Trump Accidentally TRAPS HIMSELF as MAIN TRIAL WITNESS!!

[00:00:00]Donald Trump doing a good job at making himself a witness, not in anything else, making himself a witness in some of these phony and fabricated cases that he's bringing, but that have real world implications. You thought I was going to say now, no, actually making himself seriously a witness and the question becomes at what point, in addition to filing vindictive prosecution motions to dismiss, where we've seen like an Abrego Garcia and others, this be granted, at what point if any of these cases actually go to trial, does Donald Trump have to take the witness stand, which we know that Donald Trump will ultimately be too scared and cowardly to do, but I'll give you just an obvious example right now, where to me it's pretty clear that Trump has made himself a witness, you know, he's turned this reflecting pool situation into a federal case, quite literally filing federal criminal charges now against a two-time Olympic canoeist, uh, who's now being prosecuted for felony vandalism, which carries with it a massive prison sentence if ultimately he's found guilty.

[00:01:02]Um, but here's what Donald Trump posted just this week. He goes, "We drained the beautiful reflecting pool today in order to fix the scars and damage that was done by the vandals two weeks ago. We wanted to wait until after the July 4th weekend. The slashes were 300 yards long and the floor of the pool was cut and then pulled upward with great force by these thugs. The Parks Department had to empty the water in order to fix the water tight basin. It will be refilled and put back into service soon. These country hating sleazebags should pay a big price for the damage done. Make America great again." Well, Joe Flood posted perhaps the most prominent photo of what the reflecting pool looked like at the moment that John that Donald Trump claimed that there was a 300 yard long gash in it. Again, 300 yards, that's three football fields. Donald Trump previously said 250 feet. Now he's saying 300 yards long, but here's what it looks like. Joe Flood posts, "The reflecting pool is empty now. There's no 300-yd long gash that's been peeled up.

[00:02:07]That line running down the middle is for drainage and was there before."

[00:02:12]Scott McFarland from the Midas Touch Network posts, "Trump is now claiming there was a 300-yd gash. It's not visible at all in Joe Flood's photo of the site. A three football field length gash that's not visible to the naked eye." Now, there's something in the law called an apex doctrine. And an apex doctrine usually means that, well, in a case say involving Microsoft or Google, you don't just get to Let's say you sue Google or Microsoft for a claim, a cause of action, right? Regardless of the merits of it, you don't get to automatically take the deposition of the CEO of Google or even the top executives or the CEO of Apple or Microsoft or whatever, unless and until you prove that they can that they possess unique information and that you've exhausted all of your other ways to try to get that information from anyone else and that because they're the only ones who possess it and nobody else can testify on it, you then have to make a special showing that the apex person, as it's referred to in the apex doctrine, is the only person who can testify. Now, it would be unfathomable in other administrations, the idea of someone suing the United States and taking Obama's deposition or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or or even many situations, Trump during the first administration, which is horrible as it was. Um you know, it it it is still not nearly as bad as what we're seeing now, but don't get me wrong. It was bad during the first one, but Trump's out there making posts where, apparently, he's saying that I have knowledge that that else has and we know he's fabricating that knowledge.

[00:03:53]So, if you're a criminal defendant in one of these cases being targeted by him, and you're saying, "Well, the only person who's out there who's made this claim is Donald Trump. I've tried to get the information from uh the the uh National Parks, from the vendor, from anybody.

[00:04:11]They don't say it exists. So, the only person that seems to have the knowledge is Donald Trump. And as I also reflect on the recent ruling by Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida regarding the slush fund uh for January 6th insurrectionists and the super pardon for Trump to wave all future audits, federal judge came down very hard on Todd Blanche, on Brito, Trump's Florida lawyer, um someone else who claimed that they were going to be joining the case, um but never actually filed what's called the pro hac vice uh application, but signed off basically on behalf of Trump, even though this person never appeared as a lawyer in the case, which the judge flagged. I know you you you claimed you were going to be what's called pro hac vice uh in here in the settlement docs, but you never did that in the court because you want to know accountability before this judge. But even on a case like that, it's Trump in his personal capacity suing the government. So, you know, if if the judge wanted to do a more extensive investigation, you know, why wouldn't Trump be a witness over there?

[00:05:18]And as you start to play out a lot of these other cases, frankly, the best result for Donald Trump could be the case is getting thrown out and dismissed on vindictive prosecution grounds because frankly, to the extent the Trump regime argues it's not vindictive prosecution, and it actually the case actually gets to the next phase, well, the next phase, in my opinion, we'd be in uncharted territory, but we are in uncharted territory where our democracy has been destroyed and the DOJ has been destroyed where the president, you know, you know, we need to testify.

[00:05:54]And if you're going to say these things and do these social media posts, then stand on business and testify and stop being a coward. It's like when Donald Trump posted restraining order about Georgia Meloni, the Prime Minister of Italy. When he was asked about it at the NATO summit, he's like, "Oh, you know, I don't really know about that, but I like her. I just didn't like that she did.

[00:06:15]Well, why are you posting restraining order and basically acting like she's like harassing you? Why would you say that? You know, you speak a big game about the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, but as Sanchez says, the moment he was in a room with you, you just were talking about FIFA and you wouldn't confront him with those things. Same thing here, you know, you're you know, you're doing all of these cases, you're saying all of these things. Well, then at some point you're going to have to testify, you know, and that's the thing.

[00:06:39]I'm bringing Harry Litman from the Talking Fed's YouTube channel, Talking Fed's podcast, cuz Harry, you know, in a lot of these cases, because people have filed motions to dismiss on the civil side or vindictive prosecutions, which has been granted, we've never really had to answer that question yet. But to me, that's a yet. At some point, you know, whether you are a civil defendant sued or a criminal defendant being prosecuted, and Trump's out there saying these things, at what point do you have to, you know, or the case gets, you know, or the case should be dismissed and you know, that's the thing. We're pay attention to the BBC lawsuit because they're not playing by what I call the Wall Street Journal New York Times rules, which seem to be just file your 12 B6 motions to dismiss. You don't need to take his deposition. It goes through a path, he loses, you tender a two insurance, you know, but at some point you'll get a BBC defendant they're saying, "No, you sit for a deposition.

[00:07:36]You sit for a depo." What do you make of it all, Harry?

[00:07:38]>> You know, some of this reminds me, Ben, of the Trump 1.0 in the aftermath when we continually observed you and me, this guy is the worst client in the world. If he weren't Trump and the president of the United States, the lawyer would come in and say, "What the F are you doing?" They're just going to come and notice your deposition. You're going to have to sit there and and answer for this. You can't say just make these comments in the public sphere.

[00:08:10]Now, you're right. There's an apex doctrine and there's many reasons, many steps somebody would have to go through before it's actually we call Donald Trump to the stand. It's happened.

[00:08:24]I the first thing that comes to mind is when Ronald Reagan testified. It was after his presidency, but it was still the same kind of thing in the Iran-Contra case and basically he was really not on top of things and it was not a great moment for him and presidency. But what Trump has done repeatedly, this is sort of one subset of it, is he he talks trash, he gets in trouble, and then you're he just dismisses the the suit. This is, you know, when push comes to shove, starting from the you know, Trump University stuff, he just says, "Never mind." And has has acted improperly in the public sphere and just goes, "Well, sorry about that." Or I'm sorry, what am I thinking? Just goes forget about and goes on to the next scandal. Now here, let's talk about in the context of the reflecting pool.

[00:09:18]Because he has, I think, potentially prejudiced the jury. They go in, well, wait, so I I think people that these terrible vandals have done big splits in the pool. That could be prejudicial. But if you think about the actual trial, Uh, I can imagine it's it's for one a kind of leverage that defendants uh make a motion, your honor. We need to take uh to have Donald Trump uh testify. But, typically judges will lean over backwards and say something like, "That's not really relevant evidence."

[00:09:55]or even, "I'll give the jury an instruction. You may assume X, Y, and Z to avoid that kind of real showdown."

[00:10:04]And I would say in the reflecting pool, it's pretty much that way. His ridiculous, false, um dishonest comments are really not going to figure in, I don't think, the the trial that they've now um set up. I But, I want to make a comment about that. We've had reprisal prosecutions uh under him and both uh Bondi and Blanche. And they are really foul and disgusting. The The first uh group, though, the main people have been political antagonists. And it's absolutely scandalous, but you understand that they were political enemies. This guy who's now been charged, and and to all appearances has done nothing like what they've alleged, they made prejudicial uh comments at uh completely improper at the announcement of the indictment. They somehow say they're going to prove he took this with both hands and tore it off and made him $1,000 worth of damage.

[00:11:10]He says he touched it to see what it was like. Man, oh man, how are they going to do that beyond a reasonable doubt? But, just think about it. This is a guy, let's say he's telling the truth, which the presumption of irregularity that you now have to apply here would suggest, "And he touched it." And now, why has he been singled out for criminal prosecution? Because somehow it serves Trump's political narrative. There's not even any kind of pretext that he somehow, you know, went crosswise with Trump on politics, which would be completely improper, let me underscore. But this is a guy who is just being completely and arbitrarily put within the clutches of the criminal justice system looking at jail. And why?

[00:12:01]So Trump can further his narrative about vandals going after the pond rather than what we know really happened, that the you know, his his project in fact, he he's not the stable genius, he screwed it up or people screwed it up and he somehow has to lie and make that make people believe enough people believe that it was vandals who have done all these things.

[00:12:32]So people now have to face criminal charges. It's really a whole extra level, I would say, of corruption and just >> [snorts] >> foulness. But anyway, the you you I think perfectly captured the sort of MO of this guy and the time will come, including by the way, civil cases after he's left office. Trump is guaranteed to be spending the rest of his days defending against cases. And at certain points you'll have people saying, "I want Donald Trump on the stand."

[00:13:10]This reflecting pool, I think that it will it will be a stretch, a judge will look to try to do another approach. If of course it even gets there. I I'm with you on your suggestion that this one isn't even I'm very confident that he's not going to be convicted and I would bet that it doesn't even get to the stage of convening a jury. But the whole thing is just trumped up, excuse the expression, for just a false political narrative that Trump wants to sell to the country and if you got to break a few eggs like like charging people who are innocent, well, that's the way it goes. And Todd Blanche, well, that's the way it goes too for Todd Blanche. It's It's It's really deeply, deeply corrupt.

[00:14:05]>> Everybody make sure you all subscribe to Talking Fed's on YouTube. That's Harry Litman's YouTube channel, so search Talking Fed's, hit subscribe, watch Harry's videos. In the comments, say Ben says hello to Harry. Search Talking Fed's. Thanks, Harry.

[00:14:22]>> Thank you, Ben.

[00:14:23]>> And everybody hit subscribe here as well.

[00:14:25]>> New Midas merch, head to store.midastouch.com [music] today and get yourself the best pro-democracy gear and show your support. That's store.midastouch.com.

[00:14:33][music]