‘Fraud on the court’: Judges smack down Trump’s ‘abuse of the system’

[0:00] rolling succession of rulings, multiple judges came out against what feels like some of Trump's [0:05] highest personal and policy priorities. There was the federal judge who ruled that Trump's name [0:11] must be permanently removed from the Kennedy Center. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher [0:16] Cooper said in a 94-page decision, the Kennedy Center's organic statute makes crystal clear that [0:22] the center is to be named for President Kennedy and it cannot bear any other formal name or public [0:28] memorial based on the board's unilateral say-so. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name and only [0:35] Congress can change it. Then there was the federal judge who put a hold on Trump and his Justice [0:41] Department's efforts to completely whitewash the events of January 6th. U.S. District Judge Amit [0:47] Mehta refused to dismiss the most serious criminal cases stemming from that day. The indictments [0:54] against Oath Keepers leader Stuart Rhodes and his fellow supporters who were convicted on charges of [1:00] seditious conspiracy. The judge wrote, the government has offered little more than a conclusory statement [1:06] that dismissal is in the public interest. It provides neither a statement of reason nor the [1:12] underlying factual basis for the request. In other words, the DOJ hasn't offered any facts or evidence [1:19] to justify it. The judge is giving the DOJ until next Friday to back up its claims that dismissing [1:26] the charges against these far-right militia group members would be in the, quote, public interest. [1:31] And then there is perhaps the biggest rebuke coming from a pair of judges, both focused on Trump's [1:38] $1.8 billion settlement fund that could be doled out to the likes of folks like those members of [1:44] the Oath Keepers and others who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. A federal judge in Virginia has [1:50] temporarily blocked the DOJ from creating the fund and barred them from giving anyone any money as the [1:57] multiple lawsuits against it work their way through the courts. And the judge who initially oversaw Trump's [2:03] lawsuit against the IRS that led to the settlement fund, well, that judge has ordered Trump to address [2:09] the serious allegations that he committed fraud on the court and how he ended his lawsuit and whether [2:15] the deal he agreed to was designed to improperly benefit Trump and his allies. Judge Kathleen [2:22] Williams has given Trump until June 12th to explain how this settlement fund is possibly legitimate. [2:30] Joining us now, Mary McCord, MSNOW, legal analyst, former principal deputy assistant attorney general for the [2:36] National Security Division and co-host of the Maine Justice podcast, and Will Sommer, senior reporter [2:43] for The Bulwark. Whew, that was an introduction. Oh, my God. Man, oh, man. So, Mary, let's start [2:52] with the $1.8 billion, $1.776 billion. Yeah, because, gee, how clever. This settlement fund, [3:04] which comes out of the deal that was made to settle the lawsuit from the IRS. I'm going to play what [3:12] Justice Shira Scheinlin had to say on Thursday with Chris Janssen, where she's, like, urging an inquiry [3:19] into this deal. Watch this. The court was really used, so to speak. There was a fraud on the court. [3:28] Because this was a collusive lawsuit, there may not have been a real case and controversy, [3:34] because President Trump was on both sides of the case, right? He's the president, [3:40] and he's suing his own agency, which he basically controls. So, it was a way of making a deal that [3:48] would then support this anti-weaponization fund and his own immunity, which was never disclosed to [3:55] the court. So, when you have a fraud on the court, former judges care about that. [4:01] I mean, those are strong words. Fraud on the court, Mary. [4:05] Yes. And, you know, I mean, I read the brief order by the judge in Florida yesterday, [4:11] and basically she's saying, I've got the authority under the federal rules to reopen a case in order [4:17] to look into whether there was fraud on the court and potentially even impose sanctions under Rule 11. [4:23] And this is so important, because I'll tell you, before she even dismissed it, [4:26] as this was all bubbling up in the morning that we were learning about the settlement, [4:31] I thought, she should do an inquiry. But she, under Rule 41A1A1... [4:36] I always think about that one. [4:38] Yes. Yes. You know, dismissed it, because generally speaking, once a plaintiff has moved [4:45] to dismiss a case before the defendant has answered, in this case, plaintiff being Donald Trump, [4:49] defendant being the IRS through the Department of Justice, usually a court just