I don't know what's the best place.
Wow, it's with Yuforia in the third city.
A couple of years after the high school.
“I don't know if that's what I wanted to live.”
Stream up on the 13th April, parallel to U.S. start really a new episode. That's a problem. And you're a part of it with your head. There's no way back now.
Before I go outside, I'll be home on the dragon and wake up. All of a sudden, two hours in the night.
Streaming, but not so, wow.
"Very good, very good, very good." "Very good?" "Very good." "Very good." "That's a whole lot."
"Cool!" "We'll say that!" "Stift on the wall and test computer, focus management, finance, and search for something." "Mega!"
"But that's not what it's like." "Well, just a few photos of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound of the sound, and now the cube-capsi machine in your Chibofiale and on the Chibode E. A perfect reference tag.
"Sone, park, picnic." "And so many poems." "Shopopoteek" says, "Tschüss allergie" and "Hallofulling."
“Here, if you want to come to the world through the allergies.”
As a new customer, spend 10% up to 35 euros. With the code "Neu-10." "Do you have a recipe?" "You just need to take a picture." "Just take a picture."
"Just take a picture." "Just take a picture." "The football is over there." "Now it's time to start with the cube." "And so much with the game."
"Click on the banner." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And the game is over."
“"And if the game is over, the game is over."”
"And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over."
"And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over."
"And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over." "And if the game is over, the game is over."
proxies, magma, Mike Johnson and others in Congress, they've been saying, we want to let everybody know that at this time, we will not be going forward with the January six slush fund that is part of that collusive settlement that Donald Trump entered into with the United States government for $1.8 million to go to J6 in Syracuse 1.776. They don't really address the fact that Donald Trump also gave himself essentially a super-part in having the IRS wave any right to investigate Donald Trump for past tax evasion or to have the government investigate him for any potential tax crimes or anything like that.
But the attorney directing attorney general blanch and all of Trump's maga sick offense to Congress like just trust us trust us trust us as well. There was a lawsuit that's been going on and is a lawsuit that's going on in Virginia federal case where a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking this slush fund blocking this $1.8 billion. And the party showed up, the DOJ lawyer showed up, the lawyers who brought the lawsuit showed up. And the federal judge says, like, I'm going to issue this preliminary injunction, but I'll just if you, DOJ just put in writing under penalty of perjury that there is no slush fund that you're not going to revive it when you use language like at this time, we do not intend to go forward with it, just say there is no fund, it's not happening period put it under penalty of perjury.
And I'll dismiss the case because it'll be moot because you've put on the record that this isn't happening otherwise there is an active case and controversy that is happening right now because I can't just trust your environments, the presumption of regularity is gone. We don't trust the DOJ's word anymore.
So the judge said, here's my request, here's what I'm going to order you to do either the case proceeds through a path of discovery through a path of litigation and a trial and a permanent injunction.
And we go that route or submit a declaration and just say what you're telling me in court, but not under penalty of perjury, with the rules of court sign your name and say have Todd Blanche put his name to it and say, we are shutting down this fund.
It doesn't exist period full stop and we are revoking or removing any of the ...
So the deadline came do on Friday. We were all wondering, okay, what's the DOJ going to do? It's pretty simple. They seem to be very cagey about it at the last hearing when Judge Brinkhamah, she's a federal judge was asking questions of lawyer like why don't you put it in writing. The DOJ lawyer was like, I'm not really sure. And then Judge Brinkhamah was like, what do you mean you're not sure. I mean, that's pretty big case. Are you speaking with Todd Blanche, you don't know what your position is. Well, then on Friday, we saw what really went down and the DOJ made their filing and they attacked the judge.
Basically, they basically said in the filing that you are exceeding your authority as an article three judge as a federal judge by asking us to submit a declaration.
You're intruding on the executive branch. How dare you ask acting attorney general Todd Blanche to submit a declaration under penalty of her jury that the things he said in Congress and that the things he that you are representing to me.
“How dare you ask us to put that in a declaration. I think interesting part is that the judge didn't even frame it as you must manually submit this declaration, the judge said, submit it and the case is moot.”
And I'll use that as you putting on the record that you're not going to go far with this fund or don't. And then I'll go forward with the case. I'll have to issue, I guess, a formal permanent injunction if we have to go down that path. And so it's interesting because at the same time you have the DOJ attacking Judge Brinkham, you have the DOJ attack be not the DOJ.
You had Trump's personal lawyer attacking the federal judge in Florida, who's been asking additional questions about what took place regarding the underlying case.
They've attacked the judge as a judge. You don't have article three standing. You shouldn't ask us any questions. You know, it's inappropriate for you to be at, you know, for you to be what being a judge. The notable thing this argument that a judge does not have standing or that the judge is not allowed to inquire of the parties or in the case of a judge Brinkham up to make a request to submit a declaration of the DOJ. For the DOJ to say that intrudes upon the DOJ, that means every order a judge does at all would intrude upon it's regular that when there's a lawsuit.
“The judge is going to make orders that you have to follow and comply with, but the Trump Justice Department's refusing to indicate in a sword declaration that it's backing off this lush fund.”
Plaming that judge Brinkham up in the Eastern District, Virginia that just just trust us, bro, just trust us. The language that the DOJ's been using in their filing and that hearings is we're not moving forward with the fund or at this time we're not moving forward. What does that even mean we're not moving forward? Now you're not moving forward, but you may want to move forward with it in the future and Trump's been out there saying, no, I want to move forward with him. Maybe we'll just delay it for now.
Of course, everybody's going to say put it in writing and the DOJ refuses, and here's what they say, they go, so this is let's bring an area lit, because I've never seen any like this, Harry, this is the DOJ's filing such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns. The acting attorney general Todd Blanche already testified before Congress and counsel for defendant the lawyer in the case has twice set on the record the same thing. So there's no reason why a declaration must affect the court's moodness analysis.
All right, declarations are the way we communicate and court things are under penalty of perjury, but we know with Donald Trump his whole life has been trying to avoid being under penalty of perjury. And here with Judge saying just put it under follow our court rules in the United States of America, this system that's developed since the magna carda that's resulted in our judicial, this is how you do it.
“What does regime is like saying, no, we're Putin's Russia. We, we ain't doing this is not what we do in the U that's what's really going on here, Harry.”
It is cheeky and fast in your seat belts, this is going to be quite a ride. Look, she made it very clear.
This is what I need by last Friday, as you said, they didn't get it and the whole tone of it is basically a middle finger to a federal judge.
As you say, it is the straightforward way you would normally verify something...
Normally, that's a kind of argument that can succeed because the lower down folks, it's not as if you can't make a party to a case, testify or talk to you or or give legal argument, but typically it would be, it doesn't have to be the attorney general, he or she's very busy, et cetera.
“But here's the thing, Ben, this settlement agreement, they signed, this is Stan Woodward himself who signed it because they wanted to show its import and they wanted to suck up to Trump and Todd Blanch put his name on the whole filing.”
I would never see that normally, but that means these are the guys who are the equivalent of the line attorneys, it's not someone below who's made a decision, they made the damn decision and she is every right to follow up now with them.
The next point, this is really kind of interesting legally, but the sort of tension of it was off the page and it's going to bring them out whom I actually way back in the day,
Ben and when she was an applicant for the bench, I don't think she's going to take this sitting down, they are legally, they can say whatever they want about what Blanch testified to in the Senate, and by the way they are overplaying their hand, if you read their filings carefully, and if you read what the people said in court carefully, basically all they're saying is, it's what he said. Blanch said it before, and as a legal matter that either does or doesn't make the case mood and you're right, the answer I think, and it's just to bring him out of say is, that doesn't make it mood and indeed the fact that you won't give us a declaration won't put it in writing and you assert in this grassy way, we just have to believe, you know, what kind of suckers do you think we are, even Richard Leonsa, don't play me.
For a patchy here, obviously there's some room still to make it live and by the way, if Donald Trump, who as you're saying is championing this thing and saying he wants to get it done, in Todd Blanch's Department of Justice, that's all that has to happen for a reversal of position. If Trump says it, it changes and we know that, and to just go at the intricacies of the law a little bit more, like the other cases with the slush fund with the possible exception of one, the standing argument here is pretty tenuous and it might not get them out of the box, but they have made it now has the administration about this muteness thing.
“So she can just put to the side whether Floyd, the plaintiff and others have standing and say, "I want to, I've got to figure out whether it's mut."”
And if you won't give me anything more than this, I'm going to go forward.
I'm going to order a briefing for a few weeks from now and I don't see muteness here, whatever you want to say about Todd Blanch, and that is just a straightforward legal question.
“Now, they are really rattling sabers here, is the DOJ and they're basically saying, "Yeah, just try us.”
Bring them out. We're going to thank you to the force circuit." And they might. The force circuit has been not so reliably for Trump even their conservative folks, like Jay Harvey Wilkinson, and really all she's saying here is it is in mut. And as she says, "I'm not accepting this to be mut," and they bring an emergency motion to the force circuit, what are they going to say exactly? What's the irreparable harm? And if the status in her case is, this ain't mut, to me, that doubles back potentially to the whole political landscape in the Senate and Congress where people said, "We don't like this damn fund," and we don't think it's been put to bed.
We have a federal court saying this isn't mut, and that rehashes the whole political controversy that made them have to back down from the suit in the first place.
I think because of their abstreparousness and as you say, caginess, squirliness, they have bought a battle with another federal judge, kind of like Bozberg, as they've done in a few others, and here, even though they can come in and say, "Make us, I think Brinkamah has a real kind of claim to say, "Okay, I won't make you, but guess what?
"The case isn't mut," mut means x, y, and z under the lot, we don't have that...
I'll be the state of play for the whole controversy. So they're ready to sort of take her on. They're spoiling for a fight really, and I think they're going to get one.
Right, I mean, a preliminary injunction is preliminary. Where's the permanent injunction is permanent? The Trump regime and their DOJ wants the preliminary injunction to be dissolved. So there's no court order saying it's mut by using language at this time we're not going forward. So then once the court order goes away, then maybe in three months, they go, "Okay, well, now we're bringing it back, and then they want you to refile the lawsuit.
“"They're hope maybe as we draw a different judge, and then we stretch it out even longer." And then we go, "Well, that's what we said now, and now we've changed our opinion because x, y, and z thing happened. They'll come up with some event."”
Well, that's what we said then, and this is a very basic one. This whole concept is unlawful to begin with.
Two, the entire lawsuit of Trump, the private citizen suing Trump, the government, and then taking our taxpayer dollars, and then getting involved in this, you know, Colusive settlement, which is also being addressed in the Florida case. I mean, that concept is unfathomable to both you and I, you know, legal grants it, unfathomably unconscionable, you know, thing, but then you get into court, and it's like, "Okay, the judge, just sign the declaration. I'll get rid of the case." Well, why would we put the case? Well, that's odd. Well, then it seems like you are going to violate this. Well, you can't get blanched. Okay, well, for whatever reason, the attorney general of the United States is signing legal documents, like he's the line attorney, he's signing settlement agreements as the party.
“So, that's not normal. So, if you're making yourself literally the person in the case, that's the person I want to hear from. So, yeah, so, so that's where we're at.”
You know, it's, it's bizarre, it's strange. The DOJ's reputation has been, as an entity is, is in the trash. Don't get me wrong. They're still prosecutors who are handling their cases as best as they can's, you know, in some cases, but as an institution, the DOJ looks like a, you know, a lemon lawyer under suspension for, you know, for ripping off the client. Like, I can't even explain, you know, no offense to lemon lawyer. I mean, there are good ones, but I'm set, but there's a, there's a particular type in LA superior who would be like working off their suspension, who would be showing up into court and the judge would ask a basic question.
And they would never know the answer and you'd sit there and you'd be like, dude, just know what you're, it's how this person even passed the bar exam, you know, anyway, Harry, we have a lot to, you could talk about your event on July 3 that you've got with Senator Schiff and San Diego. Thanks for bringing that up. Yeah, you know, we do a talking San Diego series one on one conversations. We've had some really great guests, a couple weeks ago Governor Shapiro, and the next one is with Senator Adam Schiff. It's a one on one conversation with me and him.
“I've been really animated fun, interesting, and of course he's in the center of so much should the dams take control of the Senate in November.”
So we're doing it on the holiday February 3rd, but we're thinking, you know, people will be around hopefully 10 30 in the morning for one hour inexpensive tickets.
And that congregation Beth Israel, which is in La Jolla and you go to talking San Diego.net. You can buy tickets, get all the information, but this has been a really fun and I think pretty darn educational series for the the public. That's what we mean it to be. And yeah, the next the next event we're really looking forward to Adam Schiff, Friday July 3rd, 10 30. Also check out Harry Littman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. So on your YouTube right now after you finish watching this search talking feds watch some of Harry's legal analysis there and tell Harry in the comments that Ben said.
Once they plugged in, become a subscriber to our sub stack at mitisplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Runfield Cowsky and three episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content, only available at mitisplus.com.
