Trump’s TOP Nominees COLLAPSE under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing

Donald Trump's top nominees just. collapsed under brutal cross-examination. in the United States Senate. First, I. want to show you Senator Elizabeth. Warren cross-examining Christopher. Phelan, Donald Trump's nominee to be the. chair of the Council of Economic. Advisers. Senator Warren absolutely. eviscerates him. Let's play this clip. >> So, you have a PhD in economics from a. very prestigious university. You've been. a professor for nearly 30 years. You've.

taught thousands of students by this. point. On paper, you look like someone. who should be able to provide objective. advice. So, I have some questions and. quite frankly, I hope they are really. easy questions for you. President Trump promised to bring prices. down on quote day one. Is headline. inflation higher today. than it was in February 2025?

>> Thank you, Senator. Um headline inflation now is. certainly. lower than it was during the Biden. administration. >> I'm sorry. Come on, let's not play this. game. You heard my question. President Trump. was sworn in in January 2025. under the promise he would lower costs. on day one. The question I'm asking is. is inflation headline inflation today.

higher than it was in February 2025? It's a fact question. >> Thank you, Senator. There's a reason economists tend to. focus on core inflation and that is. because food and energy is quite. volatile. >> Okay, can you give me the answer? We'll. do core. Can you give me the answer on. headline inflation? I don't want to know. how fast you can dance. Can you give me the answer on headline. inflation? I don't want to know how fast. you can dance. I want to know if you can.

answer simple factual questions. That's. all I'm looking for here. >> Thank you, ranking member. I do not know. exactly what the headline inflation was. on January 20th, 2025. >> 2.8%. So, answer the question. Is headline. inflation higher today than it was in. February 2025? >> Headline inflation now, uh. the last one was year-over-year 4.2%.

>> Okay, so is 4.2%. higher than 2.8%? >> Ranking member, yes, it is. >> Oh, wow. Was that so hard? You know, you're going to be the guy called on to. give real facts. So, let me try another. one. Dr. Feilan, is annual inflation higher. than wage growth today? >> Thank you Thank you, ranking member. There has been, since President Trump.

took office, weekly inflation-adjusted earnings are. higher now than they were the day. President Trump took office. >> The question I asked you is inflation. higher than wage growth right now? In other words, even if families are. getting raises on average, are they. falling behind because of inflation? >> Thank you, ranking member. I do think. it's important to have an appropriate. time frame when considering anything.

like this. The appropriate time frame is. when President Trump took office. >> is I just want a fact. >> Inflation-adjusted wages are lower than. they are now. >> today are families getting ahead or. falling behind? You got one word to. answer that. What's your word? >> My word is up. Real wages are higher now. Real wages. are higher now. than they were at the beginning of. COVID. >> Right?

What's the annual wage growth right now? It's just fact question. >> Thank you, Senator. I do not have that. in front of me right now. >> It's 3.4%. So, let's put this one together. Is 4.2. higher than 3.4? >> I will repeat what I said, which is real. wage growth in this administration is. positive. >> It is right now families are falling. behind. And I got to say, I can keep. this one up. Fact after fact that you.

have now made clear what your position. is. And that is you can't even do the. basic facts. I didn't even get to the. hard questions here about what this. means. I just wanted to start with what. the facts are. These are facts that come. out of the Trump administration. They're. there for anybody. >> to see. >> And you can't bring yourself as the. person who sits there and says, "I want. to be the head of the Council of. Economic Advisers." Oh, I'm sorry, to.

give objective economic advice. And you. can't even say, "Yeah, inflation is. running higher than wages right. >> And we're still going to try to keep it. on behalf of the chairman to 5 minutes. >> Fair enough. I think this person has. disqualified himself in 5 minutes. >> And on behalf of. >> Next, I want to share with you Senator. Whitehouse grilling Trump's DOJ nominee, someone who Donald Trump wants to be an. assistant attorney general. And.

