BREAKING: US Supreme Court does INSANE favor for Trump

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we have a stunning move from the. Supreme Court, even by this Supreme. Court standards. Can you explain what. just happened? Yeah, Brian, the searing injustice of. this is almost too much to take. Steve. Bannon defied congressional subpoenas, just intentionally violated them. Two. subpoenas, one for testimony and one for. documents. So, what happened? An. investigation was conducted by the. Department of Justice. Evidence was. presented to a grand jury. They indicted.

him for those two crimes he inarguably. committed. He went to trial. I covered. the trial when I was with MSNBC. A jury, you know, banged him out with guilty. verdicts on those two crimes. He was. sentenced to 4 months in prison. He went. to prison, served his sentence. And, you. know, now that Trump is back into power, what has happened? Well, Steve Bannon. said, "You know what? I would like this. case dismissed, even though I was. convicted. I served my sentence, the.

case is over." In fact, Brian, when he. appealed his conviction to the DC. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, they. affirmed it. They said, "Of course, you. were properly and lawfully convicted of. those two crimes you committed." So, then Steve Bannon ran up to the Supreme. Court, now that Donald Trump is back in. power, and he and he said, "Look, look, the prosecutors, the Department of. Justice, Donald Trump's Department of. Justice, said that they're going to. dismiss my case. So, what I want you to.

do, Supreme Court, is basically at this, you know, late stage, even though the. case is over, even though I served my. sentence, I want you to vacate, in other. words, throw out the appeals court. opinion affirming my conviction, and I. want you to send it back down to that. court so they can dismiss it, because. that's what DOJ wants to now do." And we. just got an unsigned opinion, summary. opinion, with no analysis from the.

Supreme Court saying, and it's so hard. for this old career prosecutor to to. take this result. The Supreme Court. said, "Okay, we vacate the lower court, the appeals court decision affirming. your convictions, and we send it back. down to the court because the Department. of Justice now wants to toss the case. out." I mean, the searing injustice of. that, and how there are thousands of. convictions that are affirmed every.

year, none of them enjoy the kind of. relief and the kind of favoritism. that Steve Bannon just received from. Donald Trump's Department of Justice, you know, I can only hope this will. inspire people to make sure they do. everything everything they can to see. that these people are thrown out of. power at the polls. Glenn, I don't. really know how to how to formulate this. question, but if we've seen these lower.

courts. conduct themselves properly, impanel a jury, seek a conviction, get a. conviction, Steve Bannon serves his. time, how that's the whole process. playing out properly, where does how. does the Supreme Court even have the. authority to just undo all of that, undo. the the like the proper procedure of of. justice just just because, you know, the. the the felon in this case is a.

political ally of of the president? You know, I think the justices are. leaning heavily on the word supreme. But, Brian, here's the thing, I can't. explain the inexplicable. I know the way. the law is supposed to work. Um, I lived it for 30 years, but let's. face it, once the Supreme Court said. that the United States Constitution, which obligates a president to take care. that the laws be faithfully executed,

rules that that means that the president. can violate all of the laws of our. nation that he chooses, and he can't be. held accountable because he has absolute. presidential immunity from prosecution. Once they ruled that the Constitution. basically means nothing, well, then they. can do pretty much whatever they damn. well please. Like the obscene injustice. of throwing out Steve Bannon's. convictions simply because, let's face.

it, Steve Bannon is a friend of the. president and gets to curry favor with. this Department of Justice. There is no. principled reason Right. for this result. to have been reached. But, you know, this is where we are. We're in the legal. upside down. We are showing ourselves to. be a banana republic, a rogue state. We're showing it militarily, we're. showing it in the criminal law arena, we're showing it in the civil law arena,

in civil litigation. So, this is where. we are, and maybe our last hope is to. make sure we vote these people out of. power so we can then go on the mission. of holding them accountable for the. crimes that they are committing sort of. gleefully, right? They are really just. kind of rubbing it in the face of the. American people when they're using the. Department of Justice to benefit the. president of the United States, not to.

