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

Summary

Podcast Summary: The MeidasTouch Podcast

Episode: Trump’s Judge Picks Suffer Major Collapse during Senate Hearing!!
Date: May 3, 2026
Hosts: Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas (MeidasTouch Network)

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the stunning failures and evasiveness of Donald Trump’s judicial nominees during their Senate confirmation hearings. Through a series of gripping clips and commentary, the Meiselas brothers expose how these nominees, handpicked by Trump for lifetime federal judgeships, flounder when asked basic questions about constitutional law, recent history (like the 2020 election and January 6th), and their own legal or political affiliations. The hosts decry the lack of basic qualifications and honesty, arguing this represents a grave threat to democracy and the rule of law.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Collapse of Trump’s Judicial Nominees under Cross Examination

• The episode opens with Ben (Host) highlighting how Trump’s picks “are collapsing under the most basic of cross examination” during Senate hearings ([00:00]).
• Senators, both Democratic and Republican, challenge nominees with fundamental questions: presidential term limits, the winner of the 2020 election, and the facts of January 6th.
• Host explains lack of mainstream coverage: “People aren’t seeing this really, other than on the MeidasTouch network...So let’s show everybody what’s taking place at these confirmation hearings.”

---

2. Struggles Over Constitutional Basics & 2020 Election

A. The 22nd Amendment and Third Term Eligibility

• Sen. Chris Coons asks nominees if Donald Trump is eligible for a third term.
• Nominee “Mr. Mark” dodges:
  • “Senator...I haven’t had an opportunity to use that one specifically.” ([01:44])
  • Coons presses: “Has President Trump been elected president twice?” — “President Trump has been certified the President of the United States two times.” ([02:33])
• Nominees refuse to plainly state the constitutional two-term limit.

B. 2020 Election Results

• Sen. Richard Blumenthal: “Who won the 2020 election?” ([03:20])
  • Multiple nominees only say Biden was “certified,” refuse to affirm he “won.”
  • Blumenthal: “I am amazed and really appalled that nominees for a lifetime appointment...are unwilling to respond on an issue of fact...you are afraid of what President Trump [would say]...We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.” ([04:44]–[06:45])

---

3. Evasiveness Regarding January 6th

• Sen. Blumenthal: “Was the Capitol attacked on January 6?”
  • Nominees claim it’s a “matter of significant political controversy” ([07:18])
  • One admits, “I’ve not seen many of the videos, to be honest.” ([07:30])
  • Blumenthal pushes back: “There’s zero chance that it will be before your court...I’m as troubled by that response as I am by Mr. Hendershot.” ([07:51])

---

4. Fundamental Powers of Congress and the Presidency

• Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) presses nominees on war powers ([09:16]):
  • Easily confused, a nominee stumbles through distinctions between Article I (Congress) and Article II (President/Commander-in-Chief).
  • Kennedy: “I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershot...Tell me when the President has to go to Congress to get permission to use military force.”
• Nominees struggle to give a clear, constitutional answer.

---

5. Views on the Second Amendment and Gun Laws

• Sen. Dick Durbin asks if a nominee, member of Gun Owners of America, believes "all gun laws are unconstitutional":
  • They dodge: “I think if I were to answer that question, it could involve both a political question and something that could come before [me]…” ([11:35])
  • Durbin: “If you want to make it clear that you now have changed your views...here’s your chance. But to duck it...is to leave us with the conclusion you agree with them.” ([11:44])

---

6. Accountability & Obedience to Court Orders

• Sen. Durbin: Will nominees condone ignoring court orders, referencing the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s resistance:
  • Nominees again recite canons about not prejudging hypotheticals, but admit lawful orders should be followed.
  • Durbin: “It would seem to me that as a judge, you would expect a lawful order to be followed. Is that correct?”
  • Nominee: “Yes, and I do expect lawful orders to be followed.” ([14:47])

---

7. Recent & Past Precedents: Canned Evasive Answers

• The hosts show this trend is ongoing:
  • April 15, 2026: Judicial Nominee Justin Smith:
    • When asked “Who won the 2022 Senate election in Missouri?” responds with convoluted references to the 17th Amendment instead of just naming the winner ([16:12]).
    • Pressed repeatedly, finally admits “Eric Schmidt” was certified.
    • Refuses to plainly say Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election, sticking to “certified” language ([17:12]–[21:29]).
    • Sen. Peter Welch: “What you’re calling legally precise, a lot of people would call politically precise, evasive...What is the problem with acknowledging who won the election?” ([20:05])
  • September 2025: Senate hearing for Jennifer Mascot (3rd Circuit)
    • Similar dodge when asked who won the 2020 election – only says “President Biden was certified the winner” ([22:01]).

