"In god, we Trust"- Lawrence-A history of E. Jean Carroll's legal battle with President Donald Trump

Ajouté : 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Hey Jen, we're going to continue our Senate campaign week. Sheriff Brown is joining us from Ohio, a very important state for the Democrats to win back.

[00:00:11]He's won it before. Uh so so he's one of those people who knows how to do it.

[00:00:16]We'll we'll hear what he has to say. Uh Senator Cory Booker is joining us and Jamie Rascin, Congressman Jamie Rascin is also joining us. He is of course uh also a constitutional law professor which uh which has allowed him to give us his top 10 reasons why the Trump slush fund is unconstitutional. We're going to hear all 10.

[00:00:37]>> Perfect. Give Jamie Raskin time.

[00:00:39]Everybody loves to hear from him. That sounds like a bad show.

[00:00:42]>> Thanks, Jen.

[00:00:44]>> Thanks, Lawrence.

[00:00:46]>> Well, the tortured soul and lying mind of the most incompetent Treasury Secretary in history was on display once again today. This time in the White House. Scott Bessant began his comments in the White House press briefing room today by of course insulting Democrats in the House and Senate.

[00:01:11]>> Good afternoon everyone.

[00:01:13]>> Good afternoon.

[00:01:14]>> Good like to say it's a pleasure to be here today. This is my warm-up for my Senate and House hearings next week. So I don't want anyone yelling reclaim my time.

[00:01:26]And then he said something that would be a crime, and I mean literally a crime, if he said it in testimony to the House or the Senate, because lying to Congress is against the law.

[00:01:45]>> President Trump has done something that no other administration is able to do.

[00:01:49]We have gotten the Iranians to talk about their nuclear program and to perhaps commit to not having one. That has never happened before. It had been off the table.

[00:02:01]That would be criminal perjury in a courtroom. And it would be the crime of lying to Congress if Scott Besson dared to say that in a House or Senate hearing where every Democrat, and I mean every Democrat, would immediately read to the lying Treasury Secretary, exactly what Iran agreed to in writing in 2015 in an agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry on behalf of President Obama and joined by five other countries. In that agreement, Iran put this statement in writing. On page three, Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.

[00:02:52]Right there, proof of the Treasury Secretary lying, proof beyond any conceivable doubt. And Scott Bessant knows that the safest place to lie in Washington is the White House press briefing room where not a single member of the White House press corps challenged him on that lie. Now, it is not clear how many members of the White House press corps have ever read Iran's written agreement to never develop nuclear weapons that Iran signed with the United States of America. Scott Bessant did something today that no other Treasury Secretary would have ever even considered doing.

[00:03:34]He played with counterfeit money publicly when he was asked about Donald Trump's latest perverse fantasy of seeing his face on a new $250 bill.

[00:03:50]How long until we see your signature next to President Trump's face on a $250 bill?

[00:03:59]>> Well, the again as Treasury Secretary, I I have two mandates for US currency. At present, the no living person can be on US currency and the currency must stay in God we trust. So right now there is proposed legislation that in front of the House in front of the Senate to change the first requirement so that a living person Donald J. Trump could be on the $250 bill. So it it it's all in in the hands of the uh it's it's all in up on Capitol Hill. So at at at Treasury we prepared things in advance. So, we have prepared in advance that if the legislation is passed, but we will stick to the law.

[00:04:46]It's never going to happen. Congress has to vote to authorize a $250 piece of currency. And Congress would have to repeal a law that prevents the faces of living people from being on our currency. And then Congress would have to pass another law that put Donald Trump's face on that new piece of currency. And so we can say with confidence tonight that Donald Trump's face will never appear on a $250 bill.

[00:05:15]And in fact, Donald Trump's face will never appear on American currency ever because the 60 votes necessary to do that in the United States Senate will never exist.

[00:05:29]And our self-clowning Treasury Secretary knows that. But he felt the need today to carry his public worship of Donald Trump to the point of now being locked in history as the buffoon who actually held up that obscene piece of counterfeit money today in the White House.

[00:05:52]But it worked.

[00:05:54]That moment distracted the White House press corps from asking more serious questions of that oh so eager, selfhumiliating liar.

[00:06:06]He dismissed the question that he did get about the Trump slush fund to pay criminal Trump supporters who tried to kill capital police officers and tried to kill the vice president in their attack on the capital on January 6th.

[00:06:20]The money from the Trump slush fund comes from the Treasury and is authorized by the Treasury Secretary to be sent to the Justice Department. Scott Bessant refused to say anything about that today, claiming that all questions about that should be directed to Donald Trump's acting attorney general, who was his criminal defense attorney, Todd Blanch. No one even thought to ask Scott Bessent if he had already sent the money to the Justice Department. Scott Bessant previewed in his contempt for Congress at the beginning of his remarks that he expects his congressional testimony next week to be, shall we say, contentious.

[00:06:57]And we know who he will be fighting with, who he will be eager to fight with. He will be fighting with and insulting the Democrats on the committees. He will not be respectfully disagreeing on substance. In the Senate Finance Committee, there are 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats. And all 13 of the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee voted for the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

[00:07:29]And in that vote, they voted to respect Scott Bessant's marriage to a man with whom Scott Bessant has two children. A lifestyle that was made legal by Democrats in the state of New York, where Scott Bessant got married in 2011, when that same marriage would have been illegal in Scott Bessant's home state of South Carolina, where he lives now, and is legally married, thanks to Democrats.

[00:07:56]Every Republican president during Scott Besson's adulthood has put Supreme Court justices on the court who oppose marriage equality. one Republicanappointed Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with four justices appointed by Democratic presidents to achieve a five4 decision of the Supreme Court that made Scott Besson's New York marriage legal in all 50 states in 2015 and seven years after that.

[00:08:27]Both of the Republican senators in the ska state where Scott Bessant now lives in South Carolina voted against Scott Besson's marriage.

[00:08:40]And Scott Bessence will will be testifying to one of those senators next week in the Senate Finance Committee, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who along with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has never been married to anyone, were among the 37 Republicans in the Senate who voted against respecting Scott Besson's marriage in 2022.

[00:09:04]When Scott Bessant appears before the Senate Finance Committee, where he plans now to spend his time insulting Democratic senators, he will be appearing before 12 Republican senators who voted against respecting his marriage, including the chairman of that committee. And he will be unfailingly respectful to those Republican senators who are on record as disrespecting him before they ever knew he existed.

[00:09:30]And Scott Bessant knows.

[00:09:32]Scott Bessant knows how all of them voted on his marriage. Scott Bessant knows he will be looking at 12 Republican men and women who as senators voted to disrespect his marriage. And he will be looking at 13 Democratic men and women who as senators voted to fully respect his marriage. And he will choose to personally attack those 13 Democratic senators. He will not respectfully disagree with them on substance as he could as previous Treasury Secretaries would. He will attack them as we have never seen a Treasury Secretary attack senators before because that is the mandate of Trump cabinet officials that they attack Democrats when they testify to Congress.

[00:10:18]What is the truth in the tortured soul of Scott Bessant? How does he really feel when he looks up at the Senate Finance Committee and sees those people, those people who he thinks are on his side now who voted to disrespect his marriage and would vote to disrespect his marriage again and those Democrats who voted to respect his marriage and would vote to respect his marriage again. How does he really feel?

[00:10:50]We will never know.

[00:10:53]A group of retired federal judges have done something extraordinary. They have gone to court to try to prevent one penny of the slush fund money that Scott Bessant has sent or will send send to the Justice Department from ever being delivered to anyone. They have filed a motion in federal court where Donald Trump brought his phony lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, which Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer, who is now his acting attorney general, decided to settle with Donald Trump as part of that settlement. and create a $ 1.776 billion dollar slush fund for Donald Trump and his attorney general to hand out to violent criminals who attacked the capital in a conspiracy against the United States of America to try to overturn a presidential election and kill the vice president of the United States while they were at it along with as many Capitol police officers as they could.

