← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Trump's $1.8B Scheme Faces Imminent Collapse | The Breakdown
00:33:40
Allison discusses the serious legal and political trouble facing Trump’s slush fund with Katie Phang.
Loading summary
Transcript62 lines
- [00:02]
A
It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line, and they'll use any trick they can to get you there. But don't let them fool you. Get Unspun I'm Amanda Sturgel. I've been a reporter, and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news, learn to spot the tricks, and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to Unspun today. Unspun because you deserve the truth.
- [00:40]
B
Hey, everybody, it's Alison Gill. Welcome to the Breakdown. Thanks to Midas for having us on this platform. And I don't think I've seen anything suffer as many setbacks as Donald Trump just in general, but also him and Todd Blanche's $1.8 billion slush fund, Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington crew has filed a lawsuit. Former January 6th prosecute prosecutor has filed a lawsuit as well. Two police officers, our friends who protected the Capitol on January 6th, Harry Dunn and Danny Hodges, have filed a lawsuit. Now I have filed a lawsuit to block the fund. A judge has temporarily enjoined the government from operating the slush fund, from organizing it, from, you know, paying out of the slush fund. And in that's in the case of the the former federal prosecutor Jamie Raskin has introduced a bill to dissolve the slush fund. And it's pretty bipartisan. Got a lot of bipartisan support. Senate Republicans were so pissed about this fund that they failed to fund ice, their favorite Gestapo and Customs and Border Protection before going going on Memorial Day break, blowing up Trump's June 1 deadline to sign the reconciliation bill. 35 former federal judges, including our friend Judge Ludig, have filed a motion to reopen the case that Blanche used to fraudulently set up this fund. Allegedly fraudulently. Fraudulently. And just this past Friday, the judge in that case has or Judge Williams has ordered the government. She's reopened the case and ordered the government to answer the charges that Trump and the IRS and the DOJ colluded to commit a fraud on the court in Trump's original $10 billion lawsuit against himself, the IRS, an entity he controls. And we're going to talk about all of it on today's episode of the Breakdown.
- [02:37]
C
Hey, everybody.
- [02:38]
B
Welcome to the Breakdown. I'm Alison Gill, host of the Daily Beans podcast And joining me today to discuss the legal ins and outs is the one and only Katie Fang. And we're gonna. We're gonna today, Katie, we're gonna put the fun in slush fund. Welcome to the Breakdown.
- [02:52]
C
I was like, that intro is so amazing. Number one, I was so impressed with how comprehensive it is. But number two, I'm like, how much time do we have, Alison? Because it's a party. It's a victory lap party that we should all be taking as defenders of democracy and as people who have been stalwart defenders of the rule of law. It seems like people are getting the memo at least. I mean, that's what I clocked this week. Yeah.
- [03:20]
B
Even Lindsey Graham. According to the new Wall Street Journal reporting, about a dozen or so Senate Republicans, not senators, Senate Republicans are pressuring Trump to scrap the fund. It's so unpopular, they don't want to have to run on this or defend it on the campaign trail. And you and I have spoken at length over the last year and a half about a reckoning that would have to come with, with, you know, all of Trump's pet projects, because Trump doesn't have to get reelected, you know, whether he stays in, you know, via coup or it happens or whatever. He doesn't have to. Yeah, he doesn't have to run again. But these senators and representatives in Congress do have to run again. And so they don't want to have defend this on the campaign trail. They would rather fund ICE at five times its capacity through the end of 2029 than have this slush fund hanging over their heads. That's how bad this is. They don't want to have to defend it. And so they've been pressuring Donald Trump to drop it actually, in exchange for they're kind of holding the ICE funding hostage a little bit and saying, if you drop, we'll fund your ice if you, if you drop your. Your $1.8 billion slush fund. And, and, you know, that is pretty wild considering how, like, how many off ramps there have been for Senate Republicans to get away from this man. And this. And the MAGA movement, this is the one that they've chosen.
