{"id":159696,"date":"2026-08-06T12:51:51","date_gmt":"2026-08-06T20:51:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/08\/06\/adam-schiff-has-had-it-with-trumps-election-denying-judicial-nominees-same-honestly\/"},"modified":"2026-08-06T12:51:51","modified_gmt":"2026-08-06T20:51:51","slug":"adam-schiff-has-had-it-with-trumps-election-denying-judicial-nominees-same-honestly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/08\/06\/adam-schiff-has-had-it-with-trumps-election-denying-judicial-nominees-same-honestly\/","title":{"rendered":"Adam Schiff Has Had It With Trump\u2019s Election-Denying Judicial Nominees. Same, Honestly."},"content":{"rendered":"

At Wednesday\u2019s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Adam Schiff tried something different. Instead of asking Trump judicial nominee Gregory Carl Cook directly who won the 2020 election \u2014 a question that has produced the same scripted non-answer from every single one of Trump\u2019s second-term nominees<\/a> \u2014 he started earlier. Much earlier.<\/p>\n

Who won the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain?<\/p>\n

\u201cI believe President Obama was sworn into office, so I\u2019m certain he won, Senator,\u201d Cook said.<\/p>\n

And John McCain lost?<\/p>\n

Cook agreed.<\/p>\n

2012? Obama again, Cook confirmed. 2016? Well, with the popular vote and electoral vote being split took a moment to drill down on. \u201c[Trump] was sworn into office,\u201d Cook said. \u201cSo, as a matter of law, he was elected to that office.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo Donald Trump won that election,\u201d Schiff verified.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat would be the natural assumption,\u201d Cook said. \u201cYes, Senator.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schiff followed up on that one, \u201cIs it really an assumption you have to make? Did Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHe did,\u201d Cook said. Schiff continued, \u201cDo you have some uncertainty about whether he won that election?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo. I\u2019m trying to be precise about what I\u2019m saying,\u201d Cook said, \u201cYes, he won in the Electoral College.\u201d<\/p>\n

All perfectly sensible. All perfectly easy. And then:<\/p>\n

2020?<\/p>\n

Cook \u2014 a sitting Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Harvard Law graduate, former Trump delegate to the 2020 Republican National Convention, and, critically, a man who traveled to Florida in 2000 as a volunteer attorney for Bush v. Gore<\/em><\/a> to personally oversee the hand recounting of ballots \u2014 suddenly developed an epistemological crisis about the nature of electoral certainty. <\/p>\n

Cook\u2019s said, \u201cWell,\u00a0Joe Biden<\/a>\u00a0was certified by a joint session of Congress, and so, as a matter of law, he was the elected president,\u201d Cook said.<\/p>\n

Schiff wasn\u2019t satisfied with that, \u201cAs a matter of fact, who won that election? Just as a simple matter of fact, somebody asked you out on the street, who won the election in 2020? What would your answer be? Who won and who lost?\u201d<\/p>\n

This is a man who counted hanging chads. He understands how elections work. He understands what \u201cwinning\u201d means. He is choosing not to say it, as a condition of his nomination to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.<\/p>\n

Schiff\u2019s exchange with Cook is the sharpest illustration yet of what former prosecutor Sean Murphy described just this week<\/a> at a Capitol Hill press event: \u201cThis is not a problem of perspective or political persuasion. It is a fundamental question of competence.\u201d And you can see how Schiff really focuses on this fact.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhy is it difficult for you to answer a simple factual question about who won presidential elections?\u201d he asked. \u201cWhen did it become so difficult to answer such a simple question? And how can we expect you to rely on the facts when you\u2019re evaluating a case?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is getting absurd. Even Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, was caught on a hot mic recently wondering aloud: \u201cWhat would be wrong if they said Biden won?\u201d Great question, Senator. Truly.<\/p>\n

Watch the exchange below. <\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Earlier:<\/strong> Former Federal Prosecutors To Senate: Stop Confirming Election Deniers To The Federal Bench<\/a>
The Dems Helping Donald Trump Load Up The Federal Bench<\/a>
Donald Trump\u2019s Second Shot At Remaking The Federal Judiciary Has Officially Begun<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The post Adam Schiff Has Had It With Trump\u2019s Election-Denying Judicial Nominees. Same, Honestly.<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At Wednesday\u2019s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Adam Schiff tried something different. Instead of asking Trump judicial nominee Gregory Carl Cook directly who won the 2020 election \u2014 a question that has produced the same scripted non-answer from every single one of Trump\u2019s second-term nominees<\/a> \u2014 he started earlier. Much earlier.<\/p>\n

Who won the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain?<\/p>\n

\u201cI believe President Obama was sworn into office, so I\u2019m certain he won, Senator,\u201d Cook said.<\/p>\n

And John McCain lost?<\/p>\n

Cook agreed.<\/p>\n

2012? Obama again, Cook confirmed. 2016? Well, with the popular vote and electoral vote being split took a moment to drill down on. \u201c[Trump] was sworn into office,\u201d Cook said. \u201cSo, as a matter of law, he was elected to that office.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo Donald Trump won that election,\u201d Schiff verified.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat would be the natural assumption,\u201d Cook said. \u201cYes, Senator.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schiff followed up on that one, \u201cIs it really an assumption you have to make? Did Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHe did,\u201d Cook said. Schiff continued, \u201cDo you have some uncertainty about whether he won that election?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo. I\u2019m trying to be precise about what I\u2019m saying,\u201d Cook said, \u201cYes, he won in the Electoral College.\u201d<\/p>\n

All perfectly sensible. All perfectly easy. And then:<\/p>\n

2020?<\/p>\n

Cook \u2014 a sitting Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Harvard Law graduate, former Trump delegate to the 2020 Republican National Convention, and, critically, a man who traveled to Florida in 2000 as a volunteer attorney for Bush v. Gore<\/em><\/a> to personally oversee the hand recounting of ballots \u2014 suddenly developed an epistemological crisis about the nature of electoral certainty. <\/p>\n

Cook\u2019s said, \u201cWell,\u00a0Joe Biden<\/a>\u00a0was certified by a joint session of Congress, and so, as a matter of law, he was the elected president,\u201d Cook said.<\/p>\n

Schiff wasn\u2019t satisfied with that, \u201cAs a matter of fact, who won that election? Just as a simple matter of fact, somebody asked you out on the street, who won the election in 2020? What would your answer be? Who won and who lost?\u201d<\/p>\n

This is a man who counted hanging chads. He understands how elections work. He understands what \u201cwinning\u201d means. He is choosing not to say it, as a condition of his nomination to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.<\/p>\n

Schiff\u2019s exchange with Cook is the sharpest illustration yet of what former prosecutor Sean Murphy described just this week<\/a> at a Capitol Hill press event: \u201cThis is not a problem of perspective or political persuasion. It is a fundamental question of competence.\u201d And you can see how Schiff really focuses on this fact.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhy is it difficult for you to answer a simple factual question about who won presidential elections?\u201d he asked. \u201cWhen did it become so difficult to answer such a simple question? And how can we expect you to rely on the facts when you\u2019re evaluating a case?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is getting absurd. Even Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, was caught on a hot mic recently wondering aloud: \u201cWhat would be wrong if they said Biden won?\u201d Great question, Senator. Truly.<\/p>\n

Watch the exchange below. <\/p>\n