Full transcript of ““Mealy-mouthed bulls**t!” Trump team CAUGHT in court scheme over slush fund”. Click a timestamp to open the video at that moment. Need another video? Use the YouTube transcript generator.
0:00 You're watching the legal breakdown. Glenn, it looks like the White House, Todd Blanch specifically, just got caught in a scheme in court as it relates to this $1.8 billion slush fund for insurrectionists. Can you explain what he just got caught doing? >> You know, Brian, these people, Donald Trump's dirty DOJ officials like Todd Blanch, seem incapable of making a straight truthful accurate representation to any federal court at this point. They do nothing but play games. That is when they're not outright violating the law or the constitution. So, here's what just happened. Uh the Department of Justice just filed something in court in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court where a suit has been brought to stop the $
0:46 1.8 billion weaponization fund or as I like to call it more accurately Donald Trump's copers fund. And here is what they said. They said, "Well, you know, judge, um, the fund is not moving forward at this moment, so we really don't think there's anything here to be litigated." And, you know, even if it was moving forward, we don't think the plaintiffs who filed this legal challenge have what's called standing. They have a dog in the fight. They have a right to even ask that you put a stop to this fund because they haven't really been harmed and we don't know if they will be harmed in the future. This is such mely mouth
1:35 from the current corrupt Department of Justice leadership. But I I don't want to misquote anybody. So, here is just one sentence of the garbage that Donald Trump's dirty DOJ officials just filed in court. They say, quote, "This dispute concerns an anti-weaponization fund that had not been set up and is now not going forward." And as a result, the plaintiffs who brought this legal challenge, their claims are not justable. In other words, there's nothing really to litigate here. I don't know how foolish they believe Judge Brinkma is. But let me tell you, Judge
2:20 Brinkma has been on the bench a very long time, three decades, and you know, she has a reputation as a nononsense, straightforward, don't play any games with me judge. So, I'll tell you, Brian, I can't wait until I'm in court in the audience covering this hearing. this Friday, June 12, because I don't think Judge Brinkma will stand for this mealymouthed double speak from Todd Blanch and company. So basically Todd Blanch is coming forward and saying that there is no standing for this $ 1.8 billion slush fund to challenge the $ 1.8 billion slush fund because it hasn't been formally introduced yet. But what he's not saying here is that is that it
3:06 could be introduced the day after they get out of court. And so what he's trying to do is basically clear the path for himself and the DOJ to be able to do this. Is that correct? >> He's playing legal games and frankly they're borderline unethical games. And so you you're exactly right. He's saying really two things. He's saying, well, the plaintiffs don't really have standing because one, they haven't been injured, at least not yet, but if the fund goes forward, they might be. And two, look, judge, the fund is not now being set up, operational, moving forward. You know, that word now kind of tells us everything we need to know, >> right? I mean, what's to stop the DOJ from, let's say, this thing gets dismissed and there's no more legal barrier to them enacting it and then the
3:52 day after they're out of court, they decide, you know what, now we feel like setting it up and now there's no legal challenge preventing us from doing so. >> Well, Brian, we know what is not in place to stop it. a vote from Congress because the Senate just again walked away from their constitutional obligation to serve as a check on executive branch corruption, abuse, overreach, and they declined to vote out legislation that would put a stop to this obscene and absurd and depraved lawlessness. You know, first of all, Donald Trump bringing a sham lawsuit against himself, dismissing the lawsuit against himself, settling with himself because he controls all of the executive branch. He told us article two gives him the right to grab any executive branch
4:38 agency he wants by the by the you know financial assets and take them and then he you know after he settled with himself he set up the cop beaters fund and you know do we really think money is not going to go to Trump's friends and family members and allies and supporters and flunkies of course that's where that money is likely to end up um so there is absolutely nothing legally speaking stopping DOJ, Donald Trump from setting up this fund the minute Judge Brinkma decides to dismiss this legal challenge. But I'm I'm telling you, Brian, I will bet my full $1 max betting limit that Judge Brinkma sees right through this transparent scheme, as I think you
5:25 opened with, and she will have none of it. What she may very well do right now, there is a temporary restraining order in place prohibiting the fund from moving forward even one inch. She may very well just say, "Uh, okay, uh, DOJ Todd, uh, I I heard you say, you know, it's not now up and running, but let me just go ahead and make sure it can't move forward if you change your mind, and I'm going to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. And that is a stop work order that will last for the entire life of this litigation which we know could last many months. Just a quick reminder or note for those who are watching right
6:11 now. If you'd like to support our work and stay on top of legal news like this, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. Those links are in the post description of this video. Great way to support us and independent media. Glenn, is there some merit to what the DOJ is saying by trying to claim that this weaponization fund isn't up and running yet? Like, isn't them coming out and talking about it and Trump talking about it and the information that we know thus far enough to actually give both parties standing uh to move forward with this thing? I mean, like, we've heard about the weaponization fund. Donald Trump has talked about the weaponization fund, and yet you've got Todd Blanch in court saying, "Oh, this this doesn't technically exist yet." And so I guess the question is when does it technically exist? When is there technically standing based on the fact that we do
6:58 have plenty of comments from the powers that be in the federal government that a normal person, a layman would say like, "Yeah, this this does exist because I've heard about it." >> Yeah, it's a great question, Brian. Let me break my answer into two parts. First of all, when government officials say we're going to set this thing up, um that is some evidence that could support a legal challenge to whatever this thing is they have announced they're going to set up. However, it really doesn't ripen into a legal challenge. There kind of is no case or controversy. It's not justable is the fancy word we use until the thing is actually set up and is at least on the verge of being operational.