- [04:47]
C
Yeah. So kind of two off the cuff, immediate thoughts. One, they've already jettisoned the billion dollar ballroom bunker line item off of this ICE CBP funding package that they refused to really vote and deal with before they went on their last recess. And I think that's another big red flag for Trump, the fact that people understand that that could be another albatross around a candidate's neck as we go into the November midterms. The other thing is how kind of ironic that January 6th has kind of come full circle again. Right. Because immediately after the insurrection, as you and others will recall, there were Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, for example, that stood up and condemned the actions of the insurrectionists. And others, including Donald Trump. Republicans, right after that happened, had the balls to say, this happened because of you, Donald Trump. Now, did they stick to their guns? No. And nobody is ever going to give them the gold star for courage. But the fact that it would be a $1.776 billion slush fund from which insurrectionists could obtain reparations. Insurrectionists from January 6, again, delicious irony that that is what is going to be the political kryptonite for Trump and his world. Now, I know some naysayers, Alison, are going to be like, yes, but look at Cassidy. You know, Bill Cassidy. Yes, but look at John Cornyn. Yes, but look at Tom Massey, although Tom Massey, I think, is. Is occupying in a very limited way, outlier space. Yeah, that's fine. You pick some people. But I'd say as a general proposition, you're right. Senate Republicans and those that usually there's no daylight between Trump and them, like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham as examples, they have publicly spoken out saying, yeah, this slush fund thing, bad idea. Yeah.
- [06:50]
B
And apparently when Todd Blanch went to the Hill to meet with Senate Republicans, according to Ted Cruz, it was a bl. There were at least half of the Republican senators that were yelling and screaming at him about this, probably because. And not for the right reasons. Right. They weren't in there saying, this is a fraud on the American people. No. They were in there saying, I can't run on this. You know, I can't retain my power.
- [07:16]
C
We don't care that we're stealing American taxpayer money. We're just worried about how badly the optics are going to be for us when we're trying to go and explain that to our constituents who are American taxpayers. Right.
- [07:27]
B
I mean, these were the same senators who were like, yeah, let us sue the government for a million dollars each, you know, because of whatever.
- [07:34]
C
At any bullshit. Subpoena. Phone record bullshit.
- [07:36]
B
Yeah, yeah, because of our phone records were subpoenaed. You know, toll records only. Yeah, toll records, exactly. Like, no content, just no date, time,
- [07:47]
C
length of conversation and people coming and going.
- [07:50]
B
Yeah, yeah, that's it. And. And, you know, Lindsey Graham's always had a big problem. I remember when a senator named Kamala Harri in a hearing and he was really, really mad about the fact that he got scooped up in some surveillance because they were, like, listening to bad guys in Russia, and either Lindsey Graham's name came up or he was talking to them, and he's like, I want to know if you were listening to me. You have to tell me if you were listening to me. Like, he flipped out. Like, no cool Disney World bubble wand Lindsey Graham. Like, he was on fire because he was worried that his name had come up in some surveillance.
- [08:27]
C
Lindsey was en fuego. No, don't say that, Alison. He was enfuego. Yeah. And his kissing cousin is Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan has the theatrics at House Judiciary. When the issue of this subpoena of toll records comes up. If you'll remember, when Jack Smith came and testified before House Judiciary, they all lost their shit. These Republicans, led by Jim Jordan, were losing the shit over the toll records. And I was scratching my head like, this is a Norma investigative tool. It's legal. And this is just the performative BS that we get. But like I said, it's interesting. It's now come full circle, right? Because it is a reminder at the worst time of the year for people running for office as Republicans of the horrors of January 6th. And then, just as an important but kind of adjacent footnote, Senator Andy Kim getting tear gassed and pepper sprayed outside of Delaney Hall, a sitting Senator of the United States. And then, of course, I reminded people, as did several other journalists, that's the same Senator Kim who got on his hands and knees to pick up the trash and to clean the feces off the walls of the United States Capitol. That was left and done by those insurrectionists. And so it all kind of comes home to roost. And for those of us that have been fighting for this January 6th, to remain front and center, as you have, as I have, and others, it is particularly delicious to see it be such a huge, huge L for Trump and others across the board. And I like to, Allison, that Blanche is getting appropriately tainted by this association because I don't think Trump would do this on his own. I do think Blanche tells him to his face. Oh, yeah, we can totally do this, dear Fur Cult Leader. Right? Like, we can totally get away with this. And whether he's giving, which I don't think he is, sound legal advice about this, because we know the legality of that, quote, settlement agreement, it doesn't exist. It wasn't legal to begin with. So I feel like I'm glad Blanche is also getting painted with the taint of all of this as well.
