Loading summary
Transcript16 lines
- [00:02]
A
This episode is brought to you by Fox 1. Watch all 104 matches of the FIFA World cup live in 4K for just $19.99 a month with 3 days free. Build your own multi view, choose up to three streams and follow player spotlights. Stay on top of every moment with live stats, highlights and instant replays. The FIFA World cup, streaming live on Fox One, offers a subject to change. See fox.com for complete terms and conditions.
- [00:30]
B
The grill is shot, the chairs are held together by optimism and what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season. Fix it all with Wayfair. Shop Wayfair for grills, rugs, furniture and more. With 20 million 5 star reviews, Room of choice delivery and expert setup on qualifying orders, it's never been easier to do more for less. Get 10% off your first eligible purchase. Hurry to Wayfair.com or download the app now. Wayfair Every Style, Every Home Ryan Reynolds
- [01:01]
C
here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [01:18]
B
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price available, taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms@mintmobile.com a burst pipe,
- [01:33]
A
a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal
- [02:00]
B
price void in Florida this is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com Donald Trump and
- [02:32]
C
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 J6 insurrections 1.776. They don't really address the fact that Donald Trump also gave himself essentially a super pardon and 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 Blanch and all of Trump's MAGA sycophants in Congress, like, 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 lawyers 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 just, 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, 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 because it'll be moot. Because you've put on the record that this isn't happening. Otherwise, there is an active case and controversy that is happening right now. Because I can't just trust your averment. 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 Blanch 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 Blanch signed. Just put the 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 Brinkama, 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 Brinkham was like, what do you mean you're not sure? It's pretty big case. 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 attack 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 Blanch 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. The interesting part is that the judge didn't even frame it as you must mandatorily 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 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 do down that path. And so it's interesting because at the same time you have the DOJ attacking Judge Brinkama, you have the DOJ chat 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 as a judge. You don't have Article 3 standing. You shouldn't ask us any questions. You know, it's inappropriate for you to be, 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 Brinkama, 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 that. 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 swore declaration that it's backing off the slush fund, claiming that Judge Brinkama in the Eastern District of Virginia that. Just, just trust us, bro. Just trust us. The language that the DOJ has 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 him. 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, this is. Let's bring in Harry Lippman, because 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 a 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 ain't doing this is not what we do in the US that's what's really going on here, Harry.
- [09:59]
D
It is cheeky. And fasten your seatbelts. This is going to be quite a ride. Look, she made it very clear, this is what I need buy last Friday, as you said, they didn't get 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. What they're saying is you can't make US High officials 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 a party to a case testify or talk to you or give legal argument. But typically it would be. It doesn't have to be the attorney general, he or she's 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 suck up to Trump. And Todd Blanch put his name on the whole 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 is really kind of interesting legally, but the sort of tension of it wafts off the page and it's going to brink them, whom I actually way back in the day vetted when she was an applicant for the benchmark. I don't think she's going to take this sitting down. They are legally, they can say whatever they want about what Blanch 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 bring them out to 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 changes, and we, we know that, and to just go at the intricacies of the law a little bit more like the other cases 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've got to figure out whether it's moot. And if you won't give me anything more than this, I'm going to go 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, yeah, just, just try us, Brinkama, we're going to yank you to the 4th Circuit. And they might the 4th 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 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 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, squirrelliness, they have bought a battle with another federal judge, kind of like Bozberg, as they've done in a few others. And here, even though they can come in and say, make us, I think Brinkama 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 controversy. So they're ready to sort of take her on. They're spoiling for a fight, really, and I think they're gonna get one, right?
- [16:01]
C
I mean, a preliminary injunction is preliminary versus 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 forward. So then once the court order goes away, then maybe in three 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. To the entire lawsuit of Trump the private citizen, suing Trump the government, and then taking our taxpayer dollars and then getting involved in this 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 mean, our legal grants. 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.
- [17:16]
D
No.
- [17:17]
C
Why? Okay, well, make us make it. 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. So. Yes, 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. No, 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, you'd sit there and you'd be like, dude, just know what you're like, how did this person even pass the bar exam? You know? Anyway, Harry, we have a lot to. You could talk about your event though on July 3rd that you've got with senatorship in San Diego.
- [18:47]
D
Thanks for bringing that up. Yeah, you know, we do a Talking San Diego series, one on one conversations. We've had some really great guests. A 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 he's at the center of so much should the Dems take 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 one hour. Inexpensive tickets. It's at Congregation Beth Israel, which is in La Jolla. And you go to talking san diego.net you can buy tickets, get all the information. But this has been a really fun and I think pretty darn educational series for 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 3, 10:30.
- [19:54]
C
Check it out. And also check out Harry Lippman'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 at midasplus.
- [20:13]
A
Com.
- [20:13]
C
You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.
- [20:21]
A
Com.