Trump SCHEME is SMOKED OUT and HE REFUSES OATH!!

Donald Trump and his corrupt DOJ were. just smoked out in court for refusing to. put under penalty of perjury, refusing. to take the oath on the most basic of. matter. Donald Trump's DOJ head, Todd. Blanche, Donald Trump's proxies, MAGA. Mike Johnson, and others in Congress, they've been saying, "We want to let. everybody know that at the at this time, we will not be going forward with the.

January 6th slush fund that is part of. that collusive settlement that Donald. Trump entered into with the United. States government for $1.8 billion. to go to J6th insurrection, 1.776. They don't really address the fact that. Donald Trump also gave himself. essentially a super pardon, having the IRS waive any right to. investigate Donald Trump for past tax. evasion or to have the government.

investigate him for any potential tax. crimes or anything like that. But, the. attorney acting attorney general Blanche. and all of Trump's MAGA sycophants in. Congress were just trust us, trust us, trust us. Well, there was a lawsuit. that's been going on and is a lawsuit. that's going on in Virginia federal case. where a judge issued a preliminary. injunction blocking this slush fund, blocking this $1.8 billion, and the party showed up, the DOJ lawyer. showed up, the lawyers who brought the. lawsuit showed up, and the federal judge.

says, "Look, I'm going to issue this. preliminary injunction, but I'll dis- if. if you DOJ just put in writing under. penalty of perjury that there is no. slush fund and that you're not going to. revive it. When you use language like, 'At this time, we do not intend to go. forward with it.' Just say, 'There is no. fund. It's not happening.' Period. Put. it under penalty of perjury, and I'll. dismiss the case cuz it'll be moot. because you've put on the record that. this isn't happening. Otherwise, there.

is an active case in controversy that is. happening right now because I can't just. trust your averments. The presumption of. regularity. is gone. We don't trust the DOJ's word. anymore. So, the judge said, "Here's my. request. Here's what I'm going to order. you to do. Either the case proceeds through a path. of discovery, through a path of. litigation, and a trial, and a permanent.

injunction, and we go that route, or. submit a declaration and just say what. you're telling me in court, but not. under penalty of perjury, with the rules. of court, sign your name, and say, 'Have. Todd Blanche put his name to it and say, "We are shutting down this fund. It. doesn't exist. Period. Full stop. And we. are revoking or removing any of the kind. of you know, kind of unilateral. settlement decrees or orders that Todd. Blanche signed. Just put the Just basic.

Put it in writing. Come back to us.'". So, the deadline came due on Friday. We. were all wondering, "Okay, what's the. DOJ going to do?" It's pretty simple. They They seem to be very cagey about. it. At the last hearing, when Judge. Brinkema, she's the federal judge, was. asking questions of lawyer, like, "Why. don't you put it in writing?" The DOJ. lawyer was like, "I'm not really sure.". And then Judge Brinkema was like, "What. do you mean you're not sure? It's pretty. big case. You You Are you speaking with. Todd Blanche? You don't know what your. position is?" Well, then on Friday, we. saw what really went down. And the DOJ.

made their filing, and they attacked the. judge, basically. They basically said in. the filing that you are exceeding your. authority as an Article 3 judge, as a. federal judge, by asking us to submit a. declaration. You're intruding on the. executive branch. How dare you ask. acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to. submit a declaration under penalty of. perjury that the things he said in.

Congress and that the things he that you. are representing to me How dare you ask. us to put that in a declaration? I mean, the interesting part is that the judge. didn't even frame it as you must. mandatory submit this declaration. The. judge just said, "Submit it and the case. is moot and I'll use that as you putting. on the record that. uh. you're not going to go forward with this. fund or don't and then I'll go forward. with the case and then we'll I'll have. to issue I guess a formal permanent.

injunction if we have to go down that. path." And so it's interesting because. at the same time you have the DOJ. attacking Judge Brinkema, you have the. DOJ attack Not the DOJ, you had Trump's. personal lawyer attacking the federal. judge in Florida who's been asking. additional questions about what took. place regarding the underlying case. They've attacked the judge. They said, "Judge, you don't have Article 3 standing. You. shouldn't ask us any questions. You.

know, it's inappropriate for you to be. at you know, for you to be what? Being a. judge? You know, the notable thing this. argument that a judge does not have. standing or that the judge is not. allowed to inquire of the parties or or. in the case of Judge Brinkema to make a. request to submit a declaration of the. DOJ for the DOJ to say "That intrudes. upon the DOJ." That means every order a. judge does at all would intrude upon. It's regular that when there's a.

