Trump makes EMERGENCY FILING to SHUTDOWN in HIS OWN CASES!!!

Donald Trump is now making emergency. filings to shut down cases that he has. brought or that the DOJ has been. bringing at Donald Trump's request. For. example, on the Trump personal side, Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion. saying they like defamed him and how. they covered January 6th and I want $10. billion so the BBC BBC said, "Okay, great. You want $10 billion, we're going to subpoena your financials.

Let's see how you claim you were injured. by $10 billion. and then Donald Trump's like, "You don't have the right to go into my. finances. You need to subpoena the Trump. Revocable Trust and the Trump. Irrevocable Trust is not a party to this. litigation. Donald Trump is, not the. Irrevocable Trust. That's a third party. and the third party shouldn't be brought. into this litigation. I'm not Donald. Trump Irrevocable Trust. So I'm not. going to turn over financial documents.

and the BBC's like, "Look, you. propounded 437. document requests on us. We've turned. over We've done our duty. We've turned. over tens of thousands of documents. We. just want your most basic information. about your finances cuz you claim a $10. billion loss. That was your headline in. the case. So if your headline in the. case is that you've lost $10 billion, we would like to see the damages, please." And then Trump's like, "No, no, no, no, no, we're not going to show it. to you at all." By the way, that's what. I've always said about these Trump.

defamation cases or these Trump. lawsuits. Rather than Rather than doing. motions to dismiss, you know, just. answer the complaint, get to summary. judgment later, propound discovery right. away, notice his deposition because then. Trump doesn't put up anything. Zero. documents then he wants to drag it out. over and over again and then he won't. actually litigate the case and it'll. eventually be dismissed. So that's that. example. Let me give you another example. with the $10. billion number as well. You notice the. theme here. Donald Trump sues his own.

IRS or it's our IRS actually and the. Treasury Department for $10 billion. saying that because Trump administration. one IRS leaked 450,000 people's tax. returns which one of them included. Donald Trump in 2019 when Trump was the. president. So a contractor who worked. for Trump was the person who did it. By. the way, who former president Biden. prosecuted. Can you imagine Trump. prosecuting someone who was leaking.

Biden's tax returns? Donald Trump is. basically saying, "Well, you know, as it was as it relates to this $10. billion lawsuit, I'm not pursuing this. lawsuit. I dismissed the case that I. filed and now the Department of Justice. says we're not pursuing the settlement. agreement anymore as it relates to the. $1.8 billion slush fund for the January. 6th insurrectionists. So now anybody who. wants to dig deeper into the settlement. agreement in the $10 billion lawsuit.

that Trump filed against the IRS and the. Treasury Department, you have no right. to even sue the DOJ anymore or ask us. for information because none of this is. justiciable. Trump dismissed the lawsuit. in Florida, the original $10 billion. lawsuit, and now you can't sue us over. the slush fund because there is no slush. fund anymore and we're all just going to. move on and no one has standing and. let's not pretend that Donald Trump even.

filed that. Let's not get into the facts. that this was a collusive and unlawful. settlement. No more investigations. We're done, right? We're we're cool. here, right? Remember remember, there. were two actions now taking place as it. relates to that Trump $10 billion. lawsuit. Trump tried to dismiss this. case in the Southern District of Florida. after filing it there for $10 million, a group of 35 federal judges filed an. amicus brief saying that the judge in. that case, Kathleen Williams, had rule. 60 authority, it's called, to reopen the.

case to determine the collusive nature. of the settlement and if improprieties. were committed, and the judge agreed to. basically reopen the case for the. purpose of demanding the parties, Trump. and the DOJ, and there's a brief that's. due June 12th coming up, explain what. the hell happened there. So, that's. what's taking place there. Separately, there was a lawsuit filed in a Virginia. federal courthouse to block the slush. fund. The federal judge temporarily.

blocked the slush fund there. Thereafter, the Trump regime was using. the temporary restraining order as the. way to say, "Okay, the slush fund's been. permanently blocked at this point,". citing the Eastern District of Virginia. ruling as the reason, not the political. pressure and the pressure of the people, which is the real reason why they. withdrew the slush fund. Um, but they're. saying to the judge, "So, now they filed. a motion before this federal judge in.

the Eastern District of Virginia saying, 'Judge, you should just dismiss the. case. Let's not look into this anymore. because we are now announcing there is. no more slush fund.'" Notably missing. from a brief that the Trump DOJ just. filed to the Eastern District of. Virginia is any mention of a part of the. settlement agreement that waived all. audits, investigations, and claims. against Donald Trump for past tax fraud, tax evasion, money that Donald Trump.

uh, took as deductions inappropriately, tax evasion. Remember, there was a. waiver of all claims against Trump, the. Trump Organization, and his family from. any claims about Trump's taxes from the. present all the way back to the past. That's not even addressed in the brief. that was just filed by the Justice. Department in the Eastern District of. Virginia, but the broader argument here. to be making, Trump files lawsuits for. $10 billion, then doesn't litigate them when people. fight back and he loses, and then he.

tries to basically squirm out of it by. saying no one has standing, you can't. look into it because I give up the I get. the headline that I wanted, I get to. raise money off of it, I get to make my. social media post, but then you don't. get to hold me accountable when I'm. exposed for what I'm doing in these. cases. And I think federal judges, and I. think people are pissed off and saying, "No, you don't just get to bring these. cases, then not follow through on them,

and then claim that there's no. repercussion for you cuz if it was. anybody else, there'd be real. repercussions." But let's bring in Harry. Litman from the Talking Fed's YouTube. channel, Substack, and podcast. Harry, it's great to see you, but this is what. you and I predicted they were going to. do. They're going to make this argument. before Kathleen Williams, the federal. judge in Florida, when they file it. They've made this argument now in front. of the Eastern District of Virginia. federal judge, who temporarily TRO'd. blocked the slush fund. Hey, this is. non-justiciable.

No one can you we can't even look into. this anymore cuz we're not doing it. And. I think the people who brought the. lawsuit, even I think it was um who is. it? Was it Was it Senator. Cassidy and uh and Senator Booker, uh who filed an amicus brief in the. Virginia case. And they said, "No, no, no, we're not trusting your. representations. Like, this needs to be. addressed head on." What do you make of. it all, Harry? >> Um you know, I would really like to pat. ourselves on the back for predicting it,

but um my first thought is. this is. so damn predictable. The whole thing, and we predicted uh that one uh was uh. already prefigured the last time around. this voluntary settlement that we all. saw coming. That was because they were. at the cusp of actually having to make a. response to the claim that this could. well be a collusive lawsuit. And they. instead they whatever they would say.

would they say it isn't? Give me a. break. We know that Trump controls it. Would they say it is? Well, sorry the. Constitution forbids exactly that. They. were between a rock and a hard place so. they just kind of bolted to not have to. answer. Now though Judge Williams has. said they do have to answer and I I want. to get back to that in a minute. But. Leonie Brinkema who's done this stay. remember the first thing they said was. we're going to comply with the law. Now.

of course they're coming in emergency. emergency. actually dissolve that injunction. of yours. And why? Um this at the time. this was written they're relying on. these representations that Blanche makes. in the Senate when he refused even to. put it in writing. Screw you I've said. it that's all you need to know. I had. said in fact I said this last night on. all in MS that they're going to that.

they're going to have to back away from. and put it in writing and they now. have. But the the notion that just cuz. they say so without really making it. clear that it's not moribund that they. can right now you still have Trump who. controls everything saying he kind of. likes the fund etc. And we'll see. whether it's even officially dead. And I think they may have. you know been a little too two-faced.

here cuz Judge Brinkema has just been. told you know she's they're going going. follow what she says and now all of a. sudden they wanted to all go away. Completely predictable that that's what. they say and they'll I do think they'll. have versions of it with Judge Williams. uh next uh Friday when they have to. submit their brief. But, and it's a. really big butt. What Williams said has. said is, you may have defrauded me. That's why I have and the federal courts.

and used us and that's why I have the. power to reopen this settlement and ask. you these questions, potentially apply. Rule 11 sanctions to the lawyers to. include Boris Epstein, Trump's personal. lawyer, and Stan Woodward, the. third-ranking member in the DOJ, and. Blass himself signed uh or I mean uh had. his name uh uh. on one of the uh filings. And it doesn't. matter if the whole thing goes away.

What I'm looking into is whether you. defrauded me then. And you know, you've. made this point uh Ben recently. If. you're thinking about some kind of uh. penalty or consequences, it's a 100%. clear. This is a lawsuit he brought in. his personal capacity and fraud, which. is what we're looking at, you know, there's there's um kind of fraud on the. court, civil fraud, criminal fraud. It's. really fairly related.

uh and there is no way that he can hold. up the get-out-of-jail-free card that. the Supreme Court uh provided him. It's. a it's a classic uh instance of him in. his private capacity. That is the whole. notion. But, I just want to say we. should look really carefully. They're. going to try to make the claim in front. of Williams that the whole thing again, "Oh, it's all over now between friends, nothing to litigate here, everybody move.

on." That is um wrong for the reason I. said. She's looking at something else. But also, they're they're talking out of. both sides of their mouths is Todd. Blanche. Oh, and by the way, a little. point here, if Todd Blanche can stand up. for a settlement agreement and say, "We. we're Oh, that's off the books now.". What more proof do you need that the. whole thing's collusive? If you If it. was a real settlement agreement, DOJ. couldn't say the day after they signed. it, "Oh, it's dead now." The The person. who was on the other side would say,

"What are you talking about? We have an. agreement." But anyway, they're they're. This is going to come up. What is the. freaking status of this amnesty. provision? Are you saying when when you. say Todd Blanche, "Oh, we do this all. the time." you mean when you settle. bonafide cases. So, that raises the. question, is this a bonafide case? And. guess what? It is not. And I think. that's what's going to be in front of. Judge Williams. It's not constitutional. case or controversy. It's barred by the.

statute of limitations. As you say, Little John, uh the the person who. leaked the the um files is not an IRS. employee. DOJ already successfully. defended on that basis. Oh, okay. No, no, no, it's not that. It's off the. books. It's just. what? If it's off the books, that means. that the Attorney General of the United. States just gave a bounty, taxpayer. funded, worth at least a hundred million.

dollars and based on freaking nothing. Just uh you know, a uh birthday present. to the president he has said he loves so. much. And when that is clarified, I. think the political. uh opposition and just sort of complete. allergy that some Republicans were. showing to what they've done here, it. really ought to return when the public. uh when it's made clear to all of us. that that what they're doing with the. fund is even more brazen Excuse me, what.

they're doing with the amnesty provision. is even more brazen than what they tried. to do with the fund. They got to go one. way or another. Are you relying on the. settlement that you're here saying uh. doesn't matter all everything's off the. books or are you not? Both decisions uh. or both positions just are not tenable. and uh they're going to try to say. nothing. I don't think Judge Williams is. going to stand for that come uh next. Friday.

>> Everybody, make sure you subscribe to. Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's. called Talking Feds. Subscribe to his. YouTube channel, his podcast, and his. Substack, all called Talking Feds. So, when this video ends, just search. Talking Feds. You could subscribe to our. YouTube channel, also, but go to Talking. Feds and tell Harry in the comments that. Ben says hi. Thanks, Harry. >> I'll be reading them. >> Love this video? 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. >> [music].