Trump Judges COLLAPSE UNDER CROSS-EXAM at HEARING!!!

One by one, judges nominated by Donald. Trump for the federal bench were. collapsing under cross-examination. in the United States Senate under very. basic questioning by both Democratic. senators and Republican senators. These. individuals look like the. worst-qualified. individuals to be on the federal bench. Let me show you what went down as. Democratic Senator Blumenthal. cross-examined these Trump picks to be. federal judges about who won the 2020. election. Let's play this clip.

>> Who won the 2020 election? >> Judge Cannon. Senator, this issue has. become a question of political. controversy. I'm a sitting federal. district judge. I'm a nominee to the 8th. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Justice Jackson, who previously was. confirmed by the Senate. um for a position on the. >> interrupt you, judge, cuz my time is limited. It's. political controversy only because the. president refuses to accept the results.

of the 2020 election. I'm asking you as. a matter of fact, who won the 2020 election? >> Well, Senator, as. as Justice Jackson stated in her. responses to questions in the record, um it is not appropriate to engage in. discussion regarding that as a judge, as. a sitting judge. >> use the same script that other nominees. have used before this panel to avoid the. question. >> Senator, I think this precedent. established by Justice Jackson and other.

nominees is something that I need to. follow as a. >> of fact, who got more votes. in 2020? Which of the presidential candidates? >> Senator, as I stated before, um this is. an issue that Justice Jackson and other. nominees have been asked. They've not. provided a response. >> under- Do you understand why I'm asking. you to state as a simple matter of fact.

who got more votes. The reason is that the president. seeks to. perpetuate a lie. You are in effect protecting the lie if. you fail. to take an independent position as a. matter of simple fact. Everybody in this. room knows the answer. You are unwilling to state it. instead adopting a script that's been. dictated to you.

by the White House. You prepared this. answer. with the White House, did you not? >> Senator, I prepared the answer based. upon the response provided by Justice. Jackson. >> You you consulted with the White House. before you invoked Justice Jackson. That's the script. As you well know, that nominees sitting. where you are right now have used again. and again and again. Let me ask you, was the capital attack. >> Then there were more questions like this.

from Senator Blumenthal who's like, "Really? You're just going to stick to. the script?" Let's play this clip. >> Who won the 2020 election? >> Senator, as a matter of law, Joe Biden. was the winner of the 2020 election. >> Who got more votes? >> Senator, my focus as a judicial nominee. is on the law. and as a matter of law, Joe Biden won. the 2020 election. >> Who got more electoral college votes? >> Joe Biden received more electoral.

college votes. >> And was the capital attacked on January. 6th? >> Senator, as part of my work as an assistant. United States Attorney, pardon [clears throat] me, I had the opportunity to look at. pictures and videos from that day. and what I saw in those was that. officers, law enforcement officers, were. attacked. and building was. damaged and vandalized. >> Mr. Pozos, uh who won the 2020 election? >> Senator, I would agree with my fellow.

nominee. >> Can you get closer to the mic or turn it. on? >> My apologies, Senator. I would agree. with my fellow nominee's answer, Senator. >> You're going to stick with that script? >> Senator, I don't believe it's a script. I. uh President Biden was certified as the. winner of 2020. >> votes? >> Uh Senator, uh. with respect to the popular vote, my. role as nominee here is to speak to the. law. >> Who got more votes in the Electoral. College? >> Uh Senator, my understanding is that. Joseph Biden received more votes in the. Electoral College.

>> Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th? >> Um Senator, I've certainly seen videos. relating to what occurred at the Capitol. on that date. Um from what I saw, it. appeared that there was violence and. trespasses, my fellow nominee said. Uh. it's profoundly troubling and I have. more to. >> So, the Capitol was attacked? >> Senator, I would hesitate to. characterize uh what occurred at the. Capitol on that. >> truth here. Ms. >> Senator. >> Ms. Uh. Colamarino. Uh who won the 2020 election?

