Transcript of Trump Scheme is Smoked Out and He Rufuses Oath New

Ein perfekter Frühlingstag. Allergie! Sonne! Allergie!

Park!

Allergie! Picknick!

Und so viele Pollen.

Shop-Apotheke sagt Tschüss Allergie und Hallo Frühling. Hier findest du alles, um unbeschwert durch die Allergiezeit zu kommen. Als Neukunde sparst du sogar 10% ab 35 € Bestellwert. Mit dem Code NEU10. Du hast ein E-Rezept? Einfach Shop-Apotheke-App runterladen und direkt einlösen. Gutscheinbedingungen auf shop-apotheke.com/gutscheine.

Donald Trump and his corrupt DOJ were just smoked out in court for refusing to put under penalty of perjury, refusing to take the oath on the most basic of matter. Donald Trump's DOJ head, Todd Blanch, Donald Trump's proxies, MAGA Mike Johnson and others in Congress. They've been saying, we wanna let everybody know that at the— at this time, we will not be going forward with the January 6th slush fund that is part of that collusive settlement that Donald Trump entered into with the United States government for $1.8 billion to go to J6 insurrections, $1.776. They don't really address the fact that Donald Trump also gave himself essentially a super pardon. Having the IRS waive any right to investigate Donald Trump for past tax evasion or to have the government investigate him for any potential tax crimes or anything like that. But the attorney, acting Attorney General Blanche, and all of Trump's MAGA sycophants in Congress, like, just trust us, trust us, trust us. Well, there was a lawsuit that's been going on and is a lawsuit that's going on in Virginia, federal case where a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking this slush fund, blocking this $1.8 billion.

And the party showed up, the DOJ lawyer showed up, the lawyers who brought the lawsuit showed up, and the federal judge says, look, I'm going to issue this preliminary injunction, but I'll just— if you, DOJ, just put in writing under penalty of perjury that there is no slush fund and that you're not going to revive it when you use language like at this time, We do not intend to go forward with it. Just say there is no fund. It's not happening, period. Put it under penalty of perjury and I'll dismiss the case because it'll be moot because you've put on the record that this isn't happening. Otherwise, there is an active case in controversy that is happening right now because I can't just trust your averments. The presumption of regularity is gone. We don't trust the DOJ's word anymore. So the judge said, here's my request. Here's what I'm going to order you to do. Either the case proceeds through a path of discovery, through a path of litigation and a trial and a permanent injunction, and we go that route, or submit a declaration and just say what you're telling me in court, but not under penalty of perjury with the rules of court.

Sign your name and say, have Todd Blanch put his name to it and say, we are shutting down this fund. It doesn't exist, period, full stop. And we are revoking or removing any of the kind of, you know, kind of unilateral settlement decrees or orders that Todd Blanch signed. Just put the basic— put it in writing. Come back to us. So the deadline came due on Friday. We were all wondering, okay, what's the DOJ going to do? It's pretty simple. They seem to be very cagey about it. At the last hearing, when Judge Brinkema— she's the federal judge— was asking questions of the lawyer, like, why don't you put it in writing? The DOJ lawyer was like, I'm not really sure. And then Judge Brinkema was like, what do you mean you're not sure? It's a pretty big case. Are you speaking with Todd Blanchi? You don't know what your position is? Well, then on Friday, we saw what really went down, and the DOJ made their filing, and they attack the judge. Basically, they basically said in the filing that you are exceeding your authority as an Article 3 judge, as a federal judge, by asking us to submit a declaration.

You're intruding on the executive branch. How dare you ask Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury that the things he said in Congress and that the things he that you are representing to me. How dare you ask us to put that in a declaration? The interesting part is that the judge didn't even frame it as you must mandatorily submit this declaration. The judge just said, submit it and the case is moot. And I'll use that as you putting on the record that you're not gonna go forward with this fund or don't. And then I'll go forward with the case and then I'll have to issue, I guess, a formal permanent injunction if we have to go down that path. And so it's interesting because at the same time you have the DOJ attacking Judge Brinkema, you have the DOJ attack— not the DOJ— you had Trump's personal lawyer attacking the federal judge in Florida who's been asking additional questions about what took place regarding the underlying case. They've attacked the judge. Is it judge? You don't have Article III standing. You shouldn't ask us any questions. You know, it's inappropriate for you to be, you know, for you to be what, being a judge?

