They are indeed. They are verbatim out of the Taranto column posted on this thread.
Given her poor grammar, poorly constructed arguments, and her potential for "growth" evident in the documents Taranto cites, we can count on the MSM to come to her defense any moment now.
They are her words, but they are not writings. They are testimony. They are not prepared testimony, but are answers to questions.
One could imagine that a lawyer who filed briefs with appelate courts has the capacity for better communication than what is found in this transcript of testimony.
If you want to say that you hope she would be able to answer questions better on her feet, I will support that, except that this was 16 years ago, so I think I'd rather see how she does in the committee hearings.
I read the opinion columns Brooks referenced. He suggested that they were legal writing, and that they weren't well-written legal writing.
But they were not legal briefs. They were messages from the head of an organization to its members in a newsletter, and that is how they were written. They were folksy, personal, and effusive. They were exactly what you would expect. There was nothing wrong with them, at least the 8 that I read.