Trump gets INSTANT KARMA as GOP Senator GETS REVENGE!!!!

Hell hath no fury like a former Supreme. Court justice scorned. Also in that. former Supreme Court justice from a. state like Texas happens to be an. established Republican senator who you. screw over and who you need to vote for. your nominee to become the next attorney. general of the United States. It's. exactly what happened when Senator. Cornin of Texas, who will remain the. senator for a few more months after. Donald Trump basically destroyed the.

guy's career and picked Ken Paxton, who. won in the primaries. But Cornin's still. the senator from Texas and he sits on. the judiciary committee in the Senate. that is responsible for determining. whether Donald Trump's personal criminal. defense attorney turned acting AG, who. Trump wants to be the AG, will get. confirmed. Of all of the questioning, I. think the most underrated was actually. Senator Corn. And so I looked into his. background because, you know, I know him.

as a MAGA Republican. Perhaps he wasn't. as MAGA extreme as some of the others, but he was definitely an enabler. But. you go back and you look at the guy's. background. And I was like, wait a. minute. This guy was an associate. justice of the Texas Supreme Court. And. before that, he was the attorney general. of Texas. And before that, he was a. district court judge, you know, in in. Texas as well. And so this person had a. pretty significant background because. when I saw the questioning that he was.

asking of Blanch, it was very technical. and it was very technically savvy. And. what Cornin was able to do, what no one. else was really able to do using his. judicial background and frankly expert. level judicial background. He exposed. why Todd Blanch refused to put anything. in writing, that the January 6 slush. fund for $1.776 billion would be.

invalidated, and that Donald Trump's super pardon. that was also part of the settlement as. part of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit that. Trump filed this year against the IRS. and the Treasury Department. Why would. they wouldn't put anything in writing. also invalidating that? But they would. say it orally, like Blanch would say it. The lawyers would go into court and say. it. And they would go, "Isn't our oral. representations enough? We're saying it, judge. We're saying it out loud. So, we. don't need to sign our names to any of. these documents." Now, you probably have.

seen some of the follow-ups that we've. done where there are now massive. sanctions in the Southern District, Florida case, by the way, uh against the. Trump's various lawyers who were. involved uh in even bringing uh that. case. Then there's a Virginia uh. proceeding taking place as well. But. when you actually dig through the. contractual language, Senator Cornin. made a brilliant point and really. exposed what was happening here. The. agreement, the settlement agreement has.

a clause that says that the written. agreement can only be nullified or. changed in writing. And so the idea that. Blanch and the Justice Department and. Donald Trump's criminal racketeering. enterprise was going to pursue is by not. putting anything in writing to allow. Donald Trump to make the argument and. Trump's kids because they are also. parties to this agreement evidently and. the Trump Organization. Well, we can. enforce this written agreement. It's not.

so much even about the January 6th. insurrectionist and their slush fund. It's about the super pardon because. Trump made billions and billions of. dollars where he can construe this. agreement as not having to pay taxes on. it based on the way the agreement is. written. And he can try to enforce it by. saying, well, yeah, they said it was. orally invalidated, but the agreement. says to invalidate it, it has to be in. writing. And so Cornin said, you know, he at least said this was his big issue. and he wanted to see if it was truly.

invalidated the agreement or if there. was a loophole. I don't know what he's. going to do. I don't have high hopes for. MAGA Republicans in general even when. they are on the outs with Donald Trump. I have shocked to see what cowards these. human beings. It's like actually. shocking me. But I give him credit for. this questioning because it did expose a. very technical legal issue. And you know. here we like to focus on those technical. legal issues. Let's play the first clip. >> Um but let's talk a little bit about the. set about the um settlement agreement.

and the release. Um first of all I. believe you said that the weaponization. fund is a moot issue. Is that your. position? >> Yes, it is a moot issue. Meaning there. is no weaponization fund. The. weaponsition fund is dead. It's not. moving forward. Well, I would refer you. to the U settlement agreement. Do you. have have a copy of that in front of. you? I. >> I do not. >> Okay. Well, you probably know what's. what's in it. >> I'm familiar with it. Yes, >> I'm sure you are. On page four, this.

