Trump Nominations Collapse in Front of Congress

0:00Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app, when you spot it, a brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too? Alright, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast expert setup on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app. Wayfair, every style, every home.

0:28Ben Meiselas:Monday AI agents 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. This podcast is sponsored by Made In Cookware. Made In partners with multi-generational artisans and some of the world's best chefs to create professional quality cookware, knives, and kitchen tools.

1:11Their 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 cookware at MadeInCookware.com.

1:54So you're not back on hold six months from now. Visit jerry.ai slash Libsyn today. Host unforgettable backyard barbecues with savings from Whole Foods Market. Get the good times going with made-in-house chicken or pork sausages and ready-to-cook kebabs for hassle-free flavor. Grab tasty flatbreads and their new balsamic chicken salad in the prepared foods department. Keep things fresh with organic red cherries, strawberries, and peaches at their peak. and stock up on bug sprays and sun care must-haves. Make your summer sizzle at Whole Foods Market.

2:28Ben Meiselas: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-examine these Trump picks to be federal judges about who won the 2020 election. Let's play this clip. Who won the 2020 election, Judge Traynor? Senator, this issue has become a question of political controversy. I'm a sitting federal district judge.

3:08I'm a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Justice Jackson, who previously was confirmed by the Senate for a position. Well, 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?

3:55Senator, I think the precedence 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, this is an issue that Justice Jackson and other nominees have been asked. They've not provided a response. 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.

4:50Everybody 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?

5:26Ben Meiselas: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. So who won the 2020 election?

5:38Ben Meiselas: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 attacked 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.

6:24Mr. Pozos, who won the 2020 election?

6:28Ben Meiselas: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 of 2020. 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.

7:08Ben Meiselas: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'd hesitate to tell the truth here. Ms. Colomaro, 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 won more votes? Well, Joe Biden received more electoral votes.

7:55Who won more votes in the election 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.

8:22Ben Meiselas: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. When it comes to asking you 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?

9:00Senator, the limitation on Columbia was 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 of 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? Senator, as I stated in the recusal order that ranking member Durbin raised, I indicated that I held no particular bias.

9:47Well, 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 Kachanji Brown-Jackson, as a sitting circuit court judge at the time of her nomination, was asked this question in questions to the right person.

10:41I'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.

11:25I'm sorry. There's no way to square those two things. Mr.

11:28Ben Meiselas: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 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?

12:08Ben Meiselas: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 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?

12:49Ben Meiselas: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, in executing their duties, have a reasonable basis for the actions that they're taking, and it typically is something that courts decide at the outset to protect those officers from liability.

13:28Okay. So if a cop, if somebody runs from a cop, the cop doesn't feel threatened, 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. Oh, come on, Counselor. 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? What I can tell you is the legal test, Senator, for qualified immunity, which is whether there was an objective basis.

14:17Does it apply on a criminal case? It is a, it's a. Apply on 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 officers' actions. Yeah, okay, I get what, look, you're smart, I've read your resume.

14:56I just caution y 'all when 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 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.

15:29Ben Meiselas: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 Colombia 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? Why would you say that? Here, play this clip. 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 Columbia saying, because of what I see happening at Columbia, I'll never hire one of your graduates.

16:19Why did you do that? 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. Well, I know. I know what happened. I guess what I'm getting at is

16:49our 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. They're 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? 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.

17:47But 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. 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. 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 don't think it's a good thing. That's my personal opinion.

18:32You 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, including. Sure, but not to post.

18:43Ben Meiselas: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.

18:55The 22nd Amendment says that no person shall be elected to the presidency more than twice. Is that correct?

19:06Ben Meiselas:That's correct, Senator. 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?

19:51Ben Meiselas: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, as a general proposition, covers fairly grave misconduct by an individual who has a duty to the court, customarily a lawyer, correct? 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 a contempt, correct?

20:52Ben Meiselas: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

21:41And 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 laws. 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. Poza's referrals for criminal conduct along the lines of obstruction or fraud or perjury can also be made. Correct?

22:34Ben Meiselas:Yes, Senator. The cases that I involved did not involve referrals, but that is something that a judgment to. 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 this anywhere else. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers, please.

23:14Ben Meiselas:Thanks for watching.