🚨Trump Nominees IMPLODE UNDER CROSS-EXAM at SENATE HEARING!!

Now, that's how you cross examine and. expose Donald Trump's nominees. Democrats in the United States Senate. cross examined Donald Trump's picks for. critical federal government positions. Let me show you what went down. You have. Democratic Senator Merkley cross. examining Trump's pick to be the Deputy. White House Budget Director, Hal Duncan. Watch what went down here. Let's play. this clip. >> Do you believe the 2020 election was. rigged? >> Um I believe that Joe Biden was.

certified as the winner of the 2020. election. >> He was certified, yes, but do you. believe the election outcome was rigged? >> Senator, I appreciate the question. As. mentioned, I believe that Joe Biden was. certified as the winner of the 2020. election. >> Okay. Uh duly noted that you're not responding. to the question. >> Then you had Democratic Senator Tim. Kaine make the point even clearer. Let's. play it. >> Was the 2024 presidential election. rigged? >> Senator, President Trump won the 2024. presidential election. >> Yeah, folks, how about that? So, he was.

asked twice, was the 2020 presidential. election rigged? And he said, President. Biden was certified to be the winner. He. wouldn't answer the question. Saying. President Biden was certified as the. winner of that election is like saying. today is Tuesday, June 16th. I mean, it's obviously, it's a fact. But he. wouldn't acknowledge that President. Biden won that race. Now, there's only one of two reasons, Mr. Duncan. You you have either fallen. victim to the conspiracy mindset that.

says that that election was rigged. And. if you're a conspiracy theorist, you. shouldn't be let anywhere near the. position you've been nominated for. Or, you know, President Biden won the. election, but you're afraid of making an. insecure president mad by acknowledging. that fact. You answered so easily when I. asked you the question about 2024. You. didn't fight, you didn't evade, you. didn't obscure, you didn't try to in. run. You said President Trump won the. election, which he did. He won the. popular vote, he won the Electoral.

College. The answer was just as simple about. 2020. The fact that you were unable to. give this simple answer about 2020. raises real serious questions about you. Let me ask you this. >> Then we move on to Democratic Senator. Blumenthal who was cross-examining one. of Donald Trump's pick, Berthiaume, you. about the same types of questions. Here, let's play this clip right here. >> Yes. >> So, let me test your. independence. Who won the 2020 election? >> Joe Biden as certified by the Senate.

>> No, Mr. Berthiaume, who won the 2020. election? We have seen that script, by. the way, you should check with the White. House. That script has been abandoned. They. have a new one. >> Oh. Well, my understanding from the 2020. election is we had an election. >> And who won it? >> certified the Joe Biden was certified. the winner of that election. That is a. fact. >> Who won the popular vote? >> Uh from what I recall in reporting at.

the time, that was Joe Biden. >> And who won the Electoral College in the. 2020 election? >> Again, my recollection, and he served as. president, Joe Biden would have been. certified the winner of the. Electoral College vote as well. >> Did you discuss your answers to these. questions with the White House before. coming here today? >> No. >> Uh let me ask you, uh was the Capitol. attacked on January 6th? >> Uh I don't know if I would use the term. attacked. I mean, we had activity.

outside the White the Capitol, uh. protests and such, and there was. violence on the Capitol. >> have to be now. the author of the most. obvious understatement, uh. that there was activity outside the. Capitol on January 6th. Was Was it. attacked? You You've seen the videos. You're supposed to be the Inspector. General. Capital police were injured.

Some died. Was the capital attacked? >> So again, it's more a term that you're. using attacked. There was protest. activity. There was violence on Capitol. grounds. Those people were prosecuted. >> Well, there was protest activity? >> There was protest activity. People went. to the Capitol grounds. People entered. the Capitol building, which is contrary as far as I know to. law. >> But you wouldn't agree with me that the. capital was attacked?

>> I just don't agree with the term attack. When I think of attack, I think of. assault. >> attacked on that day? >> There was physical violence outside the. capital that day. >> But the Capitol police weren't attacked? >> So. >> What is it about that word that so. troubles you? >> Oh, it's not that I'm troubled by it. The term attack to me seems to imply. like there was a coordinated effort to. attack specific things. >> Let Let me ask you. >> violence associated with protest. >> regard these kinds of ques- questions as.

a test of your prospective independence. And so far, I think you're failing that test. >> Okay. >> And I hope my colleagues will agree that. the Inspector General of the Department. of Justice should recognize reality and. facts for what they are. >> And going back to Hal Duncan now for a. moment, let me show you as Democratic. Senator Chris Van Hollen cross-examined. Hal Duncan right here on a very.

important issue. Let's play it. You're. aware of the fact that the IRS has. warned that this year's tax season was. at risk due to staffing shortages. Are. you aware of that fact? >> Senator, obviously we're trying to. >> I'm just asking if you're aware of that. fact that they warned that this year's. tax season efficiency was at risk. because of staffing shortages. Are you. not aware of that? >> I'm not aware of the exact item you're. referring to. I'm happy to take a look. at it if it's in front of you. Um, but obviously everything that we are. doing is toward a commitment for. efficiency for the American people.

