- 3 weeks ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Donald Trump and his corrupt DOJ were just smoked out in court for refusing to put under
00:07penalty of perjury, refusing to take the oath on the most basic of matter.
00:13Donald Trump's DOJ head, Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's proxies, MAGA Mike Johnson and others
00:21in Congress.
00:22They've been saying.
00:23What is happening?
00:24Breaking news.
00:25This is my God.
00:27They refuse us.
00:27And we want to let everybody know that at this time, we will not be going forward with
00:35the January 6 slush fund that is part of that collusive settlement that Donald Trump entered
00:43into with the United States government for one point eight billion dollars to go to J6 insurrections
00:50one point seven seven six.
00:52They don't really address the fact that Donald Trump also gave himself essentially a super
00:57pardon.
00:58What?
00:58A super pardon?
00:59Is that something?
01:01Super pardon?
01:02Give to himself.
01:04My God.
01:04Having the IRS waive any right to investigate Donald Trump for past tax evasion or to have
01:11the government investigate him for any potential tax crimes or anything like that.
01:16But the attorney, acting attorney general Blanche and all of Trump's MAGA sycophants in Congress
01:22were like, just trust us.
01:23Trust us.
01:23Trust us.
01:24Trust us.
01:25Trust us.
01:25Trust me.
01:26Trust us.
01:26Oh, what?
01:27Well, there was a lawsuit that's been going on and is a lawsuit that's going on in Virginia
01:32federal case where a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking this slush fund, blocking
01:39this one point eight billion dollars.
01:41Yes, it is one point eight billion dollars.
01:46One point.
01:47And the party showed up.
01:49the DOJ lawyers showed up, the lawyers who brought the lawsuit showed up, and the federal
01:53judge says, look, I'm going to issue this preliminary injunction, but I'll just, if
01:57you, DOJ, just put in writing under penalty of perjury that there is no slush fund and
02:05that you're not going to revive it when you use language like, yeah, this is what is happening
02:10right here, right now, that just give us super pardon, man.
02:16At this time, we do not intend to go forward with it, just say there is no fund, it's not
02:22happening, period, put it under penalty of perjury, and I'll dismiss the case because
02:27it'll be moot because you put on the record that this isn't happening.
02:30Otherwise, there is an active case in controversy that is happening right now.
02:35This is bad for the country, yes.
02:39Yes.
02:40Because I can't just trust your averments.
02:43The presumption of regularity is gone.
02:47We don't trust the DOJ's word anymore.
02:50Yes.
02:50So the judge said, here's my request.
02:53Here's what I'm going to order you to do.
02:55Yes, yes.
02:56The judge said these things.
02:59Listen.
02:59Either the case proceeds through a path of discovery, through a path of litigation, and
03:06a trial, and a permanent injunction, and we go that route.
03:10Yes.
03:11This is the first option judge gave us, and the second option judge gave us, listen to
03:16that.
03:17Submit a declaration.
03:18Yes.
03:18And just say what you're telling me in court, but not under penalty of perjury.
03:22Yes.
03:22With the rules of court, sign your name and say, have Todd Blanche put his name to it
03:28and say, we are shutting down.
03:30This is the second option that they talk about.
03:33Oh, my God.
03:35You look, you're listening.
03:37This fund, it doesn't exist.
03:39Period.
03:39Full stop.
03:40And we are revoking or removing any of the kind of, you know, kind of unilateral settlement
03:46decrees or orders that Todd Blanche signed.
03:49Just put it.
03:49It's basic.
03:50Put it in writing.
03:51Yeah, yeah, it is.
03:52Come back to us.
03:53So the deadline came due on Friday.
03:55Friday.
03:56We were all wondering, okay, what's the DOJ going to do?
03:58It's pretty simple.
03:59They seem to be very cagey about it at the last...
04:02Yes, they seem very cagey about it, and look what they're doing, man.
04:06...hearing when Judge Brinkema, she's the federal judge, was asking questions of the
04:10lawyer, like, why don't you put it in writing?
