Transcript of Trump Nominations Collapse in Front of Congress New

Ein perfekter Frühlingstag. Allergie! Sonne! Allergie! Park!

Allergie!

Picknick!

Und so viele Pollen.

Shop-Apotheke sagt Tschüss Allergie und Hallo Frühling. Hier findest du alles, um unbeschwert durch die Allergiezeit zu kommen. Als Neukunde sparst du sogar 10% ab 35 € Bestellwert. Mit dem Code NEU10. Du hast ein E-Rezept? Einfach Shop-Apotheke-App runterladen und direkt einlösen. Gutscheinbedingungen auf shop-apotheke.com/gutscheine.

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?

Just trying to— Senator, this issue has become a question of political controversy. I'm a sitting federal district judge. I'm a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Justice Jackson, who previously was confirmed by the Senate for a position—

If I may interrupt you, Judge, because 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 Justice Jackson stated in her responses to questions in the record, it is not appropriate to engage in discussion regarding that as a judge.

So you're going to use the same script that other nominees have used before this panel to avoid the question.

Senator, I think the precedent established by Justice Jackson and other nominees is something that I need to follow.

As a matter 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 because—

You under— 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're 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 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 Capitol—

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 Capitol attack on January 6th.

Senator, as part of my work as an assistant United States Attorney— pardon 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 the 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. President Biden was certified as the winner.

Who got more popular votes?

Senator, with respect to the popular vote, my role as a nominee here is to speak to the law.

Who got more votes in the Electoral College?

Senator, my understanding is that Joseph Biden received more votes in the electoral—

Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th?

Senator, I've certainly seen videos relating to what occurred at the Capitol on that date. From what I saw, it appeared that there was violence and trespass, as my fellow nominee said. It's profoundly troubling, and I have—

So the Capitol was attacked?

Senator, I would hesitate to characterize what—

You hesitate to tell the truth here? Senator? Ms. Colomero, 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?

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 more electoral votes.

Who won more votes in the election?

Senator, among the American people, as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th?

Senator, like my other nominees, I have seen videos.

Like your other nominees, you're going to adopt The script, the new script, the new hedge, the new White House pre-negotiated script.

Mr. More intense cross-examination, this time by former federal prosecutor and California Senator Adam Schiff.

Let's play it 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.

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 Capitol.

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.

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 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, 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. Who won the 2020 election?

Senator, as I indicated in response to questions from Senator Blumenthal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, as a sitting circuit court judge at the time of her nomination, was asked this question in questions to the record.

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.

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 one of the Trump, uh, 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, would a 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, uh, someone, it's determined to be negligent. If you were reasonably negligent, then you get off. Now, that's 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't 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, a MAGA Republican, is 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 cop— if somebody runs from a cop The cop doesn't feel threatened. He just, 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. If, if, if I, if I'm a cop and I'm talking to a suspect and he turns and, and rabbits on me. And I say, 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, Senator, for qualified immunity, which is whether there was an objective—

Does it apply 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?

Again, I don't want to comment on a specific fact pattern. I principally have practiced in civil law 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 get what— look, you're smart. I've read your resume. I just caution y'all, when you go back to your friends at the White House who've got you ready for these hearings, don't dodge the questions. Just answer them.

Okay?

If you don't know, just say, I don't know. I just think you're very qualified, Counselor, but I can't believe you dodged on the question. Can a cop shoot somebody in the back who's running away just because 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 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.

Why did you— I, I, I heard your answer to Senator Durbin, but you were 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 did you do that?

Senator, I was asked to sign the letter. I— 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 protest that was resulting in violent conduct.

Well, I know, I know what happened. I guess what I'm getting at is our federal judiciary 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 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—

yeah, they do—

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 We don't even have the power to change laws like you do as a legislator.

I get that, Judge, and you're a judge. You can do what you want. I hope you won't do something like that again. I'm not saying you don't have the right, but when you adopt a political position, which I happen to believe with, frankly, 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. That'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.

Sure, but not to post?

Not at all.

And then finally, you had 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.

Does anybody disagree?

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

Thank you. I'd like to talk a little bit about fraud upon the court. First of all, would one of you care to define it for me?

Senator, I can speak generally that fraud upon the court can take a number of forms. It could constitute perjury or obstruction or other means of deceiving the court.

It is 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. Fraud on the court is a kind of unique creature of its own that can be policed by the judge, really, sua sponte, like 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, if a fraud upon the court has been committed in a particular case, that the judge has all of the sanctions available to them in the case 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. And ultimately, as you suggested, Mr. Pozos, referrals for criminal conduct along the lines of obstruction or fraud or perjury can also be made, correct?

Yes, Senator. The cases that I involved did not involve referrals, but that is something that a judge would do.

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 because you're probably not seeing 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 content only available at MidasPlus.com.