Last
week,Trump
judicial
nominee
Kara
Westercamp
had
the
ignominious
task
of
apologizing
for
her
social
media
use
in
her
appearance
before
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
which
is
deeply
millennial-coded.
Westercamp,
currently
serving
in
the
White
House
Counsel’s
Office,
is
Donald
Trump’s
pick
for
a
lifetime
appointment
on
the
U.S.
Court
of
International
Trade.
And
yes,
the
subject
of
her
questionable
Twitter
account
absolutely
came
up.
According
to
reporting
from
Balls
&
Strikes,
Westercamp’s
social
media
history
is
a
deeply
online
hodgepodge
of
far-right
talking
points.
And
though,
yes,
she
took
the
CYA
step
of
protecting
her
tweets,
the
internet
has
a
way
of
remembering
(it’s
the
wayback
machine).
Also
scattered
across
Westercamp’s
timeline
between
October
2016
and
February
2023
are
tweets
and
retweets
that
(among
many
other
things)
question
the
results
of
the
2020
election,
parrot
transphobic
talking
points,
sympathize
with
January
6
insurrectionists,
and
generally
express
unbridled
enthusiasm
for
Trump
and
his
political
movement.
Plus
she
refers
to
Senator
Mitch
McConnell
as
“Cocaine
Mitch”
—
a
nickname
that,
while
not
exactly
obscure
in
certain
corners
of
the
internet,
tends
to
raise
eyebrows
when
you’re
asking
that
same
Senate
to
hand
you
a
lifetime
appointment.
She
also
took
swings
at
Senate
Democrats
as
well
as
Lindsey
Graham
and
Susan
Collins,
proving
once
again
that
bipartisan
snark
is
still…
snark.
To
her
credit
(or
at
least
to
her
survival
instincts),
Westercamp
came
to
the
hearing
prepared
to
eat
a
healthy
portion
of
crow.
“I
do
sincerely
apologize
for
those
posts,”
she
told
the
committee,
emphasizing
they
were
made
in
her
“personal
capacity.”
She
added
that
she
has
“seriously
considered”
deactivating
her
X
account.
But
the
real
trouble
started
when
Ranking
Member
of
the
Committee,
Dick
Durbin,
turned
the
conversation
to
January
6.
Specifically,
Westercamp’s
apparent
amplification
of
posts
downplaying
the
violence
of
the
Capitol
attack.
Westercamp
insisted
she
condemns
the
violence
of
that
day,
but
when
pressed
on
whether
she
would
reject
conspiracy
theories
suggesting
law
enforcement,
rather
than
rioters,
were
responsible,
she
sidestepped.
The
retweets,
she
explained,
came
from
“people
I
don’t
know,”
and
she
now
regrets
sharing
them.
That’s…
not
exactly
the
full-throated
rejection
of
conspiracy
nonsense
one
might
hope
for
from
a
would-be
federal
judge.
Or,
frankly,
from
anyone
with
a
law
license.
Look,
everyone
understands
that
lawyers
are
human
beings
who
occasionally
say
controversial
things
online.
(Some
of
us
even
make
a
career
out
of
it.)
But
there’s
a
difference
between
a
stray
hot
take
and
a
pattern
of
posts
that
call
into
question
your
judgment…
especially
when
you’re
angling
for
a
lifetime
gig
interpreting
federal
law.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].