🚨SECRET DOJ Call LEAKS FROM WITHIN…

And now it just leaked. A DOJ conference. call arranged by some of the top. lieutenants for Todd Blanch took place. During a conference call, they told all. of these prosecutors, according to a. report by MS Now that you need to. prosecute these cases regarding the. upcoming midterm elections that we hand. you or you will be fired. You don't. challenge us. You don't talk back to us. If we tell you we believe there's.

election fraud, regardless of what your. belief is, you are our foot soldiers, if. you don't like that, get the hell out of. here is essentially the message. Now, the DOJ says, "We never did that. That. didn't happen." But according to people. who were on this conference call, Akash. Singh, we've heard his name before. He's. one of Blanch's main lieutenants. Uh one. of his henchmen, a top lieutenant uh to. the deputy attorney general warned that. the Department of Justice lawyers must.

pursue these election fraud cases that. are assigned to them or else. Singh also. told supervisors that the FBI and DHS. may overrule the prosecutor who declines. to pursue one of their investigations. and that the office of the deputy. attorney general would make the final. decision on whether a case goes forward. Word of his comments which came in the. past week in a standing weekly. conference call with senior supervisors. overseeing criminal prosecutions in US.

attorney's office quickly spread. throughout the department. The news. shocked many because the instructions. appear to override and reject. long-standing Justice Department rules. that require prosecutors to. independently assess whether the. evidence Yeah, remember that evidence. presented to them justifies further. investigation or possibly bringing a. prosecution. Justice Department. spokesperson says this never happened. He never said to anyone that they'd be.

fired. The department has been very. clear. This is about election integrity. It's a priority. Only those who are. allowed to vote should be voting in our. elections. If you break the law, you. will be charged accordingly. Internal. reports of Singh's threats come as the. Trump regime has aggressively sought to. investigate non-citizens for possible or. supposed illegal voting. That's what MS. Now says. But let's be very clear here. Donald Trump believes that if you're a. Democrat, who he refers to as a.

Democrat, and he's surprised that there. was a B in the word dumb, or if you. don't meet what Donald Trump perceives. as on the Trump voter list, he's made it. very clear that he thinks that you're. not eligible to vote. Do we believe that. Donald Trump wants to actually respect. the state voter roles and that elections. are controlled by states? Of course not. The Supreme Court just had to intervene. and block Donald Trump's efforts to try. to usurp the role of the state, which is.

their constitutional right to control. state elections under the time, place, and manner clause of the Constitution. And Trump said, "You know what? I'm. going to do a rule with the United. States Postal Service that says we. create a voting portal with the Trump. voter list. And if your states list. don't match our Trump list, not only. will we disqualify any envelope, any. ballot that doesn't match our list, but. then we reserve the rights to destroy. thousands in that same batch and call.

the entire batch of ballots tainted. And. then from there, we'll go on. And I want. to bring in Harry Litman from the. Talking Feds YouTube channel, Substack. and Podcast. And Harry, the reason this. call got out there, MS Now broke the. exclusive of it, it's because lots of. other prosecutors felt very. uncomfortable. The process, as I. discussed, and that was described in the. article, is prosecutors work at various. branches, departments, uh, you United.

States Attorney's offices across the. country. They independently evaluate. whether there are crimes being. committed. There's an internal process. There's a manual. There's a way that. it's assessed. And the idea that main. justice, which by the way, you are a. very important person for this take. because you were a top position at main. justice. You had a position kind of like. the guy we're talking about. You you. were like at a rock. I mean, that was.

like kind of, you know, you had a top. level position that you were also a. United States attorney um in the Western. District of Pennsylvania. But what. they're saying is is that basically. Trump will tell Blanch, who will tell a. rock um you tell this prosecutor to go. after this person, and then that. prosecutor shouldn't ever. independently assess. They just have to. prosecute or they get fired. Now, Akash, apologies, I said his name wrong once or.

twice here, but Akos, we've seen this. guy before in lots of these cases. And. kind of how they utilize him is they. kind of he's the henchman. The emails. come from him. And then Blanch and Trump. are like, "Akash sent the email." And. Akash is like, "Well, I'm exercising. independent judgment." And so they kind. of try to cut off the chain that goes up. to Trump with a kosh. And I think we've. seen this in other uh in other cases.

And so Harry, what do you make of this? That main justice dictating you must. prosecute this person. It's dangerous. It's worse. Um so first, you're totally. right about who this guy is. It's you. normally have in a deputy attorney. general's office someone whose job is to. sort of uh at least oversee or keep. track of what's going on in the 93 US. attorney's offices. And the role this. guy has played has been absolutely the. enforcer calling up either the US.

attorneys or first assistants saying. here are here are your political. marching orders. But look, it's always. been the case. true that uh prosecutors. who just are not comfortable pursuing. different cases do not have to th this. is way more grave however so I you know. I during my time there I knew some. people who just didn't want to do death. penalty cases and they it was understood. that they didn't have to others who.

didn't want to do mariju little. marijuana cases they didn't have to. there were plenty of people to do it. this is basically trying to shove down. the throat of individual prosecutors. what they believe. They are looking. You're absolutely right. Principles. federal prosecution though they've been. they've taken a meat cutter to them say. you line prosecutor who's going in the. grand jury and maybe signing uh an. indictment. You must satisfy yourself.

from looking at the evidence that A this. guy is guilty of a crime and b you can. prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Both. of those things. Now, it's one thing to. tell an a USA and it doesn't happen. before that like we don't care that. you're a little squeamish about it. Do. it anyway. Again, not that you didn't. have to. But here they're saying, "We. don't care that you think there's no. evidence. Do it. Violate every ethical.

uh prescription there is. Violate your. oath. Violate the rules of uh principles. of federal prosecution." And I mean, it's the same thing as saying, "We know. you're looking at your calendar and you. believe it's Tuesday, but I'm here to. tell you in Donald Trump land it's. Wednesday. and you better frigin say. it's Wednesday or you are out the door. It's a particular kind of authoritarian. tyranny, right? To say these are the.

facts and you and this is the evidence. and you have an analysis that shows it. doesn't meet the uh threshold at all. Too bad. Pretend it does. that kind of. compulsion from on high for nakedly. political reasons and you know let's. let's be frank nakedly incorrect reasons. with everything we know about the Trump. administration. uh when when a a USA is there saying you. know I don't I don't think this case is. there and somebody in the blanch's.

office saying yes it is I'm ready to bet. a lot of money that it's just not it's a. fact it's not there they don't have the. evidence and to basically kick kick him. in the rear and say go into battle and. pretend there is and basically lie to. the court, lie to the jury. That is just. a grievous kind of uh you know boot on. the neck for what you believe or not.

It's just perverse, wrong, and uh you. know it they they might as well scream. out law, facts, evidence. H who cares? Donald Trump wants to do these cases. And let me just take a step back and. say, what are we talking about here? You. know what we're talking about? The. continual canard that there's all this. fraud out there. And in fact, they've. just said to the Supreme Court, that's. why we need this rule. The Supreme Court. broke it down. And that, it just so. happens, is complete horseshit. So, it's.

not, you know, we know that the that the. orders from on high are going to be, yeah, we know there's no fraud, but go. and pretend there is anyway. That is so. improper to try to shove down the throat. of a professional federal career. prosecutor. >> and then they gaslight us and say, "We. didn't say that.". >> Oh, yeah. There's Well, that shows how. improper they know it is, right? So, >> we never said that. We never said that. You know, and it also shows you their.

arrogance that they believe that they've. purged the DOJ of enough people who are. going to just accept it and aren't going. to go to the press and say, "Hey, here's. what we feel incredibly uncomfortable. doing." And I guess, you know, a lot of. these stories that we tell feel. sometimes they end and it's like, well, that's bad. Some of them have good. endings, but but I think the fact that. there are still people within there who. are fighting back and pushing back and. saying that they're not going to do that. and are historians of this period in.

time. I often weigh Harry, should. everybody just resign and get out and. allow it just to be or do you stay in. there, hunker down and it's it's. definitely a debate that people have and. one that won't be resolved in the next. two minutes in this video, but it's not. a bad thing that we have insight from. within that this is the plan and um you. know take it with take whatever you want. out of that. Anything you want to say? >> Can I make one final point on it? >> This is about elections. So, we've said. before they know they're not going to.

get convictions, but they'll make people. miserable, make them spend money, whatever. And, you know, others say, "But there's not a conviction." These. are elections, and what you want in the. fastm moving uh setting of elections is. just to bring the case. You're trying to. slap around some state official, some. group of voters, and if you can. literally get a worthless but federal. indictment and here you go, you are. under federal indictment that itself can.

have the kind of deterrence uh I mean. that scares the out of most people. even though it won't ever come to. anything. And so in the very election. setting, it packs a much much more. powerful punch than in in a time where, you know, then you would go to court and. everything would be okay. This is. they're going to be trying to force the. action sort of instantaneously. Harry. Litman runs the Talking Feds YouTube. channel. So after this video ends,

search Talking Feds, you'll see Harry's. videos. Click on them. It's where I get. a lot of my legal news from. Harry is uh. one of the I think the really the the. forefront of legal reporting. I mean, he. lived it. He's top federal prosecutor. He clerked for Supreme Court justices. So, you'll gain a lot of valuable. knowledge from him. Subscribe. My dogs. in the background are telling you to. subscribe. And that's my time to go. Harry, Takito, Chakito, Leo, see you. later next time.

>> And when and when you do, tell them. Chakito says hi. Thanks, Ben. Breaking news right now. My brothers and. I wrote a book. It's called WTF America. And well, doesn't that just say it all? It comes out officially this October, but you can pre-order your copy today. Just scan the QR code or click the link. in the description below. >> [music].