_3AM BREAKINGTrump THREATENS TO MURDER JUDGE for BLOCKING SLUSH FUND?!

Añadido: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]being held to account for some of their most reckless and unpopular actions. And yes, sometimes it takes a while for the legal system to catch up to these reckless actions. But in some cases, the push back is happening much more quickly. Remember, it was only 10 days ago when the Trump administration announced its settlement essentially with itself, establishing a $1.8 billion slush fund to benefit Trump's political allies. They tried to make it seem at the time like this slush fund was accountable to nobody that it could not be stopped not by the courts or Congress or any third parties. They were very very braggy about it. In fact, I mean they claimed that because Trump and his DOJ had settled out of court that the agreement was basically untouchable.

[00:00:46]They tried to make it seem like January 6 writers and Trump allies, we're going to get your tax dollars and there was really just nothing anyone could do about it out there. The settlement even included a clause that said, quote, "There shall be no appeal, arbitration, or judicial review when it comes to what they can and can't do with all that money just because they said so."

[00:01:08]Unfortunately for Trump and his allies and January 6 writers, that is not actually how the law works in this country. I mean, today a federal judge in Virginia blocked the DOJ from creating Trump's slush fund and barred them, at least for now, from giving anyone any money. And while that ruling it's only temporary, it is also coming out of just one of the many legal challenges the fund is already facing. A January 6th prosecutor is suing to try and stop the fund. Members of the Capitol police are suing to try and stop the fund. The nonprofit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, they're suing to try and stop the fund.

[00:01:43]A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges are suing to try try and stop the fund. Heck, even the host of the popular podcast Muller she wrote is suing to try and stop the fund. All of those lawsuits are attacking the fund also from different angles with different arguments for why the fund should be stopped. And tonight, we got word that yet another of those lawsuits scored yet another major victory against Trump.

[00:02:06]Tonight, the judge who initially oversaw Trump's lawsuit against the IRS reopened the case. And this is a very significant development because remember, as part of his settlement, I'm just going to keep putting in quotes, last week, Trump voluntarily dismissed his case. He dismissed it just days before his personal lawyers and the Justice Department were going to be forced to explain to the judge how the heck they were actually oppositional parties. How Trump and the department and the IRS that worked for his Treasury Department were on different sides, right? Since ultimately they're working for the same man. And if the judge didn't buy their story, it could have been grounds for the judge to toss Trump's case altogether. So instead of actually working through the court system, Trump settled out of court again with his own justice department. And he clearly wanted everyone to just assume that was the end of the story. But it's not hardly. It's definitely not the end of the story because that bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges I mentioned earlier, well, they took action just two days ago. They asked the judge to reopen the case on the grounds that the settlement and the slush fund it created were a product of collusion. that was itself a fraud of the court on the court and they asked her to open an investigation to whether Trump and his sons Don Jr. and Eric or the Justice Department or both defrauded the court to obtain their so-called settlement.

[00:03:28]And tonight, Judge Kathleen Williams did just that. And in her order reopening the case, Judge Williams gave President Trump two weeks to explain his position on the following issues. One, the allegation from the group of former judges that Trump and the Justice Department colluded. and the allegation that Trump and the Justice Department are not truly adverse parties. Good question. Two, the allegation that Trump's voluntary dismissal of the case was premised on deception. And three, whether the case should be reopened or not, because Trump and the Justice Department may have committed fraud against the court. Now, all of those very serious sounding things Trump put in his settlement with himself about how the settlement was unappealable and couldn't face judicial review, well, it turns out that was all bluster. And now Trump will actually have to make his case in court, not just for why he should be able to settle a lawsuit with himself and get a 1.8 billion dollar slush fund all set up, but for his immunity from IRS audits and and those of for his family, too, and everything else he effectively gave himself in the settlement he struck with his own Department of Justice. Now, to give you a sense of just how vulnerable Trump's supposedly ironclad and unreable settlement actually is, tonight, people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that Trump's top aids have discussed whether he should just kill the slush fund altogether. First of all, why did it take you so long? That would be my question. Using it as a sacrificial lamb, a bartering chip to get ICE funding passed next week. And they think they can do this, I gather, because more than a dozen Republican senators have reportedly urged top Trump aids to drop the fund. That's just in the past 10 days. It's more than one senator a day. Now, the slush fund is on very, very thin ice. That is clear. A bad day, as I said to Chris, for a slush fund, for Trump's slush fund. And if people keep pushing back, which given all those lawsuits, I expect they will, that ice could very well break >> accountable here. I think he's going to throw a fit. And I think right now when it comes to the 1.8 8 billion or 1.776 billion fund. I think he might back down. We see some people in the White House. We see Repent Republicans in particular kind of expressing some concern. I don't see that this fund would move forward because when you look at the legality of it, I think fraud is the right term to use as these judges pointed out, right? Cuz I mean, he was effectively this was this is a robbery, right? And it was a settlement after an attempted robbery of $10 billion in taxpayer funds to himself as we talked about on the show.

[00:05:55]you know, you talk about it nightly, you're always talking about these griffs. And he basically settled with himself and one of the fundamental parts of this, the judge said he wants to see whether or not Trump colluded with um basically himself to to to greenlight this. I think it's, you know, given he's got a little bit of a history of collusion as well on top of this, I think it's pretty clear that he did in fact weigh in on this. And you have Todd Blanch at the DOJ, his personal former personal attorney who's still acting as his personal attorney. But he gets mad if you bring that up.

[00:06:24]>> There was a lot of shock when Trump's settlement was announced. Do you think this fund is actually going to come to fruition because people I talked to in the business community? Some are definitely willing to look the other way. But I haven't come across anyone who says right on this is a good idea.

[00:06:41]And I don't know of any voting groups that are saying yes, this is what I've asked for.

[00:06:46]>> Nor are some Republican congressman saying this is a good idea. I think that's where that's where it's going to you know the fulcrum point is and and I also think that with the writer is not being discussed enough which is his past and future immunity from all IRS audits examinations of himself business his family and the trusts. So it's not just a 1700 you 17 1776 uh amount of money but it's also this other piece that is unprecedented in in US history as far as tax treatment is going. No no no one gets immunity from future examinations past present and future for that matter.

[00:07:18]So yeah, I don't I actually think and and I would agree with to a certain extent what if it's the courts or if it's Congress, I think they're going to turn thumbs down on this ultimately.

[00:07:26]>> Now, let's turn We still do not have an agreement on Iran. The president, the president's allies um put out every possible smoke signal that says we want out, this thing's over. But the president has been teasing this this peace deal for quite some time. Based on what you know, where do things really stand? uh the US is essentially capitulating to Iran but >> how explain >> so there's maybe one good thing on the reporting that's come out about this memorandum of understanding the one positive thing for the US is reopening the straight of Hormuz that US wants that to happen it could help bring energy prices down but in terms of what >> yes but to be clear the straight of Hormuz was open before we struck Iran so if all we get is the straight of opening then essentially we got worse than nothing >> correct and then every other major point is demand that the nuclear material be removed. Those negotiations are pushed off for 60 days afterwards and there's no definitive conclusion. There's nothing in this agreement about missiles. 70% of Iran's missile stockpile has survived this. They can fire those missiles any time at the Persian Gulf area, all those refineries and um and pipelines and cause another um oil crisis. Uh there's no agreement in terms of Iran's armed forces and particularly their proxies. This was one of the main things when Trump had the speech on February 28th. We were going to take out their proxies. That hasn't been addressed as all at what at all.

[00:08:50]And there's even notes in this agreement, the draft one about a great chunk of money like more than hundred billion dollars in Iranian assets going back to Iran. He attacked and savaged President Obama for only returning 1.5 billion. So, it's, you know, he's done a great job, I think, of talking this up and keeping the stock market up maybe by constantly teasing a solution here. But what's this agreement is capitulation by the United States. It's a win for Iran.

[00:09:19]>> The New York Times has a new piece out that they said Trump's moves on Iran have more to do with his mood, how he's feeling, than any actually any actual strategy. How do you see it? Well, you know, when Trump does press conferences, he has a move he calls the weave. Yes.

[00:09:36]Where he starts talking about perhaps the issue at hand and then starts rambling about Biden or Obama or Hillary Clinton or a sports team. And he insists that there's a method to that madness, even if like the the shambolic press conference goes on for 90 minutes. That appears to be how he handles the negotiations to end the war he started with Iran. Um, at one minute it's uh Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Then the next it's we already took out their uranium and it's just nuclear dust. His words. So the seriousness of the negotiations, the seriousness of the ideas he's putting forth seem to be on a whim uh easily discarded and whatever was the biggest thing he was talking about with his senior adviserss or international negotiators one day might not be of any interest to him the next. Yeah, I mean I think that that's well put and and you know some of his allies have previously tried to say like oh this is this unpredictability is for a purpose. You know he's doing he's trying to act crazy in order to get concessions which I guess is the madman theory. But the problem is if you do the madman theory and you have no theory, you're just left with a madman, right? There was no theory of the case here. There's no actual goals. There's no actual sought out concessions here. David, as you've outlined and also in your reporting, basically what is on the table right now for this deal is to solve a problem that was created by the war itself on February 27th, as you outlined, the straight of horror moves, but that was the day before the strikes. It was open and now we're trying to get right back to that. We're not even talking about >> and saying, "Can you please take the tolls out?"

[00:11:09]>> Yeah, folks, I don't like the way Trump wrote his statement. I'm not going to read it all out to you, but this is like, look, this is my opinion. This has not been this is not a court of law thing. I want to make that clear. But I think Trump is inciting threats, potentially fatal threats against this judge in a similar way to what he did in previous cases. Do you remember before Trump in between the two Trump presidencies, he was in various civil and criminal trials and in one of the trials, he like leaked information about the judge or the judge's family. Uh, and in another one, his sons were making comments. And then in one, he shared an image of himself holding a baseball bat.

[00:11:50]And then in the other frame of the image was the judge's face. The implication, you know, being that he was going to take a baseball bat and crack it over the judge's head. Trump denies that, of course. Um, but like, you know, we can we can all do put two and two together, right? that there was a reason why the judges in some of these cases basically had to hide the juries, had to tell the juries to be anonymous.

[00:12:16]And after the cases, the judges said, in one of the cases, the judge said, you know, now that the case is over, you're free to disclose yourself should you choose. Like, I can't compel you to be anonymous forever, but I highly recommend you stay anonymous. Again, the implication being that because you've reached a ruling unfavorable to Donald Trump in that particular case that people will take vengeance on you. And the way Trump keeps naming the judge in a statement, saying he should be ashamed of himself, saying the judge would rather see institutions die than do his job and protect America and all of that.

[00:12:54]Donald Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. In my view, this is a man who has incited and he knows what happens. one time I think he he released like Obama's address or something and then like some guy went over there and the Secret Service luckily saw this happening and nothing like no one was harmed thankfully. But Trump knows that when he says his supporter commands them to do something or even just mentions a name of somebody who opposes him that some number of people will threaten him that person.

[00:13:26]And Trump continues to do it anyway. He knows what he's doing.