settlement agreement can be modifi may. be modified only upon the written. agreement of the parties. Has there been. a written agreement of the parties to. modify the settlement fund? >> No. The settlement fund is just not. moving forward. There's no there's no. modification. It's just it never. started. No money went from the treasury. to any other account. There's no. commissioners. It's not moving forward. >> Well, so the settlement agreement. remains as it was originally. Um but. you're I hear what you're saying. Um.

is it is the settlement agreement. enforceable as a contract by the. parties? >> Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So, I suppose if if President Trump's. council sought to enforce it, um that. they potentially could um. >> including including the weaponization. fund. >> Well, they could try to enforce the the. contract. They can't force the. Department of Justice to move forward. with the weaponization fund. They could. potentially say that I suppose that we. breached by not moving forward. They.

haven't done that and I'm I'm not aware. that they're planning on doing that. Like I said, Senator, what and and. Senator Durban talked about this, but. I've talked extensively with with you. and and other colleagues about. potentially um um codifying. So, there's. no weaponization fund, which is. certainly something that could be done. And I wasn't meaning to insult the this. body, but just in response to questions. from senators about whether that could. be done, we very much are okay with.

that. But just to be clear, the. president of the United States, who was. a plaintiff in this lawsuit, u has not. agreed in writing uh to delete the. weaponization fund. And there's no. guarantee that he or one of the other. plaintiffs might raise that issue by way. of a lawsuit and uh a breach of contract. lawsuit in the future. Well, Senator, the the plaintiffs have no power over. the fund. the fund was administered. solely by the um by by the five. commissioners and through the department.

of justice. So no, they don't have any. power with respect to the fund at all. I. suppose they could bring a lawsuit um. and then we would litigate it. But even. if we were litigating it, there's no. fund. So the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn't be. revival of the fund. >> Fund revival of the fund, right, Harry. Litman from Talking Feds YouTube, Talking Fed Substack. What else are they. not saying? The super pardon about his. audits and waving and releasing all of.

his tax liability and tax evasion. And I. mean, I think that really singled out. That's why they're not putting it in. writing because the writing would. invalidate it and it has to be in. writing. What do you make of it, Harry? >> You're damn right, Ben. Absolutely. And. this has been completely sort of. misanalyzed or whiffed on by everyone. media and uh Senate. Look, a settlement. agreement in a case is a contract.

Absolutely. And the very fact that Todd. Blanch would go in front of the Senate. and say, "Trust me." uh and you give a. very good reason why they he shouldn't. be trusted on in the terms of contract. But just saying it, this is a contract. that goes to the benefit of Donald. Trump. Donald Trump gave his uh. renunciation of this uh three-way uh. completely worthless lawsuit that in.

fact is under uh you can only get $1,000. tops anyway and it's unconstitutional. and timebred. it's worth exactly zero. and for that the United States in its. wisdom decided to enter into an. agreement. Now that's something that. consideration as the lawyer say went to. Trump. So it was always not only um. complete um uh empty as a legal matter. but it showed so much that the AG could.

go there and say take my word for it. This thing is dead. What do you mean. it's a contract? The contract runs to. Trump. It never was dead and never would. be dead unless Donald Trump said it was. dead. And as we know, in addition, it. had to be in writing. Moreover, you have. a federal district court judge who has. said this isn't dead. This isn't moot. Todd Blanch might have said something in.

the Senate, but a it's a legal question. Is something moot or isn't it? And the. fact that he said that won't put into. writing as being all squirrely, that. doesn't make it moot. And yet Blanch was. acting as if that decision never. happened or he could completely ignore a. federal district court decision. Separately, uh, every time he spoke about the tax. provision, he kept talking about, well, it's part of a settlement agreement. Routine is part of a settlement.

agreement. Far from routine. We've. established that. there's no um analog. at all, but the very same thing, a. federal district court has now said. there was no settlement agreement. There. was a contrivance and a fraud on the. court. And so his whole pitch here to. the senators is based on the DOJ saying. we don't have to listen to or follow the. rulings of federal courts, federal. district courts. Blanch actually said,

"I'm studying the 11th circuit law. myself, and I don't really agree with. Williams." It's pretty breathtaking. It's the same thing that came up way at. the beginning with uh Abrago Garcia and. we'll don't land those those planes that. the DOJ is just brazenly ignoring. Uh. and there there's no authority going the. other way. No stay, no hold. They're. just ignoring it. Um, now a couple. points about Cornin. Uh, yeah, you're.

you're really right. He uh you would. think that he he personally was. decapitated by Trump and the entire. Senate was pretty upset about that. He's. a well- reggarded, popular guy. Ken. Paxton, whom Trump anointed, is the. opposite. He was in fact impeached by. the Republican. uh state senate down there. And Cordon's. been around a long time and they just, you know, watching the kind of uh, you.

know, Trump just just take the gun, walk. him to the wall and shoot him. You would. think that really would be the end of. the matter. My golly. But with both him. and Tillis who are in a similar. position, you know, people have pointed. out where whatever they do next, they're. going to do it in a sort of Republican. ecosystem where they live. that means. lobbying or just dinner parties or just. you know walking around and if they are.

we've seen Cornin and Tillis both get a. little bit um steel in their spine and. then kind of be cowed. You would think. it'd be an easy vote for Cordin because. in addition to everything else, he. understands as a as a judge, you know, exactly how much uh Blanch has departed. from the way the DOJ is supposed to do. things. And that should really bring. home that this is a he would they would. be ratifying just a terrible course of.

corruption and and uh violations of the. Constitution. But I think it's he's. really, you know, very much on the. fence. But he is the guy, you know, talk. about. uh, you know, a sort of turnabout is. fair play. Literally, uh, Trump comes. in, endorses his opponent in the last. week, and his opponent wins. But I. really want to say as to the fund, it's. the height of not just arrogance, but.

kind of complete um failure, complete. contempt for the courts that you have. law established here and they're just. pretending they're not um that it's not. the case. And if that that settlement. agreement, as of course it is, is bogus. and doesn't count for anything, then. everything that Blanch is saying just. goes out the window. And what's left if. he wants to try to do it? Some kind of.

well, I love you, Mr. President. Here's. a free mil$und00 million gift. That's. the audit. Uh, oh, and one final point. about Blanch made several like. misstatements of law. For instance, oh, I can't meet with the Epstein survivors. They have lawyers. Excuse me. As as um. Corey Booker pointed out, of course you. can. Maybe the lawyers have to be there. or maybe they have to wave it, but you. um you certainly uh can. But on on the.

you know the fund uh itself he he wanted. to uh say that you can tether it to a. settlement agreement even if it doesn't. exist. He also wanted to say he finally. it was a kind of an eye openening. moment. Yeah I guess Trump could sue. Oh. but that doesn't mean we would give the. fund wrong and wrong again. It's. contract straightforward contract breach. of contract suit and sometimes you get. specific performance if so this would be.

the remedies it's just firstear law. school stuff either you got to give uh. $1.776. billion and to whom well to to the third. party beneficiaries they could certainly. make a claim and they and have to go. through it or to Trump to dole it out or. Trump could say we need specific. specific performance here that and and. when nothing else will do you can get. specific performance. It's just a basic.

contract analysis and Blanch's posturing. that oh it we're not going forward. That's the they're the defendant here. that they made the deal. They sold the. shoes and now they're saying oh we're. not going forward. They sold already and. gave the benefit to Donald Trump. It's. not up to them to say we're not going. forward. And the very notion that. they're doing it shows obviously they. think they're one and the same joined at.

the hip. He can speak for the other. And. that what's that mean? That means the. whole thing which of course it is is. collusive as the day is long and. therefore unconstitutional. It's it's a. non-lawsuit and as Williams said, it's. basically never happened. Shut up. already by uh talking about this. settlement agreement and this bogus. lawsuit. >> I like when he goes uh there's no. indication that Donald Trump's actually. going to bring a lawsuit on the Really?

Come on. Come on. >> Yeah, we can count on Donald Trump not. and his kids. Yeah, >> we think that they're going to. absolutely behave uh responsibly and do. the right thing. >> Everybody subscribe to Harry Litman's. YouTube channel. It's called Talking. Feds. After this video ends, search. Talking Feds. And by the way, get a copy. of WTF America while you're at it. Pre-orders available now, but subscribe. to Harry Litman's YouTube channel first. 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]. [music].