>> Senator, as a matter of law, Joe Biden. won the 2020 election. >> Who got more. votes in the popular election? >> Um Senator, similar to my fellow. nominees, I'm here also to speak about. the law. And as a matter of law, Joe. Biden won the 2020 election. >> As a matter of law. >> Yes, Senator. >> Who Who won more votes? >> Well, Joe Biden received um more. electoral votes. Um. >> Who won more votes in the election?

Among the American people. >> As a matter of law, Joe Biden won the. 2020 election. >> Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th? >> Um Senator, um like my other nominees, I. have seen videos. >> nominees, you're going to. adopt. the script. The new script, the new. hedge, the new White House. pre-negotiated. script. Uh Mr. >> More intense cross-examination this time. by former federal prosecutor and. California Senator Adam Schiff. Let's.

play it. >> You're perfectly free to immerse. yourself in that, exercise your first. amendment rights there. But when it comes to asking basic. questions about January 6th, you won't answer those questions. >> [cough and clears throat]. >> The difference, Senator, is that there. are cases or controversies that I have. before me as a district judge relating. to individuals that have been charged. for conduct that occurred on that date. in this capital. >> So, does that mean that any litigation. involving Columbia you're prepared to. recuse yourself from?

>> Senator, the limitation on Columbia was. in in regard to hiring law clerks. I. hold no bias against the institution. itself. >> [laughter]. >> Well, whether you hold a bias towards it. or not, you're saying today that you can't. discuss any of the January 6th stuff. because there are pending cases or. controversies, even though they've all. been pardoned by the president. I'm not. sure what case or controversy you're. referring to, but nevertheless,

you're unwilling to say you recruit you. recuse yourself from a case or. controversy involving Columbia when you. specifically weighed in there. How do we. reconcile that? >> Well, Senator, as I stated in the. recusal order that. um ranking member Durbin raised, I. indicated that I held no particular bias. against. >> Well, yeah, that's fine. You can say you. hold no particular bias about January. 6th, too. I mean, it's easy to say. Your letter. demonstrates a very clear bias. I'm not saying that it's.

an unreasonable bias, but it is a bias. It is a prejudice in favor of one view. that would cause people to question your. impartiality if that case came before. you. That seems to me a stronger, much. stronger case for recusal. than the one you're making to refuse to. answer questions about January 6th. So, let me just ask to make sure that I. understand the limits of what you're. prepared to say. Um. who won the 2020 election?

>> Senator, as I indicated in response to. questions from Senator Blumenthal, uh Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as a. sitting circuit court judge at the time. of her nomination was asked this. question in questions to the right. >> I'm I'm I'm asking you the question. >> Yes, and as a sitting judge, I will tell. you that it is not appropriate for a. judicial nominee to engage in discussion. regarding a matter of political. controversy with that which that. >> this is completely inconsistent.

with your involvement in the whole. Columbia controversy, completely. inconsistent. Because you involved yourself in that. controversy. You went out of your way. Nobody asked you to write that letter. You took this upon yourself to do. To insert yourself into that. But you're saying here you can't answer. a simple question about who won the 2020. election because it would somehow. implicate you in controversy. I'm sorry, there's no way to square those two. things, uh Mr. Chair.

>> As I mentioned, even some Republican. senators were doing some pretty good. cross-examination. Now, I'm no fan of. Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, MAGA. Republican there. He's got a background. in being a prosecutor, and his questions. at these Judiciary hearings tend to be. pretty decent to good. He asked to one. of the Trump picks to be a federal judge. about the doctrine of qualified. immunity, whereby police officers are. not held civilly liable for engaging in.

excessive force. If this doctrine of. qualified immunity applies, and. essentially, to simplify, it, reasonable. police officer make the same mistake if. a reasonable officer engages in a. reasonable mistake, then the officer. would be not liable regardless of the. circumstances, even if the officer. shoots and kills someone and is. determined to be negligent. If you were. reasonably negligent, then you get off. Now, this is why I don't like the. qualified immunity doctrine. That was my. background practicing as a civil rights.

