Trump WATCHES IT BACKFIRE…

A federal judge has just smoked out. Donald Trump and his despicable Attorney. General Todd Blanche's scheme to. basically do the so-called. anti-weaponization. fund for the January 6th. insurrectionists where they were going. to give them $1,776. and then Todd Blanche said, "I think. we're going to not pursue that so I. could become Attorney General." But then. Todd Blanche and Donald Trump went out. there and basically said, "We're just.

going to call it another name and we. won't call it the anti-weaponization. fund, but we'll basically invite all of. the January 6th insurrectionists to. submit government tort claims and then. we'll maybe even give them more money. than $1.776. billion, but we're just going to invite. you to do it this way and we just won't. call it anti-weaponization fund cuz all. I said is we won't do that fund which. was created by this collusive settlement.

agreement which by the way another judge. in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kathleen Williams, said the entire. process was tainted by collusion and by. impropriety and the whole thing. shouldn't even be called the settlement. We'll talk about the interplay between. this as well, but this federal judge in. Virginia was assigned the case in order. to block the anti-weaponization fund. It's Judge Brinkema, Eastern District of. Virginia. She blocked it and then the. Trump regime said, "But we got rid of.

it, Judge. So now you should just. dismiss the case." And Judge Brinkema. said in a hearing on Friday, "I don't. trust you. You said you got rid of it, but you want to accomplish the same. thing, so I'm not going to be tricked by. you and we're going to keep on going. until we have the assurances that this. fund doesn't exist and there were other. broader issues right now about the Trump. fund with himself and. rather the Trump deal with himself to.

give himself like super immunity from. IRS criminal investigations and looking. into Donald Trump's tax you know. potential allegations of tax fraud and. Trump waived all of that in the. agreement as well. And so here's what. this federal judge said at a hearing on. Friday when the DOJ is like judge, case. closed. We said it's gone. The fund is. over. The judge said the following. That's being used apparently to do. exactly what these specific fund in this.

case was supposed to be doing. The. issues that underlie this case are still. alive and kicking in my view because you. are still engaged in process to try to. pay people directly from the Treasury. Department's judgment fund who were. involved in the January 6th. insurrection. And what also makes this. unprecedented is when this Justice. judgment fund is used, you know what. usually happens? There are judgments,

there's litigation, it's overseen by. courts, there's usually valid lawsuits. that are filed. All of these January 6th. cases, all of them in my opinion, would. be immediately subject not just to. motions to dismiss but to rule 11. sanctions because they've all been found. guilty. And just because you've been. pardoned or receive a commutation, that. doesn't remove the underlying conduct. itself. And so you talk about something.

called. um the the immunity doctrines. uh that officers often have and these. immunity doctrines basically say if. someone committed the crime, they can't. then say that they are the victim of a. malicious prosecution or that they are a. victim of weaponization when you plead. guilty or you're found guilty. And. essentially every single J6 case that. went before a jury, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. Or the or the.

individuals who are involved in the. insurrection pled out to being guilty. Brinkema said the use of the judgment. fund to pay claims. really is just the exact same thing. The. entity may be gone called. anti-weaponization fund, but it's a. functional equivalent. Is that what's. going on? Actions speak louder than. words is what she said. When Brinkema asked whether the immunity. component of the broader settlement is.

currently enforceable, the Trump regime. lawyer also said, "I'm not prepared to. say that as well.". And then it says a lawyer for groups and. individuals challenging the. anti-weaponization fund. said that Blanche's statement that the. anti-weaponization fund is dead and is. not moving forward fell short of. definitive guarantees the government. must give to force an end to the. lawsuit. Those present tense statements. do not meet the heavy burden of. demonstrating that this case is moot.

Also, there is the issue of the Trump. waiver. claims against himself for tax fraud and. not making tax payments. I want to bring. in Harry Litman from the Talking Fed's. YouTube channel, Talking Fed Substack, and Talking Fed's podcast. Harry, great. to see you as always. And so, strong. words by Federal Judge Brinkema saying I. basically I don't trust you. Actions. speak louder than words. When she asked. about Donald Trump basically saying in.

the settlement that he's free from being. prosecuted for tax evasion, what's up. with that? The lawyer I can't answer. that. Okay, well, usually that's what. your job is. if you want the whole case dismissed. So, the lawyer wouldn't even answer. that. And then And judge says, "Aren't. you just using the same fund, but you. just named it something different? Like, aren't you still doing that?" And. they're like, "No." And she's like, "Yeah, then so prove it to me. For. action speak louder than words." What do. you make of it, Harry? >> They were strong words, Ben, but they.

