Transcription
You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, it looks like the Trump administration just got a hearty dose of karma as it relates to the judge that they just drew in the release of the Epstein files case. This is a FOYA case, a Freedom of Information Act. Can you explain what just happened in court?
Yeah, Brian. I believe this is the first FOYA case that's been filed by any group, any person, any organization. It's a FOYA Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed to compel to force the Trump administration to comply with the Foye laws and release certain documents. Documents pertaining to the Epstein file, documents pertaining to communications between and among senior governmental officials um discussing the Epstein file, all things Epstein. And lo and behold, the random assignment, judicial assignment landed on the desk of Judge Tanya Chutkin in federal district court in Washington DC. Our viewers will no doubt well remember Judge Chuckin as the judge who um handled presided over the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump by Jack Smith for Donald Trump trying to steal the 2020 presidential election. a lawsuit that went away courtesy of the Supreme Court. But I'll tell you, Judge Chutkin presided over that case not only well and independently and efficiently, but she is a no-nonsense judge. She kept pushing that thing forward regardless of the roadblocks that Donald Trump's lawyers tried to throw up in front of her to try to stall the litigation. And it really was only courtesy of the Supreme Court that Donald Trump wasn't ultimately tried, perhaps would have been convicted of the crimes for which he was indicted. So I am sure that Donald Trump and his administration are less than thrilled that Judge Tanya Chutkin once again will be presiding over a case that really is all about Donald Trump. And in a very real sense, um, it may play part and parcel into whether Trump's presidency survives because I'll tell you, Brian, the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal has legs and is resonating on the right as much as it's resonating on the left in a way that I think no other Donald Trump scandal is or has resonated.
Now, Glenn, we have this foyer request, which again is a Freedom of Information Act request. Um, this is happening concurrently with the House Oversight Committee having already successfully issued a subpoena uh to the Department of Justice to compel the release of the Epstein files. So, why have concurrent tracks if we already know that the House Oversight Committee is going to get access to these files? What is the benefit of having a FOYA request happening at the same time?
Oh, well, first of all, I would not say that it is a given that the Trump administration, the Department of Justice will comply with congressional efforts to turn over Epstein files or to have testify various, you know, former government officials about the Epstein and Maxwell investigation. So, um, what you want is for this case to also be in court because federal court judges can order and compel certain things of the executive branch that Congress is perhaps powerless to compel. But really, even more importantly, that Congress has basically just sort of given away its own power to Donald Trump. They've laid down, they've let Donald Trump walk all over them, particularly the Republicans in Congress. So it really is important that this thing is in a court of law proper because there are rules and laws that govern when you know a freedom of information lawsuit is filed. It governs what the federal government must do in response and what a judge can order the federal government, the executive branch to do in response.
I'm curious though, if if a judge does order that the Trump administration uh release these files and the Trump administration doesn't release these files, the reality is that the executive branch is there to enforce the laws. And so and so who's there to compel them to do something? The courts don't have an army behind them. And certainly the legislative branch isn't going to lift a finger to compel the executive branch to do anything they don't want to do because they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump. And so if the courts say something and Trump doesn't want to do it, I understand that that lands us in yet another constitutional crisis. But what recourse is there to actually compel the release of these files?
Well, let's talk about how the law currently exists and how the law is supposed to work. The federal court judges if they order the executive branch, Trump or one of his administration officials to do something, the law provides the federal law that the United States Marshall's service shall, not can, but shall mandatory enforce those federal court orders. Of course, the next concern becomes, well, wait a minute. The United States Marshall Service is part of the executive branch. It's part of the Department of Justice. So, how can you tell one component of the Department of Justice to enforce court orders against another component of the Department of Justice? You can. You can because Brian, that's how the law is set up. We're not making this up as we go along. Now, will Donald Trump buck the federal law? Will he try to tell his director of the US Marshall service to tell his deputy US marshalss to violate the law? Wouldn't surprise me one bit. So yeah, there will be something of a constitutional standoff if it comes to that. But here's what I want people to kind of hold fast to with those kind of constitutional standoffs. Um, each time Donald Trump does it, he becomes weaker, not stronger. people begin to peel away from Donald Trump, not join his cause. So, I will assume we're going to have plenty more abuses of the rule of law and the Constitution by Donald Trump. But I maintain with each one, he becomes weaker, people peel away from him, and we the people, the opposition who care about the rule of law and the Constitution, become stronger. And Brian, it that is what it may take before Donald Trump is ever dethroned.
