Trump Picks MAKE INCRIMINATING ADMISSIONS at SENATE HEARING!!!

[0:00] the individuals who donald trump is seeking to appoint to lifetime federal judgeships are [0:06] collapsing under the most basic of cross-examination during their confirmation hearing before the united [0:13] states senate democratic senators and republican senators are cross-examining these trump nominees [0:21] and they're asking these trump nominees who want these lifetime federal judgeships they're being [0:26] asked the most basic questions is donald trump eligible for a third term of the presidency who [0:34] won the 2020 election was january 6th an attack on the united states capitol what powers does congress [0:43] have under article one with respect to the united states president going to war and when these [0:51] questions are being asked to these judicial nominees these nominees are just collapsing [0:57] on live tv the thing is people aren't seeing this really other than on the midas touch network so [1:04] let's get out the word and let's show everybody what is taking place at these confirmation hearings [1:10] of individuals of individuals woefully unqualified let's take a look at what happened when democratic [1:18] senator coons is cross-examining donald trump's judicial nominees for different federal judgeships [1:26] across the country for district court positions watch as he asks them if donald trump is able to run [1:33] for a third term let's play this clip uh mr mark if i might just tell me about the 22nd amendment what [1:40] does it provide the 22nd amendment senator my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution i haven't had [1:50] an opportunity to to use that one specifically anyone able to help on the 22nd amendment to the united [1:56] states constitution well senator i believe it is the amendment that deals with a two-term limitation [2:06] correct it states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice [2:12] mr mark is president trump eligible to run for president again in 2028 senator with without [2:21] considering all the facts and and looking at everything depending on what the situation is this to me [2:26] strikes is more of a hypothetical of something that could be it's not a hypothetical has president [2:31] trump been elected president twice president trump has been certified the president of the united states [2:36] two times is he eligible to run for a third term under our constitution um i would have to to review [2:42] the the all i need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that [2:47] no he is not eligible to run for a third term anybody else brave enough to say that the constitution [2:52] the united states prevents president trump from seeking a third term anybody willing to apply the [2:59] constitution by its plain language in the 22nd amendment nobody all right let's move then [3:07] senator blumenthal cross-examines these individuals who trump wants to appoint to federal judge ships [3:14] judgeships who won the 2020 election here play this clip who won the 2020 election senator i wanted [3:27] to be mindful of the cannons here i know this question has come up many times in these hearings and [3:32] it's become an issue of significant political dispute and debate so with that you know i'd say that [3:42] that president biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election he won the election is that your [3:47] response senator i think my response is he was certified as the winner by counting the election [3:52] though you're unwilling to say he won the election how about you mr roberts i'm sorry senator [4:00] uh i'm sorry mr jones i apologize senator uh i have this the same answer as my colleague senator [4:08] same answer as the previous one the previous nominee the senate did mr coons how about you [4:14] thank you senator and i have the same answer as mr same answer unwilling to say that joe biden won [4:22] the election correct as mr hendershot said it has become a matter of political concern and joe biden well [4:29] it's a matter of political concern but it's also an issue of fact is it not joe biden was in fact [4:36] certified the winner of the 2020 election mr mark same answer senator i am uh amazed and really appalled [4:53] that nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are unwilling to respond on an issue of [5:05] fact and i'm not going to try to get an answer out of you because clearly you've been rehearsed to [5:14] provide a stock answer which i think really reflects not only on your honesty but really on your fitness to [5:24] be a federal judge because you are supposed to be independent and to arrive at the truth based on the [5:33] evidence before you and i think it's pretty irrefutable that joe biden won the election but you're [5:40] unwilling to use that word because you are afraid you are afraid of what president trump that is [5:58] exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today we need jurists who are fearless and strong [6:12] not weak and pathetic and i can't tell you how disappointed i am we can disagree on issues of law [6:29] we can disagree on issues of fact but for you to simply avoid a factual and responsive answer i think [6:41] is that disrespect to this committee as well as to us more questioning from senator blumenthal [6:48] about january 6th let's play this clip right here let me try another question was uh the capital attacked [6:57] on january 