@NateTheLawyer and @UncivilLaw discuss the Trump Settlement

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:01]Well, hello everyone and welcome again to On Civil Law. As always, I'm your host on Civil Law, a licensed attorney in Texas, Virginia, and before the US Supreme Court, and I'm with my friend and yours, Nate, the lawyer, a licensed attorney in New York, or so he claims.

[00:00:18]How are you doing, Nate?

[00:00:19]>> I am okay. I'm okay. just trying to do all this this work before tomorrow, but YouTube has decided to to demonetize my last two videos. So, I got to wait for for the to see see what the what they're going to say.

[00:00:35]Yeah. So, first of all, I wanted to clarify something for the record yesterday because I think there was some confusion on what I was trying to do. I was doing a live response video to Legal Eagle. Legal Eagle was making the positive case, right? And I wasn't trying to make a positive case. I wasn't trying to claim what was true. I was simply trying to say that what he was saying, at least his case, didn't make any sense. And I stand by that. However, it occurred to me after the fact >> that some people might have thought that I was trying to make a claim about whether I thought the settlement was good or bad. Hence, this discussion wherein we will discuss the law that Legal Eagle doesn't want you to know.

[00:01:18]Apparently, because we are not afraid of citations, are we Nate?

[00:01:22]>> No, no, no, not at all. Not at all. We are going to site our sources today for sure.

[00:01:27]>> Great. So, hopefully we will actually present you a legal analysis. What a shocker. So, Nate, where would you like to start?

[00:01:35]>> Well, let's start let's let's start at the beginning, right? Because we we can't learn we can't understand the law without the facts. So, let's understand what the facts are in this particular case. So everyone everyone should know that um President Donald J. Trump um oh sh you know I'll share my screen too so people can see we have I have the documents here so why not share the screen. Hold on.

[00:01:57]Let's pull up the pull up the actual document if I can find it.

[00:02:03]Um all right here it is. I'll start with this.

[00:02:11]So, as everyone should know, President Donald Trump sued the federal >> President Donald Trump, by the way, because this is a point worth mentioning. It's President Donald Trump, don't you know?

[00:02:23]>> Yes. So, this is the case. President Donald Trump all now is his son Eric, his other son, Don Jr., and um the Trump Organization.

[00:02:35]They're suing the Internal Revenue Service. And this lawsuit was filed um on the 29th of January of this year. So January 29th, 2026.

[00:02:46]And the facts of the case are as follows. The president was suing the Internal Revenue Service because back um for most of you who don't remember when Trump was running against Biden um back in 2020 um back in 2019 um there was a release of Trump's tax returns. um someone had leaked his tax returns from the IRS to the New York Times and the New York Times did a whole hit piece on Trump and his tax returns. Um eventually they found the person who leaked those tax returns and he was um and he was prosecuted for it and got five years in prison. Now the discovery of the leak occurred in 2020 and obviously why do we know it's the discovery of the leak? because it was published everywhere. The New York Times published Axio, everybody published it. So the Trump admin Trump and his and his um his team knew that this had happened in 2020. And they weren't the only people that tax returns were released. They released Elon Musk tax returns and so and Jeff Bezos's tax returns this release too. So that was in 2020.

[00:03:55]Now why is that important? Well, Trump and so Trump and um sued in 2026.

[00:04:04]So, I'm going to now I want to take you to the statute. That's important. So, they sued under this statute. This is 26 USC section 73 7431 civil damage for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information. So, President Donald Trump is suing the Internal Revenue Service for this unauthorized disclosure. Now, it's very important to note the the disclosure occurred in 2020. Now, in this particular statute, if you go to section D, it has what we in the business like to call a statute of limitations. Mhm.

[00:04:42]>> And the statute of limitation says, "Notwithstanding other provision of law, an action to enforce any liability created under this section, which Trump is suing under, may be bought without regards to the amounting controversy at any time within 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiffs of the unauthorized inspection or disclosure."

[00:05:03]Yeah.

[00:05:03]>> So in that in our particular case, the disclosure, the plaintiff was the discovery disclosure was in 2020 when the New York Times published it and all Axios and all those other people published it. So that >> it was very well reported at the time.

[00:05:21]So we're not talking about a stray mention in some, you know, little newspaper somewhere that, you know, might be forgotten or not seen. We're talking about it was covered at the time by basically everyone. All the major news outlets were covering it. The new major papers. It was a big story. So, we can reasonably assume that Trump was aware at that point, which would be when his clock starts ticking.

[00:05:48]>> Yes. So, that means for this lawsuit that we were talking about earlier to essentially be to essentially be timely, it would have had to been filed in 2022.

[00:05:59]And I'll even stretch to 2023 as as as sure why ju just just for sake of argument. So just so we understand the timeline 2020 is when the disclosure occurred. 2023 because we'll give it an extra year is when you when you had to sue. So now so essentially this lawsuit is barred because of statute of limitations. But that didn't stop Trump and Trump, the Trump Organization, and everybody from suing. Anyway, so Trump is now, so now fast forward to 2025.

