DOJ Refuses To Provide Evidence Judge Requires!

[00:00:00]So friends, nobody can accuse Todd Blanch and Donald Trump's other flunky DOJ attorneys of learning from their mistakes.

[00:00:12]They just filed something with the court telling the judge that the evidence she ordered them to provide is quote not necessary.

[00:00:27]Let's talk about that poor and obstinate lawyering because justice matters.

[00:00:51]Hey all, Glen Kersner here. So friends, not only is acting attorney general Todd Blanch unethical, I mean he has proved that time and again, but he is also really not very good at this lawyering thing.

[00:01:13]Let me set this one up. One week ago today, I was in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, watching litigation involving a challenge to the so-called weaponization fund, the $1.8 billion copers fund. That was the agreement that Todd Blanch struck with Donald Trump. Donald Trump sued his own government, the IRS, for10 billion dollar because during his first term, his tax returns were leaked.

[00:01:50]And then he dismissed the case against himself and then he negotiated a deal for himself with his lap dog, Todd Blanch. And Todd Blanch said, "Whatever you want, boss." And created legally created a $1.8 8 billion copers fund to give our tax dollars to the boots of Donald Trump's insurrection, the foot soldiers, you know, the people who went to the capital on January 6th and beat the hell out of police officers trying to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election win and keep Donald Trump in the presidency unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Of course, they deserve to be paid for their efforts.

[00:02:39]Donald Trump and Todd Blanch believe.

[00:02:42]Well, there was a legal challenge. A whole bunch of plaintiffs brought a lawsuit to put a stop to the cop beaters fund. And Judge Leone Brinkma in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia is presiding over the case. And here's what she said in court at last Friday's hearing. She said, "Listen, Department of Justice Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, if you want to convince me that you are not moving forward with the $1.8 billion weaponization fund, you need to file evidence in court in this case proving that to me. So, what I'm going to need from you is a sworn declaration under the penalties of perjury signed by you and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant saying you have killed rescended the $1.8 billion weaponization fund and it cannot be resurrected because that is what we in the practice of criminal law would call evidence in the case. Not anything you may have said to the Fox Entertainment Network. Not anything you may have said to Congress. Evidence in this case. I give you one week to file those declarations under the penalties of perjury. And then I will determine whether the case is moot. In other words, there is no longer any litigation necessary because the weaponization fund is officially and legally dead. Well, one week came and went and here we are.

[00:04:23]And now what Todd Blanch and his flunky underlings just filed in court is a disrespectful, obstinate motion where in substance they said, "One, we ain't filing shit." Okay, I'm paraphrasing there. Um they said no we are not filing the declarations because in our opinion they are quote not necessary.

[00:04:53]Oh and also we still want you to rule in our favor that the case is moot and we want you to dismiss it.

[00:05:03]Let's start with the new reporting and then we'll have a brief look at some of what these really poor DOJ lawyers put in today's court filing. This from ABC News. Headline DOJ refuses to issue signed declaration verifying anti-weaponization fund is dead. The Justice Department on Friday refused to issue a signed declaration from acting attorney general Todd Blanch verifying that it no longer intends to pursue President Donald Trump's anti-weaponization fund. The DOJ's refusal comes after a federal judge last week gave the administration 7 days to verify in a declaration that it wouldn't create the controversial fund.

[00:05:57]quote, "Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns." The DOJ said in a court filing Friday to US District Judge Leone Brinkma, who last week issued an injunction indefinitely blocking the administration from creating the fund.

[00:06:24]Judge Brinkma had given the Trump administration seven days to verify in a declaration from acting attorney general Todd Blanch and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant that it wouldn't create the fund, which she said would likely lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit she was overseeing against the fund. But in their filing Friday, the Department of Justice argued that Judge Brinkma's offer was a potentially unconstitutional infringement of the executive branch by effectively requiring testimony of top officials on a matter that the administration has repeatedly said would not be moving forward.

[00:07:08]The fund, which was announced last month by the DOJ to compensate those who alleged they were wrongfully targeted under the Biden administration, was proposed in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, as well as two civil claims for $230 million related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mara Lago estate, sparking accusations of selfdealing and a bipartisan uproar over the possible use of taxpayer money to pay riers who attacked the US capital on January 6th, 2021. In her ruling last week, Judge Brinkma pointed repeatedly to President Trump's own shifting statements in recent weeks about the fund, including his pointed attack on Judge Brinkma herself after she had temporarily paused the fund earlier this month in which he referred to her as a radical left judge.

