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

The individuals who Donald Trump is seeking to appoint to lifetime federal judgeships 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 6th an attack on the United States Capitol? What powers does Congress have under Article I 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 was 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.

Uh, Mr. Mark, if I might, um, just tell me about the 22nd Amendment. What does it provide?

The 22nd Amendment— Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution. I haven't had an opportunity to to use that one specifically.

Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Well, Senator, I believe it is the amendment that deals with a two-term limitation on service. Correct.

It states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Um, 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 as more of a hypothetical of something that could be—

It's not hypothetical. Has President Trump been elected president twice?

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

Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?

I would have to review the—

All I need to tell you is 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 of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term? Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?

Nobody.

All right, let's move.

Then Senator Blumenthal cross-examines these individuals who Trump wants to appoint to federal judgeships, judgeships, Who won the 2020 election? Here, play this clip.

Who won the 2020 election?

Senator, I wanted to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings, and it's become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So with that, I'd say that that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.

He won the election. Is that your response, Senator?

I think my response is he was certified as the winner by counting the electoral votes.

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 same answer as my colleague, Senator.

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. Henderson.

Unwilling to say that Joe Biden won the election, correct?

As Mr. Henderson said, it has become a matter of political concern, and Joe Biden—

well, it's a matter of political concern, but it's also an issue of fact, is it not?

Joe Biden was in fact certified the winner of the 2020 election.

Mr. Mark.

Same answer, Senator.

I am amazed and really appalled that nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are unwilling to respond on an issue of fact. And I'm not going to try to get an answer out of you because clearly you've been rehearsed to provide a stock answer, 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 responsive answer, I think, is a 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 Capitol attacked on January 6th, Mr. Hendershott?

Senator, this, the same kind of question has come up, I know, many times in these hearings, and under Canon 5, 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 Capitol of the United States was attacked. You've seen the videos, have you not?

I've not seen 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 canons would allow me to comment.

Well, I'm, I'm as troubled by that response as I am by Mr. Hendershott's, because there's zero chance that it will be before your court if there is any litigation. Uh, Mr. Kuhn, how do you answer?

Chair Grassley, may I?

You answer the same.

I was asking the chair if I could answer.

Well, I just want to finish with our last witness here. Give him a chance. Mr. Coons, go ahead. And then I think you're going to avoid the answer too, if I—

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.

Yeah.

Oh, I didn't get to—

even MAGA Republican senator from Louisiana, Senator Kennedy, was horrified by the answers he was getting from these judges. Watch as Senator Kennedy, again MAGA Republican 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 in Iran? And what powers does the Senate, does Congress have here? Play this clip.

When does, when does the president have to, to get permission of the United States Congress to, to use military force?

Well, Senator Kennedy, as I was discussing With Ranking Member Durbin, I do want to be careful about hypotheticals in terms of prejudging.

It's not a hypothetical. That's— I'm asking what the Constitution says. When, uh, when does the President of the United States have to get permission from Congress to use military force?

Generally, Senator, my understanding is the divisions between Article I and Article II distinguish 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, are likely committed under Article II to the president's commander-in-chief powers.

I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershott. Let's try it again. Tell me when the president has to go to Congress to get permission to use military force.

Uh, Senator, I think is when, um, 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, uh, 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.

Sure.

Okay.

I, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. I just don't understand what you said.

Um, Then you have Senator Durbin, Durbin cross-examining one of these, uh, individuals who Trump wants to appoint to a lifetime federal judgeship 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. Play this clip.

Do you share the Gun Owners of America view that the Second Amendment renders all gun laws unconstitutional?

Senator, respectfully, uh, 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 Durbin, I, I don't believe I'm ducking it. 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 would 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 are unconstitutional is not radical?

And again, Senator, I would say it is— it would be improper for me to opine on something like that since matters could come before me. But I would say that for most organizations, if 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. Hendershott.

More questioning here from Senator Durbin to another individual who Trump wants to appoint to a federal judgeship for life. Will you follow basic orders? Will you follow the law? Here, play this clip.

Will you condone or permit the kind of repeated resistance to court orders that the Ohio 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, to engage with a hypothetical about for example, a map or something like that, would be inside the space of the canons fence off. So I'm happy to talk about my role.

So 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 by other than talking about issues at a high level of generality. Otherwise, it's to prejudge a case, that may come to 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 5 times that the maps violated the state constitution and had to rule the state's congressional maps twice. It would seem to me that as a judge, you would expect a lawful order to be followed. Is that correct?

Yes, and I do expect lawful orders to be followed.

If you—

well, I'm distinguishing between the hypothetical that I took you to be asking about and my role representing certain members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission. I will note that there was, uh, 7 members of that separately represented. As that litigation went on, there was even further separation of the representation, uh, and including that I ended up not representing the members for the entire time of litigation you described.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Kennedy.

Thank you.

Now, just show you that this is not unique to this hearing. On April 15th, so about 2, 3 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, a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court. The circuit courts sit above district courts. And Donald Trump wants to have this very unqualified, young, radical, right-wing fascist extremist guy, in my opinion, a guy named Justin Smith, to be a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This guy shouldn't be nowhere near a federal courthouse, let alone be on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Watch as Senator Peter Welch cross-examines him and you'll see it's the same type of answers here. Play this clip.

Sorry, sorry.

Uh, thank you very much. Uh, I, uh, 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 won the 2022 election for the United States Senate in Missouri?

Well, I think under the 17th Amendment, the election for United States Senate is carried out a little bit differently than the election for president. You know, 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 a 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 gonna interrupt you. Save it, okay? It might be important, but somebody ran and somebody won that election. I'm asking you, who won that election?

Yeah. So pursuant to the 17th Amendment, the Missouri Secretary of State certified Eric Schmidt as the winner of the 2022 election.

Who won it?

As I just said, under the 17th Amendment, Eric Schmidt was certified and took office in January 2023.

But you agree that Senator Schmidt was elected?

I agree that he took office in January 2023 and that he— the election was cast and counted by the Missouri Secretary of State.

You know what?

I believe that Senator Schmidt won that election in a landslide, Senator. Well, I wasn't going to brag about it like that, but what is so hard about saying that? You want— 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 answers have been consistent with other answers this committee has heard. That's a legal matter.

Okay, they're consistent with what every nominee has said in the rehearsed way, but you do understand that President Trump continues to deny that he lost that election and continues to assert that that election was stolen, correct?

Yeah, I want to dispute that you said 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 on 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 renounce violence as a way to overcome the decision of the American people at the polling booth. But it did happen. And you can't acknowledge that President Biden won 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 Blumenthal, uh, 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 and Trump lost. Is that the case?

I think I want any judge to be very legally precise in what they said, and I've repeatedly referred to Article II and to the 12th Amendment in the process.

Well, what you're, what you're calling legally precise, uh, a lot of people would call politically Evasive. Mr. Mr. Mr. Chairman, what is the problem with acknowledging who won the election?

I have repeatedly acknowledged that Joe Biden was certified as the president in January 2021.

But, 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've explained the legitimate process of the Electoral College counting their votes in December of 2020. This is when those votes were cast across the country.

Under your approach, any of us can have whatever opinion we want as to whether the election was legitimate or not. You remember that President— then-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 was a certification process that resulted 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. Again, Who won the 2020 election? Play this clip.

And who won the 2020 election?

Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election. Well, Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.

He won the election, or did he just accidentally get certified?

Senator, I've answered that question. He was certified the winner of the election.

I yield 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? Uh, yes, Congress has legislative responsibility for, um, 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 actively before the courts.

No, I'm not asking 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 terrorists is statutes that this body enacted with broad discretionary language, and terrorists within the terms of those statutes would 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 judgeships. This should not be a political issue, okay? I'm a law professor. Okay. 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 they were 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 deeply disturbing to me, not on a political level, on a love of the law level, to see these authoritarians and these fascists be picked by a fascist regime and to show how the rule of law is just under attack by truly dangerously and idiotic humans. It's vile, 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.

Hit subscribe.

Let's get to 7 million. Thanks for watching. Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad-free videos, and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.