[00:11:46]We've never read a court motion like this one before.

[00:11:50]It begins referring to the movements, the people who brought the motion.

[00:11:55]Movements are 35 former federal judges.

[00:11:59]Movements are filing this motion because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice.

[00:12:05]The purported settlement that the parties never placed before this court raises profound questions about the party's cander toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. As former judges, movements have an interest in bringing to the court's attention these concerns and the availability of relief under rule 60 of the federal rules of civil procedure which allows the court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case. Those judges who surely never dreamed in their judicial retirements that they would be filing a motion like this then file then filled 13 pages of legal scholarship arguing that the judge in the case has the authority to block what Donald Trump is trying to do.

[00:13:00]Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Acriman has written that the judge does have this precise authority, saying, quote, "Under its inherent contempt authority, the court can find that Trump created his nonadverse lawsuit for the purpose of defrauding the government under the guise of a legitimate case. As part of the contempt proceeding, Judge Williams could rule that there was no legitimate case and therefore no valid basis to settle for the slush fund and the grant of immunity. Donald Trump's settlement granted him immunity from investigations of his tax returns up to now. But even in the terms of that written settlement, all tax filings by Donald Trump from this point forward could be investigated and surely will be investigated by the next Democratic administration.

[00:13:53]We reported to you last night how Democrats, including the governor in California and others in New York, will attempt to impose a 100% state income tax on any money obtained from the Trump slush fund in those states. Now, other states are joining that effort. And the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over taxation, Senator Ron Weiden, has introduced a bill along with the Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer that would impose a 100% federal income tax on any payments from the Trump slush fund, thereby prohibiting any recipients from actually receiving any money. And Politico is reporting today in a twist that Donald Trump and his criminal defense lawyer and acting attorney general could not have foreseen because they don't know tax law well enough, Donald Trump might have to pay taxes, income taxes on the $1.776 billion of the so-called settlement.

[00:15:00]quote, "Some tax practitioners say the way that the fund, which acting attorney general Todd Blanch announced May 18th, is structured, likely makes it an income tax liability for the president, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars, effectively a range of federal income tax experts, said Trump appears to be the beneficiary of the 1.8 8 billion, even if the money is eventually rooted to others through the fivep person commission responsible for dispersing the fund. Our first guest tonight, Democratic Congressman Jamie Rascin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who is also a constitutional law professor, released his top 10 reasons why Donald Trump's slush fund is unconstitutional.

[00:15:46]And leading off our discussion tonight is Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Uh Carson Raskin, before we get to your top 10 reasons, and we are going to get to all 10, uh I'd like you to comment on the judge's motion to this judge. Uh and then that uh the the notion that rule 60 here could be the crucial lever uh for the judge in this case to use.

[00:16:13]Well, it was a true act of public service on behalf of these former judges to step forward to say that this would truly be a fraud not just on the court but on the country to let this go through. And uh Trump knew that he was about to lose that case. Uh as the judge had called for a hearing on May 20th as to the question of whether or not it was a collusive lawsuit. uh and then when he could read the writing on the wall, they pulled out of the suit and then engineered their collusive fraudulent settlement uh on the country. So now the judges are saying the judge should just reopen the case as she's got the power to do. Bring it back, nullify this fraudulent settlement and put an end to the whole charade at this point.

[00:16:56]>> All right, professor. The top 10 reasons why the Trump slush fund is unconstitutional. Go ahead.