04:12Yeah.
04:12The DOJ lawyer was like, I'm not really sure.
04:15And then Judge Brinkema was like, what do you mean you're not sure?
04:17I mean, it's a pretty big case.
04:19Are you speaking with Todd Blanche?
04:21You don't know what your position is?
04:22Yeah, this is how they behave like this.
04:26Well, then on Friday, we saw what really went down.
04:28And the DOJ made their filing, and they attacked the judge, basically.
04:35They basically said in the filing that you...
04:38Look, look, they attacked the judge.
04:41A literal judge.
04:43...are exceeding your authority as an Article III judge, as a federal judge, by asking us
04:51to submit a declaration.
04:52You're intruding on the executive branch.
04:54How dare you ask, Acting Attorney General Todd?
04:58You see what is happening right here?
05:01Some kind of...
05:03...Blanche to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury that the things he said in Congress
05:09and that the things he... that you are representing to me.
05:12How dare you ask us to put that in a declaration?
05:15Yes, this is out of your authenticity.
05:19Yeah.
05:20Interesting part is that the judge didn't even frame it as you must mandatorily submit this
05:26declaration.
05:26The judge just said, submit it, and the case is moot.
05:30And I'll...
05:30Yes, it's just an option that the judge gives them, not something like that you must use
05:36that as you putting on the record that you're not going to go forward with this fund, or don't,
05:43and then I'll go forward with the case.
05:45And then I'll have to issue, I guess, a formal permanent injunction if we have to go down that
05:51path.
05:51And so it's interesting because at the same time you have the DOJ attacking Judge Brinkema,
05:57you have the DOJ attack... not the DOJ, you have...
06:01Yes, this is what is not happening.
06:03The DOJ is doing all these things line by line continuously.
06:09...at Trump's personal lawyer attacking the federal judge in Florida who's been asking
06:17additional questions about what took place regarding the underlying case.
06:21They've attacked the judge.
06:22Is it, judge, you don't have Article 3 standing.
06:25You shouldn't ask us any questions.
06:27Yeah, this is what they're doing.
06:29They rather, uh, they rather do their case than doing something wrong than judge himself.
06:36You know, it's inappropriate for you to be, you know, for you to be, what, being a judge?
06:40Oh, yeah.
06:41But the notable thing, this argument that a judge does not have standing or that the judge
06:47is not allowed to inquire of the parties or, or in the case of Judge Brinkema, to make a request
06:54to submit a declaration of the DOJ for the DOJ to say that intrudes upon the DOJ. That means every
07:01order a judge
07:02does at all would intrude upon, it's- Yeah, this is true. Everything you can blame on something, this article
07:09said that, you can fool that, you can say that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
07:13It's not regular that when there's a lawsuit, the judge is going to make orders that you have to follow
07:18and comply with.
07:20Yes.
07:20But the Trump Justice Department's refusing to indicate in a sworn declaration that it's backing off the slush fund, claiming
07:26that Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, um, that just, just trust us, bro. Just trust us.
07:34Trust us, bro. Just trust us.
07:36The language that the DOJ's been using in their filing- Yes.
07:40And that hearings is, we're not moving forward- Oh my God, we are not moving forward. Oh, with the
07:47fund. Or at this time, we're not moving forward. What does that even mean? We're not moving forward?
07:51Yeah, this does not mean anything.
07:54Now you're not moving forward, but you may want to move forward with it in the future. And Trump-
07:57Yes, in the future.
07:59...spin out there saying, nah, I want to, I want to move forward with it. Maybe we'll just delay it
08:03for now. So of course, everybody's going to say, put it in writing.
08:07And the DOJ refuses. And here's what they say. They go, this is the, let's bring in Harry Lipman, because
08:12I've never seen anything like this. Harry.
08:14Oh yeah. Hey, Harry.
08:15This is the DOJ's filing. Such declarations are unnecessary. And the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch
08:26implicates serious separation of powers concerns.
08:30The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, already testified before Congress. And counsel for defendant, the lawyer in the case, has
08:39twice said on the record the same thing.
