“The fu—ing gall!” Prosecutor EXPLODES at Trump amid Supreme Court stunt

It looks like we've reached the final. stages, Donald Trump tries desperately. to make sure that he has some legal. pathway to focus all of his energy on. rebuilding his precious ballroom. Glenn, can you explain what Donald Trump just. did as far as the Supreme Court now is. concerned? >> Well, Trump wants the Supreme Court to. bless his unconstitutional. ballroom. So, the Solicitor General, John Sauer, another one of Donald. Trump's former criminal defense. attorneys, I might add, just asked the. Supreme Court to basically overturn the.

ruling of the lower courts, both the. trial court and the DC Court of Appeals. that said Donald Trump is. unconstitutionally. spending our money to try to create this. vanity project, this absurd, gigantic. ballroom on the grounds of the White. House. And let me just quote, if I can, Brian, one line from what the DC Circuit. Court of Appeals said when they put a.

stop to this nonsense, quote, "Whether. or not a massive ballroom should be. constructed is for Congress to decide. and is not a matter for executive. presidential self-help.". So, it is really, I think, beyond legal. dispute that, you know, going back to. our Schoolhouse Rock days, Congress has. the power of the purse. Only they can. allocate, you know, millions of dollars.

or a billion dollars to create a new. government structure like a ballroom, and they have not. In fact, they. rejected Donald Trump's request for. funding for the ballroom. And so, even. though it's clear that what Donald Trump. is doing runs smack against the. Constitution, he doesn't care. And I'll. tell you, Brian, it gets more and more. galling every day when Donald Trump just. violates the Constitution with impunity,

gleefully even. And now he is hoping. he's going to be able to get at least a. majority of the justices of the Supreme. Court to violate the Constitution, too. And what we know is they've done it. before, particularly in the arena of. expanding presidential power. I I hope, and I I don't think it's hope against. hope, I hope they don't do it again. because there is really little that is. more basic to the way our government was.

structured and the way it's supposed to. function than Congress is the one that. um spends money, right? They allocate. and appropriate money, including for. government construction projects. That. is not a power of the presidency, and. I'll be interested to see how the. Supreme Court can turn itself into a. pretzel trying to somehow, once again, expand presidential power and basically. overturn the lower court rulings.

>> Quick side note here, as you know, I've. been making videos like this for a. decade now. I have never paywalled any. of my content, I never will. But this is. the one time that I'll ask for some. support. I'd like to try and hit the New. York Times bestseller list this week for. my new book, The Day After. If you. haven't yet grabbed a copy, please click. the link on this screen, in the post. description, in the comments, or go to. briantylercohen.com/book. I really appreciate it. In a way, the Supreme Court doesn't. necessarily even need to twist itself. into a pretzel because they just have.

the final word. And so even if their. rulings are incongruent, ev- even if it. it violates the plain text of the. Constitution, there's no higher. authority than the Supreme Court to say, "Hold on, this doesn't make sense.". So is there some concern that, you know, even the exercise of twisting yourself. into a pretzel, isn't that important for. a Supreme Court that doesn't have to. answer to some higher authority? >> You know, Brian, it's a great point. because when I observed a minute ago. that they would have to twist themselves. into a pretzel in order to rule that the.

president now gets to spend our tax. dollars. He is the one with the power of. the purse, not Congress. That assumes. that they would issue a full opinion on. why they're doing what they're doing. rather than use the infamous shadow. docket docket to simply say, "We. summarily reverse the lower court. rulings, but we're not going to tell you why.". That is something we've seen them do. before. That is corrosive not only to.

our system of government, Brian, but it. is so deeply insulting and disrespectful. and damaging to all of the lower federal. court judges across all of the courts of. appeals and all of the trial court. judges because they pour their heart, their soul, and their ethics into these. opinions and rulings. Sometimes they. span 100 pages or more. Um only to have. the Supreme Court say in substance, "You're wrong,

but we're not going to tell you why. you're wrong.". >> Glenn, does the fact that Trump already. leveled the East Wing of the White. House, does that make it more likely. that the Supreme Court is going to take. this up because now he's got leverage? That leverage being you can either allow. me to finish this or we can just sit. here with a pile of rubble, which. obviously isn't going to be acceptable. to anybody. And so by virtue of the fact. that he decided to. ask for forgiveness rather than ask for. permission, does that actually help his.

case here? >> I can't look into the minds of the. Supreme Court Justices, nor would I want. to with most of them. But I have to think that the. practicalities. are not irrelevant. They're not going to. divorce them from what they decide to do. in this case. They should, mind you, because they should decide the case only. on the law and the interpretation of the. Constitution, which is clear. Donald. Trump doesn't get to appropriate money. for these kind of construction projects.

But Brian, with respect to your point. about, well, now maybe Trump has. leverage because he started an. unconstitutional project and now there's. a big gaping hole on the grounds of the. White House and gosh, isn't that a. little dangerous? So, shouldn't we just. ignore the fact that he was acting. lawlessly and unconstitutionally? Well, listen to what John Sauer, the Solicitor. General, who's trying to convince the. Supreme Court to just let Trump continue. in his unconstitutional. endeavors. Here's what he said. He said.

that, you know, forcing the president to. come hat in hand to Congress so the. people's house is safe gives the. legislature. dangerous leverage. Can you believe the. gall of this guy to say Donald. Trump tore down the East Wing. unconstitutionally, dug a big old hole in on the grounds of. the White House lawlessly, and has. half-built this project, this vanity.

ballroom project, you know, in violation. of Congress's right to authorize and pay. for it, and now what? You're going to. give Congress leverage to tell him to. stop? That's dangerous. Brian, this is Orwellian double-speak. We are. living in this flipping legal upside. down, but your point is exactly right. What they do is they act lawlessly, and.

then they point to the dangerous. circumstance their lawless conduct. created, and say, "Wait, we have to make. this safe, so you have to let Trump's. lawlessness continue.". >> I mean, isn't there and and I know this. is a little bit of a. a rhetorical question, but isn't there a. lot of danger in establishing a. precedent if the Supreme Court allows. Trump to win here, where you can. basically just say the president has the. ability to break any rule or break any. law he wants so long as it creates, you.

know, extenuating circumstances that. need to be fixed because then he's going. to say, "Oh, well, now I didn't get any. punishment for tearing down the East. Wing. In fact, I got exactly what I. wanted because I created the. circumstances in which there was urgency. to get this fixed. I'm going to just. etch my name into all the buildings. because now it's already done and so I. just kind of like manifest the world I. want to live in." Isn't there some. danger in the Supreme Court allowing him. to do that? Doesn't that create a. slippery slope that it would allow him. to abuse so many more positions of his.

power? >> Yeah, it means that he will act. lawlessly first and then, you know, believe that he has put the courts in. the box such that they can't address the. lawlessness, they can't stop it, and. they can't reverse it. And and I think. the potential damage to our government, our nation, is even broader than that. because it goes to the fundamental. separation of the two branches of. government whereas only Congress can. spend money. A ruling allowing him to do.

this will be in substance a ruling that. Congress no longer has the power of the. purse. Donald Trump can spend every one. of our tax dollars as he sees. fit and he need not go to Congress for. authorization or or fiscal financial. appropriations. That will basically. bring the power of the legislative. branch of government to a grinding halt. The Republicans have already sort of.

relinquished most of their power in any. event, but this will be creating not. just a king, but kind of a super uber. king where Donald Trump just controls it. all and can spend money or pocket money. as he wishes. >> Isn't this all kind of a moot issue? And. I'm going to be at a bit of a wet. blanket here, even more than I've been. thus far, but isn't this kind of moot. because even if the Supreme Court rules. that Congress has to be the ones to step. in and exercise their authority. to spend money, to allocate money as.

they see fit, Congress is led by. Republicans. And these are Republicans. that would bend over backwards in blind. deference to Trump. So, what is the. issue with just allowing Congress to say. what Trump himself is saying, which is. of course Trump needs to build himself a. ballroom. Whatever amount of money he. needs is fine by us. These are the most. obsequious group of human beings alive. What is the issue with Trump just. relinquishing this power to a bunch of. sycophants who are going to do his. bidding anyway? We're going to fall over. themselves to do his bidding.

>> I'm with you there, Brian, with one. caveat. Remember Trump sought nearly a. billion dollars from Congress previously. once he started the ballroom and. basically his lie that it was going to. be publicly funded was exposed. He did. go to Congress and Congress refused to. grant him that one nearly one billion. dollars that he was seeking. So, >> Was the Was the White House torn down at. that point? >> I don't remember the timing of it, but. there is recent reporting that when.

Congress refused to fund it, what Donald. Trump did after he, you know, after it became clear that it would not. be privately funded is the White House. secretly redirected $352 million. from what? From the Secret Services. budget and tried to channel it into the. ballroom construction budget and they. got caught. This was reporting just a. couple of weeks back, I believe, in The. Guardian. Um, so, you know, yes,

Congress is likely to roll over and lay. down, but at least it looks like once. previously. they said no on the ballroom. construction budget. Now, if the Supreme. Court rules otherwise, you know, let's. see if Congress revisits and says, you. know what? We tried to retain our power. of the person, even the Supreme Court. says basically the Constitution is to be. rewritten by the Supreme Court and now. the executive branch has the power of. the purse. More to come and I think more.

to come soon. A little point of light. I. am hopeful. I'm always hopeful. I'm. going to say I'm minimally optimistic. that the Supreme Court may say, "Listen, this is a firm constitutional principle. Only Congress can spend money to create. and fund a government construction. project. So, we see no need to reverse. the ruling of both the trial court judge. and the court of appeals, which yes, was. a 2-1 ruling.

We see no reason to disturb it, so we. are not going to take this up as an. emergency matter." That is not beyond. the realm of possibilities. >> All right. When when can we expect to. get some answer as to whether the. Supreme Court is going to rule on this. case in the shadow docket? >> So, I will give you a definitive answer. to that question. I would say sooner or. later. Given that this Supreme Court is above. the law itself, remember these are the. only nine human beings in the federal.

government that are bound by no. mandatory code of ethics, so they do. whatever they damn well please and I. think they prove that over and over. again. So, I can't even venture a guess. how quickly they will turn to this. >> Well, as soon as we do have an answer, Glenn and I will bring it to you. So, if. you want to support us, support. independent media and continue getting. legal analysis like this, the best way. to do so is to subscribe to both of our. channels. I'm going to put those links. in the post description. I'm also going. to put the link to Glenn's channel right. here on the screen and I'm going to put. a link to my new book The Day After.

right here on the screen as well. So, if. you'd like to support my work, that's. the best way to do so. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching The Legal Breakdown. >> [music].