7:43 So, you know, there is a straightfaced legal argument even in the before times before Trump and his corrupt administration, you know, galloped in and tried to destroy the rule of law. Um that, you know, this is not quite ripe. Um, and it would be some evidence that the Department of Justice said, "We're not doing it." Although Todd Blanch has not been quite so definitive either in his public statements or in in his brand new court filing. But that's one question. Is it ripe? Is is it really up and running and functioning such that there are harms that are about to be inflicted by the government against the people? The second question is one of standing and you know standing means the person who brings the lawsuit has to
8:29 personally be injured by operation of the weaponization fund. So, you know, there may be people who are really upset and angered and agrieved by what the government is doing, using our tax dollars to potentially pay copers for trying to end American democracy on January 6th, 2021 by attacking the capital and stopping the certification of Joe Biden's election win at the direction of Donald Trump. Remember, he said, "We're going to march to the capital. We got to fight like hell or we won't have a country anymore. Now we have to stop the certification. He used the word steel. Of course, it wasn't steel, which helps helps provide evidence of Donald Trump's criminal intent. But, you know, if you're not somebody who is actually directly injured by this weaponization fund
9:17 beyond our tax dollars being used, which typically doesn't give taxpayers standing to start suing the government for the policies it enacts or the laws it passes, um then you may not have standing. So, it's still kind of an open question whether the people, the plaintiffs who brought this suit, and there are several. First and foremost, there is the person who was the deputy chief of what's called the capital siege unit. That was the unit at the DC US attorney's office that investigated and indicted and tried the January 6th insurrectionists. And then he was unlawfully terminated because he had done the hard work of democracy. um he is sort of the lead plaintiff at least his name is first on the uh court documents and then there's common cause
10:03 there's a a nonprofit prodemocracy organization there are some other people who who say that they were agrieved and would be injured by operation of this fund um but standing is an intensely factspecific question that you can't give a one-sizefits-all answer to it has to be litigated in court during the pendency of the case to make sure that yes the people who brought suit. The plaintiffs do have standing. They have a dog in the fight. They have been or will imminently be injured by operation of the cop beaters fund. Glenn, is there a world where Judge Brinkma can say, "You know what? If you don't intend to set up this fund as you're suggesting right now, then you won't mind if I rule in favor of the plaintiffs here and
10:49 preclude you from setting up the fund, right?" >> Oh, yeah. You know what the response would be? Now you're infringing on Donald Trump's article 2 authority to do whatever he damn well pleases as as dear leader. Donald Trump has said that literally. He has said article two of the constitution lets me do anything I want. Which of course is absolute and utter It doesn't give a president a right to do anything he wants, like violate the law, violate the Constitution. Um, but I promise you that DOJ would not accept the judge saying, "Well, you know what? If you have no real intent to move forward with the weaponization fund, then you wouldn't
11:35 object to me binding you to that by issuing a preliminary injunction, would you?" you know that they would say yes, we do object to that because it infringes on the president's article 2 authority even though I don't buy that argument. Um I can't see DOJ ever agreeing to a preliminary injunction. I think they'd rather go down swinging. In fact, if Todd Blanch agrees to a preliminary injunction, just like when a DOJ lawyer went in and told the court honestly and candidly, that DOJ made a mistake when they uh deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. More than a mistake, it was a violation of an immigration judge's order prohibiting the government from sending him to El Salvador. What
12:22 happened to that DOJ lawyer who was honest, ethical, and candid with the court? He got canned. He got unlawfully terminated. I think Todd Blanch is going to play a dear leader every minute of every day with everything he's got. And I predict he's still going to be thrown under the bus someday just like Pam Bondi was. >> Last question, Glenn, tell us about the fact that you're going to be in the courtroom on Friday. What can we expect and what do you expect to see? Yeah, I expect to see a heated debate, discussion, argument between the parties, the plaintiffs who are represented, all of the plaintiffs are represented by a great nonprofit organization called Democracy Forward. This is a group that is in court every day, virtually in courts from coast to
13:09 coast, all around the country. I believe they brought more legal challenges against the Trump administration for its lawlessness and unconstitutionality than any other nonprofit or group of lawyers. They do remarkable work representing the interests of the American people. Um I actually expect to to see their team there and and catch up with them. Um so I think we're going to see a heated debate. I don't think you're going to see I think it's very unlikely you're going to see this thing dismissed because that would run the risk as as we've been discussing of Todd Blanch saying h fooled you the weaponization fund the copers fund is back on we've made some tweaks to make sure we don't run a foul of the law or the constitution which will be furthest from the truth if they make that assertion I suspect so I'm looking forward to see seeing what the
13:55 plaintiffs are arguing about the need for this continued temporary restraining order, maybe converting it into a preliminary injunction. And then I want to see what these mealymouth third rate DOJ lawyers, not talking about the good career public servants who have been there long before Donald Trump and hope hopefully will be there long after Donald Trump falls from power, but it's the people that they've brought in recently, these hack political appointees that are going in and they are largely imploding in court and and judges are calling them out on their their nonsense day in and day out. I really look forward to seeing whether they definitively say, you know, judge, this thing is dead. It's buried. It can't be resurrected, and therefore there is no need for this continued
14:42 litigation. I would be surprised if we saw that kind of definitive pronouncement from the DOJ lawyers. >> All right. Well, we will of course uh anxiously await your analysis uh in the immediate aftermath of that case. Uh for those who are watching right now, if you'd like to see that update as soon as we get it, uh the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. Those links are right here on the screen. It's completely free to subscribe, but a great way to support us, to support independent media, and of course to stay on top of this story. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, >> and I'm Glenn Kersner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.