- [10:42]
D
Right.
- [10:42]
B
And now how do you think Trump can get out of this? He doesn't like to back down, as we know. I mean, look at what's going on in Iran. He has to have some sort of a win. Do you know what I mean? And so for him to have being faced with not funding ICE from multiple senators, multiple Republican senators who want this to end, how can Trump back out? I don't see him saying, oh, we're gonna have a ceasefire on the fund for 60 days. Like, I don't know how he's gonna. How he's going to back out of this. Given his ego.
- [11:22]
C
I think if I were giving him counsel, I would tell Trump, you've kind of been given a gift of an exit ramp by way of two things. One, the injunction that Andrew Floyd, the former Jan. 6 prosecutor, who's a very cool kind of group of plaintiffs that have just got that injunction you referenced in the introduction. And two, the federal judge here in Florida, Kathleen Williams, who was the presiding judge over the IRS lawsuit, her briefing schedule that she just entered to reopen this case, I think, is the other exit ramp. Because then what Trump could do is Trump could stay technically on brand. He could say, these activist, horrible leftist judges, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, are terrible, and they've ruined this. And I'm trying to work for the patriots of January 6th, these wonderful people, but I can't blame the activist judges, and then move on. And then he gets his immigration, he gets his ICE and CBP funding, because Republicans will begrudgingly give him that now that the slush fund is gone and now that they've peeled off the Billion Dollar Ballroom bunker. And I think that that's how he does it. I mean, if I were telling him how to do it, the only problem
- [12:37]
B
that I see for Trump, which pleases me, is that even if he kills this fund and says the activist judges won't let me do it. I tried.
- [12:46]
C
That's a good one.
- [12:48]
B
I don't think that stops an investigation by Judge Williams in Miami. I think that goes forward because it reminds me of the James Boasberg thing, where they were like, oh, we returned Abrego Garcia, this is all moot now. You don't have to do contempt proceedings. It's on hold at the appellate court level still. But that still goes forward. It doesn't stop the fact you can't rewind and undo your fraud on the court. That can still be investigated, can it not?
- [13:19]
C
Oh, yeah. And that's the beauty about the 35 former federal judges motion that was done because, you know, it's funny because I did an episode on this Allison for my channel where I said, you know, Kathleen Williams, this judge, I know her, she's former federal public defender. She's a real trial lawyer like. And she also doesn't pull any punches. She was the presiding judge over Alligator Alcatraz. It was her order that got them to start dismantling it as it's being closed, this concentration camp. But Judge Williams, you know, she was already listening to lawyers as amici friends of the court when she ordered the parties to have to do the legal memoranda. And then she appointed three amazing kick ass law firms that filed their own legal memorandum that said, yes, Judge, collusion is afoot. And yes, Judge, you can actually make factual inquiry as to whether or not there's truly a controversy here or if it's collusion. And then.
- [14:16]
B
And even predicted that Trump might get out of his tax audits by saying, and if there is a settlement, you can't tell the IRS to stop or start an audit on anyone's taxes.
