“Humiliating devastation!” Trump CRUSHED in court by his BIGGEST RIVAL

Not only did Donald Trump just get a. stinging defeat in court, but he got it. at the hands of his biggest rival. Mark, can you explain what just happened to. the Trump administration in court at the. hands of you and your law firm? >> All right. So, Donald Trump and the. Department of Justice had a really rough. end of the week because they lost their. 22nd. straight lawsuit in which they are. trying to access state-sensitive voter. data. Uh they are now 0 and 22. My law. firm and I are undefeated. Uh and, you know, this is getting,

frankly, like a little awkward. Like. every time another one comes out, this. one was a court uh in Nevada uh that. issued this ruling. Uh every time this. happens, you know, like I publish the. fact on democracydocket that this has. happened and and I put it on social. media. Uh and, you know, I look to see if the. if the Department of Justice has any. response. And if I can, I just I just. want to put up on the screen what their. response was to this one. So, that's Harumi Gilon, uh who is the.

head of the Civil Rights Division, right? The group within the Department. of Justice that litigates this. And she. is noting that although the Department. of Justice keeps losing and has lost. everywhere, that in one of these cases, in the Sixth. Circuit, which I'm sure you and I will. talk about, there were some judges that. sided with her. They just weren't the. majority. So, in other words, they are. she is celebrating the powerful nature.

of the opinions that were written by the. judges that did not carry the day. >> You know, it's Mark, it's kind of like. imagine if the Spurs had a parade after. losing to the Knicks and trying to. celebrate the fact that they lost. I. mean, like that's not when you take a. parade. That's kind of when you just. take the L and deal with it. >> Yeah, the the the Spurs would be like, "Did you see that shot we made?". >> Yeah, [laughter] that's right. That that. one shot was good on route to our loss. >> Right. >> Um it's it's it's worth noting here for. anybody who is not yet subscribed to.

Democracy Docket. That is where I get. all of my news about every single voting. rights case that the DOJ loses. All of. them are posted first on Democracy. Docket and that makes sense because not. only is it Mark's law firm that's. litigating these cases, but this is. Mark's outlet as well. So, that is the. perfect reason why they're getting this. stuff first and if you're not yet. subscribed, I'm going to put that link. right here on the screen and also in the. post description of this video. Do. yourself a favor, get the news directly. from the source who's litigating these. cases and subscribe to Democracy Docket. Mark, you had mentioned the appeals.

court, uh the Sixth Circuit Court of. Appeals and right now the fact that the. DOJ is 0 and 22 is is important and. impressive, but those are all district. court cases. This was the first instance. where the DOJ had opted to appeal. So, can you talk about what the results were. in that case because this is where it. gets a little bit scarier because once. you're in the appeals court territory, then you've got binding precedent. >> Yeah, and look, I think the Department. of Justice really put a lot of its eggs. in this Sixth Circuit basket, so to.

speak, because the Sixth Circuit's a. very conservative uh judicial circuit. Like it is, you know, it is among the. most conservative in the country. And if. you look at the lineup of judges and who. appointed them, you could you can see. why. And so, the Department of Justice. had appealed a case out of Michigan that. they lost, which is in the Sixth. Circuit, and we won that. But what they thought was they could. bring it to the full Sixth Circuit, all. of the judges, what's called on bonk. review, which means it's not a. three-judge panel. It's, you know, the.

17, 18, whatever it is, number of judges. that are in the full Sixth Circuit. decide uh to take the case and and and. hear it. And that was denied. And so, that tweet. that I pointed out was actually them. citing to some of the dissents there. This is a humiliating devastation if you. are a lawyer at the Department of. Justice working on these cases because. like honestly, if you're not going to. win before the on bunk 6 circuit, like. you're searching for a victory. somewhere. It's not going to come in any.

of these other district court cases, right? They sued 30 places, 30 states. or 29 states in the District of. Columbia. They're over 22. If you look. at the remaining eight, it doesn't get. any better for them. And if they're not. winning in the 6th Circuit, they're not. going to win in the 9th or the 1st or. the 2nd, right? Like like this had to be. a real. blow for their their morale over there. >> Okay, so not to be the wet blanket here, but to be the wet blanket, what happens. at the Supreme Court? Does the DOJ.