6th mr hendershot senator this the same kind of question has come up i know many times in [7:06] these hearings and under canon 5 which i consider myself bound by that is a matter of significant [7:13] political controversy it's a matter of what it is a matter of significant political controversy [7:22] it's a matter of controversy that the capital of the united states was attacked you've seen the videos [7:29] have you not i've not seen many videos to be honest how do you answer mr jones senator i also believe [7:39] it is a matter of significant political controversy and there's also a possibility that there could be [7:44] litigation still over those events that could appear before me and as a nominee i don't believe the [7:49] canons would allow me to comment well i'm i'm as troubled by that response as i am by mr hendershot [7:55] because there's zero chance that it will be before your court if there is any litigation uh mr coons [8:05] how do you answer chair grassley may you answer the same i was asking the chair if i could answer [8:22] well well i just want to finish with our last witness here give him a chance mr coons go ahead [8:26] and then uh i think you're going to avoid the answer too if i i do i do agree with my colleagues that [8:33] it is a matter of political concern i believe the language used by the supreme court is that there was a [8:36] breach and i would leave it at that yeah oh i didn't get that even maggie republican senator from [8:47] louisiana senator kennedy was horrified by the answers he was getting from these judges watch a [8:55] senator kennedy again maggie republican from louisiana asks one of these judges about war powers especially [9:02] right now that donald trump unilaterally or with netanyahu is in this unlawful war in iran and [9:10] what powers does the senate does congress have here play this clip well when does when does the [9:18] president have to uh to uh get permission of the united states congress to to use military force [9:26] well senator kennedy uh as i was discussing uh with ranking member durbin i do want to be careful [9:35] about hypotheticals in terms of prejudging it's not a hypothetical that's i'm asking what the constitution [9:41] says when uh when does the president of united states have to get permission from congress to use [9:48] military force generally uh senator my understanding is the division between article one and article two [9:55] distinguish between the war powers which are under article one and require uh congressional consent [10:02] again talking in great generalities whereas other use of force if i understand your question are things [10:08] they would are likely committed under article two to the president's commander-in-chief powers i have [10:12] no idea what you just said mr hendershot let's try it again tell me when the president has to go to [10:19] congress to get permission to use military force uh senator i think is when because the text of the [10:26] constitution article one talks about declarations of war those would be circumstances where the president [10:32] would would in a general sense and uh use of force that is not war under the commander-in-chief power [10:39] i think those are under article two without the consultation of congress okay i'm sorry i don't [10:48] mean to be rude i just don't understand what you said um then you have senator durman durbin cross [10:58] examining one of these uh individuals who trump wants to appoint to a lifetime federal judgeship [11:04] about his view on the second amendment because this individual is part of a gun club that says there [11:11] can be no regulations at all regarding the second amendment and guns all guns should be able to [11:17] proliferate everywhere watch the response from this individual who trump wants to have appointed to be a [11:24] federal judge for life play this clip do you share the gun owners of america view that the second [11:30] amendment renders all gun laws unconstitutional senator respectfully uh i think if i were to answer that [11:40] question it could involve both a political question and something that could come before [11:44] but here's where we start mr jones you voluntarily joined this organization with radical views and now [11:52] that is part of your biography before this committee if you want to make it clear that you now have [11:59] changed your views or explain why you joined the organization here's your chance but to duck it and [12:05] say i don't have to comment on this is to leave us with the conclusion you agree with them senator durbin [12:12] i i don't believe i'm ducking it i don't believe first of all it's with the characterization of it being [12:18] radical but i would say that i don't believe as a nominee with somebody if i were to be confirmed cases [12:25] that could come before me on the bench could involve issues involving the second amendment i don't [12:31] think it would be appropriate for me in this hearing to comment on my view of the second [12:38] amendment and what i believe it entails on those types of issues i think that would be inappropriate [12:42] as a judicial nominee so you say that their position that all gun laws are unconstitutional [12:48] is not radical and again senator i would say it is it would be improper for me to opine on something [12:58] like that since matters could come before me but i would say that for most organizations if just because [13:03] someone