the benefit of the American people. And. that is whose interests DOJ is supposed. to be representing in litigation like. this. Glenn, if if Steve Bannon has. already served his time, what benefit. does he derive by virtue of having this. case. having his conviction thrown out? I hope everybody's sitting down because. he is probably about to get millions of. our taxpayer dollars. He's following the. blueprint that Mike Flynn sort of.

drafted. You know, even though Mike. Flynn pleaded guilty, he then claimed he. was improperly prosecuted, and Donald. Trump's DOJ just cut him a check for. 1.25. million dollars, even though he was not. wrongfully prosecuted. Steve Bannon is. setting up the exact same circumstance. He's now saying, "Look at this, the. Department of Justice moved to dismiss. my case. That's an admission that, you. know, they shouldn't have prosecuted me.

in the first place, and I would like, fill in the blank, 5 million dollars, 10. million dollars." And guess who's in the. queue to do the exact same thing, Brian? Peter Navarro. Remember that clown, that. Trump flunky? He similarly was convicted. of two counts of contempt of Congress. for defying subpoenas. He is now. following in the footsteps of Steve. Bannon, challenging his conviction, and. I'm sure he is right behind Bannon in.

line to get millions of our taxpayers. taxpayer dollars. This This is just. theft of of our money, and it's being. delivered to Donald Trump's friends and. criminal associates. Is Is that final? Like, when they get these payouts, corrupt as they are, is there a way for. that money to be clawed back in the. event that a Democratic attorney general. or somebody who actually cares about the. rule of law take takes over as attorney. general and sees that there are all. these that that there's basically a.

slush fund for all of Donald Trump's. lackeys and pals that are getting. millions of dollars in payouts as like a. a prize for having been rightfully. convicted? I think the answer is it's a. possibility. If you ask me if it's a. probability, I would say no, it's not a probability, it's not likely, but I would say it is. possible. A number of things would have to fall. into place for it to come to fruition. First of all, you'll have to have.

somebody in charge of the Department of. Justice once the rule of law comes back. into the light of day, and we have a. law-abiding president and attorney. general in place. And then, what they do. is they file suit to undo these corrupt. bargains that have been entered into. between a criminal, literally a. convicted criminal president, and his. criminal associates. You have to go into. court and fight them and try to claw.

back the taxpayers' money. I don't know. if it would be successful, in part. because we are in uncharted waters, and. we're, you know, operating without GPS, without a map, without so much as a as a. compass when it comes to the ethics of. what's going on here. But, you know, you. can't make the shot you don't take, so. you have to bring these challenges, and, you know, let the courts decide whether. to bless this kind of a corrupt bargain,

or say, "You know what? No, this is not. what American democracy is about.". Because if the courts just bless this. and let it go on, I think we have. relatively hope for the. I think we have relatively little hope. for the future of our republic. Glenn, recognizing that this is very. likely what's about to happen, um, this. pilfering of the Department of Justice's. apparent slush fund for Trump's pals, is. there some way for some attorneys to.

step in and block this, or is this the. unilateral decision of the Department of. Justice, which apparently has all these. funds at their disposal to be able to. pay out without any oversight? You know what? It is pretty much within. the broad discretion of the Department. of Justice, and I don't see a way for. some other person or party to intervene. in, you know, this case, which at this. point is only between the the. government, the federal government, the. Department of Justice and Steve Bannon.

and his attorney. You know, the only. hope that I have is and and it is um. relatively little hope, but you can only. dismiss a case with leave of court. What. does that mean? It means It means when. the Department of Justice, when. prosecutors file a motion to dismiss, the rules of criminal procedure provide. that the case can only be dismissed with. leave of court. That means the judge has. to grant the motion to dismiss. Of. course, we've seen this movie before. We.

saw it with Mike Flynn when the. presiding judge Emmet Sullivan did not, in the worst way did not want to grant. that motion to dismiss Mike Flynn's. case. Mike Flynn had pleaded guilty to. twice to lying to the FBI about contacts. with Russians. But at the end of the. day, Judge Sullivan believed he did not. have enough discretion to refuse to. dismiss the case because it's not like. he has his own prosecutor in the bullpen. that he can, you know, call out to.

prosecute Mike Flynn. We saw the same. thing happen up in New York when um. Donald Trump's corrupt DOJ officials uh. filed a motion to dismiss Mayor Eric. Adams criminal prosecution, not because. he didn't commit all kinds of public. corruption crimes. The evidence. suggested he did, but they wanted him to. be in a uh position to do political. favors for Donald Trump, which is a a a. grossly unethical reason for prosecutors. to dismiss a case against a defendant.

And Judge Dale Ho went so far as to. appoint an outside prosecutor to argue. the motion to dismiss and why, you know, it it should perhaps not be granted if. there was a way for Judge Ho to refuse. to grant the motion to dismiss. And it. was actually some robust litigation and. what it resulted in is Judge Ho denying. Emil Bove, who was a dep- deputy. attorney general at the time, denying. the Department of Justice's motion to.

dismiss it without prejudice, meaning. they could still hang it over Eric. Adams' head so he could be a good little. mayor and do what Donald Trump wanted. him to do. The judge said, "No, I deny. that, but I will dismiss the case with. prejudice, which means you can't, you. know, keep strings attached to Eric. Adams and use him as a political puppet. for the president." So, again, that was. little consolation, but you know, there. are there's a there's some minimal. wiggle room in how the courts will deal.

with these motions to dismiss. I just. hope we haven't heard the last of it. I. hope there will be some serious pushback. in the courts below now that the Supreme. Court has vacated the federal court's. affirmance of the conviction and sent it. back down to the court of appeals. Last. question here, Glenn. Um on this idea of. of the DOJ paying out people for. wrongful um wrongful prosecutions, you.

know, we are witnessing a lot of. vindictive prosecutions and selective. prosecutions right now. Granted, they're. not working because the Trump team is. too ham-handed uh to to figure out how. to actually do it successfully, but. we've seen them target Letitia James and. and James Comey, Adam Schiff, Jacob. Frey, Tim Walls. The list goes on and. on. And granted, while we haven't seen. convictions, it these people are still. going through a very tedious um um.

exhausting and expensive process in. defending themselves. And so, when the. shoe is on the other foot and there is a. Democratic attorney general, are these. people um who've been targeted by this. DOJ, again, lack of conviction notwithstanding, are. these people eligible for the same kind. of payouts that we're seeing right now. um where the Trump team is, you know, is. pretending like these people were the. victims of wrongful prosecution even. though they weren't, and yet we've got. Democratic officials or or pro-democracy.

figures who are the victims of wrongful. prosecutions and they just have to. shoulder the burden of this thing. financial and otherwise out of their own. pocket? Yes, and you know, there will be people. who will claim that, "Oh my goodness, this is terrible and the only reason, let's say, Letitia James is filing a. lawsuit against the Department of. Justice for a conspiracy against her. rights, her right to be free from a a. vindictive prosecution, her Fifth.

Amendment due process rights." The only. reason she's doing that is because the. other side did that. You know, there. really there's no parity there. Those. two things are not on equal footing. If. you are vindictively prosecuted by the. United States Department of Justice, you. will have a cause of action and you. should bring that cause of action even. if there are these bogus, bad faith, corrupt bargains being struck presently. between the Trump administration and the.

Mike Flynns and the Steve Bannons of the. world. So, yes, those those remedies. will be available in the future moving. forward. Um and the one thing that I. hesitate to even say because you don't. want to give the Trump administration. any ideas, I really think, kind of. picking up on your observation, Brian, that the Department of Justice is too. ham-handed to be successful in any of. these vindictive prosecutions, I I think. what, you know, what I fear we may see. next is that they'll just start having,

you know, rogue FBI leadership like Kash. Patel create false evidence that some of. Donald Trump's enemies committed crimes. and then try to get that evidence. through the courts without them knowing. that this is this is like vindictive. prosecution on steroids. I hope to hell. it doesn't come to that, but is there. anybody who says the Trump. administration is not dishonest enough. to to go down that path of creating.

false evidence of crimes? No, not not at. all. Well, look, we will stay on top of. this issue and all the other breaking. legal news. For those who are watching. right now, if you'd like to follow along. and support our work, the best way to do. that is to subscribe to our channel. I'm. going to put the links right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video. It's 100% free to. subscribe, but a great way to support us. and independent media. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're. watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].