Trump SCRAMBLES to SHUT DOWN Depos as DARK PAST Resurfaces

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]The Trump regime working with MAGA Republicans in the House and Senate have shut down all valid uh under oath proceedings at this point. This is full-fledged kangaroo court stuff as Donald Trump is in my opinion protecting the Epstein class and covering up his dark past. There were numerous depositions that were supposed to take place in the House of Representatives.

[00:00:29]Howard Lutnik's deposition this past week. In a few weeks, Pam Bondi's deposition, like other depositions, these are supposed to take place on video and under oath. You get sworn in by the court reporter and you give testimony.

[00:00:48]You may recall a few weeks back I was talking about how the Democrats had said the Republicans are going to shut down testimony and that they were going to instead do informal meet and greets from here on out with the Epstein file witnesses like Lutnik and Bondi and other people. And lots of people were like, "Ben, you're being an alarmist. You're not going to do no way. It's the House Oversight Committee. They're still going to do oversight even if we disagree with James Comr. They're still going to like do depositions. And then this week, we've saw the plan in action. Howard Lutnik shows up to his deposition, or so we thought. They go, "Nah, it's actually not a deposition. Take away the cameras.

[00:01:38]We're just chatting. We're just we're just gonna play this informal and cool."

[00:01:43]And then Lutnik proceeded to say ridiculous things like, "I don't know how I got to the island. It surprised me." Yeah, it's a bit inexplicable and surprising, but just not sure how I did that. So, Howard Lutnik, do you still believe that Epstein is one of the biggest black mailers in history? No, I didn't mean that. But you said that on TV before and you said that's why you never hung out with Epstein again, but then you were saw on the Yeah, I don't know why I said that. That's not that's just simply not not something I agree anymore. Hey, Lutnik, were are you in coordination right now with the White House over your deposition today? Are you speaking with people about your testimony? Is that why it's changed?

[00:02:23]Yeah, I don't recall. I don't know. I I don't know. You don't recall. You don't I may have been talking. You may have been talking to them. Not only that, but then they it's it's a transcribed interview, right? So, one would think that when you do a transcribed interview, it should be pretty easy to release the transcription right after it ends. But no, they don't release the transcription after. Instead, you've got all the MAGA Republicans who try to get out there and say, "Ah, it's a witch hunt. Nothing to see here." Then they do their WMD, their weapon of mass distraction. I don't care what political party affiliation you should we should all want these witnesses the same way Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton should never have been deposed in the first place. They were on video. They testified under oath. James Comr and Maga said they can't be transcribed interviews. Those are worthless.

[00:03:20]So they testified under oath. But now you're doing transcribed interviews for Bondi, for Lutnik, and from everyone from here on out. you're shutting down depositions and testimony. I mean, it's the most absurd thing. So, when we've been talking about some of these developments in the courts, you know, you have number one, Trump appointing judges who refuse to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, refused to say that January 6th was an attack on the capital, and refused to say that Donald Trump can't serve three terms. So I just want to talk to you about what just very recently this attack on the law like on law school on law and order on the way lawyers are supposed to practice law. So we've got judges now who just are basically not just political hacks but live in Trump Mara Lago weirdo fantasy world. Right? So you've got that playing out. Then you have these no longer doing depositions or hearings when it comes to oversight, just informal interviews that don't matter, that don't carry with it the weight of penalty of perjury. So you've got that and then you got Donald Trump doing lawsuits against the US government. So it's basically Trump v. Trump and making the taxpayers pay settlements to Donald Trump as more and more companies and institutions are standing up to Donald Trump and refusing to back down in the face of Donald Trump's uh in the face of uh Donald Trump's lawsuits. So that's where we're at right now. Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel podcast and Substack. I mean so so now the people who have brought you actual fake news, right? the people who have brought you, you know, you know, just lies about the 2020 election, lies about all this. They're now bringing you fake depositions. That's their new thing. And fake court cases where Trump's the plaintiff and the defendant so he can declare himself the winner. And now they're doing fake depositions that don't matter, where people can lie under oath. And it kind of reminds me, Harry, like what they do overseas, fake ceasefires that they just announce on their own. By the way, it's an authoritarian mindset in my view cuz Putin announces his own ceasefires unilaterally with Ukraine. I want a ceasefire, so we're going to do it now.

[00:05:42]And it's like, yeah, normally you talk to the other party when you want a ceasefire and you actually make a deal versus just saying it's so. But this is where we're at right now. The weekend of May 9th and May 10th, as we're recording this, Harry, that's where we are. Fake everything. Just like Trump's fake this, fake that, fake this. Here you are. fake law. What do you make of it, Harry?

[00:06:03]>> You're totally right. And and you're you're uh very trenchant, Ben, to sort of uh align this with with broader practices. It can look like a bit of buffoonery or one-sided justice. This is the authoritarian playbook. You also have fake elections, fake free speech, uh fake uh freedom of commerce, and and that's the absolute strategy of an authoritarian. Look, there uh let's go to your two examples. Um depos oversight, serious oversight. Any matter that's serious enough for oversight, you have to have depositions, you have to have penalty of perjury that, you know, it's just the difference between major league rules and little league. Uh, everyone knows and you got to wonder um what is it that they're so um concerned about about playing by the normal rules?

[00:07:01]You you brought up Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and they were just completely bullied into having to be under testimony and raise their right hands. But my lord, if you're trying to get somewhere, it's all the difference in the world. And incidentally, notice how the Republicans have used it.

[00:07:20]They've not only forced officials to swear, but they've then um used the th their testimony to concoct completely far-fetched claims of perjury. Right.

[00:07:33]That's what they were doing with Comey.

[00:07:36]That's what they were doing with Jerome Pal. Oh, they they the subject matter with PAL was the overruns of costs, but what they were trying to make a federal case of was the actual uh sort of quibble with some of the substance of what he testified. There never would be that. But you've got to be able to tell it straight. And Lutnik is a perfect example. He doesn't come in with a clean record, right? he comes in as someone who's already completely confabulated in front of Congress uh on his relationship to Epstein and uh you got to put a guy like that under oath.

[00:08:18]Indeed, I'm kind of stunned if you were playing it all by the old rules, he would have he would have had been forced to resign from the cabinet long since that kind of bald lie. All right. I want to go to that your second example though because this is the one I've been really focused on. You're totally right.

[00:08:36]They've been making a mockery of not just standard practice for lawsuits, constitutional rules. The constitution says you can only federal courts hear actual adversarial lawsuits where one person's on one side, one's on the other. And the actual friction between them is what gives rise to the essential ability of a court to decide. And when you take a guy like Michael uh Flynn and say, "Oh, you've sued us for whatever it is." How's about $1.25 million? But you're obviously on the same side.

[00:09:15]They've done it obviously with Bannon and they are really proposing to do it with Trump. a suit Trump versus IRS is a joke uh of a of a proceeding, but it's also an unconstitutional one. And finally, a court has recognized that.

[00:09:31]So, I just want to point out, I hope we'll be talking about it after the May 20th because a judge said, "Hey, wait a second. I can't act at all. I don't have the power to act. I don't have jurisdiction if this is a pretend lawsuit and there's nobody even to take the position and argue there, right?

[00:09:51]They they do these things where they say, "We want to do this settlement. The defendant doesn't object." No The defendant doesn't object. They're on the same side. It's what I've called jumping the V in many things I've written. Now, this judge has said for May 20th in the Trump IRS suit, I've got John Gleason, legendary former A USA and judge, and Faith Gay, legendary uh litigator, and Don Verill, legendary former SG to come in and advise me. And that uh is also the Department of Justice is going to have to come in on the 20th. And what are they going to say? Are they going to say, "Oh, no, we really are opposed to Trump with the reams of evidence showing otherwise from Todd Blanch." Are they going to say, "Yeah, we're not really, especially since there's this reggg that says we have to do what he says." Well, that's the same as saying not just this lawsuit, but all the other ones are not just funky, but unconstitutional. So, that could have real fallout. Somebody's finally waking up and kind of minding the store, at least, you know, initially on these on this series of collusive lawsuits. Your basic theme is absolutely right and I think it's broadly speaking what happens to totalitarian societies but this one instance of it is so frigin rank that they just take their you know it was once uh USV litman and then they then they become friendly with them and there it's no longer a lawsuit and they say help yourself you poor agreed person to taxpayer money. It looks like uh they may be thinking about doing this with the January 6 defendants. It's a freaking outrage.

