher Moynihan was rearrested. Christopher
Moynihan had been prosecuted for breaking into the Capitol on
January 6 and admitted that he rifled through the desk on the
Senate floor of Senator Cruz. What happened was he was traced
by local police to be involved in some threats against the life
of Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries. This is what Mr.
Moynihan said. ``I cannot allow this terrorist to continue.
Even if I am hated, Hakeem Jeffries must be eliminated.'' That
was a man who received a full and unconditional pardon by
President Trump earlier this year. He had been arrested for his
activities on January 6.
The point I am trying to make and want to make clearly,
violence, whatever the source, right or left, should not be
tolerated by anyone on this Committee. And to say it simply
from one side or the other is naive and doesn't reflect the
reality of the world we live in.
I yield.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
Before I call on Senator Kennedy and Senator Moody, Senator
Cassidy asked me if I would say that he is unable to be here
this morning because of another hearing in a Committee that he
Chairs, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee. He
wanted me to communicate that he supports both nominees and
that he wishes them well at their hearing today.
Senator Kennedy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce Justice Crain and U.S.
Attorney Van Hook. Everybody on this Committee, those here,
those not here, have read their resumes, and any fair-minded
person can look at their resumes and see that they are
eminently qualified. I will start with Justice Crain. He's done
it all, finished LSU Law School, joined, eventually became a
partner at one of the most prominent law firms in our State.
After 20 years, he then was asked by the people to serve on the
district court bench. He did. He was then asked by our people
to serve on the State court of appeal. He did that. And now he
is a member of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Mr. Van Hook went to Centenary, LSU Law School, clerked for
a very prominent judge on the Fifth Circuit, clerked for
District Court Judge Stagg, whose seat he will be taking. He
spent his career, his entire career, 25 years in the U.S.
Attorney's Office, handled 600 cases.
Now, it is impressive--it is no secret that Senators have a
lot to say about who the President nominates to these jobs,
especially on the district court. And I, for one, want to keep
it that way, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for your courage
with respect to Democrat and Republican Presidents for standing
your ground on the blue slip, which I support unconditionally.
So it is no secret that we send the names to the White
House. And I've sent names--during the Trump Administration,
I've sent Democrats names to the White House. Now, they didn't
pick them, but I sent them. And I don't really look at politics
that much when I pick Federal judges. I will tell you what I
look at. I look at judgment. First, of course, you want to make
sure that an attorney is qualified. I try to pick lawyers that
everyone in the community will look at and go, well, you know,
I don't know him that well, but man, you know, he is a lawyer's
lawyer. That is the way we have always done it on the Federal
bench and the way we ought to continue doing it. So that is my
initial witness test. But then I look for judgment. And that's
why Bill and I suggested to the President Will and Alex.
You will notice today that they have coolly unflappable
demeanors. And underneath those coolly unflappable demeanors is
a coolly unflappable demeanor. That's just the way they are.
They've seen it all. They've heard it all. They're fair. Their
just interested in resolving cases. And they're not that
interested in politics. To my knowledge, neither one of them
are interested at all. They keep the simple stuff simple, and
they just try to do what they think is right.
Now, I am biased because I nominated them. But if you knew
them, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, and my colleagues,
like I knew them, you would agree with me. And I am just so
honored that they are here today with their families. And I am
looking forward to this hearing.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Moody.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY MOODY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Moody. Thank you so much.
It is really wonderful to be here this morning. As a former
assistant United States attorney, Federal prosecutor out of
Jacksonville, Florida, myself decades ago, I have the unique
pleasure of today introducing President Trump's nominee to lead
the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Mr. Tysen Duva.
He is also joined by his family, many I know from way back
when. And it is so good to see you today, and I know he
appreciates your support. These hearings are challenging
sometimes, and they should be, and it is great to know you have
people at your back that you love and that support you.
It is very good to see my fellow Floridians and great to
see a fellow Floridian nominated for this position. He is
indeed an example of prosecutorial excellence. He earned his
bachelor's degree from the University of North Florida and
graduated with his law degree from my alma mater, the
University of Florida College of Law. Go Gators. I am trying to
see in my first year as a United States Senator how many times
I can say ``Go Gators'' on the record. It is looking good, and
thank you for giving me another opportunity.
After law school, he spent several years working as an
attorney at private law firms before clerking for a United
States district judge, who I also got to practice in front of
as a prosecutor, Judge Timothy Corrigan. Once that clerkship
ended, he joined the United States Attorney's Office in
Jacksonville where he has served for 18 years since.
His nomination to lead the Criminal Division at the
Department of Justice is a direct reflection of what Attorney
General Bondi said from the start. DOJ under President Trump
and under her leadership as attorney general is going to return
to its core mission. That is enforcing the laws and protecting
the public. Having a prosecutor with nearly 2 decades of
experience at the helm of DOJ's Criminal Division demonstrates
the Trump Administration's commitment to making America safe
again.
It has a solemn duty at the end of the day to protect
Americans and their safety so that we can do our job as a
government and protect their rights. It is not a matter of if
an American citizen lives in a red conservative town or a blue
liberal city. Everyone deserves protection and people in
positions that will work every day with diligence to make sure
that they are doing their jobs and enforcing our laws. And that
is why along that vein, as the DOJ returns to its core mission,
they are putting people at the helm that can help them do that.
And that is why it is critical that we have lawyers like Mr.
Duva in positions like this one.
One of the highest honors in my legal career was when I was
a Federal prosecutor and had the privilege of standing up in
court and saying my name is Ashley Moody, and I represent the
United States of America. I know Mr. Duva said that same thing
and did that proudly and took that responsibility very
seriously, and he will do so again at the helm of DOJ's
Criminal Division.
From young new USAs to the leader of the Department's
Criminal Division to now the Attorney General of the United
States herself, President Trump is doing a fantastic job of
bringing in patriots who believe in a nation under a rule of
law and are entrusted now with DOJ's awesome powers and
responsibility.
It is my honor to introduce Mr. Duva, who I know will bring
his decades of experience of protecting others, standing as a
guardian between chaos and order, crime and peace. He will
bring that to the helm of DOJ's Criminal Justice Division, and
I cannot wait to see you get started.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Kennedy and Senator
Moody.
I would like to administer oath now.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Grassley. They have all said affirmative answer to
that. Please sit.
Now it is our tradition for you to introduce family and
friends and then give your opening statement. I will start with
Mr. Duva.
STATEMENT OF A. TYSEN DUVA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and thank you,
Senator Moody, for that kind introduction. And thank you,
Ranking Member Durbin, as well.
It is an honor to sit before the esteemed Senate Judiciary
Committee to answer questions about my nomination as assistant
attorney general, head of the Criminal Division. I never
anticipated that I would have this opportunity, and I am deeply
thankful.
First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Everything I have above nothing comes from Him. I have not
always pleased Him. In fact, I have stumbled many times. He has
always forgiven me and welcomed me back.
I have many people I must thank and recognize, so I
appreciate you bearing with me for just a few minutes.
I thank President Trump, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,
Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd
Blanche, White House Counsel David Warrington, and head of the
Personnel Office Sergio Gor for supporting my nomination.
Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I will use my
experience as a prosecutor for almost 2 decades to do what I
have always done, use my judgment, follow the rule of law and
do good for the American people.
I'd like to introduce those in attendance, my wife, Julie;
my brother, Brian. I'm going to talk about them in a moment. My
friend, Charlie Meyer from Oceanside, California; my friends,
Randy Jenkins and Chad King, from Gainesville, Florida. So
we're going coast to coast before the Senate Judiciary
Committee today.
For over 49 years, I've had the love and guidance of
family, mentors, and friends. To my wife, Julie, I love you
deeply, and I'm deeply thankful for you. During our years
together, you have always handled the great times and the
challenges, especially over the last few years, with your
classic elegance, grace, and iron will. You are the most
impressive person I have ever known and the best prosecutor I
have ever seen. You served the DOJ for 27 years with great
distinction. Many times you tell me, ``I wish I could still do
it.'' I carry that with me daily.
To our children, they were too busy to be here. They said,
``Dad, you'll be fine, just go it alone.'' To our children,
Emma, Zach, Ty, and Gavin, you are all extremely impressive and
uniquely talented. It is and has been the privilege of my life
to parent you through the highs and lows, keep God as your
guidepost, and never back down from the challenges in front of
you. I'm so proud of each of you.
To my parents, Tony and Diana Duva, thank you for parenting
me. This is a fortune that sadly so many do not have. Together,
you weathered life's storms and remained focused on your
commitment to raising and guiding Brian and me. I love you
dearly.
To my brother Brian and sister-in-law Ingrid, thank you for
raising and guiding me. Brian, you were the best older brother
and mentor a younger brother could have. Ever since I could
form memories, I wanted to be you. I still do. That is the kind
of man, brother, and mentor you are.
And I have some important mentors to thank, and then I'll
wrap up. To my college baseball coach at the University of
North Florida, the legendary Jack Dusty Rhodes, thank you for
taking in a walk-on like me and giving me a chance. You taught
me the difference between winning and losing and how to take a
tough and disciplined approach to baseball and, more
importantly, to life.
To George E. ``Buddy'' Schulz, when I first met you, I knew
you were truly unique. You were one of the most elite trial
lawyers in the country, and most importantly, you're a great
man. Thank you for guiding me.
To the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan and career law clerk
Suzanne Wiseman, you gave me an opportunity as a young lawyer
to serve as a law clerk. It was invaluable. You both embody the
legal principles of the reasonable jurist for all.
To James R. Klindt, as the United States attorney in the
Middle District of Florida in March 2007, you interviewed me
and gave me the opportunity of a lifetime to become an
assistant United States attorney. When I started in the office
in August 2007, I came into an elite culture of professional
expectation and opportunity for those who earned it.
To the many law enforcement officers and prosecutors that
I've worked with over the years, thank you for your commitment,
experience, skill, and partnership. As a team, we made great
and impactful cases for the citizens of our country. That is
the calling, and we answered it.
