Trump DESTROYS his IMMUNITY with INCRIMINATING Court ADMISSION!!!

Donald Trump is destroying the so -called absolute immunity that he was given by the Supreme Court, which was outrageous that they would give him absolute immunity to begin with, but leave it to Donald Trump to set fatal traps for himself in cases that he's filing and in his own action that he's bringing and in the arguments that he's having the DOJ make.And I'll give you one example, then I'll give you another example.Example number one, The Trump regime says that there's no standing at all for anybody to challenge his ballroom construction because he's already destroyed the East Wing.When you destroy something, even if you engage in overtly illegal conduct, then there is no judicial remedy in terms of injunctive relief to bring back that which is already destroyed.The Trump regime's trying to make a standing argument to continue building the golden ballroom after demolishing the East Wing by saying it doesn't matter if what we do is illegal, because once we start building, there's no standing.So we win this case, right, Judge?

Because there is no standing for somebody to challenge.We can't rebuild it.So let's just say, I think it's a ridiculous argument, but if you win that case on a standing ground, You may want to play this out about the second and third or fourth level consequences by saying you're maybe engaging in illegal conduct by ripping down the East Wing.And if you're overtly engaging in illegal behavior, then you fall outside the outer perimeter of absolute immunity.Now, there's another example of this when it comes to this slush fund, this one point eight billion dollar slush fund for the Januaryinsurrectionists.

And while the Trump regime now is saying, look, we're not doing this case anymore, it's no longer a judiciable issue because we've said we're not doing anything with the slush fund.Well, if you are now starting out with this $10 billion lawsuit that you filed against the IRS in your personal capacity, not in an official government capacity.Sure, maybe the Trump DOJ is saying we're not now putting together the slush fund because the American people were absolutely livid by it.But Trump brought the very underlying case, not as the president of the United States for which he can invoke immunity if it's an official act.I mean, he could potentially invoke it, even though we'd all be like, that's horrific that he can invoke it.If he were to say, for national security reasons, I'm creating this, or for my ability to faithfully exercise the Constitution, I'm doing, you know, when you can utter those magic words, This Supreme Court, which I think is the worst decision imaginable, gives you cover.

But when you say in your private capacity, hey, I'm the Trump org, I'm Donald Trump, the individual, not the president, and I'm engaging in this behavior, you don't have the immunity.And it gets worse because then in these cases, the Trump regime comes up with the most outlandish arguments to try to win a motion or a case.Which again, they're not looking at the levels of consequences.So when it comes to the ballroom case, for example, the Trump lawyer contended that no lawsuit could stop Trump from tearing down the Statue of Liberty if he wanted to.Because even if you do such an illegal thing like tear down the Statue of Liberty, it's already torn down.You've already destroyed it.

And therefore, there's no standingthat's Circuit Court of Appeals, among other things.But the main argument, or one of the main arguments, there's no standing for this D .C.Preservation Society, Historical Preservation Group, to sue because we've already started it.We've already destroyed the East Wing.

So therefore, there is no remedy.So a judge said, okay, so what if the government decides to very quickly bulldoze the Statute of Liberty?What if Trump just destroys it?And then the people whose ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country.The government moved too fast.And the people whose ancestors are on there, they sued and they said, you just ripped down the Statue of Liberty.

We have standing.What do you think can happen?So nothing can be done.And the DOJ lawyer with a straight face told the panel at the D .C.Circuit, nothing can be done.

Nothing can be done.The Statue of Liberty would go down.They're trying to win a standing argument, which I think they're going to lose, but they're making a broader admission, in my view, regarding just outright criminality.Once we destroy it, then you don't have a remedy against us?Well, there may be a remedy in the future.Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel is here to help us break it down.

Harry.Great to see you right here.And this is what we're seeing also.I mean, the Trump regime and Donald Trump individually, they do things so recklessly, impulsively.my view criminally also in a lot of cases, and giving you my First Amendment opinion, and then they race to whatever they think the argument is, but then they kind of trap themselves in these broader arguments that have deep consequences, and you're like, that's your logical conclusion there?That you could destroy the Statue of Liberty if you want to, and then there's no remedy?

Harry, what do you make of it all?

Yeah, look, I first want to make this general non -legal or broader point, which is to build the ballroom and completely alter the skyline and landscape of the nation's capital, or to give out $1 .8 billion to January 6th offenders, or to give out $100 million or more to Trump.Those are serious issues and the arguments that they're making in each and every one of them is basically to demur, the lawyers would say, which is to say it doesn't matter.about the frigging illegality, because this is such a sort of cynical and nasty overall strategy.There's no standing.You can't find anyone to properly challenge it.Maybe Congress could do something.