[00:17:04]>> All right. Well, I should say most of the country isn't necessarily familiar with the way law school exams are written, but most of them are written in sort of a fantastical fact pattern and then the law students have to scramble to identify all the issues to show what was wrong. And I saw this slash fund and I said this is the greatest issue spotter of all time with constitutional law issues, with federal courts uh issues, with legal ethics, tax and everything. But start with this. Article one says that Congress has the power to pass laws and appropriate money. Only Congress. And yet this is an attempt to appropriate $1.776 billion by the president. And by the way, if it's, you know, if it's this number, why not $1.776 trillion? I mean, there's no limit if the president can just make it up as he goes along. It's got nothing to do with an actual verdict against the United States. So there's number one. Number two is courts decide cases. The attorney general and the president, they don't decide cases. And yet they're having people coming forward to uh advance their claims about uh lawfare and about weaponization which are defined nowhere in federal law or state law. And it's not up to courts to decide the case.

[00:18:23]It's going to be up to these five people or three of the five the quorum uh totally reporting to Donald Trump. So that's a violation of article 3 of the constitution. Section four of the 14th amendment. This is an interesting one.

[00:18:36]Um says that neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt um that is arising from rebellion or insurrection against the United States. But obviously that's the primary purpose here is to pay off uh the disgruntled proud boys and oathkeepers and insurrectionists who only got a pardon for their violent attacks on the police and their attempts to overthrow and put down the US government. They want money too. And so Donald Trump has been searching for a way to do that. But it does violate the 14th amendment. Now, as you were pointing out a moment ago, all of this is money that goes to Donald Trump and must be going to Donald Trump.

[00:19:16]If he decides to make them the third party beneficiaries of his settlement, so be it. But this is money going to him. But it can't go to him because of the domestic imalments clause which says that the president is limited to his own official salary in office and may not draw um draw any other money from the federal government um or from the states for that matter. So it violates the domestic abalments clause. So there's the top four right there. But then we can also get into what's wrong with uh the underlying settlement of the case.

[00:19:52]Um well, first of all, his cause of action was about this guy Charles Little John who was a private IRS contractor who's in prison now because he did leak um some of Donald Trump's tax returns that Trump had promised he would release. But of course, everyone knew he wasn't going to release them and they should not have been released, which is why Little John is in prison right now.

[00:20:12]Other people in a similar situation to Donald Trump who've had their data leaked by an independent private contractor working for the government have tried to sue the federal government and every case has resulted in a ruling that there is no private right of action against the federal government in such a case. the attorney general, Todd Blanch, Trump's former uh private lawyer, never raised this as defense, but engaged in this collusive settlement instead of just saying, "No, we don't owe this to you and we've got black letter law on that." That's a clear president. So, that's one reason why that suit was totally fraudulent and doomed to fail.

[00:20:49]The other was it was late. He had two years within which to bring it before losing to the statute of limitations and he brought it many months after the statute of limitations had expired. And yet Todd Blanch nonetheless went ahead and tried to settle the suit, getting it away from uh the court in that case instead of standing up for the United States.

[00:21:10]So, please explain to me what are the damages uh when a president's tax return, by the way, it wasn't his full tax return, a piece of a president's tax return, uh is made public, given that every other president during Donald Trump's adulthood has made his tax returns public on the day they filed them.

[00:21:35]Well, and he of course had promised to do it. Nonetheless, I've got to take Trump's side on this one. That was a violation of law when the guy released it, but he was prosecuted and Trump's people were behind the prosecution. They supported the prosecution. And nobody else in Trump's position has ever been able to uh engage in a private right of action, a lawsuit against the government from which he or she has drawn money. It just doesn't exist. But Trump instead of saying, you know what, we should change the law, so anybody should have a right to sue in that case. No, he just wants to try to override the president and have a special law for himself. And that's the basic problem with all of this. You know, there are a lot of people who feel like the government has been weaponized against them recently, including colleges, universities, law firms, uh, James Comey, Leticia James, Adam Schiff, we can name lots of people who feel like there's been weaponization against them. Why not actually have a discussion about passing a federal law that would allow people in a situation like that to go and sue? No. Instead, they've got to break every law we've got, violate the constitution, and say this is for people who are victims of so-called democrat weaponization of the law, and it's completely outside of our constitutional order. And by the way, if they can do 1.776 billion, they just make that up out of a hat because it matches the 250th anniversary of the country. Why not $1.776 trillion dollars or a zillion dollars? They could just bankrupt the country if they've got the right to do this. That's why it's up to Congress exclusively to appropriate money. So, as a member of Congress, I come back to that as the original sin of this whole chain of constitutional violations.