litigator before starting Midas Touch. And here Senator Kennedy asks these. judges a very basic question, which is, "Okay, let's just say the police can. catch up with a suspect who actually. turns out to be innocent, and because. the police officer gets tired, the. officer just decides to shoot the. suspect in the back without even knowing. the circumstances. Would there be a. problem with that?" These judges. can't even answer that question. And so. even Senator Kennedy, and MAGA. Republicans like, "You can't answer the. question if a police officer is allowed.

to just shoot somebody in the back who's. innocent while they're running away.". Like, "You struggle to answer that. question?" Watch this. Let's play it. >> Ms. Mitchell, tell me about the. qualified immunity doctrine. >> The qualified immunity doctrine is one. that protects officers who are in. executing their duties are reasonable or. have a reasonable basis for the actions. that they're taken, and it typically is. something that courts decide at the. outset. to protect those officers from. liability. >> Okay. So, if if a if a cop if somebody.

runs from a cop and the cop doesn't feel. threatened, he just. he he he he just can't. he doesn't think he can catch the guy, and he shoots him in the back. Is he. immune from liability? >> Senator, I'd like to engage on this. hypothetical, but because it's a fact. pattern that may come before me if I'm. confirmed. >> Come on, counselor. Um if if if I talk if I'm a cop and I'm. talking to a suspect, and he turns and.

and rabbits on me. And I say, "Ah, I don't think I can. catch this guy, but I know how to stop. him." And I shoot him in the back. You. telling me I'm immune as a cop from. liability? >> What I can tell you is the legal test um. Senator for qualified immunity, which is. whether there was an objective basis. >> in a criminal case? >> It is a It's a. >> Apply in a criminal case, does it? >> No, Senator. These are typically in 1983. actions. >> So, I can't shoot him in the back.

Right? >> I I again I don't want to comment on a. specific fact pattern. Um I'm not I. principally have practiced in civil law. um and haven't encountered that specific. fact pattern, but I would look at the. developed body of precedent on qualified. immunity and ask the question that I. understand the Supreme Court has settled. about whether there is an objective. basis for the officer's actions. >> Yeah, okay. I I I get what Look, you're. you're you're smart. I've read your. resume. I just caution y'all when you.

you go back to your friends at the White. House who've gotten you ready for these. hearings, uh don't dodge the questions. Just. answer them. Okay? If you don't know, just say I don't know. I I just think. um. you're you're very qualified, Counselor, but. I I. I can't believe you're dodging on the. question. Can a cop shoot somebody in the back. who's running away just cuz he doesn't. think he can catch him on foot? But anyway, I'm over.

>> Then he also criticizes a federal judge. for drafting a letter saying as a result. of the uh protests going on in Colombia. for a free Palestine that he would that. this federal judge would never hire any. Colombia law grad as a law clerk. And. Senator Kennedy cross-examined him like, "Why would you do that? Like, doesn't. that make you seem like a political. hack? Like, why would you even Why would. you say that?" Here play this clip. >> You. Why did you.

I I. I I I heard your answers, Senator. Durbin, but you were a a sitting federal. judge, and I know some other judges joined you, but you wrote a letter to Columbia. saying, "Because of what I see happening. at Columbia, I'll never hire one of your graduates.". Why Why did you do that? >> Senator, I was asked to sign the letter. I. It It was indicated over a period of. time, and the reason why is because.

it wasn't. simply a student protest that was. occurring. It was a It was a protest that. was resulting in violent conduct. >> Well, I I know I know what happened. I I guess what I'm getting at is. Our federal judiciary. um has lost some of its legitimacy. I'm. not laying it at your doorstep, but it. has.

