🚨SECRET $10 BILLION PLOT by Trump is FINALLY EXPOSED!!!

Added: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]Donald Trump is desperately trying to rush a settlement with himself before a court deadline in the case where he sued the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion.

[00:00:14]As we reported on the Midas Touch Network, this lawsuit that Donald Trump filed in a federal court in the Southern District of Florida blew up in his face where he alleged that he should be paid $10 billion for a data leak that included his and about 75 of 7,500 other high net worth individuals tax returns back in 2019 during Donald Trump's first term. Trump said this caused him emotional distress that his tax returns were leaked by this IRS contractor named Little John and that he should be paid $10 billion.

[00:00:51]Trump filed this lawsuit in January of 2026, but the federal judge, Judge Kathleen Williams, flagged the fact that she does not have or she may not have jurisdiction over the case where there's not a case in controversy since Donald Trump was bragging and boasting that since he's bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity against the Treasury Department and the IRS, which via executive order he makes the final decisions there. They're not independent agencies and Trump's been bragging, I already won the lawsuit. The judge was saying this might be a collusive case in Midas doing a lot of work there. Um, that does not involve actual adverse parties and if there's not true adversity, then there's not jurisdiction and I can't hear this case at all. So, the federal judge said, "Hey, Donald Trump, Treasury Department, IRS, separately file briefs explaining why you think I have jurisdiction and why there's real adversity here and come back to court in a few weeks." She made that order back on April 24th of 2026.

[00:02:01]And now we're learning from a new New York Times expose that when a judge puts forward orders like that, we know this before, that Donald Trump finds to tries to find ways not to act in good faith and find ways around it. So what Donald Trump is now ordering the Justice Department to do, according to this New York Times article, is rather than respond to the court's inquiry, the court's demand rather, that the parties, Trump, IRS, Treasury Department, separately explain why there's adversity, basically just to dismiss the case and enter into a settlement since this is not a case, I guess the DOJ believes, but we'll analyze it on this video, that requires court approval.

[00:02:46]Now, there are certain types of cases that require court approval. Class actions, for example, require court approval and court oversight.

[00:02:55]Settlements involving minors require court oversight. You have to do something called a minor's compromise.

[00:03:03]And when it comes to class actions, there's preliminary approval, final approval, there's notice requirements.

[00:03:10]Well, we're in unchartered territory here where the corruption, the scamming, the grift, and in my opinion, it's my opinion protected by the First Amendment, the criminality that pervades this regime is such that no one could ever fathom, well, what would happen if the president of the United States sues the government to try to get the taxpayers to pay $10 billion directly to the president? Now, you would think that would be one of the cases where a court would need to engage in some approval process. And perhaps in the future, there will be statutes that deal with precisely this anytime, I I it's unfathomable, I think, to lawmakers that they would even need to make a law about this in this past. Clearly, they would if they could fathom that a president would sue for $10 billion, but so Trump's plan and the DOJ plan, according to this DOJ expose according to this New York Times expose, is let's just have Trump enter into a settlement with the IRS, either pay him the $10 billion or pay him a billion dollars or pay him some money, but then maybe we also agree to some other terms. Maybe we don't do $10 billion, the article says. Maybe we do a few hundred million or maybe we do a billion, and then we also agree as a stipulation that the IRS is hereby prohibited from engaging in any further audits of Donald Trump in his personal capacity and in his business capacity.

[00:04:37]And in fact, all the existing audits by the IRS need to be stopped as part of the settlement.

[00:04:45]And so the DOJ figures, well, we're just not going to show up at the next court hearing. You know, Judge Kathleen Williams, she made a very important step also that we talked about here on the Midas Touch Network about appointing It was three of the top law firms that deal with, you know, real, you know, conflict of interest law, that deal with complicated tax issues, that deal with data breach cases to be what's called amicus curiae to provide information to the court as well about this whole arrangement. And so the Trump regime's response is literally, let's not show up, let's cancel the hearing, let's immediately enter into the settlement, and then we don't have to do anything because the case is dismissed, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over it anyway. So let's use the facade that a case is filed to settle. Now, I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Fed's YouTube channel, Talking Fed's podcast, and Talking Fed's Substack. Now, Harry, in my legal career and I'm sure in yours, there'd be lots of people who would say sometimes, "Oh, this is a case of first impression." And everyone would think, when they're the lawyer, that it's a case of first impression sometimes because, you know, they put themselves sometimes in the center of the universe. Sometimes it truly is. But, when we're dealing with these Trump related cases, we're truly in cases that I think were unfathomable to our founders, unfathomable heretofore to lawmakers because clearly there should be a court approval process.

[00:06:18]Clearly, the court should have, you know, even if not jurisdiction over the case, there should be some role that if the court was used as a facade for illegality, collusiveness, fraud, or something else, that the court can say, "I can't be even involved in this." And the remedy just can't be that there's not there's nothing the court can do about it. No, and I mean, so just think about the precedent this would set, Harry. So what? Now Donald Trump will just enter into arrangements with anything? Hey, Secretary of State, pay me a billion. Hey, so-and-so, pay me a billion. How is that How is that even possible, Harry? What do you think about all of this?

[00:06:56]Ben, this is a really, really big deal.

[00:06:58]I've been writing about it in the Substack, including this case, since February. On the one hand, it is a case, you could say, of first impression. On the other hand, it couldn't be older than the Constitution itself. Article 3 says flat out, cases are controversies.

[00:07:15]It's extremely well established. If you have a so-called collusive suit, where you pretend to be on the other side of the V, Trump v. IRS, but you're really in bed and have jumped the V on the same side, no jurisdiction. That is not a case or controversy, not something the federal courts even can hear. And they have been doing this. The Michael Flynn case, he sues them, but it by the time he does, he is completely uh on the same side, and he he brings a lawsuit where you have to show you lost.

[00:07:52]I mean, excuse me, that you you won.

[00:07:54]They didn't have probable cause. Flynn had pleaded guilty twice. He absolutely was guilty of the charges, but they said, "Nah, how's 1.25 million sound?"

[00:08:05]And that's absolutely collusive. And Judge Williams here was the first one to notice it, and she did it in the context. They bring the suit, and the first thing that the IRS does is say, "Give us 90 days, please, so we can work out a deal." She If she doesn't have jurisdiction, Ben, she can't even give a 90-day continuance. It's a non-case in the federal courts, and it really really matters because this order requires the DOJ to come up with the goods and either acknowledge, "We're on the same side, Todd Blanche. I do whatever Donald Trump tells me to.

[00:08:48]Plus, there's a regulation that tells me that I have to do whatever Donald Trump says. So, we're on the same side, so there's no jurisdiction, and this whole thing is a complete phony baloney."

[00:09:00]That's their one choice. This is what I wrote about at greater length in the Substack. Choice two is to say, "We really are adverse," but they'd be lying through their teeth. They're not adverse. And this is something This could be coming down the pipe, for example, with all of the January 6th defendants who now that they've been completely exonerated, the case has gone away, they want to bring cases saying, "Just as Michael Flynn did, how dare you actually charge us, and you now owe us money?" This is a common Trump technique where the Biden administration started something honest, US V somebody, uh and then Trump took it over and they completely switched sides and in really important cases, right? What does it mean to switch sides with a guy like Michael Flynn? What does it mean to change sides with uh with all the insurrectionists and what does it mean to change sides with Donald Trump? So, here is I think what they're trying to do and it freaking sucks. They have They're in this rock between a rock and a hard place for the 20th when the DOJ is going to have to tell this court, um we're adverse, yeah, we are, except the law and facts suggest otherwise, or we're not adverse and this is all a sham. And by the way, as you say, she's appointed great lawyers, Don Verrilli, the former Solicitor General, John Gleeson, former judge and legendary AUSA, Faith Gay, a great litigator and they are going to come in with real arguments saying there's no jurisdiction here, there's no case or controversy and that puts the DOJ in a very, very tight spot, not just for this phony baloney lawsuit, but for this whole um scheme of cases that they are doing. They want to avoid that like the plague and if they get away with this now, what they would do is a very quick papered over settlement and then, oh, we dismissed the case so we don't have to do the thing for the 20th. And that would be, you know, and they they really uh pushed to it finally and this this would be the craven way they they would try to get out. We'll see whether Judge Williams would say, well, I can't even approve the settlement, but you're right, if they really want to do this and just say, Mr. Flynn, help yourself to 1.25 million dollars. Stewart Rhodes, help yourself to a few million and we'll just keep it off the books and private and not even involve the courts. It's flagrantly, if you think about it, the DOJ does there's no jurisdiction here and if that's right, how the in the world can the DOJ settle the case? What are they settling? What risk of the people's treasury are they actually saying, "Ooh, we better get pony up some money to prevent this." If they're protecting the treasury as they are constitutionally bound to do, it's no freaking case. There's no risk to the treasury. And what they're going to try to do is quickly just put that under the carpet and and the same with the other cases they've already done and then make it all more or less off the books. Now the judges are finally hip to what they're doing. It's a big deal not just for the Trump part, but for an overall Trump strategy where they just go into bed. Same thing say in the Mar-a-Lago case, you know, just they jumped the V repeatedly. That means there's no jurisdiction and they hadn't figured that out until Judge Williams had and we'd been waiting with baited breath.

[00:12:47]What are they going to do on the 20th?

[00:12:49]Are they going to admit that it's not a real case or are they going to somehow try to claim it is as against John Gleeson and Don Verilli and instead it looks like they're going to try to just pretend and make it go away at the absolute dereliction of their job to protect taxpayers. It's a freaking scandal anyway you look at it if they get out of this order.

[00:13:15]Just pillaging.

[00:13:17]Pillaging from taxpayers and you and I were like, "What a farce. You're suing the government when you're in the executive branch and you're suing an executive branch and you make an executive order that requires your approval, so you're settling in essence with yourself using taxpayer money. But then you're like, even more farcical, we're not even we're going to just file the case for show amongst ourselves, and then dismiss it, and then settle it. And so the whole thing was just, you know, season that the the these shelved season of The Apprentice, which was so bad and so dystopian that nobody wants to watch.

[00:13:53]Everybody Subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Fed. Subscribe to his Substack. It's called Talking Fed. Subscribe to his podcast. It's called Talking Fed. As soon as this video ends, search Talking Fed. Thanks, Harry.

[00:14:07]Thanks, Ben. Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad-free videos, and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.