appeal this up to the Supreme Court. recognizing how flawed their argument is. that they can't even win in any of these. district courts, but not even in the 6th. Circuit Court of Appeals? Do they just. um you know, cut their losses here or do they do they. basically throw a Hail Mary and try to. get this thing in front of the Supreme. Court recognizing that any judges who. are acting in good faith aren't going to. deliver for them, but maybe they can. get, you know, Clarence Thomas and. Samuel Alito and the rest of these. right-wing hacks on the court? >> Look, I think they have a tough decision.

to make because on the one hand, they're. certainly going to be inclined to go. straight to the Supreme Court figuring, you know, favorable court and sure they. haven't success below, but you know, just looking at the composition of the. court, maybe they pull a rabbit out of a. hat and if they do that, then that's. that's great for them. On the other. hand, you know, the Supreme Court on an. emergency docket case usually is dealing. with something where the there is a. circuit split or where there is like a. split among judges even at the Court of. Appeals level. I mean, the problem here.

is that they are over 22. And in those. 22 cases, it has included 12 judges. appointed by Republican presidents, eight by Donald Trump. In the 6th. Circuit, I don't have the statistics. handy, but it is certainly a vast. majority of those judges were appointed. by Republicans and a good number of them. were appointed by Donald Trump. So so. it's it's kind of a. a bit of a dog of a case to bring. procedurally to the Supreme Court where. they're spread around the world, you. know, they're not focused on on the the.

underlying issues and they're just going. to see a whole lot of judges who are. very conservative who have ruled against. DOJ. So and if they lose there, then. they slam the door shut. So that's I think going to be their. their the the sort of the push and pull. there within the department and then you. get into the question Brian of timing. Right? Which is Look, we're we're. getting to the point where getting. access to these voter files are not. going to help them in time for 2026. And.

so again, they may think that's an. imperative to sort of break the. narrative that they are losing. everywhere and it therefore undermines. Donald Trump's lies for 2026 or they may. say, you know what? Let's let these. cases play out. Maybe we pull a rabbit. out of a hat someplace else in one of. the other circuits and then we go to the. Supreme Court after the election, but I. would rather be in my shoes right now. than theirs. >> Well, that's a that's an evergreen. statement if I've if I've ever heard. one. It's worth asking here for folks. who are wondering why this matters. Like. we we have spoken about this for.

numerous videos now. I think the last. one that you were 19 and 0. I'm sure the. next one that we're going to do you'll. be 25 and 0 and eventually 30 and 0, but. what is it that the administration is. trying to do here? Why is it so. important that they have filed 30. lawsuits right now and they're in the. process of appealing these things up to. the circuit courts? What is it that. they're trying to do? >> Yeah, I mean look, what they're trying. to do is to get access to this data so. that they can misuse it to try to. disenfranchise voters and to give Donald.

Trump fuel to tell lies. Right? So on. the first point, they're trying to get. access to the data so that they can. build a nationwide voter file. In other. words, a nationwide list of everyone. who's eligible to vote and then apply, um, screens against it to remove people, and then force states, or try to. intimidate states through threats of. funding, threats of criminal. prosecution, and the like, to remove. hundreds of thousands of names at a. time. And when they do that, it's not. going to be because they're not US. citizens, not going to be because. they're dead, it's not going to be.

because of any of that. It's going to be. because the Department of Justice is. doing Donald Trump and the Republican. Party's bidding, and so you're going to. see an effort to remove large numbers of. Democrats, just in the same way that the. SAVE Act targets married women. Why? Because there's a gender gap among men. and women, and so targeting women voters. with this proof of citizenship law, uh, you know, uh, serves a partisan. agenda. Okay. So, that's that's like, uh, that's that's the first reason why. it matters. The second reason though it. why it matters is because Donald Trump's. got a lot of lies to tell. Like, he's.

told a lot of lies about elections, but. he's got new lies he's got to tell. He's. got to come up with a whole series of. new lies for why it is Republicans get. their asses kicked in November. And I. suspect that they want to be able to. point to this data. to say, "Well, the reason why, you know, the state of California elected, uh, Javier Becerra rather than Steve Hilton, is is because in the database we have, compared to what California did, there. was widespread fraud." Right? They want.