08:42So there's no- Oh my God. This is some big stuff going on. No way.
08:48...reason why a declaration must affect the court's mootness analysis.
08:54Harry, declarations are the way we communicate in court.
08:57Yeah, yeah, it is. It is.
09:00...are under penalty of perjury. But we know with Donald Trump, his whole life has been trying to avoid being
09:07under penalty of perjury.
09:09Dude, man.
09:10And here with judge saying, just put it under, follow our court rules in the United States of America. This
09:15system that's developed since the Magna Carta, that's resulted in our judicial system, this is how you do it.
09:21And the Trump regime is like saying, no, we're Putin's Russia.
09:27Putin's Russia.
09:28We ain't doing, this is not-
09:29Just Putin.
09:30...what we do in the U.S. That's what's really going on here, Harry.
09:34It is cheeky. And fasten your seatbelts. This is gonna be quite a ride. Look, she made it very clear.
09:44...this is what I need by last Friday, as you said.
09:49Yes, it is very, very clear. But what is happening is not what we want to be.
09:55...didn't get it. And the whole tone of it is basically a middle finger to a federal judge.
10:03It is. It is basically just like that.
10:06And as you say, it is the straightforward way you would normally verify something. Now, they're making a big deal.
10:14It's not really a separation of powers argument.
10:18What they're saying is, you can't make us high officials come in and have to dance to your tune. Normally,
10:27that's a kind of argument that can succeed.
10:30Yes, this is what I'm saying. We cannot, we would not, and we will never dance on the U-a
10:36-tunes. That is what we are. We are higher ups than you, man. Than you. Judge.
10:42...because the lower down folks, it's not as if you can't make a party to a case, testify or talk
10:51to you or give legal argument.
10:54But typically, it would be, it doesn't have to be the attorney general. He or she is very busy, et
10:59cetera.
10:59But here's the thing, Ben. This settlement agreement, they signed. This is Stan Woodward himself who signed it because they
11:09wanted to show its import and they wanted to suck up to Trump.
11:15Yes, this is what it is. They really, really, really wanted to suck up to Trump and this is the
11:21order we have.
11:22If Todd Blanche put his name on the whole filing, you would never see that normally.
11:31Never.
11:31But that means these are the guys who are the equivalent of the line attorneys. It's not someone below who's
11:39made a decision. They made the damn decision.
11:42Yes, they are the ones. They the ones.
11:44And she has every right to follow up now with them. Here's the next point. This is really kind of
11:51interesting legally, but the sort of tension of it wafts off the page.
11:57And it's going to bring them out, whom I actually way back in the day vetted when she was an
12:03applicant for the bench.
12:05I don't think she's going to take this sitting down.
12:11Okay, man, this is bad what is happening. They really wanted everything to be just like something like a dictator
12:18semitorium.
12:19Legally, they can say whatever they want about what Blanche testified to in the Senate.
12:26And by the way, they are overplaying their hand. If you read their filings carefully and if you read what
12:32the people said in court carefully,
12:34basically, basically, all they're saying is it's what he said. Blanche said it before.
12:39And as a legal man.
12:41They just playing the game of blaming other and other and other.
12:46Matter that either does or doesn't make the case moot.
12:51And you're right. The answer, I think, and it's just to bring them out of say is that doesn't make
12:57it moot.
12:58And indeed, the fact that you won't give us a declaration, won't put it in writing and you assert in
13:04this brassy way.
13:05We just have to believe, you know, what kind of suckers do you think we are?
13:10Yeah, what? This is what they said. This is what they said.
13:13Sorry, even Richard Leon said, don't play me for a patsy here.
13:18Obviously, there's some room still to make it live.
13:22And by the way, if Donald Trump, who, as you're saying, is championing this thing and saying he wants to
13:28get it done in Todd Blanche's Department of Justice,
13:31that's all that has to happen for a reversal of position.
13:35If Trump says it, it changes.
13:37Yes, if Trump can say we just change it just like that, this is what they said.