[00:06:34]Trump is now president. He's President Trump, and he is um now he is suing. He filed a lawsuit. And I'll go to Thomas Ruckers because here Trump files this lawsuit, this this lawsuit for10 billion dollars. and it's un it's under it for that provision on January 29th >> 29th 2026 >> the lawsuit was filed so that's >> 3 years after the statute of limitations ran out >> and as you can see he's suing under IRC 7431 that's the statute we just showed you 74 this is it 7431 so that's this is the statute he's suing under and we showed you the statute of limitations so I just want to make for this is the statute and that's how that's what they're sowing for. So that's so that's what they're sowing for. So now Trump is president January 29th, 2026. Why is that important? Well, since Trump is the sitting president and on the document on the the actual document, he he he says he's President Trump. Yeah, it's not like he's not like he's saying he's not the president of the United States. He's suing as President Donald J. Trump. So, what does this mean? This means that President Donald Trump is the plaintiff in this case, but he's also the defendant. Why is that? Well, that's because President Trump has to approve any settlement that the IRS has.

[00:08:14]>> He is the person that is defending. So if you sue the government, you're actually suing the president and he is duty bound to defend the lawsuit. Right.

[00:08:24]>> Right. So there are enough problems as we'll discuss in a minute if it's simply Donald Trump the guy because while there is a distinction to be had between Donald Trump the guy and the president of the United States, uh that distinction won't matter for reasons we'll discuss. In contrast, for example, to a king where there is no contrast.

[00:08:44]The king is literally the state. They are one and the same. But that isn't true of the president of the United States. So when they say no kings, well with the good comes the sweet, with bitter comes the, you know, bad. It's because you're not a king. You are not one and the same as the state. There is a distinction to be had. That distinction is not critical in the domain that we're talking about, which we'll get to in a second. But as Nate points out, it's even worse than that because he didn't sue as Donald Trump.

[00:09:12]He sued specifically as President Donald Trump, which makes it sounds a lot like he's suing in in his official capacity, which doesn't make any sense because the president of the United States doesn't file taxes. Donald Trump files taxes.

[00:09:28]So, it doesn't make sense from a standing point of view. And he's literally blowing apart the distinction by suing in his name. So, it's just stupid on every possible level.

[00:09:38]>> Yes. Yes. Yes. But it and it and it gets worse now.

[00:09:42]>> Now, we talked earlier about the statute of limitations being two years and this is obviously four years after the statute of limitations. So that's an So it's an easy >> discuss case, right? We're just just stack the reasons that this doesn't make sense. So so far we got statute of limitations has been blown by four years and we >> he's suing apparently in his official capacity. So it is literally himself suing himself because he's suing in his office's name. Correct. So he's on both sides of the V. So that's their second reason for dismissing it.

[00:10:13]>> It's going to get worse. It's just it's just all piles of stupid.

[00:10:16]>> So now because Donald Trump is both the plaintiff in the case and he's making the decisions as the ultimate defendant in the case, this triggers the article three of the constitution. Article three of the constitution demands that there must be what's known as a case in controversy. Now a case in controversy, you have to have two people, two distinct people who are at odds with each other. They don't have the same interest. So the constitution essentially says you can't sue yourself in court because there would be no there would there would be no adverse party.

[00:10:54]So in this particular case, since Donald Trump, president of the United States is both the plaintiff and the president of the United States is both the defendant, there is no controversy between yourself. you can resolve. There's no controversy between the two. So, you can't send this to federal court. The federal the constitution bars this type of action.

[00:11:16]Do you have anything to say or >> nope? You got it. Yeah. Article three, you need case and controversy. It's right there. And there's no controversy because how can you be have controversy with yourself?

[00:11:27]>> So, now here is the mechanic. So when this case was first filed, the judge in the case um obviously saw the issue. The the president of the United States suing the IRS which he controls. That makes no sense. So what they did was what the judge said is that hey I would like um the a courtappointed legal expert to to let me know if this is even possible for this case to go forward. So the courtapp appointed legal experts said the the panel it was a panel of judges um in that jurisdiction and and the question was is there essentially um subject matter jurisdiction under article 3 is are these adverse parties and the panel came back and said quote um >> you can show us >> oh sorry I didn't put up the screen the panel came back and and analyzed it and stated that as a matter as um that the matter was unprecedented A city president seeks monetary damage for alleged harm for his personal interest and an executive agency that he controls. This presents spec significant article 3 subject matter juristics concerned. And on top of that with the statute of limitations issue essentially this case was headed to dismissal if the government responded to um to the action.

[00:12:49]So before the government responded, they actually before the government responded cuz the you have you filed the complaint and then the defendant here Donald Trump and the IRS would have to file a complaint. So if you file a com so if you so if the US government, which is which is kind of weird, but if Donald Trump then filed a uh a response to the lawsuit, then any settlement would have to be approved by the court because both sides now you have to you have to do that through that. So instead the I if you pull the case before the dismissal be before um the other side responds then you can um you could do that based on right because no one's been harmed.

[00:13:34]I'm I'm pulling it before they respond.

[00:13:36]So the so Trump the Trump administration filed a three-page notice saying that under federal rules of civil procedure 41 that allows the plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant has not yet answered it, which happened in this case. So that's what they did. They dismissed their own lawsuit with prejudice. So they said, "We're not we're going to dismiss this with prejudice before the other side responds and then we don't need the the court to approve it." And that dismissal also came with a settlement agreement. And that settlement agreement was that they would create a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who were unjustly um targeted by the just the Justice Department and so forth and so forth.

[00:14:27]But the issues with this is is that the president essentially settled a lawsuit by himself.