could have been stronger. Remember, Bracewell has had this case for a long. time, and it first came up on Mook and. based on what Blanche had said. And I. mean, it's it's not that you have to, as. the plaintiffs and challengers are. saying here, you know, turn square corners. It's freaking. clear. This it was clear in the. confirmation proceedings. John Cornyn, who nevertheless cravenly voted for. Blanche at the end, said, "Wait, a. settlement agreement, that's a contract,

right?" "Yes," says Todd Blanche, the. Attorney General of the United States. "And a contract is something that can be. enforced when one side has done the. performance, then the other side has to, right?" And it's all completely bogus, but the supposed performance here, the. contract is, "I, Donald Trump, will give. you a voluntary dismissal of my. completely worthless, unconstitutional. case, which is worth zero. You will give. me 1.776 billion dollars to shower on.

the marauders and insurrectionists, and. tax amnesty worth at least a hundred. million dollars." And that's not a that. that was kind of carefully calculated. out by the New York Times. And Blanche, who was squirrely about even putting. what he had said in writing, his words. mean nothing here. I've got a Substack. on this today that goes through it in. detail, but he's in no position to say.

that. If Trump, first of all, he. wouldn't be anyway, because we know in. that department what Trump says goes. If. Trump says, "Yeah, I know we didn't want. to prosecute Comey, but now I say do. it," Blanche will say, "How high do I. need to jump?" So, that's for starters, but I just mean a legal situation. This. is right now enforceable, and it's. Trump's. Second, your point. The tax. liability is huge, in some ways even. more. Trump is completely.

fast and loose with his taxes. The last. glimpse we got showed him paying like. none over a 7-year period with this. probably. not just outlandish, but probably false. statement of losses that he carried. over. What he's going to get to walk on. if they give him this is huge, and make. no mistake about it. That's paid for by. whom? The taxpayers. It's the same. thing. This is a hundred million that. should be in the Treasury, and if they.

let Trump walk away, it's the same as. saying, you know, "Pull your wheelbarrow. up here, Mr. President, and just take it. all." And. you know, take that that hundred. million. So, look, this is case It. doesn't matter what Blanche said, it. never did. This is a case that's now in. the courts, in Brinckema's court, and. also from Williams's court up to the. 11th Circuit. And as I point out in the. Substack, people seem to have you know, they haven't paid close attention to.

this. You have, of course, and the Midas. Mighty, but the the DOJ stayed on the. sidelines for a 109 days here, and it's. something that Williams cited in saying. this was all a collusive plot. Now that. it's gone up to the 11th Circuit, and. you could have a court of appeals. affirmance that would really make it. start to make the settlement agreement. look really doomed because it's. collusive and fraudulent, now the DOJ. has jumped in. Just a a day or so, they.

filed a notice of appeal, their first. formal thing there, and they're going to. have to try to fight, but all their. conduct, collusive conduct, is going to. be at issue. And um this is really um. it's a legal question. That's the was. the import of Rincon-Macias' earlier. decision as well. It's not for Todd. Blanche to say it's moot or not moot, much less is it for him to say recission. confirmation. Yeah, I read Judge.

Williams' opinion, but you know, I know. 11th Circuit law better. It's a legal. question that's now in the courts, and. it it's what threatens the settlement. agreement. And if they find that it was. collusive, then the case never happened, and you can't use it. One final point, and it's huge, and somehow people don't. see it. It She's 100% right. You know, Congress. appropriates money. They don't have, you.

know, a few billion dollars lying around. of their, you know, that they raised in. uh bake sales at the Department of. Justice. Congress appropriated this. fund, said, "Use it as you need to to. settle bonafide cases that are brought. against you." That's where this money. comes from. The whole. pretext, canard of doing instead of this. a Federal Tort Claims Act like that Mike. Flynn did, which also was worth nothing, and they said, "Here's a couple million.

Would are you satisfied with that?" It's. from the same fund. It's got to be from. some fund, and it happens to be from the. same. And that fund, if you read. carefully what Congress said, um must be. for bonafide cases, not sort of. uh just just uh Treasury handouts. And. if that fund goes away, Ben, what is. left? What's left is just Todd Blanche. saying, "I love you, boss. Come and come and pull up your uh your.

big car and and and pull out billions of. dollars. That would be. next only to the January 6th pardons in. my view, the most sort of derelict, impeachable, complete kind of failure to. take care that you can imagine for them. to just grab money that Congress hasn't. even appropriated. So, it is no answer. to this, though people seem to think it. it is. Hopefully, Brinks won't let the.

courts won't to say, "Oh, you can just. do it in another way in another. lawsuit." The question is, has Congress. given you money to pay this out? Congress has given money if it's a. legitimate lawsuit. If it's a bogus. lawsuit, uh-uh, and get out of here. >> Thank you, Harry Litman. Everybody, make. sure you subscribe to the Talking Fed's. YouTube channel, Talking Fed Substack, and Talking Fed podcast. When this video. ends, search Talking Fed's, watch one of. the videos there, tell Harry I say.

hello. You will love Harry's YouTube. channel. It's where I get legal news. from. Again, Talking Fed's. Thanks, Harry. >> Thank you, Ben. >> Before you go, our book WTF America is. available for pre-order now. It's the. story of how we got here and how we. fight our way back. To pre-order, scan. the QR code or click the link in the. description. Let's do this.