And so many Americans now feel, because. they're told, that judges. are just politicians in robes. Okay? They're just mini legislatures. And And that's not what our founders. intended, and I don't think that's what. they are. And so. when a federal judge expresses a. political opinion like you did, and your colleagues did,

how does that. help our effort. to help the public understand that. judges aren't politicians? >> Senator, I've been told a lot that. federal judges have a lot of power, and. you've said it, I think, in other. hearing contexts, but our power is. limited. It's significantly limited to the case. or controversy before us. We don't have the power of an executive. We don't even have the power to change. laws like you do as a legislator.

>> I I I get that, Judge. And and you're a. judge, you can do what you want. I I hope you won't do something like to. get that again. Um I'm I'm not I'm not. Shane, you don't have the right. But when you when you adopt a political. position, which I happen to believe. with, frankly, um to do that as a private lawyer is one. thing. To do it as a sitting federal. judge. is quite another. And I just uh. I just don't think it's a good thing.

It's my personal opinion. Um. you don't tweet anymore, do you? >> I do not. >> Okay. You don't go on social media at. all. >> I go on social media to follow other. people, including. >> Sure, but not to post. >> Not at all. >> And then finally, you had uh Democratic. Senator Whitehouse talk about fraud on. the court and what these judges' views. on fraud on the court is. Let's play it. >> The 22nd Amendment.

says that no person shall be elected to. the presidency more than twice. Is that. correct? >> That's correct, Senator. >> Um is any person. exempted. from that. constitutional bar? >> No. >> So, the current occupant having been. elected twice. is covered by the 22nd Amendment, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh does anybody disagree?

>> No, Senator. >> No, Senator. >> No, Senator. >> Thank you. Um I'd like to talk a little bit about. um. fraud. upon the court. Um first of all, would one of you you to. define it for me? >> Senator, I can speak generally that um. fraud upon the court can take a number. of forms. It could constitute perjury or. obstruction or other means of deceiving.

the court. >> It as a general. proposition. covers. um. fairly grave misconduct. by. an individual who has a duty. to the court, customarily a lawyer, correct? >> Uh Senator, I believe that's correct. I. would also add that I've prosecuted law. enforcement corruption cases involving. perjury, which I would also consider to.

have a component of fraud upon the court. generally. >> Yeah, but those are generally prosecuted. as. perjury. Uh fraud on the court is a. kind of unique. creature of its own that can be policed. by the judge. um really sua sponte, like uh. contempt, correct? >> I believe so. I believe so, Senator. Yes. >> Does anybody disagree with that? >> No, Senator.

>> No, Senator. >> No, Senator. >> And is it true that. um. if a fraud upon the court has been. committed. um in a particular case. that the judge. has all of the. sanctions. available to them in the case. um that are provided by Rule 11 or the. general contempt power. of the court. Is that correct, also?

>> Yes, Senator. >> Yes, Senator. >> Yes, Senator. >> Yes. >> And. um. the. in the event that a fraud upon the court. has been committed. not only are the disciplinary rules. within the court. and within the case. applicable. but judges can make referrals to.

the bar. for further disciplinary action against. the license to practice law. Is that. also correct? >> I believe so, Senator. I don't have any. personal experience in this area. >> Well, that's good. >> I believe that is correct too, Senator. >> Yeah. Um. and ultimately as you suggested, Mr. Pozas, referrals for. criminal conduct along the lines of.

obstruction or fraud or perjury can also. be made, correct? >> Uh yes, Senator. The the cases that I'm. involved in do not involve referrals, but that is something that a judge would. do. >> Um either way, do you all agree that. fraud upon the court is a very very. serious. matter? >> Yes, Senator. >> Yes, Senator. >> Yes. >> Yes, Senator. I agree. >> Very well. Thank you very much. There you have it, folks. Let me know.

what you think about that. As I said, these are the least qualified. individuals for this position and it's. disgusting as a former litigator to see. what I just saw, but I want to show you. cuz you're probably not seeing this. anywhere else. Hit subscribe. Let's get. to 7 million subscribers, please. Thanks. for watching. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack at. midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps. from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes. of our podcast, and more exclusive. [music] content only available at. midasplus.com.