Trump DESTROYS his IMMUNITY with INCRIMINATING Court ADMISSION!!!

Donald Trump is destroying the so-called. absolute immunity that he was given by. the Supreme Court, which was outrageous. that they would give him absolute. immunity to begin with, but leave it to. Donald Trump to set fatal traps for. himself in cases that he's filing and in. his own action that he's bringing and in. the arguments that he's having the DOJ. make. And I'll give you one example, then I'll give you another example. Example number one, the Trump regime.

says that there's no standing at all. for anybody to challenge his ballroom. construction because he's already. destroyed the East Wing. And when you. destroy something, even if you engage in. overtly illegal conduct, then there is. no judicial remedy in terms of. injunctive relief to bring back that. which is already destroyed. So, the.

Trump regime's trying to make a standing. argument to continue building the golden. ballroom after demolishing the East Wing. by saying it doesn't matter if what we. do is illegal because once we start. building, there's no standing. So, we. win this case, right, judge? Because. there is no standing for somebody to. challenge. We can't rebuild it. So, let's just say I think it's a ridiculous. argument, but if you win that case on a.

standing ground, you may want to play. this out about the second and third or. fourth level consequences. by saying you're maybe engaging in. illegal conduct by ripping down the East. Wing. And if you're overtly engaging in. illegal behavior, then you fall outside the outer. perimeter of absolute immunity. Now, there's another example of this when it. comes to this. slush fund, this $1.8 billion slush fund. for the January 6th insurrectionists.

And while the Trump regime now is. saying, "Look, we're not doing this case. anymore. It's no longer a justiciable. issue because we've said we're not doing. anything with the slush fund." Well, if. you are now. starting out with this $10 billion. lawsuit that you filed against the IRS. in your personal capacity, not in an. official government capacity, sure, maybe the Trump DOJ is saying, "We're. not now putting together the slush fund.

because the American people were. absolutely livid by it." But Trump. brought the very underlying case, not as. the President of the United States, for. which he can vote immunity if it's an. official act. I mean, he could. potentially invoke it, even though we'd. all be like, "That's horrific that he. can invoke it." If he were to say, "For. national security reasons, I'm creating. this." Or for my ability to faithfully. exercise the Constitution, I'm do You.

know, when you can utter those magic. words, the Supreme Court, which I think. is the worst decision imaginable, gives. you cover. But when you say in your. private capacity, "Hey, I'm the Trump. org. I'm Donald Trump the individual, not the President, and I'm engaging in. this behavior." You don't have You don't. have the immunity. And it gets worse. because then, in these [clears throat]. cases, the Trump regime. comes up with the most outlandish. arguments to try to win a motion or a. case, which, again, they're not looking.

at the levels of consequences. So, when. it comes to the ballroom case, for. example, the Trump lawyer contended that. no lawsuit could stop Trump from tearing. down the Statue of Liberty if he wanted. to because, even if you do such an. illegal thing like tear down the Statue. of Liberty, it's already torn down, you've already destroyed it. And. therefore, there's no standing to sue or. to have any remedy against Donald Trump. or the Trump regime for doing it. For.

real, this was a. an argument before the DC Circuit Court. of Appeals regarding the ballroom. And. one of Trump's main arguments is not. what he's putting on social media or. he's like, you know, this case is about some woman. walking her dog who's angry about the. view. No, what Trump's actually arguing. before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, among other things, but the main. argument or one of the main arguments, there's no standing for this DC. Preservation Society. or historical preservation group to sue.

because we've already started it. We've. already destroyed the East Wing. So, therefore, there is no remedy. So, a. judge said, "Okay, so what if the. government decides to very quickly. bulldoze the Statue of Liberty? What if. Trump just destroys it?" And then the. people whose ancestors that was the. first thing they saw coming to this. country, the government moved too fast, and the people whose ancestors are on. there, they sued and they said, "You. just ripped down the Statue of Liberty. We have standing.".

"What do you think can happen? So, nothing can be done?" And the DOJ. lawyer, with a straight face, told the. panel at the DC Circuit, "Nothing can be. done. Nothing can be done. The Statue of. Liberty would go down.". This is they're trying to win a standing. argument, which I think they're going to. lose, but they're making a broader. admission, in my view, regarding just. outright criminality. Once we destroy. it, then you don't have a remedy against.

us? Well, there may be a remedy in the. future. Harry Litman from the Talking. Fed's YouTube channel here to help us. break it down. Harry, great to see you right here. And this is. what we're seeing also. I mean, the. Trump regime and Donald Trump. individually, they do things so. recklessly, impulsively, uh in my view criminally also in a lot. of cases and giving you my First. Amendment opinion, but you know, and. then they race to whatever they think. the argument is, but then they kind of.

trap themselves in these broader. arguments that have deep consequences. and you're like, "That's your logical. conclusion there?" That that you could. destroy the Statue of Liberty if you. want to and then there's no remedy? Harry, what do you make of it all? >> Yeah, uh look, I first want to make this. general non-legal. uh or or broader point, which is. you know, to build the ballroom and completely. alter the the skyline and uh landscape. of the nation's capital or to give out.

$1.8 billion. to January 6th offenders or to give out. 100 million or more to Trump. Those are serious issues and the. arguments that they're making in each. and every one of them is basically to. demur, the lawyers would say, which is. to say it doesn't matter about the. freaking illegality. because this is such a sort of cynical.

and nasty overall strategy. There's no. standing. You can't find anyone to. properly challenge it. Uh maybe Congress. could do something. Oh, we've got. Congress in our back pocket. Never mind. about that. So, the general approach of. doing stuff that completely not just uh. completely bulldozes Congress's role, but really is just a terrible thing for. the American people or at least the. American people ought to be able to. decide. Their strategy is just standing.