[00:23:16]>> Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you very much for starting off our coverage tonight.

[00:23:21]>> You bet. Thank you.

[00:23:23]And after this break, Senator Corey Booker will join us.

[00:23:30]Do you ever feel bad for the people inside the facility?

[00:23:35]That is what the New York Times is reporting. Adam Craig asked one of the masked agents at a facility in Newark, New Jersey that has become the new epicenter of Donald Trump's war on immigrants. Senator Corey Booker, the former mayor of Newark, New Jersey, said he will not vote to give another dollar to Donald Trump's war on immigrants after the senator visited Delaney Hall, a privatelyowned ICE detention center in Newark, where some people being detained have been on a hunger strike since Friday. Senator Booker posted on social media saying, "After seeing who is being held and the conditions under which they're detained, I believe most Americans would agree that this facility is a moral stain on our community. In fact, the majority of the people we encountered have no criminal charges or the kind of violence or criminality that Donald Trump said he was going to be focusing his attention on. This is unacceptable to me. I'll keep demanding this facility be closed now and to end this administration's chaotic and cruel immigration policy. I will not vote to give another dollar to ICE. Joining us now is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. He's member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us. What is the latest in the situation at Delaney? As we know, as we know, as of now, >> there it's it's just getting bad. There was an incident today in which families reached out to us, attorneys and others, about the conditions and what's going on inside of that building. my my visit yesterday, uh there's just no words to describe the reality that we in America are allowing this to go on in our midst because we have a president that has conducted an immigration policy against all of our basic values and our core sense of decency. this I and and I want to just add one more thing to you said it's not only a private for-profit prison, but it's part of the corruption that's endemic in this administration because this is a a corporation that showered Republicans with money beforehand. They've got a billion dollar contract and we know that his immigration cruelty at every mark of it from people doing transportation uh from people uh that are being hired to do other jobs like the private prisons we see. There's so many people making profit off of this misery and this pain and this violation of our values. And we have uh Tom Hman who uh could not have been confirmed by the Senate uh but then was given an appointed position within this Trump army against immigrants who was caught on FBI undercover video accepting $50,000 in cash before the last presidential election saying in effect that he would be helping people try to get these kinds of contracts.

[00:26:32]Again, this is one of the reasons why we we have to win in November so that we could actually start looking at this myriad of no bid contracts all the ways.

[00:26:41]And I think we're only seeing a tip of an iceberg right now, which is terrifying because there's grift and graft and corruption going on everywhere. It's not just smash and grab slush funds. It's not just straight trading stocks on insider information or the foreign policy decisions the president's making. We know that groups like the GEOG group and others are involved in open air corruption when it comes to the way they're doing their campaign contributions, no bid contracts, and more. And so this is the kind of things we need to get to the bottom of. Meanwhile, right now as we're speaking in Newark, New Jersey, and across this nation, there are fathers and mothers of American children, people that are integral in parts of our communities, grandparents, business owners, and others that are being detained in deplorable conditions. That should weigh on the conscience of all Americans. And for us to be silent about this atrocity, this assault on human dignity implicates our own dignity and humanity as well.

[00:27:40]Senator, there are so many uh issues that you have to chase in your position.

[00:27:44]Now, you're among a group of 20 Democratic senators who are trying to find out something that should not be difficult to find out. How much does Donald Trump's war in Iran cost? What do we know as of now? And what do we need to know?

