Trump COLLAPSES as His Judicial Nominees Make DAMNING Admissions at Senate Hearing!

[0:06] who won more votes well joe biden received um more electoral votes um who won more votes in [0:15] the election among the american people as a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election [0:21] is he eligible to run for a third term under our constitution um i would have to to review [0:27] the the all i need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear [0:31] that no he is not eligible to run for the third term anybody else brave enough to say that the [0:35] constitution the united states prevents president trump from seeking a third term one by one [0:40] donald trump's handpicked nominees for lifetime federal judgeships are collapsing in real time [0:44] under the most basic questions imaginable both democratic and republican senators are asking [0:49] them the simplest tests of constitutional knowledge and basic honesty is donald trump eligible for a [0:55] third term who won the 2020 election was january 6th an attack on the united states capitol when [1:02] does the president need congress's permission to use military force and every single time these [1:07] nominees freeze dodge stammer and hide behind rehearsed excuses these are not serious legal [1:13] minds these are among the most poorly prepared loyalty first candidates ever put forward for the [1:18] federal bench they cannot even affirm the plain text of the constitution when it inconveniences the [1:24] man who nominated them watch what happens when the pressure hits um just tell me about the 22nd [1:30] amendment what does it provide the 22nd amendment senator my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution [1:38] i haven't had an opportunity to to use that one specifically anyone able to help on the 22nd [1:43] amendment to the united states constitution well senator i believe it is the amendment that deals with a [1:48] two-term limitation correct it states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than [1:54] twice mr mark is president trump eligible to run for president again in 2028 senator with a with [2:01] out considering all the facts and and looking at everything depending on what the situation is this [2:06] to me strikes is more of a hypothetical of something that could it's not a hypothetical has [2:11] president trump been elected president twice president trump has been certified the president [2:16] of the united states two times is he eligible to run for a third term under our constitution um i [2:21] would have to to review the the all i need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment [2:26] that makes it clear that no he is not eligible to run for the third term anybody else brave enough to [2:31] say that the constitution of the united states prevents president trump from seeking a third [2:35] term anybody willing to apply the constitution by its plain language in the 22nd amendment nobody [2:43] all right let's move on the 22nd amendment has been crystal clear since 1951 no person shall be [2:49] elected president more than twice yet when these trump nominees are asked to apply that exact language to [2:55] the man who nominated them the room goes dead silent not one will say it they call it a hypothetical [3:01] this is not judicial caution this is deliberate evasion a federal judge is supposed to read the [3:07] constitution as written not rewrite it to protect the powerful that is how term limits die not with [3:13] a new amendment with silence then senator blumenthal cross-examines these individuals who trump [3:18] wants to appoint to federal judgeships judgeships who won the 2020 election here play this clip is [3:24] greater than who won the 2020 election senator i wanted to be mindful of the canons here i know [3:33] this question has come up many times in these hearings and it's become an issue of significant [3:39] political dispute and debate so with that i'd say that that president biden was certified the winner of [3:48] the 2020 election he won the election is that your response senator i think my response is he was [3:54] certified as the winner by counting the election though you're unwilling to say he won the election [3:58] how about you mr roberts i'm sorry senator uh i'm sorry mr jones i apologize senator uh i have this [4:06] same answer as my colleague senator same answer as the previous one the previous nominee the senate did [4:12] mr coons how about you thank you senator and i have the same answer as mr same answer unwilling to [4:19] say that joe biden won the election correct as mr hendershot said it has become a matter of political [4:28] concern and joe biden well it's a matter of political concern but it's also an issue of fact is it not [4:35] joe biden was in fact certified the winner of the 2020 election mr mark same answer senator i am uh amazed [4:48] and really appalled that nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are unwilling to [5:04] respond on an issue of fact and i'm not going to try to get an answer out of you because clearly you've [5:11] been rehearsed to provide a stock answer which i think really reflects not only on your honesty but [5:23] really on your fitness to be a federal judge because you are supposed to be independent and [5:31] to arrive at the truth based on the evidence before you and i think it's pretty irrefutable that joe biden [5:38] won the election but you're unwilling to use that word because you are afraid you are afraid of what [5:51] president trump that is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench when pressed every single [5:59] nominee repeats the same rehearsed line a sitting senator finally says what everyone can see they [6:04] are afraid