---

8. Broader Implications: The Threat to Rule of Law

• Host/Ben (Lawyer):
  • “This should not be a political issue...When I practiced law, I didn’t ask people what political party they were from. I followed the law, the facts, the truth, the rules of evidence. So it’s just deeply disturbing...to see these authoritarians and these fascists be picked by a fascist regime...the rule of law is just under attack by truly dangerously and idiotic humans.” ([23:31]–[25:02])
  • Calls for transparency and public engagement: “We have to open up our eyes to what’s happening. This is what should be front page news...” ([24:00])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sen. Blumenthal: “We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.” ([06:45])
• Sen. Kennedy: “I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershot.” ([09:16])
• Sen. Durbin: “To duck it and say I don’t have to comment on this is to leave us with the conclusion you agree with them.” ([11:44])
• Sen. Welch: “What you’re calling legally precise, a lot of people would call politically precise, evasive.” ([20:05])
• Ben Meiselas (Host): “It’s deeply disturbing...not on a political level, on a love of the law level, to see these authoritarians...picked by a fascist regime...the rule of law is just under attack by truly dangerously and idiotic humans. Vile.” ([23:31])

---

Timestamps for Critical Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |:---------- |:------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 00:00 | Introduction / Overview of Nominees’ Senate Performance | | 01:36–03:07| Senator Coons presses on 22nd Amendment/Term Limits | | 03:20–06:45| Senators question who won 2020 election; Blumenthal’s rebuke | | 06:51–08:31| January 6th questions; nominees dodge, Blumenthal’s frustration | | 09:16–10:55| War powers confusion under Sen. Kennedy’s questioning | | 11:27–12:51| Second Amendment evasion under Sen. Durbin | | 13:27–14:47| Resistance to court orders and judicial responsibility | | 16:12–21:29| Justin Smith & Jennifer Mascot: rote, evasive answers | | 22:01–23:17| 2020 election dodge, tariffs, broader context | | 23:31–25:02| Host’s concluding thoughts on the threat to the rule of law |

---

Tone and Style

The show delivers frank, often incredulous analysis—combining legal expertise, dark comedy, and genuine alarm. The brothers’ banter is present but focused as they dissect the absurdity and seriousness of the Senate confirmation exchanges.

---

Closing Thoughts

The episode provides a stark warning about the caliber and independence of Trump’s judicial nominees. Through concrete Senate hearing examples, the MeidasTouch Podcast exposes how would-be judges evade basic truths and legal standards, endangering democracy and the rule of law. The hosts call on listeners to spread the word and stay engaged, framing the moment as a critical inflection point for American institutions.

---

Transcript

[Narrator/Host]

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 1 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, 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.

[Senator Chris Coons]

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

[Judicial Nominees]

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

[Senator Chris Coons]

Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution? Senator, I believe it is the amendment that deals with a two term limitation on service states no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Mr. Mark, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?

[Judicial Nominees]

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.

[Senator Chris Coons]

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

[Judicial Nominees]

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

[Senator Chris Coons]

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

[Judicial Nominees]

I would have to review the.

[Senator Peter Welch]

All I need to tell you is

[Senator Chris Coons]

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?

[Senator Peter Welch]

Nobody?

[Senator Chris Coons]

All right, let's move then.

[Narrator/Host]

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

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Who won the 2020 election?

[Senator Chris Coons]

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.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

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

[Senator Chris Coons]

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

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

election, though you're unwilling to say he won the election. How about you, Mr. Roberts?

[Judicial Nominees]

I'm sorry, Senator.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

I'm sorry, Mr. Jones.

[Judicial Nominees]

I apologize. Senator, I have this same answer as my colleague. Senator.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Same answer as the previous one, the

[Judicial Nominees]

previous nominee, the Senate, did.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Mr. Coons, how about you?

[Narrator/Host]

Thank you, Senator. And I have the Same answer as Mr. Henderson.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Same answer. Unwilling to say that Joe Biden won the election. Correct.

[Narrator/Host]

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

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

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

[Narrator/Host]

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

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Mr. Mark?

[Judicial Nominees]

Same answer.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Senator, what would be wrong?

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

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.

[Narrator/Host]

More questioning from Senator Blumenthal about January 6th. Let's play this clip right here.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Let me try another question. Was the capitol attacked on January 6? Mr. Hendershot?

[Senator Chris Coons]

Senator, the same kind of question has come up. I know many times in these hearings and under Canon five, which I consider myself bound by that is a matter of significant political controversy.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

It's a matter of what?

[Senator Chris Coons]

It is a matter of significant political controversy.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

It's a matter of controversy that the capital of the United States was attacked. You've seen the videos, have you not?

[Senator Chris Coons]

I've not seen many of the videos, to be honest.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

How do you answer, Mr. Jones?

[Judicial Nominees]

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 on.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Well, I'm. I'm as troubled by that response as I am by Mr. Hendershot, because there's zero chance that it will be before your court if there is any litigation. Mr. Coon, how do you answer? Chair Grassley, may I You answer the same.

[Narrator/Host]

I was asking the chair if I could answer.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

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.

[Narrator/Host]

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. 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 a Senator Kennedy again. Maggie, 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.

