Trump Witnesses Crumble on Live TV from Cross Exam!!!

- Naturally, an out-of-an-rast step

from her ways and tank and rast, rode our super-angebots,

“three small bodies with no-stricken pummel”

for no-9 or no-90. You had it really, no-9 or no-90. There, lo and sich-the-pouser, an antenna in an out-of-an-rast step,

info-sortail-name and rast-chette in the E. - Are Neonaties? - Are Neonaties? - Supremesis. - It depends on which ones they are.

- They're in the binoculars. - I didn't ask you which ones. Donald Trump's top witnesses collapsed under cross-examination before the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

One-by-one Trump cabinet officials, judicial nominees, and MAGA witnesses crashed out on live TV when they were forced to testify under oath. Let me show you what went down. You had Donald Trump's transportation secretary,

Sean Duffy responding to allegations that his road trip reality show was funded by millions of dollars from companies that he has oversight over. Watch a Senator Gillibrand cross-exam

and Donald Trump's transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, let's play this clip. - I didn't make any money. - This hearing? You are the one.

- I am not the one. - I don't have any. Well, you maybe you should do that. - Well, you know what? - Secretary Duffy?

- For $7 million. - Secretary Duffy. - Secretary Duffy. - Secretary Duffy. - $7 million.

“- I think you should be telling this to me.”

- That goes to ad on television and that's all to you. You spend that money. - This is what I'm concerned about. - You are political and you are equal. - Where's your attention?

- Where's your attention? - I'm political ways. - A half a million dollars paid by the trial bar to fly you in a private jet.

- I've never been on a private jet.

- Is that air? - I don't know. - I've never been on a private jet. - We don't have a thousand dollars. - We don't.

- We don't. Members of Congress are allowed. - So they pay a lot. - On a private jet? - Not true.

- It is. - Not true. - Yeah. - You know what, Mr. Secretary. - You're job.

- You're phase on television. - You're job. - You're job. - Your stake dinners, your vacations by the trial bar. - We're going to get a Senator, no money.

- No money. - You're so recognized. - Then we had Democratic Senator Murray cross-examining Trump Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy about just how out of touch he is

with the American people. Let's play this clip. - So I just, this show is incredibly out of touch with where Americans are. And I echo Senator Jelibrand's concerns

that it really raises some serious ethics concerns about who you answer to because the people organizing your show solicited corporate sponsors and promised rewards at each level of funding. - Senator, there's to be IP address, that's not true.

- I'm looking at your thing. What you're talking about being a plethora. - There's a memo of understanding that says no one gets any benefit. - For any thing that is a question, maybe you can answer it.

- Sure.

- If I'm an airline executive and I paid a million dollars

for this great American road trip, what would I get out of that? - With, from me, nothing. - Well, look, as I said, the deck that is out there says that if you give a million dollars,

you get six VIP invitations to receptions. You get to go to round tables. You get to networking events. - If someone from the health care industry gives you two million dollars, what do they get for it?

- The, the, the, how do you not oversee the F, I do not know, what do you, your jurisdiction? - Your jurisdiction. - You have jurisdiction. - I do not regulate the issue.

“- To put your face on TV, you have to take dinner.”

- Mr. Secretary, let's go on vacation. - Listen to my point here. - That's what you do. - Mr. President. - Welcome, Mr. Tumaga.

- Welcome to Drew Bitterham. - Mr. Secretary. - Are you going to drill? Do you want to support oral gas prices? I welcome that.

Let's drill. - Then Trump transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, tries to talk over Senator Murray. Here, let's play this clip. - You have done everything in Ken to increase gas prices

for Americans and make a statement. - Mr. Secretary, this is not Trump. - Trump is lowering the cost of energy. - You are wasting my time. - You're wasting my time with the book of claims

that you have come out of. - Democrats tank focused on their cross-examination. Then Senator Gillibrand, continuing the cross-examination of Sean Duffy on his road trip show.

Remember Duffy became, I guess, somewhat famous, because he was on the real world road rules challenge. And then he and his family took this road trip reality show thing that they did funded by millions of dollars from companies that are under the oversight

of the transportation department corruption at its highest here at play this clip. - I also do not like your great American road trip. And I get, you have experience in that. I get, you want to promote American how beautiful

and amazing it is. I get all the good reasons why you wanted to do that. And I get, it's time with your family, all those things. I don't like it because right now in New York, people are suffering.

They are extremely stressed out. They're stressed out about the cost of gas,

They're upset about the cost of everyday household goods.

“They're upset about the cost of groceries”

and housing and healthcare. So they're stresses. I don't think they're going to get to go on that great American vacation that they'd like to go on. I think a lot of families are not actually going

on vacation this summer. And when I went and met with a bunch of gas stations across my state just a couple days ago, the cost of well over $4 a gallon in every gas station, $5 a gallon, over $6 a gallon for diesel,

it's extremely stressful. And I don't like the fact that this great American vacation reality TV show took days and days of filming. I don't like the fact that it was paid for by companies that you have to oversee companies that you work with.

And in our jobs, that would be paid for play. It would be 100% illegal. It would be inappropriate on every level. And not tolerated. And in this era where President Trump's spending money

building a golden ballroom that we don't need,

that he's spending a billion dollars a day on bombs,

that people would far rather he be spending on health care or housing. This great American road trip. It doesn't smell right. It may be fast, but it's fast and loose with the rules.

I don't like it. I think it's wrong.

“And I think you should explain to the American people”

why you should spend your time, and why you should be getting a vacation that is paid for by companies that you regulate. I think those things are highly problematic, and it makes me extremely anxious,

because the American people and New Yorkers in particular probably can't afford their vacation this summer at all. - And then transportation secretary Duffy, just trying to tell the Senate committee, you don't really get it.

The road trip that I did, sure it was funded by the industries that I have oversight over. But it was supposed to unite the country. The country wanted me to do this dammit.

You know, they didn't here play this clip. This was a project, Senator. And I want to encourage Americans to see their beautiful country. And as we can see from this hearing,

there's a lot of partisanship in America. This senior country experienced in your country through the window of a car as a beautiful thing. It actually unites America. Maybe spending time with your children

is a wonderful experience. - It is a wonderful thing. - But your vacation was paid for by Boeing, Toyota, United Airlines, Enterprise, Shell, Royal Caribbean Group. - All organizations and communities.

- Do you want to respond to you? - Can we respond? - But you're responding with platitudes. And it's not-- - I'm telling you what the project was.

- Okay. - Two days, quickly in and out, and I did film the Great American Road Trip to encourage Americans to travel. I'll answer your question.

So this was officially part of America 250. And you all sanctioned America 250. This is an official partner. Oh no, it's an official partner of America 250. Also, this body told me that I'm supposed to promote

tourism and travel. And that's what it does as well. Now hold on a second. - No. - And it shouldn't be paid for by people

that you have oversight that you oversee. - Can I respond to that? - I'm sorry, I didn't realize. - And finally, more from Jillian Brown, cross-examining, Duffy right here, about how his conduct

is just not appropriate at all here. Let's play this clip. - We've asked for all states to revoke a legally issued driver's licenses. Every state has complied, but New York.

And we have tools to pull money from New York. And we did, California even complied. - But the point is, but Mr. Duffy, Secretary Duffy, I don't mind that you have rules and that you have a different way

of doing this part of transportation. What I mind is that you bragged about it and made a joke about it. - I'm also not appropriate. - It is not appropriate.

- Do you want me to answer the question? - Do you want me to answer? - Do you want me to answer? - Do you want me to answer? - Do you want me to answer?

- We're going to give $8 billion to rebuild Penn Station.

Is that a joke? - No, but-- - No, you'd welcome that, right? And I've asked for your subway as to be cleaner. - We are $10.

- You got that money, 'cause we give it to you. - And from New York. - And then we get a choice where to put it. And you give me that, you give me that discretion. - We also appropriate money, then you don't grant.

- So we are the appropriators, not you. - No, I agree. - We appropriate the money. You're supposed to spend it. Sometimes you choose to not choose.

- And we have to file lawsuits to get you to spend the money. - Can I respond? Do you want to respond to--

“or if you want to take all your time as up,”

but if you want to just sit and, you know, vent or want me to respond. - Let's talk about the great American vacation. - The great American road trip. - Yeah.

- I love trying new coffee shops and fun seasonal drinks, but one full cup, and suddenly my heart is sprinting. And my brain is running in five directions at once. That's why mudwaters, new low-caf coffee, has been such a relief.

It's made with organic arabica coffee beans, alphine and functional mushrooms, like lines, made in corgi seps.

not like someone described coffee to a machine.

Enough to feel awake and dialed in

“without the jitters crash or emotional rollercoaster.”

And if you want something even gentler, the original blend is still there for you. The coffee alternative made with cacao, chide, tumouric, and functional mushrooms. Warm, grounding, and perfect for days

when you want energy without the buzz. But for the real coffee lovers, who just can't handle that heavy caffeine anymore, this is the version of coffee I didn't know existed. Real coffee taste, comma energy,

no spiraling thoughts, because loving coffee shouldn't mean negotiating with it every morning. Every single ingredient of mudwaters products are 100% USDA certified organic. Nanjimo, gluten-free, vegan, and kosher.

There's also zero sugar and no sweeteners added. To use mudwaters, you simply drop the powder into your favorite mug, pour some water on it, and give it a mix.

Some go wild and add a creamer, honey,

or even CBD. The best part about mudwater is it provides sustained energy without the spikes and crash of traditional coffee.

“Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy?”

Head to mudwater.com and grab your starter kit today. Right now, our listeners get an exclusive deal. Up to 43% off your entire order, plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use code mitis.

That's right, up to 43% off with code mitis at MUDWTR.com. After your purchase, they'll ask how you found them. Please support our show and let them know that might as touch it sent you.

- Then in the House of Representatives, you had Democratic Congress member Moscow. It's across examining a maga witness named Swain. She was there called by the maga Republicans in the House of Representatives

to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center.

She's a right-wing maga-pundant, and I want you to watch what happens as Moscow, its cross-examments here. Let's play this clip. - Our Neo-Nazis supremacists, it depends on which ones.

They're individuals. I didn't ask you which ones. - I'm a Democrat, I'm a Democrat.

“- Ms. Swan, listen, I'm not reading your book.”

If you literally can't answer this question. Are Neo-Nazis supremacists? - They're individuals. Some are and some maybe just plain old anti-symites. - Yeah, Neo-Nazis are anti-symites, okay?

We're gonna read there, but they're also supremacist, Ms. Swan. - Okay, if you, no, no, no, no. You don't have to take my word for it, right? Like they are, that's the whole reason they exist, but Neo-Nazis, they are supremacists.

- You all don't seem to understand that a question. - Who's they all? - I'm not in Neo-Nazis, who's they all? I'm a regular person asking another regular person. - Okay, if we can agree that Neo-Nazis are supremacists.

- I will agree with you. - Okay, I don't want you to be forced into it. - I would agree with you, but I suggest you all take the time and read my Cambridge University press. - Listen, that was nominated.

- Ms. Swan, Ms. Swan, Ms. Swan. - Ms. Swan, I can promise you, there's no freaking way I'm buying your book. When it took two minutes for you to look at me and how to convince you that Neo-Nazis, listen.

- Because I don't like the talking points, this is not a talking point, this is 100 years of history. Watch this, I'm gonna show you how easy it is. Mr. Perkins, our Neo-Nazis supremacists. - There are supremacists, thank you, sir.

Mr. O'Neill, yes, okay. - Dr. Swan, that wasn't a trick question for them. I wasn't trying to trip them up. I wasn't using DNC talking points. This is part of the problem.

- Then we heard from Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, she brought the house down. Let's play it. - People that are in organizations that are absolutely white supremacy organizations

should get our tax dollars, because they decided to tear apart or attempt to tear apart our democracy. They are being rewarded. These are people that went through our criminal justice system.

When people on that side of the aisle claim that they love law and order, they went through it. They either entered police of guilty or they were found guilty. And this president on day one,

his priority was not around racism. It was around doing things like letting them go and now putting money in their pockets. We haven't had one hearing on white supremacy. Yet when we look at things like the killing

of a mod, Aubrey George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, the nine worshippers who were murdered at the mother in manual AME church, the 23 people murdered in 2019 during the shooting at Walmart and El Paso that 10 people murdered

during the 2022 shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. All of these were murdered by white supremacists who were empowered by the Republican Party's racist rhetoric and policies.

This is the same party that wants to drag us back to the Jim Crow era. Some say that there aren't poll taxes and I guess it's because they're not listing the amount of money, but when you tell somebody

that they've got to go and pay for something, say, like a passport that costs over $100 in order to be able to vote,

Some a y'all need to read up on your history books.

“The very same ones that the Republicans have decided”

that people should not hear about 'cause you don't want real history taught in our schools because you're afraid that it's gonna hurt people's feelings to know that their ancestors were so savage that they would enslave black folks.

You don't want them to understand why the 14th Amendment mattered. Then, and it matters today. You don't want them to understand that when they draw these racist lines

and tell black folks that they shouldn't have representation in this country that it is against the Constitution. - I'm in the majority. - So they can sit up here. - And be in the general league.

- For your mistakes. - Fire, but you can't yield 'cause you've done run out of time. - And we heard from Democratic Congress member Jim McGovern, who showed how Republicans were voting against an amendment

to stop Donald Trump's $1.8 billion

slush fund in a case where Trump sued his own IRS and Treasury Department to give January six insurrectionists who assaulted police officers, millions of dollars beyond shameful. Let's play this clip.

- I move the committee at a new section to the rule of providing a meeting consideration of HR7711. The No Rewards for January six riot is act. So this bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted

for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol in January 6, 2021. Additionally, my motion would self-execute an amendment that would require the attorney generally in the United States to disclose any payments

made by the so-called anti-weaponization fund, which was created by the corrupt settlement agreement between Donald Trump and his own administration.

“This secret slush fund should be an outrage”

to every American no matter your politics. I would urge a yes vote on my motion and a yieldback. - And the question is on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. - Aye.

- Those opposed to no, no. The no's have it, the amendment's not agreed to. - And we heard from Donald Trump's judicial nominees, you had a guy by the name of Matthew Schwartz,

who was a nominee for the second circuit court of appeals,

watch a Senator Blumenthal across exam and some let's play this clip. - The Capitol attacked on January 6th. Senator, there was definitely trespass in violence at the Capitol on January 6th,

and obviously violence against law enforcement or against political actors is unacceptable. - So the Capitol was attacked violently on January 6th, correct? - So again, Senator, you're asking me to weigh in

on sort of public characterizations. What I will say is that the Capitol was, there was trespass and there was violence at the Capitol in January 6th. - You know, what makes me angry

is not just the insult to the role of this committee, but to our intelligence. Do you really expect us to accept these canned, rehearsed, practiced, answers, repeated again and again and again by judicial nominees,

who have an obligation to be truthful,

“and most important, you have an obligation”

to be independent. You both know better. You both have records of litigating, and you both would expect more of nominees in your position because above all,

a federal judge must be independent without fear or favor and your fear, apparently of Donald Trump so much so that you practice with the White House before you came here and rehearse this answer and are repeating by road what you've been told to say

in my view is disqualifying. And I'm really disappointed in both of you because I would have expected better. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. - And we had Senator Blumenthal across examining

another Trump judicial nominee, a guy by the name of flowers. Watch this. - Ms. Flowers, who won the 2020 election? - Senator Blumenthal, I'll incorporate the answer that Justice Jackson gave that Chairman Grassley

referred to earlier. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the outcomes of any election except to say that legally speaking, Joe Biden was certified. - Justice Jackson said it would be inappropriate

for her as a sitting federal judge. You're a not a sitting federal judge who won the 2020 election. - Senator, it's long but understood that nominees should abide by the same code of ethics that binds sitting judges.

So I do think her examples persuasive and I tend to fall. - I think your failure to answer that question

she declined to answer based on the code of ethics

because at the time she was a sitting federal judge. And frankly, I know Justice Jackson, you're no Justice Jackson and I would ask her the same question and insist on her answering it if she were the nominee today.

So I'll give you one more chance who won the 2020 election, sir.

- I'll again adhere to Justice Jackson's precedent.

- Mr. Schwartz, who won the 2020 election?

“- So Senator, I think the answer that Justice Jackson gave”

is the only legally and ethically correct-- - You recognize that you're not a sitting federal judge. - Senator, the rules for judicial conduct apply to judicial nominees who are-- - No, they don't. - No, they don't.

- Mr. Schwartz and you know better and you are in fact fooling or trying to fool this committee and the general public. And you've appeared before a lot of distinguished second circuit judges.

“I'm willing to bet you know they would not answer the question”

this way. Who won the popular vote, Mr. Schwartz, in the 2020 election? - So Senator, again, consistent with the answer that Justice Jackson's a--

- Is there a actual question, Mr. Schwartz? - It's a matter of public record. You wouldn't answer the question in this way if you were before a judge, would you?

“- Senator, sitting here as a judicial nominee,”

I'm bound by the codes of conduct. And I can't answer that question in the way you want me to because the only legally and ethically correct answer is the one that prior nominees have given, which is that Joe Biden was certified as president in 2020.

- There you have it folks. Let me know what you think, hit subscribe.

Let's get to 7 million subscribers.

Thanks everybody so much for watching. Double check that you're subscribed. You may think that you're subscribed, but you may not actually be subscribed. - Love this video, support independent media

and unlock exclusive content, add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also give memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.

(upbeat music)