Trump Judges INSTANTLY EXPOSED in BACK TO BACK RULINGS!!

Judges appointed by Donald Trump have. been smoked out for their. clearly obsequious behavior. We see. these federal judges appear in these. various confirmation hearings where they. don't answer basic questions, but how do. they behave on the bench, especially. when Donald Trump is a litigant before. them? Well, we can see in multiple cases. involving Donald Trump, one a criminal. prosecution by Trump's DOJ, another case. one of Donald Trump's ridiculous $10.

million lawsuits, how these judges are. handling things. I really want to zoom. in and provide you with detail like we. do here on the Midas Touch Network about. how these federal judges are handling. these matters. So, I want to talk about. on the one hand federal judge Emily. Marks, United States District Court. judge for the Middle District of. Alabama. She was appointed by Donald. Trump in 2018, young lady appointed by Trump. Um, you. know, they try to appoint young people.

in order to keep them on the bench for a. very long time. They have lifetime. tenure. And then I want to talk about. Judge Roy Altman. He's a judge appointed. by Donald Trump in 20 19. He was the. youngest judge, I think, appointed at. the time, 36 years old or so when he was. appointed to the bench. And he's the. judge presiding over that case where. Donald Trump sued BBC for $10 billion. Why don't we talk about Judge Altman's. ruling first, then we'll go back and.

we'll talk about Judge Marks. Remember, these are both Trump appointees. So, you. By now you know about the BBC case. Donald Trump sued BBC for $10 billion. They did a documentary it for their. Panorama show that aired in the UK. It. never aired in the United States. They. spliced it together in a way that Donald. Trump said defamed him because it made. it appear that he was supportive of the. January 6th insurrection. The BBC. admitted, "Well, we did splice it, but I.

don't understand what the defamation is. here that you're claiming you're injured. $10 billion. Like, what's the malice? What's the. recklessness? What was your role and. involvement in the January 6th. insurrection?" And the BBC said, "We're. not going to just take this lawsuit. lying down. We're going to propound. discovery." Trump propounded discovery. on BBC. BBC turned over 90,000 records, and BBC's been aggressive in sending. discovery requests to. Donald Trump, and they've been saying, "We want to know about all of your.

financial records, cuz you're claiming. $10 billion in damages. So, if you're. saying you've been damaged $10 billion, you you keep all of your money with the. Donald J. Revocable Trust. Let's find. out all of the damages that are there. Let's take a look at how you claim. you've been losing $10 billion, Donald.". To which Donald Trump said, "Well, I'm. not the revocable trust. They're a. non-party." The non-party, the revocable. trust, steps in and says, "Ah, we're not. Donald Trump. We're the Donald Trump. Trust, and we're a non-party. We're not.

going to participate." Well, BBC filed a. motion to compel. Those are heard before. what's called a magistrate judge. A. magistrate judge, not an Article III. judge, but works as a in the federal. courts below the federal judge. They're. appointed by federal judges, and they work within the within a case, and they handle discovery matters. On. the criminal side, they handle other. things, but on the civil side, they. handle discovery matters. And that. magistrate said, "Hey, Donald, you're. claiming $10 billion in. business damages to your Trump entities.

You've put this in issue. $10 billion is. a lot of money. Turn over your records.". Right before the deadline of Donald. Trump having to turn over his records, which was the middle of last week, Trump. goes, "Emergency! Emergency! 911! We're going to amend the complaint. We're going to to the whole complaint. We're no longer alleging business. damages. Let's delete that. We're. actually now just saying it's. reputational harm. So, ignore that back. in 2025 when we filed this, we said.

business damages. We're not doing that. anymore. And ignore the fact that the. deadline to file an amended complaint. was March. Now we're doing it. And BBC's. like, there's no emergency. You just. don't want to turn over your financial. records, and you blew the deadline. So, we're entitled to this. And you know. what your remedy is if you don't want to. do this anymore? Dismiss your freaking. case. Get rid of your case or turn over. the records. The magistrate judge stood. on the order compelling the documents. What does Trump do? Trump runs to the.

federal judge and says, you've got a. stay and stop the ruling by the. magistrate because we are going to amend. our lawsuit to try to change the. allegations to remove business loss and. now just claim reputation loss. And. BBC's like, what are you talking about? The deadline passed. We're in federal. court. This is grown-up stuff. You can't. just change it. You're going to change. your whole complaint. The time to change. it was a while ago. Stop it. This is. going to cause us harm now cuz we've.

been dragged along in this lawsuit. This. is costing us money. The judge, appointed by Donald Trump, Judge Altman from the Southern District. of Florida, says, "Donald, you raise a. compelling argument," he says. "This is. a compelling argument. If the. plaintiff's amendment, if Trump's. amendment to his complaint, obviates the. need to compel a non-party to disclose. confidential financial information, we. think it's prudent to enter a brief stay. of the order until the the amendment.

request is is um in issue or is or is. addressed." Okay, it's not like some. random non-party. It's Trump's revocable. trust. It's not like some random. company. It's It's him. It's just he. puts his money in a trust. Stop acting. like it's some random party. And then. you're past the deadline. The deadline. passed if any person went into federal. court way past the deadline and said the. grounds for emergency is that they're. going to have to turn over confidential.

records cuz they want to amend the. complaint and the deadline to amend is. over. The federal judge would laugh at. you. And by the way, there are. mechanisms to deal with confidential. information. It's called the protective. order. And there when you could even. designate certain documents what's. called attorneys' eyes only. And there. is a protective order in this case. So. you have this judge behaving in such a. way that you should never have ever. happen in federal court. Oh, you want to. amend the complaint. That's a compelling. argument. It's not a compelling. argument. It's the dumbest argument. imaginable. And anyone would be laughed.

out of court for even making such an. argument, let alone get a stay where. Trump doesn't have to produce his. financial records right now. That's what. the judge said. You could hold off on. producing it. Go and amend your. complaint, Donald. It's like treating. him like a little baby. Then you go to. the uh this case in the Middle District. of Alabama regarding the Southern. Poverty Law Center. And the Southern. Poverty Law Center said vindictive. prosecution, this case should be. dismissed. Donald Trump is out there. posting on social media attacking the.

Southern Poverty Law Center. He's saying. I'm I'm We're basically He's saying. we're going after you because I'm. vindictive. It's basically what without. using those exact words. Look at his. behavior. Look at the speeches that. these Trump regime officials are using. It's as obvious as the Abrego case. It's. as obvious as the Comey case. It's as. obvious as, you know, all of these. other, you know, cases out there. And. this Trump appointed judge, Judge Marks, rejects the SPLC, the Southern Poverty.

Law Center's claim of vindictive. prosecution. And she notes that Trump's. rhetoric is wide-ranging. The court is similarly unpersuaded by. Trump's post-indictment statements about. the Southern Poverty Law Center. Trump's. rhetoric, rather famously wide-ranging, and he has undoubtedly been critical of. the Southern Poverty Law Center. However, Southern Poverty Law Center. fails to establish is that Trump's. statements evince animus on the part of. the United States attorney for the.

Middle District of Alabama. So, though. Trump has specifically criticized the. SPLC, the organization has not provided. evidence that the prosecutors working on. this case were in any way motivated were. in any way motivated by his purported. animus. And then the court goes on to. say that ad hominem attacks are just. what's to be expected in modern-day. discourse. This case typifies modern. This is I'm giving you a direct quote. This case typifies modern American.

discourse. It is unsurprising that the. parties' arguments primarily comprise. what has become all too common ad. hominem attacks in the form of press. releases, interviews, and social media. posts. I want to bring in Harry Litman. from the Talking Fed Substack podcast. and YouTube channel. Harry, I'm sorry I. went on so long there, but I had to lay. it out in that way because I wanted to. use these judges' language, and they're. both related to me and how they're. behaving. This is what's come to be.

expected. This is what we expect. This. is how No, it isn't. It freaking isn't. And it isn't a Democrat or Republican. thing. This is not the way law and order. works, Harry Litman. >> Yeah, the this is what's come to be. expected, the flouting of rules and. laws. I got to agree with you. These are. two really shabby opinions, man. They're. not simply wrong, but they're shabby, not to be too pedantic, but they're. poorly written. The the first judge I haven't seen this. in a while employs the first person.

plural when talking about a weed, cold, we do this. That I think that's called. the royal, we, but you know, it's really, you can try to puzzle. through it, but what he's saying is, if. you change your whole theory of the case. and you amend the a complaint, that's a. reason to change all of discovery. Two. problems here. First, they haven't done. it yet. So, why is he granting the stay.

now? The state of the case is the state. of the case until he changes it. But, when he does try to change it, and he. hasn't even gotten there yet, the it's. pretty clear this change is there's a. word for it in the federal rules, an. amendment to the complaint, and there. are rules for when you can do it. Imagine if you have a case, you know, 10. years, I want to amend it now. You must. do it within a certain time period. That's just rules is rules. It could be.

a longer time period, it could be a. lesser time period, but if the rules say. 14 days, you don't say, "Pretty, please, can I have 15 and a half?" And by the. way, this is not a close call, it's a. far call. We've seen Trump do this, by. the way, before and try to get away with. it, totally flout time limits or not. make arguments. You and I have talked. about this in the E. Jean Carroll case, where he thinks the rules are not for. him or wants to go back, and you know, any court that's actually just doing. what it's supposed to do says rules are.

rules, and as as Justice Marshall for my. clerk used to put it, "Rules is rules.". And, you know, it's nonsensical to just. not apply it. Now, in addition, this, you know, the there is the the whole. question of would it be, even if it were. timely, which it's 7 months too late, would it be a proper amendment? And. what's the reasoning of this for in.

first judge looking at it? This is the. reasoning as best I can tell. It's a. four-page order. I've read it myself and. you put it out there. It would be prudent. Oh, I see. The rules say this and he's. seven months past the rules, but it. would be prudent. What kind of. It's just cuz we say so that they're. going to just flout and keep the rules. at bay. And you know, both of these. cases obviously the the overwhelming.

point is where Donald Trump is actually. in the mix. Wow, you know, we we've had such a. valiant by and large performance by. district courts in this country. including Trump appointees. And I it's. really discouraging to see district. courts appointed by Trump really just. kind of, you know, thumb on the scale. and hands over their eyes where he is.

involved. That's certainly what's the. case in this in this first. the the first case that we've talked. about. You know, it's too late to amend. It is an amendment and there he's. staying it before he's even tried to. amend. It's. you know, both both wrong, but also sort. of shabby. Okay, now the SPLC. it's wrong and shabby also. The notion. that she seems to be saying, well, first. it's a rough and tumble society and.

people make ad hominem attacks. Yeah, I. guess that's right. But if they're the. Department of Justice bringing. charges, the government, then those. attacks. If you and I have a lawsuit and. I'm motivated by some kind of vindictive. feelings happens every day that. Constitution doesn't bar it. But if the. president of the United States is so. motivated, we call that a violation of. the due process clause and an abuse of.

government power. You can't excuse it by. saying, "Well, that's how. you know, litigation is carried through. now." Moreover, her point that, "Well, just cuz he's a total. toward the SPLC doesn't mean. it's because it doesn't show anything. about the US attorney for the Middle. District of Alabama." That's just wrong. hornbook law. The question is whether. the government brought the case for. vindictive reasons. We saw this in the.

Comey case and elsewhere. You don't just. go to the last actor. If that especially. and you know, just in terms of being. sensible. What's going on here when Jim. Comey's indicted does Lindsey Halligan. hate Jim Comey? No, she's following. orders from the president who hates Jim. Comey. That makes it vindictive. Likewise here, her attempt to say, "Well, you haven't shown the Middle. District of Alabama US attorney has.

anything in for the SPLC." It's a non. sequitur. The if the overall if you're. following orders and the it's the. overall vindictiveness comes from the. top, that is in some ways even more. a constitutional violation. And now, you know, there's something. else going on here that is um. You could imagine that the the normal. test doesn't quite sort of fit in, but.

what's what's one reason we know it's. vindictive? We know it's not on the. merits. The case is so weak. The case is. such garbage. It was mischarged. The. idea that somehow the SPLC is defrauding. its own donors by suggesting that or by. hiding the fact that they are terrorists. themselves. It's a complete joke. And. that that the joke part of it is part of. what makes you, you know, know, understand that it's a reprisal or or a.

vindictive prosecute. I think vindictive. is probably the better word here. But. you know, the basic notion is it's. saying about the facts, this ain't about. the law. This is about an organization. that Trump and they've really been in. the crosshairs, been as I'm sure you. know, sort of the mega right in general. You. know, hates the Southern Poverty Law. Center. So she's wrong on on the law. She's she's also she's. blithe and nonchalant and wrong on the.

facts. Oh, hahaha, that just happens. No, that's not how it works when it's. the executive. But it really is, you. know, giving back of the hand treatment. to something that I think is pretty. serious. What would what would anyone. say why are these guys now being. indicted? Is it for something they did? Is it some law they broke? No, we know. what it is. And that is in and of itself. a constitutional violation that. she seems to be basically, you know,

pretending both of them in a way or you. know, kind of doing this to just not see. what is in front of their faces. And. you know, I try very hard not to go too. much by who's the president, who. appointed them. But here it's hard to. ignore especially when it's got. specifically to do with does Trump need. to show his money? Does. is Trump's vindictiveness in play? And.

you know, the president that the. president who appointed both these guys. is the. is the very same. It's hard to divorce that from these two. opinions, I got to say. >> That's why I want to read the text of. those opinions so our audience can see. what the judges are writing and say, "Wait a minute. This one judge is saying. that this is what politics is like today. and that it's expected that the. president says these things about.

criminal defend No, that's that's wrong. Like that statement right there is. incredibly wrong. And similarly, where. another judge says, "All right, you're. well past the deadline, but um you could. change your entire theory of the case. Just do it." That's a compelling. argument. Well, it's not even changed. yet. It's just In the future, you may. change it. I want people to read it to. understand again, this isn't a. democratic position. To me, it's like if. there was a referee in a football or.

soccer match, depending on where you. are, and someone started picking up the. soccer ball here in the US and held it, and then they said, "Oh, look what I. got." and threw it in the net, and then. the referee said, "I'm going to allow it. this time." You'd be like, "That's not. the rule. What game is not What game is. >> It would be prudent. >> It would be prudent It would be prudent. if you kicked the What What What are you. talking about? You know, and then also. kind of reminds me of um Remember going. to school and you would have the. substitute teacher who would enforce the. rules and the substitute teacher who. would just get paid by the hour and. wouldn't even let this And And very.

quickly, the the class would take over. for that substitute teacher who would. just All right, I'm just going to let. the clock run out. The You know, and. there are great substitute teachers who. did a fantastic job and and and were. professional and handled it. I just. remember growing up with that. And the. reality is is that what the message that. these judges send by doing this is that. anybody. that that that they're that they're It. demeans their own power in the position. And being a judge comes with august. responsibilities, which is what attracts. some people to being on the bench. And.

it's like. you're just a clown now. You You wear a. robe, but you're a freaking clown. And. that's how people look at you. And so, when people step into your courtroom, just know they look at you like you're. like like you're two clowns. That's your. legacy anyway, Harry. I'll I didn't want. to say anything, but like subscribe to. Harry Litman's YouTube channel, Talking. Feds. Um tell Harry I say hello. Obviously, our book coming out is called. WTF America. Pre-order it now. Um I. wrote it with my brothers. In the Harry. comments to his uh YouTube, Talking. Feds, say, "Harry, Ben says WTF America,

Harry." Um if you got a copy. Thanks so. much, Harry. We appreciate you. >> Thank you, Ben. And yeah, you minus. mine. I think it's only like I don't. know, 20 25% of the comments saying that. now. I'm sure you can get to 30. >> Thank you. >> Good to be with you, Ben. >> You, too. >> 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].