Senators, I sit before you today for your consideration as
a career public servant in the United States Department of
Justice. I am an experienced Federal prosecutor. I have done
the job the right way. As I said, it is a calling. Throughout
my AUSA career, my prosecution teams represented the United
States while marshaling complex investigations and charging
decisions, litigating in Federal court and trying cases.
Through the wins and losses, I adhered to the rule of law.
The job of a prosecutor is clear, do the right thing for the
right reasons. If confirmed, I will bring that same approach to
the Criminal Division. I look forward to working with its great
and many public servants, many of whom I have worked with
already. What we public servants have is our prosecutorial
integrity. I will protect it.
I look forward to answering your questions today, and my
goal is to earn bipartisan support during this advice and
consent phase. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. CRAIN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Judge Crain. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking--got it,
got it, looking for the red light.
Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
Members of the committee, for holding this hearing and giving
us the opportunity to be here today.
I want to thank President Trump for this nomination. It is
truly the professional honor of a lifetime to be nominated to
serve my country on the district court--Federal district court.
I want to thank my hometown--or hometown--our home State
Senators, Senator Cassidy and Senator Kennedy. Thank you,
Senator Kennedy, particularly for the kind remarks that you
made and for the assistance that you've given and support that
you've given throughout this process.
I want to thank my father, who is not here today but is
watching on TV. My dad was the second youngest judge ever
elected in the State of Louisiana, and he's been a model for me
in every aspect of my life.
My mother was my greatest defender, and I choose that word
carefully. I never did anything wrong in my mother's eyes. We
lost my mother about a month ago on September the 5th. I will
tell you that there's a feeling with me today--and you would
have to have known her--that she has some hand in my presence
here today. She would be immensely proud, and we miss her very,
very deeply.
I want to thank my siblings, my sister, my oldest sister,
Sheila; my brother, Wes; and my sister, Emily, for all the
support that they have given me as well.
I want to thank a couple of people that I practice law
with. My senior partner in the law firm of Jones Fussell where
I practiced for 22 years, Bill Jones. He taught me the--how to
practice law. The attention to details that he taught me is
something that I have used as both a practicing lawyer and as a
judge.
And two of my closest friends were my law partners, Jeff
Schoen and Wayne Buras, tremendous friends.
I also want to specifically give attention to two people on
my staff because they have been there--been with me, one for
just about my whole life, Lee Gillespie, who was a law clerk
for me. Lee and I grew up together. We were roommates in
college. I went on to practice law. He finished law school
number three in his class at LSU, joined me as a law partner
for 17 years, and then has served as a law clerk for me at the
court of appeal and at the Supreme Court as my senior law
clerk. He is simply the best, and I appreciate everything that
Lee has done and been there for me.
I also want to specifically thank and acknowledge Janelle
Baton. Janelle was 16 years old and an intern in our--in the
law office that I've joined when I got out of law school. A
year into my practice, I needed an administrative assistant/
secretary, and I knew the one that I needed, and I hired
Janelle. And she has been the only secretary and administrative
assistant that I've had through my nearly 40 years of
practicing law and being a judge.
Last, but certainly not by level of importance, I want to
acknowledge my kids and their mother, Cheri. My children are
grown and have successful careers in their own right. William,
my oldest, has given me my two grandchildren, Parker and
Collins; Matthew and Michael, twin boys; and my youngest is
Elizabeth. Nothing that I do in any endeavor, nothing that I do
will I take more pride in than what they do, and I am very
grateful and thankful for them.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Van Hook. So I would like to thank President Trump for
this nomination and Senator Kennedy and Senator Cassidy for
their support. Senator Kennedy, thank you for your kind
introduction. I'd also like to thank Chairman Grassley and
Ranking Member Durbin for scheduling this hearing today and all
of you for considering my nomination.
Here today with me are my wife of 20 years, Tricia, our
children, Kate and John. I couldn't be more proud of Kate and
John. They inspire me every day to be a better person. I'll
give all the credit for their good qualities to Tricia. Tricia
is not only my wife of 20 years, my best friend, she's also a
talented lawyer in her own right. She and I both clerked
together for Judge Tom Stagg, and as Senator Kennedy mentioned
that I'll be in his court if I'm fortunate enough to be
confirmed. And he was our mentor, friend, and unparalleled
judicial icon in Louisiana.
I have some friends here with me today, all of whom I've
known for almost 30 years or over 30 years and one of whom I've
known for over 50 and could not be more grateful for them being
here with me today.
Watching from home are my mother, Jane, and my stepfather,
Patrick. They have both sacrificed so much for me. They've
given me their unconditional love and support, and I appreciate
all that they've done for me.
Also watching from home are Tricia's parents. They have
been there for our family and, you know, would give you the
shirt off their back and support us in everything that we do.
And finally, I'd like to acknowledge the talented men and
women of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western
District of Louisiana. They have helped me develop as a lawyer
and are dedicated public servants who get up every day to serve
the United States. They make our community safer, and they
protect the interests of this great country.
And thank you so much to all of you for considering my
nomination, and I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
Chairman Grassley.
[Off mic] testimony to us in your opening statement.
We have 5-minute rounds. After my 5 minutes is up, as I
previously announced, Senator Kennedy is going to Chair this
hearing. I am going to start my questioning with Mr. Duva.
During your time in the U.S. Attorney's Office, you've
developed impressive trial practice and have personally tried
more than 20 cases to jury verdict. Please tell us how your
experience handling the nuts and bolts of criminal prosecution
has prepared you to lead this Justice Department of Criminal
Division.
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and thank you for
your time in your office last week. I thought we had a great
discussion.
I think what you learn 18 years on the line as a line AUSA,
as you progress into more complicated cases, is how to lead
teams. And I did that with FBI, DEA, HSI, and many other
agencies. I intentionally stayed on the line because of the
specialties that I developed and I thought I made the biggest
difference for the American people in the cases that I
prosecuted. And in fact, you always want the next one. When you
finish a great case and you have some in the hopper, you can't
wait to get to the next one. So I felt like doing the nuts-and-
bolts work, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman, is what will prepare
me and has prepared me to lead the trial attorneys and their
immediate supervisors and their supervisors in the Criminal
Division because what we will focus on is doing the best cases
that we can that make the biggest impact for all American
people, regardless of who you are or where you live.
Chairman Grassley. Justice Crain, you got an award from
Louisiana's largest victim rights organization, Crime Fighters,
Inc. And this is also an issue as Chairman of the Committee
that I have tried to advocate for, victims' rights. Can you
tell us a bit about the role of a judge in protecting victims
of crime? And I congratulate you on your Judge of the Year
Award from the Crime Fighters.
Judge Crain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first role as a judge--and quite frankly, the award,
while I was honored to get the award, obviously, I didn't seek
the award. The first role as a judge is to be fair and
impartial to all the parties that come before the court. But
you can't lose sight--and in Louisiana we have constitutional
provisions that actually protect the rights of victims, so
there are things that many States don't have that we have
expressly done in the law to protect victims. So I was very
proud to get that award, honored to get the award.
I do feel like at times that victims' voices--and maybe
it's because they are not typically protected. The defendants'
rights are constitutionally protected that come through the
court, and oftentimes, the victims do not get the same
protections. But once again, my job as a judge, my role as a
judge is to be fair and impartial to all parties. And because
of the laws in Louisiana, we're able to give particular
protections to victims.
Chairman Grassley. Mr. Van Hook, in the USA's Office,
you've litigated hundreds of cases, and I said in my opening
statement, I will repeat, you have tried 18 cases to jury.
You've also served as acting U.S. attorney for the Western
District of your State on three separate occasions. Tell us how
your wide range of prosecutorial experience has prepared you
for the Federal branch.
Mr. Van Hook. Mr. Chairman, you know, I've been fortunate,
my entire legal career has been in service to the United
States. I started clerking for two fabulous judges, one on the
Fifth Circuit and one in the district court, and I then started
the job of my dreams as being an assistant United States
attorney. And in that job, I've appeared in Federal courts
hundreds and hundreds of times and handled hundreds and
hundreds of cases. And I've seen some judges that have been
absolutely fantastic. And I have watched them treat people
fairly, with dignity and respect, and move their dockets along
in such a way as to provide justice to the parties before them.
And I believe that just that front row seat has given me the
perspective that I would need to be a United States district
judge, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
Chairman Grassley. My last question will go to Mr. Duva.
During your career as a Federal prosecutor, you have earned
numerous awards and commendations. You've received honors from
the U.S. Attorney's Office, Department of Homeland Security,
ICE, IRS, FBI, Secret Service. What have you learned from
collaborating across these Federal agencies that you think will
best serve you as the leader of the Criminal Division?
Mr. Duva. I learned teamwork, Chairman Grassley. And the
more complicated cases, as I mentioned before, as you grow as a
prosecutor, you have to take the right steps at the right time
and work together with the law enforcement agencies. And at
times, I've worked with the Criminal Division, the fraud
section, the public integrity section. And difficult cases are
difficult to make. And I learned patience, strategy, teamwork,
and the proper use of the grand jury to make those cases. But
teamwork is the word that I would use most often.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley.
Mr. Duva, it was a pleasure to meet you in my office. I had
never met you before, and you did well. You made, I thought, a
convincing, sincere presentation of your belief that the
responsibility of the U.S. attorney is unique. You acknowledged
the authority of the office and the power of the office to
change lives. You have been involved in a case that drew
national attention on public corruption, and we talked about
that for some period of time.
The PIN section of the Department of Justice, which is part
of your division if you are confirmed, has been reduced in
number from 30 to 2, and the 2 are literally novice political
appointees. I was heartened to hear you believe that the PIN
plays an important role in making decisions involving
prosecution of public corruption. There is a longstanding
requirement that prosecution of public officials be reviewed by
PIN's career prosecutors to ensure that they are not
politically motivated. Attorney General Bondi has reportedly
eliminated this requirement. When we met, you told me you
thought PIN played an important role in the process. Do you
agree that PIN prosecutors should review the prosecution of
public officials?
Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Durbin, and I enjoyed our 25 minutes in your office on Monday.
I appreciate your time, and I thought we had a great and honest
discussion.
To answer your question about PIN, I've worked with PIN in
multiple cases. I tried a case against a former Member of
Congress in 2017 with PIN, and it was a very good partnership.
What I will do if I'm confirmed by the Senate is have a
discussion with the deputy attorney general about repurposing
PIN and figure out how to, if there's a lane, to buildup that
section and make it a more robust section than it is.
I'm aware of the news. I wasn't involved in any of those
decisions of it going from 30 lawyers to 2 lawyers. I
understand some of those lawyers are detailed in other portions
of the Criminal Division. But I think from my own experience,
which is a specialty of mine, that public corruption
prosecutions have an absolute place both in the U.S. Attorney's
Offices and the Criminal Division, and I will have discussions
with Deputy Attorney General Blanche because I believe the
Criminal Division should have a footprint in those prosecutions
in evaluating cases at the national level.
Senator Durbin. We have seen reports of the indictments
against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney
General Letitia James. Many of them were hastily brought by
Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist installed as the interim
U.S. attorney when other prosecutors balked or were removed. I
said to my staff how impressive our meeting was, and they said,
what will he do when he gets the Comey call? What will he do as
an 18-year veteran of the U.S. Attorney's Office when a
political figure in this Administration says, this is what I
want you to do, prosecute this person, whether it is a Member
of Congress or someone who wronged the President in years gone
by?
You said you have done the job the right way for 18 years,
and I have no reason to believe you have not. The question is
whether or not you are going to stand by that when you are
faced with that moment. It could be a call from the White
House. It could be a call from the Department of Justice. It
could be a tweet by the President of the United States
instructing you to prosecute an individual that you know there
is no evidence against.
So let me ask you, Mr. Duva, what will you do?
Mr. Duva. I will stand by--when I was sworn in as an AUSA,
I took an oath, and I take it seriously, and I bring it before
this Committee today. Those cases are not being handled by the
Criminal Division. They're being handled by another U.S.
Attorney's Office, the Eastern District of Virginia. I really
don't know much about them other than what I've read about
them, so I cannot comment specifically on those cases, and I've
never met Ms. Halligan.
But what I can tell you, Senator, and what I told you in
your office, is that I will always do one thing, and that is
apply the facts to the law in any case, whether it's a public
corruption case, a transnational drug case, or anything of that
nature because that's what you're sworn to do, and that is the
only path for a prosecutor. And as I mentioned in my opening
statement, all we have is our integrity, and if I get a call or
a referral, the case will go to a line attorney in the Public
Integrity Section, or whatever section it is, and it will be
worked up properly by properly using the grand jury, and we
will investigate a case and make a charging decision based on
the Justice Manual and the ethics of my office.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Van Hook, you have been acting U.S.
Attorney in the Western District of Louisiana. I am sure you
are aware of the crime rate in Shreveport, Louisiana. What you
may not know is the latest data shows that Shreveport has a
higher murder rate than the city of Chicago. Is violent crime a
problem in Shreveport?
Mr. Van Hook. Senator, violent crime is a problem anywhere,
and in any murder--any--having one victim of a murder is one
too many, and as the--being in leadership of the United States
Attorney's Office in Shreveport, I've worked very hard with our
State, local, and Federal law enforcement partners to do our
best to help bring down the crime rate. We've worked with the
district attorney there, the police chief. We've formed a
collaborative partnership. You know, unlike a lot of places in
this world today, we all get along there, and we've all worked
very hard together to try to reduce crime.
Senator Durbin. Do you think you need the National Guard to
fight crime in Shreveport, Louisiana?
Mr. Van Hook. I don't think we need them, but I think they
would be welcome. I think that the chief of police would
welcome them. Chief Smith, I believe, would welcome their help,
and I think that whatever resources could be brought to bear to
reduce crime in Shreveport would be helpful.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy [presiding]. Senator Durbin, that was a
good, good question, and yes, Shreveport has a crime problem.
Most of our urban areas do. We have suburban crime and rural
crime, but we do have a crime problem in Shreveport. You make a
salient point.
Senator Britt.
Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
each of you for being here today. Congratulations on your
nomination, and congratulations to all of your family members
who are here in support of you.
Mr. Duva, I will start with you. I am concerned by the
attacks on religious institutions and people of faith that we
have seen across our Nation. It seems that there is a rise or
emphasis, whether it is the Annunciation Catholic Church in
Minnesota or the LDS Church in Michigan. These things have been
clearly motivated by religious animus. And when I am looking at
how we respond to this problem, it is my opinion that it will
require engagements from a number of different divisions within
DOJ.
But once you are confirmed and you are leading the Criminal
Division, you know, how are you going to work to ensure that
people of faith can practice that faith and worship and gather
freely without fear of being targeted for their religious
beliefs? Talk to me about your plan there and how you are going
to work to hold those accountable who are responsible for the
violence or those who are responsible for inciting the
violence.
Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I want
to note for the record that I was in your hometown of
Enterprise, Alabama, on October 11 when I took my son, Gavin, a
baseball player to a recruiting trip for Enterprise State
Community College for which he received his first offer. So go
Boll Weevils.
Senator Britt. Go Boll Weevils. That is outstanding. And
congrats.
Mr. Duva. To answer your question, Senator--thank you.
In terms of violence against people of faith or any
institutions, that is a serious matter. We live in a time where
threats and violence, social media, and then carrying those out
are all too familiar, and it is going to be important for the
Violent Crime Section and the Criminal Division to have a
strategy to deal with that.
We are living with people with their phones, they say
anything, and oftentimes it's vile and disgusting and attacking
to people of faith. And regardless of whether it's the Catholic
Church or any other church or any religion, none of it is
appropriate. I have prosecuted threat cases not against
churches or people of faith but against judges, against
lawmakers, and we will go through and go about those
investigations as we always have. We will identify the threat,
evaluate it based on the existing statutes, and make a
prosecution decision. But violence against our institution, our
churches, our Government, it must stop, and we must beat it
back with appropriate investigations and prosecutions.
Senator Britt. What about those on our law enforcement
officers like what we have seen happen to so many of our ICE
agents across the country, particularly in Dallas? I think that
that is an example. We want to make sure that doesn't happen
again. Talk to me about your approach there in protecting our
law enforcement officers and then holding those accountable who
incite violence on them.
Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. Assault on any law enforcement
officer is improper, and it--regardless of how it's motivated
or where it's motivated, if it's far right, far left, or
whatever we're talking about. And I've prosecuted those cases.
I've prosecuted drug dealers who assault DEA agents when they
go in and execute a search warrant, and those same principles
of those statutes apply in all cases. So that is something that
the U.S. Attorney's Offices take very seriously. Again, I've
done those cases in the Criminal Division as well. Violence
against law enforcement is illegal, and it will be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law.
Senator Britt. Thank you so much.
Now turning to our two judicial nominees, in the spirit of
our Chairman, who always has the best lines of questioning in
these hearings, I wanted to prepare and, you know, have some
questions that would make him proud.
So my question to you, Mr. Van Hook, is can you explain how
litigants establish subject matter jurisdiction in Federal
court?
Mr. Van Hook. Well, a litigant in Federal court in the--on
the civil side would need to file a complaint that would set
forth the cause of action that would be recognizable in the
Federal court.
Senator Britt. Okay. And tell me, can litigating parties
waive their subject matter jurisdiction?
Mr. Van Hook. No.
Senator Britt. All right. Well, Judge Crain, a question for
you. Current State of the Lemon test, can you talk a little bit
about your understanding of the Lemon test and its role
historically that it has played in the Supreme Court
establishment clause jurisprudence?
Judge Crain. The establishment clause I can talk about.
Senator Britt. All right. Let's go.
Judge Crain. I've dealt with. They have a--there's a First
Amendment right, and the Government cannot establish a
religion. That comes in many, many forms. So you've got both an
exercise right and establishment right under that First
Amendment. So we--I mean--excuse me. I've dealt with the
establishment clause in some context, but generally speaking,
the Government cannot establish a religion, and we have the
right to free exercise of our religion under the Constitution.
Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Judge. I hope I did well,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. You were awesome. Just vote right. You
done, Katie?
Senator Britt. Yes, I am.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Senator Blumenthal, who used to be
U.S. attorney himself.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was a United
States Attorney for 4\1/2\ years in Connecticut.
And so, Mr. Duva, your nomination has special significance.
I think it ought to have enormous meaning to the entire
Committee and to the Nation because you will have enormous
power over people's lives. And I was impressed by your
statement that essentially your ethic is to do the right thing
for the right reasons. And unfortunately, what we have seen in
recent weeks is prosecutions based on personal animosity or
political considerations of two very prominent individuals,
James Comey and Attorney General Tish James, where career
prosecutors resigned because they thought it was the wrong
thing for the wrong reasons, in fact, based on improper
considerations, instructions from the President contained,
among other places, in a post that he used to issue
instructions. And so I want to probe a little bit on that
question. Would you agree that no one should be prosecuted for
their political beliefs or because they are a personal or
political adversary of the President?
Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator Blumenthal. I
can't speak to those cases because I'm not involved.
Senator Blumenthal. I am asking you in general, and I think
it is a yes or no question.
Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. And as I said in my opening
statement, individuals are prosecuted based on the facts and
those facts as applied to the law. And for 18 years as an AUSA,
I wrote a pros memo in every case.
Senator Blumenthal. I am going to interrupt you with
apologies because I have limited amounts of time.
Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. I am going to take that as a yes, that
they should be based on the facts and the law, not the
President's personal feelings of animosity or political
opposition.
