Trump Throws DERANGED TANTRUM after COURT DEFEAT!!!

Donald Trump completely losing it and throwing a tantrum after a DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling blocking the construction of the so -called ballroom, which Donald Trump now claims is his shield is his drone port is his shield against the ballistic missiles targeting the White House.That's how he's describing it right now.The D .C.Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Republican judge who's the district court judge who said, look, Donald, You want to build your ballroom?No.

There's something called the property clause in the United States Constitution.That is the role of Congress to provide you the funding for it.Go to Congress if that's what you want to do.You claim there's some national security reasons for needing bunkers and hospitals and military facilities.Under the White House.OK, you can do that underneath the White House, but above ground, we're not buying that.

It's a shield.It's a shield for you.OK, the district court said no.The D .C.Circuit said we don't buy the ballroom is a shield.

Feel free to build your security compound underneath, but not the ballroom.And we're not buying your argument that the ballroom is part of the hospital and the bunker underneath.So, no, we'll give you 14 days.if you want to appeal this to the Supreme Court.This was a two -to -one decision.The Trump -appointed judge said no in the dissent.

It was basically a standing argument on the dissent that nobody has standing to sue Trump, nobody can stop him, and so therefore we won't even get to the merits because there's no standing.So Donald Trump posting on social media This 3000 word ranting and raving like a lunatic post.I'm not going to read for you the full thing, but here's what he says.I'll just give you some of the low lights of it.Trump saying thehas been stayed and does not take effect for a period of time.

We will be immediately appealing to the Supreme Court.The military and secret service are viewing this horrendous politically motivated and unlawful ruling as a national security threat to our nation and that the entire complex is being built for the protection of our country.And additionally, all future presidents, the single integrated project includes bomb shelters, a state of the art hospital, medical facilities, protective partitioning, top -secret military facilities, structures and equipments, protective missile -resistant steel columns, roofs, and beams, drone -proof ceilings and roofs, military -grade venting and bullet ballistic and blast -proof glass.It's all tied together as one big, expensive, and very complex unit, which is vital to the national security and military operations.Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.You are literally a loser.

You are pathetic.There's been no former president, but you know what I need?I need a shield.I need a shield in the people's house and I'm going to call it a ballroom and it's going to be a ballroom shield.Trump's lawyers.in arguments, both in writing and before the district court, said the ballroom is independent from what's happening underneath.

That's one of the things that was cited by the federal judge and the DC circuit.Aha, when Trump is in court and his lawyers are in court, they say one thing.When Trump is on social media ranting and raving like the psychotic lunatic that he is, he lies and says something else, including lying that the taxpayers don't have to pay for this.course, we have to pay for this hundreds and millions of dollars, perhaps billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars, like 1 .2 billion.When you talk about this bunker and all the other things that are happening here that no taxpayer wants right now at all.And how can

is it that he wants this vanity ballroom so badly that he now says that this is what the country needs?And it just goes to show you also that he believes he is the country.He doesn't give a shit about the rest of us.He thinks he's the country, that he needs this, and so if he needs it, that's in the national interest.No, screw you.Honestly, and it's stuff like this while the American people are suffering right now, while people can't afford anything that has pissed people the hell off.

And now he's going to go to his Supreme Court begging like the little baby that he is for his freaking golden ballroom, while most Americans can't even afford their rent next month.I want to bring in Harry Lippman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Substack and Podcast.Now, Harry, We reported on Friday about the D .C.Circuit Order, 136 pages, okay?It was very well -reasoned.

It cites what Trump's lawyer said.It cites the Constitution.It cites all of the laws that are at play here, and also common sense.No other president just woke up one day and said, you know what?I'm going to just wreck an entire wing of it.By the way, there are going to be massive health issues down the road, I believe, in my opinion, with asbestos.

There was no asbestos mitigation.We know from this order, too, there were lots of surveys that were actually done that the National Park Service covered up that said this is bad for D .C., it's bad for the environment, and it was just ignored.And then just 48 hours, Trump just demolishes the thing.And now he's whining, just whining.

And it's just loser behavior.Harry, where does this go from here?What do you make of the ruling?But where does this go from here?He goes to this.It seems like a very well -reasoned decision.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Supreme Court stays it just because that's kind of their automatic reflex.But I can't imagine the Supreme Courtwho knows, maybe they'll say on standing, I don't know.But these types of cases are the limited areas where the Supreme Court has been a little bit hands off while giving Trump kind of full authority in other areas.What do you make of it?

Yeah, let's start with the opinion itself, Ben.It is really fine, just as a matter of judicial craft.It's 136 pages.Really, what's at play here is should they overturn a stay?and that's this familiar but not so scrupulously followed by some courts, including the highest court in the land, four -part test of who's likely to win and where are the balance of equities and where's the irreparable harm.They do it really in an exquisite punctilious way, I think, but more than that, I think Judge Millett wrote this in part for us.

Justice Jackson does this sometimes and Justice Kagan as well.It really I would commend, including maybe especially to non -lawyers, it's just a few paragraphs in the first few pages that really sound the broader important themes.Themes like, he's got no power here at all, this has to be with Congress.Themes like, he doesn't get a get out of law free card, to quote that.Things like, You built the hole in the ground yourself, and now you're saying, oh no, that's what makes it so exigent.It doesn't work that way.

