The Beat With Ari Melber 5/29/26 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 29, 2026

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]with some major legal news. In the story that we've been covering, I have told you that it's probably illegal for Donald Trump to try to seize your tax dollars and give them to ex-convicts, including the people who attacked police on January 6th. We're not at the end.

[00:00:14]We're at the beginning, but in the first legal test, Donald Trump has lost the first round on this today in court. a federal judge blocking the entire thug fund, both the dispersement of funds and even the review of claims. The whole thing is paused as the first round step.

[00:00:31]In fact, the judge says that to ensure no funds are irreversibly dispersed, meaning they don't trust these guys to hand out some funds and then get them back. It's paused while this review is underway. The judge is ensuring your taxpayer money will not be handed out while they go through this process.

[00:00:50]Obviously, if you followed the news on any case, you remember that it takes longer than this because you'd have to have fuller motions. You have a big hearing. You might even have a trial depending on the case, right? This is them saying upfront, pause. This could be illegal, not your money. And then we go through the rest of the review. It's not what they call the lawyers call a merits decision where we're at the end.

[00:01:12]The judge said it's important that the status quo be maintained until this review goes forward. This is a huge loss for Donald Trump. A loss potentially on the substance because you don't get a setback like this if you're doing something that's totally legal, but also a loss on the process. the cynical way that Donald Trump and his increasingly extreme, sometimes lawless leadership at the DOJ seem to say, "Well, we'll just test everything, flood the zone, do a lot of illegal stuff, try to put his name on a bill, try to rename the Kennedy Center, and and you know, we'll flood the zone like Steve Bannon wanted, and we'll get away with it at least some of the time." We are watching more lawsuits flood the zone back, which may seem exhausting and a sad statement on the what it takes to keep a lawful democracy right now in our country, but also, as I've told you, a good thing when regular people and government veterans and others step up and say, "No, we're going to take you to court.

[00:02:04]We're going to fight just as hard." The judge noting the step was necessary because Trump's DOJ also declined a request to commit. This would have been a compromise, but they don't do compromise to commit to simply not transferring money to the fund or paying claims until the next scheduled date of review. This is a big one. We're at the beginning, not the end. And with this Supreme Court, you never know what they might take kindly on. Maybe they are as anti- police as Donald Trump and Todd Blanch. Maybe they think that there is no rule of law anymore and Congress shouldn't be involved in appropriating funds. Maybe this Supreme Court will say, "Yep, they want to take your tax dollars and hand them off to people who attack and brutalize cops."

[00:02:44]Maybe. Or maybe not. Because this one looks like they pushed way too far.

[00:02:50]We've been following this news obviously since it broke today on this network.

[00:02:53]The lead council saying this.

[00:02:57]There is no authority for this fund. The president has no authority to create the fund. But there's also a range of constitutional problems with this fund beyond the lack of authority and separation of powers. Uh the fund itself, the way it's been described, it clearly violates the first amendment. It seeks to penalize or it seeks to prioritize some people as opposed to other people. There's a laundry list of claims here and a laundry list really of harms in the way our various clients have been harmed. Uh but I think the main thing here is the president just doesn't have authority to do this at all.

[00:03:32]There are many ways people are attacking this. Congress could also step up. If the Republicans in Congress who've said they oppose it, including Mitch McConnell, wanted to act to oppose it, they they could do that. And as the opposition and the criticism builds, maybe they will. This is stemming from a particular case brought by people who said they would be harmed by this type of fund. That includes a January 6 prosecutor, Andrew Floyd, who was later ousted by Bondi. And he says he was wrong by Trump's DOJ. and yet under these rules seems to be ineligible. They also say it violates the separation of powers as I mentioned because Congress isn't funding this. And if you can take billions without Congress, why can't you take tens of billions? That's kind of how the law works. Uh you have to be very careful with precedents like this.

[00:04:16]So there will be a hearing on June 12th about all this. And I mentioned other court losses. The judge also ruling against Trump's really ham-handed effort to take the Kennedy Center, which of course we all know honors a president who was killed in office and postumously honored this way, and slap his name on there. Trump also is doing the other things that can't be stopped as quickly in real time, like tearing down buildings connected to the White House, erecting his little wrestling birthday party, and doing other things that are designed, as I mentioned, to rush, to shock, and on and make people say, "Well, I guess he can do it." But that's a criminal mindset.

[00:04:58]I'm not saying Donald Trump is a criminal through and through. Indeed, many of his cases were never resolved.

[00:05:04]But trying to just do something to show you can get away with it, that's not leadership. It's not strategy. It's a criminal mindset. And committing a crime or breaking the law and then waiting for the government to catch up with you doesn't mean you can legally do it. It just means you did it. This is not a close legal case, which is why we didn't actually summon the best lawyers in the land tonight. Instead, we brought on Tim Miller, uh the Bullwark podcast host who's got experience in democracy building and Republican politics back in the day, uh and I think is a smart thinker about where we go from here. Uh and professor, uh Jason Johnson from Morgan State University. Uh Tim, I say that >> smart legalish mind, you know, legal adjacent. Do you have to go to law school to be a quote smart legal mind?

[00:05:51]I've met some pretty stupid people that went to law school, to be honest.

[00:05:54]>> I agree with that. And I think we've all been going to law school together, but but I meant in all seriousness because >> as you know, it's not a close case. No.

[00:06:01]>> So, we're not going to go through every statutory constitutional argument here.

[00:06:05]I wonder what you think about the sign that things are moving faster against this in the courts and the co-equal branch. How do you move forward and build on that?

[00:06:15]>> Well, look, like we're seeing some trends with where he's failing and where he's succeeding, right? Because the DOJ uh you know, he is politicizing the Justice Department in two ways. One is right to go after political foes and to try to punish people and the other way is to reward his his political allies, right? And up till basically this ruling on the thug fund, they've been pretty successful at rewarding political allies, right? Like if you committed a crime and you're a friend of Trump or a donor of Trump, uh the pardons are for sale. You know, he does blanket pardons of everybody on January 6. Obviously, we've talked about um you know, we've seen so many quotes of people who, you know, who have left the administration who are in the um you know, you know, public corruption uh division or in the crypto oversight division basically saying like this is a if you're a friend of the president, this is the golden age for doing crimes, right? So, that part of the politicization of the Justice Department has gone well. What's gone very poorly is his attempt to go after foes and they've just been stepping on rakes left and right. Everybody walks free. Jim Comey is walking free despite his sea shell post. Barack Obama walks free. Chris Krebs, you know, there's no, they've not had any success there. So, this thug fund is interesting because it's like the first overstep where he's tried to reward criminal allies where now the courts are like, "No, uh-uh."

[00:07:26]Like, that's just has gone too far. And I think that that is, you know, important as we try to roll back the broad scope of the way with which he's politicizing the Justice Department.

[00:07:35]>> Right. It's a key distinction. And it also relates to his shamelessness. Yeah.

[00:07:39]Uh Jason, no other president was shameless enough uh in the modern era to pardon seditionists. And JD Vance said they wouldn't. And you could take him at his word that he hoped they wouldn't because it was such a bad thing and in the long run very unpopular, very politically opposed. Uh military households, cop households don't look kindly on it. Uh and the shamelessness allowed him to do that to Tim's point.

[00:08:04]And yet here he's overstepping in a way that still requires government action.

[00:08:08]And it's not a unitary pardon power, >> right? And and that's part of the problem here, Ari. I mean, thank goodness for the courts in this particular instance, and thank goodness for some Republicans who said, "Okay, perhaps this is a bridge too far." But we we have to understand that what the president is trying to do here isn't just a violation obviously of the law, but is a violation of political and cultural norms. But he's been rewarded for it at the ballot box every single time he's tried something like this.

[00:08:35]Right. like like the list of people that you could say are much more deserving of a billion dollar fund. We we've got Gulf War veterans, right, who who could still use money because they're dealing with Gulf War syndrome. We've got we still have victims who are alive from the Tulsa bombing who've never been gotten any sort of recompensation from the city of Tulsa who bombed the whole city. So, what he is saying is I will prioritize and this is why his numbers are sinking.

[00:08:59]I will prioritize my friends, my violent terrorist friends and cronies and and and crypto bros and everything else like that over every other person who has ever faced any violation or difficulty from this country. That's why there's this kind of push back. But I hope it doesn't stop with the courts and I hope that politically it ends up being consequences for him at the ballot box and perhaps more Republicans breaking from uh basically doing whatever he asked in Congress.

[00:09:23]>> Yeah. And the link then backed him to the end of the first term was that Trump was so chased and maybe fearful of consequence exiting office having failed to hijack the election that he claimed and pretended that he was against the violence. Uh I've shown this violence and then the clip before. I'm going to run it back. I don't know if you've ever been to like if you go to like a a reggae dance hall club.

[00:09:46]>> They restart the song. They run it back.

[00:09:48]>> I went to a reggae spot in Adams Morgan in college.

[00:09:50]>> There we go. DC. We're gonna keep You like that, Jason?

[00:09:55]>> I do. I do.

[00:09:57]>> Okay, good.

[00:09:57]>> I know Adam Morgan. I know. I I I would not be surprised if I'm vaguely aware of the club that Tim was referring to.

[00:10:02]>> Bookum. Was it Buke? I'm going deep into my memory. It's been a while. I think it was. Does that mean anything, Jason, in DC?

[00:10:08]>> No, I'm thinking more like Club Dinosaur on a Thursday, but it could I >> I don't know Club Dinosaur, but when I worked on Capitol Hill, it is Friday.

[00:10:15]We'll just, you know, waste some time.

[00:10:17]Um, Left Bank, >> anybody remember that one? bank.

[00:10:23]>> Yes.

[00:10:25]Yes, I do remember Left Bank. I don't know why, but I do actually remember >> Adams Morgan. So, for any DC viewers, we hope this was was less annoying than to the rest of the country. Uh, but Tim, I'm going to run it back.

[00:10:35]>> This is the violence, and this was what Trump was claiming.

[00:10:50]Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay.

[00:11:08]>> Yeah. Well, that was it's interesting.

[00:11:10]That was January 7th, not January 6th, right? It took him a day to get there and it's on the teleprompter and I I think he wasn't giving his real thoughts there. He was giving his teleprompter thoughts but he felt chased to your point about how he felt chasened. Right.

[00:11:21]One parallel between January 7th, 2021 and now is he's actually feeling political consequence from this from within his own base, right? Like obviously everyone comes back aboard eventually. Kevin McC we we all know the history. Kevin McCarthy goes down there.

[00:11:37]But like for a period of time his poll numbers like really sank and I think he felt like he had to do that to have you know future political power. Um now we're at a different time. He's in his second term. He's a lame duck. Like his poll numbers are as low as they were on January 7th. But does he care about that? Like there's not a ton of evidence that he cares about that. And I think that he actually cares more about revenge against his foes and rewarding his allies and having this thug fund that he can use to give people cover if they want to act in his favor in the future. I I think that's more important to him than his political poll standing in the moment.

[00:12:08]>> I think your theory has a lot of merit and is different than we've been trained to think about traditional secondterm presidents. Yeah. It's the ways that he's always different and there is a a guile uh a venal obsession with getting these things done >> before the midterms and sen Republic Republican senators are saying, "Oh, well, here's how we could lawfully try to position to win those elections." And Trump seems to say, "Actually, I'm just going to try to settle all my scores before then." Yeah. Well, and this takes us, you know, I don't want to catastrophize too much on a Friday night, but this like takes us to looking ahead to the midterms, right? Like they've tried a bunch of stuff when it comes to cheating on the midterms. Some of the stuff failed. You know, the the redistricting efforts uh didn't work as well as it could. They end up getting an assist from the Supreme Court. You know, I I think that we're going to have free and fair elections. But, uh, you know, what if there's a what if the Senate comes down to one state and you end up in a situation like we're in in in in Georgia uh from the 2020 election and he has this fund out there. I you remember what Trump was doing? He's calling Brad Raffensburgger. He's calling local officials in Michigan.

[00:13:08]>> You know, I mean, it's not, you can't put it past somebody like Trump to say, "Hey, I've got a billion dollar slush fund that I could hand out to you if you are the election official in whatever, you know, in Maricopa County, Arizona."

[00:13:20]And I think that he wants to have that that optionality.

[00:13:24]>> Yes. And that's why tonight's ruling, you said, well, you said a bummer. I think the motivation is a bummer.

[00:13:30]>> Yeah. But we also have tonight's ruling that says, well, anyone up and down the federal government who doesn't have the immunity that the president might gets in a lot of trouble if they try to break this. And so just stopping the money right now goes to it. Cuz we >> Yeah, I think it's meaningful. We've reported on how >> uh the effort is not just about the past, it's about building the future shock troops to your point, funding it.

[00:13:50]I I have so much is going on. I have this uh new new um uh addendum in the same case. This is a Trump v IRS related. And interestingly, Jason, uh, it shows that the judge is also questioning whether there was any, uh, deceit or malfeence in the misuse of the underlying IRS case to even set up the fund. So, this is breaking. U, basically, I want to be clear, this is kind of bad news for Trump that the judge is looking seriously at it. But unlike the other thing I mentioned, this isn't like a resolution of it. Um but to the question of whether this whole thing is a is a scam, uh the judge says um there are grievous allegations um that this case that's that the original IRS case was dismissed solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that may have been quote collusive from the start. Everyone remembers collusion.

[00:14:43]Don't do it. Uh and that was only filed to provide what was basically fake quote legality for an unlawful uh settlement.

[00:14:50]Uh and then citing the the motion, Jason, the judge says uh that the the critics of Trump here point to the fact that the settlement includes a three paragraph addendum that bars and precludes the US allegedly or or purportedly from pursuing those tax claims against Trump. Uh highlights the fact that the defendants didn't even try to defend against the claims. Um and finally, uh that the claims were quote clearly untimely.

[00:15:16]uh meaning that the Trump folks were going to lose anyway because they filed too late. Uh and so the whole thing is, I'm paraphrasing, allegedly a scam. The judge isn't saying they agree. The judge is saying that is a legitimate enough set of questions that Trump the Trump DOJ is going to have to answer for it.

[00:15:32]Um again, Jason, that's my legal summary. You can give us your your general reaction, which is it looks like uh this is running into a lot of heat right away in court. In simple parliament, a president who will come up with a thug fund has always lived a thug life, right? Like we've seen this from Donald Trump for years. This kind of self-deing, this sort of creating fake cases and fake lawsuits and threatening then back and forth to get payoffs. This is how he has operated for almost the entirety of his business career. And this one of the things that got him dragged into court in New York. What I think is helpful is that this is being broken down level by level. It's like, no, not only is this probably illegal, this is probably problematic. This initial claim is problematic. But as you mentioned at the beginning, he's just going to try again. He will try to find some other weakness in the system. He'll find some other agency that's less likely to fight back. And that's why people have to be vigilant. Again, not just from the legal standpoint, but Republicans and Democrats and other people have to stand up and say, "Look, no part of this is ever going to be acceptable. We're not going to offer any sort of thug reparations under any circumstances and shut down the conversation because he'll simply try again from another agency.

[00:16:40]>> Yeah, you mentioned thug life. Uh Jason, it makes me wonder whether you know the recipe for thug passion.

[00:16:50]>> It's a skit. You actually have me this.

[00:16:52]I'm trying to remember. I'm trying to remember all the parts. Please, please enlighten me. This part I forgot. Well, according to, of course, Thug Life is the the moniker of Tupac, and according to the ingredients as provided at the beginning of the song, it's one part Alise, two-part Crystal.

[00:17:09]>> Two part Crystal style. Yes. Yes. All the things that they'll be trying to pour out in the brand new East Wing.

[00:17:15]>> Tim is Tim is wondering where he ended up.

[00:17:17]>> I'm impressed. Uh, I need Aunt's indie rock lyric quizzes. You know, that's really where I would shine.

[00:17:23]>> Who's your favorite indie band?

[00:17:24]>> Yeah, probably LCD Sound System.

[00:17:25]>> Respect.

[00:17:26]>> Yeah.

[00:17:26]>> Yeah. Yeah, that's what I would need.

[00:17:28]>> Well, we'll end with this. You know, we're not superficial around here. We We go We try to go to the substance. We try to do our homework.

[00:17:33]>> Okay.

[00:17:34]>> But I'm going to say it. I hope you don't mind a compliment on live TV.

[00:17:37]>> I don't.

[00:17:38]>> You look great. Who are you wearing?

[00:17:41]>> I have no idea. It's just a black jean shirt, baby. I brought these pants in Brooklyn.

[00:17:45]>> You don't know where you got the shirt?

[00:17:46]>> I have no idea. No, I can't recall. You want to look at it?

[00:17:49]>> Well, I'm not going to take it off your back, but it looks I mean, it has that look of like the distressed denim. We see that a lot in New York.

[00:17:55]>> Yeah. Thanks, man. Yeah, Jason, >> I'm doing my best.

[00:17:58]>> We try to keep our spirits up even in hard times. I appreciate you both. I wish you great weekends. Uh Tim Miller and Jason Johnson.

[00:18:05]>> Thanks, Ari.

[00:18:06]>> Appreciate it. We got a lot of breaking news. I bred from that new court filing.

[00:18:10]We also have Pam Bondi talking Epstein for the first time and saying errors were made. New details as well on that note we reported on. We're back with more news in 90 seconds.

[00:18:24]They may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

[00:18:29]>> It's sitting on my desk right now.

[00:18:33]>> No, it wasn't. Uh that is one of those moments that lives on in this Epstein saga. Pam Bondi making claims she could not support. Later ousted as attorney general. She was back in Washington though, and this is a big deal today.

[00:18:47]going under oath facing lawmakers questions under the force of law about Epstein and specifically the Trump DOJ's handling. Now, there was the effort to have this as a more public on camera hearing, but then she was fired. House Republicans changed the terms. Still though, useful to get her talking to Congress at all. Here though, Bondie wouldn't have to answer the questions technically under oath and the proceedings would not be videotaped.

[00:19:10]Although, it's similar to under oath when you speak to Congress because there are consequences if you lie and the DOJ wants to do anything about it. They released her opening statement where she said the DOJ did blunder on redactions, that there were errors. Now, you might be thinking, "Wait a minute. Is she outing herself? Is Pam Bonnie saying she made the errors?" No. This is Washington. This predates the Trump era where officials, if they're ever saying something bad happened, they're probably following it up with who's to blame. In her case, she blames her replacement, acting a G Todd Blanch. I delegated oversight over the process to him, she says. And so today was useful in some ways. Although House Democrats said that had there been true cooperation and transparency, it could have been far more useful.

[00:19:52]>> A disservice to the American people that this interview is not being recorded, videotaped, and then released to the American public. She said, and I quote, "Acting AG Blanch was managing the entire investigation." Pam Bondi confirmed that they had 6 million files in their possession and have only released 3 million.

[00:20:13]>> It's disgusting. It's a cover up in broad daylight.

[00:20:17]>> This interview is a smoke screen to try to show the American people that they are complying while they are not.

[00:20:25]>> A lot happened today and we have more details I'm going to I'm going to basically report on over time because we have different chunks that we learn. But I want to bring in our guest first.

[00:20:32]Gretchen Carlson, journalist, co-founder of Lift Our Voices, a former Fox News anchor, who has reported on this story with us before, and Josh Marshall, founder editor of Talking Points Memo.

[00:20:43]Uh Josh, what do you see as sort of the the big picture here as Bondi in the service of maybe blaming her replacement, who she's mad at, which is a thing anyone could relate to if you thought someone took your job. Um, she makes assertions here to Congress about errors by this DOJ.

[00:21:00]>> Yeah. Look, I see this as it it's part of the same story, which is um you know, they came in with uh an unpopular agenda. A lot of things they were lying about. And the last 6 months has basically been trying to keep all of that from blowing everything apart and breaking as many laws as they can. Uh switching the subject. Um, I still think that, you know, the reason that Donald Trump uh launched a war in Venezuela and then Iran at the beginning of this year was that he was getting more unpopular at home because of things like the Jeff Epstein files and all these things. And this was a way for him to show that he was still in charge, still has power. So all of this is part of, you know, it's all part of the same the same canvas trying to uh keep the consequences of their unpopular policies, his lies, the president's lies, um from catching up with them. And Gretchen, there are times where officials blame each other and it's it's just a big debate. Here we can report that before Bondi was out, Blanch was running point on this. uh he was signing the documents about the releases. He was overseeing that. He was making what were initially questionable claims about the volume of files. Uh what what do you see in this back and forth today that spilled into public view?

[00:22:22]>> Well, I think first of all, Blanch took over this whole investigation because Bondi bungled it so much in that clip that you showed earlier on. Um did she know that she was going to eventually be fired and she put the blame on him? No.

[00:22:35]But I think one of the biggest headlines coming out of today was also the fact that it was obviously a predetermined thing between Comr and Bondi that she would not discuss anything with regard to Donald Trump because every time that that came up today by the Democratic members of Congress, the Department of Justice lawyers who were in the room stood up and said, "No, she's not going to be answering those questions." So, I think that was an agreed upon term.

[00:23:01]Also, there were no other Republicans that came to this hearing today. That's also very telling. I'm sure their constituents would like to know that that they don't care enough about the Epstein files to be there in person. And and I also find it offensive that there are all these leads in the 3 million documents that have been released and yet nobody's looking into those at the same time that Trump continues to launch DOJ investigations into his enemies. I think we should be paying attention to that part of the story tonight as well. Yeah, important points and Gretch and relatedly we know that before the Epstein files were released, the DOJ was giving Trump notice about his name in them. Uh we have sources that Bondi was bristling at questions about what she and Trump talked about as you alluded to. Uh had a plan to basically rule that out. Um and allegedly lost or I should say reportedly according to a lawmaker in the room lost her temper.

[00:23:58]I also personally asked the former AG five times and five different questions about her conversations with President Trump, whether he directed her any at any given time on the Epstein files, what he knew, what he asked her to redact or not, and she refused to answer any questions about President Trump.

[00:24:23]>> Go ahead, Jen.

[00:24:25]>> Yeah. I mean, to to what I said, I think that was part of the deal. Um, another big bombshell that came out today, though, was that apparently the FBI scrubbed files before they even reached the DOJ. So now this panel, mainly the Democrats, are saying we got to get Cash Patel in here. I mean, we got to get him under oath to answer questions about why did the FBI scrub all these files and is that actually true? And if so, why did they do it before it got to the DOJ? You know, Bondi said today, "Yeah, we made mistakes, but that still is not giving us the answers that we need to really find out what's going on in these Epstein files."

[00:25:06]>> Understood. Josh, I want to also point out the the sort of the tentacles of this because there were two DOJ officials at today's interview. She's, of course, the recent but former attorney general.

[00:25:17]Democrats uh were critical of that. Uh they said that they repeatedly stepped in to stop Bondi from answering questions about those Trump conversations which we've discussed. Uh they're pretty high ranking. Um and reporters oppressed one of them.

[00:25:31]>> What's your response to to criticism that your that the presence of the department was a potential conflict for Miss Bondi given that her interests might diverge from the department?

[00:25:40]>> That is silly and not something for that is for her to consider and she apparently didn't see it as such. But why why did you uh tell her not to answer specific questions?

[00:25:49]>> Yeah, I'm not going to get into my reasoning.

[00:25:53]>> You know, the the Orwellian onion there is they go into the secret meeting to help someone avoid questions and they come out to dodge questions about the questions they help someone dodge.

[00:26:03]Washington and and and to say, "Well, she didn't have to dodge. I guess she decided to dodge on her own." You know, Donald Trump, his whole life, his whole career, his business career, his career in politics is always about playing for time, right? Change the subject, kind of kick the can down the road, uh uh obfiscate. And this is again, it's another example of that. And uh it all stems from the fact that he had the audacity to run on this as one of his central proof points of his campaign.

[00:26:36]and he's running against the the corruption and the pedophiles and the bad people with Jeff Epstein >> and he's a central player. You almost have to kind of wow.

[00:26:48]>> Oh yeah.

[00:26:48]>> Like I got to take my half off to you.

[00:26:51]That's that's that's bold, right? And and so we're, you know, still in this same uh uh playing for time. I think what we also see though is power is unitary, right? He is becoming less powerful. it is harder and harder to pull these things off. Uh we'd like to think that judges are totally indifferent to the political process.

[00:27:11]They're not. They have a sense of what's going, you know, going on in in the uh in in in the larger society. So, uh you know, kicking the can down the road.

[00:27:21]Well, yeah, judges are part of the the long-term class in our federal government, and there are pros and cons to that. But one of the pros is >> that some of these judges understand that picking the wrong fight early and then being demagogued is going to actually help the government defendant that they're trying to reign in. And so, even with Doge, people said that some of this seems pretty obvious. Why is it taking so long? And there were reasons, I think, that you alluded to. And now tonight, we've got these rulings. We've got the one I mentioned just in the prior block that is really hammering whether there was collusion and deceit.

[00:27:54]I actually have more on that. So, we're going to put in a quick break of more of this very busy Friday uh breaking news when we come back.

[00:28:03]Friday night coming out of the federal court system. This is in Trump versus IRS. That's the case that originally led to the other story we were covering tonight. a setback for Trump's attempt to misuse taxpayer dollars to pay off a fund for criminals, convicts, etc. Now, we have a judge saying, and this is different than the earlier filing I mentioned, this came out just moments ago here late in the day, that there's grievous allegations that the original way that this case was dropped could be premised on deception. Now, that's the judge referring to criticism. This is not a ruling yet on whether there was deception, but opening a process to review that. The allegations being that the case was dismissed to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that was collusive from the start. I'm back with Josh Marshall. Uh this is one that can get a little weedsy. Um as I mentioned and just to update viewers because this is a late day development, the judge is saying this is a credible question. This is a valid question of whether there was collusion, lies, deception, a kind of fake lawsuit to then get the fund that Trump wanted. That's bad news because it means it opens up a lane for that.

[00:29:12]Doesn't mean they'll ultimately lose.

[00:29:13]It's request briefs and maybe if the DOJ makes good arguments, the judge might still say, "I'm going to leave it alone." Um, but I'm wondering what you think of how this fits in. And it really builds on the conversation we've been having tonight. But really for weeks, um, then if you look around and feel like Trump's getting less popular, there's more outspoken Republican criticism, and there seem to be more court setbacks, that's cuz there are.

[00:29:34]Yeah. Look, you know, the the big the big takeaway of the last year and a half is that a lot of us grew up with the idea that uh the president has to follow the law, he has to enforce the law, all these kind of things. And we learned that the Supreme Court had created a world in which it's actually voluntary if the president feels really strongly about it. And that's kind of what we've been operating in for the last uh 18 months. And then but because of this slide of popularity, what we are now seeing show up is people, you know, look at the emperor's supposed new clothes and say, "You don't have any clothes because was it was this lawsuit collusive?" Well, it's the same guy on both sides. So, I think definitionally it is collusive. It can't not be collusive because it's the same person on both sides.

[00:30:18]>> You know, we try to be really evidence-based here. So I can tell the audience is a strong case or a weak case. I can't tell them it's illegal because the courts that's a fact determined by our court system. So I've been careful to say we'll see what the judge says. I will uh offer the evidence to your point that one of the questions about here is uh the judge says well is this a product of collusion and therefore a fraud on the court and then they say one of the questions is whether this was filing a quote frivolous lawsuit for the purpose of forcing a settlement. If it was that it can be thrown out and then it cites a case from 2023 precedent for that point. Okay. Well, all the evidence we have now that we know what they wanted is that this was that it was a lane to make up an excuse to get the billion plus dollars. Not a genuine case where they wanted the IRS to pay Trump.

[00:31:18]And the evidence for that is they didn't get the IRS to pay Trump. They're routing the money over here.

[00:31:23]>> Yeah. I mean look there are certain things like this that when again Trump is very good at creating this climate of mystification around us in which we all kind of know it doesn't make sense but everybody sort of kind of feels like they have to operate in within this kind of you know fantasy scenario they they they create and once once you pose the question or the judge posed the question on the on the recommendation of the of the of the lawyers to say like was this a real case and issue were there conflicting parties? Was there an actual uh you know contest? Well, of course there's not. It's the same person on both sides. So, there's a lot about there's a lot about that kind of climate of mystic mystification that is created by Trump that uh once people start like kicking it a little, it can fall apart very quickly.

[00:32:11]>> Well, mystification is a great way to to cover it because it's it just gets you get subsumed by it. It's like a a more politicized Alice in Wonderland trick and you and you realize that what normally would be how you reason with something or a good faith exchange, if it's the Cheshure Cat and they're disappearing, you say, "Oh, no, wait. My time is being wasted." To your point about both sides of it, I mean, it's like >> you can't throw yourself a surprise party.

[00:32:36]>> You cannot surprise yourself. Yes.

[00:32:38]>> And you cannot sue yourself. You can't avail yourself of the of the system and the costs of federal litigation by suing yourself.

[00:32:48]>> Correct.

[00:32:48]>> Other people would be thrown out of court long beforehand.

[00:32:51]>> Yes. Yes. And uh again, that is that is part of Trump's magic. But when you start, you know, everybody people want to people at a at a at a primal level want to back a winner. And when someone looks as weak as Trump is now, people start to look and say, "Uh, >> this is a little >> a little more than I can I can go along with or that I can pretend has any element of of truth to it." And that that's really why you have this kind of uh crisis, but also kind of groundhog day that that the whole country is in right now where you have stuff like this. you and and uh you have the fact and this is what Republicans are worrying about as he is getting less popular. He keeps doubling down on the most toxic parts of his agenda and that kind of even that to make sense of that. Why why are you doing that? Why are you you know uh you're getting less popular. Everybody's talking about prices and you're talking about a $2 billion thug fund and and to make a ballroom. This is like you know Marie Antuinette stuff. So that's why we're in a very uh you know unstable kind of moment in American history going into this election because uh he is not following any kind of normal rules, not just like rules in terms of the law, >> but even uh kind of just the normal self-interest that that that politicians normally follow.

[00:34:15]>> Exactly. And so then you say, "All right, it's it's people want to back a winner. Republicans need winners if they don't want to lose their entire careers." and they're looking at not just the next election, but the next two or three senators are on six-year timelines and going, "What am I going to be defending?" Um, and some of this stuff can't necessarily be memory hold.

[00:34:33]Uh, I I read from the motion. I'll read one more detail we didn't get to yet. If folks are wondering where this head heads, uh, the the judge has given the Trump folks a deadline of June 19th.

[00:34:42]That's fast by court standards to answer whether there are valid charges of collusion, whether the dismissal in the case was deception. So, was this all a fraud? And third, the question of whether the case should be reopened.

[00:34:55]That would be bad for Trump. Uh if it's reopened, then you can't have a $2 billion settlement because it was only by virtue of being closed that you got that. And that was paused as I mentioned earlier today. But number three, the question of whether case should be reopened because the court was quote the victim of a fraud uh by the Trump DOJ.

[00:35:12]Uh so there's a lot here as we follow this. Our thanks to Josh Marshall on more than one story. Uh coming up we look at the fallout over that Iran war that was just mentioned and Trump and his allies downplaying the damage as we look at inflation, credit card debt, and a lot more.