Trump Nominations Collapse in Front of Congress

Summary

The MeidasTouch Podcast

Episode: Trump Nominations Collapse in Front of Congress

Date: June 11, 2026
Host: MeidasTouch Network (Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas)
Featured Contributor: Ron Filipkowski (Legal Analyst)

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the dramatic congressional hearings for several Trump-nominated federal judicial candidates. The core theme is the unraveling of these nominees under bipartisan cross-examination, particularly as they dodge basic factual questions about the 2020 election, January 6th, and key legal doctrines. The MeidasTouch team and guest analyst Ron Filipkowski spotlight the inadequate qualifications of the nominees and the political implications for judicial independence and public trust in the courts. The episode combines pointed analysis, legal context, and moments of brotherly banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Judicial Nominees Face Congressional Scrutiny (02:31–05:37)

• Ron Filipkowski introduces the segment, noting,
  "One by one, judges nominated by Donald Trump for the federal bench were collapsing under cross examination in the United States Senate..." (02:31)
• Senator Blumenthal repeatedly asks nominees who won the 2020 election—a basic factual question:
  • Judge Tran refuses to answer directly, citing “political controversy” and following the precedent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (03:05–04:28).
  • Blumenthal challenges the evasiveness:
    "You are, in effect, protecting the lie. If you fail to take an independent position..." (04:28)
    "You prepared this answer with the White House, did you not?" (04:54)
  • Other nominees (Judges Pozos, Colomaro) echo the legalistic script, referring to “the law” but avoiding the plain answer.

---

2. Scripted Responses and Tense Exchanges (05:37–08:26)

• Multiple nominees stick to a script—repeating, “Joe Biden won as a matter of law,” but sidestep who got more actual votes.
• Blumenthal presses:
  "You'd hesitate to tell the truth here. Ms. Colomaro, who won the 2020 election?" (07:24)
  • Nominees deflect, invoking their judicial roles and precedent; the back-and-forth exposes their reluctance to state facts plainly.

---

3. Senator Adam Schiff’s Cross-Examination: Inconsistencies and Bias (08:26–11:32)

• Senator Schiff presses Judge Tran on his refusal to discuss January 6th due to “pending cases,” despite previous public statements on unrelated, controversial issues (such as a letter about not hiring Columbia grads):
  • Schiff calls out the inconsistency:
    "But you're saying here you can't answer a simple question about who won the 2020 election... There's no way to square those two things, Mr. Chair." (10:58–11:32)
• Schiff highlights a double standard: judges claim they can’t comment on “political controversies” while having participated in unrelated advocacy.

---

4. Republican Senator Kennedy’s Probing on Qualified Immunity (11:32–15:33)

• Senator Kennedy (R-LA) cross-examines Judge Mitchell about qualified immunity:
  • Presents a hypothetical where an officer shoots a fleeing, unthreatening suspect (13:32–14:35)
  • Judge Mitchell dodges the hypothetical, falling back on legal jargon and declining a clear answer.
  • Kennedy rebukes her evasiveness:
    "Just answer. Okay? If you don't know, just say, I don't know... I can't believe you dodge on the question, can a cop shoot somebody in the back who's running away..." (14:55)
• Kennedy highlights how prepped nominees seem unwilling to make basic moral or legal judgments.

---

5. Letters, Politics, and Judicial Legitimacy (15:33–18:47)

• Kennedy grills Judge Tran about signing a letter vowing not to hire Columbia Law grads, suggesting it undermines judicial impartiality:
  • Kennedy:
    "Our federal judiciary has lost some of its legitimacy... 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?" (16:44)
  • Tran defends his position citing violence at the protests, but Kennedy maintains such actions harm public faith in judicial neutrality.