This precise nobody can bring it. Okay, and now the as to what Yacco Roth, who. was handling this in the DC circuit, said to Judge Millett, "We could tear. down the Statue of Liberty.". You know what? He had thought it. through, and he knows Millett is very. smart uh judge. Also Garcia and Noemi. Rao on the panel. We can talk about that. more. But, he he knew what the argument. he was making. That's where he would.

have to go. This is like the Navy SEALs. hypothetical that seemed so uh. conclusive in the immunity case. And. then, lo and behold, the Supreme Court. just basically said, "Oh, we don't. care." You know, the idea that yep, they. could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. Nothing you can do about it. It was. really a the kind of concession he had. to make trying to win over lawyers, cuz. if he said otherwise, then they're dead. Um third, it's exactly the strategy uh.

one day uh while the the. this judge, by the way, Judge Leon, uh George H.W. Bush appointy, and he at. first said to the the uh planners, National Historic Trust, "You know, you. haven't done it quite right." And while. that time was happening, they were just, you know, sending out people to build a. big hole in the ground, uh and uh then. saying, "Up, too late now." But, that is. really false. What's too late, you could.

say, um is that by the very hole they've dug, they've created security [clears throat]. problems that now have to be shored up. And Leon said that, the DC Circuit said. that. But, they're really trying to say, "Oh, so now it's too late. We get to. build the whole ballroom to handle. security." That's not the case, and. that's exactly what's in front of the DC. Circuit. If they really come and say to. them, "You know, you screwed up. You. trusted us. And now there's a hole in.

the ground, uh and look, it's a terrible security. uh uh. Uh by the way, there was already a. secure compound there in the East Wing. before. Let's set that aside though. They They're They're saying, "Okay, you. bastards, you did it. So, make that part. safe, but that doesn't mean you get to. build the entire. ballroom." But, you know, the the. And then I think we're going to talk. separately about what they're saying in.

the slush fund, but it's the same idea. It might be a legal as the day is long, but too bad nobody can argue it. So, you. know, we're really talking about cynical. ways of sabotaging the very ability of. anyone to just try to bring up the. issues. And by the way, I don't think. it's going to work here. We'll We'll. We'll talk about it, but among other. things, it's been a good couple weeks in. certain ways and where in the actual.

popular pushback, the you know, mighty. mighty millions and Fed heads and others. because the Senate declined to give all. the money for the ballroom or to to sort. of fold that in into their voterama. similar to the fund, but that's really. when they when they pull this kind of. dastardly move of "Ha ha ha, you can't. sue us.". Really then it's critical to build.

political opposition. And all you have. to do is make people understand what the. hell they're doing. And that's why this. question, page 15 everyone of the Patty. Mallette Roth transcript, yep, they say. they can destroy the Statue of Liberty. That's a sound bite that ought to stick. and people ought to understand the. principle that they're. advocating for the temporary holders in. the people's name of government power,

but while we're here temporarily, we can. ransack the entire capital and, you. know, burn Atlanta, as it were. You That. That's a foul, not to mention, I think, lawless vision of what it means to take. care that the law in the people's name. that the laws be executed faithfully. >> Yeah, and I think that that kind of. rhetorical tool used by the federal. judge needs to be used more. You need to. put these Trumpers, and by the way, I.

think Democrats need to do this more. when they have witnesses on the stand, rather than listening to themselves talk. and ask the questions. You know, ask the direct. >> are revolutionary. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and and bring. their argument to the logical. conclusion. Got it. So, what you're. saying is you can destroy the Statue of. Liberty, and there won't be standing. Yes. Okay. Got it. I mean, and and and you have to. kind of. get there get the full extent of their. position that way, and I was glad the. judge did it, Harry. >> I I just I just want a quick point. When.

they're in front of Congress, they're. also subpoenaed under oath, but when. they field questions like that, they bob. and weave and insult the questioners, etc. That's the kind of function Trump. that courts still serve. You can't say, "Patty Mallette, you're stupid, and you. know, you have to answer [laughter] the. judge.". >> I've got my book, Patty Mallette, right. here. >> really still matter. Yeah. >> It turns out that in eighth grade, did. you say? I mean, that's what these. people do, and that's why they didn't.

want Pam Bondi to be under oath and. before a camera, and I did a whole. breakdown of a video where I showed. that, you know, that she was basically. saying that Bondi said, "I'm not going. to answer any questions before my time. as attorney general. So, anything 2024. before I won't answer, okay? What about. 2025? I will not answer any. communications as attorney general with. anybody in the executive branch, including Donald Trump." Okay, so that. means you're not going to have any. communication. Okay, well then what.

about just your general knowledge about. these search queries that were made? That's not a communication. That's not. before 2024. Your general knowledge of. search queries regarding the Epstein. files. Were you trying to flag. information that may have had Trump's. name on it? That's not a con- I don't. recall. Got it. Not 2024 before. You. executive privilege. You don't recall. Those are your three answers to all of. those questions. It's why this what you. and I do is really important in getting. this knowledge out to show people. This.

is their schemes. This is the tools. This isn't some hyperbolic debate where. one side yells and the other side yells. It it's. Let me explain to you how this is going. Anyway, thanks Harry for all you do. >> Thank you, Ben. >> Everybody subscribe to Harry Litman's. YouTube channel. It's called Talking. Feds. As soon as this ends, go search. Talking Feds. Thanks for watching. >> [music]. >> Be sure to add the Midas Touch Podcast. on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever. you get your podcast for new updates. every single [music] day.