Trump STUNNED by SUDDEN Top LAWYER RESIGNATION!!!

Añadido: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF.

[00:00:04]There is so much going on in and around Donald Trump's attempt to create not only a slush fund to to fund terrorist organizations and insurrectionist groups, but also the next day after his attorney general went and had uh sworn testimony in the Senate, then they came up with now let's get rid of Donald Trump's tax liability dating back to 2010, maybe totaling $und00 million.

[00:00:34]dollars. Let's absolve that uh with the attorney general signing a piece of paper. Um we started this story with the original filing of the IR of Trump versus the IRS before Judge Williams in Miami and then what she was going to do once she figured out that this was uh a bad faith filing. This was not a legitimate lawsuit. This was Trump v.

[00:00:58]Trump with Trump commandeering and controlling all of the different parties that were involved.

[00:01:06]And then we had the settlement. And then right before the settlement, you remember our audience will remember that there was this filing, this this Amichi brief, amicus brief by 93 members of Congress. And I said I knew some of the lawyers. And I did. And we're going to bring in one right now. You know him cuz he'd been on the show as the former attorney general for New Jersey, now back to being what he's always been, tremendous litigator and trial lawyer with his own law firm. Matt Plin, how how are you?

[00:01:36]>> I'm doing great. Thanks so much for having me.

[00:01:38]>> From the time we scheduled this till now, look what's transpired between the Blanch testimony, what Judge Williams did or didn't do. We'll comment a little bit on that. I might do more of the commentary on that one. And then we've got the first lawsuit finally, but not the last, narrowly focused on statutory violations and the administrative procedures act brought by officers Dunn and Hajis about the fund funding terrorist organizations and refunding the Brown Boys and the Oathkeepers. But there's a whole another set of lawsuits that have to come about the constitutional violations, about the monuments clause, about maybe criminal violations. Matt, over to you. What's happening here?

[00:02:23]>> What a century this week has been, huh?

[00:02:25]I mean, it's uh it it it's unprecedented what we're seeing this administration do. I mean, just the fact first of all that he sued himself, saw $10 billion in damages for clearly timebarred claims, um, and based on a theory that would have never gotten them even remotely close to that number. when the judge, who I think rightly asked some really, really impressive uh a really impressive collection of lawyers to come in and tell her, "Is there even a case before me that I can assess before the Department of Justice even bother to enter an appearance on behalf of the people of this country?" In, by the way, a case that is substantially similar to many other cases where they have defended against where they did not settle. In fact, Todd Blanch admitted before the Senate that they didn't settle a single one. they come in and do this bogus settlement. Uh $1.8 billion slush fund doesn't even say the president can't access it, can direct who it goes to. Um and now obviously the lawsuit you noted and I think others to come. This is a this even by their standards, this is an extraordinary act.

[00:03:33]>> Yeah. Look, from the from the time bar part or let's back up the the tax liability, which this now appears to all be about Donald Trump figuring out a way after 18 months to absolve his family from a a possible hund00 million tax liability, resulting from him getting a $73 million refund, which was effectively all the taxes he had paid while he was on the Celebrity Apprentice by putting up a huge billion dollar or more. um loss, purported loss about two projects which the IRS has been for the last 16 years auditing him over. If he lost that audit, it would have been a $100 million charge. But out of the blue, a couple of things happen. I want you to try to describe for our audience.

[00:04:19]We get the announcement of the settlement before the briefs are due to Judge Williams from here's his side about whether she's got jurisdiction or not. you guys step in with your representing your 93 and I want to talk about them too 93 members of Congress to tell the judge this is a sham yes you don't have jurisdiction but you're also being used and in addition to that then we have this weird thing right we have the general counsel for the Treasury department who was in the Trump administration the first time the DOJ up from from all the reports an upstanding guy used to work at a law firm I worked at Silly in Austin I mean this guy resigned minds. Now, you have a theory about that. Why don't you walk our audience through it?