You know, the notable thing, this argument that a judge does not have standing or that the judge is not allowed to inquire of the parties, or in the case of Judge Brinkema, to make a request to submit a declaration of the DOJ, for the DOJ to say, That intrudes upon the DOJ. That means every order a judge does at all would intrude upon— it's regular that when there's a lawsuit, the judge is going to make orders that you have to follow and comply with. But the Trump Justice Department's refusing to indicate in a sworn declaration that it's backing off the slush fund, claiming that Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, that just, just trust us, bro. Just trust us. The language that the DOJ has been using in their filing and at hearings is We're not moving forward with the fund, or at this time we're not moving forward. What does that even mean? We're not moving forward now. You're not moving forward, but you may want to move forward with it in the future. And Trump's been out there saying, no, I want to— I want to move forward with it. Maybe we'll just delay it for now.

So of course, everybody's going to say put it in writing and the DOJ refuses. And here's what they say. They go, so this is— let's bring in Harry Litman because I've never seen anything like this.

Harry.

This is the DOJ's filing. Such declarations are unnecessary, and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, already testified before Congress, and counsel for defendant, the lawyer in the case, has twice said on the record the same thing. So there's no reason why a declaration must affect the court's mootness analysis. Harry, declarations are the way we communicate in court. Things are under penalty of perjury. But we know with Donald Trump, his whole life has been trying to avoid being under penalty of perjury. And here, with judge saying, just put it under— follow our court rules in the United States of America, this system that's developed since the Magna Carta. That's resulted in our judicial system. This is how you do it. And the Trump regime is like saying, no, we're Putin's Russia. We ain't doing— this is not what we do in the US. That's what's really going on here, Harry.

It is cheeky. And fasten your seatbelts. This is going to be quite a ride. Look, she made it very clear. This is what I need by last Friday, as you said, they didn't get it. And the whole tone of it is basically a middle finger to a federal judge. And as you say, it is the straightforward way you would normally verify something. Now they're making a big deal. It's not really a separation of powers argument. What they're saying is you can't make us high officials come in and have to dance to your tune. Normally, that's a kind of argument that can succeed because the lower-down folks— it's not as if you can't make a party to a case testify or talk to you or give legal argument. But typically it would be— it doesn't have to be the Attorney General. He or she is very busy, et cetera. But here's the thing, Ben, this settlement agreement they signed, this is Stan Woodward himself who signed it because they wanted to show its import and they wanted to suck up to Trump. And Todd Blanch put his name on the whole filing. You would never see that normally, but that means These are the guys who are the equivalent of the line attorneys.

It's not someone below who's made a decision. They made the damn decision. And she has every right to follow up now with them. Here's the next point. This is really kind of interesting legally, but the sort of tension of it wafts off the page. And it's gonna— Brinkema, whom I actually way back in the day vetted when she was an applicant for the bench, I don't think she's going to take this sitting down. They are legally, they can say whatever they want about what Blanche testified to in the Senate. And by the way, they are overplaying their hand. If you read their filings carefully, and if you read what the people said in court carefully, basically all they're saying is, it's what he said. Blanche said it before. And as a legal matter, that either does or doesn't make the case moot. And you're right. The answer, I think, and it's just to brink of my to say, is that doesn't make it moot. And indeed, the fact that you won't give us a declaration, won't put it in writing, and you assert in this brassy way, we just have to believe, you know, what kind of suckers do you think we are?

Even Richard Leon said, don't blame me for a patsy here. Obviously, there's some room still to make it live. And by the way, if Donald Trump, who, as you're saying, is championing this thing and saying he wants to get it done in Todd Blanchard's Department of Justice, that's all that has to happen for a reversal of position. If Trump says it, it changes. And we, we know that. And to just go at the intricacies of the law a little bit more. Like the other cases with the slush fund, with the possible exception of one, the standing argument here is pretty tenuous and it might not get them out of the box, but they have made it now, has the administration, about this mootness thing. So she can just put to the side whether Floyd, the plaintiff, and others have standing and say, I want it, I've got to figure out whether it's moot. And uh-uh-uh, if you won't give me anything more than this, I'm going to go forward. I'm going to order a briefing for a few weeks from now. And I don't see mootness here, whatever you want to say about Todd Blanch.

And that is just a straightforward legal question. Now, they are really rattling sabers here is the DOJ. And they're— what they're basically saying is, yeah, just, just try us, Brinkema. We're going to yank you to the Fourth Circuit. And they might. The Fourth Circuit has been not, not so reliably for Trump, even their sort of conservative folks like J. Harvey Wilkinson. And really, all she's saying here is it isn't moot. And if she says, I'm not accepting this to be moot, and they bring an emergency motion to the Fourth Circuit, what are they going to say exactly? What's the irreparable harm? And if the status in her, in her case is this ain't moot, to me, that doubles back potentially to the whole political landscape in the Senate and Congress where people said, we don't like this damn fund and we don't think it's been put to bed. We have a federal court saying this isn't moot and that rehashes the whole political controversy that made them have to back down from the suit in the first place. So I think because of their obstreperousness and as you say, caginess, squirreliness, they have bought a battle with another federal judge, kind of like Boasberg, as they've done in a few others.

And here, even though they can come in and say, make us, I think Brinkema has a real kind of claim to say, okay, I won't make you, but guess what? The case isn't moot. Moot means X, Y, and Z under the law. We don't have that. And I'm going to so declare, and that'll be the state of play for the whole controversy. So they're ready to sort of take her on. They're spoiling for a fight, really. And I think they're going to get one.

Right. I mean, a preliminary injunction is preliminary, whereas the permanent injunction is permanent. The Trump regime and their DOJ wants the preliminary injunction to be dissolved so there's no court order, saying it's moot by using language, at this time, we're not going forward. So then once the court order goes away, then maybe in 3 months they go, okay, well, now we're bringing it back. And then they want you to refile the lawsuit. Their hope maybe is we draw a different judge and then we stretch it out even longer. And then we go, well, that's what we said now. And now we've changed our opinion because X, Y, and Z thing happened. They'll come up with some event. Well, that's what we said then. And this is a very basic one. This whole concept is unlawful to begin with. To the entire lawsuit of Trump, the private citizen suing Trump, the government, and then taking our taxpayer dollars and then getting involved in this, you know, collusive settlement, which is also being addressed in the Florida case. I mean, that's— that concept is unfathomable to both you and I. I mean, our legal career, it's unfathomably unconscionable, you know, thing.

But then you get into court and it's like, Okay, the judge, like, just sign the declaration, I'll get rid of the case. No. Why? Okay, well, make us make it. Well, that's odd. Well, then it seems like you are going to violate this. Well, you know, you can't get blanche. Okay, well, for whatever reason, the Attorney General of the United States is signing legal documents like he's the line attorney. He's signing settlement agreements as the party. So that's not normal. So if you're making yourself Literally the person in the case. That's, that's the person I want to hear from. So, so, so that's where we're at, Harry. You know, it's bizarre. It's strange. The DOJ's reputation has been, as an entity, is, is in the trash. Don't get me wrong. There are still prosecutors who are handling their cases as best as they can, you know, in some cases. But as an institution, the DOJ looks like a you know, a lemon lawyer under suspension for, you know, for ripping off the clients. Like, I can't even explain to you— no offense to lemon lawyers. I mean, there are good ones, but there's a particular type in LA Superior who would be like working off their suspension, who would be showing up into court, and the judge would ask a basic question and they would never know the answer.

And you'd sit there and you'd be like, dude, just know what you're— like, how'd this person even pass the bar exam? You know, anyway, Harry, we have a lot to do. You could talk about your event though on July 3rd that you've got with Senator Schiff in San Diego.

Thanks for bringing that up. Yeah, you know, we do a Talking San Diego series, one-on-one conversations. We've had some really great guests. A couple weeks ago, Governor Shapiro, and the next one is with Senator Adam Schiff. It's a one-on-one conversation with me and him. They've been really animated, fun, interesting, and of course, uh, he's at the center of so much should the Dems take control of the Senate in November. So we're doing it on the holiday, February 3rd, but we're thinking, you know, people will be around hopefully. 10:30 in the morning for 1 hour, inexpensive tickets. It's at Congregation Beth Israel, which is in La Jolla. And you go to TalkingSanDiego.net, you can buy tickets, get all the information. But this has been a really fun and I think pretty darn educational series for the public. That's what we mean it to be. And yeah, the next, the next event we're really looking forward to. Adam Schiff, Friday, July 3rd, 10:30.

Check it out. And also check out Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. So on your YouTube right now, after you finish watching this, search Talking Feds. Watch some of Harry's legal analysis there and tell Harry in the comments that Ben said hi. Thanks, Harry. Wanna stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.