---

6. Defining "Fraud Upon the Court" – Senator Whitehouse Segment (18:47–22:58)

• Senator Whitehouse quizzes the nominees on:
  • The 22nd Amendment and the presidency term limit (19:09–19:37)
  • The concept and severity of “fraud upon the court,” its meaning, and available sanctions (19:54–22:58)
  • Universal agreement among nominees: fraud on the court is "a very, very serious matter" (22:54)
• Whitehouse establishes the critical watchdog role of judges and exposes gaps in nominees’ knowledge or experience.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Senator Blumenthal (to Judge Tran):
  "If you fail to take an independent position... you are, in effect, protecting the lie." (04:28)
• Senator Schiff (to Judge Tran):
  "There's no way to square those two things, Mr. Chair." – calling out the inconsistency (10:58)
• Senator Kennedy's rebuke:
  "Just answer... I can't believe you dodge on the question, can a cop shoot somebody in the back..." (14:55)
• Senator Whitehouse (on fraud upon the court):
  "And in the event that a fraud upon the court has been committed... judges can make referrals to the bar for further disciplinary action..." (21:40)
• Ron Filipkowski closing observation:
  "These are the least qualified individuals for this position, and it's disgusting as a former litigator to see what I just saw..." (23:01)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 02:31 – Filpikowski’s intro: Judges collapse under questioning
• 03:02 – Blumenthal begins direct questioning: Who won 2020?
• 05:37 – Blumenthal presses further, highlights scripted responses
• 08:26 – Schiff questions Tran, calls out bias and evasion
• 11:32 – Kennedy on qualified immunity, exposes nominee evasions
• 15:33 – Kennedy grills Tran on politicized Columbia Law letter
• 18:47 – Whitehouse: Fraud on the court segment, judicial oversight

---

Tone and Language

Throughout, the tone is direct, incredulous, and at times combative—reflecting both the seriousness of the hearings and the MeidasTouch Network’s signature blend of sharp critique and defense of democratic norms. The episode is laced with legal explanations, contextual analysis, and the brothers’ banter. The use of actual hearing transcripts gives listeners the flavor of the exchanges and underscores the gravity of the pitfalls these nominees encountered.

---

Conclusion

This episode crystallizes a moment where Trump-era judicial nominees faltered under basic, bipartisan scrutiny about truth, democracy, and the law. Senators from both parties expressed frustration with evasive, possibly White House-coached answers—to questions as simple and fundamental as "Who won the 2020 election?"—and raised broader concerns about the politicization and legitimacy of the judiciary. Through pointed clips, legal expert commentary, and the MeidasTouch brothers’ advocacy, the episode spotlights why judicial appointments matter for democracy.

---

For listeners who missed the show, this detailed recap covers all critical themes, standout moments, and the broader political and legal implications discussed.

Transcript

[Lizzo]

Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes. Good. This is for you because on Spotify there's an audience that's different. Locked in, loyal, invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music, they feel seen by it like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me. Lizzo. So are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising. You're among fans.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[Mint Mobile Ad Voice]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee.

[Made in Cookware Ad Voice]

MintMobile.com this podcast is sponsored by Made in Cookware. Made in partners with multigenerational artisans and some of the world's best chefs to create professional quality cookware, knives and kitchen tools. Their products are trusted in Michelin starred restaurants worldwide and designed to perform just as well in your kitchen. From five ply stainless clad to carbon steel, every piece is built to last and made to actually make you a better cook. Discover award winning [e-mail] Monday AI agents

[Monday.com Ad Voice]

took over my work and I absolutely love it. Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders, agents handle the daily grind. Now they live inside Monday.com so they see the full picture. My work, my team, the whole company. And I don't have to worry about the data. It's safe. Which means I'm free to focus on the big stuff. Knowing everything runs smoothly in the background. It's completely shifted the way we work. Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday.com a burst pipe, a dead

[Mint Mobile Ad Voice]

water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal

[Ron Filipkowski]

price void in Florida 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.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who won the 2020 election? Judge Tran.

[Judge Tran]

Senator, this issue has become a question of political controversy. I'm a sitting federal district judge. I'm a nominee to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Justice Jackson, who previously was confirmed by the Senate for a position.

[Senator Blumenthal]

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?

[Judge Tran]

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.

[Senator Blumenthal]

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

[Judge Tran]

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

[Senator Blumenthal]

As a matter of fact, who got more votes in 2020? Which of the presidential candidates?

[Judge Tran]

Senator, as I stated before, this is an issue that Justice Jackson and other nominees have been asked. They've not provided a response.

[Senator Blumenthal]

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?

[Judge Tran]

Senator, I prepared the answer based upon the response provided by Justice Jackson.

[Senator Blumenthal]

You consulted with the White House before you invoke 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.

[Ron Filipkowski]

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.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who won the 2020 election?

[Judge Pozos]

Senator, as a matter of law, Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who got More votes?

[Judge Pozos]

Senator, my focus as a judicial nominee is on the law. And as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who got more Electoral College votes?

[Judge Pozos]

Joe Biden received more Electoral College votes.

[Senator Blumenthal]

And was the capitol attack on January 6th?

[Judge Pozos]

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.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Mr. Pozos, who won the 2020 election?

[Judge Colomaro]

Senator, I would agree with my fellow nominees.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Can you get closer to the mic or turn it on?

[Judge Colomaro]

My apologies, Senator, I would agree with my fellow nominees.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Answer, Senator, you're going to stick with that script?

[Judge Colomaro]

Senator, I don't believe it's a script. President Biden was certified as the winner.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who got more popular votes?

[Judge Colomaro]

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

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who got more votes in the Electoral College?

[Judge Colomaro]

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

[Senator Blumenthal]

Was the capitol attacked on January 6th?

[Judge Colomaro]

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 poor.

[Senator Blumenthal]

So the Capitol was attacked.

[Judge Colomaro]

Senator, I would hesitate to characterize what a.

[Senator Blumenthal]

You'd hesitate to tell the truth here. Ms. Colomaro, who won the 2020 election?

[Judge Another Nominee]

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

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who got more votes in the popular election?

[Judge Another Nominee]

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.

[Senator Blumenthal]

As a matter of law, yes. Senator, who. Who won more votes?

[Judge Another Nominee]

Well, Joe Biden received more electoral votes.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Who won more votes in the election among the American people.

[Judge Another Nominee]

As a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

[Senator Blumenthal]

Was the Capitol attacked on January 6th?

[Judge Another Nominee]

Senator, like my other nominees, I have seen.

[Senator Blumenthal]

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

[Ron Filipkowski]

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

[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 you basic questions about January 6th, you won't answer those questions.

[Judge Tran]

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.

[Senator Adam Schiff]

So does that mean that any litigation involving Columbia you're prepared to recuse yourself from.

[Judge Tran]

Senator, the limitation on Columbia was in. In regard to hiring. I hold no bias against the institution itself.

[Senator Adam Schiff]

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 Colombia when you specifically weighed in there. How do we reconcile that?

[Judge Tran]

Well, Senator, as I stated in the recusal order that ranking member Durbin raised, I indicated that I held no particular bias against.

[Senator Adam Schiff]

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

[Judge Tran]

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 right.

[Senator Adam Schiff]

I'm asking you the question.

[Judge Tran]

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.

[Senator Adam Schiff]

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, Mr. Chair.

[Ron Filipkowski]

As I mentioned, even some Republican senators were doing some pretty good cross examination. Now, I'm no fan of Sen. 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 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 with a reasonable purpose, 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 someone and is 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 Republicans 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 struggled to answer that question. Watch this. Let's play it.

[Senator Kennedy]

Ms. Mitchell, tell me about the qualified immunity doctrine.

[Judge Mitchell]

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 set to protect those officers from liability.

[Senator Kennedy]

Okay, so if a cop, if somebody runs from a cop, the cop doesn't feel threatened. He just, 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?

[Judge Mitchell]

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.

[Senator Kennedy]

Come on, Counselor. If, if I talk, if I'm a cop and I'm talking to a suspect and he turns and rabbits on me and I say, ah, I don't think I can catch this guy, but I know how to stop him and I shoot him in the back, are you telling me I'm immune as a cop from liability?

[Judge Mitchell]

What I can tell you is the legal test, Senator, for qualified immunity, which is whether there was an objective.

[Senator Kennedy]

Does it apply on a criminal case?

[Judge Mitchell]

It is a.

[Senator Kennedy]

It's A apply in a criminal case, does it?

[Judge Mitchell]

No, Senator, these are typically in 1983

[Senator Kennedy]

actions, so I can't shoot him in the back, right?

[Judge Mitchell]

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.

[Senator Kennedy]

Yeah, okay, I get. What? Look, you're smart. I've read your resume. I just caution you all, when you. You go back to your friends at the White House who've gotten you ready for these hearings, don't dodge the questions. Just answer. 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 dodge 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.

[Ron Filipkowski]

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 this federal judge would never hire any Colombian, a law grad, as a law clerk, and Senator Kennedy cross examined him. Like, why would you do that? Doesn't that make you seem like a political hack? Like, why would you even. Why would you say that? Here, play this. Climb.

[Senator Kennedy]

Why did you. 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 Colombia saying, because of what I see happening at Columbia, I'll never hire one of your graduates. Why did you do that?

[Judge Tran]

Senator, I was asked to sign the letter. 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.

[Senator Kennedy]

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? There's just meaning 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?

[Judge Tran]

Senator, I've been told a lot that federal judges have a lot of power. And you've said it, I think, in other contexts.

[Senator Kennedy]

Yeah, they do.

[Judge Tran]

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

[Senator Kennedy]

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. I just don't think it's a good thing. That's my personal opinion. You don't tweet anymore, do you?

[Judge Tran]

I do not.

[Senator Kennedy]

Okay. You don't go on social media at all?

[Judge Tran]

I go on social media to follow other people, including.

[Senator Kennedy]

Sure. But not to post.

[Judge Tran]

Not at all.

[Ron Filipkowski]

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.

[Senator Whitehouse]

The 22nd Amendment says that no person shall be elected to the presidency more than twice. Is that correct?

[Judge Pozos]

That's correct, Senator.

[Senator Whitehouse]

Is any person exempted from that constitutional bar?

[Judge Pozos]

No.

[Senator Whitehouse]

So the current occupant, having been elected twice, is covered by the 22nd Amendment, correct?

[Judge Pozos]

Yes, sir.

[Senator Whitehouse]

Does anybody disagree?

[Judge Mitchell]

No, Senator.

[Judge Another Nominee]

No, Senator.

[Judge Colomaro]

No, Senator.

[Senator Whitehouse]

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?

[Judge Colomaro]

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.

[Senator Whitehouse]

It, as a general proposition, covers fairly grave misconduct by an individual who has a duty to the court, customarily a lawyer. Correct,

[Judge Colomaro]

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.

[Senator Whitehouse]

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?

[Judge Colomaro]

I believe so. I believe so, Senator? Yes.

[Senator Whitehouse]

Does anybody disagree with that?

[Judge Mitchell]

No, Senator.

[Judge Pozos]

No, Senator.

[Judge Another Nominee]

No, Senator.

[Senator Whitehouse]

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?

[Judge Colomaro]

Yes, Senator.

[Judge Another Nominee]

Yes, Senator.

[Judge Mitchell]

Yes, Senator.

[Judge Pozos]

Yes.

[Senator Whitehouse]

And. 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?

[Judge Mitchell]

I believe so, Senator. I don't have any personal experience in this area.

[Senator Whitehouse]

Well, that's good.

[Judge Another Nominee]

I believe that it's correct, too, Senator.

[Senator Whitehouse]

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?

[Judge Colomaro]

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

[Senator Whitehouse]

either way. Do you all agree that fraud upon the court is a very, very serious matter?

[Judge Colomaro]

Yes, Senator.

[Judge Mitchell]

Yes, Senator.

[Judge Pozos]

Yes.

[Judge Another Nominee]

Yes, Senator, I agree.

[Senator Whitehouse]

Very well. Thank you very much.

[Ron Filipkowski]

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 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 [e-mail] you'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only [e-mail].