Oh, we've got Congress in our back pocket.Never mind about that.So the general approach of doing stuff that completely not just completely bulldozes Congress's role, but really is just a terrible thing for the American people, or at least the American people ought to be able to decide.Their strategy is just standing this precise, nobody can bring it.Okay, and now as to what Yakov Roth, who was handling this in the D .C.

Circuit, said to Judge Millett, we could tear down the Statue of Liberty.You know what?He had thought it through, and he knows Millett is very smart judge, also Garcia and Noemi Rao on the panel.We can talk about that more.But he knew with the argument he was making, that's where he would have to go.This is like the Navy SEALS hypothetical that seemed so conclusive.

in the immunity case, and then lo and behold, the Supreme Court just basically said, oh, we don't care.The idea that, yep, they could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, nothing you can do about it, was really the kind of concession he had to make trying to win over lawyers, because if he said otherwise, then they're dead.Third, it's exactly the strategy One day, while the, and this judge, by the way, Judge Leon, George W. Bush appointee, and he had first said to the plaintiffs, national historic, you know, I haven't done it quite right, and while that time was happening, they were just, you know, sending out people to build a big hole in the ground, and then saying, oh, too late now.But that is really false.What's too late, you could say, is that by the very hole they've dug, they've created security problems that now have to be shored up.And Leon said that, the D .

C.Circuit said that, but they're really trying to say, oh, so now it's too late, we get to build the whole ballroom to handle security.That's not the case, and that's exactly what's in front of the D .C.Circuit.If they really come and say to them, you know, you screwed up, you trusted us.

And now there's a hole in the ground.And look, it's a terrible security risk.By the way, there was already a secure compound there.in the east wing before.Let's set that aside, though.They're saying, okay, you bastards, you did it, so make that part safe.

But that doesn't mean you get to build the entire facility.ballroom.I think we're going to talk separately about what they're saying in the slush fund, but it's the same idea.It might be illegal as the day is long, but too bad nobody can argue it.We're really talking about cynical ways of sabotaging the very ability of anyone to just try to bring up the issues.And by the way, I don't think it's going to work here.

We'll talk about it.But among other things, it's been a good couple weeks in certain ways, and where?In the actual popular pushback, the, you know, Midas, Mighty Millions, and FedHeads and others, because the Senate declined to give all the money for the ballroom, or to sort of fold that in to their voterama, similar to the fund.But that's really when they pull this kind of dastardly move of, ha ha ha, you can't sue us, really then it's critical to build political opposition.And all you have to do is make people understand what the hell they're doing.And that's why this question, page 15, everyone, of the Patty Millett Roth transcript, yep, they say they can destroy the Statute of Liberty.

That's a soundbite that ought to stick and people ought to understand the principle that they're advocating for the temporary holders in the people's name of government power.But while we're here temporarily, we can ransack the entire capital ofburn Atlanta, as it were.That's a foul, not to mention, I think, lawless vision of what it means to take care, in the people's name, that the laws be executed faithfully.

kind of rhetorical tool used by the federal judge needs to be used more.You need to put these Trumpers, and by the way, I think Democrats need to do this more when they have witnesses on the stand, rather than listening to themselves talk and ask the questions.

You know, ask the - You really are a revolutionary.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.And bring their argument to the logical conclusion.Got it.So what you're saying is you can destroy the Statue of Liberty and there won't be standing.Yes.Okay.

Got it.I mean, and you have to kind of get there, get the full extent of their position that way.And I was glad the judge did it, Harry.

I did too.I just want a quick point.When they're in front of Congress, they're also subpoena under oath.But when they field questions like that, they bob and weave and insult the questioners, etc.That's the kind of function Trump that courts still serve.You can't say, Patty Mallette, you're stupid.

And, you know, I've got my book, Patty Mallette, right here.

It turns out that in eighth grade, did you say, I mean, that's what people do.And that's why they didn't want Pam Bondi to be under oath and before a camera.And I did a whole breakdown of a video where I showed that, you know, that she was basically saying that Bondi said, I'm not going to answer answer any questions before my time as Attorney General, so anything 2024 before I won't answer.What about 2025?I will not answer any communications as Attorney General with anybody in the executive branch, including Donald Trump.Okay, so that means you're not going to have any communication.

Okay, well then what about just your general knowledge about the search queries that were made that's not a communication, that's not before 2024.Your general knowledge of search queries regarding the Epstein files, were you trying to flag information that may have had Trump's name on it?That's not a con...I don't recall.Got it.

Not 2024 or before.You executive privilege.You don't recall.Those are your three answers to all of those questions.Why this what you and I do is really important in getting this knowledge out to show people this is their schemes.This is the tools.

This isn't some hyperbolic debate where one side yells and the other side yells.And it's let me explain to you how this is going.

Anyway, thanks, Harry, for all you do.

Everybody subscribe to Harry Lippman's YouTube channel.It's called Talking Feds.As soon as this ends, go search Talking Feds.