Trump’s Last-Minute Kennedy Center "Poison Pill" Denied by Court

[00:00:00]At the 11th hour, Donald Trump tried to stop the removal of his name from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

[00:00:08]Well, did that succeed? No, it didn't.

[00:00:11]But you want to hear the motion? It contains some unbelievable language.

[00:00:16]Let's discuss. I'm Dave Arinberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka the Florida law man here on Substack and YouTube. Thanks for your support.

[00:00:26]Hit the subscribe button if you haven't done so already. And if you have, please consider upgrading your subscription. I appreciate your support. So, you remember when Trump administration tried to put Trump's name on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and they stacked the board with political loyalists, but the court said, "No, no, no. Only Congress can change the name and you can't do that." And uh this is ridiculous and you have to take the name down. So, they put up the scaffoldings to hide the removal of the name, but they removed it. But at the 11th hour, the Trump administration tried desperately to stop the removal of his name. So they filed a brief in court to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals begging for an emergency stay. And it really is something to look at. Here's a here's here's a couple of things from here. Um, first in the brief it said that even if the courts could reach the merits, nothing in the cent's organic legislation prohibits adopting a secondary name. And doing so is hardly unusual. Here's the best part. The name Kennedy is still on the building, but in a much stronger form.

[00:01:44][laughter] What?

[00:01:46]See, the structure will now function as a financially sound and physically beautiful enterprise as opposed to a bankrupt eyesore that for years will look nothing more than an abandoned hulk. Okay, you don't normally see things like that in legal briefs, but okay, this is an unprecedented time. Uh so, uh yeah, the the courts didn't buy that. You know, in the brief, they warned that by forcing them to stay open instead of closing down for two years to have the renovations, the district court was risking a total collapse of the building, claiming that the rusted beams in the garage ceilings were in imminent danger of falling on people.

[00:02:29]So, I guess the structure is sound enough to hold a massive heavy new marble sign reading Donald J. Trump on it. But the second the judge orders that sign removed, the entire foundation is suddenly facing a total collapse. But that's not all. Just in the introduction, it has some more unbelievable things in here. It says, "Without the name Trump on the building, our fundraising will not only come to a halt, but any and all monies raised or committed would be obligated to be returned, refunded, or terminated." The bylaws of the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Foundation state unequivocally, "The corporation may make donations to the center in support of its educational, artistic, cultural, and performing arts functions, provided, however, that in so doing, the board of directors shall condition such donations to the center upon the name of the center remaining unchanged as the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kenny Memorial Center of the Report Ring Arts. In the event the center should at any time remove the name of President Donald J.

[00:03:37]Trump from its filings, marketing, branding, facade, or any other affiliated location, the corporation shall recover from the center the total of all gifts, donations, and contributions made to the center by or on behalf of the corporation. The reason for this clause is that people and companies who have given or will be given giving millions of dollars to the center were only willing to do so with the name Trump on the building. Many did it because they love the concept of two great presidents, one Republican, one Democrat working together as one. In many ways, a bipartisan relationship. Exclamation point. Because after all, when you think of Donald Trump, you think of bipartisanship, right?

[00:04:18]All this money, hundreds of millions of dollars, will have to be immediately returned or not received by the center.

[00:04:24]But this begs the question, how come we didn't hear about this before?

[00:04:28]This was not mentioned in any of the previous motions. This was this is a new argument and it is something that makes you believe that this new bylaw that had never before been brought up in any previous motion was probably passed right before this motion was drafted and filed. It was like in a response as a last minute like, hey friends on this board, we need something from you right away as a desperate attempt to try to convince the court to issue an emergency order to stop the removal of his name. So they probably just met like right before this motion was filed to pass some sort of poison pill to pass something that that would essentially take all the money away if Trump's name is removed. It is really interesting. Um, and also really does show that the people who run this facility will do anything for Donald Trump. They will give up all their money. They will change the name, whatever it takes. And my gosh, at some point you got to like stick up for yourself, right? And the institution you're supposed to be on the board of, right? I mean, here here it looks like they passed something that said, "Yeah, if Trump's taken down, we're going to we're going to give back all the money and then you can go file this motion in court claiming that we're being bipartisan."

[00:06:00]Okay, that didn't convince the court. A three judge panel took a look at this and they issued a swift definitive one-page rejection. There was no grand philosophical debate here. It was an unsigned unanimous no. And if you're thinking, well, liberal activist judges, well, okay, of the three judges, uh, two of them were appointed by President Obama, but one of them was appointed by Donald Trump and not one of the judges, uh, descented. Not one. So, essentially, the appellet court told the administration that you knew the deadline was coming.

[00:06:35]you manufacture this emergency and you've failed to show any likelihood of success on the merits or any actual irreparable harm. That's a standard to get an injunction. So they def they denied the state request and they ordered the removal of the name to proceed immediately.

[00:06:53]And that's what happened under the cover of massive white tarp because I don't know they didn't want the public to see this and use it as a meme. Trump didn't want to see it himself. Whatever. But about a hundred DC residents gathered on the plaza chanting, "Take it down." And they cheered as the letters were pried off one by one. Took about 30 minutes to undo about six months of architectural ego.

[00:07:24]So that's the latest. I mean, this is exactly what happens when the constitutional boundaries hit a wall of judicial independence. And I know this is something that we've discussed before here where the judiciary has continued to step up. Even those judges appointed by President Trump, they have lifetime appointments. Once they once they get their appointment, they're free to do what they please. And so the separation of powers, it's not a suggestion. And national monuments are not private branding opportunities.

[00:07:57]So I think our democracy is holding. I know it's rickety, but it's holding. It doesn't help that the legislative branch, article one of the constitution, Congress, has decided to self- emasculate and give all its power to the executive branch for the first time in history. But the judiciary is responding by holding semi-firm. I know we have our issues with the Supreme Court. That's another video for another day. And I've done those videos and we'll keep following it here on Substack and YouTube.

[00:08:30]I'm Dave Aaronberg, aka the Florida law man. If you like this video, hit the subscribe button, share with a friend, leave a comment below. Thank you for your support. Also, please consider upgrading your subscription and I'll see you next time.