they think we're f*****g idiots, they think we can't see what they're doing

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:03]Trump expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of a $ 1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claimed they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden admin.

[00:00:13]So what? Like Giuliani and Powell? It's going to go it's it's just going to be a slush fund for every grifter we had to hear about non-stop in 2020. We love our slush funds, folks. So selfless. Yeah, no kidding. Isn't Giuliani basically dead? Inshallah. He wasn't going to win that 10 billion, so this is still a win for him, right? I mean, it's his government. He runs the whole government. So, like, this is him winning. Remember when he announced he's suing his own DOJ? Just an excuse to legally fleece more money out of the uh out of the government, more taxpayer dollars, drive up the debt. He can just do whatever. Yeah, it's a pretty remarkable degree of shamelessness. Uh I I genuinely there's just no precedent in American history. You know, every future president, for as many as we're going to have, you know, is going to be compared to this. Like, this is the high mark. I I don't know. I don't know how much worse it can get than this, man. In terms of like open corruption, I mean, bet you CNN's covering this neutrally.

[00:01:02]Probably not MS Now, though.

[00:01:04]>> Today, a new and arguably troubling development in the bizarre saga where President Trump sued the IRS for 10 billion.

[00:01:12]Sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News the president is expected to drop his legal challenge, but he still wants a $1.7 billion fund to >> You know, maybe I'm in favor of this because basically every government policy over the past 50 years has been a way of moving money upwards. Anyway, this is functionally no different than a tax cut or any one of the innumerable subtle adjustments we make to the economy meant to favor Wall Street.

[00:01:43]Like, it always pans out exactly the same way. The government ends up in more debt and wealthy people end up being wealthier. This is just more transparent. If anything, it's it's, you know, it's it's the most transparent admin in history. Normally when [ __ ] like this happens, it's like Obama approves 50 quadrillion dollars in quantitative e that doesn't work that way. He doesn't approve it, but you follow my point. Quantitative easing uh uh pour money into the economy which gets used to leverage loans that you use to reinvest in the economy and a sort of bastardization of Kinsean economics. It always pans out the same way, right? It doesn't matter which buttons you press in the gigantic threshing machine. The wheat always gets threshed. You can go forward, you can go backward, you can go left, you can go right. The wheat gets thrashed. That's the only thing the machine does.

[00:02:27]>> Compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration. That money would come from taxpayers and could benefit nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the January 6th capital riot as well as some others.

[00:02:41]>> You want the Dems to use strengthened presidency after taking over return power to the House. I mean, it doesn't matter, right? Because the Dems are weak and feckless and aren't going to do anything anyway. That being said, what America needs right now is borderline a dictator. uh only only like an overwhelming amount of political strength can even begin to write the course that we're on. Uh but we're not going to get one. And even if we did get one, they wouldn't be the one we wanted.

[00:03:02]So >> associated with Trump, although the president himself is excluded from receiving payments. In a request for comment, Trump's legal team told ABC, quote, President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable. The DOJ, IRS, and Treasury Department did not issue a comment.

[00:03:21]Joining us now, Bill Crystal, Bull Work editor at large. Rick Stangle is back with us. And MS Now, senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin is here with me.

[00:03:29]>> Um, can we assess how strong or weak, first of all, Trump's case against the IRS was?

[00:03:34]>> It's not even clear, Chris, that this should be a case. And let me explain why. In order to have a case in a federal court, you have to have what's called a case or controversy. And constitutionally, a case or controversy is one in which the parties are meaningfully adverse to each other. Here you've got a situation with a president who makes no disguise of the fact that he is controlling the Department of Justice if not the IRS. And so the judge here in this case has already expressed real concerns about whether she even has jurisdiction over this case, whether it belongs in federal court and even appointed a series of very >> to the average voter. This means nothing. I mean, like every level of corruption just blurs together into a hazy montage of liberals screeching, he can't do that. He can't do that. Dogs can't play basketball.

[00:04:20]>> Lawyers to advise her on that point because of her concerns that DOJ and the Trump plaintiffs don't actually have meaningful adversity to one another. But even if you put that issue aside, there's a more fundamental problem with this lawsuit, the president's claims might be timebarred. And that's because you're supposed to bring a suit like this at the most general >> obligation to disclose the board procedures among other things. Should we be alarmed?

[00:04:45]>> I I would be. I mean, Chris, the the larger theme here is that Donald Trump has extorted everyone he's ever worked with >> in his entire business career. And now that he's head of the government, he's decided to extort his own government and the American people. You know, as Lisa, you know, so a explained, he's the plaintiff in a lawsuit against an agency that he controls. I mean, we usually think of conflicts of interest as being some small percentage of an issue. I I think the conflict of interest here is actually 100%. And it's just another example of the a kind of uh unconstitutional use of executive power.

[00:05:27]And I would be surprised if the if the judge in the case allows this sort of grievance slush fund uh to exist.

[00:05:36]>> But does it bill speak to uh what has been a theme for a lot of people in this uh administration which is the weaponization of government. Does the proposal itself declare that? Essentially, Trump apparently was furious once he says he learned that the IRS leaked his tax returns and so he sues, as Rick just rightly pointed out, an agency that he controls.

