Loading summary
Transcript5 lines
- [00:00]
A
Donald Trump's dark past is surfacing and he is losing it. Trump's DOJ filed a late night motion with a federal judge arguing that the Epstein Transparency act cannot be enforced by federal courts, that no judge at all has the power to do anything regarding the Epstein Transparency Act. The Trump DOJ argues that Congress never put in a private cause of action to request that judges do anything at all. Therefore, the DOJ argues it doesn't have to comply with the act and it can keep the COVID up going. They put this in plain writing last night, okay. And they say they don't want to have any independent monitor review or look at the Epstein Transparency act, nor can a judge ever compel it. So just to remind you, remember Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna and Republican Congressmember Thomas Massie, they're the ones who put forward that discharge petition which led to the passage of the Epstein Transparency Act. Now that the December 19 deadline has passed and the Trump regime is now engaged in a criminal cover up of a underage sex trafficking ring, while the DOJ is involved in that cover up, because they have not complied with the December 19 deadline as well as the 15 day thereafter deadline of submitting a report to Congress regarding the redactions that were made. Remember what Khanna and Massie very smartly did? They went to the federal courts that have been involved in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case, and they asked for the appointment of a special master, sometimes referred to as an independent monitor, to handle the production of the Epstein files, to make it public. And what Massey and Khanna argued is that the DOJ is engaged in criminal conduct and they can't be trusted anymore to release the Epstein files. So, Judge, can you please order that there be an independent monitor? The Trump regime continues to re traumatize the victim. They're not producing the records. Something must be done immediately. So you remember we covered the filing. Massie and Khanna, they filed something called an amicus brief. They introduced themselves as what's called, it's a Latin term, amici, meaning friend of the court, where they're not saying they wanted to formally intervene in the case per se, because the case is USA versus Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is Judge Engelmeier, and they recognize that they're not parties to the case. But they said, look, as friends of the court, we're submitting this brief to inform you that criminal conduct has been committed before this court. Also, Judge, you should know that the Trump doj, they are blaming you and this court for their delay. They say it's the court's fault. So we also want to let you know, Judge, they're defaming you in their criminal conspiracy. They're defaming you by saying you're the reason that this is delayed. By the way, they promised you, Judge, that they were going to make these records and documents public and available pursuant to the Epstein Transparency Act. They lied to you. And now we need some independent process. So we're just making a recommendation because they can't be parties to the case because the case again is USA versus Ghislaine. Except now with this new DOJ that's involved in the COVID up of the child sex trafficking. The DOJ and Ghislaine are essentially on the same side. So it's not even an adversarial system anymore. So that's why you have Khanna and Massie stepping in and saying, judge, independent monitor. So what happened was the Trump regime, the doj, late on Friday, Midas Touch was one of the first. We were the first to break this story. You have the DOJ filing right here. Let's pull it up. And they say, we don't want an independent monitor. Massie and Khanna don't have standing to even make the request as a michi file an amicus brief. And Judge, no court has authority to get involved in this at all. Let me take those in reverse order because I think the most significant and stunning admission by this DOJ is their claim that courts have no authority in this matter at all. So let's go right here to page four of six, right here. And here's what it says. There's a section that says, respectfully, the government submits that the court lacks the authority to enter the requested relief. When the Constitution or laws of the United States do not support a cause of action, a federal court cannot reach out to award remedies. Then they go on to say, a plaintiff must have a cause of action under the applicable statute to get any form of legal relief in the federal courtroom, a litigant must have a cause of action. The Epstein Transparency act does not provide a cause of action because the statute, the Transparency act, does not evince Congress's intent to create a private cause of action. Asserted that this court may not create that action through judicial mandate. If the statute itself does not provide a private cause of action, a private cause of action will not be created through a judicial mandate. So what the DOJ is arguing is that Congress created the Epstein Transparency act but did not want it to be enforceable. That's what a ridiculous position the DOJ is taking. Congress created it, passed it in the Senate unanimously. In the House there was only one no vote. And what they're saying is no one wanted to even enforce this thing. So Judge, there's nothing that you can do about this at all. I just want to say this. The fact that Khanna and Massey were able to smoke out the doj, that that was their position all along to me makes their amicus request, their amici brief so meaningful because they're showing the dastardly cover up that's taking place. And by the way, take a look at who has signed this brief on behalf of the doj. You have Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, Todd Blanche, the Deputy ag, and Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the top United States Attorney in the Southern District, the number one person in that position. I find it fascinating as somebody who previously was litigator in federal court that there's not a single deputy from SDNY who signed their name. There's no Deputy United States Attorney, ausa, Assistant United States Attorney. There's no rank and file prosecutors. It's just literally the top people who are involved in this cover up. It's Bondi, it's Blanche, it's Clayton. Where are all the other like associate level people which we call a USA Assistant United States Attorneys. It's so notable to me that they haven't signed their name to this at all. More on that in a moment and I'm going to go and show you why I think it's very notable.
- [07:47]
B
Look, I'm not trying to be a fitness influencer. I just want to climb a flight of stairs without feeling like I need an intermission. This podcast is sponsored by Verasity. Welcome to an all natural way to slim down, get energized and sharpen your focus. Verasity is revolutionizing health by tackling the root cause of so many issues, metabolism. With Verasity's drug free, clinically proven and doctor formulated solutions, you can support your body's needs and to live your healthiest life. If your goal is weight loss, you need to try Metabolism ignite. The number one doctor recommended GLP1 booster and GLP1 alternative. No side effects, no allergens. Metabolism Ignite is a natural, safe plant based aid that results in an 85% reduction in hunger and is clinically proven to lose on average £9 in 90 days. Now I started Metabolism Ignite a couple weeks ago. Just two capsules with breakfast and I feel energized and focused all day. I don't even need my morning latte anymore. So what's in Verasity? It's a unique blend of lemon, verbena and hibiscus extracts, green coffee bean extract and magnesium. With a product like Verasity, a common question is what are the side effects? Since metabolism ignite is made from 100% natural ingredients and is caffeine free, clinical trials showed no negative side effects from the ingredients in metabolism ignite. Now, I love when something is scientifically legit but doesn't come with a warning label that makes me panic. So make the switch to GLP1s the natural way. Head to VeracityHealth Co and use code MIDAS for up to 45% off your order. Once again, that's VerasisityHealth Co for up to 45% off. And make sure you use my promo code Midas so they know that I sent you.
- [09:37]
A
But when you take a look at this letter from the DOJ that was filed late last night, it says, dear Judge Engelmeier, this is a criminal case with two parties, the government and defendant Ghislaine Maxwell that is long since over. Accordingly, the only issues pending before this court, it's a resolution of Maxwell's collateral challenge to her conviction and sentence and this court supervision, enforcement and or modification of a protective order that Judge Nathan issued years ago with respect to discovery materials that the government provided to Maxwell, determining what the government may make public without violating the protective order. Pause there for a second. That's not true. The government made a request of Judge Engelmeier to release the grand jury transcripts. So do you not remember doing that? Government so it's not just about those two issues. The government affirmatively said, release the Epstein. Release the grand jury transcripts in Ghislaine. In response, Judge Engelmeier said, okay, the Epstein Transparency act has passed. Let me make sure that you're going to be producing all these records. So what records are you going to be producing? The DOJ in a document then listed the records it was going to be producing, which it has failed to produce, and it said, we will produce this on the 19th. Then the court said, great. The court also said, you've re traumatized victims by the way you've handled this, but you're assuring me you're going to comply with the Epstein Transparency act, therefore we'll release the grand jury transcripts. But the court said the grand jury transcripts aren't going to be informative of anything at all. They're actually Relatively small and meaningless when it comes to what the actual Epstein files are. But anyway, we'll make that available because you promised you would make the other documents available to which the doj. Then just take a look at this fact sheet right here, because I want to show you that the DOJ defames the court also. And this was a fact sheet. It says fact sheet. The Epstein files release. Thanks to the court seals being lifted as a result of Trump enacting the Epstein Transparency act, the Department of justice is releasing thousands of pages of photos and other material related to Epstein. Why is this being released now? Prior to Trump's enactment of the Epstein Transparency act, various judges had declined the Trump Department's request to unseal Epstein related material. The enactment of the new law gave the judges a real legal predicate. They found sufficient for granting the Trump administration standing requests before the courts to unseal the files. How much more material can we expect to be released? The Department of Justice has hundreds of thousands of pages of material to release, including material that must comply with court orders. These court orders can slow the Department of Justice's ability to review and redact material, but will not prevent the release of this material. The Department of Justice has more than 200 lawyers working around the clock reviewing each individual file for release. This is an arduous process, as each document and photograph must be individually reviewed by the DOJ and the Southern District of New York for potential redactions to protect the victims or potential victims. What is being redacted? And then it goes on to say no redactions have been or will be made to protect famous individuals or politically exposed persons. Well, we know that that's where the redactions are. But you see how they said the judges are slowing it down. But now what they're saying in their motion that I'm reading to you is that the judges have no role at all. Despite the narrow scope of the live issues before the court, representatives Khanna and Massie now seek to use this criminal case, to which they are not parties, to enforce the provisions of the act, which was passed after the Supreme Court denied Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari, thus rendering the judgment final by seeking relief in the form of oversight of the Department of Justice's compliance with the act, which relief or cause of action are not provided for in any statute. They're going back to say there's no enforcement mechanism in the Epstein Transparency Act. Right there. So then it goes on and says Khanna and Massie improperly seek Judicial enforcement of the Act. And then it says that as members of Congress, they're not parties, they can't intervene and they can't make any recommendations because they're not actually amicus or amici to make recommendations because they're not offering anything new or novel. They just want the enforcement of the statute for which they have to have standing. And they don't have standing. And nobody has standing because the act itself doesn't have a private cause of action is essential is what the DOJ is arguing right there. With no standing and no cause of action, the representatives are unable to seek the relief they request. And respectfully, the court is without authority to issue it is what they say on page five of six. And then you'll see it's signed by Bondi, Blanche and Clayton, the top people. I told you I was going to make this one other point, so let me make it right now where they say that, where the fact that those were the three people who signed it. Take a look over here. This is what the New York Post was reporting. DOJ has tasked over 500 reviewers to pour over Epstein files and says substantial progress has been made. That's what the DOJ told the Post. And they made a separate filing saying that they have 500 reviewers. You'll note that in the fact sheet they said they had 200 reviewers. You'll note that in Jason Leopold from Bloomberg's reporting. And he reported back. He did the FOIA request, but his reporting showed that as of March there were a thousand people reviewing it in the FBI. And DOJ from the National Security Division, a thousand people reviewing it from March through July. And remember back in February, Bondi said she had all of the files on her desk, which of course now we know is a total lie. So what's the number? 200, 500, 1000? Do we add them up? Is it 1700? Regardless, let me explain something to you to the best. Because I litigated cases that had vast document productions, I would handle cases when I was a litigator with 5, 7 terabytes of documents. And that would mean tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands. We would go through tens of millions of pages. The way I would describe it for juries and judges, I would say imagine five to seven massive skyscrapers, 80 stories tall, filled from the bottom to the top with records. That's how many records were in the cases I would handle. It would take us about 60 days, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. With a team of five associates, we would work 18 hour days we would log everything. We would create like the hot documents, the medium documents, the non relevant documents. We would do all of that in 60 days, maybe a brief extension. So if you told me that I could have 500 lawyers, 200 lawyers, it would take me five days to do the document production. An entire massive law firm working on one case and one document production. Highly skilled lawyers from the SDNY that would take me five days max, maybe two days. That just ask any lawyer who's and if you're watching this and you're a lawyer who have handled big document production, you're like wait a minute, they had 500 lawyers, 1,000 lawyers, two days tops. If that was true and that's how you know it's BS because this is a five to seven person job, 60 days to get it done. And that's how it normally happens in law firms. Maybe you ask for a brief extension with the redactions. Easy. It's all BS that they're saying but I want to educate you and let you know what they're claiming now that there is no cause of action. Hat tip to Massie and Khanna for smoking this out. That's a big deal to see the lengths to which the DOJ is going to to cover this up. The DOJ wanted this to for them to have to admit this six months down the road. But Massie and Khan of got them to admit it right now. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers and thanks so much for watching.
- [18:29]
B
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 today you can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.
- [18:44]
A
Foreign deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores. Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features in Texas and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.