BREAKING Fed up judge CALLS TRUMP S BLUFF with CLEVER trick

You're watching The Legal Breakdown, Glenn. It looks like there is one fed up judge who's dropped an ultimatum for Donald Trump in court. Can you explain what just happened? Yeah, Brian. Judge Brakema in federal court in Virginia just delivered what I would call a judicial smackdown of the Department of Justice, specifically of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. And I can say that because I was in the courtroom watching it go down. Basically, what the Department of Justice is arguing is that she shouldn't have to put a stop to the so-called weaponization fund, the $1.8 billion cop beaters fund that Donald Trump created after he settled the suit that he brought against himself. She shouldn't have to put a preliminary injunction, put a stop to that fund moving forward, because Judge, you know, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, you know, the fund is not now moving forward. Judge Brakema said, well, was that ever a statement made under oath to the, you know, subject to the penalties of perjury? Has he put it in writing? Have you filed a declaration with the court to that effect? And the hapless DOJ lawyer, whose name is Andrew Block, basically did a whole bunch He didn't have any answers, but it got so much worse because the first thing Judge Brakema said to the DOJ lawyer is, you know, Mr. Block, I know you appear in another courtroom across the river in Washington, D.C. before Judge Leon on basically the identical issue, whether the judge should put a stop to the weaponization fund. And Judge, and I have the transcript right here, so let me read from it. Judge Leon said to you, Mr. Block, why has AG Todd Blanche not rescinded, formally, legally rescinded the weaponization fund agreement? And his answer to Judge Leon two days ago was another hummina, hummina, hummina, I don't know, Judge, I don't know. And the judge pushed him repeatedly on that. Then Judge Brakema said, I'm quite sure, Mr. Block, that when you went back to the Department of Justice after not being able to answer that question for Judge Leon, you asked the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, or you at least asked your direct supervisor to get an answer to that question. So I'm asking you today, why hasn't Todd Blanche formally executed a rescission of the agreement that created the weaponization fund? And he said, and I quote, I don't know, Your Honor. And then Judge Brakema said to him, and I quote, I cannot believe, given the significance of this issue, you don't have an answer. So here's the good news, Brian. Judge Brakema, you know, was falling for none of the slimy, shifting, shady half answers or non-answers. She basically said, you have made it clear that this issue is not moot. In other words, it is still alive. It is still something that I need to preside over and that I have the legal authority to preside over. It is what's called a justiciable issue. Why? Because DOJ has done nothing to rescind the weaponization agreement. And your statements or Todd Blanche's statements that, well, we're not really intending to move forward with it, don't mean a whole lot to the court. Now that part I'm paraphrasing. And then you know what Judge Brakema did? She launched into reading Donald Trump posts, one from June 3rd, one from June 7th, where he talked about the importance of the weaponization fund moving forward. And Judge Brakema said, you know, if the president of the United States wants it to move forward, I think that's pretty good incentive for the leadership of DOJ to move it forward. So the bottom line is she issued a preliminary injunction, basically saying, with respect to the weaponization fund, you will not pass go. You will not collect $200. You will not distribute $200 to cop beaters. Again, I'm paraphrasing here. But you will do nothing to move this fund forward. Then she gave them an out. She said, but you know what I'm going to do? I'll give you one week. And if Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche executes a sworn affidavit, a declaration that he signs under the penalties of perjury, that he has rescinded the weaponization fund agreement and that it is dead, it is buried, it cannot legally be resurrected. And not only do I want Todd Blanche's signature on that declaration, I want Treasury Secretary Scott Besson's signature on that declaration as well under the penalties of perjury. And you file that with the court, then maybe I will entertain your argument and your position that this is completely moot. And therefore, you should dismiss the complaint. But as of right now, she said, I am unwilling to do that. I'm issuing a preliminary injunction. She also said that as she ticked through all of the legal requirements for a preliminary injunction, this was beautiful. She said, oh, I find the plaintiffs in this case have standing to bring this suit. I find the plaintiffs have proved they have a likelihood of success on the merits if this litigation moves forward. And here's the question. And this was just downright delicious, Brian. She asked the DOJ lawyer, how would you suffer irreparable harm if I were to put this preliminary injunction in place saying you may not move forward with the weaponization fund? Because irreparable harm to one party or the other is a consideration in whether a judge should issue a preliminary injunction. And here is what this DOJ lawyer said. Actually, let me quote it directly. He said that, well, the harm if you were to issue a preliminary injunction telling us we can't move forward with the weaponization fund, it would harm the government's ability to conduct lawful business, to which the judge shot back in knee-jerk fashion, quote, you think this is lawful business? And I think she may have blurted that out a little too quickly because she could not have been more skeptical. And, Brian, then what she did, and I'm filibustering here, is she said, you do know there's related litigation in federal court in Florida where the judge, Judge Williams, has reopened the lawsuit and directed the Department of Justice to answer the following question, was this lawsuit a fraud upon the court? So the whole thing should be thrown out from jump because if it was a fraudulent lawsuit, then there can be no legitimate settlement and creation of the $1.8 billion cop beaters fund, the weaponization fund. So boy, when Judge Brinkham blurted out, you think this is lawful business of government, that kind of told you everything you needed to know about how she feels about this so-called weaponization fund. Just a quick note here to say that if you appreciate my work, which is and always will be 100% free, a small ask is if you could please pre-order my new book, The Day After, which explores how Democrats must finally wield power if they're fortunate enough to get it back. I'll also be on tour in D.C., New York, and L.A. mid-July. You can grab tickets to the tour and you can pre-order the book at the same link, which I'll put on the screen and in the post description of this video. You can also find them at briantylercohen.com slash book. Again, I'll never paywall a single piece of content, but this is the one time that I'll ask for some support for a book that I really think meets this moment. Thanks so much. You know, normally, the prospect or the notion of putting all of your eggs in the, oh, Donald Trump will take care of me, don't worry about it basket, and so I'll sign my name on this sworn declaration and just hope and pray that Trump holds true to his word would be a pretty big risk, I assume, for anyone to do, recognizing that Trump stands for nothing other than himself. And but but in this situation, is there really that much of a risk to Todd Blanche? Because let's say that, for example, Donald Trump does go back on his word despite a sworn declaration by Todd Blanche, who's going to be there to prosecute Todd Blanche? Todd Blanche? I'll be there come January 2029 if they'll have me back at the Department of Justice to go on the cleanup and accountability mission. And I'm not saying that facetiously or in smart-alecky fashion, because this is the kind of thing that would be well within the statute of limitations to go after Todd Blanche for any potential crimes he committed. And people will leap right to the question. Well, he's going to be pardoned, isn't he? You know, I am not in the camp of those who say Donald Trump will remain loyal to everybody who showed him loyalty during his second term, and he will certainly deliver pardons to them all. Does that sound like the Donald Trump we know being loyal to the people who were loyal to him? So it may be that he delivers wholesale pardons to his entire executive branch, everybody in his cabinet, everybody who's been doing crimes with and for the benefit of dear leader, maybe. And if that happens, Brian, then what we do is we go in the court and we fight every corruptly delivered pardon. If we have a basis to attack the legality of the pardon, then we attack it and we let the chips fall, win, lose, or draw. We let a court rule. And I have to believe federal judges will not rule that Donald Trump can essentially commission crimes, demand that his flunkies commit crimes, and then pardon them for those crimes when they carry them out at his direction. I believe the federal judiciary will say that is something called void as against public policy. It actually offends our constitutional construct of government and governance. And we know that the pardon power is sweeping and largely unfettered, but it's not that effing unfettered that we can let a criminal president get away with that. But we have to challenge any corruptly delivered pardons, Brian, because you know what? You can't make the shot you don't take. Right. Glenn, in this instance, do you presume that Todd Blanche and Scott Besson are going to put their names on these documents, recognizing the extraordinary risk of putting their own livelihood, law license, whatever it may be, in the hands of somebody who only cares about allegiance to him and not the other way around? That's a great question. And I guess my strong hunch, my suspicion is that because Judge Brakema just ordered that Secretary Besson and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche must sign under the penalties of perjury a declaration saying we have legally rescinded the weaponization fund and it is dead and buried and can't be resurrected. I bet Donald Trump, having what is some version of oppositional defiance disorder, will probably say, I'm not permitting that. So what might happen? Well, one, they can do what the judge has ordered them to do if they want the case to be mooted out and dismissed. Two, they can do some half-step version of what the judge has directed them to do if they want to truly prove that the case is mooted out and should be dismissed and maybe put some clause in there, but wow, but of course, we reserve the right in the future to reinstitute the weaponization fund. Or they could just blow it off altogether. And if they do, all that means is the litigation on this issue continues. The preliminary injunction saying you will do nothing to move the fund forward will remain in place during the pendency of the litigation. And the judge made clear after one week, if I don't see those sworn declarations, then we'll go ahead and set a discovery schedule and we will get our litigation on. So, you know, those are the options, I think, for Blanche and Besson. But I can't believe Trump is going to be happy with the judge ordering them to do this. And it's interesting because one of the social media posts that Judge Brekkema read into the record was one in which Donald Trump called her a radical left lunatic judge. And that wasn't the point of reading it in. It was for what came after that. But I think everybody in the courtroom was kind of amused by that. You know, I think at least it reads to me like this was a pretty clever move by a judge who knew exactly how to call Trump's bluff because she obviously sees what the rest of us can see, which is that Trump administration officials just say what they have to say to get through today in court. And then once once this issue is fully adjudicated, tomorrow comes around and they can say, well, we've just changed our minds. We decided that, in fact, we are going to go ahead with this $1.776 billion slush fund. We totally weren't going to do it yesterday, but now we feel like we're going to do it today. But this puts them in a position where they don't get to change their mind and play games with the court. And so was this striking to you as a particularly or especially clever move by Judge Brekkema? Or is this just the kind of thing that we can expect normally with a functioning judicial system? You know, it's such a good question. Now, this is what I expected Judge Brekkema to do. And in fact, for days now, I've been saying Judge Brekkema will not be fooled by Blanche's double speak and refusal to commit. But just two days ago across the river in federal court in D.C., Judge Leon kind of got okey doked. And as I mentioned at the beginning of our discussion, Judge Brekkema had the transcript from the Judge Leon hearing two days ago. And here's what Judge Leon said. You know what? Even though, you know, there may be no absolute legal assurances here, I'm going to say it's And I'm going to dismiss, but don't make a fool out of me. That was basically what Judge Leon said. And Judge Brekkema was not going to be okey doked. And she went as far and as hard as the law will permit her. I would even say as the law requires her to go to make sure that the Department of Justice is held not only to the strict letter of the law, but to whatever it is claiming is the state of play, not half promises, not, you know, we reserve the right to revive it in the future. No swarm declaration saying it's been rescinded and is done. That is what I would expect all judges to do under these circumstances. Well, we will, of course, stay on top of this and wait and see if Todd Blanch and Scott Bestin are going to put their own necks on the line and how much they actually trust Donald Trump to stay true to his word when he claims with a wink and a nod, most likely that he's definitely totally not going to move forward with this $1.776 billion slush fund. So with that said, for those who are watching right now, if you want to follow along, the best way to do that is to subscribe to our channels. I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirshner. You're watching The Legal Breakdown.