lawsuit, the judge is going to make. orders that you have to follow and. comply with, but the Trump Justice. Department's refusing to indicate in a. sworn declaration that it's backing off. the slush fund claiming that Judge. Brinkema in the Eastern District of. Virginia. um, just just trust us, bro. Just trust. us. The language that the DOJ's been. using in their filing and that hearings. is we're not moving forward with the. fund or at this time we're not moving. forward. What does that even mean, we're.

not moving forward? Now you're not moving forward, but you. may want to move forward with it in the. future. And Trump's been out there. saying, "Nah, I want to I want to move. forward with it. And maybe we'll just. delay it for now." So, of course. everybody's going to say, "Put it in. writing." And the DOJ refuses. And. here's what they say. They go, "Such. This is the Let's bring in Harry Litman. cuz I've I've never seen anything like. this. Harry, this is the DOJ's filing. Such declarations are unnecessary. And the compelled testimony of senior. officials from the executive branch.

implicates serious separation of powers. concerns. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, already testified before. Congress. And counsel for defendant, the. lawyer in the case, has twice said on. the record the same thing. So, there's. no reason why a declaration. must affect the court's mootness. analysis.". Harry, declarations are the way we. communicate in court. Things are under. penalty of perjury. But we know with.

Donald Trump, his whole life has been. trying to avoid being under penalty of. perjury. And here we judge saying, "Just. put it under Follow our court rules in. the United States of America." This. system that's developed since the Magna. Carta that's resulted in our judicial. This is how you do it. And the Trump. regime is like saying, "No. We're. Putin's Russia. We we ain't doing This. is not what we do in the U.S." That's. what's really going on here, Harry. >> It is cheeky. And fasten your seatbelts,

this is going to be quite a ride. Look, she made it very clear. Uh, this is what I mean by. last Friday, as you said, they didn't. it, and the whole tone of it is. basically a middle finger to a federal. judge. And as you say, it is the. straightforward way you would normally. verify something. Now, they're making a. big deal. It's not really a separation.

of powers argument. They're What they're. saying is you can't make us high. officials uh at come in and have to. dance to your tune. Normally, that's a. kind of argument that can succeed. because the lower-down folks, it's not. as if you can't make an a a party to a. case um uh. testify or talk to you or or give legal. argument. But typically, it would be It. doesn't have to be the attorney general.

He or she is very busy, etc. But here's. the thing, Ben. This settlement. agreement they signed, this is Stan. Woodward himself, who signed it because. they wanted to show its import, and they. wanted to uh suck up to Trump. And Todd. Blanche put his name on the whole uh. filing. You would never see that. normally. But that means these are the. guys who are the equivalent of the line.

attorneys. It's not someone below who's. made a decision. They made the damn. decision. And she has every right to. follow up now with them. Here's the next. point. This really kind of interesting. legally, but the the sort of uh tension. of it wafts off the page, and it's going. to Brinka whom um I I actually way back. in the day um vetted when she was an. applicant for the uh the bench. I don't. think she's going to take uh this.

sitting down. Um they are the legally, they can say whatever they want about. what Blanche testified to in the Senate. And by the way, they are overplaying. their hand. If you read their filings. carefully, and if you read what the. people said in court carefully, basically all they're saying is it's. what he said. Blanche said it before. And as a legal matter, that either does. or doesn't make the case moot. And.

you're right, the answer I think, and. it's just to Brinkema say is. that doesn't make it moot. And indeed, the fact that you won't give us a. declaration, won't put it in writing, and you assert in this brassy way, we. just have to believe, you know, what. kind of suckers do you think we are? Even Richard Leon said, "Don't play me. for a patsy here. Obviously, there's. some room still to make it live." And by. the way, if Donald Trump, who as you're.

saying is championing this thing and. saying he wants to get it done, in Todd. Blanche's Department of Justice, that's. all that has to happen for a reversal of. position. If Trump says it, it changes, and we we know that. Um. And to to just go at the intricacies of. the law a little bit more, like the. other cases it with the slush fund, with. the possible exception of one, the. standing argument here is pretty. tenuous. And it might not get them out.

of the box, but they have made it now, has the administration, about this. mootness thing. So, she can just put to. the side whether Floyd, the plaintiff. and others, have standing and say I want. it I got to figure out whether it's. moot. And uh-uh-uh, if you won't give me. anything more than this, I'm going to go. um forward. I'm going to order a. briefing for a few weeks from now, and I. don't see mootness here, whatever you.

want to say about Todd Blanche, and that. is just a straightforward legal. question. Now, they are really rattling sabers. here is the DOJ, and they're what. they're basically saying is. uh yeah, just just try us, Brinkema. We're going to yank you to the fourth. circuit. And they might. The fourth. circuit has been not not so reliably for. Trump, even their sort of conservative. folks like J. Harvey Wilkinson. And.