[00:05:02]>> Well, I think it's really notable that first of all, we actually didn't get the settlement agreement first. As as you noted, they never put the settlement on the record. Um, and they in the notice of dismissal, they didn't even acknowledge that there was a settlement agreement. All they said was the court couldn't review it. And then it sort of drips and draps. We get the document that purported to stand up the fund. We got that several hours early, but there was no settlement agreement for us to look at. Again, they didn't tell the court any of this. Then you get a version of the settlement agreement that was allegedly a final version. Then you have the Treasury Council resign. And then the next morning you get an amended version of the settlement agreement that says um the president can't be audited and all former audits or excuse me all former audits uh for returns based on uh returns filed as of the date of the settlement agreement um are are hereby closed which I I would just note as a matter of fact there is a criminal statute that prohibits the president from directing anyone directly or indirect directly to open or close an IRS audit or been requesting that that occur as well as anybody in his office.

[00:06:14]So it it is a extraordinary extraordinary thing. A to see a settlement of this kind. We've never seen it. It's unprecedented in American history. B to see a settlement that is then amended to include something that arguably violates criminal statute.

[00:06:29]>> I don't even So you're in my posit or theory is that the general that was a bridge too far for the general counsel of the treasury. um he might have been okay and held his nose in the settlement agreement, but this other thing of waving in the the the Treasury's entitlement to collect maybe $100 million to the Trump family, that was a bridge too far. That's that's I think a good working theory, but and then you talk about you talk about the statutes and all that. The uh let's talk about the lawsuits for a minute. We've been waiting, you know, I've been rubbing my ends waiting for the first lawsuit to be filed. We get the first one. It's by the Capitol and Metro Police officers and they have a great angle, right? You are Trump. You are refunding and animating these Proud Boys and Oathkeepers and other terrorist organizations and giving them money and sending the message to the ones in the future, you'll not only be absolved, but you'll be rewarded. and that can't be. Now, they focus on that to block the creation of the of the fund, the funding of the fund and all of that. But, but there's going to be, don't you anticipate other lawsuits being brought to hit the domestic imalments clause? You know, that Trump's getting a benefit from himself besides his yearly salary that he's not entitled to. How don't you think there'll be other lawsuits in the next coming days?

[00:07:59]>> Oh, I think there's going to be other lawsuits. I think there's going to be other acts uh by I think Congress is going to be taking steps. You saw the tough questioning they put Blanch through. And I think it's notable that there's not this chorus of people cheering on this act the way there usually is. And I even heard behind the scenes from folks who on the other side who who don't think this is something that's worth defending. So, we will see how it plays out. I do think you're going to see other lawsuits. I do think the these Capitol Police officers um I mean, God bless them. Brian Siknic, who's a son of New Jersey, was killed on January 6th. The idea that um you'd be paying people who assaulted, tased, beat, resulted in the death of police officers with taxpayer funds, let alone that they got pardoned, which was horrible enough as one of the first acts of this administration. Now we're potentially going to pay him. And Todd Blanch would not say they would not be eligible.

[00:08:54]Simply wouldn't say it. And so, you know, and I I I think you have to like it's almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing. They're indicting the Southern Poverty Law Center for allegedly misusing donor funds to infiltrate and disrupt uh white supremacist networks by paying them paying informants. That's what you do.

[00:09:16]By the way, the FBI knew this. FBI was open about it. Now, they're turning around and they're going to take $1.8 8 billion of public money and not to disrupt those networks, but to fund them. It's absolutely insane. Some of the same people that were there on January 6th are part of the communities that SPLC has infiltrated and disrupted.

[00:09:34]And they're indicting SPLC and here they're settling and paying 1.8.

[00:09:38]>> Yeah, that's a very very very good point that that shouldn't be missed. And this is an opportunity, is it not, just to play politics for a minute, for the for the Democrats to make political hay out of this, to pin this on the donkey, uh, and to, you know, for instance, you've already had, you know, between Senator Blumenthal and Senator Ruben Ggo, you've already had amendments being proposed.

[00:10:01]Uh, stop the fund. Republicans vote it down. Okay. How about uh child convicted child sex predators can't participate in the fund and and that party is so upside down that they voted that down.