[00:06:00]>> No, it is genuinely shocking. You know, I'm on lots of uh, you know, email threads and text groups and Zoom calls with various anti-Trump people. You mostly liberal, well, let's just say anti-Trump. some of the conservative lawyers, law professors, and such. And I would say the the outrage about this exceeds all the normal outrages, which are already pretty outrageous, of Trump's politicization, weaponization of justice. There. They're going after people they shouldn't go after. Uh they're blackmailing in affect corporations to do things for them. This is like another stage of craziness. This is pretending it's a fake lawsuit.

[00:06:34]There's no adver adversity as Lisa said.

[00:06:37]Uh the judge courageously, you know, went pretty far. It seemed to be coming.

[00:06:42]It's going to be so cool watching the news media keep this tone like even when people are killing each other over over in the gas wars, you know, when people are fighting at the pump >> far in calling this into question because she has to sort of it's not you know normally you presume there is an adversarial lawsuit and so the judges was moving ahead in a very diligent way and so Trump will decide it looks like based on the reporting to shortcircuit a judicial decision by just ordering basically the justice department uh to provide 1.7 7 billion in an unmonitored slush fund for Eddie friends or allies of his whom he feels like giving money to. So it's like it's a stage even beyond I mean to have the taxpayers be doing this directly is a stage beyond him you know threatening corporations who then make contributions which benefit Trump which is bad enough and which is already out of control. So I feel like it's the kind of uh epitome.

[00:07:34]It's like I don't know whatever the right word for this is. You know the it's the most amazing example of the pure extortion and kleptocracy that's now that Trump is now engaging in >> and he could do that. Lisa, >> it's unclear whether he can do this over the long term. So let's just say for the sake of argument that Trump voluntarily withdraws the lawsuit. That would deprive the judge here of any say over the settlement. But they might not care.

[00:08:00]They could set up theoretically this $1.7 billion. So again, just maybe watching too much TV or too much law and order. Yeah, >> I think most of us probably have the perception that if there is a settlement in a case that has not come to a conclusion, the judge doesn't have a say in that judge have to sign off.

[00:08:20]>> Generally speaking, the judge has to sign off, particularly if the parties want the judge to have continued jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms. Again, that's what typically happens when parties are genuinely adverse to one another. What I'm suggesting to you could happen here, particularly since you have a judge who's expressed concerns that she might not have jurisdiction, is that we're going to see a little bit of kabuki feeder. I can see a situation in which >> Sorry, I'm I'm getting distracted by a number of things, mostly how much I hate MSNBC.

[00:08:48]I don't give a [ __ ] about this. You know what I do care about? Another war powers resolution failed to make it through the house. This one in a in a a a truly like stunningly blatant example of the revolving villain political strategy lost by one vote. One single Democrat voted against it. One single Democrat.

[00:09:10]Jared Golden who surprise surprise a Zionist who is retiring. He's not running again for election in these upcoming midterms. Single guy.

[00:09:20]Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure, casting the deciding vote as members of his party cheated pleaded in a chant for one more in their ranks to support it just before the speaker gabbled down the vote. Really? Just before? Huh? Really?

[00:09:35]The final guy? Really? So, you're saying that maybe maybe possibly he might have been withholding his vote to see whether or not he would also need to vote no.

[00:09:43]I'm sorry. Did what? Did Jeff whip this vote at all? Is it cool to Jeff that he has a person in the House, one single person who's now at this point single-handedly responsible for preventing the War Powers Resolution from passing through the House? Did Betterman vote for it? It's the House.

[00:09:58]Can I see? Hold on. I want to see this.

[00:10:00]God, there have been so many votes on it. Seven times through the Senate. Man, we keep doing this over and over and over again. Fetman did the same thing the day before. Yeah, but we expected from him. Forbes breaking. They usually keep clips like this. Can I find a video? I want I wanted to see a video of all the Democrats shouting one more, one more, one more, and then Golden, who was waiting until the last second, cast the no vote. Jared Golden did this before, too. It was expected. He's a conservative Dem from MEO2, uh, Trump's district. Yeah. So, like, again, why is there no outrage from Democrats? Like, why? Like, explain this to me. Okay.

[00:10:36]It's the entire house. the the the Iran war is currently tanking the global economy. Like it could very well end industrial civilization as we know it.

[00:10:50]Why is Jeff not losing his [ __ ] mind at a candidate who has said he's not running again in a few months? Little weird. Maybe some Dem voters want the uh war to continue. Well, yeah, that's what I'm that's what I'm suggesting. Yes, that's my assertion. and the House rejected a resolution to limit President Trump's use of military action against Iran without congressional approval.

[00:11:13]That measure failed in a tie vote. The resolution would have blocked >> video of what the New York Times article alleges that at the end when there one vote remaining on the line, Democrats were chanting one more in their ranks. I want to see if I can hear that. That's what I want to hear. Of course, we could just watch this 10hour 30 minute PBS news coverage of the House session that day. I mean, if we skip to the parts where we can see the >> all my colleagues to vote in favor of it, then I yield.

[00:11:46]>> No, we're looking for on agreeing to the resolution. Here we go. Did they mute it? Ah, come on, man. We being for real.

[00:11:54]Why are we trying to fight this? I don't know. Because I think it's interesting that the Democratic Party is clearly okay with allowing the war to continue.

[00:12:01]I'd sort of like to see the tone in the room as again the world economy ruining world economy ruining vote gets cast at the last second by Golden right before the gavl comes down. I don't know.

[00:12:14]Doesn't that sound interesting to you?

[00:12:15]Yeah, they muted for >> 212. The nays are 212. The concurrent resolution is not adopted. Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the table.

[00:12:28]Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of HR5625 on which the yays and nays are ordered.

[00:12:36]The clerk will report.

[00:12:37]>> It sounds like they were happy at properly coordinating the minimum. It certainly does seem that way. You know, it just it balanced out perfectly with the number of not voting. Not voting yays and nays, you landed a perfect goddamn tie >> is laid on the table pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. The unfinished business is the vote on passage.

[00:13:00]>> Even he voted yay. 213 to 212 still results in the resolution failing. You need 218. Am I am I mistaken? My understanding is that uh is that you only need a majority of those present.

[00:13:11]Narrowly blocked in effort thwarted on a tie of 212 to 212. Am I am I incorrect on this? Oh, are there 11 not present because there were envies recorded? I I believe it was by one vote. Yeah, cuz they were chanting one more. One more.

[00:13:23]I'm I'm pretty sure it was by one vote.

[00:13:25]The resolution was offered by Representative Josh Godheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, who earlier in the conflict had considered voting against it, but not now. Also, three Republicans voted with Dems, too. Well, that's the that's the reason why I'm being conspiratorial about this. Three Republicans voted against Trump, so Jared Golden had to wait till the last second to confirm his no vote. That's the strategy. You have Jared Golden, a Zionist conservative Democrat who's retiring anyway, take the fall so that the rest of the Democratic party can pretend that it's not, you know, complicit with this uh this vote. Again, it like the the the evidence is clear.

[00:13:58]If it wasn't complicit or if the Democrats weren't to some extent uh complicit, why would there not be outrage? Why would the entire Democratic party not be throwing rocks at Jared Golden? You know, like again, it's a global economy ruining war. It's an insane. Like this conflict potentially will do more damage to the United States than the Vietnam War like in total in terms of cost incurred economic damage.

[00:14:22]We're talk like the this is it's civilizationally ruining. And you'd think the Democrats would want to take credit for every possible effort. Like don't you think Democrats if they were a real political party would want the headline Dems advance advanced war powers resolution to the Senate? Even if the Senate shot it down, don't you think they'd want that headline? How does this even help rich people? Well, Israel wants it. You're correct. There were only 424 present. My bad. It all uh it all worked out real closely, didn't it?

[00:14:50]Real closely. From one day ago, Jared Golden said he would support reigning in Trump's Iran war powers. One day ago, Jared said that he is uh uh okay with voting in favor of a war powers resolution. And then right afterwards, at the very last second, he allows a no vote, which just barely holds the tie.

[00:15:10]Trump, like all his predecessors, has refused to recognize the limitations of the War Powers Act, but to me, the law is clear. His window for unilateral military engagement is closed.

[00:15:19]Hostilities cannot legally continue. And then less than 24 hours, he voted against a war powers resolution. It really makes you wonder, you know, how does this even help Israel? Well, they like killing. I don't know. What do you want? In case you missed it, I look forward to supporting the next clean war powers resolution that hits the floor.

[00:15:37]Incredible, man. He posted this right after voting no. They're also [ __ ] Well, they are raping us, so clearly not. Don't overindex and go. He's just uh I assume you mean Golden, not Goldman. That's a different guy. He's just a convenient fall guy cuz he's not running for re-election. No, that's my point. That's the revolving door villain strategy, right? Or revolving villain strategy. They're just choosing him as the fall guy. If they needed five no votes, they would have found five no votes. They can't do it forever, but they can do it with these margins. It's so [ __ ] grim, man. No one's even talking about this. It's just like I guess it's just like totally normal for the Democrats to not hold their own party to any standards at all when it comes to stuff like this. Can you imagine a Republican doing this to Trump? I mean, Trump goes after Massie all the time. He's literally trying to force him out. To be fair, three of them did vote for the resolution, and Trump does attack them. Unlike Jeff, also Mike Johnson actually does his job. I don't even see any media coverage of it, man.

[00:16:32]Just a little bit. Just a couple of benal articles on the war power resolution itself. Not on the weirdness of the one Democrat who keeps tanking this. Yeah, Annie. I just I don't think there's any sane explanation for the Democrats complete unwillingness to whip except for um complicity. You know, there's no it's literally does like unless your argument or not yours, but like the argument would be that Jeff just literally doesn't know how to do his job. like he doesn't know why there's a position called, you know, Senate Minority Whip and Senate Minority Leader. Like he actually just doesn't know that that's a part of his job to make sure that his party votes in a certain way. Can't believe I actually missed Pelosi. Well, Pelosi was less subservient to the state of Israel.