>> Well, in fact, you've had to rehire. people who were fired uh at the IRS. That doesn't sound like it's more. efficient to me. The same is true at at. FEMA. Uh FEMA reinstated fired disaster. response personnel ahead of the. hurricane season because they were. unprepared. Were you aware of that fact? >> Uh Senator, I'm not aware of this. specific thing. That would be a FEMA uh. related item that I've not been. >> Yeah, well, a lot of this, of course, feeds up through the uh the OMB. Same is. true of National Weather Service. Uh GSA. cited staffing shortages on.

mission-critical needs. Are you Were you. aware of that? >> I'd have to defer to the National. Weather Service on that one. >> early this year, an estimated 25,000. federal employees have been rehired. after being initially terminated. Do you. know how much that's cost the taxpayer, rehiring the same people who were in the. job before? >> Senator, I don't have an estimate in. front of me, but we're always working to. optimize staffing levels. >> Well, I have an estimate from the. Partnership for Public Service, they're. a nonpartisan entity. They say just that.

process of having to go through rehiring. the same people that were fired cost the. taxpayer 12 million. dollars. That doesn't sound more. efficient to me. Mr. Duncan, um your. boss at OMB, uh Director Voe uh has. said, quote, "When civil servants wake. up in the morning, we want them to not. want to go to work because they are. increasingly viewed as the villains." He. went on to say, and I quote, "We want to. put them in trauma." Unquote.

Do you see merit-based civil servants as. the villains? >> Senator, first, Director Voe has. addressed that quote multiple times in. this committee. >> you what you believe. Do you believe. civil servants are the villains? >> As I mentioned in my testimony, I think. the OMB civil servants, who are the ones. I work most closely with, as well as. Director Vought, who has a wonderful. relationship with those civil servants, are among the best best and brightest in. the federal government. >> Excellent. So, you don't want to put. them in trauma deal.

>> Senator, that quote you're referring to, Director Vought has addressed, is well. related to certain bureaucracies in the. federal government. >> I It's just a question for you, not for. Mr. Vought. Do you want to put federal. employees in trauma? >> Yes or no? >> Senator, you're I'm referring. >> your view is. Do you think it's a good. idea to put federal employees in trauma? >> I work very well with the civil servants. at OMB. The quote that you're referring. to was a reference to weaponized. bureaucracies. >> I'm asking you right now what your view.

is. Do you want to put federal employees. into trauma? Yes or no? >> Senator, like I said, I completely. support the civil servants that work at. OMB. And that quote that you're. referring to has been taken out of. context and has been addressed by the. director of here. >> you don't want to provide a a direct. answer. So, listen, let me show you what. that cross-examination. now looked like when you had Democratic. Senator Slotkin talk about how the Trump. regime officials are politicizing.

where budget funds go to for disaster. relief or research. They are. stealing it from blue states. and they are not providing critical. funding and how Duncan would be someone. responsible for doing that and he seems. in lockstep with that plan. Watch this. cross-examination right here. Let's play. >> to Mr. Duncan. You've had an interesting. couple of days up here on the hill, made. some news, gone viral a couple of times. And I just feel like.

this idea that to get a federal grant, you the rules have been rewritten so. that you can reject any organization. that represents {quote} anti-American. values. and anyone who {quote} damages the. reputation of the government. So, you're. going to be in an important position of. power. You want the big job. You answer. the big questions. If a university that was receiving. federal dollars for research grant into. cancer, but they allowed a protest, a.

peaceful protest of the Iran war on. their campus, would that be {quote}. damaging to the reputation of the. government? >> Senator, I appreciate the question. and as you know with 2 CFR, it's signed. off by all 41 agencies. >> your mind, you're a decision. You're. asking to be a decision maker, right? So, I understand there's a chain. I was. a federal government employee for a long. time, but you're you're asking you're up. here for Senate confirmation. So, it's a. big job. Is a protest, a first amendment.

peaceful protest on a college campus. threaten the federal dollars that they. are getting for cancer research under. the rules that you will be enforcing? Yes or no? >> Senator, you're asking a hypothetical. hypothetical question, but I would note. that this. >> Well, we have protests. We do. I mean, I. have University of Michigan and Michigan. State. There are protests from time to. time. That's for sure. So, it's not. hypothetical. This is something that. literally in 15, 20 days you could be. dealing with. Is a first amendment. protest on a college campus enough to be.

