Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:00]
A
When I found out I was going to be a parent, I immediately felt a lot of anxiety and worry. So I went on to BetterHelp to try to look for a therapist to
- [00:08]
B
help me with that. My relationship with my family and with my boyfriend and with myself were suffering. I really needed help. I was ruminating a lot. Really getting those thoughts out to a therapist and getting feedback was just life changing.
- [00:23]
A
Discover what BetterHelp online therapy can do for you. Visit betterhelp.com today.
- [00:32]
B
When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot. And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.
- [01:00]
A
Well, I'll say one thing for the Department of Justice under Todd Blanche. When they screw up, they screw up big time. When a federal judge, Judge Brincama in the eastern district of Virginia said prove to me that the anti weaponization fund is really dead, don't do it outside the courtroom. Do it inside the courtroom under penalties of perjury with a sworn declaration, let's get all the parties to the agreement that created that settlement fund and tell me that it's dead. And if it is, you'll never see me again. I'll dismiss the case. Challeng the Jan6 fund. Instead of taking her up on that offer, what did they do? They filed something of their own creation. The Department of justice filed a notice declining, not only saying, we're not gonna file declarations under oath, we'll never file declarations under oath. But you can't make us either. And it should be good enough for you. Judge. Judge Brinkoma, senior status judge in the eastern district of Virginia. It should be good enough for you that Tom Blanche said something like that in a congressional hearing. And that should be good because if he lied, then it's a. It's an 18 United States Code 1001 violation for lying to congress. And then you also have the power under Rule 11 of the Federal rules of civil procedure. Um, and so you shouldn't have to worry about trusting the Department of Justice. Well, we have the new order by judge Brinkoma. She's read the notice and as expected, she's not happy the case is not being dismissed. She said, in its essence, I don't trust Todd Blanche when he's not under oath. I'll Read to you from it in a minute. And that's not the way courts work and evidence works. And in addition to it, I'm gonna keep the case alive because you seem to be very reluctant to get rid of this fund because on one hand, the Trump administration says, oh, we're not going forward with the fund. On the other hand, they're saying, we like the fund. We wish we could go forward with it. And this kind of last minute dismissal of an action or cessation of an action to try to avoid judicial scrutiny, you can't do that. There's actually a doctrine that says you can't just stop the thing that you've been sued about, hoping that the judge will go away. I'm Michael Popak. We're not going away. We're on Midas. Touch it on Legal af. Let's get to the case. It's styled Andrew Floyd versus the Department of Justice. It is a ruling. It is a case that was brought by our friends at Democracy Forward, including Sky Perryman. And this is the order from Judge Brinkama that just came out. She's read the notice and she's not happy. We'll post the notice. The order for you on legal af. Substack. Let me read it to you now. On June 12, the judge writes, defendants were offered the opportunity to end this litigation by filing written declarations under penalties of perjury. That's sworn statements affirming what they represented to the public, to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, our judicial colleagues and this court that you said it. Now I want you to say it under oath, namely that they will not take any action to create or operate the Anti Weaponization Fund. That the fund will not proceed in any manner under any other name while the court is considering the case. Instead of filing those declarations, defendants have filed a notice declining to provide such assurances under the penalty of perjury, saying that they're unnecessary. Here's the quote from Todd Blanche that they want to rely on to tell the judge. See, he said it out loud somewhere. Isn't that good enough for you? Play the clip.
- [04:32]
C
We're not moving forward with the anti weaponization fund.
- [04:36]
A
Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead or is it on hold?
- [04:40]
C
It's. I'd have to ask the lawyers that are. Now, look, we're not moving forward with the fund. The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. The reasons for the fund, I think, were, were, remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund. We had a lawsuit that against us on the, you know, on the weaponization where the judge, a radical left judge, ruled against him, and we'll see how that all works out. We are not moving forward with the fun period.
- [05:16]
A
She goes on to say, look, you're telling me that he was under a penalty of perjury because he swore. He swore in for that, and therefore you should take him at face value. That's not good enough in a court of law, and that's not good enough under the Article 3 powers of a court. But then she goes further. She says on page three that the defendants, the Department of Justice and Blanche have refused to accord a genuine degree of trustworthiness to their representations about the fund. Not going forward is particularly concerning because of the President's consistent support for the fund and Acting Attorney General Blanche's acknowledgment that the fund remains important. She then goes on to remind Blanche that he doesn't like to put anything in writing. In fact, I've already done videos and analysis that they would rather lose a case for the Department of Justice, lose a case on vindictive prosecution, lose a case about indictments, lose a case about grand jury misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of prosecutor power that have Tom Blanche testify ever. The only time you're going to see him testify ever again, I think, is when he shows up in the Senate to be for a confirmation hearing and when he has to appear before oversight committees. That's it. So she says. She calls that out. She says, although Acting Attorney General Blanch reiterated several times during his testimony that the fund was not going forward, when asked whether he would issue a new memo in writing rescinding that May 18 memo, he replied, I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. And I said it over and over again. As the court explained, a civil suit does not necessarily become mute moot when the defendants agree to stop the conduct in the litigation under the voluntary cessation exception, a party should not be able to evade judicial review or defeat a judgment by just temporarily halting some questionable behavior. You know, and the reluctance that they show, she says on page four, the fact that defendants are making a reluctant decision suggest a desire to return to their old ways if the court is not looking. She therefore concludes on the record before this court on page four, Judge Brinkoma says, the President and the acting Attorney General Blanche's continued interest in compensating alleged victims of alleged government weaponization, the defendant's unwillingness to provide declarations under the penalty of Perjury and acting Attorney General Blanche's refusal to rescind his memoir, which set up the structure for the fund, all support the conclusion that this civil action is not moot. Answer it by the end of July. Now, this goes hand in glove with another case that's going on in Miami in front of Judge Williams. She's trying to. This could be the silver bullet. She's trying to figure out whether the entire settlement agreement lawsuit that started, the settlement agreement that Todd Blanche entered into, along with the Treasury Department and the irs, whether that whole thing was a fraud on the court and therefore should be tossed as illegitimate and illegal, that'll kill the fund. But we're still waiting to see what Judge Williams does next. Likely an evidentiary hearing about, you know, these issues, you know, and to get to the bottom of it, which means Todd Blanche is going to have another opportunity not to testify, apparently, in a very weird way. We're gonna follow it all. In fact, I just interviewed the local counsel in Miami in that case about Todd Blanche's testimony and whether we'll ever see it. Here's a clip. What do you think Judge Williams does next? I mean, she's got a new brief that just came in, 23 Democratic attorneys general. As people on this show know, I've been to there. I've interviewed every one of the Democratic attorneys general. I've been to two of their conferences and done panels with them. So I know the group very, very well. I was not surprised that they lobbed in that brief as well. Does she have. Well, I don't want to put you in a position where you have to reveal strategy. Do you think there's going to be an evidentiary hearing or hearing in the case?
- [09:24]
C
Well, look, first of all, I expect her. I expect that she'll act relatively soon. It was just our papers were filed on Friday. You point out other very important papers have been filed. I expect we'll hear from Judge Williams relatively soon. Frankly, on the briefing done by the other side, I as really in the way that you've addressed it, Michael, they have not answered the questions. And I think the judge has. Is going to want to hear answers to those questions. And the natural way to get answers is in evidence. Your ear.
- [09:54]
A
Welcome back. I'm glad you're at the intersection of law politics together on the Midas Dutch Network and Legal af. Take a minute. Hit the free subscribe button over on Legal AF YouTube channel as we continue to follow all the new United States Supreme Court cases that are dropping over the next 24 hours. You you're going to want to know about them here or on Legal AF Substack, where I do live reports. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on substack, come over now to free subscribe.