Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:00]
A
Feel your best and amplify your everyday look with Thrive cosmetics. Go to thrivecosmetics.com shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's thrive Cosmetics. C A U S e m e t-I c s.com shine26 hey, it's Ryan
- [00:16]
B
Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.
- [00:17]
C
Now.
- [00:17]
B
I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. There goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:37]
A
of $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month Plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy.
- [00:45]
D
See Terms One of the biggest and most underreported stories of the past 24 hours that every American needs to know about is that the sitting President of the United States had his bank account shut down. Not for political reasons, but due to anti money laundering related issues. Capital One confirmed for the first time ever in a court filing that the bank shut down many of Trump's financial accounts due to suspicious transactions that the accounts were engaging in. Not because he was a Republican, not because he is President of the United States. But under anti money laundering guidelines they could not keep the accounts open. And that is a major development for a president who now facing allegations in writing of possible money laundering related issues. And I have the latest, I have the court filing. Make sure to hit that subscribe button as we're on the road to a million subscribers like Comment Share get the word out and let's break it down because right now there is a lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Florida, a court where I've practiced numerous times, Capital One against the Revocable Trust for Donald Trump. The trust actually sued Capital One. What happened was back in 2021, after the January 6th insurrection, Capital One decided we're going to shut down a number of accounts associated with the President of the United States. Also associated with the Revocable Trust. If you don't know how the Trump family structures their banking, well, they run everything through a trust and the trust essentially holds all of the family's assets. All of the real estate holdings, the buildings, the companies construction, everything they do runs through the DJT Revocable Trust, which ultimately pays out to the President to his family and then everyone around them. Well, Capital One said, you know, there are some suspicious transactions. We're going to shut down these accounts. Trump cried out and said, no, no, no, you're debanking me. You're preventing me from using your financial institution because I'm a Republican, because I'm president of the United States, because I am maga. But the truth is coming out and the truth is radically different, new court filing now shows on March 20, 2026, the court granted Capital One's motion to dismiss the First Amendment complaint, holding that the rules governing deposit accounts permitted closure by either party in their absolute discretion. As the court observed, in the end, limiting Capital One's discretion to close customer accounts because of allegations of impure motive would, quote, vary the express terms of the contract which afforded both parties discretion to terminate their business relationship for any reason that we are not allowed to do. Accordingly, the court dismissed the First Amendment complaint in full, but granted plaintiffs a limited discovery period and leave to replete providing clear instructions regarding the problems with the factual allegations and legal theory. Now, after more than three months of discovery, the Second Amendment Complaint suffers from the same fundamental flaws as their prior two pleadings and should be dismissed. The Second Amendment complaint concedes that Capital One's decision to terminate the accounts was expressly permitted by the governing agreement and instead rests on vague allegations of political discrimination that are not supported by any of the documents attached to the complaint. To the contrary, those documents and plaintiff's own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Trump's accounts for anti money laundering reasons. The closures were the result of months of analysis and a careful review by Capital's anti money laundering team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance. Capital will never publicize a termination decision nor its confidential internal process given rise to the closure, and it permitted Donald Trump several months and granted several extensions to find new banking services, which they did. As the complaint makes clear, plaintiffs Trump cannot meaningfully criticize the robust process undertaken by the anti money laundering team, professionals with decades of law enforcement experience in deciding to close the accounts. Instead, Trump's attempt to keep their misguided allegations of political discrimination alive by speculating that Capital One's anti money laundering concerns were protected contextual and claiming that plaintiffs were somehow misled by the contractually permitted closure decision. But these new theories are based on cherry pick quotations supported by the full content, unsupported by the full context of the documents they cite, and are in any event unnecessary for this court to consider. First Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant cannot stand under Florida law because the rules expressly permitted Capital One to close the accounts for any reason and without notice, as which Trump cannot dispute their assertion that they complete a breach of implied covenant by arguing that Capital One executed the anti money laundering closures in bad faith is unsupported by applicable law. Second, Trump's argument that the account closures give rise to a fraudulent concealment claim fares no better. He cannot reasonably claim that capital when acting in accordance with the express provision in the rules allowing either party sole discretion to close an account for any reason defrauded them under the terms of the agreement. They were not entitled for a reason for the closure. And finally, they're seeking an advisory opinion which courts cannot do. But, but the big thing here. So that, that's the beginning of the pleading and I want to talk about what that means. So there is this complaint right in the Southern District of Florida. Trump wants to sue Capital One and get a ton of money from Capital One for debanking him, for shutting down his financial accounts because he's a Republican, because of political reasons. But Capital One has for a long time kind of kept us private, as banks do. They don't give you reasons why they shut down your accounts. Most of the time. They just say due to our internal policies. Because