Trump DELETES EVIDENCE as DOJ in FULL COLLAPSE!!

Donald Trump's DOJ in their. maliciousness and recklessness and just. rampant corruption have been frequently. caught hiding evidence, concealing. evidence, not producing evidence. as it's supposed to be produced during. discovery. I can give you a few data. points as well. You don't hear a lot about the Don Lemon. case anymore, do you? Because even. though the Trump regime rushed to get. Don Lemon arrested in like California.

even though what they alleged happened. was in Minnesota. Remember it's the. he was reporting on a protest in a in a. church out there. Um and then they arrested him right away. and they made a whole big public deal. about it. They don't want to turn over. their discovery in that case. And if you. follow what's happening there, the Trump. regime in their DOJ is doing everything. to slow down discovery. Let's call this. a complex designation. Let's do. superseding indictments and add more. people. Drag it out, drag it out, drag.

it out. It is actually identical to how. Donald Trump ran the frivolous cases. that he would file against people as a. vexatious plaintiff civil in a civil. litigation where he would sue everybody, get the splashy headlines, make sure he. said all of this venomous stuff to try. to get it protected by legal privileges, right? And then when the case would. actually start and you would say, "All. right, sit for a deposition. Show me the. documents. Show me the discovery.".

Delay, delay, delay, delay, delay, delay. He then tries to bury you in. delays and lawyer fees and extensions. So maybe you reach a resolution or. eventually when the cases go away, people don't remember it all that much. and it just fades into the news cycle. with all of his other distractions, right? We see that happen time and time. again on immigration cases where in that. I did a report on it with Harry Litman. last week. There were these 7,000 cases. recently where basically after the Trump.

regime's ICE and Border Patrol Gestapo. would kidnap people off the streets and. the cases would start, they wouldn't. submit declarations and affidavits or or. evidence to support their claims that. the individuals who were placed in these. camps, I call concentration camp, were. doing anything wrong or deserved to be. there. And the judges would say, "Well, you're not putting forward any. evidence." Now this gets even. particularly more profound when we're. dealing with deaths, murders that are.

taking place. And I can tell you when I. was a civil litigator out here in. California and I handled. uh police excessive force cases, particularly Bakersfield, Kern County. and Fresno area. One of the hard things. you would deal with is the disparity of. evidence that they would control lots of. the evidence. You would hear about a. police shooting, but like in order for. you to get the body cams and all of. these things, they would drag it out, drag it out, but you know, at the end of. the day they would have to produce it uh.

eventually and they would work in task. force. Often times they would be layered. on to these police shootings, joint. state local task forces that were. required by law. And right now the one of the things that. we're seeing is with all of these uh. deaths that are taking place at these. concentration camps and detention. centers. Um and of course the high. profile murders that took place during. the Trump regime occupation of uh.

Minnesota, Renee Good, Alex Pretti. Um the Trump regime seized all of the. evidence right away and then refused to. have any state, local, municipal police. officers work with the feds. And one of. the things that we've known in other. immigration cases that the feds would. do, for example, during their occupation. and invasion of Chicago is. where they where their car would be. involved in an incident or they would. ram somebody or where they would. uh where they where they would shoot.

somebody there. They would like remove. the evidence to other states or drive. their cars in other places versus safely. and securing the evidence so that the. right types of investigations would take. place. So when it comes to the murder of. Renee Good and Alex Pretti, state and local officials are like, "We. want to be involved at some level in. this investigation. This happened in our. jurisdiction. We want to determine the. cause, the manner, whether charges. should be filed at a state level." And. the Trump regime's like, "No, you're.

out. We're not letting you be involved. in this at all." And so what do you do. when the DOJ, which was supposed to in. theory be the good guys, have become the. cartel, have become the bad guys. And. they don't want to participate, to join. or or or or serve the ends of justice. They just want to serve the ends of. corruption and criminality. Well, you. may have heard by now, but this lawsuit. that was filed in Washington, D.C.

federal court by the state of Minnesota, as Scott McFarland reports now on the. Midas Touch Network, Scott McFarland, he. reports how. it's great to say that, how the state of. Minnesota's filed a federal civil. lawsuit against the Trump regime. They're seeking the a court order to. force the regime to hand over records. about the murders of Good and Pretti. The suit asks a judge to declare that. defendants' policies or practices of. refusing to share investigative. materials with Minnesota authorities.