joins one doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything that someone in the organization [13:09] may say later on or at some point mr hindershot more questioning here from senator durbin to another [13:16] individual who trump wants to appoint to a federal judgeship for life like will you follow basic orders [13:23] will you follow uh the law here play this clip will you condone or permit the kind of repeated [13:30] resistance to court orders that the ohio redistricting commission engaged in well senator as my colleague [13:39] mentioned i think the judicial canon certainly apply to us here as nominees and i think to to engage with [13:45] a hypothetical about for example you know a map or something like that would be inside the space of [13:52] the canons fence off so i'm happy to talk about my role you believe it's arguable as to whether or not [13:58] a party is bound by a court order no son i don't think that's what i'm saying what i'm saying is my [14:04] understanding of the canons the way i take them to bind me here is to not prejudge a case by other than [14:11] talking about issues at a high level of generality otherwise it's just to prejudge a case that may [14:17] come to be pending or impending before this is just the opposite you weren't prejudging you were [14:22] representing a client who was resisting a court order and it says the supreme court of your state [14:31] ruled five times that the maps violated the state constitution and had to rule the state's congressional [14:37] maps twice it seemed to me that as a judge you would expect a lawful order to be followed is that [14:45] correct yes and i do expect lawful orders to be followed if you i'm distinguishing between the [14:52] hypothetical that i took you to be asking about and my role representing certain members of the ohio [14:57] redistricting commission i will note that there was seven members of that separately represented as [15:03] that litigation went on there was even further separation of the representation uh and including [15:09] that i ended up not representing the members for the entire time of the litigation you described [15:14] thank you thank you mr chairman senator kennedy thank you now just show you that this is not unique to [15:21] this hearing on april 15th so about two three weeks ago during another senate confirmation hearing [15:29] an individual who trump wanted to have appointed to the eighth circuit court of appeals so the circuit [15:35] court stepping stone to the united states supreme court the circuit courts sit above district courts [15:41] and donald trump wants to have this very unqualified young radical right-wing fascist extremist guy [15:49] in my opinion guy named justin smith to be a judge on the eighth circuit court of appeals this guy [15:56] shouldn't be nowhere near a federal courthouse get alone be on the eighth circuit court of appeals [16:02] watch as senator peter welch cross-examines him and you'll see it's the same type of answers here play [16:09] this clip uh thank you very much uh i uh was watching some of the earlier questions and answers including [16:18] about the election and i just want to follow up a little bit on that who won the 2022 election for [16:24] the united states senate in missouri well i think under the 17th amendment the election for united [16:32] states senate is carried out a little bit differently than the election for president [16:35] you know prior to the 17th amendment the senators as i recall were chosen by state legislatures and that [16:40] was the process in this country for i didn't ask for a history lesson i'm asking who won the 2022 [16:48] election for the united states senate in missouri well i think the history is important to explain that in [16:53] the 17th amendment different than the 12th i'm gonna interrupt you save it okay it might be important [16:59] but somebody ran and somebody won that election i'm asking you who won that election yeah so [17:05] pursuant to the 17th amendment the missouri secretary of state certified eric schmidt as the winner of the [17:09] 2022 election who won it as i just said under the 17th amendment eric schmidt was certified and took [17:15] the oath of office in january 2023 that senator schmidt was elected i agree that he took office in january [17:22] 2023 and that he he the election was cast and counted by the missouri secretary of state you know what [17:30] i believe that senator schmidt won that election in a landslide senator well i wasn't gonna brag about [17:38] it like like that but what is so hard about saying that you want you were asked by senator blumenthal about [17:49] the uh 2020 uh 2020 election and you could not say and won't say that joe biden was elected by the [17:58] american people to be president right i think my answers have been consistent with other answers [18:03] this committee has heard that's a legal matter okay they're they're consistent with what every nominee [18:09] has said in in the rehearsed way but you do understand that president trump continues to deny [18:18] that he lost that election and continues to assert that that election was stolen correct yeah i wanted [18:24] to dispute that you said these were rehearsed or canned answers these are my answers uh these are the [18:30] legally correct answers okay so you are aware that president trump continues to assert that he won the 2020 [18:36] election i'm aware that president