Let me just followup because you are going to be in this
position. If you are pressured by someone in the White House,
including the President, to bring criminal charges that you
believe are unsupported by the facts and the law, would you
resign?
Mr. Duva. We're going to evaluate every case that we
receive, Senator, based on the facts and the law, and we will
have processes. I mentioned a prosecution memorandum that I
will evaluate at the highest level of the Criminal Division,
and I will consult with the deputy attorney general, and my
decision will be based solely on the facts and the law in every
case.
Senator Blumenthal. And I am asking what you would do if
you are instructed to bring an indictment--to seek an
indictment from a grand jury that you believe is lacking in
facts and legal support? Would you resign? Would you stand up?
Would you be counted? It is not enough to say we will review it
on the process and so forth. Now is your time to tell this
Committee that you will have the backbone to stand on
conscience and conviction.
Mr. Duva. I don't think I'll be in that position, Senator,
but all I can say is I will do what I've always done based on
the Justice Manual and the ethics of my office is evaluate
cases based on the facts and the law and make decisions. They
will not be based on personal animus. They will not be based on
tweets. They will not be based on anything but the facts and
the law in each case.
Senator Blumenthal. I am disappointed in that response
because I think it is less than the American people deserve by
way of a commitment to the rule of law. But you did mention the
Justice Manual, and I have a proposal, and I am hoping it will
be supported on a bipartisan basis that would, in effect, among
other things, codify the Justice Manual's prohibitions on
political considerations in charging decisions and prohibit the
White House from intervening or interfering in specific
charging decisions. In addition, it would create a statutory
right of action for people who are selectively or maliciously
prosecuted. It would give them rights, much as they have in
State court. I don't know about Louisiana, but in many State
courts, there is a cause of action for malicious prosecution,
and it would enact some key reforms in the grand jury process
to ensure that the Government isn't abusing its power. Would
you support those kinds of reforms, Mr. Duva?
Mr. Duva. I'd be happy to work with the Office of
Legislative Affairs and Legal Policy to have those discussions
with the Committee and also the Senate. And many of those
protections do exist in the Hyde Amendment, which is a Federal
statute that addresses malicious prosecutions or prosecutions
that are not based in fact, in law. So those protections do
currently exist on the Federal level.
Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all for being here.
Mr. Duva, I do want to come to you. You know, I have got to
tell you, I find it so curious that my colleagues across the
dais are so concerned about weaponization, but under Jack
Smith, they weren't concerned at all. And indeed, some of us
were targeted by Jack Smith as a special counsel and with
Arctic Frost. And ending two tiers of justice is something that
A.G. Bondi has talked about. Having that one tier of justice in
equal treatment is something that has been discussed. So as
you're looking at this new role in the Criminal Division, I
want you to talk for a moment about what you will do to end
weaponization of our legal system.
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, and thank you for
taking time to speak with me yesterday. I really enjoyed our
meeting.
The term weaponization is used quite a bit, and I think as
a career prosecutor and in the Criminal Division, there are
litigating components with the trial attorneys that you do what
we've talked about. And every referral, every matter that's
brought in by a law enforcement officer, it starts somewhere.
And to begin a public corruption investigation or a nationwide
fraud investigation or an international drug trafficking
investigation, you have to have articulable facts and
predication. You can't just start it because you feel like it.
You don't start it based on a person because you don't like
them. That is weaponization. You start based on the facts. This
thing we believe, we have these articulable facts, have
occurred.
And then you go to the statutes, and you begin your grand
jury process with your grand jury subpoenas. And you work your
way up to probable cause, whether it be a search warrant for
electronic devices or whatever the case may be, a physical
location. So there's a process that you go through and that
I've become an expert in in handling grand jury investigations.
And there's so much value in that. You learn so much about your
case from the grand jurors. Every grand jury that I've
presented before, they have--at the end of it, they have
thanked me for the scope and the breadth of the investigations
that I've been involved in.
So we're going to do it the tried and true way, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Duva. We're going to evaluate the facts and apply those
facts to the law and make charging decisions.
Senator Blackburn. Well, I hope that that will provide some
solace to my friends across the dais because that is not what
took place under the Biden Administration. And we saw it time
and again. And of course, some of us are living it. So thank
you. Thank you for that approach.
I also want to talk about Memphis. Now, we have Memphis
Safe Task Force that is in place, and I am very grateful to
Director Patel and A.G. Bondi and President Trump for the way
they have approached dealing with crime in Memphis. Now, since
the start of operations with the task force in September, we
have had nearly 1,200 arrests. They have seized 200 illegal
guns. Sixty-three missing children have been rescued. And
you've got gang members that are now off the streets, which is
great.
So one of the things we are focused on now is making
certain that we get these cases into court. So I would like for
you to talk a little bit about what you can do to ensure that
we have rigorous prosecutions in these cases that are coming to
us out of Memphis.
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. I've lived that,
but I've lived it in Florida in our Ocala division. I worked
with DEA in Gainesville for 10 years, and there was a task
force down in Ocala named the UDEST, the Unified Drug
Enforcement Strike Force, so task forces are important because
oftentimes those State and local officers have excellent
informants. They have cooperating defendants. And you start
there to build your multi-defendant cases.
And I've always said this. Multi-defendant drug cases solve
gun violence and homicide problems. They go hand in hand. The
tools of the drug trade are firearms. So I'm glad to hear that
there's been great success in Memphis. I look forward to
working with the Dangerous Drug Section, the Money Laundering
Section, which I know is going to be put together to partnering
with districts in Tennessee and throughout the country to
evaluate and solve those problems. I've done it myself, I've
seen the results, and the communities are very thankful when
that occurs.
Senator Blackburn. I have one other question, but in the
interest of time, I will send that to you as a QFR. We talked
briefly about romance scams and the money that is being taken
from many of our seniors, about $1.3 billion a year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask the following two foundational questions of all
nominees who come before any of the Committees on which I sit
to gauge fitness to serve. So I will ask the panel, and I will
start with Mr. Duva and go down the line in your responses.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Mr. Duva. No, Senator.
Judge Crain. No, Senator.
Mr. Van Hook. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Mr. Duva. No, Senator Hirono.
Judge Crain. No--excuse me. No, Senator.
Mr. Van Hook. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. For Mr. Duva, if confirmed, you would
oversee the Public Integrity Section at the Department of
Justice. Are you familiar with that section?
Mr. Duva. I am, Senator. I've tried cases with the Public
Integrity Section myself as an AUSA in the Middle District of
Florida.
Senator Hirono. So the Public Integrity Section targets
corruption. So let me ask you, if an incoming member of the
Government accepted $50,000 in cash in exchange for future
government contracts, would that be a possible sign of bribery,
or I believe you referred to it as public corruption. Yes or
no?
Mr. Duva. Senator Hirono, I'll answer that with any case
that comes to one of our trial attorneys will be evaluated
based on the facts and the law. I think you're referring to
some recent news.
Senator Hirono. So would you consider that, accepting
$50,000--that might raise questions about a bribe. I mean, I
think it is a bribe, but what do you say to it? Do you think
that it is an indication?
Mr. Duva. It depends on the facts and the law. I know
you're talking about a specific investigation that has been
declined by the Attorney General and the FBI. But if you
repurpose that, it's not just one thing that happens. It is
basically you have to evaluate and investigate what happens.
Senator Hirono. Well, I think that there was no--whatever
evaluation there was, although we are told by the Attorney
General there was an evaluation, but we still don't know what
happened to that money.
Let me ask you another question. If a member of Government
complains that they don't have a nice enough airplane and then
a foreign government offers to donate an airplane to them,
would that be also a possible sign of bribery or public
corruption? Again, yes or no?
Mr. Duva. I think you're talking, Senator, about the
Emoluments Clause. I think it's the first I've heard of that
clause in the news recently in the last 6 months or so. That is
not something that the Criminal Division would weigh in on.
That is an Office of Legal Policy question.
Senator Hirono. Well, you can sit there and tell me that it
is an issue that will go to some other entity, but, you know,
you are going to be running a department that concerns itself
with public corruption, so I just want to know. I think the
American people would like to know whether something like that,
where a President accepts a plane that is worth some $400
million, whether that indicates bribery or public corruption.
You are not responding, so let me ask you another. If a
member of the Government wants to build a new government
building and Big Tech billionaires jump in line to pay for it,
would that raise concerns about bribery or public corruption?
Mr. Duva. Senator, I don't know what specific incident
you're talking about. I'm not familiar with that----
Senator Hirono. Building of a ballroom.
Mr. Duva [continuing]. But as I said before----
Senator Hirono. The demolition of the East Wing and a
building of the ballroom, you are aware that that is happening?
Mr. Duva. I am aware of that.
Senator Hirono. Does that indicate public corruption or
bribery?
Mr. Duva. I don't see how that is. I don't know how that
came about or the procurement for it or who's involved. That's
just not something I'm familiar with.
Senator Hirono. The President decided that it would be a
good idea, and companies are jumping in line to try and curry
favor with him.
For Justice Crain----
Mr. Duva. And again, Senator, we operate on the facts. I
don't know the facts of that.
Senator Hirono. I am running out of time. Thank you very
much for your non-answers.
For Justice Crain, when you were running for the Louisiana
Supreme Court in 2019, a news article stated, ``Crain has
become the favorite choice of Big Oil and other industry and
statewide business groups, viewed as a sympathetic ear for an
industry facing pending litigation by coastal parties and
landowners seeking payment for decades of alleged damage to
coastal land by oil and gas companies.''
Justice Crain, did Chevron, the Louisiana Oil and Gas
Association, and Koch Industries donate to your campaign?
Judge Crain. Senator, I don't know because campaign
contributions in Louisiana go through a campaign committee that
we are prohibited from soliciting or participating in.
Senator Hirono. Oh, so you don't know who contributes to
your campaign?
Judge Crain. I do not know specifically whether those
entities----
Senator Hirono. So therefore, if entities like this, which
by the way, they did donate to you, you have no awareness of
them donating to you so that if matters that relate to them and
their interests come before you, you wouldn't even know whether
to recuse yourself? Is that the situation?