concerning the federal officer involved. shootings arising out of Operation Metro. Surge is arbitrary and capricious. I want to bring in Harry Litman from the. Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking. Feds Substack and Talking Feds podcast. Harry, great to see you as always. Harry. was the top United States prosecutor in. the Western District of Pennsylvania, the U.S. attorney there, top federal. prosecutor in Maine Justice. I mean, Harry, one of the biggest and most. obvious obligations that the DOJ has is.

to produce evidence, handle it with. care, you know, obviously like. yes, there would be the rare case, the. rarest of case, but a bad one where. someone in the DOJ would be exposed, tampering, hiding, right? There'd be. criminal charges brought against them. Immediately everybody in the chain of. command would be held accountable. Um but now this seems like an everyday. occurrence and so blatantly and. obviously in the case of Pretti and. Good. Uh-uh, see you state, we're not. working with you. It's just mass Border.

Patrol and ICE Gestapo. We run the show. You don't get to know anything. So now. they're trying, it's going to be a. difficult lawsuit, Harry, because our. system, and you and I talk so much about. this, actually the rules of the game. aren't like made for this. Like what. happens if you let's say you were. playing soccer, but you remove all of. the referees and you give one of the. team like like hockey sticks to start. slashing people in the face and you're.

like, "Hey referees, you're supposed to. well no one I don't know. What a what a. terrible example. >> [laughter]. >> Uh so Ben, let's start here. Rare. unprecedented. is the answer. It's rare for the U.S. to. be involved in the prosecution of. federal officers, but it certainly. happens when federal officers use. excessive force and are unjustified. We all saw these videos of the murders.

of Pretti and Good. Now the DOJ came out. of the box. They've since tried to. backpedal saying, "Oh, it was all. domestic terrorists. Our guys were. blameless.". But it's very clear and has always been. the case when an officer, state or. federal, uses excessive force, especially if a death is involved, the. DOJ and the states both have big. sovereign interests. The U.S. is. sovereign interest is are and trying to.

vindicate the murder of that happened. It doesn't matter that a federal. official did it. So what would happen, and I'm saying in every single case. where this has occurred, the DOJ would. either say we want to get there might be. a little bit of a tussle about who goes. first or the DOJ might say sometimes you. go first and we'll be a backstop or in. rare instances the DOJ might say, "We're. kind of out of this one. You got the.

primary interest, go for it." What they. will never do, literally has never. happened, is to say, "We're going to. throw up obstacles so you cannot go. forward." And guess what? Um they have in possession and they've. um you know, taken away and and and put. aside where no one can touch it, the. car, for example, that um Renee Good was. riding in. You remember the shots fired. at her, the forensic evidence, blood on.

the seats, the casings, all kinds of. stuff like that, but also statements. uh by officers involved. And it is. there's a set of regulations that the uh. department has that Minnesota has tried. to go through. They're called Touhy. regulations and when you want info from. the feds and they're not just giving it. over as they would here normally, you. ask pretty please and they go through. hoops. Guess what's happened here. They. they asked pretty please to the.

Department of Homeland Security, which. has the physical possession of the car, which is shrink-wrapped and. somewhere hundreds of miles away and the. other stuff. And and they responded, "This isn't really the kind of thing. where you ask us, go to DOJ, all right?". And you know, we're we're we now. understand, by the way, what's been. taking so long for these charges to come. forward. They went to the DOJ and they. wrote, "We're going through your 2E. regulations." and then did it again. And. DOJ.

has done exactly nothing. Hasn't even. responded. And that has to be. purposeful, it seems to me, because one. thing that the 2E regs require, you can. sue, but there has to be a final agency. action. So, right now DOJ can go into. court and say, "You know, it's still. pending. We don't know what to tell. you." For that reason, Minnesota has. done a separate cause here saying, "By not answering, they're they're.

violating the administrative procedures. act." But I'm here to tell you, this is. a if if the DOJ wants to erect it, and. they do, and it's never happened before, this is a really difficult minefield. Because. it's not it's not just. saying we tried under 2E, it's a whole. 'nother series of hurdles to say, "Okay, now give us the evidence.". I'll say very quickly, this will play.

out more, but the law is a little bit. more favorable in some circuits than. others. And one where it's more. favorable for Minnesota, DC. So, you. know, this lawsuit that Minnesota. brought today is actually filed in the. District of Columbia. But they are going. to have a hell of a time trying to get. over these 2E requirements. And then. they just said flat out what really is. right here, which is, "We're sovereigns.

This is 10th Amendment in this country. Federalism. We should be able to have. our subpoenas, which we subpoenaed you, recognized. And the the DOJ, you can be sure is. going to say, 'Yeah, they're sovereigns. Yeah, there's the 10th Amendment, but. they can't use it to to force our. hand.'" So, you're going to see all. kinds of procedural bobbing and weaving. And I think Minnesota is going to have a. real uphill battle. But let me say one.

final point. And and really, this is. going to be playing out for weeks. Let's say they can't get the car. Let's. say they can't get the guns. Let's say. they can't even get statements. That in the past, I worked on the Rodney. King case. There was one blurry video, nothing else. That would have been. really hard. In 2026 though, and we saw. this, there's so many videos and you can. put them together. New York Times did a. bang-up job on this and really see what. happened. And you can.

really have a substitute even without. the car now. The defense. we're talking about, you know, defendants being Jonathan Ross and the. customs agents who are involved in. Pretty, might come forward and say, "Where's the car? And what about the. guns?" But I think then, and this this. is getting pretty in the weeds here, but. you've been in trials and you know how. it would work. it matters here. Minnesota can can say, "Your Honor, they know very well what happened to it.

The federal government won't give it. We. ask for an instruction to the jury. making that clear." And if at the end of. the day you've got such clear video and. argument, you know, it. it's still is a winnable case, but a. much much harder one. And the bottom. line here is it is. atrocious to have look, justice here. under federal law or state law is to.

prosecute people who did not have reason. to think they were in imminent deadly. danger of deadly harm. And if that's. true, and we saw it, that's a crime in. the federal system, that's a crime in. the state system. The sovereigns. interests dovetail perfectly. But for. political reasons, and we saw them, we. saw Stephen Miller, we saw Kristi Noem, we heard Donald Trump come right out of. the box. They are not simply standing to. the side, but literally putting.

obstacles in the vindication of the. interest that Minnesota has in common. with DOJ. Never happened before, and. really really nasty. Harry, we just want the evidence at the. end of the day. Like, just turn over. And look, if the evidence shows X, it. shows X. If it shows Y, it shows Y. We're all big girls and big boys and big. people here, and we can synthesize.

evidence and facts. But stop withholding. it from us. You know, that's one of my. biggest gripes. And it's so funny, you. know, with bringing on Scott McFarland. at Scott McFarland News and his YouTube. channel and the growth and all that. It's like people Hey, by the way, Ben, way to go. What a coup for for Midas. Network. It's just fascinating though to. see like a Caroline Levitt and a Stephen. Chung in the White House to attack us. and say, "Far leftist." And you know, when I said, "You can call me whatever. you want if it means standing up for.

humanity, dignity, rule of law, affordability." You know, you go through. the list. Help helping marginalized. communities. But it just at the end of. the day what you and I do here, Harry, as you know, is very detailed. minutia. focused analysis on facts and evidence. and footnotes. And we'll take it. wherever it goes. Show it to me. But. like it's just funny that that's viewed. as a far left position. And that that's. like a framing of it. When I'm just.

like, "Okay, I mean, call me what you. want to call me, but let's just get to. the facts and the heart of it." Harry, I'll let you say it. >> Yeah, you're so right. Cuz look, if you. really believe that, "Hey, I'm worried. I want my guys to get a fair shake. They. were federal officers." Okay. What does. that mean? That means you let the jury. system run its course. You give over the. evidence, of course, so there can be a. full-bodied judgment. Here they're they. are what they're doing is specifically. to keep the justice process from running.

its course, even though that's. supposedly what their mission is. supposed to be. So, you're exactly. right. All we're talking about let us. have the It's See this? It says. subpoena. We could get it from anyone. else. We want it from you. You're no. different. We're just trying to. take the process of justice forward and. serve it up. Why shouldn't the jury that. decides this have the full picture? And. if the answer is because, "Well, you. didn't comply with the 2E regulations.".

something is really I think tinny and. hypocritical about that. That they. should let the system. go through its paces. Everybody subscribe to Harry Litman's. YouTube channel, Talking Feds. Just. search Talking Feds, Talking Feds. Substack, and Talking Feds podcast. Thanks, Harry. Hey, thanks, Ben. And everybody hit subscribe here. Let's. get to 7 million. Love this video, [music] support independent media, and. unlock exclusive content, ad-free.

videos, and custom emojis by becoming a. paid member of our YouTube channel. today. You can also gift memberships to. others. Let's keep growing together.