{quote} anti-American or threatening the. reputation of this administration? >> In the hypothetical question that you're. asking. related to grants for cancer research, this administration is committed to gold. standard science and wants to advance. the best cancer research that we. possibly can. >> Okay, so if they can have a protest on. their campus. If a and I would just say. slashing cancer research and slashing. our science institutions around the. country. and making us have to be literally 1/10. of the medical research that's going on.

in like places like China and Europe is. not a way to uphold a gold standard for. cancer research and I say that for a. woman who's, you know, got cancer in her. family. Um, uh, if a domestic violence shelter receives. a federal grant, but they also post. complaints about this administration's. cutting of domestic violence funding, will that put them at risk of being. labeled anti-American or threatening the. reputation of this administration? >> Senator, again, you're asking. hypothetical questions.

The ultimate deciders of these grants. will be the political employees at the. agencies. I would imagine in this. situation it would likely be HHS. >> The political employees? The political. appointees like yourself? >> The political appointees. OMB does not. issue grants. We issue guidance, um, uniform guidance on grants. So, I would. not make make decisions on a specific. grant. >> But if someone calls you, I mean, again, this is like you can't you can't want. the big job, but then not answer the big. questions. I think the idea that first.

amendment activities, um, would be, quote, anti-American or threatening the. reputation of this administration, you. understand that you're creating a. climate of fear around things that are. actually it's the opposite of. anti-American. It's the most American. thing in the world, the first amendment. So, I I I think, um, you've raised a lot. of concerns in your testimony of the. last couple of days, but um, the idea. that the administration would put that. kind of language out there to intimidate. and scare people out of freedom of. speech is something that is a the most.

anti-American thing I've seen in a long. time. Yield back. >> Then I'll show you right here Democratic. Senator Gallego cross-examining another. pick of Donald Trump, uh, Charlton Allen. who's being picked to be on the Federal. Labor Relations Authority, uh, General. Counsel. Let's take a look at what goes. on here. Let's play it. >> Mr. Allen, in the 1990s you founded a. conservative campus publication called. the Carolina Review. Look behind me you see the front cover. of an edition of the Carolina Review. depicting Aaron Nelson, a Jewish. candidate for student body president.

Your magazine altered Nelson's photo. depicting him with a horns and a. pitchfork. Inside the article it says, "The. difference between Aaron Nelson is. simple, he's Jewish.". Yes or no, Mr. Nelson, do you stand by. this depiction? >> Well, first of all, uh. in terms. >> Turn your mic on. Your mic. >> Sorry. I I'm Mr. Allen, not Mr. Nelson. But, uh.

in terms of that cover, uh. you know, I would if I were 30 years ago. um advocating. uh for the Review, I would say don't run. that cover. Uh I think it was a mistake. Um that. said, if you look at full context of the. article, you're taking a quote out of. context. >> Okay, so maybe you take the quote out of. context, but I'm That's not being taken. out of context, right? The pitchfork. with the horns. >> Right. >> Is that cuz that's kind of hard to get. out of context.

>> In terms of uh. the University of North Carolina Chapel. Hill, our chief rival was the Blue. Devils, still are the Blue Devils. And. the cartoonist's intention was to make. an analogy to that. >> So, everything happened. was just a total coincidence that the. Jewish candidate happened to have a. pitchfork and horns and that also at the. same time inside the context of the. difference with Nelson is simple, he's. Jewish, and the difference being between.

them and the Blue Devils. So, the. difference is that he is a Jew Jewish. versus a Blue Devil, is that what your. your defense is? >> The point is this, um Mr. Nelson voted. not to fund a Christian group. He voted. to fund the Jewish group. He voted to. fund the Pagan group. But, on two. separate times he voted not to fund. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. And. it raises a conflict of interest when he. was a member of a group that he voted.

for. >> You certainly remember in detail this. the this issue in question for someone. who wants to forget it. So do you stand. by. the statement that was made of that time. period regarding Mr. Nelson then? >> What statement are you referring? >> Well, I would say overall this. anti-Semitic statement and depiction of. this gentleman. >> I would not say that it's anti-Semitic. We were the group that was calling for. the equal treatment of all student. religions. >> So it's not anti-Semitic to say your. difference with. Nelson is simple. He's just a difference.

between a blue devil and Nelson is the. fact that he's Jewish. That's that you. you stand by that then. >> The point was this. He voted for the. Jewish group and on two separate. occasions he voted not to fund the. Christian group. >> You know, there you have it, folks. Let. me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers and. thanks for watching. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack [music] at. midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps. from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes. of our podcast, and more exclusive.

content only available [music] at. midasplus.com.