[00:10:14]>> It's crazy.

[00:10:15]>> Okay. Let alone people that attack our law enforcement. This is a president who who to great fanfare loved to surround himself during the campaign with with people in uniform and many of those unions supported him. How do they feel now with Todd Blanch going, "Well, I don't know how it's going to work.

[00:10:33]Anybody can apply really. As as Senator Van Holland said, why can't you make a commitment that if you were convicted, you know, if you're one of the Jan Sixers that was hanging out in the jail because you were so dangerous that a federal judge wouldn't let you out pre-trial that you're not entitled to be compensated by the government. Why can't you commit to that? This is how upside down world that party is right now.

[00:10:54]Right? It >> it's totally insane. And you know, we are so far from James Madison's America where the whole idea of ambition counteracts ambition. Look, this Congress since January 20th, 2025 has completely abdicated its responsibility, the majority has, of asserting its own institutional views. Put aside for a moment the staggering corruption. Put aside for a moment the heinous idea that the federal government would pay people who stormed our nation's capital, assaulted and potentially killed police officers. Put all that aside for a second. If you're the Republicans in Congress, is it now okay when there's a Democratic president to just say, "Okay, well, you know what? I want to do something. and you don't want to do it, I'm just going to sue myself and I'm going to pay myself whatever I want to do whatever I want without your input.

[00:11:38]I've just said there's no longer an appropriations process in this country and they're just going along with it.

[00:11:43]And by the way, I've asked people, don't you think this is like a slippery slope and they all agree, but they're not saying anything. And so, you know, I I I do think from an institutional perspective, they should care. From a corruption perspective, they should care for people who are out there talking about the affordability crisis that Americans are facing. to say we have $2 billion to pay the president's friends who may include people who literally led to the death of a police officer, but we don't have money to lower your health care costs, your educational costs, or your cost of living. I mean, come on.

[00:12:12]>> Yeah. This couldn't be scripted any better for the Democrats. Uh you pick any one of the things, Matt, that you just laid out as an ad campaign and just play it over and over and over and over again. And yet, Trump doesn't care because, of course, he has his checklist of things he wants to accomplish. He knows he's a short-termer. uh with the midterms coming where he'll be um he'll be he'll start to become powerless. And so look look what he's trying to accomplish. You know, you could tell I don't know where it was on his list, but getting out from under his tax liability was in the top five of his list. And he knows he's running out of time with the midterms only so many months away and his poll numbers historically abysmal.

[00:12:51]So here we go. Let's do it by way of this lawsuit. Somebody came up with this strategy. I don't know who at the I don't see I don't think it was at the end. It wasn't like I'm going to bring the suit and I don't know if it was at the beginning when he filed the lawsuit that he was going to end with absolution for his tax liability or that came up later. What do you think? Was that always part of the plan when they filed the original suit?

[00:13:15]>> I I I can't answer that question, but I can say that this suit had all the hallmarks of a collusive non-justitiable suit from the get-go. Why don't you think the judge, you know, you and I sort of were talking offline a little bit. You file an amazing amicus brief. I want to talk about the 93 there and and what they could do to sue or any of them to sue related to this. They come in and tell the court, you know, we're 93 elected officials. Jamie Rasin's up there, Joe Nagusi and the rest. And and uh before she can rule on accepting the amicus, she closes the case. has like a oneliner in there about the the Department of Justice's obligations to the American people and and a settlement about a case that maybe wasn't legitimate, but she doesn't do anything that you and I, at least I thought, factf finding order to show cause, especially after you and I saw the settlement agreement with the style.

[00:14:08]They don't have to do a settlement agreement with a case caption on it.

[00:14:11]case caption recital of the procedural history of the case conveniently leaving out that Judge Williams questioned her jurisdiction and and raising all sorts of other like we were going to amend that suit to make it a class action. You mean the suit that she was about to kill that may have been timebarred because Alina Haba showed up at the >> It was time barred, >> right? It was time, right? Just to just to be a teachable moment here because you and I are throwing around phrases.