the data to be able to to make false. allegations about who actually voted, even though it'll be a bunch of. >> I mean, isn't that something that he. could do even without that information? It's not like he's going to use that. data in good faith anyway. So, why can't. he just say, "We've got our hands on. some elusive data that may or may not. exist, but we've got our hands on data, and look, we already have the proof that. there was 3 million undocumented. immigrants who voted in this election, and Steve Hilton should be the winner.". Why do they have to wait for the actual. data if they're just going to lie about.

it anyway? >> Look, I love that question because it's. exactly right. I mean, and we've seen. instances of it. We already see. instances of them saying like, "Oh, even. without that data, we've been able to. identify, you know, X numbers of. non-citizens." I mean, let's just take. the California example. They didn't have. the data at all. I mean, they don't have. it now, and they didn't have it then. And they told wild-eyed lies about the. primary elections. Remember this? They. were claiming that that mayor guy in in. LA, you know, that he was about cheated.

based on data that doesn't exist. Remember the US attorney. >> yeah. >> Spencer Pratt, the US attorney for LA. announced there were going to be. criminal investigations, and that we'd. hear back in a couple of months. Guess. what, everybody? The couple of months. has come and gone, right? Like, yes, they are going to lie in the way that. they did before, but I think that they. they believe that if they have this. data, it puts a veneer on top of it that. the legacy media will then chase and be. like, "Well, they do have the voter. files, and their data says such and such.

and such and such.". >> With with all of that said, especially. giving your point about how there's not. even enough time, how does that make you. think about 2028 though? I mean, it. would not surprise me if all of a sudden. the administration used whatever time. they had between now and then to kind of. retool and fix their fix their arguments. that are clearly not working right now. And so, how are you thinking about that. prospect that even if we're able to kind. of eke by in the midterm election, that. there still is 2028 looming? >> Brian, I think that's exactly right. You.

know, Donald Trump, it is reported, is. sitting on a super PAC with $400 million. and growing. And, you know, according to reports, they are talking about maybe spending 40. million, 30 million, whatever, on the. midterm elections. Which leads you to. ask the question, what is he sitting on the rest of this. money for? >> Yeah. >> You know, every time the question of. 2028 comes up, you know, there's always a little bit of. caginess on the part of Donald Trump. And I can tell you uh till I'm blue in. the face the Constitution means he can't.

run again. And yes, the Constitution. means he can't run again. But I don't think that Donald Trump just. wants this data. for the midterm elections. I don't think. Donald Trump, you know, after the after. he gets shellacked in the in the. midterms in the House and the Senate is. going to be like, well, I guess I'm done. now. You know, I'm I I I my my electoral. days are behind me. Because there's. nothing about the way he is acting more. generally that suggests that's the case. >> Yeah. >> And I point to this super PAC for a. specific reason because if he was going.

all in, if if this was just about the. midterms, he'd be spending all of that. money to try to bail out these. candidates who are saddled with his. record. But I think he's not because he. is still holding out the possibility of. what he plans to do in 2028. And that is. why I think, to answer your question of. why he is still pursuing this data even. though he's losing, even though it's. probably too late, even though we're in. the quiet period. Another video that you. and I did about how, you know, that.

would put limits on what the states. could do with it. I think this is, yes, a 2026 play first and foremost. Yes, it. is about lying on the results of 2026. But as sure as you and I are standing or. sitting here, you know, Donald Trump is. not going to say the day after the. midterm elections, all right, the 2028. uh primaries have begun and it's J.D. Vance and it's Marco Rubio or whoever. and I'm a lame duck. Like that's not. going to happen and I think not enough.

attention is being paid on connecting. these various dots. >> Well, look, I think the fact that we. know that these efforts are not just. forthcoming for midterms, but also for. 2028, could not be more grateful to that. end that we have people like you and. your team who are litigating against. this stuff in court. So, for everybody. watching right now, if you want to show. some support, some appreciation for the. work that Mark and his team are doing on. the front lines of democracy to make. sure that our information isn't getting. sent to the federal government and that. the federal government can't undermine. state-run elections, a small step.

everybody can take is to subscribe to. Democracy Docket. I'm going to put that. link right here on the screen and also. in the post description of this video. It's what I use on a daily basis for all. things legal news, voting rights news, and democracy news. So again, if you're. not yet subscribed, go ahead and. subscribe. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. >> I'm Marc Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch.