Trump’s OWN JUDGE Clobbers HIM FOR FRAUD ON COURT!!!!

A Trump appointed judge is clobbering. Trump's DOJ for committing a fraud upon. the court in essence, lying to the court. over and over again using trickery, chicanery, and we're seeing this now. take place across the country with Trump. judges, Obama judges of course and Biden. judges as well as Ronald Reagan. appointed judges still, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush judges and others. I mean, they're out there just saying, "We have zero trust in this Trump DOJ.

And every time we give you an inch, you. try to take the whole thing. And you. just Do you think we're stupid?" So, you. have this federal judge, young guy by. the name of Judge Doudik, who was. appointed by Donald Trump. He's. recounting the series of events taking. place in a case involving a habeas. petition in an immigration uh. proceeding. We've seen a lot of these, right? Where Donald Trump's lost like 10. to 15,000.

cases like this. His winning ratio in. these cases is like, I don't know, like. 5 to 10% at this point. You know, it's. that low. And uh the Trump regime just. keeps on getting called out. I'll show. you another case, too, where a federal. judge is basically saying, "Put you the. Put this We don't trust you. Put it in writing or shut the heck up.". So, here's what this federal this Trump. appointed judge talks about. It's a case. involving a petitioner by the name of. Dmitri Istrab an non-citizen sitting in.

immigration detention. Last month, this. court ordered the government provide him. with an individualized bond hearing. This was after the government conceded. they were wrong for not giving him a. bond hearing. Okay. And then the judge. goes, "What happened next borders on the. surreal." Five days later, an. immigration judge refused to hold the. ordered hearing, claiming Istrab is not. covered by the statute and thus. ineligible for bond. Instead of. defending this court's mandate, the.

government's counsel acquiesced in that. refusal and waived any administrative. appeal. Now faced with a renewed habeas. petition, the government casually. announces that its previous concession. was in error and asked this court to. reverse itself and hold that Istrabob is. instead subject to mandatory detention. The government was right the first time. in its request for a do-over here is not. just legally unsupportable, it is a. master class in litigation cynicism. A.

federal court is not a testing lab where. the executive branch can pilot a. concession to get a case closed, stand. by silently while its own administrative. process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a. clean slate. Give me a break. Why. Istrabob is legally entitled to a bond. hearing is a question this court has. already answered in painstaking detail, an explanation that should not have.

required a sequel. And because the. government has shown that it cannot. follow this court's explicit directions. and offers zero assurance that it will. comply with the statutory process it. previously championed, Istrabob will be. immediately released. Accordingly, the. renewed petition for writ of habeas is. granted. Istrabob is entitled to a bond. hearing, but because the government has. shown a complete inability to follow. judicial directions, the only remedy. that law and justice require is.

immediate release. The government is. directed release Istrabob within 48. hours of this order. Respondent shall. facilitate his transportation from a. defend detention facility by notifying. his counsel when and where he can be. collected. The clerk is directed to. terminate any pending motion and. deadlines, enter judgment, and close the. case. In other words, the judge was. saying what we previously ordered you to. do was go back and give the. administrative hearing before an. administrative judge. You then worked.

with the administrative judge, did not. tell that judge what we ordered, allowed. that judge, and by the way, a lot of. these administrative judges are being. just hired by the Trump regime. You. didn't tell them, so that administrative. judge made an order different than what. this court directed that administrative. judge to do. And so now Istrabadi. through his lawyer had to bring it to my. attention again, and it's why the judge. says it borders on the surreal that. you're coming back for a sequel and. acting like I'm not a federal judge.

You're acting like you did some trick. and like got you federal judge. Like I'm. supposed to be your friend because I'm a. Trump appointed judge. And notice what. the federal judge also had to put in the. order. Very specifically the. instructions of when this individual. gets released, where they go, how the. lawyer has to be notified, because in. the past the Trump regime, and this. judge knows this, would just basically. throw people out without their cell. phones, without telling their lawyers.

And we've seen people die because. they've been thrown out in conditions, sometimes, you know, we're in the summer. now, but we've seen situations in the. East Coast during the winter where. people were killed because they're just. thrown out there without their cell. phones and they were freezing to death. So you have that, and then this just. kind of reminds me as well of the case. out of the Eastern District of Virginia, not a Trump appointed judge, but Judge. Brinkema, who's a federal judge, Eastern. District of Virginia, in the case. involving Donald Trump's $1.8 billion.

slush fund for insurrectionists that. Trump's DOJ and others in the House of. Representatives are saying this slush. fund no longer exists. We don't We're. not using the slush fund anymore. So as. we predicted here on the Midas Touch. Network and as I predicted with Harry. Litman. and Michael Popok, I said the judge is. going to say, "Okay, put it in writing. or else I'm going to issue an order.". And so, there was this incredible moment. bordering on the surreal to borrow a. time from borrowing a line from Judge.

Dudek where Judge Brinkema speaking to. this DOJ lawyer and saying, "You agree. with me that your position, you're. saying your position is that the slush. fund doesn't exist, right?" Right. Okay, so why don't you put that in. writing in a stipulation signed under. penalty of perjury? Because that why. aren't you doing that? Uh. uh. I don't know. And Judge Brinkema is. like, "You you don't know?