[00:28:00]>> Well, we know that the president is lying to us and that his administration is lying to us about the full costs of this war. So, of course, there's a cost at home that we're all paying with higher prices, gasoline costs, energy, inflation, all that pain, but our actual military right now, the tens of billions of dollars, we do not have a fair accounting of the true costs to the United States taxpayer. That's why we have to be all outraged that this president is conducting an illegal war and there's no accounting, there's no accountability, there's no oversight.

[00:28:35]The Republicans that control Congress are not asking the questions that the American people should be demanding to know about President Trump's failed war in Iran.

[00:28:46]A as you go forward, do you expect to possibly get some Republican cooperation now, possibly from senators like John Cornin, uh, who don't any longer have a future on the Republican side of the Senate.

[00:29:01]Yeah, it's amazing the the freedom and voice that people get when they're liberated uh uh and on their way out of the Senate. So, I'm hoping that John Cornin speaks his conscience. I'm hoping that he is forthright and that he joins us like Cassidy recently recently did in our war powers votes that I've been leading with some other senators to bring these votes up week after week after week. We're gaining momentum and the way Donald Trump is conducting Republican politics, it seems like there's more people that potentially could be joining us. But the best way to get this Republican party uh to begin to stand up uh to hold Trump accountable, to do their constitutional duty is going to be in 5 months at the election is showing this party that there is a real consequence when you choose loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the people. when you empower a corrupt president as opposed to solving uh this nation's real heart and pain that they're paying at the pump, that they're paying for losing their health care and more. This is a moral election now as much as it is a political one.

[00:30:03]>> We're going to turn to that election next with your former Senate colleague Sherid Brown. Senator Cy Booker, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

[00:30:12]>> I'm I'm grateful to be on. Thank you for shining a light on really, really important matters tonight.

[00:30:17]Thank you, Senator.

[00:30:19]Coming up, Democratic candidate for Senate in Ohio. Very important race for the Democrats. Sherid Brown will join us next on day 89 of Donald Trump's war in Iran.

[00:30:32]Voters in Ohio are paying $4.51 a gallon for gas. Sherid Brown, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Ohio, has been hearing about it from those voters in Ohio.

[00:30:45]I'm in Continental spending some time with a farmer named Denny.

[00:30:49]>> I'm Denny and farmers like me are getting squeezed.

[00:30:52]>> Fertilizer way too expensive.

[00:30:54]>> Diesel prices the highest I've ever seen.

[00:30:57]>> They just hit record highs in Ohio.

[00:30:59]That's bad news for you, for all of us because grocery prices are going to go higher and higher and higher. A reckless and costly war in Iran continues to shoot prices up and up and up. A war John Hustead voted many times to support.

[00:31:16]>> John Hustad has voted eight times to make things worse for Ohio farmers.

[00:31:21]>> And when farmers hurt, we all pay the price.

[00:31:26]>> Sherid Brown's new campaign ad out today is about the Epstein files.

[00:31:33]>> Many survivors of sexual violence stay silent. I know because I was one of them. I decided I shouldn't have to hide the drip. John Huad protected predators instead of survivors like me and he can't hide from that.

[00:31:48]>> I'm sure Brown and I approve this message.

[00:31:52]>> Uh the Houston Senate campaign issued an odd statement uh to Ohio newspaper saying that they donated all available funds to an antihuman trafficking charity. Joining us now is former Democratic Senator Sher Brown of Ohio.

[00:32:10]He's running for the United States Senate in Ohio. Uh Senator, you know, as a former senator, u running again for that seat, you have a kind of experience that most um candidates running for a seat don't have. But can you with your experience explain to me what it means when a campaign says we donated all available funds to an antihuman trafficking charity? Does that mean that if Epstein uh Associates gave that campaign uh say $100,000, but you only had $500 left and you then donated all available funds? Is is that it's $500? Is that what that means?

[00:32:53]Because I I just don't understand this all available funds thing.