[00:08:26]this quote from the judge. Quote, "When the president of the United States says he's disappointed that something is not going forward, Judge Brinkamus said that would only add to the evidence that the fund might rear its head in the future."

[00:08:44]And friends, here's just a little sampling of what Todd Blanch and his flunky underlings just filed in the case.

[00:08:53]The court stated that it will dismiss the case as moot only if acting attorney general Todd Blanch, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and the Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessant, file a declaration under the penalties of perjury that they will not take any action to create or operate the anti-weaponization fund and that the anti-weaponization fund will not proceed in any manner or under any name. Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns. The government, meaning Todd Blanch and his flunky underlings, has represented both in its filings and through statements by the acting attorney general before Congress that the challenged fund is not moving forward and will not move forward. The court, the judge is entitled to credit the government's affirmative representations, particularly when they have been orally repeated in court hearings, stated in formal court filings, and announced by senior officials.

[00:10:18]Accordingly, the court's demands are unnecessary.

[00:10:24]Okay, friends, three quick takeaways.

[00:10:27]First, it's really not up to Todd Blanch and company to tell the judge what evidence is necessary for her to rule a particular way. It's actually up to the judge, to tell the parties, to tell the attorneys what evidence she needs if she is to rule in their favor.

[00:10:52]Takeaway number two, it is flatout laughable that DOJ says, "Judge, judge, trust us. We're not moving forward with the weaponization fund." I mean, look, Todd Blanch said it orally, you know, said it on the Fox Entertainment program. He said it to Congress. We actually, you know, doodled it in some court filings. Well, sure, there's no actual evidence of it. submitted in the case, but trust us. Come on. Would we lie to you, judge?

[00:11:28]You know, that's not the way lawyering works. That's not the way cases are litigated. You actually have to submit competent evidence, evidence of record.

[00:11:41]That's why Judge Brinkma ordered that look, if you want me to consider this case moot, I'm going to need sworn declarations under the penalties of perjury that you have rescended the weaponization agreement and it is no longer legally in effect.

[00:12:03]Third takeaway.

[00:12:12]Blanch and Blanch and Company Blanch and Company could have engaged in competent lawyer.

[00:12:24]Blanch and Company could have engaged in Blanch and Company could have engaged in competent, respectful lawyering. They could have submitted a court filing that simply said, "Your honor, we understand that you directed that we provide sworn affidavit if you want Blanch and Blanch and company could have engaged in effective respectful lawyering.

[00:13:06]They simply could have blanch Blanch and company could have Blanch and company could have engaged in Blanch and company could have engaged in competent, respectful lawyering. They could have filed something that simply said, "Your honor, we understand that you indicated that if you were to rule in our favor that the case is moot and dismissed the lawsuit, you would need some evidence of record, you would need these sworn declarations from acting attorney general Todd Blanch and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessant saying, "The weaponization fund agreement has been rescended. It is no longer legally in effect. We understand that. But we respectfully decline to submit those sworn declarations and therefore we ask your honor to rule accordingly. That would have been a perfectly fine, respectful, competent response.

[00:14:19]Not telling the court, "Hey judge, it's unnecessary. That evidence is unnecessary. And trust us, we've already made oral statements that we're not going to move forward with Donald Trump's weaponization fund.

[00:14:34]So, what happens now? Well, I will I would expect Judge Brinkma will be none too pleased with the disrespectful, obstinate garbage that Blanch and company submitted. And I also expect she will say, "Well, then I guess this suit is not moot. I guess I will not be ruling in DOJ's favor. I guess I will not be dismissing this lawsuit. No, no, no. Instead, I'll be setting a discovery schedule. And you know what that means, friends? That means Todd Blanch better prepare to be put under oath in a deposition and crossexamined like all get out by some really fine lawyers. And do you think Todd Blanch is capable of telling the truth?

[00:15:25]Anybody?

[00:15:27]Anybody?

[00:15:29]Buler, not a chance. So, let's get our discovery on because justice matters.

[00:15:43]Friends, as always, please stay safe.

[00:15:45]Please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow.