BREAKING: Supreme Court DEALS Trump MAJOR BLOW!!!

This is a breaking news alert. The. United States Supreme Court just. delivered a massive blow to Donald. Trump's attempt to interfere with. Tuesday's election, specifically as it. relates to the Trump regime's attack on. California voters. Here's the ruling. The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump. regime's bid to force California to set. aside votes from up to 20,000 purported. registered voters that the regime claims. are likely non-citizens. There was no.

noted dissent in the Supreme Court's. ruling. Let's pull up the Supreme. Court's ruling from moments ago. United. States versus California. The. application for injunction pending. appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by. her referred to the full court, to the. court, so all Supreme Court justices, is. denied. Marc Elias was the lawyer who. was defending California in this case, and here's what he had to say. SCOTUS,

the Supreme Court, denied the Department. of Justice application about the. California election without even asking. us to respond. And it was referred to. the full court. Not a single justice, not one Supreme Court justice, not even. the Trump right-wing justices, noted a. dissent at all. This is unprecedented. The Department of Justice is now being. treated by the Supreme Court like Sidney. Powell and Rudy Giuliani, the. president's lawyers, told the Supreme.

Court in their briefing that there's a. huge emergency and that the court just. shrugged it off, and the court was like, "Oh, you think there's a big emergency? Nah, no there isn't. Go away." And the. Supreme Court didn't even need to hear. briefing from Marc Elias's legal team. Marc Elias got the W without even having. to submit any opposition or paperwork to. the Supreme Court. People was like, "Go. away." This is how far the Department of. Justice has fallen under Todd Blanche in.

the eyes of all of our courts including. the Supreme Court. Now, also earlier. today as it relates to those so-called. 20,000 registered voters as Ryan Goodman. writes, "What you call game over." The. DOJ admitted in court that their list of. alleged 20,000 non-citizens registered. to vote in California has a high error. rate. The case involves a temporary. restraining order barring the Department. of Justice threats to prosecute state.

officials, the DOJ admission will have. reverberating effects in other cases. And as we reported not just in this this. case in California, but also the case. out of Washington, D.C., the Trump. regime basically was exposed that this. list of 20,000 was like a fabricated. list. It was like made up names, too. That's what was exposed in Judge. Bosenberg's case in D.C. Here's what. Chris Geidner reported, "Breaking in. response to a question from Judge Trina. Thompson, Northern District of.

California." This was before the Supreme. Court made that ruling. The Department. of Justice attorney just said, "It is. fair to say that their list has a high. error rate." Just admitting, "Yeah, it's. all errors, all errors, high error. rate." Also, it should be noted that. earlier today, this was new and. breaking, another no true bill in. Washington, meaning a grand jury. rejected another case brought to it by. the federal prosecutors out of. Washington, D.C. from the Trump regime.

This one was a purported voter fraud. criminal case against someone who the. Trump regime claimed voted twice in 2024. and the grand jury in Washington, D.C. said, "Nope, we're not going to indict. that person." And rejected the Trump. regime from even getting an indictment. there. Now, there was other news this. morning as well. A federal judge. dismissed a criminal complaint against. two former FBI officials accused of. lying to Congress about Hunter Biden. A.

federal judge on Monday earlier today. dismissed a criminal complaint against. two former FBI officials accused of. lying to Congress about Hunter Biden, citing what he said was weaponization of. President Donald Trump's Justice. Department just before the midterm. elections. In a scathing hour-long. ruling read from the bench, US. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said the. investigation that produced the charges. against Nikki Flores and Bradley. Benavides was rushed, conducted at the. behest of Trump and FBI Director Kash.

Patel, and dogged by critical mistakes. that require the dismissal of the case. I am deeply troubled by what has. happened here in this case, Faruqui. said. What has transpired here cannot be. described as anything other than. weaponization by the Trump DOJ. I will. not bury my head in the sand and pretend. that I cannot read a calendar, Faruqui. said, alluding to the proximity of the. charges to the elections, which will. determine control of Congress. And there. are the Trump regime didn't even get an.

indictment, they just filed a criminal. complaint because they know they're. unable to get indictments. And by the. way, when they went after James. uh Comey, they filed a criminal. complaint. They haven't yet yet gotten. an indictment in that case, either. I. want to bring in right now a very. special guest. Let's bring on the a. former Attorney General Eric Holder to. talk to us about the elections tomorrow, the Trump DOJ losing all of these uh. cases. He's the former Attorney General.

Let's bring in the interview I just did. with former Attorney General Eric. Holder. Now, I want to bring on former Attorney. General Eric Holder. Attorney General. Holder, great to see you, as always. I. want to start off by talking about the. Trump regime and the Trump regime DOJ's. attacks on election integrity, all of. these lawsuits and efforts that they've. engaged in to try to intimidate and harm. people's ability to vote. Uh they've. lost these cases in resounding fashions,

and I think a lot of these federal. courts, based on the experience they've. had with this DOJ, and no longer a. presumption of regularity, expect this. DOJ just to lie to them. So, I actually. think that was helpful, this past. experience. But I want to get your take, obviously, as the former AG, what you. saw here. I mean, they're clearly not. done. They're going to keep this going. on until after the election. But where. do you see things right now? >> Well, I think that, you know, in a.

quote-unquote normal time, we would be. worried about um foreign adversaries. What's Iran doing to our election. system? What's China doing? What's. Russia doing? And I think the main. threat to um. a good, clean election here is not any. of those entities, although they're. still problems, and I'm sure I hope. they're being monitored. The main. problem now is the um the federal. government, and more specifically, the. executive branch of the um federal. government, the Trump administration.

It's a whole-of-government approach. I. mean, yeah, they're using the Justice. Department, but they're also using DHS. Uh they're coming up with all kinds of. ways in which they can try to, you know, cast doubt on the the fairness. of the system in the hope that people. won't participate. Um I think in some. ways that's a goal, and it also lays a. predicate for challenges that they might. want to file um once the election is. done, and the ballots are in the process. of being counted, and looking at, you. know, what they can do at the at the.

state level with regard to. certification, and ultimately with. regard to certification um when it comes. down to the to the federal level. >> You know, I think our founders were very. smart in a lot of regards. I think the. election clause actually provided a lot. of protection, making time, place, and. manner really a states' rights issue, unless Congress says otherwise. The one. thing that I think there's a bit of a uh. uh a a big hole that we have to figure. out as well. You We expect the executive branch to.

take care that laws are faithfully. executed. That's the whole the whole system is. somewhat based on good faith. So, what. happens when the DOJ is not prosecuting. the bad guys, but when they are the bad. guys, when they're engaged in the bad. conduct, and then anybody who challenges. them, they go, "No standing, no. standing." Because it was believed that. the DOJ and the various divisions would. be taking care that laws are executed.

and going after the bad guy. That to me. is a hard part to grapple with as they. make all these arguments, "No standing, no standing." And all of these cases. feel a bit collusive in the way it's. Trump and Trump DOJ and Trump AGs. working together. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, obviously you want to have a justice. department that is independent of the. White House. Todd Blanche has indicated. that he works for Donald Trump. I mean, you know, he just says it. I work for Donald. Trump.

I don't work for the American people. Um. so, there is that. I mean, we got that. problem with the Justice Department. But, you know, we also have the ability. to file private suits. Yeah, sometimes. standing is a problem. Um but, we've. gotten through private lawsuits, we put a lot of brakes on that which the. Trump administration otherwise tried to. implement. You know, cases in Alaska, California, you know, whole different different. places. And I suspect that's going to.

continue to be, you know, the barrier. And the courts have done a pretty good. job, I think, in responding. Today, we. just say, I guess we saw a lawsuit that. or. an attempt to indict a couple of FBI. agents, not related to the. the election specifically, but this. whole Hunter Biden laptop thing. Um and. there you had a judge throw the case out. and with very, very harsh language, you. know, question the motivation behind. that which um you know, the.

Justice Department was doing. Now, that's a criminal case. Um. supposedly a criminal case um that got. thrown out, but there have been other. instances where. uh, you know, lawsuits have been brought. by private parties that have been um, I. think pretty effective in stopping uh, stopping the Justice Department. And I. expect that they're going to see that. continue. I mean, I've been involved in. a whole variety of tabletop exercises, working with people on the Hill, working. um, with folks uh, from various interest.

groups trying to anticipate all the. kinds of things that we might have to. face both in the lead-up to the. election, the election itself, and then. post-election, so that we're in a in a. position to uh, to respond. >> Talk about that, because I recently. interviewed Congressman Raskin and. Congressman Hoyer, and they were telling. me how they were planned 25, 30. different scenarios. We've spoken to. leaders at the ACLU, and they've talked. about how they've prepared every step of.

the way. I'd love to hear as much as you. can share. um, about what that looks like, because. I I think after I spoke with Raskin and. Hoyer, the audience felt a little bit more. confident and comfortable that there. were Look, Trump's going to throw. everything, but we have top-level people. who are thinking through each of these. steps. >> Yeah, I mean, I'll just go through one. One I did up on the Hill, and we had. various members of Congress playing. different people. I mean, you know,

somebody played Mike Johnson, somebody. played uh, the DHS Secretary, um, and we went through a whole range of. scenarios. I was up there, we had other people, I'll just say Marc Elias was there in. addition to other other lawyers to try. to figure out how were we going to. respond if the Republicans tried to do. um, you know, name, fill in the blank. What was the. response going to be? Really focused on how could we do things. um, in response effectively and quickly.

Um, that is one of the drivers of all of. the all of the activity. How do we get. into court and do things as quickly as. we can, resolve things as quickly as we. can, so as not to allow them to inflict. the damage and then try to have to undo. it. I mean, how do we stop them before. the damage is actually done? And I left. that um that tabletop exercise. I did. another one. It's been It's been. publicly reported with Hillary Clinton. at my law firm with a a whole range of.

of of of interest groups. Um and we had, you know, big TV monitors up up up on on. walls and as we were in the process of. doing talking about a variety of things. then the TV monitor would come up and. say, "This report's just coming in from, I don't know, pick the state California. and the following has occurred." And. then we have to say, "Okay, what are we. going to do in in this instance?" And. again, the same thing. What's the. response? Who are the people who should. be responding? How do we quickly make. sure that we are doing things as. effectively as we can? And there are,

you know, a there's a ton of legal. talent that is spread out around this. country, um you know, ready to go. Uh. ready to go. But I think in some ways, you know, the ultimate. the ultimate power is the American. people. If people come out and vote in. really substantial numbers and the. margins are very large, um that crushes. almost everything that uh the Trump. administration might try to throw at us. But we got to be prepared for, you know, some close elections in some places and.

them being as as I say creatively evil. as they you know, as they are. >> I spoke with Governor Wes Moore earlier. in the day and he was telling me about. the redistricting question three that's. on the ballot. Um. and obviously the Trump regime tried to. starting with Texas gerrymander it not. on a referendum, just push it through. and force that, you know, force its way. onto it, which seems to have backfired. there. Um it seems to have been a dummy.

mander as you see now anything that's in. that kind of plus 12 plus 18 margin from. 2024 where people voted for Trump, now. Democrats could potentially be taking. those seats, but it also backfired cuz I. guess they didn't expect Democrats, or. just say pro-democracy people who still. care about the rule of law, to fight. back and say, "All right, well, if. you're doing that, we're going to do it. We're going to open it up to a vote for. the public. We're not just going to. force it through. We're going to make it. a thing where citizens get to decide for. themselves what they want this to look.

like." So, talk to us about your. experience with the redistricting. question. >> Yeah, that's a very important point. I. mean, their attempt to, you know, when. Trump walked to the the helicopter and. said, "I'm going to get five seats extra. congressional seats, house seats. out of Texas because I'm entitled to. them.". That effort failed. And it didn't fall. on its own. It was dismantled by people. like the organization that I lead, the. National Democratic Redistricting. Committee, our partners, by filing.

lawsuits, by me talking to Governor. Newsom, and other folks, President Obama. deciding, "All right, do we want to One. of our responses should be, all right, maybe California should redraw. their lines." And as you say, let the. people decide whether or not that's. something that they want to do. Do it on. a temporary basis. File lawsuits in places like Utah and. Missouri, won those lawsuits. Galvanized the people in a variety of. states. Georgia and South Carolina.

immediately come to mind. So, that they. went down to the state legislature. And. you know, we're loud. Peacefully, you. know, did it. non-violently, but in great numbers. So, that people in the state legislature who. might have thought about going along and. doing something along the Texas model. knew that there was going to be a. political consequence. And so, Georgia. and South Carolina, at least for the. time for the time being, have backed off. on on doing that. And so, that's the way. in which, you know, that effort failed. And they also didn't do whatever it is.

they were trying to do. They didn't do. it particularly well. I mean, they based. a lot of their assumptions on the 2024. election. And that's going to result in, I think, a dummy mander probably in in. Texas. I think also in Florida. And a. lot of seats that they thought were not. going to be competitive, in fact, are. going to be um competitive. And. depending on, you know, what the results. of the election are, uh we're going to. see a lot of unexpected um. pro-democracy um results.

>> I like that your approach has been fight. fire with fire, but with deliberate, methodical fire to their not just. malicious, but reckless fire. I think if. there's been a bit of a saving grace, and I think you talked about it there, we see it in the courts with this Trump. DOJ. They're sloppy, they don't think. through, it's impulsive. Donald Trump. wakes up, "Do this, do that, do this, chop off the trees, you know." And then. they aren't thinking the steps through, per se. So, the question becomes though,

when we get out of this hell, and I. think we will, how how does a future DOJ wield power? How do we think about this? You know, do. we say, "All right, I guess we got to be. back to old school now, and do it the. way it used to be, you know?" Or do you. say, "You know what? I saw what they did over there, and they. did that for bad, and but there's a lot. of power that's been unlocked, apparently, based on what the Supreme.

Court has said is acceptable, which. we've never really even thought of." So, how do you think through those issues? Cuz I think through them, and it's an. important debate that we need to have, you know, when we're out of this hell. >> No, I think that's a really good point. Um you know, I I don't think people talk. about rebuilding, and I think we need to. go beyond that, and think about. reimagining. Um take into account that. which we've had to deal with over the. course of this these last two years or. so, and certainly the first Trump term.

as well, but especially these last um. two years, and try to reimagine that. what should a Justice Department look. like in the 21st century. How do we. prevent that which has happened now from. happening um again? Codifying norms, um. regulating things in ways where we would. before relied on um on on tradition. We have to do all of those those kinds. of things, but we also have to, you. know, progressives and Democrats, I say. this all the time, we are uncomfortable.

with the acquisition and the use of. power. And we got to get past that. We. got to get past that. You know, if we. have, for instance, a trifecta after the. 2028 election, president, control of the. Senate, control of the House of. Representatives, we got to use that. power not in the way the Republicans do, you know, for their special interests in. giving tax breaks to to, you know, to. oligarchs and and that kind of stuff, but to come up with ways in which we. shore up our democracy. One of the. things would be to look at, be very frank here, the hires that have.

been done, for instance, in the Civil. Rights Division at the Justice. Department by, you know, by Harmeet. Dhillon. Those people, a lot of those people would not be. qualified under the old standards, Republican or Democratic standards, to. come into the department. They just. weren't that qualified. And if they are, you know, Trump-Dhillon zealots, you. know, just move them out of the Justice. Department. And again, because of what. the Supreme Court said, but that kind of. under the unitary executive theory, that power does reside in the next.

Attorney General, the next in the next. president. And so, I think that's the. kind of power. that we have to consider. Then people. say, "Well, wait a minute, what's going. to prevent Republicans from doing it, you know, once they get it?" I don't. know. I don't know. But I do know that. we cannot leave in the Justice. Department uh people who are not. committed to its traditional mission. >> The reputation of the DOJ is sadly in. shambles right now. When DOJ lawyers. show up in front of federal judges, they're looked at as all right, what lie. are you going to tell me right now?

