Transcription
Well, that backfired in Donald Trump's face real quick. You may want to think a few steps ahead, Donald, before you have your own personal attorney masquerade as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia without thinking through if her and your reckless and malicious conduct and going after your quote unquote political enemies could open up the Pandora's box to discovery.
And we could now find out all of Donald Trump's direct messages, how he communicates with everybody in his cabinet, which apparently takes place via Truth Social DMs. Truth Social is a private company. It's owned by Trump. We have in all those SEC filings that Trump is being contracted on a private basis, not in his capacity as the president of the United States.
By the way, Trump argued back in his first term when he was basically sued for his conduct in blocking people or doing other stuff on his atreal Donald Trump account on Twitter. Trump was basically arguing that's my personal account that's not used for official purposes. So, it'll be interesting to see if that legal strand finds its way back here.
But the thing with that is that was owned by Twitter truth social and and there's a Clarence Thomas descent by the way in the case was eventually dismissed the Twitter one for mootess when Trump lost the election but there's this great Clarence Thomas desensing we shouldn't be focused on Trump here Twitter as the platform is the one that really should have been brought in and they're the ones responsible great Clarence Thomas Donald Trump owns truth social seems that your argument applies here.
And we know that when Donald Trump made that social media post Hey, Pam Bondi. Pam, go after my political opponents. Get out. Go, go after Comey and Schiff and Leticia James. He thought that was the direct message that he was sending to Pam Bondi. So, he's likely having these conversations with Bondi, to Lindseay Halligan, who's now that former personal attorney of his, turned the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia.
There's this big disqualification motion to get rid of H Halligan because she didn't go through the steps to actually even become the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. But the big motion that Comey filed, everybody this past week, cuz the motions to dismiss are being filed, vexacious litigation, that this is a reprisal against him, that he's being targeted as a result of uh as a result of Trump basically ordering it.
And as part of this motion to dismiss on the grounds of a vexacious, as of a targeted, of a malicious, if you will, federal prosecution, what Comey asked for is I want discovery. I'm going to show you the steps that were taken here in order to have this vexacious prosecution against me. Now, if you told me that Comey would go into DMs and we would find one that said, "Pam, go after him," I would say, "That's the smoking gun of smoking guns." Okay. So, that's out there publicly.
But what else don't we know that all these communications? I'm interested to see all of them. And not just as it relates to the Comey case. I'm interested to see is this how Donald Trump is communicating with Christine Gnome um and Bondi when it comes to Trump invading cities like Chicago and Portland and you know, are they going back and forth there? is Lindsey Halligan admitting nobody wants to try this case with me, Donald. We're gonna get Halligan's messages.
Now, Trump will try to assert executive privilege, blah blah blah blah blah. I shouldn't have to turn over discovery. Halagan doesn't have that argument. Bondi doesn't have that argument. They're going to try to Well, they're going to try to make the argument, oh, since we were speaking with him, it's executive privilege. Well, then I could see a situation where the judge goes bet. If you're not turning it over and we don't have it, that's your choice to make. But then you can't prosecute the person for it. So if you don't want to turn it over, fantastic. But then you can't do the prosecution. Or Donald, you may have to testify. You may become a witness now in this because you put out in the public using your private social media, your truth social as a private citizen account that is. And you posted this. You're a witness in this case. And then Trump will be like, well, I don't have to testify. And I could see the judge I could let me bring in Harry Litman from Talking Feds because this is interesting as I'm thinking about these permutations.
I could see this getting to the point where the judge says, "Great, you don't want to turn over your stuff, Donald." Okay, you don't want to testify. I'm going to have no alternative and no option than but to dismiss the case. So, you'll have to make that choice. I think it could go right there as he gets cornered. What do you make of it, Harry? This is so It's really something.
Remember, we've said this again and again. These motions normally go nowhere. All kinds of defendants believe the government's after them. But Jim Comey has a paper record like nothing else. And it's a really strong motion. It seems to me the only alternative for Noman's granting discovery is to just grant the motion outright, which Comey argues for without even doing that. That would be a really extreme move, which is why I think we'll see a grant of discovery. And then just as you say the, you know, it's what happened here. We want to be able to show the reprisal. It really is ultimately what Trump did and said and uh the executive privilege or other claims they'll interpose and I think it'll be a ferocious uh battle is as you say only um a partial.
It's a conditional privilege from back in, you know, US versus Richard Nixon days. We know if the evidence is really needed and there's no other way to get it, uh, you know, a proponent has a has a right to it. So, I think these different things they'll try to raise basically, um, executive privilege or attorney client privilege will yield. And if you and also I agree if for some reason they simply uh just disregard a knockman order, good luck. The the obvious remedy after many warnings is to just dismiss the case which you know they may be prepared for anyway.