[00:14:38]When when uh Charles when John John Little John Charles Little John when little John the Booze Allen consultant who leaked as a consultant for the IRS leaked not only Trump but a bunch of other people's tax returns. He had a plea deal. He went to jail for 5 years and there was a sentencing or a plea a plea hearing and Alina Haba shows up and announces in court I'm here for Donald J. Trump victim. Okay. And during that, that would be the start of the statute of limitations for when you know you got screwed. And they missed the filing deadline by three months. Period.

[00:15:15]>> Totally. I mean, look, that's being and that is the most charitable view of the facts for them. I mean, remember, Little John leaked these tax returns in 2019, 2020. Who was president then?

[00:15:26]>> It wasn't Joe Biden, >> right?

[00:15:28]>> It was President Trump and Stephven New, Treasury Secretary. And so, and it was big news then. It wasn't like it flew under the radar that Trump's tax returns were out there. So, to the extent he was harmed, if he could show it, he shouldn't really come in then. But at the latest, you have a two-year stat 2-year window to file claims, someone you knew or reasonably should have known. There is no question when your attorney goes to court for a plea hearing about the person who you are suing allegedly leaked your tax returns and caused you all this harm, you cannot possibly say you didn't know about it or at least you reasonably shouldn't have known.

[00:16:03]>> You're so right. They didn't miss it by 3 months. They missed it by about four years.

[00:16:07]>> And and and Mike, we were talking about this. The first thing any lawyer does when you get a complaint is you look at was it timely filed? Because if it's not, that's it. Case is over. It is actually malpractice. in the civil context to not assert a clear violation of the statute of limitations. It is in the criminal context grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which can get your conviction overturned. I mean, it's it's staggering to see the Department of Justice not assert these defenses. And there were a bunch of others, including that little John never even worked for Treasury.

[00:16:39]Now, Blanch is sort of misrepresenting when he's testifying. He was a consultant. He worked for Booze Allen.

[00:16:44]>> Well, that's another thing. And then you've got all the mismatch in parties here and authority. The case was against the internal re even if you if you take the case was against the IRS, a division of the Treasury Department. Okay? It was about the leak of the tax return. It's not the weaponization of the Department of Justice. And then to settle it, he has an entirely different agency, entirely different executive office. the Department of Justice through its judgment fund then because he's already got a weaponization committee then order the Treasury Department who's the real party in the case to settle and fund something that comes back through the Department of Justice. What does it have to do WITH THE LAWSUIT? HOW IS THAT A legitimate settlement of a lawsuit even if it even if they are separate parties between Donald Trump and the IRS?

[00:17:31]>> It doesn't. And I think just a couple things for folks who are not lawyers or haven't been like us living and breathing this case. I the these defenses are so obvious to anybody who looks at them. They were obvious to the internal lawyers within Treasury who wrote a memo that apparently was disregarded about the same defenses we put and I was very proud by the way to represent 93 members of the House of Representatives in asserting these claims. But what shouldn't get lost is the fact that none of these were put forward because that in of itself, the fact that DOJ said nothing in this case when in the other cases, this is not the first Little John case. Again, this conduct happened six years ago. This is not the first case. They have asserted those exact defenses and they have in fact defended their positions on those defenses fairly recently. But in this case, they said nothing before they even went so far as to say what the lawyer's name was who was going to be representing the government on this.

[00:18:22]They settled the case. They didn't file a motion to dismiss it and say, "You know what? Maybe he's got a point, but we institutionally," and I've been there. had been the attorney for state.

[00:18:30]You have an obligation to assert institutional defenses on behalf of your clients. Even if you think what happened wasn't great. If there is a legitimate legal basis to put forward a defense, you do it. And they didn't even do that.

[00:18:43]So, it is staggering to see how this case played out. And it is clear evidence that this was never a real lawsuit, that the cake was baked from the get-go.

[00:18:53]>> You think members of Congress will bring their own case?

[00:18:55]>> I think they should actually look at it.

[00:18:57]I mean, look, you have to have a majority. And I think if if I'm Massie, if I'm some of these other guys who he's thrown under the bus, like, you only need a few to say, "Wait a second, you're going to pay pay your friends $2 billion. You're going to kill audits, which you're not allowed to do." I mean, I'm not signing up for that. I think they should do everything they can. I think they should keep questioning them.

[00:19:16]I think you should ask for records. I think the world can change very quickly after November. And you know, I'm sorry.

[00:19:23]We people are acting like there's no laws, there's no rules, and nothing applies here, that they can go into court, they've made a mockery of the way lawyers are supposed to behave before tribunals. Uh there should be consequences for this.

[00:19:34]>> Yeah. I mean, the most explosive moment, you're a Jersey guy, you'll appreciate it. The most explosive moment for me is when I thought I was watching uh Godfather 2 with Fredo talking to Michael about BEING PASSED OVER. MIKE, I GOT PASSED OVER. THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANTED. WELL, YOU SEE BLANCH ARGUING, I'M NOT THE PERSONAL ATTORNEY. I'M THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. REALLY? BECAUSE YOU'RE acting like the acting attorney general who's really Donald Trump's personal lawyer. I mean, we just had reports, Matt, that came out that uh in 2025, Blanch was told by the DOJ efficacist, now fired, that he cannot he cannot be involved with matters involving Donald Trump personally. and he just stuck his big fat pen involved with Donald Trump personally in this quote unquote settlement between the IRS, the DOJ, and his private lawyers.

[00:20:24]>> You know, when I was attorney general, um and maybe maybe being the attorney general of the United States means you don't have to uh worry about ethics rules, but but I certainly did. You know, you worry both about the actual or the appearance of a conflict.

[00:20:37]You know, put aside whether there actually is one, I think there's very good arguments that there is. Uh there's certainly an appearance here and you want and the reason why you care about the appearance is because you want the public to have confidence that government is working for them, not for anyone individual. That was something I was concerned about every single day.

[00:20:53]The idea that you would get up there and say, "I love Donald Trump and I think it's great that he's directing us on criminal matters. I think the American public should be happy about that and all the things he said and you know, and now you see them signing these documents. You see them making these arguments in court. You see them going along with plainly collusive cases that are meant to privately benefit individuals in government, including the president. I mean, it's it's so far from normal that I think we can lose almost get lose sight. But even this one, I think has caused people to say, "Wait a second, he's doing what?" Because when he filed it, it was literally a joke.

[00:21:26]But there's a pattern here, right? This is the same thing, same person who settled for $16 million with David Ellison for a bogus defamation suit that then resulted in Steven Coar getting fired and on and on and on. That's >> okay. ABC >> and the rest. Matt, tell our audience what you've been up to since you left the attorney general position in New Jersey. You formed your own firm. Uh talk about what what kind of cases you're focused on.

[00:21:49]>> Yeah, I sort of I I feel like we're doing a lot of the same work we did as attorney general. You know, I formed the firm. Um, and you know what it's like to to run your own firm to with a bunch of really great lawyers, some of the best lawyers I've ever worked with um from my old office um to take on powerful interests. And so we have been um actively engaged in holding president accountable. We have um filed numerous cases and worked on numerous matters. We have uh um taken on powerful interest in the tech industry and healthcare and and that's what we do. And so we're based proudly based in New Jersey. Um but I feel like we're doing I love to be attorney general. does a great job, but I feel like we're doing a lot of the same types of work now in this new role.

[00:22:27]>> Well, you're you're you know, you're a friend of the pod and the pod is a friend of yours. So, we look forward to uh covering all of your landmark cases and all the cases that you're handling to defend democracy and defend our rule of law. And I'm so glad to see you associated with this case. And we're not ready to break any news, but maybe you'll be back on in the next few days and we'll talk about something related.

[00:22:50]>> I will always come back on anytime you ask. Thanks so much.

[00:22:53]>> Matt Black, uh formerly the uh General Platin, but now in private practice doing the same thing, holding uh the powerful accountable and making sure the rule of law survives the Trump era.

[00:23:06]You're on Legal AF. I'm Michael Popock.

[00:23:08]Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button. Help us continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack.

[00:23:25]You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.