when you open up a bank account, if you read the terms and conditions, banks can shut down your account for any reason at any time. That's their choice. They can shut down the account, give you your money back and move on. Here, Capital One did that. They said, we're going to shut down your accounts. We're not going to give you a reason for it. We're just going to shut it down and we're going to give you months and months and months. Go find a new bank, Trump. Go deal with someone else. We don't want to bank with you. Okay. Trump says they did that because of political reasons. Now, for the first time, they're revealing it's actually not for political reasons. It's because of money laundering related issues. In the United States, there are anti money laundering provisions that every single financial institution has to abide by. And every single financial institution, especially the larger institutions, have anti money laundering teams that specifically review financial transactions as they come in and out of the institution. And oftentimes financial transactions will be marked as suspicious. It's called a sar, a Suspicious Activity Report. And I dealt with this numerous times as an attorney. A SAR comes in, you label a specific financial transaction suspicious. It could be done for criminal activity it could be done as a part of money laundering scheme, whatever, doesn't mean that it is criminal, by the way. It doesn't mean that it is illegal in any way. It just means that it is suspicious and the bank is going to take a closer look at it. And so in this case, they say that their anti money laundering team reviewed the accounts, determined that the accounts likely violated specific anti money laundering provisions that because of suspicious transactions that were coming in and out of the Trump accounts and therefore they said, you know, we're going to shut down the accounts, we're not going to let you bank with us anymore. That's not a political decision, that's a financial one. Because if you have to, you have to think about it from the bank's perspective. If Capital One were to allow money to be laundered through its financial institutions, and I'm not saying Trump laundered money, by the way. I'm just saying that there were suspicions behind violations of the anti money laundering provisions. And that's a key distinction. But let's say from a macro perspective that Capital One is caught allowing Trump to launder money through or any billionaire to launder money through its financial institutions. The federal government and the Department of Justice can not only then prosecute the person laundering the money and the company laundering the money, but can also prosecute the bank for knowing that the laundering is occurring and allowing it to continue happen. The bank can also face significant financial penalties in various regulatory bodies for allowing financial accounts to operate in violation of these anti money laundering provisions. And so from the bank's perspective, they have a ton of liability here. They could be sued up the wazoo. They could face millions, sometimes billions of dollars worth of penalties. They could face criminal prosecution themselves, the bank as a co conspirator, potentially even if there is a massive money laundering scheme occurring. And so what often happens in these cases, you will see the bank shut down accounts before we even get to the stage of oh, did Trump engage in money laundering or not? We're not there yet. We're not even close to there. And odds are he didn't engage in money laundering. Odds are most, by the way, most accounts that are flagged for suspicious transactions, one off transactions, two off transactions, they're not engaging in money laundering most of the time. Most of the time they're just innocuous, one offs, two offs, whatever. And most of the time they're not prosecuted. But the bank needs to cover its own ass here to prevent it getting financial penalties and from prosecution as well. But it hasn't stopped Republicans from pushing this debanking theory that they're getting debanked for whatever reason. It got to the point where literally Trump signed an executive order preventing debanking of conservatives, even though that's not necessarily happening.
- [10:43]
C
President Trump's executive order guaranteeing fair banking for all Americans does just what it says. Look, for the last 15 years, since the Obama administration, your viewers might remember Operation Choke Point, when thousands of Americans, law abiding Americans, were debanked. So at President Trump's direction, the SBA today has sent a letter to our network of 5,000 lenders across this country demanding that they stop debanking individuals and to document practices where they have done that and if so, reinstated deserving borrowers and those seeking financial services. And unfortunately, this has disproportionately impacted conservatives. President Trump and his family were debanked. I was debanked. And it happened to thousands of Americans. We're going to get to the bottom of it and we're going to end it.
- [11:34]
D
Well, this, that's what they say. They're going to get to the bottom of it and they're going to end it. Take a listen.
- [11:38]
E
Talk a lot about the weaponization of the justice system, but we haven't talked as much about the weaponization of the financial system. One of the worst features of the last four years under Biden, the Democrat rule, but of course it also precedes that too, is the use of banking and access to the financial system to enforce a regime of censorship and political control, or like something out of a communist country. We all know stories of people who had their platforms, their financial platforms taken away from them simply because of how they thought or how they spoke or what their political beliefs were. As we've explored this and examined this as a White House, we found these practices are even more widespread than previously known. As you mentioned, they use this pretext of reputational risk as a basis for financial censorship, which is truly odious, truly un American, truly dangerous to liberty in every sense. So we've worked closely with Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessant on developing a financial enforcement mechanism to ensure that those who participate in the banking system are not debanking and financially deplatforming Americans as a result of their political beliefs. And we're hopefully going to have that product finished soon, and we'll be able to bring that to the president for signature. As he's identified, this is a top top priority for him.
- [13:04]
D
But now we're learning top, top priority because they caught him engaging in possible money laundering. Subscribe Like Comment Share get the word out. See you soon.