Whitehouse and others on the United. States Senate got this guy's tweets, and. they confronted him with the tweets that. he's been sending about senators and. Kamala Harris and even Donald Trump. where he's been saying how much he. basically hates everybody and the guy. was basically stunned into silence. I. want to show you what went down. Play. this clip. >> You have tweets. that call Donald Trump. and Kamala Harris.

two clowns. You have tweets that call Senator. Murkowski. >> [snorts]. >> almost as dumb as Kamala. You have tweets that call Senator. Collins. a fraud. You have tweets that call Senator. Padilla, who sits on this committee, a thug. You have tweets that. call Senator Schiff.

a fraud. He also sits on this committee. And. you undertook no preparation. to face questions about that as you come. before the Senate Judiciary Committee? >> No, Senator. >> You didn't tell the Department of. Justice about those tweets? >> Senator, I we I tweet and respond to. tweets or repost tweets regularly and. frequently. >> But you know the stuff is going to be. looked at. It gets looked at all the. time in hearings. Our expert is Senator.

Kennedy, but other senators ask. questions about people's. tweets as well. You're telling me here. that you never disclosed to the. Department of Justice these tweets about. senators who would have to vote on your. nomination. And you're telling me the DOJ, as far as. you know, didn't even know about them. >> I'm telling you that the DOJ never. raised these with me. >> And you never disclosed them to the DOJ. >> No.

>> Well, let's start with. Senators Padilla. and Schiff. Do you know what state they represent? >> Uh California. >> Yeah. And um, California. will very likely be. submitting applications. for various grant programs to the Office. of Justice Programs. Correct? >> I I would expect.

>> Yeah. And um, having called Senator Padilla a thug at. least five times and Senator Schiff a. fraud, what. reasonably could they expect. about. you. giving California. programs a fair hearing. if you're put in charge of OJP? >> Uh, every state and every jurisdiction. would expect that they would go through. the process of applying for grants.

uh, with the Office of Justice Programs. and those and those grant applications. would would be administered. and reviewed through the process of the. of the department. >> Yeah, that's what they would expect. And then there'd be a guy at the head of. the program. who thinks that the senators involved. are a thug and a fraud. How do you convince us that you're not. going to let that personal bias against. these two individuals affect your. judgment about.

California programs, particularly. programs that you know, we often write. in letters saying, you know, we uh, work with this program. We think. they do a good job. Please give it every. due consideration consistent with your. responsibilities. That's pretty standard. thing. How do you respond to a letter. from somebody you've called a thug or. somebody you've called a fraud when they. support a program. uh, that you're asked to decide on? >> Cuz I believe that the Office of Justice. Programs has a mission to support the. entire country, every state and every.

city and protect our communities. irrespective of the elected leadership. that exist there today or tomorrow. >> So, just trust me, I guess, is what. you're saying. >> Well, trust the fact that I have been in. the private sector and I'm a practicing. I was a practicing lawyer for a long. time, and I will administer these funds. as a good steward for the taxpayers of. this country, and ensure that they reach. the ultimate recipients and the. beneficiaries, which are our. communities, our law enforcement, victims of crime, our juvenile system.

>> So, why should Judge Boasberg, the chief. judge of the DC Circuit, be impeached? >> I don't have an opinion on Judge Judge. Boasberg. >> You had one when you twice said that he. should be impeached on tweets. >> So, Senator, I suspect that you're. quoting retweets or comments to other. tweets. It would be nice to have. >> No, they're your tweets. You're the one. who's responsible for them. You're. responsible for knowing what you said. Don't put it on us. to have to explain to you your own.

tweets. This is your mess, not ours. You're the one. who tweeted impeach him. If you can't explain that, that's on. you. But my general question is, why should. Judge Boasberg be impeached, whether you. tweeted it or retweeted it? You obviously thought he should be. impeached. Why? >> It would be helpful for me to see the. context of the tweet. >> You're the one who's supposed to be. ready for these hearings. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank. >> And then you had Senator Richard. Blumenthal relentlessly grilling and. cross-examining one of Donald Trump's. judicial nominee, someone who's actually. a current judge who is going to be. elevated to a higher judicial position. that Trump wants him to. And Senator. Whitehouse again asked some of the. Senator Whitehouse asked the other guy. basic questions. Senator Blumenthal. asked some really basic questions here. Let me show you what went down. The.

Senator Blumenthal grills him. Let's. play. Who won the 2020 election? >> Senator, as Justice Jackson explained. when she was asked essentially that. question about both 2020 and 2016, it. would be inappropriate for me as a. >> Well, let me let me just call your. attention to what she actually said. And. as a judge, I know you want to be. careful. when you cite. another judge. She was asked whether she. had ever commented on the results. She. wasn't asked about the results.

I'm asking you about the results of the. 2020 election. Who won it? >> So, the question is slightly different, but the answer, I think, is. >> Well, the answer is the same because. you've been told what the answer is when. you prepared, correct? >> No, I I was not told what to say. >> You prepared with. the White House before you came here, did you not? >> I I prepared like I think all all. nominees do with the just.

>> times did you meet with the White House? >> I I never met with the White House after. I was went through the. interview process. >> Well, in your response to the question. that was asked you, you said, "I have been in communication. with individuals in the Department of. Justice regarding the nomination. process.". Are they the ones who prepared you? >> I did engage with Justice Department. Yes. >> And they gave you the canned answer that. has been provided by all the other.

judicial nominees here. Let me ask you who won the popular vote. in the 2020 election. Simply a matter of. fact. >> Again, as Justice Jackson explained, commenting. on a matter of political debate like. that is inappropriate for a sitting. judge. >> Your honor, judge, you have a lifetime. job right now, correct? >> I do. >> Nobody can take it away from you. You. have the independence right now to say.

what really factually happened in the. 2020 election, and you are evading that. question. with the same scripted canned answer. that everyone. nominated so far recently has given. I think the American people ought to be. deeply disappointed and members of this. committee. Let me ask you, would you recommend that my colleagues. who voted against Justice Jackson's.

nomination to the United States Supreme. Court also vote against you? >> Uh anybody who based their decisions. solely on that answer perhaps. >> Let me ask you about the. uh January 6th. incident. Would you agree the capital. was attacked on January 6th? >> I would agree that individuals I I I. from the videos I've seen, a number of. individuals attacked police officers, engaged in violence, vandalism.

>> Well, an attack on police officers. who were guarding. the capital. is an attack on the capital, correct? >> So as I uh. as I said, individuals engaged in. attacks on police officers, which I. clearly condemn. More broadly characterizing the events. of that day beyond what a number of. individuals did, I think would uh put me. in the same position as uh Justice.

Jackson when asked about the same. events, which is that commenting on that. >> Commenting on. whether the United States Capitol, our. democracy, the peaceful transfer of. power. was. attacked on January 6th. is. not. going to be answered by you because you. think Justice Jackson wouldn't have. commented on? >> Well, she she in fact gave the same.

answer to that as she did about the. elections and I and and the reason is. that the broader characterization of. what happened that day beyond. what individuals I've seen is a matter. of public debate that I. >> Was Was Donald Trump attacked on July. 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania? >> Uh someone attempted to assassinate him. Yes. >> Was he attacked? >> Uh I suppose you could characterize an. assassination attempt as an attack. >> How about an attempted assassination of.

the Capitol Police? >> Uh as I said. >> Had an attack on the Capitol? >> Uh as I said the the individuals who. engaged in violence against uh officers, I think you could say attacked those. officers. More broadly characterizing. the events. of that day is a matter of public uh. political debate. >> to say that if I were in your courtroom. and I gave these kinds of answers to you.

as a judge on the federal bench. you would throw me out of your. courtroom. And I'm disappointed that you're not. willing to be more forthcoming as to the. facts here because one of the key. questions about any nominee for the. federal bench is independence of mind. and action. You'd agree that's an. important quality, wouldn't you? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Well, there you have it, folks. Let me. know what you think. Hit subscribe.

Let's get to 7 million subscribers and. thanks for watching, everybody. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack at [music]. 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.