There is no presumption of regularity. anymore. And when DOJ lawyers used to. show up to court, regardless of what. administration, I mean, these were. always top lawyers, prepared. They don't. miss deadlines. You know, things get. filed on time. They don't just con- lie. to the judge, you know? And so, the. reputation is like, like, as a law. professor, I don't want to recommend to my students. to work there, right? Which I wouldn't. care before if it was Republican or. Democrat. I just not sure I think it's a.

good place to work. So, what do you. think when this all ends? I mean, is top. DOJ talent going to come back? I mean, like are do you still have confidence. that it could be restored? Cuz that's. something that that I wonder and I don't. even know what to tell my law students. and undergrad students about it. >> Yeah, I I still I still think the desire. is there in the legal profession for. people to come to the Justice Department. and other components of the executive. branch to come and serve in ways that. lawyers traditionally have. And so, I.

don't think it'd be hard to repopulate. the Justice Department with you know, with good people. That may have to be. some restructuring cuz of things that. they've done with regard to some of the. divisions within the Justice Department. to get it back to you know, what it was. or to the reimagined Justice Department. that I think we ought to have. But I. think we need to be thinking about. things like you know, maybe expediting. background checks of people who are in. the Justice Department and who were. forced out but who want to come back. Same thing with regard to the FBI. Agents who were fired or or or forced.

out but who nevertheless want to come. back to the FBI. Again, you got to go. through background checks but you can do. these things. There's just one thing, you know, do that on an expedited basis. so that you can get good people back. into these. into these organizations as soon as. possible. But the point you make about. reputation, that in some ways is going. to be the more difficult thing. I mean, I think I can repopulate the department, repopulate the FBI, repopulate the ATF. But when it comes to. reestablishing the trust between the. American people, the judiciary and the.

Justice Department, that is something. that's going to take it's going to take. some time. You know, that presumption as. you said of you know, of regularity, that presumption that a lawyer from the. Justice Department is telling the truth, that isn't necessarily something that is. felt by the people or by by judges and. it's going to take a long period of time. to to reestablish that. >> It's election day, frankly, not a. foregone conclusion looking back that a. democracy community would still be.

standing, actually stronger than ever. There's optimism in the air right now, and I think the people watching this. should also know that they fought back. and that this didn't just happen. And. that if it was up to Trump and the whole. regime there, things would have been uh. very different, we'll just say. So, but. here we are. Uh what's your message? What's your message to people right now. on election day, um Attorney General Holder?

>> Well, first off, no excuses. I mean, no. excuses. Everybody's got to vote. I. mean, I know this is election day, um. and I this is coming maybe a little. late. Uh hopefully people have voted or. in the process of voting. People died, um you know, committed themselves, sacrificed, but it as I said, died, gave. their lives so that we would have, you. know, the right to vote, the right to. decide the policy direction of this. nation. We have to honor those people um. by casting ballots. And that also gives. us control of of of the present by.

casting ballots. The American people are. slow to rouse, but once they uh get. focused on an issue, we are a mighty. force. And it also means we control the. future. You know, what's the future of. this nation going to look like? I mean, I think Trump and his folks thought with. regard to the, you know, the um the. their gerrymandering attempts that, you. know, the reaction from the. pro-democracy side was going to be that, you know, we clutch our pearls, I'd. write an op-ed, I'd come talk to you um. you know, on your very popular show, and. that would be the end of it. And what. happened was we fought back. And we.

should learn from that experience that. when you push back, when you fight back. against these guys, you win. I mean, those law firms, those universities, those corporations who bent the knee, uh. how do you feel about that now? You. know, how do you feel about that now? And how are you going to feel about that. when we get to 2029 and people start. looking back and ask, "Where were you in. 2026? Where were you in 2027?". Um so, I I I I I I think lessons can be. learned from you know from prior. experience. Those who bent the knee are.

going to be have reputationally been. damaged and you know that's a that's a. negative thing. And those who fought. have shown that. as pessimistic as might as we might have. been as you know as as dire as the. situation might have seemed back in. 2025, if you fight, you know, we we win. And. so that's what I would tell the American. people. The biggest weapon that we have. as average citizens is the ability to.

cast a ballot. So we want to do that, but then stay involved. Stay involved in. our in our civic institutions. You know, Dr. King said that the arc of the moral. universe is long, but it bends towards. justice. But here's the deal, it doesn't. bend on its own. It only bends when. people like us put our hands on that arc. and pull it towards justice and away. from that which. the Trump administration wants to do. >> Attorney General Eric Holder, appreciate. your time and thanks for all you do. >> All right. Thanks for having me. >> Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 7.

million subscribers. One book, a whole lot of WTF. My. brothers and I wrote WTF America about. how we got into this mess, the millions. of you who refused to back down, and how. we get out. Scan the QR code, click the. link in the description, or find it. anywhere books are sold and order today.