13:42And we know that. And to just go at the intricacies of the law a little bit more, like the
13:52other cases with the slush fund,
13:54with the possible exception of one, the standing argument here is pretty tenuous.
14:00Pretty tenuous. It is slush fund that we talk about.
14:03And it might not get them out of the box, but they have made it now, has the administration, about
14:11this mootness thing.
14:12So she can just put to the side whether Floyd, the plaintiff and others, have standing and say,
14:19I want it, I've got to figure out whether it's moot.
14:22Yes, man. This is all a very big deal right now.
14:28And we really got to have hands on this to make it easily.
14:31And we just do not want a mega dictatorship out of our country.
14:35Ah, ah, ah. If you won't give me anything more than this, I'm going to go forward.
14:41I'm going to order a briefing for a few weeks from now.
14:45And I don't see mootness here, whatever you want to say about Todd Blanche.
14:50And that is just a straightforward legal question.
14:54Now, they are really rattling sabers here, is the DOJ.
14:59And what they're basically saying is, yeah, just try us.
15:04Yes, this is what it is. Try us. We will show you what it is.
15:08Prinkamal, we're going to yank you to the Fourth Circuit.
15:11And they might.
15:12They might.
15:13The Fourth Circuit has been not so reliably for Trump, even their sort of conservative folks like J. Harvey Wilkinson.
15:20And really, all she's saying here is it isn't moot.
15:24And if she says, I'm not accepting this to be moot, and they bring an emergency motion to the Fourth
15:30Circuit, what are they going to say exactly?
15:32What's the irreparable harm?
15:34And if the status in her case is, this ain't moot, to me, that doubles back potentially to the whole
15:43political landscape.
15:44It is. It is going to change the everything, every political line, every political landscape is going to disrupt it
15:53right here if this is what happened.
15:55In the Senate and Congress, where people said, we don't like this damn fund, and we don't think it's been
16:02put to bed.
16:02We have a federal court saying this isn't moot.
16:05And that rehashes the whole political controversy that made them have to back down from the suit.
16:13Yes, this is what will happen.
16:15This is what will happen if something is going to happen.
16:18In the first place.
16:19So I think because of their obstreperousness, and as you say, caginess, squirreliness, they have bought a battle with another
16:28federal judge, kind of like Boesburg, as they've done, and a few others.
16:35And here...
16:36Yes, here it is something going to happen right there.
16:40Even though they can come in and say, make us, I think Brinkema has a real kind of claim to
16:47say, okay, I won't make you, but guess what?
16:49The case isn't moot.
16:51Moot means X, Y, and Z under the law.
16:54We don't have that.
16:55And I'm going to so declare, and that'll be the state of play.
17:00Yes, a self-decoration and a moot.
17:02We're talking about they doing this.
17:05For the whole controversy.
17:08So they're ready to sort of take her on.
17:11They're spoiling for a fight, really.
17:14And I think they're going to get one.
17:16Right.
17:16Yeah.
17:17A preliminary injunction is preliminary.
17:19Yes, this is a preliminary.
17:22And...
17:22The permanent injunction is permanent.
17:24The Trump regime and their DOJ wants the preliminary injunction to be dissolved so there's no court order saying it's
17:32moot by using language.
17:34They want to make it moot.
17:35So there would be no court orders.
17:38At this time, we're not going forward.
17:40So then once the court order goes away...
17:42Yeah.
17:42...then maybe in three months, they go, okay, well, now we're bringing it back.
17:46In three months, they want this to happen.
17:50And they want you to refile the lawsuit.
17:53Their hope maybe is we draw a different judge and then we stretch it out even longer.
17:58And then we go, well, that's what we said now.
18:00And now we've changed our opinion because X, Y, and Z thing happened.
18:05They'll come up with some event.
18:06Well, that's what we said then.
18:08And this is a very basic one.
18:09This whole concept is unlawful to begin with.
18:12Two, the entire lawsuit of Trump, the private citizen, suing Trump, the government, and then...
18:19This is a whole lot of drama.
18:22...and taking our taxpayer dollars and then getting involved in this, you know, collusive settlement,
18:27which is also being addressed in the Florida case.
18:30I mean, that concept is unfathomable to both you...
18:34Very, very unfathomable.
18:35I mean, our legal grant's an unfathomably, unconscionable, you know, thing.
18:40But then you get into court and it's like, okay, the judge, like, just sign the declaration
18:44and I'll get rid of the case.
18:45No.
18:46No.
18:47That's unruined, bro.
18:49Why?
18:49Okay, well, that's...
18:50Make us.
18:51Make us.
18:51Well, that's odd.
18:52Well, then it seems like you are going to violate this.
18:55Yeah.
18:55You know, you can't get blanched.
18:57Okay, well, for whatever reason, the attorney general of the United States is signing legal documents
19:04like he's the line attorney.
19:06This is what's happening right here.
19:08They are so full of drama.
19:11Signing settlement agreements as the party.
19:14So that's not normal.
19:16So if you're making yourself literally the person in the case, that's the person I want to hear from.
19:22So that's where we're at, Harry.
19:24You know, it's bizarre.
19:26It's strange.
19:27It is full of the bizarre and strange situations happening right there.
19:32The DOJ's reputation has been, as an entity, is in the trash.
19:39Don't get me wrong.
19:39There are still prosecutors who are handling their cases as best as they can, you know, in
19:44some cases.
19:45But as an institution, the DOJ looks like a, you know, a...
19:52Say, say, man, say.
19:54Lemon lawyer under suspension for, you know, for ripping off the clients.
20:01Like, I can't even explain to you.
20:03No offense to Lemon Lawyer.
20:04I mean, there are good ones.
20:05Oh, yeah.
20:07But there's a particular type in LA Superior who would be, like, working off their suspension,
20:13who would be showing up into court, and the judge would ask a basic question, and they
20:18would never know the answer.
20:19And you'd sit there, and you'd be like, dude, just know what you're...
20:22Like, how did this person even pass the bar exam?
20:24Yeah.
20:26I mean it.
20:26I mean it.
20:27Harry, we have a lot to...
20:28You could talk about your event, though, on July 3rd that you've got with Senator Schiff
20:32in San Diego.
20:33Thanks for bringing that up, Ben.
20:35Yeah, you know, we do a Talking San Diego series, one-on-one conversations.
20:39Yeah, that's best.
20:41That's some really great guests a couple weeks ago, Governor Shapiro.
20:45And the next one is with Senator Adam Schiff.
20:49Oh, yeah.
20:50Okay, okay.
20:51It's a one-on-one conversation with me and him.
20:53They've been really animated, fun, interesting, and, of course, he's at the center of so much
21:00should the Dems take control of the Senate in...
21:05Yeah, this is what we're talking about.
21:07...in November.
21:08So we're doing it on the holiday, February 3rd, but we're thinking, you know, people will
21:13be around, hopefully, 10.30 in the morning for one hour, inexpensive tickets.
21:18It's at Congregation Beth Israel, which is in La Jolla.
21:24You said February 3rd?
21:26Oh, what do you mean?
21:27Not a February.
21:28You want to be July, right?
21:29And you go to TalkingSanDiego.net.
21:32You can buy tickets, get all the information.
21:35But this has been a really fun and, I think, pretty darn educational series for the public.
21:43That's what we mean it to be.
21:45And, yeah, the next event we're really looking forward to, Adam Schiff, Friday, July 3rd,
21:5110.30.
21:51Yeah, yeah, yeah, July 3rd.
21:54Check it out.
21:54And also check out Harry Lipman's YouTube channel.
21:56It's called Talking Feds.
21:58So on your YouTube right now, after you finish watching this, search Talking Feds, watch some
22:03of Harry's legal analysis there, and tell Harry in the comments that Ben said hi.
22:08Thanks, Harry.
22:09Want to stay plugged in?
22:10Yeah, thank you, man.
22:11Many, I stretch, always on top.
Comments