- [14:27]
C
Exactly. And so if you look at the motion by the 35 former federal judges and you look at their sage advice as fellow jurists, right. Even though they may be retired, they're still colleagues from the bench. The weight of that motion is just so huge. But if you look, it is to unwind. Not just the fund, not just the theft, the slush fund. But Alison, it goes actually all the way to the very beginning, which is you can't do a settlement which created a fund on a case where there was no real controversy because there was simply collusion. And so it rewinds the case all the way to the beginning. So it's not like Trump could then be like, okay, we now don't have a settlement. I'm still suing the IRS and the Treasury Department because Judge Williams is gonna find it's still collusion. Cause there's no real controversy. So there's no jurisdiction by any federal judge or any federal court anywhere in the country on this. And that's the reason why you don't get think for Trump, the fund is one thing that's like found money, right? That comes from this judgment fund. It's illegal, as you have argued in your lawsuit, it violates the Administrative Procedure act and other things by trying to access this judgment fund. But really what he wanted was that one page addendum that Blanche thought he could sneak through, which is protection from the tax audits for him, his family and his businesses. That is the one that has the true value here, and that is the one that these former federal judges highlighted to say, but what's the consideration? What was given up by the government for Trump to be able to get this? Which was nothing. And that was something that I was screaming from the rafters from day one. I'm like, you can't have a settlement if you never had a freaking conflict. And you certainly can't have an agreement if nobody has consideration to enter into this agreement. So I was like, what is going on here?
- [16:13]
B
Right? Like, me and the bank manager, we've settled our lawsuit and I'm gonna get everything that's in the vault.
- [16:20]
C
Can you imagine?
- [16:21]
B
Yeah, like what? Now, let's talk about the lawsuits real quick. There are five that we've mentioned. There's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They're suing over legal procedures. The thing is, and Jen Psaki brought this up last night on the or on Friday night on her show, the Briefing, she said, all of these lawsuits are coming at this from different angles. So we have the Capitol Police officers who are like, we, we're going to face harm because you are giving money to and funding people who are threat threatening our lives. You know, there are people who are suing because, you know, how can you possibly have Todd Blanch appoint five officers of the court? Because under, I think, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, only the president can do that, and they have to be confirmed by Congress. So that puts this whole fund on shaky legal ground. You've got people arguing about the, you know, the 35 federal judges, like you said, about the actual collusion that went on and there was no adverse adversary. The fact that it's 1776 billion. You know, there's been a lot of people filing FOIA lawsuits. Like, what? How'd you come to that number?
- [17:35]
C
You say it's based on reasonable expectation of claim pot. You know what I'm like, what?
- [17:40]
B
Future federal? Like, show us. Great. Show us your work. Show us your math. And what I'm suing for is that those are all things that I, as an interested party, because I, I was weaponized against by the government. But it wasn't a Biden administration, it was a Trump administration. And we know that this former January six prosecutor is saying that this is not an equitable fund if it only pays out people who were hurt by the. Weaponized against by the Biden administration.
- [18:05]
C
And none of that is kind of like the one that we just got. The injunction is like a viewpoint discrimination thing because the placement of the word democratic is an adjective and the way it's placed suggests that it can only be a victim of a weaponized Democratic administration. But yours is very technical and so clean. And that's why I like your lawsuit, Alison, because you never got an opportunity to be able to comment on it before it even became what it became like. It's almost like final version of this policy or the final version of this rule to create this fund. You as a claimant didn't ever get the chance to be able to chime in and say, oh, this makes sense or this doesn't make sense.
- [18:45]
B
Right. And as an interested party and because they capped the fund, normally this victims fund is a bottomless fund from the treasury. But because this is capped at 1776, there are a finite number of a finite number of dollars in this fund. Are they going to pay out money to people who are ineligible for the fund because they participated in an insurrection and rebellion against the United States?
- [19:07]
E
Yes, you are right about that.
- [19:09]
B
And so all of these issues that all of these folks, the 35 federal judges crew, the police officers, everybody, the January 6th prosecutor, all of these issues that they are suing against are things that I as an interested party would have commented on a federal rule published in the Federal Register, which you have to do if you're going to this constitutes a rule, this fund. And if you're going to do a rule like that, you have to publish it, give notice and give we the people a chance to comment, especially interested parties of which I am one. And so those are all the questions, everything that everyone's suing about is a question that I would have asked. I would have exposed the legal flaws in this fund had I been given a chance under the law, under the Administrative Procedure act, in a notice and comment period on the Federal Register. And they failed to do that. They failed to follow the law because it doesn't, they circumvented it because it doesn't go toward their goal, which is to basically redirect $1.8 billion in taxpayer money into the pockets of Trump criminal co conspirators and as his political allies. So that's the kind of the foundation of my lawsuit, very simple, 1012 page lawsuits.
- [20:19]
C
It's fantastic. No? And that in the elegance is in its simplicity, which is also it's funny because as a lawyer and as somebody who's trained young lawyers and has taught young lawyers, I've always said the following. You don't necessarily, when you're kind of making A first run at a lawsuit, if you're either, you know, trying to dismantle it or defend against it or whatever, you don't necessarily have to go straight to substance. You can start with procedure. And procedure is clean. If under the APA and under federal law, the Trump administration was required to give the opportunity to you as a possible claimant to be able to have a notice and comment period, and it says it very cleanly on its face that that is what is supposed to happen. The absence of following a procedure can make it defective. And listen, curing the defect is a whole other conversation. But that's why I often say if there was a procedural defect and how we got to where we are now, sometimes you don't even need to get into the substance of the law or the underlying legal theories. You just got to get it knocked out in the first instance because it's procedurally defective. Now, your lawsuit does speak to some of the substantive parts of this slush fund, but the reality is if you effed it up in the creation of it, and you've noted that, which is different than the other lawsuits, the other lawsuits have really gone in it more from the substantive kind of standpoint. But yours is so clean because you're like, look, you didn't do what you were supposed to do on the face of the law, and so sorry doesn't work. And I think that makes it so one of the most palatable of the myriad lawsuits that have been brought against the slush fund because it is, again, so elegant in its simplicity.
- [22:20]
B
And I think there's something else too. And Katie, this speaks to your lawsuit as well. Sometimes when you have that many legal challenges and you're facing potential legislation and you're facing angry 12 angry senators, it just sort of like the, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Almost like, wow, we've got five legit lawsuits, 35 former federal judges, an injunction, a temporary injunction we've got. We could possibly be opening ourselves up to discovery in Judge Williams courtroom about the collusion, which again, I don't think they can get out of by killing the fund themselves. Which is just delicious to me. Make as, as our friend Anna Bower says, make rule 11 sanctions. Great. Again, it' you know, I think that and this goes, speaks toward your lawsuit too. Like, hey, we've got legitimate complaints here. There's a lot going on in the docket. And when you overwhelm somebody like that, especially like Todd Blanche, they, they tend not to back down. But when you keep coming at them over and over again. And there's. And then there's also adding the political pressure. I think that that's when things like this can crumble.
- [23:28]
C
Yeah. I mean, I am still, like, on my little island of my own vis a vis the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I'm still the only lawsuit that's been brought pursuant to that law. But to your point of, like, overwhelm them, that's the reason why I filed my motion for preliminary injunction late Thursday, which was to force Todd Blanche, the Trump doj, to have to come to the table sooner. Now, as we know, when you sue somebody, there's a period of time within which, after they are served, that they can respond. And we've all predicted, and we've talked about it here on your channel, that a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is likely to be raised by the doj. But in this instance, we have brought up five discrete, specific areas of egregious violations of the law that are materially impacting not only my ability to report, because I can't get beyond the redactions, but I've also raised the argument that it actually materially affects my ability to make money. Because when I do a YouTube episode, it generates subscribers or views, and the views themselves generate income. I am an independent journalist. I do not get a salary from Ms. Now anymore. Right. Like, I work on my own. And so if I am impeded from being able to report on the identities of the four co defendants whose names have been illegally redacted from the draft indictment that was prepared in 2006, 2007, against Jeffrey Epstein and redacted four CO defendants, then I'm being impacted by that. So it's twofold. It's access to information. It's also the ability for me to make money. Want to underscore this again? This lawsuit is not about money. I am not suing for damages as in the sum calculation of money that I am owed. I am just making the important point that I do have an immediate harm that needs to be redressed by Judge Sullivan, who's my judge in D.C. and so we have identified through my amazing lawyers at the Public Integrity Project, Brendan Ballou, who you also know because he represents Hodges and Dunn.
- [25:44]
B
He was on our show last week.
- [25:46]
C
Yeah. But also because of the lawsuit that he's brought pursuant against this slush fund. But we have argued these five discrete, very specific areas of blatant, egregious violation of the law that you don't need to get to the end of the lawsuit to remedy. You can remedy it now, Judge Sullivan. And it helps me do my job and it helps mitigate my financial harm. And so I was thrilled because we filed it late Thursday. I want to say it hit the docket and by, I don't know, 9:30 in the morning, Friday morning, Judge Sullivan entered a briefing order and scheduling us for oral arguments on June 16th. So we, I mean, you know, no moss growing on the Rolling Stone of Judge Sullivan. And we've talked about how amazing he is. He was the Michael Flynn judge. He's also was the emoluments clause violation judge for the Blumenthal Senator Blumenthal's arguments, Trump term 1.0 about the Trump Hotel, et cetera. So, but, but to, even though I'm the only lawsuit vis a vis Epstein files, Transparency act, you just keep on hitting them, right? You just keep on overwhelming them. And it's all legal and it's all done in good faith. It's not like these are bad faith tactics, but it's like, come on, let's go. I don't give a shit. You're the biggest law firm in the world. You're the most powerful law firm in the world because you're the doj. So get on it, let's go.
- [27:07]
B
You know, are they the biggest. Everyone's left. There's, I feel like there's no one left.
- [27:11]
C
Like all of these, they're offering signing
- [27:14]
E
bonuses now for people to go work there.
- [27:16]
B
And you don't have to have your year long experience and
- [27:22]
C
your time and the appellate division before they would put you in another division. And it made sense, right, to learn how to not make those mistakes when you saw them on appeals. Now they're so damn desperate now they're just grasping at whomever. And then they're reporting that the lead prosecutor on that stupid Seashells case has stepped down from not only that case, but the other cases. And it's a mystery as to why. And yet it's a big loss for them, Right? It's just another big high profile loss for this doj. Yeah.
- [27:50]
B
And I've had on one of my five or six, I can't remember, FOIA cases, we've had the prosecutor drop off on that and it hasn't been replaced. But despite that, these actions in these lawsuits, like when you, you know, triggered briefing and a hearing that's coming up this month or, you know, in June, those deadlines don't go away. And we've seen quite a bit because of the courts being, you know, overwhelmed in certain districts by Immigration cases and habeas petitions. Thousands and thousands and thousands of habeas petitions that they're like, we had that one woman who was like, will you just hold me in contempt so I can get some sleep?
- [28:32]
E
Like running for Congress or something, right? She was like, she eventually ran for Congress.
- [28:36]
C
She's like, just hold me in contempt
- [28:38]
E
so I can be in a of for 24 hours and not have to deal with the bullshit of this administration
- [28:42]
B
because they're incapable of answering all of their, you know, all the things they have to do. Filing briefs, showing up to hearings, et cetera. So.
- [28:50]
C
Well, listen, I feel like, though your lawsuit, the others that are going after this fund my lawsuit, especially because it deals with the Epstein files, obviously get the attention of the higher ups in the food chain, I think, at DOJ versus maybe some others. But, you know, I look at stuff like Pami Jo with the bad hair. I'm not even say, testifying because it wasn't under oath, but answering selective questions, which was annoying, in front of House Oversight, and her pointing the finger at Todd Blanche about the Epstein files. And I think to myself, if I'm a federal judge and I know that Todd Blanche is the person who should be answering these questions, then I am going to be asking, come on, let's do this briefing. Let's get this moving along. Let's have an explanation as to what's going on with these redactions, which is what my lawsuit is. Right. I just want them to redact what's supposed to be redacted but unredact that, which is not. And it's a very simple ask. And you know, when you see these DOJ officials running around either punting blame to each other, like, past the hot potato, or just, like, thumbing their nose at congressional procedure, which is what happened. That was facilitated by the chair, James Comer. And I'm hoping a federal judge says, I'm different. I'm a different branch, I'm a different person. I'm not beholden to Trump like Comer is and Bondi is. So let's move on this, you know?
- [30:24]
B
Yeah, agreed. Well, I'm looking forward to your hearing in your case about the Epstein file. Such a cool novel lawsuit. Brendan Ballou is just a fantastic legal mind, isn't he? Yeah.
- [30:34]
C
And Sam Ward Packard is also working on it. And those two guys are just salt of the earth, gentlemen, brilliant legal scholars and all around just good people. Right? I mean, that's the thing, Alison. I think you and I have been friends for so long that it's just cool to look around now and see how the. Just the resistance, I mean, it's kind of cheesy to call that that, you know, but the resistance is becoming less the resistance and more foundationally the establishment. In a good way. Right. Like, we are the people that are truly, truly interested in defending democracy.
- [31:13]
B
Yeah. And I also, you know, along those lines, want to thank my legal counsel on the lawsuit for the slush fund. It's public citizen, absolutely incredible lawyers. And in fact, you and I and my lawyer Nandan are all going to be here on the Midas Touch Network on Michael Popak's show, right Legal AF next week. So everyone can look forward to that. We're going to talk about more in the legal weeds. I'm more kind of up here when I talk about my lawsuit, but you and Brendan and, you know, and Nandan can, can really get into those legal weeds. And I'm looking forward to that, too. And I'm also looking forward to this potential discovery in Judge Williams courtroom about the slush fund because I have been like ever since it. Even before the fund was announced, right before Donald Trump filed to drop the lawsuit, I was like, this isn't a settlement. This isn't real. And then we got the Gleason amicus brief and all that other stuff. So anyway, I'm looking forward to all of this stuff. I hope we get to talk to you about it either here on your channel or wherever you want to meet me to put the fun back in slush fund.
- [32:24]
C
Best title ever.
- [32:26]
B
Thank you so much for taking the time. Everybody. Please subscribe to Katie's channel. It's really, really informative and super impressive. I love your work and I love what you're doing.
- [32:35]
C
Well, thank you. I'm also doing some research on the Tom Barrick relationship with Jeffrey Epstein because you know how I feel about Tom. Tom has never gone away from me.
- [32:46]
B
How long have we been covering?
- [32:48]
E
How long have we been talking about Tom Barrick?
- [32:51]
C
But his name just popped. Pops up in just all the time in the Epstein files. I'm like, tom, what are you doing in the Epstein files?
- [32:57]
B
Tom, how are you lobbying for UAE with Epstein? That's really interesting for you. Anyway, looking forward to it. So everybody subscribe to Katie Substack Katie's channel here on Midas Touch Network. Thanks to the Midas Touch for hosting the show. I'm Allison Gill. Please check out the Daily Beans podcast if you get a chance. It's free. It's news with swearing sometimes because it's appropriate about that that's why I love Katie Unleashed. And you know, we just, we're so thankful that that you're here and that you watch this and that you're part of this community here on this channel. So thanks so much for watching the breakdown.
- [33:30]
C
Thanks all.
- [34:03]
F
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 channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep Growing together.
- [34:21]
D
History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's Fall down the Rabbit Hole MSW.