[00:14:37]So he set so he settled a lawsuit by himself with himself. I'm settling with myself for 1.8 billion. And these are the terms. And also that allows the president to appoint a committee to decide who gets the money. And he has total autonomy. he can he can he can remove people and appoint people at will and on top of that um they don't have to tell people they don't have to explain why they're giving out the funds so they can give somebody a billion dollars and Congress or nobody can ask now because this wasn't a court ordered settlement because the court there's no court document saying you have to settle this is a contractual agreement just between the parties now Congress has to approve approve this expenditure. They have to kind of approve this expenditure. And to approve this expenditure, Trump has put it in the upcoming immigration bill and asked Congress to approve the 1.8 billion dollars for them to to do this.

[00:15:37]And obviously, Congress is not do is um is pulling back and saying we don't want to do this. So, the issue here is is that this seems like a corrupt slush fund. Now, I know that's going to trigger some people, but that's essentially what it is. The president of the United States sued the government that he runs and then came to an agreement to a settlement with himself.

[00:16:01]He said, "I'm going to settle it myself and then made this slush fund that he could solely controls and it's $1.8 billion of taxpayer money." Do you follow me?

[00:16:12]>> I do.

[00:16:13]>> So, what do you think?

[00:16:15]>> Yeah. I mean I I think that there's a lot of problems obviously here uh as you've been well noting that I don't first of all on just a matter of procedure the idea that there is a settlement and then you dismiss the lawsuit in view of the settlement that's very common happens 99% of the time in civil cases the vast majority of cases settle and so this if there's been legal action filed you know in court at that point because a lot of settlements before there's even legal action. But if there's legal action in court, then this is very typical. You'll see a dismissal with prejudice in light of the settlement. Usually the settlement itself is never mentioned publicly.

[00:16:58]Usually it's a private thing and that's sort of the end of the case. So that part is normal. Everything else about it is less normal because as you pointed out, the statute of limitations has long since expired. the uh the uh you know the he's suing himself and then we've got this settlements with himself against a Dalek case and then as we've discussed before if we want another reason number three that this is uh no good is because it lacks consideration from basic contract 101 principles like the very first thing you learn in contract law is that you need consider consideration every both sides have to be giving up something they have to get they have to trade something they have a future obligation anything anything of value they weren't otherwise required to give so you know the easiest example ever I see a you know a fruit cart somewhere you know I like the apple there's a sign that says apple's $1 I pick up the apple I give the man a dollar end of transaction we have both given up something of value in exchange for the contract so That's very simple typical contract. But here there's no consideration because law because it it's it's it's very odd.

[00:18:19]>> Well, the the case the case is dead on multiple fronts, right? Number one, the president can't sue himself. That's what the the court was essentially saying.

[00:18:26]And it's past the statute of limitations. So essentially, they're settling a case that can't be bought.

[00:18:33]>> That has no value for $1.8 billion. As an attorney, you're clapping your hands.

[00:18:39]But if you're and this is the reason why generally you can't you can't be on both sides of you can't be both the plaintiff and the defendant because some things like this happen. But I also want to make it very clear because some people will say um this the Supreme Court has kind of already weighed in on this and univil has already weighed in on this too because remember >> reason number four.

[00:19:01]>> Yes. Remember the case in which Donald Trump is granted immunity by the Supreme Court for like while he's president, he is immune from criminal prosecutions while being president. He can't be prosecuted. Now, why is that? Well, the reason for that is is because Donald Trump is the top law enforcement official. The attorney general who actually prosecutes the case actually has no authority. It their authority comes from the president. The president appoints it and gives them the authority to do what they do. Same with the FBI, same with everyone else. So the president essentially if let's say if the attorney general wants to prosecute the president, then the president would essentially be prosecuting himself. The president would be the defendant. But then the president would also be the prosecutor and the president could easily tell the attorney general, either fire them, you're fired, or I'll take over the case myself and then come to some agreement with themselves. Right?

[00:19:58]So that's the reason. So the Supreme Court said that's absurd. So while the president's in office, obviously he can't sue him, he can't um prosecute himself because that's an absurd result.

[00:20:11]Now if you Now if you take that same ruling and apply it in the civil context, then that means the president can't sue himself. Right. Just like so in both situations that it's a violation of both the constitutional provisions of standing and it's a violation of the statute of limitations and it's a vi violation of this principle we're just talking about. So this case was all crap. But my question is do you think this will survive? Do you think Congress is going to say you know what let's let let's pay out this $1.8 billion in this particular fund? I don't think so. Quite a few Republicans have already come out and said that they're not going to support it and they have razor thin majorities. So if you know there's defections, that's pretty much the end of the game. It's more likely in my view they pass a concurrent resolution condemning it. Now a concurrent resolution doesn't have the force of law because unlike a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution isn't signed off by the president. So it doesn't have the force of law, but it basically is the condonation of Congress and that isn't nothing. So I think that's more likely in this scenario.

[00:21:22]>> Yeah. I I think I think I think there's going to be I think Congress is going to have a very interesting, you know, because now this this is going to be a purity test, right? You're in there. Are you going to approve this this this fund? And obviously some people are saying that the fund is for January 6 or whatever, but it's it's it's open to anybody. And the board, the fivep person board that that they're said they're trying to set up for this is is it's only it's run by the president, appointed by the president, and it's, you know, the president can appoint and remove anybody. But I want to tell because I know there's probably be hardcore Trump people out there, but I'm going to say it this way. What if Biden sued sued the Biden administration and then said, "I'm going to come to an to agreement with myself that we're going to pay all everybody who was wrongly accused in a BLM rally >> Yep.

[00:22:18]>> a million dollars."

[00:22:19]>> Yep. Yeah. The right-wing would be freaking the f out. And for that matter, the leftwing would be praising it.

[00:22:26]>> Yes. They they would almost certainly be saying how this is a good and just thing that these people that were involved in the BLM riots were poor misunderstood fools who deserve compensation by their mean government and the right-wing would be absolutely losing its ever lefting mind and yeah the political angle on this is is very very real.

[00:22:50]Now, it would have been better if it wasn't Trump himself that sued. Let's say Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump sued.

[00:23:01]Not even the Trump administration because Trump that would actually implicate Trump. He's got a he's got he's interested party in that, but just Donald Trump Jr. because their tax returns are released and and Eric Trump.

[00:23:12]they sued then this you would have like a little then you could maybe make the argument that even though the statute of limitations ran out even though this you know we we'll come to the agreement because we felt like we've wronged you that they can do that but in this particular case it's because Trump himself is the person who sued Trump himself is the person who came to the settlement and Trump himself is the person who approved the settlement of for himself that essentially makes this whole thing unconstitutional >> now two scoops of destroy in my chat asks a very good question. Who has standing to challenge this? That's a very good question. I don't know. But the thing is is that there is nothing to be challenged.

[00:23:56]So, so, so let let me let me So, let me explain it this way. Donald Trump, President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against himself the and the IRS that he controls. Then he withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice said I'm I'm I'm not going to sue you again. But he came to a settlement with himself to sue. So now only who has an now there is some there's I know the the capital some of the capital police are suing to stop it.

[00:24:30]Um, but I would suspect that the the way that this settlement can be stopped is that Congress can stop it because they just don't have to fund it. They have Congress has to now fund it. It's different and I think the difference here is is that if the if a judment authorized by a judge, now you have a court order and the government has to follow the court order. But since you don't have that type of settlement that was approved by through a court order, this is just by the parties, then Congress has to allocate those funds to fix to do that lawsuit because you don't have a court order. So that's that's why that's why now it's going to Congress because they don't have that piece of paper from a judge saying this is a good thing. And remember, they couldn't get that paper to they couldn't get a judge to sign off on this lawsuit because the first thing the judge is going to say is number one, we don't have you don't have standing because you're on both sides.

[00:25:27]You're both a plaintiff and defendant and the statute of limitations ran out four years ago. So this is so you have a nothing case.

[00:25:34]>> Yeah. I mean it's just it's just legally defective on every angle. And then of course the self-deing angle of it, the corruption angle of it, moving past the law is, you know, pretty apparent because it's like, you know, this is uh I I honestly don't 100% understand what Trump is trying to do here because he's usually a a pretty good uh you know, strategist when it comes to you know, understanding what people want. He's usually a pretty good uh person for understanding the people. Uh he there's a reason that he's seen as a populist. It's because he seems to have his finger on the people a lot. Uh like him or not. Now with the Epstein thing, I think he blew that play. Um but and this is another situation where it seems like he's blowing the play. And so it's a little bit odd why he's doing this, especially at this time. It seems odd with midterms coming up relatively soon. I I guess maybe that's why he's doing it because he figured he had to take advantage of what little majority he had, but it seems like a very odd strategic decision.

[00:26:54]Yeah. I the problem is is that when you and again like like like I was we were talking earlier and I was telling you I was like I've been looking for any right-wing lawyers I you know I found there's some fringe lawyers but I was looking to see if there's anybody defending kind of this whole this situation you know if there any right-wing lawyers or whatever and what their reasons for defending this is but I haven't seen Ben Shapiro I haven't seen any of the the usual right-wing suspects say anything about this and that's because and this this was out maybe a couple of days ago And I think that's because it's apparent if you're the plaintiff and the defendant and you're and again he's settling with taxpayer money. That's $1.8 billion of your money that he's settling with. So that's what makes this thing even more suspect, right? So >> yeah. Well, they say that although the settlement itself apparently didn't state a dollar amount.

[00:27:50]>> Yes. Yes. Well, here's a settlement agreement I have. I don't think it it states a dollar, but that that's what um what Todd Blanch, that's what he put it.

[00:27:56]He put in um he put I believe, let me I'll pull up the settlement agreement right now. Um share the screen. That's that. So, here's a settlement agreement and it talks about the lawsuit. I'm sorry.

[00:28:12]You got to put on screen.

[00:28:14]Um no, I don't think it has anything about there's also a waiver. Oh, also too about the settlement agreement. Um they waved all future. So essentially um Trump has made himself, his children and his corporation immune from any um any audit >> any audit forever.

[00:28:37]>> Yeah.

[00:28:38]>> Yeah. Which I think if again because this is obviously there's it's this is basically void for several reasons. If a future Democrat came into power and wanted to investigate Trump or his business or his taxes, I don't think there'd be any problem with that. They could wave this element all they like, but it wouldn't really work in court.

[00:28:58]Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, here it here it is.

[00:29:00]It says, so they so they have here the composition operation of the ant. So they talk about the fund. They don't have a thing. Settlement agreement. I'll go back up to the top relief. So they talk about the relief. Um the exchange for the settlement agreement provided they get they release them from again any charges any tax and look for any relief including injunctive monetary damages tax payments if they owe tax let's say if they owe taxes before they don't got to pay those so everything they're they're released from everything to provide assist and then they provide the fund the anti-weaponization fund and there is no there is no um no number here but it's um supposed to be done within 30 C fun shall consist of five members within 30 days of the effective date. The attorney general shall issue appointing the members and again the president you know can unless they resign or removed by the president. The president is able to kick whoever they want off.

[00:29:57]So this is so this is essentially um essentially one point we're giving them $1.8 billion. Tell them he points five people and say I can do whatever I want with the money.

[00:30:09]Yep.

[00:30:11]So that's exactly what it is. And it says after the anti-weap position fil transfer the balance to the department of commerce and interior. So then it says so that's only till December 15th 2028. So you have so people have to and voluntarily claim so and they want to fund this fund with 1.8 billion through Congress.

[00:30:35]Good luck getting Congress to pass that man. I don't see it, man.

[00:30:39]>> So, obviously there now for for I know you got a lot of law nerds here. So, law so law nerds we we have a couple >> they'll probably try to slip it into something that needs to pass and put it if they really want to do this the the hard way. They'll slip into something that needs to pass or pass it through budget reconciliation or something.

[00:30:57]>> Look at the look look at the u the lawyer Epstein and company LLC.

[00:31:02]>> Oh dear.

[00:31:03]>> Oh dear. That's a little on the nose, man. Cool on the nose. I don't know about that one, man.

[00:31:08]>> Oh my god.

[00:31:10]>> So, the Epstein conspiracies rain on proud. Great.

[00:31:13]>> Yeah, they're gonna It's going to make it even worse. It's going to make it even worse. So, >> I'm surprised I'm surprised Legal Eagle didn't mention that detail.

[00:31:24]>> Now, I wonder what people are saying in the chat. Uh I remember it's it's interesting. Are people okay with the fact that they're giving 1.8 eight billion dollars to a fund and the president gets to decide who he gives it to.

[00:31:44]I It's It's It's weird. It's It's It's It's And let's not forget the case was dead.

[00:31:52]>> They didn't have a case.

[00:31:53]>> The case They didn't have a case.

[00:31:56]>> And we showed you the law. The law clearly says they had a case three years ago. They didn't have a case a couple of months ago.

[00:32:07]So it see, you know, and it I I just don't I just I just don't know how anyone justifies this. But what are your thoughts on simple?

[00:32:16]>> Yeah, I mean the the the singular thing that you know sort of I think there's a a lot of different ways to slice this and serve what's the biggest problem. Um I think the biggest problem or at least the problem that's most notable to me because I'm a constitutional guy I suppose is the problem from the US Supreme Court itself wherein they've given the person the president of the United States immunity from the office of the president of the United States because the person could obviously commit a federal crime.

[00:32:47]>> Yes. And so you could try to you could try to maintain the distinction because there is a distinction to be made between the person and the office. I believe that thoroughly. Um that being the case, however, the Supreme Court itself has determined that there's not enough daylight to allow the president of the United States to be immune that that the the distinction is not sufficiently thick to allow for that to be happen. tense they say well he'd basically be pro the office would be prosecuting him and that's kind it's enough the same thing that we're going to say that can't happen therefore immunity it's like okay well you know fair enough but of course that would have to logically go both ways if there's not enough distinction between the man and the office for the purpose of criminal law then it would have to be true for civil law because why would it be any logically different so I think That's the one that most appeals to me of the many arguments. It's like, you know, you you want the guy to be immune. Fair enough. That comes with consequences both ways. It's like, you know, we some of the people who are fans of my show might want Trump to be able to sue, but it's like, you know, you can't necessarily have everything all the time. There are consequences to these choices. And, you know, I I think it's probably worth it on balance, but, you know, it is what it is. So that's the thing that most speaks to me.

[00:34:19]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I I think it was if if the case like let's say if like if we had a tolling issue and and I I do want to be fair to the president and his team because the person who was convicted of doing this was arrested in 2023.

[00:34:38]So I'm assuming they would make the argument that that's when they really discovered the facts and circumstances.

[00:34:45]But that wouldn't work because the statute specifically says upon discovery of the disclosure, you discovered the disclosure in 2020 because it was it was disclosed to it >> was everywhere on the news.

[00:34:57]>> Yeah. So you so you really So that that kills your stat. So essentially you have a case that you have no standing to to make. The statute of limitations ran out even if you wanted to make it and the government's going to pay $1.8 billion to settle a case that could never even been bought. And when the court recognized that it couldn't be bought, they withdrew the case with prejudice and then settled amongst themselves. The president essentially settled. And it's it's it's it's funny because I found the clip where Trump actually says Trump actually says, "Well, I'll have to approve the settlement."

[00:35:32]>> Can you show us the clip? That'll be fun.

[00:35:33]>> Yeah. He's like, "Ah, this is something I'm going to have to approve." I'm like, "Oh shit." So, yeah. Let me let me I'll look at my history real quick. Yeah. So, he he admits that he's going to have to to approve the settlement with himself, which is which is insane. But I think he's since he's not an attorney, he probably just doesn't he's probably not even not even looking at it. He's whatever.

[00:35:54]Um, let me see if I can find it.

[00:36:05]I know a lot of people are going to have have an issue with this, but I you know it this this is so bad. It's just crazy.

[00:36:14]Oh, here it is.

[00:36:22]I'll play it from this part.

[00:36:27]You got to put it up.

[00:36:29]>> Oh, I'm sorry. My fault.

[00:36:31]>> No worries.

[00:36:34]>> An American president has never sued his own administration, something the president acknowledged last fall.

[00:36:40]>> It's interesting because I'm the one that makes a decision, right? And uh you know, that decision would have to go across my desk.

[00:36:47]>> Sources say the president would have control over who runs the commission and the authority to remove members without cause and that the commission would not be required to disclose to the American people how it runs or its decision-making process.

[00:37:00]which probably violates the uh administrative procedures act.

[00:37:07]>> This is this is pretty wild, bro. This is pretty wild.

[00:37:10]>> Like I I I I just at a point I don't know how anybody could defend this particular fund. This is just it seems like lunacy to me. It also violates like federal recordkeeping law and some other things if I put my hat on.

[00:37:24]>> Well, you Well, the fact that they don't have to disclose how the money was spent is insane.

[00:37:31]They don't have to disclose how the money was sent spent.

[00:37:33]>> It's a secret.

[00:37:34]>> Are you Are you kidding? Are you effing kidding me?

[00:37:37]>> I suppose the Trump I suppose Trump could make it classified. He is the classifying authority for whatever good it would do. Obviously, a future president could declassify it, but that's one way to solve the problem.

[00:37:46]Make it classify.

[00:37:47]>> Make it classify all all of the settlement.

[00:37:50]>> Yeah.

[00:37:51]>> I mean, he's a classifying authority, so he just declares it to be top secret code word. Oh, that solves that problem right up.

[00:37:57]>> Oh, that's hilarious. That's hilarious.

[00:38:00]So, it just it's just so wild to see.

[00:38:04]So, I I just don't know. I just don't know.

[00:38:09]>> Well, yeah. I'm sure someone's going to figure out a way to litigate this in some way. Yeah. Someone mentioned FOYA.

[00:38:15]Someone might try to attack it that way, try to get into their through FOYA. Um, sometimes Congress can bring suit sometimes in its capacity or it's been known to happen when it comes to funding issues like this. So maybe Congress could sue.

[00:38:31]>> Yeah, >> there's there's some there's some there's some possibilities.

[00:38:35]>> But I don't I don't even know if I don't even know if you get like All right. So, so number one, I think the standing issue for suing generally you can't sue as a taxpayer. Taxpayers can't just sue the government because I pay taxes. So, you can't pay you can't so because you have to have an interest in the suit.

[00:38:53]You have to have you have to have the >> What's the exception to that rule?

[00:38:58]>> The Oh, yes.

[00:39:01]It's the tip of my tongue. I I think I remember the case. You got to tell me. I There is an exception. Third there's a third party exception rule for >> freedom of religion. religious issues.

[00:39:12]>> If the government is funding if the government is funding some church somewhere, you can sue as it just a general taxpayer.

[00:39:18]>> Yes. Damn, I missed that question. Ah, >> got to keep our legal mind sharp, ma'am.

[00:39:25]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it's funny because I always went over mootess and all, but you're right. You're right. You're right. Third party taxpayer exception.

[00:39:31]But in this particular case, just being a taxpayer doesn't really help you. But I do think it gives members of Congress the ability to sue because they they have an interest. They they're they control the purse. Now, one thing though, I want to want to um Todd Blanch in his response and I'm going to put this up on the screen. He um talks about he says there's precedent for the fund and let me I'm going share this with you because I want you to see what his logic is. There's precedent for the fund.

[00:40:05]Okay, I'm gonna put that on screen. This is it.

[00:40:10]and the president for the fund um where is it at where's it at okay so he says much of the receives okay all right so he says here the legal precedence for such a fund is notably is keeps keeps eagle in the case of the Obama administration created a sub to red address various claims of ongoing racism against the federal government over a period of decades but the problem with this so it says in keeps gay hundreds of millions of dollars remaining in a fund distributed to nonprofit NOS's um that never made claims whereas any money remaining in the anti-eposition will go back to refer to the federal government.

[00:40:48]Now the difference in the keeps in a keeps eagle case is that it wasn't the president suing himself.

[00:40:57]Obama didn't sue himself and said that the government was racist against him.

[00:41:01]It was other people suing the government and then the government said, "Okay, we're going to settle this this class action claim and create this fund to redress you."

[00:41:13]>> Yeah.

[00:41:13]>> Does that Does that make sense? Well, if Obama sued and said, "The government is racist against me, so I'm going to make a fund. I'm gonna settle my own case, make a fund for $760 million, and get and then I get to decide who gets the money versus these people sued the government in a class action and then they um they came to disagreement. So that's that's their rationale, but obviously it doesn't work here.

[00:41:42]Well, unless there's anything further, I guess we can bring the stream to an end now that we've actually cited actual legal cases and actual authority and actual statutes and actually done a legal analysis.

[00:41:53]>> Well, let let's let's ask um the chat if there's any questions. They may have some questions.

[00:41:57]>> Yeah. Does Chad have any questions?

[00:41:59]>> I'm I'm seeing it. Let me I'm looking through some of it. Somebody who got rejected for money would have standing.

[00:42:07]Um but they would they would only have standing. But again, this is all dependent on if Congress passes this though. If Congress doesn't pass it, then then there's not going to be any money in the fund. Tom Blanch defended Donald Trump against the same DOJ. Now he runs. Um I I don't know. I don't I don't see anything. Donald Trump is the only president to sue the federal government while actively serving as president. Unprecedented. Yes, he is. Um it is correctly assessing the group in the government.

