Jasmine Crockett STUNS Hearing With Savage Trump Lawyer Question

本站添加: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]Well, done. Generally, yields back to lady from Texas, recognize.

[00:00:03]Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This is so interesting.

[00:00:07]A couple of things. I'm just curious to know, as we're talking about lawyers and the obligations of lawyers and whether or not maybe the former president has any idea of what good lawyer obligations look like. I'm just going to ask we're we're going to do we're not going to play. We're going to do Ms. Winebanks. Have you heard of any of these lawyers? I've got Robert Shealy, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Matthew DePerno, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Michael Farina, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Hallia. I I got a long list. Have you heard of any of these people? I have.

[00:00:42]Are you aware as to whether or not any of them have faced criminal penalties?

[00:00:48]Yes, and also been disbarred or suspended.

[00:00:51]>> Okay. So, they've had some issues, but these are the hand-picked lawyers for Trump. I'm assuming that y'all have never been Trump lawyers, Mr. Trusty or Mr. Costello. I was for a year. Oh, you were and you still have your bar card?

[00:01:04]I'm sorry. You still have your bar card?

[00:01:06]Yeah, well, unless I get targeted for daring to represent a former president.

[00:01:10]>> you have absolutely done a lot better than most that deal with him. So, so good for you.

[00:01:18]I also want to make sure that we talk about what two-tier really looks like. And Mr. Trusty, since you've been a prosecutor before, I'm curious to know, have you ever had a criminal defendant that had over 80 counts in four different jurisdictions and somehow was not held pre-trial? I know that you talked in your opening about your interpretation of what speedy trial looks like and it's really only for those that are held pre-trial. And and last time I checked, most of the time those people held pre-trial, they don't have anywhere near 80 counts pending against them. But, I'm curious to know in your experience, have you ever had someone that had over 80 counts pending in four different jurisdictions and they were not held pretrial. Yes or no?

[00:01:59]Well, no specific recall, but I could answer more if you let me.

[00:02:02]>> told me no, and I understand cuz I had neither. So, in addition to that, um there's been a gag order since we're going to talk about the pending trial that's going on right now. Have you ever had a defendant that violated a gag order, and then you went to the judge, and the judge didn't lock them up, and and they they didn't done it at least 10 times. I think it's 10. I'm losing count right now. Have you ever had somebody violate a >> years, I have never seen a defendant gagged. Okay. Not my So, you've never had So, you've never had So, you've never had it. You're absolutely right. All right. So, finally, um when it comes down to intimidating witnesses, cuz maybe you haven't had gag orders. Intimidating witnesses, have you ever had a defendant that you were prosecuting, and they were intimidating witnesses, and they didn't somehow end up in the clink clank for at least a day or two? I've had criminal death penalty prosecutions based on witness retaliation. I'm very familiar with gang cases and mafia cases. Most of those defendants were already incarcerated when they would orchestrate some sort of obstruction. If there's provable physical violence-based obstruction, it certainly makes sense that they'd be incarcerated.

[00:03:07]>> Thank you so much. And, you know, Mr. Hamilton, I I don't want you to feel left out of this conversation.

[00:03:13]So, I'm going to make sure I ask you some questions. Let me know if you have any problems answering them, cuz they really should be yes or no.

[00:03:20]Uh let's see. You're the executive director for the American America First Legal, correct? That's correct.

[00:03:27]>> All right. And America First Legal is a member of Project 2025, which is dedicated to creating the playbook for the next conservative administration, and what it calls the project pillars, correct?

[00:03:38]We are proud contributors to Project 2025. Okay. And, uh are you familiar with Project 2025's mandate for leadership? In fact, I am. Okay.

[00:03:51]And, in fact, you wrote some of the sections of this mandate related to the DOJ, correct? Sure did. And the mandate outlines policy priorities for the next conservative president. Is that correct?

[00:04:02]>> It does. You've done a great job. I just wanted to let you know. All right. So, let's walk through some of the provisions of the mandate. It calls for eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the military for the use of domestic law enforcement against protesters under the Insurrection Act of 1807.

[00:04:18]It also has the repealing of Schedule F status for thousands of federal employees to allow a president to replace career civil servants with unqualified partisan loyalists. That's probably my favorite of it.

[00:04:32]It also prohibits the FBI from combating the spread of misinformation and disinformation, like Russia and China who are actively trying to interfere with American elections.