afraid of donald trump these are people seeking lifetime power on the federal bench [6:11] yet under oath they refuse to acknowledge a settled fact because it might anger the man who nominated [6:15] them that is not judicial independence that is fear dressed up as caution and it has no place in an [6:22] american courtroom but under relentless pressure some of them finally crack and what they are forced to [6:28] admit is even more revealing who won the 2020 election senator as a matter of law joe biden was [6:34] the winner of the 2020 election who got more votes senator my focus as a judicial nominee is on the law [6:43] and as a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election who got more electoral college votes joe biden [6:51] received more electoral college votes and was the capital attacked on january 6th senator as part of my work [7:00] as an assistant united states attorney pardon me i had the opportunity to look at pictures and videos [7:07] from that day and what i saw in those was that officers law enforcement officers were attacked [7:14] and the building was damaged and vandalized mr pozos uh who won the 2020 election [7:23] can you get closer to the mic or turn it on my apologies senator i would agree with my fellow nominee's [7:28] answer senator you're going to stick with that script senator i don't believe it's a script uh [7:36] president biden was certified as the winner who got more popular votes uh senator uh with respect to [7:42] the popular vote my role as a nominee here is to speak to the law who got more votes in the electoral [7:48] college senator my understanding is that joseph biden received more votes in the electoral was the [7:53] capital attacked on january 6th um senator i've certainly seen videos relating to what occurred at [8:00] the capital on that date um from what i saw it appeared that there was violence and trespass as [8:05] my fellow nominee said uh it's profoundly troubling and i have so the capital was attacked senator i [8:11] would hesitate to characterize uh what you'd hesitate to tell the truth here ms ms uh colomero uh who won [8:22] the 2020 election senator as a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election who got more votes in the [8:29] popular election um senator similar to my fellow nominees i'm here also to speak about the law and [8:36] as a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election as a matter of law yes senator who who won more votes [8:44] well joe biden received um more electoral votes um who won more votes in the election among the american [8:53] people as a matter of law joe biden won the 2020 election was the cap they finally concede the bare minimum [8:59] even when shown the evidence they retreat into careful rehearsed language designed to avoid [9:04] angering donald trump this is not independence this is damage control these nominees are revealing the [9:09] real qualification trump demands the ability to acknowledge just enough truth to survive a hearing [9:15] while never fully confronting the reality that threatens his narrative that is the kind of judge he [9:20] wants on the federal bench for life to us let me try another question was uh the capitol attacked [9:29] on january 6th mr hendershot senator this the same kind of question has come up i know many times [9:37] in these hearings and under canon 5 which i consider myself bound by that is a matter of significant [9:44] political controversy it's a matter of what it is a matter of significant political controversy it's [9:53] a matter of controversy that the capital of the united states was attacked you've seen the videos [10:00] have you not i've not seen many of the videos to be honest how do you answer mr jones senator i also [10:10] believe it is a matter of significant political controversy and there's also a possibility that [10:15] there could be litigation still over those events that could appear before me and as a nominee [10:20] i don't believe the canons would allow me to comment well i'm i'm as troubled by that response as i am [10:26] by mr hendershot because there's zero chance that it will be before your court if there is any [10:34] litigation uh mr coon how do you answer chair grassley may you answer the same i was asking the [10:42] chair if i could answer well i just want to finish with our last witness here give him a chance mr coons [10:57] go ahead and then uh i think you're going to avoid the answer too if i i do i do agree with my [11:04] colleagues that it is a matter of political concern i believe the language used by the supreme court is [11:07] they are now rewriting history in real time a violent mob stormed the united states capital [11:13] police officers were beaten the building was breached and vandalized people died yet these trump [11:19] nominees refuse to call it an attack instead they label it a matter of significant political [11:24] controversy one even hides behind the supreme court's softer word breach as if that erases the [11:29] violence this is not careful legal language this is deliberate sanitizing when future federal judges [11:36] cannot bring themselves to describe a chaotic assault on the seat of american democracy as what [11:41] it was they are already preparing the ground to treat political violence as just another debate [11:46] that is how accountability dies even a maga republican senator senator john kennedy of louisiana could [11:52] not hide his frustration watch as he presses one of these trump nominees on the most basic constitutional [11:57] question when does a president need permission from congress to use military force the answers he gets are pure [12:03] confusion when does when does the president have to uh to uh get permission of the