dismisses it. [4:54] But the reason she's looking into it is exactly what the judge said. It said, [4:58] it looks like this suit was brought specifically so that there would be litigation, [5:04] so that they could then settle, so that they could then create this fund. [5:08] So there's the blowback legally, but there's also the blowback politically, right, Will? [5:13] Wall Street Journal, on Friday, Trump's $1.8 billion settlement fund sparks alarm inside the White House. [5:20] Quote, administration officials have grown increasingly concerned about the viability of [5:25] the fund, people familiar with what the matter said, which had been expected to provide payouts [5:29] to an array of Trump allies. Trump hasn't agreed to drop the fund, but has told allies that he [5:34] understands he has political problems with Senate Republicans, that people said. So it's like on [5:38] all sides of Pennsylvania Avenue and the legal side of things here. [5:43] Yeah. I mean, I think this was something that was initially so shocking that for like a day or [5:46] two people were stunned, perhaps even the judge herself. I mean, people just had no idea that [5:50] something like this could happen. And now we're seeing this pushback, even from people like [5:54] Senate Republicans, some of whom Trump has helped ensure that they lose their seats. And they're [5:59] saying, hold up, you're going to give money, millions of dollars to people who assaulted cops. [6:03] In the case of Stuart Rhodes, who we mentioned, someone who was stockpiling weapons in Virginia [6:06] for some kind of, you know, extreme coup violence. I mean, this is serious stuff. And now we're [6:12] seeing that there are a lot of roadblocks in the way of this fund. Do you think Trump cares? [6:15] I don't think he cares. I mean, you know, it's interesting. [6:18] It's a rhetorical question. [6:19] You know, in a way, I'm almost surprised he's doing it in the first place, because to be [6:22] frank, I don't think he cares all that much about his followers or making sure that they [6:25] get money versus himself. But, you know, certainly he he wants this money to get out there. [6:29] Mary, you just mentioned to Jonathan that the Trump administration could face sanctions. [6:35] What type of sanctions? Like, what's the what's the repercussions? [6:39] Well, I mean, there could, you know, under Rule 11, that's a that's a tool for the court to [6:43] say, you know, you've committed some sort of mis or inquire into misconduct. And sanctions [6:48] could include penalties, including civil, you know, fines, but could also include, you [6:52] know, bar consequences for the lawyers that appeared. And I think that's something I would [6:56] be pretty worried about if I were one of the lawyers involved in this. [7:00] Could we talk about move away from judges beaten up on Trump? [7:06] Do we have to? [7:07] Wait, do you have more to add? [7:09] Mary, do you have more? [7:10] She could do this all day. [7:11] It's a big day for judges to flex some muscle yesterday. [7:12] Well, you know what? Actually, let's stick with this. I was going to turn our attention to [7:17] the president going after his perceived enemies like Reid Hoffman and other folks. But it was an [7:24] extraordinary day when you had all of the court, these judges coming out with their decisions at [7:29] a time when a lot of people probably felt like the government, the three branches of government, [7:35] there weren't three anymore. That Congress is what, Eugene? The only staffing arm of the executive. [7:44] And there were more than a few judges who were willing to go along, particularly the Supreme Court, [7:49] with what the president wants to do. But judges in the last couple of days have been like, [7:54] hold up, wait a minute. [7:56] Yeah, we still have a role to play. And our role, in fact, is to say what the law is. And that's [8:00] what they're going to do. And I think you saw two extraordinary things yesterday. The decision by [8:04] Judge Cooper, you know, saying that Trump's name needs to come off the Kennedy Center. I mean, [8:10] that's him just following the law, saying that it was Congress who created the Kennedy Center. [8:15] They did it by statute. Trump can't change that. The board of trustees can't change that. [8:19] These other cases, right, involving the slush fund, these are the judges. And even [8:24] Judge Mehta saying, I'm not going to dismiss this underlying criminal case so easily. A criminal [8:29] case that, by the way, those who were convicted have already been pardoned or had their sentences [8:33] commuted. But like, they're saying, you're, I think they're questioning maybe an abuse of the [8:39] system, right? And they're feeling like the courts need to assert their authority and not be [8:44] railroaded by this government. And