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.
Comments