Judge Crain. Well, that actually is, I think, one of the
rationales and motivations for the prohibition for us being
able to solicit or participate in it.
Senator Hirono. Well, it is pretty clear that you favor
these industries, and as a matter of fact, when a case came
before the Louisiana Supreme Court, you dissented from the
court's majority to support the oil and gas industries. So
thank you very much.
I have some other questions that I will submit for the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Moody.
Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be
here with some great people. Appreciate you and all your
families showing up here today to support you.
This panel, I believe, reflects some of the very best among
our American legal profession. Mr. Van Hook, you spent over 25
years prosecuting all sorts of cases in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Western District of Louisiana. Justice Crain,
you served at each level of Louisiana's judiciary from the
trial court to the court of last resort. And Mr. Duva, you have
made an entire career out of doing justice, going after the bad
guys from drug traffickers to fraudsters and corrupt public
figures. You have gotten up each day, put on the white hat, and
worked to defend the rule of law in this country.
I am an attorney. Attorneys often get bad raps. I think it
is so important that we remind Americans that there are lawyers
like you that use their law degree for good and just causes to
serve their fellow Americans, and we thank you for that. We
need more like you. Unfortunately, we often see bad examples in
the legal profession, and I always like to highlight when we
are seeing remarkable works by remarkable men and women, so
thank you very much for being here today.
I want to start off with Mr. Duva. I have noticed that
President Trump--and I commend him for this, in leadership and
many of nominations, and not just within the Department of
Justice but in other agencies, people are being brought in from
across America that might not have worked in agencies before.
They might have been working in the details of what that agency
is seeking to accomplish in the day-to-day work, but in other
States, in other ways, certainly that is you. You are being
plucked from the great free State of Florida and being asked to
come serve in a leadership capacity here in Washington. I, for
one, think that is great. It brings fresh eyes, perspective.
You know, it gets away from someone maybe that was raised in
the petri dish of the swamp, and it brings in someone to focus
again on what is the mission of the agency, and how do we
remain true to that?
In that vein, if you are confirmed in this position, you
will be asked to do a lot of hiring and filling out your ranks
to complete the goals of that mission. And I would like to hear
from you--and I know the Committee would--what type of
attorneys will you be looking for to fill the ranks of your
division?
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Moody. And you and I came into
the same culture in the Middle District of Florida. We were
hired by the same U.S. attorney and first assistant. You were
hired by Paul Perez. I was hired by acting U.S. attorney Jim
Klindt, who was his first assistant. We both came into an
office of elite culture and opportunities for those who
deserved it, wherever you came from. It didn't matter if you
went to Harvard or you went to Florida Coastal or wherever you
went. That's the attitude that I'm going to have.
And I'm a sports fan, so I sometimes call lawyers players,
and I don't mean that. I'm looking for great players. I look at
myself as a general manager trying to find the best possible
players that I can, and I'm looking for trial lawyers. I'm
looking for lawyers, men and women, who have been at the
endgame, tried difficult cases, and know what that feels like
because it's really, really difficult.
Being inside the courtroom gives you an experience like no
other, and it's not just the basic cases, but as you develop
into prosecuting the complicated cases because that's what the
Criminal Division is going to do. I always tell AUSAs that
you're only as good as your best 10 cases. What are they? If
they're the same topic, it's probably not great, but if it's a
diverse topic and you've had multi-week jury trials, you've
worked with teams of agents, you worked with agencies together,
State and locals. Your husband was a DEA agent, investigated
and prosecuted complicated international drug cases. I've done
that with DEA. I've lived that life, and those are the lawyers
that I'm going to be looking for, people that get up, they're
ready to fight, they've tried cases. I want them in
supervision, and I want them as trial attorneys. And also those
that are in the appellate section. They've done the appeal
work, they've been in other parts of the Department of Justice,
and they're tried and true. That's what I'm looking for.
Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Duva. And one of my greatest
concerns, having come into the Senate--obviously, I am one of
the newest Senators here--is watching the American trust of our
judiciary erode. We have to have confidence that our judiciary
is fair and impartial. District courts uniquely interface with
litigants. Our higher courts, our circuit courts of appeal, the
U.S. Supreme Court, they are often dealing with briefs and
attorneys, but you interface and trial courts will interface
with litigants. How can you use that unique role to shore up
trust in the judiciary? Either one.
Mr. Duva. Where I come from in Jacksonville----
Senator Moody. I am sorry, I was directing that to Crain or
Van Hook.
Mr. Duva. Oh, sorry.
Senator Moody. I apologize. Although I love your energy and
enthusiasm, Mr. Duva.
Judge Crain. Well, I join you in that, and I think that we
have to be conscious every day that the strength that we have
in the judiciary comes from the public's confidence in what we
do. I'm a firm believer that one of the ways that we do that is
to fairly and impartially apply the rule of law, that there
should be some predictability. If you read the law, you ought
to have some idea of what you're going to be faced with when
you go into court. I think that's important for public
confidence.
The other is to treat all of your litigants, all of the
parties with dignity and respect. I think that you have to
treat them the way you want them to treat you in the
institution, with dignity and respect. So those would be the
things that I would say would be important to foster public
confidence in the judiciary.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Good to be
with all of you.
Mr. Duva, thank you for the time in my office with you. I
wanted to ask you a couple of questions. We know from personal
experience about what used to be called the U.S. Attorney's
Manual and is now called the Justice Manual. Will you adhere to
and enforce the procedures and processes of the Justice Manual
as Criminal Division chief?
Mr. Duva. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for your time
yesterday in your office. I really enjoyed our conversation. I
thought it was open and honest.
Yes, I will do that.
Senator Whitehouse. There has been a contacts policy in
force really driven by pressure from this Committee going all
the way back to when Senator Hatch Chaired it under the Reno
Department of Justice that limits the people who can talk to
each other about criminal cases to a very, very few at the top
of the White House and to a very, very few at the top of the
Department of Justice.
And as we discussed, the obvious reason for that is to
protect the Department and indeed the White House from junior
G-men squirrels in the White House or in the Department of
Justice from cooking up mischief that their seniors, the people
who are publicly accountable, aren't aware of. And that
mischief is at its worst and at its most dangerous if it is
coming through criminal prosecutions that aren't well founded
and haven't followed proper process and procedure. What is your
understanding of the current contacts policy of the Department
of Justice? And will you adhere to that and make sure your
staff adheres to that?
Mr. Duva. Senator, I believe that policy is being evaluated
by the Attorney General and the deputy attorney general. I
believe at the beginning of this Administration, there was a
blanket memo that rescinded prior policies, including the
contacts policy. I believe that was part of it, but there is
going to be one forthcoming. I will abide by the policy, and I
will expand on that. And as cases rise up through the Criminal
Division for my evaluation, I will be speaking with my
counterparts at the law enforcement agencies at my level about
those cases. And if there's any inquiries from the White House
over to the Criminal Division, I will be following the policy,
which I'm sure will be along the lines of what you're talking
about, very few people in the DOJ talking to very few people in
the White House about specific cases.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I would urge your DOJ handlers
here to be sure to let the Committee know as quickly as
possible when that forthcoming thing comes forth because,
frankly, I don't think this Committee was aware officially
until now that this was a lapse in many decades of a contacts
policy. I think the only previous lapse was under Attorney
General Gonzales, and that did not work out well for him.
You mentioned earlier that you have prosecuted--in fact, we
discussed that you had prosecuted or at least investigated
cases of threats against judges. As you know, there has been a
plague of threats against judges. I want to make sure that you
will commit that you will follow the evidence where it leads,
which includes potential orchestration of those threats. In
some cases, it is not enough to simply investigate the
individual who uttered the threat. In some cases, the evidence
suggests that somebody is behind a pattern of threats either as
an enterprise or as a conspiracy or in some other fashion. And
I have been unable to get any reassurance from the Department
of Justice that they will investigate orchestration of threats
where there is predication of that orchestration. Will you?
Mr. Duva. You go where the evidence takes you, Senator.
I've prosecuted cases, threats against judges, as I've
mentioned before, whether they're solo--excuse me, solo threats
or otherwise, and you evaluate where the case takes you.
Threats from any group toward judges, legislators, executives,
anybody is inappropriate, no matter where the orchestration
occurs. So you follow the evidence, just like you do in a drug
case, just like you do in a corruption case. You follow the
evidence where it leads, and that's exactly what we will do in
the Criminal Division, not just in those kind of cases, but all
cases.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, my concern is that there is a ban
somehow on investigating that, that the Marshals Service is
being discouraged from pursuing those cases that the FBI, to
which the Marshals Service usually hands off cases, is being
discouraged. So keep an eye out for that because that would be
highly improper.
Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. Last, and I hope this is something we
can work together on, Senator Graham and I support a piece of
legislation that allows for what you and I would call in rem
proceedings against assets. And as you and I both know, right
now under U.S. law, asset seizure up to $500,000 can be
prosecuted against the asset, in rem, against the thing. And
that is why we have cases all over the place with weird names
like United States versus $40,000 from the trunk of a 1979
Chevelle because the asset is the target. Notice goes to the
world, and anybody can come in and challenge the seizure of
that asset, but you don't have to go through enormous, enormous
effort to show ownership. You do it the other way around.
Where this really comes to bear is where we are dealing
with corrupt foreign criminals who have huge assets but have
spent a lot of time hiding those assets behind all sorts of
different legal screens. Cypriot bank accounts, Dakota trusts,
Cayman Islands fake corporations, all of that.
So I will ask you, and I will followup with a question for
the record because I have gone over my time now. I will ask you
to take a good hard look at whether the work of the Marshals
Service seizing these very expensive assets would not be
simplified quite a lot by letting the proceedings be pursued in
rem and ask for an explanation of why a foreign criminal or
kleptocrat should have more rights in the U.S. court system for
a billion-dollar asset than a regular ordinary American does
with respect to their property up to $500,000.
So let's take that under advisement so you have a chance to
reflect on it. And we would like to pass that bill. We would
like to get technical assistance from the Department and its
support for it, and thank you.
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
the nominees. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Duva, if I could just start with you. I have noticed
that you have been asked a number of questions about
hypotheticals, about political interference, what would happen
if so-and-so tried to interfere in an investigation? What would
happen if you were asked to pursue politically motivated ends?
What would happen if you were asked to pursue or launch a
politically motivated investigation?
So let me just ask you about a non-hypothetical just to get
your response, something that actually happened, like, for
example, the United States Department of Justice seeking to
track the cell phones of eight members of the U.S. Senate
without any criminal predicate, without any notice to any
Senator, multiple of whom sit on this Committee, including
myself, without any legal process to the Senator targeted
whatsoever. They tracked all incoming calls to our phones, all
outgoing calls to our phones, all metadata associated with the
calls, including location, the duration of the calls. Does this
sound appropriate to you? Does this sound like appropriate
behavior for the Department of Justice to be engaged in?
Mr. Duva. Senator Hawley, I appreciate the question and I'm
noticing the panel's asking me a lot. I'm happy to share with
my colleagues as we keep going in this discussion. But sir,
what I think you're talking about is issuing a grand jury
subpoena for cell phone records. And in any investigation, you
better have, pursuant to the Justice Manual, specific and
articulable facts about why you're doing that. If you do not
have that and you cannot articulate those facts under 18 USC
2703, that subpoena does not get served.
Senator Hawley. You know, the other thing that is
interesting about this context, and I appreciate your answer,
is that the records that they sought to track and trace and
tap, the devices that they sought are in the possession of
Senators pursuant to their constitutional duties. 2 USC Section
6628(a) specifically says that those records do not become the
possession of cell phone companies, they don't become the
possession of Verizon or AT&T or whomever. They are retained by
the Senator's office. Why? Because these devices are used
pursuant to the speech and debate responsibilities of Senators.
Yet the Justice Department did not inform Senators, did not
seek from our offices these records. They went instead, ex
parte, to the telephone companies, got the records apparently,
again, with no criminal predicate that we know about, no
process whatsoever. It is a grotesque violation of statutory
law and also the separation of powers, particularly the speech
and debate clause. Here you have an executive branch directly
spying on members of the legislative branch while they are
performing their constitutional duties.
Let me just ask you, Mr. Duva, does this sound like
something we want to normalize? I mean, is this something you
would like to see the current Justice Department doing on a
regular basis? I mean, should they be tracking the cell phone
records of everybody down here on the left side of the dais?
Would that be a good thing for the country?
Mr. Duva. Clearly no, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Clearly no, clearly no. I can't tell you
what an outrage I think this is, and so it is just a little bit
hard for me to stomach sitting here and listening to be asked
about all of these various hypotheticals. This isn't a
hypothetical. This happened. It happened, and so far, there
have been exactly zero repercussions for it.
And I just want to say that if my colleagues are serious
about stopping political weaponization of the Justice
Department, why don't we start with this right here? Why don't
we find out who authorized this? Why don't we find out what
laws, if any, were broken? Why don't we appoint a special
prosecutor to go after this and get to the bottom of it? And I
will just reiterate my calls for this Committee to do full
oversight hearings on exactly what happened as part of this
weaponization, as part of this, I think, both illegal and
unconstitutional targeting of United States Senators in their
constitutional responsibilities.
At the same time, the same Justice Department was also
targeting, we now know, thanks to whistleblowers, 92 separate
conservative organizations, including Charlie Kirk's Turning
Point USA, a campus organization. Why? I guess because it was
conservative.
I mean, this is the most unbelievable abuse of the Justice
Department that I have not only seen in my lifetime, that I
have ever read or heard about in our country's history because
it is not one little thing. It is an entire pattern. This is
the same Justice Department that sent a SWAT team to the home
of a pro-life demonstrator. This is the same Justice Department
and FBI that tried to recruit informants into Catholic
parishes. This is the same Justice Department that targeted the
chief political opponent of the then sitting President for
prosecution to try to keep him off of a ballot. I mean, it is
unbelievable.
And I hope that my colleagues agree, I hope we can all
agree, we cannot allow this to become the norm. And I hope, Mr.
Duva, if you are confirmed, you will do your part in the
Criminal Division to make sure that the resources of this
powerful, powerful agency are used for good to protect the
American people, protect the rule of law to put violent
criminals away, not to prosecute the political agendas of some
politician somewhere.
Thanks for being here.
Mr. Duva. I will, Senator, thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Could you say that again? Mr. Chairman.
Senator Welch. You know----
Senator Kennedy. I like that.
Senator Welch. You know, I am amazed at how quickly it went
to your head.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. You shouldn't be. You know me well.
Senator Welch. Well, that is true, but I wanted to keep it
on the down low so you could at least maintain the appearance
of a reasonable person.
[Laughter.]
Senator Welch. But it is good to have you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Crain, in the State of Louisiana, judges have to run
for election, which I think has some unfortunate consequences.
That obviously is not your creation. If you want to be a judge,
you got to run. But it meant you had to do what we have to do.
We had, I guess in one of your campaigns, $1.2 million. And I
know you will get legal contributions, and that will include
from the oil and gas industry, which does have litigation in
front of the court.
And I know that one of the controversial cases that you had
to make a decision on involved Chevron and Hess, which the
dispute was about drilling and operating oil and gas wells on
the plaintiff's property and that those companies were accused
of failing to follow State environmental laws for the pits that
they created, and there was a lot of environmental damage.
I am not questioning your decision on that, but I just
wonder if you could give me your thoughts about the obvious
question that people would see who are not involved, that this
could create a conflict of interest. I mean, they would say
that about us as well, so I am not singling you out. But where
you are a jurist, you have the responsibility of making a fair
and impartial decision, yet in order to get elected under the
law of Louisiana, not your law, you have to raise money, and
these companies that have litigation before you make
contributions to your campaign. Do you think it makes sense to
have judges have to run for election and raise money from the
people whose cases are going to be brought before them?
Judge Crain. Senator, first of all, as you've acknowledged,
that is the rule that we have in Louisiana. We've been electing
judges in Louisiana, as far as I know, since its inception. We
believe in the electoral process. Is it perfect? No. Could some
people suggest that it creates the appearance of partiality to
one side or the other? I think that's a fair assessment, that
it could. Now, I will say----
Senator Welch. So do you think it--I am sorry. Go ahead.
Judge Crain. I will say that we have tried, or the
legislature has tried, we at the Supreme Court, with the rules
that we put in place, have tried to inoculate ourselves as much
as possible by not--or by being prohibited from soliciting
contributions. But you get to access----
Senator Welch. All right.
Judge Crain [continuing]. Our campaign finance reports.
Senator Welch. I understand that. It is just a question of
whether that makes sense. You will be in a different situation.
But let me ask you, Mr. Duva. I had a nice visit with you.
I appreciate that. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I am very
concerned, to be candid, that the Trump Administration seems to
be taking the position that we really shouldn't enforce it. And
of course, that is the provision that says our companies can't
bribe foreign officials in order to get business. And I notice
that the Criminal Division has recently declined to prosecute
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company after the company itself
disclosed that it had paid $1.47 million in bribes to officials
at State-owned banks in India in exchange for them referring
banks to the company.
In my understanding, the Trump position is that, look,
everybody does it, that is the way the world works. I disagree
with that. It may be that a lot of people do it, and it may be
the way a lot of the world works. But I think one of the things
we are proud of is that our companies make their case on the
basis of quality of product, service, and price. What is your
position on vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act?
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Welch, for the question, and
thank you for the visit yesterday. I really enjoyed our
discussion.
I'm aware that there was a stay on FCPA cases based on an
executive order in February. There's now a Deputy Attorney
General Blanche memo from June of this year, and it set
parameters for these cases going forward. I will abide by that.
The focus will be on transnational criminal organizations where
bribes are involved and also market manipulation scams.
And now the Criminal Division has charged, I believe, eight
or nine of those cases this year, and just successfully
concluded a trial under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act where
there were guilty verdicts by the Criminal Division in that
case. And I look forward to abiding by that memo and
progressing the good work of the men and women in that section.
Senator Welch. I thank you. My time is up, but I spent a
lot of time giving a hard time to the Chairman, so I just have
one more question.
Senator Kennedy. You can have more time.
Senator Welch. Just one more question.
The Public Integrity Section has been decimated. People
have been sent from where they were working to other locations.
It is down from 20--there are only two attorneys and one
paralegal, and that is in contrast to 36 full-time career
attorneys and 12 paralegals. I believe that is an incredibly
important unit within your division. What are you going to do,
and what is your position about how that has been decimated?
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Welch. Ranking Member Durbin
asked me that question right out of the box, and I've answered
it a couple other times. I'm happy to answer it here. We're
going to evaluate that section. I've tried cases with the
Public Integrity Section. I know they've had very good lawyers
over the years. I want to evaluate with Deputy Attorney General
Blanche how that section is going to exist, how we might have a
nationwide approach because I believe that the Criminal
Division should have a footprint in nationwide public
corruption cases. That's something that I did as an AUSA. I
investigated and prosecuted public corruption cases at the
national, State, and local level, and I look forward to that
discussion, and thank you for the question, sir.
Senator Welch. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you
for being here.
Mr. Duva, I would like to start with you if that is okay.
Congratulations on your nomination to be the assistant attorney
general----
Mr. Duva. Thank you, sir.
Senator Lee [continuing]. Over the Criminal Division. Your
experience as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Middle District
of Florida will serve you well. In that role, you have done a
number of things, including going after major international
drug defendants and people who have done our country harm.
