Trump’s Judge Picks Suffer Major Collapse during Senate Hearing!!

are collapsing under the most basic of cross-examination during their confirmation hearing

“before the United States Senate. Democratic senators and Republican senators are cross-examining”

these Trump nominees and they're asking these Trump nominees who want these lifetime federal

judgeships. They're being asked the most basic questions. Is Donald Trump eligible for a third term

of the presidency? Who won the 2020 election? Was January 6 an attack on the United States capital? What powers does Congress have under article one with respect to the United States president going to war? And when these questions are being asked to these judicial nominees, these nominees are just collapsing on live TV. The thing is people aren't seeing this, really, other than on the Midas Touch Network. So let's get out the word and let's show

everybody what is taking place at these confirmation hearings of individuals, of individuals, woefully unqualified. Let's take a look at what happened when Democratic Senator Coons is cross-examining Donald Trump's judicial nominees for different federal judgeships across the country for

district court positions. Watch as he asks them if Donald Trump is able to run for a third term.

Let's play this clip. Mr. Mark if I might just tell me about the 20 second amendment. What is it provide? The 20 second amendment, Senator Mike Carrier, has mostly been in criminal prosecution. I haven't had an opportunity to use that on specifically. Anyone able to help on the 20 second amendment to the United States Constitution? Well, Senator, believe it is the amendment that deals with a two term limitation on the United States. No person shall be elected the

office of the president more than twice. Mr. Mark is president Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028. Senator, with it without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes is more of a hypothetical of something

“that could be. It's not a hypothetical. Has president Trump been elected president twice?”

President Trump has been certified. The president of the United States two times.

He's the eligible to run for a third term under our constitution. I would have to review

that the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no he is not eligible to run for a third term. Anybody else brave enough to say that the constitution in the United States prevents the president Trump from seeking a third term. Anybody willing to apply the constitution by its plain language in the 20 second amendment? Nobody. All right, let's move. Then Senator Bloom and Thal cross-examines these individuals who Trump wants to appoint

to federal judge ships who won the 2020 election. Here, play this clip. Who won the 2020 election? Senator, who want to be mindful of the canons here? I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and has become an issue of the significant political dispute and debate. So with that, I would say that President Biden was certified the winner

“of the 2020 election. He won the election. Is that your response? Senator, I think my response”

he was certified as the winner by counting the elect. Though you're unwilling to say he won the election, how about you, Mr. Roberts? I'm sorry, Senator. I'm sorry, Mr. Jones. I apologize, Senator. I have this, the same answer as my colleague, Senator. The same answer as the previous one. The previous nominee, the Senate did. Mr. Coons, how about you? Thank you, Senator. And I have the same answer as Mr. Hamay, Senator. Unwilling to say that Joe Biden won

the election correct. As the Mr. Henderson said, it has become a matter of political concern and Joe Biden. Well, it's a matter of the political concern, but it's also an issue of fact. Is it not? Joe Biden wasn't fact certified the winner of the 2020 election. Mr. Mark? Same answer, Senator. I am amazed and really applaud that nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are unwilling to respond on an issue of fact. And I'm not going

which I think really reflects not only on your honesty, but really on your fitness to be a federal

judge because you are supposed to be independent and to arrive at the truth based on the evidence

“before you and I think it's pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election, but you're”

unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic, and I can't tell you how disappointed I am. We can disagree on issues of law, we can disagree on issues of fact, but for you to simply

avoid a factual and response of answer I think is that disrespect to this committee as well as

to us. More questioning from Senator Blumenthal about January 6th, let's play this clip right here. Let me try another question was the capital attack on January 6th, Mr. Henderson. Senator, this same kind of question has come up. I know many times in these hearings and undercane in five, which I consider myself bound by that is a matter of significant political controversy. It's a matter of what? It is a matter of significant political controversy.

It's a matter of controversy that the capital of the United States was attacked.

You've seen the videos? Have you not? I'm not seeing many of the videos to be honest.

How do you answer Mr. Jones? Senator, I also believe it is a matter of significant political controversy and there's also a possibility that there could be litigation still over those events that could appear before me and as a nominee, I don't believe the cannons would allow me to comment on. Well, I'm as troubled by that response as I am by Mr. Henderson shots because there's zero chance that it will be before your court if there is any litigation.

Mr. Coon, how do you answer it? Ter Grassley? May I? You answered the same? I was asking the chair if I could answer. I just want to finish with our last witness here at Give him a chance. Mr. Coon's go ahead

“and then I think you're going to avoid the answer too. If I do, I do agree with my colleagues”

that it is a matter of political concern. I believe the language used by the Supreme Court is that there was a breach and I would leave it at that. I didn't get to. Even Magga Republic in Senator from Louisiana, Senator Kennedy was horrified by the answers he was getting from these judges. Watch a Senator Kennedy, again, Magga Republic in from Louisiana asks one of these judges about war powers, especially right now, that Donald Trump

unilaterally or with Netanyahu is in this unlawful war and Iran and what powers does the Senate as Congress have here play this clip. When does the President have to get permission of the United States Congress to use metal tear force? Well, Senator Kennedy, as I was discussing with Ranking Member Durbin, I do want to be careful about hypotheticals in terms of prejudging the hypothetical.

I'm asking what the Constitution says. When does the President and United States have to

“get permission from Congress to use metal tear force?”

Generally, Senator Munderstanding is the division between Article I, Article I, Article II, distinguished between the war powers which are under Article I and require Congressional consent, again, talking in great generalities, whereas other use of force if I understand your question are things that would likely be committed under Article II

shot. Let's try it again. Tell me when the President has to go to Congress to get permission to use

“metal tear force. Senator, I think is when, because the text of the Constitution,”

Article I talks about declarations of war, those would be circumstances where the President would in a general sense and use of force that is not war under the Commander-in-Chief power. I think those are under Article II without the consultation of Congress. Okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude. I just don't understand what you said. Then you have Senator Durman, Durbin, Cross-Examining, one of these individuals who

Trump wants to appoint to a lifetime federal judgehip about his view on the second amendment,

because this individual is part of a gun club that says there can be no regulations at all regarding the second amendment and guns. All guns should be able to proliferate everywhere. Watch the response from this individual who Trump wants to have appointed to be a federal judge for life playing this clip. Do you share the gun owners of America view that the second amendment renders all gun laws unconstitutional? Senator, respectfully, I think if I were to answer that

question, it could involve both a political question and something that could come before. But here's where we start Mr. Jones. You voluntarily joined this organization with radical views.

“And now, that is part of your biography before this committee. If you want to make it clear”

that you now have changed your views or explain why you joined the organization, here's your chance. But to duck it and say, "I don't have to comment on this," is to leave us with the

conclusion you agree with them? Senator, I don't believe I'm ducking yet. I don't believe first of

all it's with the characterization of it being radical. But I would say that I don't believe as a nominee with somebody, if I were to be confirmed, cases that could come before me on the bench, could involve issues involving the second amendment. I don't think it would be appropriate for me in this hearing to comment on my view of the second amendment and what I believe it entails on those types of issues. I think that would be inappropriate as a judicial nominee.

So you say that their position that all gun laws or unconstitutional is not radical? And again, Senator, I would say it would be improper for me to open on something like that

since matters could come before me. But I would say that for most organizations if

as someone joins one doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything that someone in the organization may say later on or at some point. Mr. Hindershunt, more questioning here from Senator Derbham to another individual who Trump wants to appoint to a federal judge for life, like will you follow basic orders? Will you follow the law here play this clip? Will you condone or permit that kind of repeated resistance to court orders

that they would have redistricting commission engaged in? Well, Senator, as my colleague mentioned, I think the judicial canons certainly apply to us here as nominees and I think to engage with a hypothetical about, for example, a map or something like that, would be inside the space of a canons fence off. So I'm happy to talk about that. You believe it's arguable as to whether or not a party is bound by a court order?

“No, Senator, I don't think that's what I'm saying. What I'm saying is my understanding of the”

canons the way I take them to bind me here is to not prejudge a case, but other than talking about issues at a high level of generality, otherwise it's to prejudge a case that may come but be pending or impending before this is just the opposite. You weren't prejudging, you were representing a client who was resisting a court order and it says the Supreme Court of your state ruled five times at the maps violated the state constitution and had to rule the state's

congressional maps twice. I was saying to me that as a judge you would expect a lawful order to be followed, is it correct? Yes, and I do expect lawful orders to be followed. I'm distinguishing between the hypothetical that I took you to be asking about and my role representing certain members of the Ohio redistricting condition. I will note that there was seven members of that separately represented as that litigation went on. There was even further separation of the

representation, including that I ended up not representing the members for the entire time,

Now, just show you that this is not unique to this hearing on April 15th, so about two

three weeks ago during another Senate confirmation hearing an individual who Trump wanted to have appointed to the eighth circuit court of appeals, so the circuit court stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court, the circuit court said above district courts and Donald Trump wants to have this very unqualified young radical right-wing fascist extremist guy in my opinion, kind of just in Smith to be a judge on the eighth circuit court of appeals. This guy shouldn't

be nowhere near a federal court house, get alone be on the eighth circuit court of appeals,

watch as Senator Peter Welch cross-examments and you'll see it's the same type of answers here

play this clip. Thank you very much. I was watching some of the earlier questions and answers including about the election, and I just want to follow up a little bit on that. Who when the 2022 election for the United States Senate in Missouri? I think under the 17th Amendment, the election for the United States Senate is carried out a little bit differently than the election for President, prior to the 17th Amendment, the Senators, as I recall were chosen by state legislatures,

and that was the process in this country for... I didn't ask for history lesson. I'm asking

“who won the 2022 election for the United States Senate in Missouri? Well, I think the history is important”

to explain that in the 17th Amendment different than the 12th. I'm in interrupt you. Save it,

okay, it might be important, but somebody ran in somebody won that election. I'm asking you who won that election? Yeah, so, for the 17th Amendment, the Missouri Secretary of State Certified Eric Smith is the winner of the 2022 election. Who won it? As I just said, under the 17th Amendment, Eric Smith was certified and took both of us to the 2023. The Senator's Schmidt was elected. I agree that he took office in January 2023 and that the election was cast and

counted by the Missouri Secretary of State. You know what? I believe the Senator Schmidt won that election. The landslide Senator. Well, I wasn't going to brag about it like that, but what is so hard about saying that? You were asked by Senator Blumenthal about the 2020 election and you could not

“say, and won't say that Joe Biden was elected by the American people to be president. Right?”

I think my answer has been consistent with other answers as committee has heard that it's a little matter. Okay, they're consistent with what every nominee has said in the rehearsed way, but you do understand the president Trump continues to deny that he lost that election and continues to assert that that election was stolen. Correct? Yeah, I wanted to speak that you say these were rehearsed or canned answers. These are my answers. These are the legally correct answers.

Okay, so you are aware that President Trump continues to assert that he won the 2020 election. I'm aware that President Trump has a lot of views on the 2020 election. Here's the worry here. You know, I was here in January 6th. I was here when the mob attacked when the gun was fired, when the mob was breaking the doors down. I didn't believe it was happening. And the reason I didn't believe it was happening is because this is the United States of America,

and we believe in the peaceful transfer of power. And we were announced violence as a way to overcome the decision that the American people at the polling booth. But it did happen. And you can't acknowledge that President Biden, when the popular vote, you can't acknowledge that under our process, he won the election. You can't say that. I share the apprehension that Senator Bloomingt thought has that the nominees who come in here can't say the obvious. You win some elections,

you lose some elections. And you as a judge still cannot just say plainly that Biden won in Trump

“lost. Is that the case? I think a way just be very legally precise in what they said,”

and I have repeatedly referred to Article 2 into the 12th Amendment. What you're calling legally precise, a lot of people would call politically evasive. Mr. Chairman, what is the problem

was certified as the President of the 2022 one. But what that suggests is it was like by accident,

“it was by subterfuge, it was somehow illegitimate. Do you believe any of those things to be the case?”

I have explained the legitimate process of the electoral college counting their votes in December of 2020. This one of those was for cast and under your approach, any of us can have whatever opinion we want as to whether the election was legitimate or not. That President Trump filed, I think like 80 lawsuits and virtually all of them except one were thrown out of court. Was there any judicial support for your view that says that there wasn't a conclusive outcome in

the 2020 presidential election? I think the view that I've shared here today is that there is a certification process that results in Joe Biden being president. Thank you. I yield back. Senator Schiff. And again just so you see this is every judicial nominee who appears before the Senate. They do the same thing. I'll just remind you and I showed this video. This is back in September of 2025 where you had a individual by the name of Jennifer Mascott who Trump appointed

to the third circuit court of appeals. Watch as Senator Welch and others ask her a very basic

“question and who won the 2020 election play this clip? Who won the 2020 election?”

Senator President Biden was certified the winner of the 2021 election. Well Senator President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election. When the election or just it accidentally gets certified. Senator I've answered that question. He was certified the winner of the election. How you'll back? And what about tariffs play this clip? If Congress has the authority to impose tariffs and that is a constitutional responsibility and right we have. Is that correct?

Yes, Congress has legislative responsibility for... So does the executive have the legal authority to impose a tariff because the executive doesn't like what the judicial process is doing in a country like Brazil? Senator, the question of tariffs is actually before the last. It's just about the tariffs. I'm asking is there constitutional authority for an executive to decide

“to use the tool of a tariff because he disrespects and dislikes the judicial policy in another country?”

Senator, my understanding of the legal basis for the tariffs is statutes that this body enacted with broad discretionary language and tariffs within the terms of those statutes. Of course, be lawful. Well, there you have it folks. The clips speak for themselves. These are individuals who Donald Trump wants to have appointed for life to federal judgehips. This should not be a political issue. I'm a law professor. And as a lawyer, I was a lawyer who represented

Democrats, Republicans, independents when I practiced law. I didn't ask people what political party there. From when I was a practicing lawyer, back in the day, I followed the law. I followed the law. The facts, the truth, the rules of evidence. So it's just a deeply disturbing to me, not on a political level, on a love of the law level, to see these authoritarian and these fascists be picked by a fascist regime and to show how the rule of law is just under attack,

by truly dangerously in idiotic humans, smile, vile to see. You see it, though. We have to see it. We have to open up our eyes to what's happening. This is what should be front page news and this should be what's on TV every day. But might as touch as TV now. So you've seen it here.

It's subscribed. Let's get to seven million. Thanks for watching.

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 the others. Let's keep growing together.