Transcription
You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, there is a major story that just came surging into the news, and that is Donald Trump uh offering up a $1.7 billion slush fund to pay to January 6th insurrectionist. But there is a hidden motive behind all of this that nobody has spoken about, and I want to give you the opportunity to talk about that here. Brian, I hope our viewers can follow the bouncing ball of corruption here because this is outrageous.
So, I'm I'm sure folks know that Donald Trump sued the federal government, the Internal Revenue Service, want, you know, asking for $10 billion because some contractor leaked some of his tax information and leaked the tax information of lots of other rich folks. So, Donald Trump thinks that he gets to sue the federal government that he controls. He controls all executive branch agencies demanding $10 billion. But, you know what? That lawsuit is has sort of hit a snag because the judge presiding over it is in the process of litigating whether this is a case that's even properly brought because there are no adversarial parties and the constitution says there has to be a case or controversy for the federal court to even be allowed to litigate the case to have jurisdiction over the case. So it looks like this lawsuit is hanging by a thread. So what does Donald Trump do? It looks like he's rushing to settle a lawsuit that perhaps is a bogus lawsuit in the first place. And what he is proposing is that um the federal government use taxpayer dollars to create a $1.7 billion, as you called it, slush fund. Perfect uh description of it. And where will that money go? Where will our money go? It will go to pay off people who believe they were done wrong by the Biden administration for being prosecuted. What we're talking about directly here are the 1600 riers slashinssurrectionists who attacked the US capital on January 6th who were, mind you, most of them indicted by a grand jury. Many of them convicted by a trial jury. Lots of them pleaded guilty to the crimes they committed. And now Donald Trump wants to use the the money he's going to demand the government put in a slush front fund from a bogus suit that he has brought to pay people who attacked the US capital. What this is is rewarding people for engaging in insurrection. And Brian, just assure as I'm sitting here, it is recruiting future insurrectionists. attack the democratic process in my name trying to help me steal an election I lost and at the end of the day you may get a payoff. You know this is the kind of this is governmental abuse of power written about as large as I can imagine it.
>> Glenn in pushing back against this stuff if and when Trump's slush fund is going to be challenged in court. you just laid out this very compelling and accurate story uh about how you know connect how you can connect the dots A to B to C. Um is that something that that an attorney can do in the courtroom in the same way that you just did? Like I I understand that it's that it's not like this is the statute that's being bro that's being violated and and and it's not as black and white as just saying this is a law that's been broken and so this is why we're we're we're seeking relief or suing. But but when it's in more of a gray area and and Trump is kind of engaging in this longer term conspiracy um to pay off his own allies to basically commit violence in his name. Is that something that carries weight in a courtroom or does it have to be black and white law that was broken? Here's what we're seeking as damages.
Yeah, Brian, it's a great question. What I did for 30 years was take a series of facts and circumstances and build out the narrative that I just built out for our viewers. That's exactly what we do in courtrooms across the country every day. Not everything stacks up neatly and intuitively. Sure, somebody runs into a bank wearing a mask, holding a gun, saying, "Open the vault." And then runs out with a big canvas bag full of money. That's easy. That's intuitive. You don't have to connect the dots. You don't have to build the story for the jury. But here you do. But what I just described, Brian, is an example of theft of government funds. Period. Donald Trump is trying to steal taxpayer dollars, put it in a slush fund. I'm so glad that's what you called it. And then pay off the people who did his criminal bidding by attacking the capital. That enures to Donald Trump's benefit, right? He's forever trying to say, "I didn't really lose the 2020 election." And as a result, look, the people who attack the capital on my command, remember what he said? You You got to go You got to go fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore. He lied to them and convinced them that their election was rigged, that their vote was stolen, that their favorite president was being taken away from them. And he said, "Now go to the capital and stop the certification." He used the word steal. Stop the steel. Which actually is evidence of his own criminal intent cuz he knew the election hadn't been stolen. His own executive branch officials told him so. So listen, this is him using taxpayer dollars to his benefit at the end of the day and it is a recruiting call for future insurrectionists who may be needed to do it all over again. He is stealing our money. It is criminal. It is a conspiracy to commit theft of government funds in a layman's sense. And this this is the accountability mission of our time. As soon as the rule of law comes back into the light of day and we have a law-abiding president and a law allegant attorney general heading up the Department of Justice again, these people need to be held accountable.
>> Perfectly put. And I want to take this opportunity to request of folks who are watching right now, if you'd like to elevate our voices in this ecosystem, the best way to do that 100% free, is just to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put those links in the post description of this video. So, if you're not yet subscribed, please support our work. Please support independent media and subscribe. Glenn, if Donald Trump is able to get away with this because either his DOJ doesn't put up a fight, of course they won't, or his judges don't put up a fight because as they so often don't, is there a world where Democrats can come forward and say, "Okay, well, if if uh pilfering the US Treasury to create a slush fund for our political allies is legal now, what's to stop a Democratic president from saying, you know, why why stop at 1.7 billion? Why not just do 500 billion and start funding Democratic priorities? Get uh Planned Parenthood funded from now until the end of time. Get voter registration groups funded in in minority majority precinct from now until the end of time. Like, is there anything that would prevent uh Democrats from wielding the same weapons as Republicans if indeed uh either the federal government or the judiciary branch allows this farce to continue?
You know, it's a great question, Brian, and what I will say is um governance is only as good as the ethics and honor of the people in government. I wouldn't envision uh a law-abiding uh president, whether Republican or Democrat, in the future, to engage in the kind of gross uh misconduct, corruption, and outright crimes that Trump and company are engaging in every day in the harsh light of day. They're doing it gleefully. It's right in our face. and they know they can do it for the time being without running the risk of any accountability because you know Donald Trump installed a lap dog as an acting attorney general Todd Blanch who said if Donald Trump fired me I would say thank you sir I love you know there's also some new reporting about how Todd Blanch was given ethics opinions at the at the front end of being named acting attorney general ethics opinions by the Department of Justice ethics guru that he should must recuse himself from any matter involving Donald Trump. Of course, he ignored that ethics advice from the very people who are in a position to give it. So, listen, he will have to be held accountable in the future as well. Let me let me connect a couple of more dots for our viewers because you know they they may recall that there was some recent reporting that DC US attorney Janine Piro filed a motion and in that motion she tried to convince the judges to dismiss throw out convictions in closed cases against the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys. sedicious conspiracy convictions that juries entered after lengthy trials against the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys. And in that motion, she said, "It's in the interests of justice that the judges throw out these convictions." Well, you know what? If the judges agree and they grant the motions to dismiss the convictions of the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys, what will that do? That will be the court's co-signing, that motion and that assertion by Janine Piro that throwing out these convictions is in the interest of justice. That will give the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers defendants all the ammunition they need to hold up that successful motion to dismiss in the interest of justice and say, "Guess what? I deserve a big fat chunk of that $1.7 billion slush fund. This cannot be countenanced. I hope to heck the judges um deny those motions and I expect them to because they're not in the interests of justice. But again, this is all kind of part of the same theme here. Donald Trump rewarding folks who attack the capital, rewarding folks who did his, you know, dirty bidding to try to retain power after losing an election. And it is a recruiting call for future insurrectionists. And you know th this again, it's hard for me to put into words just how infuriating this is to somebody who spent an entire lifetime upholding the rule of law. 24 of my 30 years as a prosecutor at the very Department of Justice that has completely fallen apart.
You know, I I think that that analysis is really instructive because at first at first blush, I I I look at this stuff and I say, you know, this is just one more example of Trump having promised one thing, got into office on the back of this promise to to have an America first presidency, to focus on the little guy, to bring down the cost of rent and housing and groceries and eggs, all the things he promised on the campaign trail. And of course, he's turned his back on all of those promises. He's now gutted healthcare, gutted um uh food assistance. He's raised the cost of everything with his trade war. Uh the cost of gas is now at its highest point in years thanks to his war with Iran that he also promised would never happen. All the while, he's focused on his own opulence and wealth, and he's building a ballroom, uh repaving the rose garden, building himself an arch, retrofitting a Qatari jet to the tune of a billion dollars that we all pay for. Now the the ballroom that was supposed to be paid with private money is being uh funded uh uh to the tune of a billion dollars. And so all of that is bad enough. And and it was difficult for me to even try to figure out why Trump felt the need to do all of this even as it's dragging down his approval ratings and that of his own party. But in fact, I think that your analysis is perfectly instructive in that because because the most important thing is not for him to try and appeal to the American people in the way that politicians normally do, which is to give them a reason to vote for you. He's given up on that clearly based on everything that he's done. At this point, he's just trying to usurp control and and hold on to power by extrajudicial measures if he needs to. And so that includes making sure that he has an army of violent people at the ready if he needs them. And so creating a system and establishing a precedent where not only are lawless people who commit violence in your name not going to be prosecuted as he showed immediately by letting those 1500 insurrectionists go, but by paying them for their work. this actually becomes not just not just like netneutral but a lucrative um opportunity for them. And so you're exactly right like now he's establishing a precedent where these people know that they're not only not going to get in trouble but they're actually going to derive some financial benefit derive some windfall of money by virtue of doing this. And so when the next election rolls around and Trump has already proven that his sole goal here is to undermine the next election, whether it's by depriving people of being able to use mail and ballots like he uses or trying to get the voter roles sent to the federal government so that he can meddle in who's thrown off the voter roles or not. Um closing, you know, uh uh uh uh minority majority precincts. Um eliminating black congressional districts all across the south. This is his goal. And so now he's basically sent a message loud and clear, broadcast this message to his supporters that it is actually advantageous for them to commit violence in his name because look what's waiting for them on the other side.
>> Brian, two words. Insurrection pays.
>> Yeah,
>> that is the message Donald Trump is sending with this $1.7 billion slush fund for people who think they were agrieved by the Biden administration. This is not about making America great. This is about making Trump rich.
>> Perfectly put. Again, for those who are watching, if you'd like to support our work and stay on top of our legal analysis, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you're not yet subscribed, please show us some support and subscribe. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen
>> and I'm Glenn Kersner.
>> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.