[00:42:36]Oh. Um, can Congress approve a $1,000 total and be done with it? Yes. The Congress would say it's only5 account.

[00:42:43]>> That'd be good. I like that. That's good. That's even more clever. I like the trolliness of that. It's very good.

[00:42:48]>> Now, it's interesting because the Congress has the slush fund for their indiscretions. But the problem is Congress, right? Congress as a body controls the way the money is spent. The president doesn't control the way the money spent.

[00:43:06]Congress says, "I'm giving you money and for you to spend this way." But Congress itself can pass, which they did, pass the law says, "We're going to take this money at make it a slush fund so if we get, you know, sued that your taxpayer money will go there." But Congress has that authority to do that. The president doesn't have that authority. That's why they got to got to go to Congress. So before we get out of here, in the chat, should we put a let's put a poll in the chat real quick?

[00:43:31]>> Sure. Let's put up a poll.

[00:43:34]Is the fund constit is the is this constitutional or not?

[00:43:41]>> Is this fund is this settlement legal on any level at all?

[00:43:49]>> Are you going to the any level?

[00:43:53]>> Is it Yeah. Is this legal on any any level?

[00:44:00]Let's see. the statute of limitations problems. It's President Donald Trump suing, which is just a little pile of extra stupid because that's just why why actually put President Donald Trump in your lawsuit header? That's just dumb.

[00:44:15]We got the Supreme Court with the immunity issues. We've got consideration problems. We got congressional funding problems because Congress allocates money.

[00:44:28]uh self-deing issues.

[00:44:32]Um it's yeah, this is there's there's a lot of there's a lot of and the whole thing is probably void anyway and some if any money gets spent some future some Democratic administration could probably crawl crawl all that money back assuming any money actually gets allocated >> is illegally dispersed. What do you think about the because there's also the the ethical part for Todd Blanch, right?

[00:45:03]There's going to be an ethical piece of this and I think the ethical piece is is that you do have the the attorney general. Um, so for those of you who don't know, the ethical guidelines generally say you can't be on both sides of the V. You know, you can't do things like this you can't do because it raises ethical concern. So, I think Todd Blanch, >> yeah, >> this could raise an ethical question for Todd Blanch. How could you? Number one, uh, >> I don't think I don't think he's getting confirmed to be attorney general. I don't think that's going to happen.

[00:45:33]>> The the the first thing for ethics is you have to zealously represent your client. And if your client has a case that is bar, so if your client has a case that's barred, right, if because he's representing the United States government, the case is barred by statute of limitations. By rule, you're going to have to bring that up, right?

[00:45:54]By rule, you're going to that's rep that's repres that's um um like these things that nullify the case that are so obvious. It's malpractice if you don't bring this up. It's just like a a lawyer with like say if you come to me as an attorney and you say I want to sue this guy and I hold the case and eventually I file after the statute of limitations.

[00:46:17]I am the one in trouble. I'm your attorney's in trouble. That's why dates and stuff matter. But in this particular case, Todd Blanch didn't bring up any of that. He didn't bring up the fact that constitutionally this is valid. He did bring up the fact that um you know the the that that the statute of limitations bars it. He essentially made this agreement with a case that had no legal standing. So I think there's an ethical issue and I think also I would not be vote if even if I'm a Republican I am not voting for him to be because he doesn't have the United States best interest in heart. Like that's that's who he's supposed to be representing.

[00:46:54]But I think he's more representing the president of the United States. would say you >> at least in this moment. I mean there have been things that he's done that I approve of politically but find to be undefensible legally. So that's a fun wine line to lock. Like for example when he was doing some of the deportations, >> some of them in particular with particular notable cases I was like you know I kind of support the deportations politically but legally these don't work. And so you know there have been things like that. Um, and you know, between this and uh the Iran war, which still I don't quite understand why we struck when we did, that case has never really been made to my satisfaction. Uh, what that was all about. Um, between those two things, it feels like there's some missteps recently from Trump and of course the Epstein thing, which I feel like he blew that play pretty hard. So, he's definitely made some pretty notable mistakes in his second term. so far.

[00:47:56]>> Well, I I I I I I'm just going to be playing with it. I I I think the second I think this term as of if you're asking me right now, I think I think he's failed except for immigration and kicking people out. Gas prices, he said gas prices are going to go down. They're almost the highest they've ever been.

[00:48:13]Inflation is is up. All the factors that we that we judge a president for is is is bad except the stock market.

[00:48:22]>> But the D market Yeah. Stock market >> stock market is right. But that's great for people who have money in the stock market, but if you guys have money in stock market, it's great for you. But you still got to pay $5,4 if you're in California, $8 amount of gas. So I So what I'm saying is that he still has time because we're about what, a year in, a year, year and a half. So, I don't want to say it's been a total disaster, but if you're asking people to judge the president's job approval as of right now, I don't think any rational person could say it's a positive because like you just noted, Epstein filed this and then this slush fund and all this other stuff, it just it just puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth. And I think that's why if things things can change come November. But if things don't change, I think Donald Trump will essentially be um I I think I think the Republicans are going to lose the midterms disastrously. And and I think it's going to be and I don't think it's even going to be close.

[00:49:16]>> Yeah.

[00:49:17]>> All right.

[00:49:17]>> So, some serious missteps. Then of course with the midterms coming up in 6 months and between this and other things, it's not looking super great right this moment for the Republican party. Now plus of course midterms have I think every single time I think every single time have always gone against the president of the United States. I don't imagine this is going to be an exception and I think it will be a more trying loss. We'll lose the house for sure.

[00:49:50]>> Yeah, I think that's going to >> If we're really lucky, we might keep on the Senate for those confirmations, although I wouldn't bank on it. So, if Alto and Thomas want to res want to retire, now would be an outstanding time. Just uh not that I don't love you guys, but you're both getting up there in age.

[00:50:08]>> Yeah. And uh if you want to hang up your hat and Spurs, now might be a really good time. Please don't pull a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thank you.

[00:50:17]>> Well, let's let's get out of here, bro.

[00:50:19]Thank you guys for listening to us. And I know there's probably going to be some of the MAGA people in there screaming, "Oh, NATE AND CIVIL, YOU'RE WORSE. YOU you're you're anti-Trump." Blah blah blah blah blah. But this is, you know, we we've cited our we've cited our case law. We've shown you everything. We've literally went into the law and shown you where it doesn't work. So, you know, your argument, I don't think, is with us. It's it's with the law as it is, and it's with the it's with logic and reason. So, hopefully hopefully you'll guys understand.

[00:50:47]>> I'll produce an edited video on this topic later as well. But I figured this live stream was a good way to get started. I know for sure Nate is too, so this won't be the last word from us on these issues. But until later, oh, by before we leave, the the audience would never forgive me if I didn't ask how your health is doing.

[00:51:04]>> Oh. Oh, well, I'm I'm to be fair, I'm I'm I'm still going through um personally I'm still going through a lot of um as you can see a lot of um of issues. Um a lot because um my brain is still filling back up the space because I had the the massive tumor. So things like speaking still sometimes can be a little difficult. Um, also paying attention and I have violent mood swings. Well, not violent, but they're they're very >> not as not as bad as they used to be.

[00:51:40]They're getting better.

[00:51:42]>> Yeah. Um, so, you know, and then it it's it's it's tough because a lot of like a lot of this stuff it's it's wild because a lot of the stuff that I like to do, especially with law, um, you guys know my videos. I like I like to get very detailed and like to get into the weeds.

[00:51:55]I like to read everything. And that's just become extremely hard based on this. But every day it's getting better and you know and sometimes you'll see me I have to disappear for a couple of days because I just need to just let this thing go. But um I am getting better and hopefully um they told me it's going to take about you know another six, seven months to to fully recover. So I'm pretty much halfway through it. So hopefully um we'll be good.

[00:52:18]>> Hey man, that's not so bad man for the brain tumor. I think you're doing all right from my vantage point.

[00:52:25]>> I think it's going okay. I still remember when you when you when you said um when they were like was it golf ball size?

[00:52:31]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That was like that's not a golf ball.

[00:52:35]>> Nothing even close to a golf ball. There was nothing even close to a golf ball.

[00:52:39]Yeah. Close.

[00:52:40]>> You're like you undersold that. That is not a golf ball. That is So yeah. So, but but thanks thanks for asking and you know every every day and I and I also want to thank the fans because I'm going to throw this up on my channel too, but I want to thank the fans for sticking with me because I know like you know I'm trying to to to get the same type of video out. But, you know, hopefully people understand if I was a basketball player and I broke my leg, it would take me time to but I'm not. I'm a thinker >> and my brain is a little broken. So now I got to heal the brain to get back to doing what I did. So you know, and you know, I I I I the biggest issue I always run into is that I don't want to give you guys bad information. I want to give you guys the best information I can give. And if I'm wrong, I want to say that. And people like Uncivil and Eric helped me really help.

[00:53:31]>> He called me this morning and said, "What were you thinking about that Legal Eagle video, man?"

[00:53:36]>> He called me.

[00:53:36]>> Yeah. Because because >> he's my friend. He's my friend. So it's like I don't mind. I explained to him. I was like, "Oh, I was only trying to rebut the positive case. I wasn't I was just trying to do a live reaction." And then he explained to me how I was being an idiot. And I'm like, "Oh, yeah. I know." Yeah.

[00:53:51]>> Oh, no. I didn't explain. I just was like, "Did you did you notice this? Did you notice this?" There's a lot there's a lot of problems with this thing. And then when you noticed it, you were like, "YEAH, HELL YEAH, I NOTICED IT. This is crazy." So, because at first, NO, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE CRAZY PART about it is that when I do my videos, I like to try to see like what's everybody else saying about it first, you know, with this person's conclusion. So when I saw your and 99 just so you guys know 99.9% of the time me and univil and there are a couple of times where we've split but it's so it's so funny because univil is more rightwing. He's more light right leaning than I am. So there was a part I remember I forgot the name of the case but there was a case where >> there was a Pennsylvania ballot issue.

[00:54:30]>> Yeah. When you Supreme Court Yeah. And I was I was taking the Democrat side taking the Republican side. That was great. And then you then but you happened to be right and you were taking the Democrat side. I was like, "Oh." But it showed how it didn't matter what the political leanings are. We made a legal analysis and we just came to two different conclusions. So, >> but it it was it was fun seeing how our legal analysis are so unbothered by the by our political biases that we could argue for the other side. And you happen to be right. So, >> well, I'll let my good friend Nate the lawyer go. Uh this has been a pleasure.

[00:55:08]Till all my fans, keep you keep posted and uh we'll see how it goes in the future. For now, my friends, peace and goodbye.

[00:55:16]>> Later, guys.