They cleanly sort of fillet him on his main arguments, and they do it with paragraphs that, you know, the shit comes at us every week, as it has this week, and we break it down, and the Midas Mighty and you laudably break it down.into the fine legal points and it's sometimes hard to just keep focus on what we're talking about.We're talking about a president.Another thing they say very clearly, no president owns the White House, you're a temporary occupant.And it's quite clear that's the law, but he somehow wants to just completely blow up to crap the beautiful, much -loved and American kind of skyline of the D .C.

So we have the White House.Every seventh grader, you know, goes there, sees it.It's neoclassical and modest in design.It's not imperial and Buckingham Palace and Trumpian because it expresses who we are.And one president coming in and just crapping all over that to make a personal, as you very well put it, vanity project.You know, that's wrong under the law.

There's not the power under the law.There's this statute that Congress passed that makes it clear that they just can't do it.But also it's like wrong.wrong for the democracy, wrong sort of thematically for the people we are and what the people's house means to us, and the opinion handles that very well.Okay, the stay thing goes on and on.I would just want to, on one of the four points, we have a mad woman, and it has to be said, in dissent, who I think It's really hard to, you know, I think her, certainly this was true in the big Bozberg case we covered and the contempt there that's still going on.

She writes often, and here is one of them for an audience of one, that would be the person who might appoint the next Supreme Court justice.But she says the irreparable injury part.On the one hand, you have plaintiffs, us,and the possibility that this beautiful, serene, you know, built way back when part of DC will just be turn into this grotesque, gaudy mausoleum, that's irreparable injury.What does she say is irreparable injury?Basically, that Trump won't be able to do his thing.

So I think the stay arguments are much stronger and really laid out well by Judge Millett.Here is, though, you put your finger on the scary part coming up.The plaintiffs here are the historic trust preservation.They came in and said, and it's true, all this stuff, it's always illegal.The question is, do you have the right plaintiff?They came in and said, here's all the things you didn't comply with.

The judge below, you're right, the Republican appointed judge below, didn't make it easy for them.You know, you didn't get it right yet.No, not yet.And then finally, we're at this point where if you really say because of this hole you built that you had no business building that it's dangerous, fine, secure it.Now, Trump brazenly has tried to actually use that as his argument on the merits that in fact, you need this 90 ,000 square foot mausoleum in the sky for security.It might have the finest security, of course it might not, it's Donald Trump talking, but you don't need it for that reason.

But here's the rub, Ben.So the plaintiffs are able to say it's absolutely established law.and they applied it correctly in the D .C.Court of Appeals, a so -called aesthetic injury.Essentially, they're saying, not like I'm a guy who passes the White House once every couple years.

We're a society.an association that deals with the D .C.C.kind of landscape and all those things, it's really a part.And okay, this grotesque order doesn't cost us money, but it's an aesthetic injury.And it is well -established law.

It's pretty much the established law for all environmental cases that if there's a certain intensity, then there's standing.The rub is, I know I'm taking a little while to get to the point, but the whole notion of it really sticks in conservative judges' craws.They don't like aesthetic injury.That sounds to them airy -fairy, and you just kind of care about things, but whereas if you had a quarter injury, that should count.This is going to go to the Supreme Court, and I believe, and they've already given, the DC Circle was, We'll give you two weeks just to do it.We won't even put our order into effect.

Trump's already run there.But their argument's gonna be no standing.I really think that will be the main thing as opposed to the whole calculus about the four factors.And the Supreme Court, unlike the Court of Appeals, is in a position to say, and you and I can identify right now two or three justices who will say it, Yeah, aesthetic injury, that's too namby -pamby for our vision of the Constitution.So what really could be at stake is a holding that the National Historic Trust Preservation, that is the plaintiffs here, that the judge below, the circuit court, green -lighted, doesn't have the standing under the Constitution.That might mean that nobody does, and it would certainly be a real

of the law that would have massive implications for environmental law and the like.That's, however, where I think the fight is going to be in the Supreme Court and emergency docket.So this big proposition will be fought with no briefing, no oral argument.The right answer here Justice Kagan recently made this point in the Ninth Circuit.The right answer here is the republic's not going to end if he can't build this stupid ballroom in the sky.One day we can think about the standing question with real briefing and real oral argument.

We're not gonna use this hurried up emergency, emergency motion to actually slice out aesthetic standing that's been so well established.But that's the concrete risk both for reversing the Court of Appeals and for really gutting environmental law is if the court changes where things now stand and says, aesthetic standing, nah, we don't think so.

And then while you're at it, get a copy of WTF America, the book I wrote with my brothers, that's out in stores October, but pre -order it now.But subscribe to Harry's YouTube and you can give him the coded sentence, WTF America, Harry, and it'll be our little thing.

I think that's such a little secret.They're the mightest mighty.They are legions of forces out there.We're learning more every day.

That's what we talk about in the book.It's one of the ways,the ways out of this hell, as the title describes.Hit subscribe here, and more importantly, subscribe to TalkingFeds YouTube.Thanks, Harry.

Thank you, Ben.Before you go, our book, WTF America is available for pre -order now.It's the story of how we got here and how we fight our way back.To pre -order, scan the QR code or click the link in the description.Let's do this.