Broadview Six Case Ended in Total Disaster for Trump’s DOJ (w/ Mary McCord) | Illegal News
YouTube · 9eQkGYjvQLY
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖Trump's $1.8 billion 'slush fund' lacks transparency, allowing him to appoint and remove board members without cause and keep payouts confidential.
- ❖An addendum to the fund's settlement agreement grants broad immunity from future investigations and IRS audits to Trump, his family, and affiliates, which is likely legally voidable.
- ❖The Abrego Garcia case was dismissed due to vindictive prosecution, highlighting the administration's retaliatory use of legal processes.
- ❖The Broadview 6 case was dismissed with prejudice after a judge discovered prosecutors improperly excused grand jurors and redacted this misconduct from transcripts.
- ❖The timing of a decades-old indictment against Raul Castro raises questions about its true purpose, potentially being a tool for geopolitical pressure rather than new evidence.
- ❖Mary McCord emphasizes the severe damage to the Department of Justice's credibility and the critical need to rebuild judicial and public trust.
Insights
1Trump's $1.8 Billion 'Slush Fund' Lacks Transparency and Accountability
The fund, symbolically valued at $1.776 billion, is not tethered to any demonstrated injury or projected claims. Its terms mandate confidentiality for claims and recipients. Trump retains the power to fire any of the five board members selected by Todd Blanch without cause, ensuring loyalty and discouraging awards he disapproves of. The criteria for awards are vague, relying on 'strength of the claim' and 'claimant's actions,' making it a 'big slush fund of free money stolen from the taxpayers to pay out to President Trump's allies.'
Mary McCord details that the fund's amount is symbolic, not based on actual claims, and that its operations, including who files claims and receives money, are confidential. She also highlights Trump's ability to fire board members without cause, which undermines accountability. ( - )
2Addendum Grants Broad Immunity from Audits and Investigations to Trump and Affiliates
A one-page addendum to the settlement agreement expands beyond typical litigation settlements, purporting to bar the U.S. government from bringing any investigation, examination, civil, or criminal claims against Donald Trump, his family members, related individuals, or companies for matters up to the time of the settlement. This includes IRS tax audits and claims arising from 'lawfare or weaponization.' McCord describes this as the equivalent of a 'civil pardon' and asserts that Todd Blanch likely lacked the authority to issue such a broad waiver, making it potentially voidable by a future administration.
McCord explains that the addendum prohibits the U.S. from bringing any investigation, civil, or criminal claims against Trump, his family, and affiliates, including tax returns, for anything up to the settlement date. She states, 'That is crazy. That is well beyond anything that we could ever have imagined to see in a settlement agreement.' ( - )
3Abrego Garcia Indictment Dismissed Due to Vindictive Prosecution
A federal judge dismissed the government's indictment against Abrego Garcia, finding it was brought vindictively in retaliation for Garcia's successful litigation against his illegal extraction from the country. The Department of Justice reopened a closed investigation and quickly brought charges after the Supreme Court ordered Garcia's return, despite initially claiming they had no way to facilitate it. The judge found the government failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.
McCord explains the judge dismissed the case 'on the grounds of vindictiveness that it had been brought vindictively against Abrago Garcia in response to Abrago Garcia going up all the way to the Supreme Court originally litigating in the district court after he was illegally and mistakenly extracted from the country.' ( - )
4Broadview 6 Case Dismissed Due to Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct
A judge dismissed felony charges against six protesters (the Broadview 6) with prejudice after uncovering severe prosecutorial misconduct. This included improper vouching for witnesses, substantive communications with grand jurors outside the grand jury room, and most shockingly, prosecutors excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case from deliberations. The government attempted to hide this by redacting transcripts and then dismissing felony charges to moot the issue, but the judge insisted on reviewing the unredacted documents.
The judge stated, 'I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,' listing four problems, including 'The prosecutor excused grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case from the deliberations process.' ( - )
5Decades-Old Raul Castro Indictment Raises Geopolitical Questions
The Department of Justice indicted Raul Castro for an event that occurred in 1996, nearly 30 years ago. While the DOJ maintains a 'long memory' for justice, the timing of this indictment is unusual, prompting questions about whether it's based on newly discovered evidence or is a strategic move to exert geopolitical pressure on Cuba, consistent with a 'Dunro doctrine' approach to regional hegemony.
McCord notes, 'this is, of course, for something that happened back in 1996' and questions if 'the timing is kind of unusual, right? It did something new happen that just broke open the evidence... or is this... a tool to put pressure on the Castro you know regime.' ( - )
Bottom Line
Congress has the statutory power to immediately halt the $1.8 billion 'slush fund' by amending the judgment fund's appropriations or mandating transparency, but current political dynamics hinder such action.
The inaction of Congress allows for the continued misuse of taxpayer funds for politically motivated payouts and undermines the separation of powers, as the executive branch operates without legislative check.
Democrats and 'yolo Republicans' (those not seeking re-election or facing primary challenges) could form a coalition to pass legislation restricting the fund or demanding full transparency, potentially overriding a presidential veto.
The broad immunity granted to Trump and his affiliates via the settlement addendum is likely legally voidable, meaning a future administration could challenge its validity and pursue investigations or audits.
This addendum represents an unprecedented attempt to grant a 'civil pardon' through a settlement, setting a dangerous precedent if unchallenged, but its legal weakness means it may not provide lasting protection.
A future Department of Justice could declare the addendum void and pursue investigations, but this would likely lead to prolonged litigation and further politicization of the legal system.
The repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct and lack of candor to the court have severely eroded the 'presumption of regularity' that judges typically grant the Department of Justice.
Judges are increasingly distrustful of government attorneys, leading to more scrutiny, evidentiary hearings, and dismissals of cases, which impacts the effectiveness and public perception of federal law enforcement.
A future administration will face the immense challenge of rebuilding trust within the judiciary and the public, potentially requiring significant personnel changes and a renewed commitment to ethical conduct and transparency.
Lessons
- Engage with elected representatives to demand congressional oversight and legislative action to ensure transparency and accountability for federal funds like the alleged $1.8 billion 'slush fund'.
- