“MONSTER UPDATE!” Trump Gets BAD NEWS in Court | Major Legal Blow

Added: 2026-06-10

[00:00:00]relates to Donald Trump's $ 1.776 billion slush fund for January 6th insurrectionist. Can you explain what just happened?

[00:00:06]>> Ryan, the story is kind of a big deal for a couple of reasons. A long time serving judge, Judge Brinkma, who sits in the Eastern District of Virginia, um she's been on the bench more than 30 years. She is revered and frankly feared sometimes by both prosecutors and defense attorneys. She just put a temporary stop to what's being called the $ 1.7 billion dollar slush fund, the insurrectionist fund, the cop beater fund, because that's who it looks like um stands to to get payouts from this taxpayer funded um slush fund. So So Brian, in some brand new litigation that was brought by a number of plaintiffs, we'll talk about who they are in a minute, Judge Brinkma just said, "Stop stop everything dead in its tracks." And she issued a temporary restraining order. And let's unpack why she did that. So the plaintiffs in the case, let me just read off really quickly who they are. These are the people that brought a lawsuit to put a stop to this insane, immoral, even unholy fund that is designed to pay out people who among others attacked police officers on January 6th. So some of the plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd. He's actually the lead plaintiff. Who is Andrew Floyd? Well, guess what? He was the deputy chief of the capital siege unit who was responsible for investigating, indicting and prosecuting and supervising the prosecutions of on January 6. So he has a real dog in this fight. Of course, he was, you know, pretty quickly unlawfully terminated in the second Trump administration. Also, Jonathan Caravell, who is he? Well, he's a California professor who was arrested during uh his participation against some um you know, ICE enforcement sweeps that were, you know, completely out of control, running rough shot over the the constitutional rights of so many. So, he is somebody who has a a different kind of standing, a different dog in the fight. And then there was Common Cause, which is a a nonprofit organization fighting for the rule of law, and two unnamed Capitol police officers, unnamed, at least in the original court filing. So, here is what's going on. The plaintiffs in the case brought this suit against the Department of Justice and they said, "We want an expedited briefing schedule. We want to do this pronto because, you know, we're burning daylight and we don't want these dirty payments from this illegal and unconstitutional fund to start being made because then it will be much harder to claw it back from the recipients." So the Department of Justice, Brian, this is kind of delicious. They said, "Oh, no, Judge, no, no, no. We need more time. We need more time." What were they trying to do?

[00:02:26]In my opinion, they were trying to delay. So maybe we can start pushing these payments out and it will be that much harder to stop. And here is what Judge Brinkam has said. It's very short but really important. She said that the plaintiff's expedited motions for briefing schedule. They wanted to do it all pronto um is denied. But why is it denied? Well, the defendants, the Department of Justice opposed the motion requesting additional time to respond because full briefing of the issue will enhance the ability of the court, the judge to make a sound decision. The plaintiff's motion is denied and here comes the money line. However, to ensure that no funds are inadvertently dispersed from the anti-weaponization fund while plaintiffs motion is pending, it is hereby ordered that defendants, the Department of Justice, the Trump administration are enjoined, meaning they are prohibited from taking any further action pursuant to the creation which includes the transferring of money to the fund, the consideration of any claims submitted to the fund, and the dispersing of any funds from the fund.

[00:03:30]Period. Oh, and by the way, I will see you all in court on Friday, June 12th at 10:00 a.m. and we're going to we're going to get our arguments on. Okay, I paraphrased that last part. Judge Brinkham didn't put it exactly that way, but and I will be in court on that day.

[00:03:44]This is in my backyard and you can bet I will be covering that live and we'll be bringing it to our viewers here on the legal breakdown damn near in real time.

[00:03:50]So listen, this is um a really important and significant step forward in freezing, you know, the Trump administration's immoral, you know, attempt to pay people for beating police officers, to pay people for having tried to criminally stop the certification of Donald Trump's loss, to pay people to try to bring our democracy to a grinding halt. And Judge Brinkma appointed by uh President Clinton 33 years ago is well known as a jurist who is willing to take on any challenge unflinchingly whether politically charged or not. Today I would argue is a good day for the rule of law and by extension a good day for the American people. But what do the appeals options look like? Because it feels like the end of the line is always the US Supreme Court where Trump basically has a veto against any any uh decisions that he doesn't like from any lower courts. So, what is the what does the process after uh this look like?

[00:04:41]>> All right, Brian, the perfect question because for the time being, this is not appealable. This is what we call just an interlocuatory matter. It's a scheduling matter and this temporary restraining order, I just read you the list of don'ts where, you know, Judge Brinkma drew that line in the sand and said, "You will not act in any way on this weaponization fund." This is not an appealable issue. Frankly, it would take longer to bubble this thing up on appeal than, you know, it would take to get to the next court date on June 12th. So listen, for the moment we take the win, but moving forward, you know, once she actually enters a preliminary injunction, which is assuming she does, which is again typically not an appealable issue, then we will start to talk more about, okay, what court rulings are appealable in real time and which ones aren't. But as of right now, I think our American tax dollars in this corrupt scheme to, you know, give away $1.7 billion of them, our tax dollars are safe at least until June 12th.

[00:05:35]Glenn, is there anything that might suggest based on reading the tea leaves how this might go? Is there anything that the judge said, for example, that might suggest how how they'll ultimately rule in this case? So, Brian, I don't believe there's been a court hearing yet. So, I don't think Judge Brinkma has said anything from the bench. I think what we have right now is this order that was just issued. So, that is the only insight we have into what she's thinking or how she intends to handle things moving forward. I can tell everybody and and you know, listen, we've got to sort of be uh fully transparent here that there are some roadblocks, there are some hurdles that the plaintiffs are going to have to overcome. The biggest one I see is what's called standing. Do these plaintiffs have a direct dog in the fight? And here's where it may get hung up a little bit, at least preliminarily.

[00:06:14]So, first of all, they're going to attack the legality of the creation of this uh fund in the first place. And I think that is something that they'll probably have the ability to challenge.

[00:06:24]But I can promise you, Brian, the Department of Justice lawyers, Department of Justice, for purposes of engaging in this nefarious litigation, I'm not talking about the career public servants who were there before Donald Trump, and they'll be there after Donald Trump. They're not the ones putting their name or their fingerprints on this litigation. These dirty lawyers will probably go into court and say, "Well, you know what, judge, these specific plaintiffs don't have standing. They don't have a dog in the fight yet." Why do I say that? Well, because there's nothing to indicate that any of these people that they're complaining about, like the folks who were convicted for attacking the capital that day, there's no telling that they're actually going to get payouts. So maybe they either don't have standing or their claims are not ripe. Ripe is also a term of art in the law, which means, you know, the issue hasn't come to a head yet. It hasn't come to fruition. So at this point, the court is not yet ready to litigate whether these plaintiffs have the ability to bring this lawsuit right