trump has a lot of views on the 2020 election here's the worry here [18:48] you know i was here on january 6th i was here when the mob attacked when the gun was fired when the [18:55] mob was breaking the doors down i didn't believe it was happening and the reason i didn't believe it [19:01] was happening is because this is the united states of america and we believe in the peaceful transfer [19:06] of power and we renounce violence as a way to overcome the decision of the american people at the [19:13] polling booth but it did happen and you can't acknowledge that president biden won the popular [19:22] vote you can't acknowledge that under our process he won the election you can't say that i share the [19:32] apprehension that senator blumenthal uh has that the nominees who come in here can't say the obvious [19:41] you win some elections you lose some elections and you as a judge still cannot just say plainly [19:50] that biden won and trump lost is that the case i think i want any judge to be very legally precise in [20:00] what they said and i've repeatedly referred to article 2 into the 12th amendment in the process [20:05] what you're calling legally precise uh a lot of people would call politically evasive uh mr mr mr [20:15] uh mr chairman uh what is the problem with acknowledging who won the election i have [20:29] repeatedly acknowledged that joe biden was certified as the president january 2021 but but [20:34] what that suggests is it was like by accident it was by subterfuge it was somehow illegitimate [20:42] do you believe any of those things to be the case i've explained the legitimate process of the [20:48] electoral college counting their votes in december of 2020 this one those votes were cast you know [20:53] under under under your approach any of us can have whatever opinion we want as to whether the [21:00] election was legitimate or not you remember that president president then president trump [21:06] filed i think like 80 lawsuits and virtually all of them except one were thrown out of court [21:12] was there any judicial support for your uh view that uh says that there wasn't a conclusive outcome [21:19] in the 2020 presidential election i think the view that i've shared here today is that [21:25] there was a certification process that resulted in joe biden being president thank you i yield back [21:32] senator schiff and again just so you see this is every judicial nominee who appears before the [21:38] senate they do the same thing i'll just remind you and i showed this video this is back in september [21:43] of 2025 where you had a individual by the name of jennifer mascot who trump appointed to the third circuit [21:51] court of appeals watch as senator welch and others ask her a very basic question again who won the 2020 [22:00] election play this clip who won the 2020 election this is senator president biden was certified the winner [22:07] of the 2020 election well senator president biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election or did [22:15] just it accidentally get certified senator i've answered that question he was certified the winner of [22:20] the election i yield back and what about tariffs play this clip if congress has the authority to impose [22:31] tariffs and that is a constitutional responsibility and right we have is that correct uh yes congress has [22:39] legislative responsibility for um so does the executive have the legal authority to impose a tariff [22:48] because the executive doesn't like what the judicial process is doing in a country like brazil [22:53] senator the question of tariffs is actively before the course just about the tariffs i'm asking [23:02] is there constitutional authority for an executive to decide to use the tool of a tariff because he [23:12] disrespects and dislikes the judicial policy in another country senator my understanding of the legal basis [23:20] for the terrorists is statutes that this body enacted with broad discretionary language and terrorists within [23:27] the terms of those statutes would of course be lawful well there you have it folks the clips speak for [23:33] themselves these are individuals who donald trump wants to have appointed for life to federal [23:41] judgeships this should not be a political issue okay i'm a law professor okay and as a lawyer [23:49] i was a lawyer who represented democrats republicans independents when i practiced law i didn't ask people [23:56] what political party they're from when i was a practicing lawyer back in the day i followed the law [24:01] i followed the law the facts the truth the rules of evidence so it's just deeply disturbing to me [24:07] not on a political level on a love of the law level to see these authoritarians and these fascists [24:15] be picked by a fascist regime and to show how the rule of law is just under attack by truly dangerously [24:24] and idiotic humans it's vile vile to see you see it though we have to see it we have to open up our eyes [24:31] to what's happening this is what should be front page news and this should be what's on tv every day [24:37] but might as touches tv now so you've seen it here hit subscribe let's get to 7 million thanks for [24:43] watching love this video support independent media and unlock exclusive content ad-free videos and custom [24:49] emojis by becoming a paid member of our youtube channel today you can also gift memberships to others [24:54] let's keep growing together