the problem is justice moves slowly, whereas like Donald Trump [8:50] has been moving very fast, which is where the issue has been. I will help. I will move us along [8:55] to Reid Hoffman. Reid Hoffman, for those that don't know, this is a guy who gives a lot of money to [9:02] Democrats. This is someone who Donald Trump has said over and over in the past that he wants to go [9:07] after. Let's listen to some sound of that. Well, Soros is a name certainly that I keep hearing. I hear [9:14] names of some pretty rich people that are radical left people. Maybe I hear about a guy named Reid [9:22] Hoffman. Somebody is a pretty rich guy, I guess. And I hear about him. And if they are funding these [9:27] things, they're going to have some problems because they're agitators and they're anarchists. [9:31] You should go and look at the Democrats who received money from Epstein, who spent their time. [9:37] Larry Summers was was with him all the time. That creep of the fund guy was with him all the time. [9:46] What's his name? Reid Hoffman. I don't know Reid Hoffman, but I know he spends a lot of money on [9:52] the radical left. Reid Hoffman, in my opinion, should be under investigation. He's a sleazebag. [9:59] Now, this is all connected to this DOJ probe of possibly E. Jean Carroll as part of this criminal [10:06] investigation to a nonprofit that is funded by Reid Hoffman that helped her lawsuit here. And so [10:13] it ties into, well, a lot of different folks that Donald Trump has an issue with. We've continued to [10:19] see him using the DOJ as his personal arm, whether or not it's implicit or explicit to the DOJ to [10:24] actually do it. Do you think this one is politically different than any of the others? [10:29] You know, I think it's unique in part because now we're seeing Trump and the DOJ go after private [10:34] citizens, people who are not. Former FBI director James Comey, someone like Leticia James. Now they're [10:39] going after. And I know they're saying, oh, we're not officially investigating E. Jean Carroll. I mean, [10:42] from the reporting, it seems like that could change at any minute. I don't think they would really, you [10:46] know, hold back from doing that. I mean, we're seeing also, I think, politically, ideologically, [10:51] we're seeing this. The second Trump administration really uses its power much more to crush its [10:55] enemies. And these are people, they're saying, we're going to go after groups like the Southern [10:58] Poverty Law Center. We're going to go after wealthy billionaires like Reid Hoffman and sort of [11:02] essentially scare rich people from supporting democratic causes. [11:06] Mary, what do you think about this from the legal perspective? [11:09] Well, so, you know, this is something that footage, I'm pretty sure of Donald Trump talking [11:14] about Reid Hoffman was from when he signed NSPM 7, right, which is the National Security Presidential [11:21] Memorandum, which basically directed all the power of the federal government, not just DOJ, [11:26] but IRS, et cetera, to really crack down on what he perceived as, you know, liberal organizations. [11:34] He didn't use the word liberal. He used words like anti-American, anti-traditional values, [11:39] and their funders. And that's when he specifically called out George Soros and Reid Hoffman. [11:44] So I think this is sort of the administration now making good on what he intended by that NSPM 7. [11:52] Same with SPLC, same with the charges against SPLC. This is a group that he perceives as being [11:58] anti-traditional values. And, you know, one thing about that National Security Presidential [12:02] Memorandum is it didn't create new crimes, it didn't create new investigative tools, but it was a [12:09] signaling mechanism. First of all, use, you know, make this a priority, federal government. And it [12:14] was totally one-sided, right? It was directed just at organizations that he perceives as extremist [12:21] and violent and harmful, but only on one side of the political spectrum. And that's a real—and for a [12:27] long time, we hadn't seen anything really happening, and now we're seeing it happening. And that's a very [12:32] dangerous thing. We should point out that Reid Hoffman tweeted yesterday, responding to the DOJ [12:37] investigation, and I quote, Trump's newest accusation of me is absurdly false. The premise [12:42] of the investigation would be laughable if the subject matter weren't so serious. He is [12:46] investigating me because I supported E. Jean's lawsuit, where a jury found Trump liable for [12:51] sexually assaulting her, and a court of appeals upheld the decision. I just don't know why he would [12:57] want to—Mr. Trump would want people to be talking about this case again. Exactly. It's like [13:01] enforcement. Here we go. [13:03] Here we go.