united states congress [12:13] to to use military force well senator kennedy uh as i was discussing with ranking member durbin i do [12:23] want to be careful about hypotheticals in terms of prejudging it's not a hypothetical that's i'm asking [12:29] what the constitution says when uh when does the president united states have to get permission from congress [12:36] to use military force generally uh senator my understanding is the divisions between article [12:43] one and article two distinguish between the war powers which are under article one and require [12:49] congressional consent again talking in great generalities whereas other use of force if i [12:55] understand your question are things they would are likely committed under article two to the president's [13:00] commander-in-chief powers i have no idea what you just said mr hendershot let's try it again tell me when [13:06] the president has to go to congress to get permission to use military force uh senator i think is when [13:14] because the text of the constitution article one talks about declarations of war those would be [13:19] circumstances where the president would in a general sense and uh use of force that is not war [13:26] under the commander-in-chief power i think those are under article two without the consultation of congress [13:35] okay i'm sorry i don't mean to be rude his answer is pure fog he mixes article one and article two [13:43] talks about declarations of war versus other uses of force and leaves everyone including a republican [13:49] senator completely lost this is not careful legal analysis this is deliberate ambiguity clear [13:55] constitutional limits on when a president must seek congress's approval for military action are being [14:00] replaced with vague language that opens the door to unilateral power when nominees for lifetime [14:05] judgeships cannot state those limits plainly they are already shaping a future where the president [14:09] answers to no one on matters of war that should concern every american who still believes the [14:14] constitution means what it says do you share the gun owners of america view that the second amendment [14:20] renders all gun laws unconstitutional senator respectfully uh i think if i were to answer that [14:30] question it could involve both a political question and something that could come before here's where we [14:34] start mr jones you voluntarily joined this organization with radical views and now that is part of your [14:42] biography before this committee if you want to make it clear that you now have changed your views or [14:50] explain why you joined the organization here's your chance but to duck it and say i don't have to comment [14:56] on this is to leave us with the conclusion you agree with them senator gerbin i i don't believe i'm ducking it [15:04] i don't believe first of all with the characterization of it being radical but i would say that i don't [15:10] believe as a nominee with somebody if i were to be confirmed cases that could come before me on the [15:17] bench could involve issues involving the second amendment i don't try it would be appropriate for [15:22] me in this hearing to comment on my view of the second amendment and what i believe it entails on those [15:29] types of issues i think that would be inappropriate as a judicial nominee so you say that their position [15:35] that all gun laws are unconstitutional is not radical and again senator i would say it is it would [15:43] be improper for me to opine on something like that since matters could come before me but i would say that [15:50] for most organizations if just because someone joins one doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything [15:57] these nominees are not merely cautious they are already revealing the judicial philosophy [16:01] they intend to bring to the federal bench for the rest of their lives when senator durbin presses [16:06] one of them on his membership in an organization that publicly maintains the second amendment renders [16:11] virtually all gun laws unconstitutional the response is a textbook example of strategic non-answer [16:17] the nominee refuses to say whether he shares that view he refuses to call the position radical he insists [16:23] that commenting would be improper because cases might one day come before him and then he adds the [16:28] familiar escape hatch joining an organization does not mean agreeing with everything it says [16:33] that last claim is legally and ethically incomplete federal judicial nominees are not ordinary private [16:39] citizens they are asking the senate and the american people to entrust them with lifetime power to [16:44] interpret the constitution when a nominee voluntarily affiliates with a group that advances an absolute [16:50] maximalist reading of the second amendment one that would invalidate licensing requirements background [16:55] checks assault weapon restrictions and most public safety regulations he creates a legitimate question [17:01] about the baseline assumptions he will carry onto the bench the ethical canons do not require nominees [17:07] to prejudge specific cases they also do not require the senate to ignore clear signals of ideological [17:13] pre-commitment the current supreme court framework established in district of columbia v heller [17:19] mcdonald v city of chicago and refined in new york state rifle and pistol association v bruin recognizes [17:26] an individual right to keep and bear arms it does not however treat that right as absolute the court has [17:32] repeatedly left room for long-standing prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill laws [17:38] forbidding firearms in sensitive places and conditions on commercial sales even