CT Committee approves Nora Dannehy for state Supreme Court after questions about Russia-collusion investigation
The Legislatures’ Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly endorsed longtime federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy’s nomination to the state Supreme Court Wednesday after extensive questioning that began with her disclosure that she resigned from what has become known as the Russia investigation because of improper political pressure from former U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
It was the first time Dannehy has spoken publicly about her decision to leave the investigative team led by a colleague, former U.S. Attorney John Durham. Among other things, Dannehy said Barr pressed the Durham team to produce an interim report, presumably critical of the treatment of former President Donald J. Trump, that she feared could have influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election had it been published.
“I had been taught and spent my entire career at the Department of Justice conducting any investigation in an objective and apolitical manner,” Dannhey told state Rep. Steven Strafstrom, the Democratic co-chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary committee, at the start of a 3-hour hearing. “In the spring and summer of 2020 I had growing concern that this Russia investigation was not being conducted in that way.”
“Attorney General Barr began to speak more publicly and specifically about the ongoing criminal investigation,” Dannehy said. “I thought his public comments violated DOJ guidelines. In the late summer of 2020, just months before the 2020 presidential election, he wanted a report written about our ongoing investigation.”
“Publicly, he would not rule out releasing that report before the presidential election,” she said. “I had never been asked to write a report about an investigation that was not yet complete. I then saw a version of a draft report, the conclusions of which I strongly disagreed with. Writing a report – and particularly the draft I saw – violated long standing principles of the Department of Justice. Furthermore the department of justice has a longstanding policy of not taking any public actions in the time leading up to an election that might influence that election.”
“I simply could be part of it so I resigned,” she said. “It was the most difficult personal and professional decision I’ve had to make.”
Trump-Russia special counsel Durham at center of political clash as he appears before Congress
Dannehy responded to questions on a variety of legal topics. She criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which held there is no federal right to abortion. And she called the long prison sentences associated with a state and federal crackdown on drugs and violent crime in the 1990s “a massive failure.”
During a roll call, vote, more than 30 members of the committee eventually recommended her nomination to the Supreme Court by Gov. Ned Lamont with only three no votes. The voting was to remain open until 3 p.m. The House and Senate are expected to vote to confirm Dannehy during special session on Tuesday.
Dannehy appeared to have won votes that had been expected to be against her. Some committee members, reflecting criticism by interest groups, have expressed concern that former prosecutors are over represented in the state judiciary. To further diversity the judiciary, they have called for the appointment of judges who are more diverse, both professionally and racially.
Some lawmakers who appeared initially critical of Dannehy’ s prosecutorial background, later voted to recommend her confirmation. Although Dannehy, 62, has been a federal prosecutor specializing in the investigation of financial fraud and political corruption for most of her career, she also has worked in private practice, was appointed by former Attorney General George Jepsen as his chief deputy, ran the global ethics and compliance until for what was then United Technologies Corp. and served as Lamont’s general counsel during the corona virus pandemic.
She described her self, while working in Lamont’s office, as a lawyer rather than a “policy person.” Much of her work for the governor during the pandemic involved vetting sometimes controversial emergency executive orders such as those that closed business and led to legal challenges.
“It was done with the intention of following the law and keeping the people of Connecticut safe,” she said. “That was the governor’s main goal.”
Dannehy said that if she is confirmed and a legal challenge of an emergency order again reach the Supreme Court, she will recuse herself if her work for Lamont presents the appearance of a conflict.
But questions about her departure from the Durham investigation three years ago held the committee’s attention for the early part of the hearing. Durham, who worked with Dannehy for more than a decade in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Haven, recruited her to the Russian investigation after he was appointed by Barr.
She said the purpose of the Durham probe was to investigate the actions by U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI in response to allegations that Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with entities in Russia. Durham concluded there was no collusion, that the allegations were part of an elaborate political attack and he issued a report earlier this year that was sharply critical of the FBI’s co-called collusion investigations.
Durham’s probe, which resulted in two acquittals and a guilty plea, remains a point of sharp political disagreement.
Durham never issued the interim report that Dannehy testified about and she was not asked at the hearing if she knows what became of it. She said she made her views about Barr’s meddling known to others on the Durham team, but was not persuasive. She said she is unable to go into detail about the disagreement because she and others on the term were involved in the analysis of “highly classified information” that cannot be discussed.
Asked whether she viewed Barr’s involvement as “political,” Dannehy said, “It was my view that the actions of the attorney general were not in keeping with (Department of Justice) principles. It was certainly taken in a political way …but whether he intended that, I don’t know.”
Dannehy said she does not know what discussion may have taken place between Barr and the Durham team after her departure. She said she learned another team member resigned, but she is not aware of the circumstances.