[Senator Chris Coons]

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. I'm asking what the Constitution says. 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 1 and Article 2 distinguish between the war powers which are under Article 1 and requirements. Congressional consent, again, talking in great generalities. Whereas other use of force, if I understand your question, are things that are likely committed under Article 2 to the President's Commander in Chief powers. I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershot. Let's try it again. Tell me when the President has to go to Congress to get permission to use military force. Senator I think is when, because the text of the Constitution, Article 1 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 2, without the consultation of Congress. Okay, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude. I just don't understand what you said.

[Narrator/Host]

Then you have Senator Durbin cross examining one of these 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.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

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

[Judicial Nominees]

Senator, respectfully, I think if I were to answer that question, it could involve both a political question and something that could come before.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

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.

[Judicial Nominees]

Senator Durbin, 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.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

So you say that their position that all gun laws are unconstitutional is not radical.

[Judicial Nominees]

And again, Senator, I would say 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 just because someone joins one doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything that someone in the organization may say later on or at some point.

[Narrator/Host]

Mr. Hindershot, more questioning here from Senator Durbin 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.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Will you condone or permit the kind of repeated resistance to court orders that the Ohio Redistricting Commission engaged in?

[Senator Chris Coons]

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 the cannons. Fence off. So I'm happy to talk about my goal.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

You believe it's arguable as to whether or not a party is bound by a court order?

[Senator Chris Coons]

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 other than talking about issues at a high level of generality. Otherwise, to prejudge a case that may come to be pending or impending before

[Senator Dick Durbin]

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 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?

[Senator Chris Coons]

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 Commission. 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 of litigation you describe.

[Senator Dick Durbin]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Senator Kennedy, thank you.

[Narrator/Host]

Now, just show you that this is not unique to this hearing on April 15th. So, two, three weeks ago, during another Senate confirmation hearing, an individual who Trump wanted to have appointed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. So the circuit Court, a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court, the circuit court sit above district courts. And Donald Trump wants to have this very unqualified, young, radical, right wing, fascist, extremist guy, in my opinion, guy named Justin Smith to be a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. This guy shouldn't be nowhere near a federal courthouse. Get a lone BE on the 8th 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.

[Senator Peter Welch]

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 won the 2022 election for the United States Senate in Missouri?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

Well, 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.

[Senator Peter Welch]

I didn't ask for a history lesson. I'm asking who won the 2022 election for the United States Senate in Missouri?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

Well, I think the history is important to explain that in the 17th amendment. Different than the 12.

[Senator Peter Welch]

I'm going to 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.

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

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

[Senator Peter Welch]

Who won it?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

As I just said, under the 17th amendment, Eric Schmidt was certified and took

[Senator Peter Welch]

oath of office that Senator Schmidt was elected.

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

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

[Senator Peter Welch]

You know what? I believe that Senator Schmidt won that election in a landslide.

[Senator Richard Blumenthal]

Senator.

[Senator Peter Welch]

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.

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

I think my answers have been consistent with other answers this committee has heard as a legal matter.

[Senator Peter Welch]

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?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

I want to dispute that. You said these were rehearsed or canned answers. These are my answers. These are the legally correct answers.

[Senator Peter Welch]

Okay. So you are aware that President Trump continues to assert that he won the 2020 election?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

I'm aware that President Trump has a lot of views on the 2020 election.

[Senator Peter Welch]

Here's the worry here. You know, I was here on January 6. 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 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?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

I think I want any judge to be very legally precise in what they said, and I've repeatedly referred to Article 2 and to the 12th Amendment in the process.

[Senator Peter Welch]

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

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

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

[Senator Peter Welch]

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?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

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

[Senator Peter Welch]

Under your approach, any of us can have whatever opinion we want as to whether the election was legitimate or not. You remember that 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?

[Judicial Nominee Justin Smith]

I think the view that I've shared here today is that there was a certification process that resulted in Joe Biden being president.

[Senator Peter Welch]

Thank you. I yield back, Senator Schiff.

[Narrator/Host]

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 Mascot, 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.

[Senator Peter Welch]

Who won the 2020 election?

[Commercial Announcer]

Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2021 election. Well, Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.

[Senator Peter Welch]

The election or did just accidentally get certified?

[Commercial Announcer]

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

[Senator Peter Welch]

I yield back.

[Narrator/Host]

And what about tariffs? Play this clip.

[Senator Peter Welch]

If Congress has the authority to impose tariffs, and that is a constitutional responsibility and right we have. Is that correct?

[Commercial Announcer]

Yes. Congress has legislative responsibility for.

[Senator Peter Welch]

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.

[Commercial Announcer]

Senator, the question of tariffs is actually

[Senator Peter Welch]

before the 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?

[Commercial Announcer]

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, of course, be lawful.

[Narrator/Host]

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. 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 Midas touches 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.

[Commercial Announcer]

When it's time to scale your business. It's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot. And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.

[Narrator/Host]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone. Paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for

[Commercial Announcer]

three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] tired of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Libson today. That's J E R R Y AI Libsyn.