the most originalist justices [17:44] have not claimed that every regulation is unconstitutional the organizational position at issue goes [17:49] further it treats regulation itself as presumptively illegitimate that is not mainstream originalism [17:56] it is a categorical rejection of the regulatory authority the court has continued to acknowledge [18:01] a nominee who will not distance himself from that categorical rejection is asking the senate to confirm [18:07] him while leaving open the possibility that he already believes most existing gun laws are void [18:12] once confirmed that same nominee will face motions to dismiss challenges to licensing schemes and [18:18] arguments about historical analogs under bruin the public is entitled to know whether the judge hearing [18:23] those arguments begins from the premise that regulation is almost always unconstitutional or from [18:28] the more limited premise that regulation must be consistent with text history and tradition silence on [18:34] that point is not neutrality it is opacity about a core methodological commitment this problem [18:40] extends beyond any single amendment what we are watching is a consistent pattern of selective [18:45] constitutional engagement nominees treat clear textual limits as optional when those limits constrain [18:51] the political figure who selected them they treat settled historical facts as matters of controversy [18:56] when acknowledging those facts would disrupt a preferred narrative and when asked about an absolute [19:01] rights claim that aligns with the ideological priorities of the same political movement [19:06] they suddenly discover that the canons forbid any clarifying statement the common thread is not judicial [19:12] restraint it is calibrated loyalty federal judges do not merely decide individual cases they shape the [19:19] boundaries of governmental power for decades a lifetime appointee who has signaled through affiliation and [19:24] refusal to clarify that he views an entire category of public safety legislation with constitutional hostility [19:31] will influence not only second amendment litigation but the broader culture of the court on which he sits [19:37] colleagues will know his starting point litigants will forum shop accordingly the public will [19:42] correctly perceive that the outcome of certain cases was heavily influenced by pre-existing ideological [19:48] selection rather than open-minded application of law to fact the code of conduct for united states [19:54] judges emphasizes independence integrity and the appearance of impartiality it does not prohibit prior [20:01] professional or civic affiliations it does however assume that nominees will be transparent enough for [20:06] the confirming body to assess whether those affiliations reflect a closed mind on recurring constitutional [20:11] questions when a nominee refuses even to characterize an extreme organizational position as extreme [20:17] he withholds the very information the senate needs to perform its advice and consent function [20:21] that withholding is itself a form of advocacy advocacy for confirmation without scrutiny [20:26] the deeper legal danger is institutional constitutional adjudication depends on the shared premise that [20:32] judges are constrained by text history structure and precedent rather than by the political coalition [20:37] that elevated them when nominees systematically refuse to affirm the most straightforward applications [20:42] of constitutional text when those applications inconvenience the appointing president and simultaneously [20:47] refuse to clarify their own maximalist commitments when those commitments align with the same political [20:52] movement the premise collapses what remains is not a judiciary it is an extension of executive power dressed in robes [20:59] donald trump did not invent ideological selection of judges every modern president has sought nominees [21:05] compatible with his constitutional vision what is distinctive here is the combination of absolute loyalty tests on questions [21:11] of personal power and strategic silence on questions of rights maximalism the result is a cohort of potential judges [21:18] who appear prepared to expand executive authority where it benefits the leader who chose them [21:22] while contracting regulatory authority where it conflicts with the movement's preferred reading of the second amendment [21:28] that is not a neutral application of originalism it is the construction of a judiciary aligned with one man's interests [21:34] and one movement's priorities an independent federal judiciary is not a luxury it is the structural mechanism that prevents [21:41] temporary political majorities from rewriting the constitution by sheer force of will when the people chosen for that [21:47] judiciary demonstrate under oath that they will not state clear constitutional [21:51] limits that constrain the appointing president and will not clarify extreme [21:55] positions that advance the same political project [21:58] the mechanism is already compromised the hearings have made that compromise [22:02] visible the only remaining question is whether the senate will treat the [22:06] visibility as a warning or as an acceptable price of confirmation these [22:11] nominees are asking for power that outlasts any single administration [22:15] the record they are creating under questioning shows they are prepared to exercise that power [22:19] in service of a very specific constitutional vision one that treats certain textual limits as flexible [22:25] and certain absolute claims as beyond discussion that vision is now on the public record [22:31] it should be weighed with the seriousness that lifetime authority demands [22:44] you