Glenn, what are the rules governing what can what can be compelled to be released by the federal government in response to a foyer request? So obviously not everything is going to be fall into the category of oh okay well a foyer request was was received and so we just we have no choice. We just have to release whatever they asked for. Like there are certain rules in terms of what they can disclose and what they can't disclose. Would there be any reason that these Epstein files would fall under the category of something that wouldn't wouldn't uh uh uh be protected by a foyer request?
Yeah, it's a great question and that's what this litigation will sort out. But let me give people the lay of the land when it comes to foyer requests and the law that applies. First of all, this lawsuit was filed by a group called Democracy Forward. It's a nonprofit, a very well-respected and aggressive nonprofit, and they are in the business of using the Foye laws to do what? To promote transparency and responsibility in government, something that I would like to think we can all get behind. So when you file a foyer request, let me tell you from experience when I was inside the government and I was on the receiving end of these foyer requests, um the the folks in the executive branch, the folks at the Department of Justice, we'll see whether there is some exemption that they can apply to resist turning stuff over. Here are some of the most usual exemptions or protections, the pending case protection. Because the reality, Brian, is if there is a pending criminal investigation or prosecution, the last thing I would want to see happen as a prosecutor, and frankly, I think the last thing the American people would want to see happen is for the Department of Justice to just willy-nilly begin giving over all of the evidence as a trial approaches. You know, that could negatively impact both the prospect of a conviction in the case and it could negatively impact the attempt of the defendant to defend himself or herself. It could impact the ability of the parties to seat a fair, independent, impartial, and unbiased jury if the jury is privy to a whole bunch of evidence in the case before it ever goes to trial. So that is one of the appropriate I would say important exceptions to the government being compelled to give over a whole bunch of stuff in a pending case. You know there is a pending case but really only hyper-literally because Ghislaine Maxwell has exhausted her appeals in the court of appeals and now she's just asking the Supreme Court to please take up her case. So her case isn't 100% definitively over and done. It's about 99.5% over and done. But so there will be a claim that wait a minute, this is still in a sense a pending matter. So we don't want to give anything over. A second exemption that I think is an important exemption but which also may tend to be overused or misused by the federal government is national security matters. You know, if there is a request for some information in the possession of the federal government that could impact national security matters, that is a legitimate reason for the federal government to say, "No, we can't turn this stuff over, you know, um in response to a foyer request because we could compromise national security." There are a few others, but those are kind of the the the most frequently raised um prohibitions that the executive branch will try to hold up to stave off having to turn over um internal documents, evidence, communications. There are other kind of privileges that they might throw up as roadblocks. But you know that is why um there is foyer litigation. a lawsuit can be brought to enforce the FOYA laws and put the government to its proofs in front of the judge and you know explain compellingly why one or more of these prohibitions should apply.
Glenn, is there any recourse that the Trump administration has by virtue of the fact that they drew Judge Chutkin? Because they'll cry foul. They'll they'll claim that Judge Chutkin is a radical Marxist leftist who tried to, you know, put Donald Trump away because she rightfully presided over a pretty open-and-shut case in which Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election. And so they'll protest. Do they have any recourse? Are they able to seek a different judge or would they have to go to the DC uh circuit court of appeals and request some removal or recusal from Judge Chutkin?
Yeah. Do they have recourse? What they do have is the procedural opportunity to file a motion to have Judge Chutkin recuse herself because her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. That is the language from the federal law governing when a judge must remove themselves from a case if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Hers can't be just because she has been assigned to other Trump-related cases. In fact, Brian, if you go back and look at some of the other cases, not just the Trump prosecution, but other cases involving Trump or the Trump administration, sometimes she rules in favor of the Trump administration. So, they can try to file a motion to recuse. I predict it will fail. It will fail spectacularly, and I think they will be stuck with Judge Chutkin um presiding over this case.
All right. Well, look, the Epstein file release is coming uh coming at this administration from a few different fronts here, whether it's from the oversight committee, whether it's from these foyer requests or um even some other avenue that that we're not aware of yet, but it looks like at some point or another, despite the protests from this administration, we may very well see these files. So, we will of course stay on top of this issue as well as any other issues as it relates to Epstein or the Trump administration finding itself in court. For those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along, please make sure to subscribe. The links to both of our channels are right here on the screen. It's also completely free to subscribe. It's a great way to support our work and a great way to show some support for independent media as well. So again, links right here on the screen. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen >> and I'm Glenn Kersner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. [Music]