Over the last few years, we have seen a massive set of
gains achieved by international drug cartels who had a shocking
degree of permissiveness shown to them as they trafficked
millions upon millions of people into the United States,
illegal immigrants, who also trafficked an unprecedented amount
of harmful drugs, including enough fentanyl to kill a lot of
people in this country. How will you work, if confirmed as
assistant attorney general over the Criminal Division, to help
dismantle the international cartels and their drug trafficking
and human trafficking experts? And do you think that is a
battle we can win?
Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Lee. I appreciate the
opportunity to meet with your staff, met with your general
counsel and your chief of staff. We had a great meeting
yesterday. That's a great question. I've been doing that for
much of my career. At the U.S. Attorney's Offices, particularly
in the Middle District of Florida where I work, you build those
cases from the mid-level up, and it's a fight that we're always
going to fight. And I've seen firsthand in cartel-related cases
and also following the Take Back America memo of Deputy
Attorney General Blanche, that is going to be a foremost focus
of the Criminal Division to prosecute--investigate and
prosecute transnational drug crime.
As you mentioned, the drug cartels will do anything for
money. They'll traffic people, they'll traffic fentanyl. They
will take money from people operating legitimate businesses in
their space. They will internationally launder money in any way
possible. They're very good at it. But that's a fight that
we're never going to give up. We're going to work hand-in-hand
with the U.S. Attorney's office, the Dangerous Drug Section,
the Money Laundering Section, and we are going to investigate
those cases with vigor.
It's something that I did for many, many years, well over a
decade in the central part of our State. And it's not just
buying drugs off the corner. It's not doing the simple car
stops. Those are minor tools in those investigations. You build
them by your informant base, by your cooperating defendants, by
charging minimum mandatories, by flipping defendants,
proffering them, putting them in the grand jury, seeking
indictments of other individuals. And you do that from where I
did it in the Ocala Division, in the Jacksonville Division, in
the Middle District of Florida. You go south to Miami, you go
north to Atlanta. Those cases take you to the border. And they
end in Mexico and Colombia and other countries throughout the
world. I've worked with OIA to extricate defendants from
Colombia, from Mexico, and that's a fight that we're never
going to give up because it's critically important.
And I've seen that at the other end. I tried a case, one of
the most difficult cases I tried, a 19-year-old girl in
Jacksonville who had just graduated from a local high school
and had enlisted in the United States Army. Before she was
going to enlist, she had a summer job at a Cracker Barrel
restaurant. She got in with the wrong crowd. She was dating the
wrong guy. He and another guy got heroin laced with fentanyl.
First time drug user, dead. I sat in her parents' house and I
told her I would bring those to justice. And we didn't just
make the first case. We made the next level and the next level.
And we tried the last level of the case. That didn't bring
their daughter back. But I've seen that at that end, and I've
seen that at the 100-kilo end, and that's a fight that I'm
never giving up.
Senator Lee. It is a strange market, isn't it, that will
inject into their product another substance that is even more
deadly than the product they are selling. Ordinarily, wouldn't
that be a poor market decision to poison your own customer
base? And if so why does this happen in this industry?
Mr. Duva. The cartels will sell anything Americans and
other citizens throughout other countries will take.
Unfortunately, there's a demand for fentanyl. And you see
numerous overdoses with the same individuals. It creates a
horrific toll on them and their families and often leads to
death. And the cartels don't care. They know there's 365
million Americans. If they kill some, frankly, that's their
goal in many instances. But they will traffic whatever
Americans will take. And that's why, as the Department of
Justice, the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorney's Offices,
that has to remain at the forefront of the investigations and
prosecutions because it's disgusting, it's vile, and it ruins
people's lives.
Senator Lee. A few years ago, I spoke to a man whose
daughter had passed away under similarly tragic circumstances.
And I asked him a similar question and asked him, you know, why
would the dealer not see that book of business dry up after
that? And the answer was stunning. To the effect that there are
some dealers almost regard it as a plus, almost a selling
point. Wow, they have got strong product. Have you seen this
assumption being made?
Mr. Duva. Hundreds of times, sir.
Senator Lee. Yes, tragic. Thank you for your willingness to
serve.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duva, first of all, thank you for taking the time to
meet with my staff. I appreciate that.
I served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. I
was also in the Public Corruption, Government Fraud Section,
prosecuted corrupt government officials, fraud cases, an
espionage case against an FBI agent who spied for the Russians.
In all the time I was in the office--I was in the office for
about 6 years, so considerably less time than you were. But
nevertheless, never had any political figure contact me to tell
me you should bring a case against so-and-so or you should
refrain from bringing a case against so-and-so, never had that
experience. And I worked predominantly under Republican
Attorneys Generals until I think the end of my tenure in the
U.S. Attorney's. Was that your experience as well? Did you ever
have a political figure tell you who you should prosecute or
that you should refrain from prosecuting someone?
Mr. Duva. Senator, I enjoyed the meeting with your staff
yesterday. I see them behind you. We had a great discussion. I
thank you for that opportunity to be in your office.
And the answer to your question is no. Nobody's ever told
me to prosecute a specific person or not to prosecute a
specific person.
Senator Schiff. And how would you handle a circumstance
where someone did tell you to prosecute someone or that,
conversely, you should drop a case against someone for
political reasons?
Mr. Duva. Those who are responsible for my nomination, sir,
I'm confident that they know my background. I'm confident that
they know I've never done that and will never do it. And I'm
confident that they know that I will only follow the facts as
applied to the law.
As I said before to Ranking Member Durbin's question, any
kind of public corruption investigation--and you know this from
your 6 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central
District of California--there has to be predication. You can't
just investigate somebody to investigate somebody. There has to
be specific and articulable facts that predicate an
investigation. And I've evaluated that even to start an
investigation and worked hand-in-hand with the FBI when I've
done my local public corruption cases, my State-based public
corruption cases, and the nationwide public corruption cases
that I've investigated. If you don't have it, you don't start
it.
Senator Schiff. You know, Mr.--I heard you make a similar
response to Senator Durbin in terms of you don't think you will
be put in that position. And it calls to mind a conversation I
had with Mr. Blanche prior to his confirmation when I think he
expressed the same view, I am not going to be put in that
position. And we have heard that from any number of nominees in
this Administration. I don't expect I will ever be put in the
position that you are describing, and yet they almost all have.
I am grateful for your optimism, but I think it probably is
only a matter of time before you are put in that position. And
as my colleagues have indicated, I think the question is how
will you respond when you are put in that position, not whether
it will ever come up.
So let me ask you this. Ever since Watergate, there has
been a strong norm, guardrail that has maintained the
independence of the Justice Department from pressure from the
White House. This was part of the post-Watergate reforms. And
it served our country remarkably well in insulating the
Department from political pressure. Presidents over the course
of years have set general policies. I want to see more
prosecution of drug cases, or I want to see more prosecution of
corruption cases, or I want to see more prosecution of illegal
immigration cases. But since Watergate and until now, we have
not seen a White House identify individuals they want
prosecuted. This goes beyond anything I think we saw during
Watergate.
So let me ask you as a general matter, what is your view of
the desirability, I think necessity, of maintaining the
independence of the Justice Department from political pressure
emanating from the White House?
Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator. I look
forward to--of course my direct report will be Deputy Attorney
Blanche, who you mentioned. And I've had multiple interactions
with him. I believe he's doing a great job, and I look forward
to working with him to do what we've always done. He was an
AUSA in the Southern District of New York, just like you, just
like me. And I really don't believe I'll be put in that
position. When you look at the components of the Criminal
Division and what we do, these are nationwide impact cases for
all Americans. Should I be tasked with evaluating a public
corruption case like you're talking about, whatever that case
may be, I can assure you I will do it how I've always done it,
and that will be based on the facts and the law and the
independent decisions of the Justice Department to make those
charging decisions. And that's exactly how I'll operate, sir.
Senator Schiff. Well, Mr. Duva, I appreciate what I would
describe as the triumph of hope over experience in your
testimony. I hope your experience is commensurate with your
hope, but I fear it will be otherwise.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, congratulations on your nominations.
Mr. Duva, you have been nominated to serve as the assistant
attorney general for the Criminal Division. The Criminal
Division sits at the heart of the Department of Justice's
mission to protect the public. Your nomination comes at a
moment where Americans are looking for one simple thing, to
keep our cities safe, to keep our families safe because over
the last 5 years, we have watched a dangerous pattern take hold
in American cities. From 2020 to 2025, so-called peaceful
protests left behind more than $2 billion in property damage.
Blue cities--Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York,
St. Louis, Atlanta, and Los Angeles--in some instances, entire
downtowns burned, police precincts overrun, and small
businesses destroyed overnight. Nineteen people were killed
directly during the Black Lives Matter riots and hundreds more
died indirectly because ambulances couldn't get through and
police were overwhelmed.
After the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, anti-Semitic
mobs took over college campuses, threatening Jewish students,
seizing buildings, and spreading hate. And it didn't stop
there. In 2025, coordinated riots once again engulfed Los
Angeles and Portland before spreading across the country.
Mr. Duva, do you believe that these were spontaneous riots,
or do you believe they were organized and financed?
Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator Cruz. All of
those incidents you talked about were a real dark mark on our
history during that time. I watched it on TV. There is no place
for rioting, burning buildings, assaulting law enforcement
officers, and there did seem to be coordination behind those. I
agree with you. In any case that comes across the Criminal
Division, we will be evaluating that.
Again, I answered questions along that lines from Senator
Britt, whether it's religious violence, violence against law
enforcement officers, the Jewish community, or what have you.
We will prosecute those cases to the fullest extent of the law
and follow the facts where they lead. If they lead to
coordinated attacks, financing, things of that nature, we will
evaluate those cases through grand jury investigations and
prosecute them appropriately.
Senator Cruz. Excellent. Federal law right now criminalizes
rioting under 18 USC Section 2101, the Anti-Riot Act, which
makes it a Federal offense to travel or use interstate
facilities to incite, organize, promote, or participate in a
riot. The Biden Department of Justice refused to enforce that
law. Will you commit under your leadership the Department of
Justice will once again enforce Section 2101?
Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. I think the best way to do that is
you partner with the U.S. Attorney's Offices in those areas.
You mentioned Portland, Atlanta, some other cities, and that's
exactly what I intend to do as the head of the Criminal
Division, to have relationships with the U.S. attorneys in
those areas to contact them, let them know we don't just want
to operate on our own. You do that at times. The U.S.
Attorneys' Offices do it at times, but it's best when you work
together, and we will do that to prosecute that statute.
Senator Cruz. Excellent. Unfortunately, enforcing the Anti-
Riot Act is not enough to combat the 21st century leftist riots
that have burned our cities. Like the mafia of old, today's
agitators are part of a layered enterprise, the foot soldiers
on the ground and the financiers and masterminds who plan and
bankroll the operations. The Anti-Riot Act can reach the
rioters in the street but has difficulty reaching the
consiglieres and the dons who plan the chaos. That is why
Congress created RICO, the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act, to pierce the veil of coordination and hold
every level of a criminal network accountable. Mr. Duva, RICO
was one of the most powerful tools ever enacted and helped
break the back of organized crime in America. Do you agree that
that same model would be helpful in fighting today's
politically funded violence?
Mr. Duva. I do, sir. You have to have evidence of the
enterprise, and then you have to have the predicated crime set
forth in the RICO statute and also its sister statute, the
VICAR statute. Those are tools that I'm well familiar with from
my time as an AUSA. They were used in our Tampa division,
they've been used in our Jacksonville division, and they are
appropriate to evaluate in those circumstances.
Senator Cruz. Well, and that is precisely the logic behind
legislation that I have introduced called the Stop FUNDERs Act.
The Stop FUNDERs Act is simple. It adds rioting as a predicate
offense under RICO, empowering the prosecutors to follow the
money, to trace the network, and indict not just the rioter who
throws the brick but the donor who paid for it and put that
rioter in that position to carry out that act of violence. It
would give DOJ the tools to dismantle the financial
architecture of political violence.
In your judgment, would adding rioting to the list of
predicate offenses under RICO aid in enabling the Department of
Justice to fight and stop political violence and organized
violence and rioting across the country?
Mr. Duva. We will take all the tools we can get, Senator. I
look forward to those discussions with the Office of
Legislative Affairs and Legal Policy.
Senator Cruz. Terrific, thank you very much.
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Kennedy. Justice Crain, we elect judges in
Louisiana, do we not?
Judge Crain. We do.
Senator Kennedy. And we have elected judges--our people
have decided to elect judges for a long, long, long time,
haven't they?
Judge Crain. As long as I can research, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Are you responsible for that system of
choosing judges?
Judge Crain. Not at all.
Senator Kennedy. When you run for judge, can you solicit
campaign contributions?
Judge Crain. You cannot.
Senator Kennedy. You have run three times.
Judge Crain. I have.
Senator Kennedy. Have you ever solicited a campaign
contribution?
Judge Crain. I have not.
Senator Kennedy. You have to go through a committee, do you
not?
Judge Crain. That's correct.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Now, one of my colleagues, not
Senator Welch, suggested that you live in the left front pocket
of the oil and gas industry. Is that true?
Judge Crain. That is absolutely not true, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Do you live in anybody's left front
pocket?
Judge Crain. The only pocket I live in is the rule of law,
Senator, and I think that my record reflects that.
Senator Kennedy. That has certainly been my experience. I
just wanted to clear that up.
Judge Crain. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Duva, you've heard the expression
lawfare, have you not?
Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. What does that mean to you?
Mr. Duva. Well, I think lawfare gets to the alleged
weaponization of the Justice Department and things----
Senator Kennedy. What does that mean?
Mr. Duva. Well, it's a term that's been used quite a bit. I
think it means that the Justice Department becomes the tool of
a sitting President or the Congress or whoever to do its
bidding and that only and not follow the law, not follow the
facts as applied to the law. What we will do is not do that. We
will do the converse of that.
Senator Kennedy. Why is that dangerous?
Mr. Duva. Because it leads to bias. It leads to improper
prosecution. It leads to messes in courtrooms. There's a reason
there's a Justice Manual. There's a reason that there is Rule
6(e) on the----
Senator Kennedy. I don't want to talk about the manual. I
want to talk about just basic human decency and common sense.
Mr. Duva. It also erodes the faith of the justice system in
our citizens. That is dangerous because it is based on those
citizens where the end result--the citizens become jurors, and
we need jurors to have confidence in the Justice Department and
the prosecutions that it brings to fairly evaluate cases.
Senator Kennedy. Let me put it this way. Our judicial
branch doesn't have an army, does it?
Mr. Duva. It does not.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Our judicial branch at the Federal
and the State level depends on its legitimacy for enforcement.
I mean, people have to believe that justice--even though they
may disagree with the result, people have to believe in the
integrity of the system, do they not?
Mr. Duva. They do because as I mentioned with jurors, if
they don't and they're selected on a jury, they're not going to
follow the judge's instructions to evaluate the cases based on
the facts and the law. So it depends on the citizens to help us
with the end result. And if that's eroded on the front end,
it's eroded on the back end.
Senator Kennedy. All right. If I am a candidate for
district attorney and I run for district attorney, saying if
you elect me, people, I am going to prosecute Joe Blow, a well-
known political figure. Is that lawfare?
Mr. Duva. It is. That's inappropriate.
Senator Kennedy. That undermines the integrity of the
criminal justice system, doesn't it?
Mr. Duva. Absolutely.
Senator Kennedy. That suggests that justice isn't blind,
doesn't it?
Mr. Duva. It sure does.
Senator Kennedy. Now, you know, nobody is blameless here. I
remember when this nonsense started under President Biden, and
I remember thinking they have unleashed spirits they cannot
control. This has got to stop.
Now, I am a United States Senator. I am also on the
Appropriations Committee. I even have influence over your
budget, don't I?
Mr. Duva. You do, sir.
Senator Kennedy. And let's suppose I tweet out, I am really
mad at Joe Blow, and I think the Justice Department ought to
prosecute him. Do I have the right to do that under the First
Amendment? I am not asking you whether it is wise. I am asking
you whether I have the right.
Mr. Duva. You do. You can tweet--as long as it's non-
violent. You can tweet whatever thought you want.
Senator Kennedy. You have the right to ignore me, don't
you?
Mr. Duva. Absolutely.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Let me ask you about being a
prosecutor. I have never been a prosecutor. As a prosecutor,
you have a moral obligation to yourself and to the criminal
justice system not to bring a criminal prosecution unless you
think the defendant is guilty. Is that accurate?
Mr. Duva. Yes. In the Justice Manual, you have to have the
reasonable----
Senator Kennedy. I don't care about the manual.
Mr. Duva [continuing]. Probability of conviction.
Senator Kennedy. I am talking about common human decency.
Is that correct?
Mr. Duva. Yes, you have to know you have it.
Senator Kennedy. Is that a principle that you agree with?
Mr. Duva. 100 percent.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you not only have to believe
that the defendant is guilty, you have to believe that you can
prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?
Mr. Duva. You do. You have to have the facts. Without the
facts, you have nothing.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is that a principle that you
possess?
Mr. Duva. I do, and that's how I've operated for 18 years.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you also have to believe, do you
not, that the prosecution is in the public interest? Is that
correct?
Mr. Duva. You do.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Now, if one of your superiors came
to you--well, let me answer the question for you for how I
would do it. If one of my superiors came to me and said, look,
you got to prosecute this case, and I looked at it, and either
I didn't believe that the defendant was guilty, or I didn't
believe I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or I
thought it was not in the public interest because it would
undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, I would
resign.
Mr. Duva. You would decline the matter.
Senator Kennedy. Sir?
Mr. Duva. You would decline the matter, for sure.
Senator Kennedy. Right. And if they told me--if my superior
said, look, Kennedy, you know, what planet did you just
parachute in from? You don't have a choice. I am your boss. I
am telling you to do it. I would resign. How about you?
Mr. Duva. I have no problem doing that. I would first just
say, we're not doing this case, and here's all the reasons, and
the discussion could go from there.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And if you were told to do it or
quit, what would you do?
Mr. Duva. I'd quit.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Would you ever advise a client not
to follow a Federal court order?
Mr. Duva. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy. I appreciate that. I appreciate you not
qualifying it. It is okay to disagree with a Federal judge
ruling, isn't it?
Mr. Duva. I often have.
Senator Kennedy. Yep. It is okay to appeal it.
Mr. Duva. Absolutely. We have an appellate section. It's
one of the best sections in the Criminal Division.
Senator Kennedy. Within the bounds of legal ethics, it is
okay to criticize it, isn't it?
Mr. Duva. Yes, internally.
Senator Kennedy. But you got to follow it, don't you?
Mr. Duva. You do, absolutely.
Senator Kennedy. Because that is called the rule of law,
isn't it?
Mr. Duva. It is, and without that, you have anarchy and no
confidence in the Justice Department.
Senator Kennedy. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the
frank answers.
Mr. Duva. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kennedy. All right, gentlemen, this hearing is
concluded. I got to read this, folks. Thank you to the nominees
for your testimony today. Written questions for the record may
be submitted until October 29 at 5 p.m.
Justice Crain, how many times has Judge Crain, your dad,
texted you during this hearing?
Judge Crain. Quite a number of texts and phone calls.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. I served with Justice Crain's father, just
one of the best judges I have ever seen.
Thank you for your patience today, and thanks to all the
audience members for sitting through this.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X
The following submissions are available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg62746/pdf/CHRG-
119shrg
62746-add1.pdf
Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:
Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Opposition to Crain, statement....... 2
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Opposition to
Crain, statement.............................................. 4
National Women's Law Center (the ``Law Center''), Opposition to
Crain, statement.............................................. 6
People For the American Way, Opposition to Crain, statement...... 12
[all]