[00:04:44]I don't know why or how anybody can support Project 2025.

[00:04:50]And I know that there was allegedly a joke about um dictators and whether or not that's funny, but in in the United States of America, dictatorships are never funny. And Project 2025 is giving the playbook for a up authoritarianism as well as the next dictator to come in.

[00:05:11]And I know that you are doing your jobs here by making sure that hopefully some juror turns on and finds some viral moment of you spewing more of the nonsense as it relates to the president, but as practicing lawyers or licensed attorneys, I hope that we can all agree that no one gets indicted because someone says so. There takes a grand jury, and the grand jury is comprised of American citizens that sit down and review evidence, and they make the determination. And when and if Trump is convicted, it will be a jury of his peers, and it won't be the president of the United States.

[00:05:45]>> you were going to get to a question somewhere in that 90 seconds for Mr. Hamilton after you went after his 2025.

[00:05:50]I will point out the Inspector General just released a report that said the FBI retaliated against whistleblowers. One of the reasons we do need some changes, but there was no question there. But Mr. Hamilton, if you want to give it some kind of response, you're more than welcome to do that. Mr. Chairman, my only response would be to say that there are a great number of policy options that have been provided to any future conservative administration through Project 2025, and it's an attempt to restore the rule of law in this country.

[00:06:13]And I reject the Huffington Post-style characterizations of the recommendations. All right. The gentle lady yields back. The gentle The gentle lady from We'll go to the gentle lady from Wyoming and then the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask for Excuse me. This is Oh. I'll get you soon as we go after this thing. Does unanimous consent yield?

[00:06:29]>> Yes, just unanimous consent to enter the mandate for leadership >> I object. The gentle This hearing was supposed to focus on legal ethics, equal justice, and the accusations surrounding Donald Trump's criminal cases.

[00:06:43]Instead, it turned into one of the sharpest public takedowns yet from Representative Jasmine Crockett. And the moment everybody is talking about happened in just six words.

[00:06:55]"You [snorts] still have your bar card?"

[00:06:57]The room immediately reacted.

[00:06:59]Here's what led up to it.

[00:07:01]Crockett began by listing a long lineup of attorneys connected to Donald Trump.

[00:07:06]Lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, and others tied to efforts to challenge the 2020 election. She pointed out that many of those lawyers have faced criminal charges, sanctions, suspensions, or disbarment proceedings.

[00:07:24]Then she turned toward attorney Michael Costello, a witness at the hearing, and asked whether he had ever represented Trump.

[00:07:32]When he answered yes, Crockett instantly fired back.

[00:07:36]"You still have your bar card?"

[00:07:38]That line detonated across the room.

[00:07:41]It was sarcastic. It was brutal. And it perfectly captured the larger Democratic argument that Trump's orbit has become politically and legally toxic for many of the lawyers around him.

[00:07:54]But Crockett didn't stop there.

[00:07:56]She shifted into a broader attack on what she called America's two-tiered justice system.

[00:08:03]And this is where the hearing became even more intense.

[00:08:08]Crockett questioned another witness, former prosecutor Jim Trusty, asking whether he had ever seen a criminal defendant facing more than 80 charges across multiple jurisdictions who was still allowed to remain free before trial.

[00:08:23]The implication was obvious.

[00:08:26]Most defendants, Crockett argued, would never receive the kind of treatment Trump has received.

[00:08:32]Then she brought up gag order violations, witness intimidation, obstruction, and repeated violations that, according to her argument, would land ordinary defendants in jail immediately.

[00:08:46]Her point was clear.

[00:08:48]She believes Trump is being treated differently from everyone else in the American Crockett pivoted directly into a confrontation over Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint developed by groups aligned with Trump allies.

[00:09:04]She grilled witness Gene Hamilton of America First Legal about the organization's involvement in Project 2025 and its proposed reforms to the federal government.

[00:09:15]Hamilton openly acknowledged that America First Legal was a contributor to Project 2025 and that [snorts] he personally helped write portions related to the Department of Justice.

[00:09:26]That opened the floodgates.

[00:09:29]Crockett accused Project 2025 of laying the groundwork for authoritarianism.

[00:09:35]She cited proposals involving federal workforce restructuring, expanded executive power, and the use of the military in domestic situations.