[00:11:44]>> I think that people should just go under oath, you know. I mean, if if it's it's part of, you know, it's part of being a public servant. You know, it's it's not easy to be a public servant. It is a sacrifice to be a public servant. And it requires that you subject yourself to oversight. And here's the thing, Harry Howard Lutnik wants to be Caner Fitzgerald, Howard Lutnik, and he runs a private business. There may be litigation that happens and you know that's a private matter. It's a private world. I may be critical if Caner Fitzgerald does things that maybe harm I you know I don't I don't know what their portfolio is. I don't know if they're building data centers that may harm communities in areas. So I don't know what they're doing, Harry, one way or the other.

[00:12:35]They're a private company. Howard Lutnik, you know, your business is private. You're not on my radar. You America be dude, you know, you'll go through the regular process. Now, you're a public servant. Okay? You're the commerce secretary. You're representing the US in major deals and you voluntarily go to you go on yourself go you go on to New York Post and you start to say things about Epstein voluntarily and it turns out that it's false when you're in the files and you brought your kids to the island. Okay. Well, now you got to answer these questions and you should do it under oath so that the American people are comfortable with the commerce secret. And by the way, maybe you do the deposition, you go, "Hey, look, I know I said that to the New York Post. I made a mistake." Whatever your thing is, and we may still go, "That's egregious. Come on, man. You know, what are you talking about? That's hard. What kind of judgment is that that you brought children to the island after Epstein was guilty?" Like, you can't be representing the country. That's how a lot of other countries, Harry, have dealt with people with far less connectivity to Epstein than we already know Lutnik's was. Lutnik in any other country would be gone and frankly everybody else in Trump's orbit including Trump would be as well based on the standards that are applied in other countries. It's given. I just think that you know what there's oversight. You have to answer these questions. The American people can judge that publicly, transparently, and maybe you have an answer. Hey, you know what?

[00:14:05]The reason we're on this business deal was because it's actually a broader fund. And I >> I'm not I don't think that one works. I think the American people are still rightfully outraged the way I would be.

[00:14:17]But explain it under oath >> or Exactly. Look, this is how we settle disputes in this country. Can you imagine a court proceeding where somebody uh was called to the stand and said, you know, just between friends, can we forget about that swearing part of it, you know, we'll just we'll just chat. Um that's what oversight means and it just requires from these guys in in particular that is what it means to get to the bottom of something.

[00:14:50]And really, when you think about it, there's not even an argument for why should Pam Bondi, who knows all these things, be able to just say it, but not under penalty of perjury. And that's why, in fact, what what happened with Lnik is how they're trying to play it and how it happened with Bondi. They just sort of show up and then there's a quick kind of subduge move by the Republicans. Quick vote. Okay, you can come in and yeah, we don't have to worry about that raising your right hand thing because there's no principled argument to make as to why we should call someone important to get information we need for oversight. We have to do but we don't really care if they're under compulsion of uh of perjury. That's exactly where you are. And it's, as you say, it's no fun being uh under compulsion and perjury, but anyone who's telling who's settling an important dispute in this country in court, private people, in Congress, wherever, raises their right hand. That's the whole reason that we have the um the oath in the first place.

[00:15:57]>> Everybody subscribe to the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds Substack, and Talking Feds podcast. It's run by Harry Litman. Thanks, Harry. Thank you, Ben. Thanks for watching Talking Feds.

[00:16:10]If you enjoyed this video, please remember to like and subscribe. And for a lot more content, all of my essays, ad free podcasts, and weekly ask me anything Q&A sessions, check out the Talking Feds Substack, and please subscribe there as well. Talk to you later.