During a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wednesday to consider the confirmation of the Assistant Attorney General, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) grilled Assistant Attorney General nominee John Eisenberg on allegedly retaliating against Eugene Vindman after he reported President Trump's 2019 call with President Zelenskyy.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I'm going to start with Mr.
00:07Eisenberg.
00:09As he knows, and everybody on
00:11this committee knows, protecting
00:13whistleblowers is very important
00:15to me.
00:17I want to ask about a 2022
00:19Department of Defense IG report
00:21claiming that you retaliated
00:23against Eugene Vindman for
00:26reporting President Trump's
00:28call with President Zelensky.
00:32I have serious concerns about
00:34the political motivations
00:36underlying the whole issue, and
00:38I have questions about the
00:40report itself, but I want to
00:42hear from you directly.
00:44How do you respond to the
00:46charge that you retaliated
00:48against Mr. Vindman?
00:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
00:52that question.
00:54First, I wholeheartedly deny
00:57that.
00:59I would never let anything
01:01other than the facts of how
01:03someone is performing enter
01:05into an evaluation.
01:07If I had done so, I would not
01:09be here seeking this office.
01:11Let me note one other thing at
01:13the beginning.
01:15I was in the White House at the
01:17time.
01:19All of these events happened
01:21within that confines, and so
01:23virtually everything is subject
01:25to the law.
01:27I was in the White House at the
01:29time.
01:31I was in the White House at the
01:33time.
01:35I was in the White House at the
01:37time.
01:39My attorney advised me that we
01:41would need the permission of
01:43both the then-current Biden
01:45administration and the former
01:47Trump administration.
01:49That's because they were the
01:51holders of the privilege, of
01:53course, to get that permission
01:55until after that report dropped.
01:57Consequently, the Office of the
01:59Inspector General was wholly
02:01without anybody telling that
02:03side of the story.
02:05I did not, and none of the other
02:07people that had allegations
02:09against them in that report were
02:11able to sit for an interview.
02:13Now, that stuff, that material
02:15is in general subject to
02:17executive privilege, but I feel
02:19like I could give a few examples
02:21of how Mr. Vindman changed, just
02:23based on what's in the IG report,
02:25which is now public.
02:27As an initial matter, it's clear
02:29that I told Mr. Vindman at some
02:31point that in order to go to
02:33meetings over a certain level or
02:35about certain topics, he needed
02:37to get permission from either me
02:39or my deputy, but then we find
02:41out that Mr. Vindman would add
02:43himself to meetings, which means
02:45he was trying to get into that
02:47meeting, even if I had made no
02:49determination that he shouldn't be
02:51there. Meetings like this aren't
02:53standard meetings within a company
02:55trying to figure out how much product
02:57to make this year. Those meetings
02:59have some of the most sensitive
03:01information that the United States
03:03government has, and the deliberations
03:05in those meetings can often be
03:07extraordinarily sensitive in and of
03:09itself, so you only send somebody
03:11to a meeting if they have something
03:13to add to that meeting. Otherwise,
03:15you're exposing someone to classified
03:17there's no reason for it, and we're not supposed
03:19to do that.
03:21We even found out
03:23subsequently that Mr. Vindman went
03:25to a meeting after I had told
03:27him expressly not to go to
03:29that meeting.
03:31At another time, we found out that Mr.
03:33Vindman was seeking reimbursement
03:35for his brother's travel expenses
03:37to Ukraine.
03:39Both my deputy
03:41and I told Mr. Vindman that he couldn't
03:43do that, that there was an obvious conflict of interest.
03:45Nevertheless, we heard that Mr. Vindman
03:47continued to do that.
03:49Relatedly, we heard
03:51that, and this is in the IG report as well,
03:53we heard that Mr. Vindman,
03:55that a particular witness reported
03:57that Mr. Vindman
03:59turned red in the face when he
04:01met some resistance to getting
04:03money
04:05on behalf of his brother.
04:07I wouldn't tolerate that in my office
04:09if someone goes and tries to intimidate,
04:11yells, or anything.
04:13It's critically important that,
04:15especially lawyers in the NSC,
04:17act like
04:19lawyers.
04:21That's not everything by any stretch,
04:23but it's the stuff I can glean from the
04:25public report.
04:27Mr. Shumate,
04:29I've got an opening statement.
04:31I'm going to just
04:33quote
04:35Justice Kagan
04:37on
04:39nationwide
04:41injunctions.
04:43It just can't be right that one
04:45district judge can stop nationwide
04:47policy in its tracks
04:49and leave it stopped for years
04:51it takes to go through the normal
04:53process.
04:55What is your perspective on the use of
04:57nationwide injunctions,
04:59and is there a role for Congress to play
05:01in ending the practice?
05:03Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
05:05I agree with that sentiment. We've seen
05:07an unprecedented number of nationwide
05:09universal injunctions just in the
05:11first two months of the Trump
05:13administration.
05:15The department's position has been consistent
05:17across administrations that
05:19single district court judges do not
05:21have the power to issue nationwide or universal
05:23relief. Our position flows
05:25from Article III of the Constitution, which
05:27limits courts to deciding the
05:29case or controversy before them,
05:31and courts are supposed to apply
05:33doctrines like standing and reviewability
05:35and scope of relief to award relief
05:37to the party before them and redress
05:39that injury, not go beyond the parties.
05:41But we've seen district court judges grant
05:43relief far beyond the parties
05:45to those cases to enjoin the
05:47executive branch nationwide
05:49or universally.
05:51In terms of whether there's a role for Congress to play,
05:53yes, Senator, the Constitution
05:55creates one Supreme Court
05:57but vests in Congress the authority
05:59to ordain and establish the lower
06:01courts, and over time Congress has certainly
06:03created courts, eliminated courts,
06:05created jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction,
06:07and created special review
06:09procedures for review of
06:11agency action, whether it's three judge
06:13courts or direct review
06:15in the courts of appeals. So certainly
06:17there is a role for Congress to play, Senator.
06:19Senator Durbin.