really, all she's saying here is it. isn't moot. And if she says, "I'm not. accepting this to be moot," and they. bring an emergency motion to the fourth. circuit, what are they going to say. exactly? What's the irreparable harm? And if the status in her in her case is, "This ain't moot," to me, that doubles. back potentially to the whole political. landscape in the Senate and Congress, where people said, "We don't like this. damn fund, and and we don't think it's.

been put to bed. We have a federal court. saying, 'This isn't moot.'" And that. rehashes the whole political controversy. that made them have to back down from. the suit in the first place. So, I think. because of their obstreperousness, and. as you say, caginess, squirreliness, they have bought a battle with another. federal judge, kind of like Boasberg, uh as they've done in a few others, to. at and here, even though they can come.

in and say, "Make us," I think Brinkema. has a real kind of claim to say, "Okay, I won't make you, but guess what? The. case isn't moot. Moot means X, Y, and Z. under the law. We don't have that, and. I'm going to so declare, and that'll be. the state of play for the whole um. controversy." So, they they are they're. ready to sort of take her on. They're. spoiling for a fight, really. And I think they're going to get one. >> Right. And I mean, a preliminary.

injunction is preliminary. Whereas the. permanent injunction is permanent. The. Trump regime and their DOJ wants the. preliminary injunction to be dissolved, so there's no court order saying it's. moot by using language, "At this time, we're not going forward." So then once. the court order goes away, then maybe in. 3 months, they go, "Okay, well, now. we're bringing it back." And then they. want you to refile the lawsuit. Their. hope maybe is we draw a different judge,

and then we stretch it out even longer, and then we go, "Well, that's what we. said now, and now we've changed our. opinion because X, Y, and Z thing. happened." They'll come up with some. event. "Well, that's what we said then.". And this is a very basic one. This whole. concept is unlawful to begin with. Two, the entire lawsuit of Trump the private. citizen suing Trump the government, and. then taking our taxpayer dollars, and. then getting involved in this, you know, collusive settlement, which is also. being addressed in the Florida case. I.

mean, that's that that concept is. unfathomable to both you and I. I mean, a legal grants it unfathomably. unconscionable, you know, thing. But. then you get into court, and it's like, "Okay, the judge like just sign the. declaration, and I'll get rid of the. case." No. Why Okay, well, that's [snorts]. Okay, well, that's odd. Well, then it. seems like you are going to violate. this. Well, you know, you can't get. blanche. Okay, well, for whatever reason, the Attorney. General of the United States is signing.

legal documents like he's the line. attorney. He's signing settlement. agreements as the party. So, that's not. normal. So, if you're making yourself. literally the person in the case, that's. that's the person I want to hear from. Um so, is is so so that's where we're. at, Harry, you know, and it's it's. bizarre, it's strange. The DOJ's. reputation has been as an entity is is. in the trash. Don't get me wrong, there. are still prosecutors who are handling. their cases as best as they can, you.

know, in some cases, but as an. institution, the DOJ looks like a you. know, a lemon lawyer under suspension. for, you know, for ripping off the. clients. Like I can't even explain to. you, you know, no offense to lemon law. I mean, there are good ones, but I'm but. there's a there's a particular type in. LA superior who would be like working. off their suspension, who would be. showing up into court, and the judge.

would ask a basic question, and they. would never know the answer. And you'd. you'd sit there, and you'd be like, "Dude, just know what your Like how did. this person even pass the bar exam?" You. know, Harry, we have a lot to you could talk. about your event on July 3rd that you've. got with Senator Schiff in San Diego. >> Thanks for bringing that up, and yeah, you know, we do a Talking San Diego. series, one-on-one conversations. We've. had some really great guests couple. weeks ago, Governor Shapiro, and the. next one is with Senator Adam Schiff. It's a one-on-one conversation with me.

and him. They've been really animated, fun, interesting, and of course, uh he's. at the center of so much should the Dems. uh take uh control of the Senate in. November. So, we're doing it on the. holiday, February 3rd, but we're. thinking, you know, people be around, hopefully. 10:30 in the morning for 1. hour, inexpensive tickets. It's at. Congregation Beth Israel, uh which is in La Jolla, and you go to.

talkingsandiego.net. You can buy tickets, get all the. information. But, uh this has been a. really fun, and I think pretty darn, um. educational series for the the public. That's what we mean it to be. And yeah, the next the next event we're really. looking forward to. Adam Schiff, Friday, July 3rd, 10:30. >> Check it out, and also check out Harry. Litman's YouTube channel. It's called. Talking Feds. So, on your YouTube right. now, after you finish watching this,

search Talking Feds, watch some of. Harry's legal analysis there, and tell. Harry in the comments that Ben said hi. Thanks, Harry. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack [music] at. midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps. from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes. of our podcast, [music]. and more exclusive content only. available at midasplus.com.