Trump PANICS As Judge Moves To Expose His $1.8 BILLION Slush Fund

[00:00:00]The judge that oversaw Donald Trump's lawsuit against his own federal government that of course they then dropped the lawsuit, did the settlement, created the 1.776 billion dollar anti-weaponization slush fund is not done.

[00:00:18]Because even though both parties, Trump and Trump submitted to the government that we're withdrawing the lawsuit and the judge overseeing it did close it.

[00:00:30]Thanks to several dozen former federal judges filing a motion with the court to hey, wait. Look at the lawsuit itself because it's not even legal for him to file that, the judge did grant the opportunity for both sides to explain why she shouldn't reopen and then of course summarily dismiss the overall case. The judges submitted their part, Trump's team had until June 12th to submit theirs which they did. Now those former judges now have until June 19th to submit their rebuttal to that.

[00:01:06]But in their arguments to the judge defending this slush fund something interesting happened.

[00:01:16]Donald Trump's lawyers suggested that the judge herself doesn't have any authority over the slush fund.

[00:01:30]The judge by the way, US [clears throat] District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee.

[00:01:36]Uh but she says uh here the non-party movements advance grievous allegations that plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that was quote collusive from the start and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.

[00:01:56]So basically she's saying look, these judges say you had no intention of actually doing the suit. You just did it so that you could collude together and come up with this hugely illegal settlement, which of course is what happened."

[00:02:09]So, then Trump's lawyers said this.

[00:02:12]>> [clears throat] >> Movants should be above making what is to transparency polit- transparently political filing intended to gin up press attention to a fully proper government settlement that they knowingly have no standing to challenge.

[00:02:26]Movants were not parties to any litigation with plaintiffs. They had never expressed any interest in the case until they filed their motion, and they have no legally cognizable interest in it.

[00:02:39]They didn't object to this until they knew about it. What gives? That's that's literally the argument you're making.

[00:02:47]Right? Like, why didn't they say anything when they didn't know what was happening, huh?

[00:02:51]Checkmate, judges.

[00:02:56]So, you're mad that they didn't say anything about a thing they didn't know about.

[00:03:02]Okay? Yeah, that'll that'll totally hold up in court. Don't worry. That's totally a great argument. Then they continue.

[00:03:10]Here's where they say the judge basically has no jurisdiction over this.

[00:03:13]The court had no discretion to grant or deny the dismissal, no motion to weigh, and no adjudicative function that could have been corrupted. There was therefore no fraud on the court within the meaning of the doctrine, and no basis for the court to exercise any form of ancillary jurisdiction over a unified settlement agreement between private parties and the executive branch.

[00:03:35]They then argued that the judges lacked standing to invoke their own chosen procedural attack on the settlement.

[00:03:46]Okay.

[00:03:47]>> [clears throat] >> Let's examine that from the legal perspective.

[00:03:50]This judge oversaw the initial lawsuit.

[00:03:56]Had the initial lawsuit not been filed, a legal settlement cannot happen.

[00:04:06]Yes, the judge does in fact have jurisdiction. As the judge that closed the case, they can also reopen it and examine whether or not the case was even legal.

[00:04:21]And yes, those former judges also do have standing to challenge this given the fact that it was the federal government.

[00:04:33]As citizens of the United States, they have standing on any misuse of government funds, as do all of us.

[00:04:43]That's kind of how that works. And trust me, I don't think that Donald Trump's grotesquely incompetent DOJ lawyers, many of whom haven't even been out of law school for six [ __ ] months, I refuse to believe that any one of them knows more than any of these federal judges who combined have several centuries of experience as federal judges.

[00:05:07]Right? I think I'm going to go with their expertise on knowing whether or not they can file this motion versus Donald Trump's first-year law student arguments.

[00:05:17]So, things are not looking good.

[00:05:20]Let me also just kind of say one thing real quick here.

[00:05:24]Um If you ever find yourself involved in a lawsuit and your argument is to tell the judge they don't have jurisdiction, go ahead and pack your stuff up now because you just lost. Furthermore, these lawyers, as the judge herself even admitted, may have committed such egregious misconduct that it could rise to the level of having abused the judicial process if they filed a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement.

[00:06:05]So, not only are these lawyers in over their heads, but they're probably going to end up losing their law licenses over this as well, as have so many other lawyers who thought it was a smart idea to take on Donald Trump as a client.

[00:06:22]They lost everything. Their ability to practice law, all of it.

[00:06:27]And I guarantee you, by the time this is all over, those lawyers who filed that insane motion, same thing is going to happen to them, without a doubt. Thanks for watching, and if you are not already subscribed to the channel, please do so, and do not forget to like and comment and share widely among your friends.