But the uh the point you made in passing I think look uh is really an interesting one. Haligan's all on her own. I was a United States attorney. I would occasionally sign a brief uh to show the real oomph and emphaticness that the office was behind it, but never ever ever would it be with no one else there. Never ever ever and I was an experienced prosecutor already. I've been assistant for a lot of never ever ever would you go to the grand jury on your own, etc. And I think this is going to come out and you know Haligan is is going to be asking how do I manage this that the entire office in the EDVA wants no part of this case? They think it stinks and they're it just disregarding US this new US attorney's commands. when she showed up, she's alone in the grand jury and then when she shows up for the arraignment, she's got to drag two people from a whole another district who look like they're triangle with her. There is a story there and it's a story that I think both really embarrasses this total novice but also goes to show will will add to the very strong evidence that what's going on here is an order from Trump for reprisal prosecution and that's that's a no no in about six different ways and and including just a rank violation of both due process and equal protection And uh I I just can't see knockoff denying that out of hand as normally uh happens. So we're gonna have a Donny Brookke over this um evidence. But I think he will order it. He should order it. And you're right, if they really play it to to um you know, as as we've seen them do already, too intrigent to consider saying, in the words of Emily, you to the court. Bye-bye. uh Comey indictment. I that's that's I really think the the sort of of leverage that knockoff holds over them.
>> You know, this will get interesting, you know, and they did not think through the steps that were going to uh by the way, this is before we even get to the ultimate merits of of what the case is, which is a disaster for for Trump. >> Yeah. Even if there were some potential basis of of of merit just which there isn't here at all. This is all before we even get there. Um this is did you just basically jin up these charges specifically to target your political opponent which you can't. You have to evenly right Harry dispense with the law. You can't start even by the way even if there could be potential. You can start and this is why it's a hard thing to show. >> Yeah. >> Hey, I hate that guy. >> Yeah. >> So, let's start finding if this guy didn't pay his taxes or you know, and then even if you find it, that person's defense could be you did it because you hated me, not because you were involved in normal investigatory kind of functions, which is why it's hard to make that showing. But where Trump is saying, "Do it because I hate this guy." You don't really get a better case than that. >> You don't really get a a better case than that. 100%. And we already have him saying it in this uh True Social that he meant to be an email to to Bondi saying, "Get this guy with no uh even consideration of any crimes he may have done."
I want to raise one little wrinkle here and just say, um, what are we talking about? We're talking about why he did it. That is, we're talking about motive. And it really is the difference between acting unconstitutionally and constitutionally. This comes up maybe in the Bolton case. Why did they do it, etc. But you're totally right. If they did it for that reason, it's a constitutional violation even if the there's a bonafideed claim there. And I just want to point out that the US Supreme Court in its uh uh great uh gift to the country of the immunity opinion said you can't look into a president's motive. Now that was in the context of a criminal prosecution. Uh but if they somehow try to expand on that principle, it's as good as saying you can't do a selective prosecution motion where the ultimate uh actor as is the case here is the president cuz you know we can't uh look into motive. But that's precisely what the inquiry um requires. So that would take it another step further. it would be a another real dare election uh at the Supreme Court. I just want to point it out and just point out generally what are we talking about? We're talking about motive and the law is so clear as you say it's not even whether it's the the the case is solid or not. If this is the reason you do it due process forbid, equal protection forbids and and selective and vindictive prosecutions. Actually, it's worth noting that Comey kind of kind of uh tries to sort of put it all in there, doesn't want to be forced to choose one theory because then, you know, the court may be going the other way. That's going to be part of what happens though at the hearing. They'll say, you know, what exactly is your basis and and go and try to sort of narrow it and the US will try to make trouble. Anyway, I get ahead of myself and it's going to be, as you say, a really interesting hearing. But the basic notion that he ought to be receiving stuff that's going to be both embarrassing and really illuminating from Haligan Bondi and maybe even Donald Trump. Uh, that's what's in the near future in this case.
>> Yeah. Come back to this video. The dynamic will be I'm ordering discovery. Turn it over. Alligan and Trump are going to say no. the judge is going to say, "Well, then I'm going to have to dismiss the case." And I think that's the dynamic that we get into. So stay tuned, as they like to say, as Harry like Harry likes to go. Stay tuned. Stay tuned on Talking Feds. Go to the Talking Feds Substack, the Talking Feds YouTube channel, or subscribe to the Talking Feds podcast. Like on YouTube, just search Talking Feds. That's Harry Litman's YouTube channel. Harry's on his way to 500,000 subscribers. Subscribe. Thanks, Harry. Thank you, Ben. Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed this video and other Talking Feds content, please take a second to like and subscribe. Talk to you later.