Kind of a high-profile case, don't you. think that when you step into my court. you should know because your argument. why I should dismiss this case is that. the case is moot because you agreed not. to have the fund, but you don't want to. put that in writing. Like, are you. trying to do like a trick? Like a. gotcha? Are you are you using the. federal court as some like laboratory. and testing ground versus what a federal. court's supposed to be? I want to bring. in Harry Litman from Talking Feds. He.

had the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Substack, and podcast. Harry, it's great. to see you. >> Likewise. >> Bordering on the surreal because the DOJ. can't file bait can't follow basic. judicial directions. We've seen this now. in quite literally tens of thousands of. orders now and you we and I have been. covering them. What a what a humiliation. ritual. I mean, it reminds me of some of. these lawyers I remember when I would go. into state court who would be like. disciplined lawyers on probation and you.

would see and they'd always show up and. the judge would be like, "All right, I. got to deal with you again." And you'd. be sitting back there watching the. lawyer lie to the judge and he'd be. like, "Oh, how humiliating." That's the. DOJ where you used to work, Harry. >> Give me a break. Those are not words. You know how we see a federal judge put. in an order, so real it's and then give. me a break. First, um, you're totally right, Ben. This this is. this recurring issue that either some.

combination of DHS, Recalcitrance, or. just complete administration-wide. uh indifference to the rule of law. They. have done tens of thousands of times. It's the same issue here. It is when. someone has been in the country for a. while and they're picked up, that means. has always meant that there's a. provision 1226. that uh says they can move for habeas.

corpus and get a uh a bond hearing. Do. you get released or not? But the. administration's been trying and trying. and trying and trying and not taking no. for an answer to say these people who. are in the country, they are applicants. for admission, same as if they were. first presenting themselves at the. border, even though they've been here. for decades maybe having lives. That's. the position that they really are just. completely.

um bullheaded about trying to um. effectuate, and you can see why. If they. can have that position, then there's. none of this uh business or worry about. being in front of a judge. You just. stick these guys right away in a. detention center and they never see the. light of day again until South Sudan or. wherever they um they bring them. So, it's a really. um. it. uh just re- it recurring refrain and a.

and a and a lawlessness that they won't. go there. But then, yes, the uh the the. the segment I want to underscore that. you said is this administrative law. judge. Sounds like a judge, starts with. a J, but these are just appointees of. the Department of Homeland Security. So, they're they're people who are in the. chain of command, basically. A federal. court, a neutral federal court, and. we're talking about a Trump appointee, as you said, uh said painstakingly along. with.

I think it's well over 90% of all the. district courts who have looked at this. said, "This is not an applicant for. admission. Therefore, we just uh give. them the possibility of a just a a. hearing as you would with for a. prisoner, just to possibly be out while. they await the process that DHS wants to. put them through." And that's what they. are trying to prevent. So, this is. really the whole borders on this a real. give me a break. Um really.

illustrates just how completely. uh putting their you know, thumbing. their nose at the rule of law this is. Now, one something something's really. interesting about what he did here, and. I don't know if it will. um hold up because he said, "Just you. you did it wrong. Therefore, I'm. granting and freeing the guy." And if. they they can well say, "Well, what if. he were a dangerous guy, etc.?" You. didn't even go through that inquiry. The. judge has a good reason, "I didn't go. through the inquiry cuz you totally. twisted and and deformed what I said.".

And that's the way it it goes. That'll. be a a possible thing they could do on. appeal. But I I wanted to set that up. because contrast that with Brinckema, who as you said today, Todd Blantz says in the in the House. Committee, "We're not going forward. Won't even put it in writing." And this. is Remember, it's a settlement. agreement, and that was their position. That's a contract. That's a deal. And. supposedly, Trump gave them the uh.

settlement of his case, which of course. is a unconstitutional and meritless. case. So, he gave them exactly zero. But. then they gave him this fund. It's not. to them to now say, "Well, we're not. going to going to give it going to go. forward." But at a minimum, they got to. say, you know, something that a court. can hold on to. And for Brimmer to say, "It's not enough. to just have these words." That Blanche.

says not even in writing, not even under. oath in the house. That really is give. me a break. But now it's pretty. interesting. And first of all, do they. Let's say they tried to appeal. What the. hell are they going to say? Emergency, emergency, she's put a a hold on this. fund which we. oops, ourselves want to put a hold on. What's the irreparable injury? What's. the problem that they would have to seek. emergency relief? But then she's going. she's really called for the sign This is.

like bring me the head of the top the. top dog. She wants Stan Woodward who. signed the settlement agreement and. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, and Todd Blanche to sign things under. penalty of perjury. They're going to try. to wiggle out of that, you can be sure. But but Brimmer could try to insist and. say, "Look, I'll tell you this, this. fund is going nowhere unless you do it.". But it's an odd position because they're. saying we want the fund to go nowhere.

Anyway, we've got this total confluence. of the situations where they. administration wants to ignore the law, ignore the the facts even in the in the. slush fund. And judges now, you know, really have the them. backed up against a corner. So, it's a. tough position for them to try to come. in and swear their way out. It's it's. worse. I don't know if we'll talk about. this maybe next week Judge Williams has.

said, "Did you commit fraud on me or. not?" Donald Trump's lawyers have to. answer that today. But it's a rebuke, right? It's really. to to say, "I know you said that, but we don't. basically that's not good enough.". Legally it's not good enough to do a. whole rescission of a settlement, but. it's really insulting Blanche who. remember he was asked will you put it in. writing and in his very sort of. chest-thumping Trumpian.

bellicose way said, "No, that's all you. need to know." And Judge Brinkema said, "That's not all we need to know, not. with you, Mr. Blanche." So that that's a. that's a solid rebuke and it's well. deserved. >> Everybody make sure you subscribe to. Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's. called Talking Feds. Just search right now on YouTube Talking. Feds. Subscribe right now. Thanks, Harry. >> Thank you, Ben. And everybody hit. subscribe here. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack at.

midasplus.com. You'll get [music] daily. recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free. episodes of our podcast, and more. exclusive content only available at. midasplus.com. [music].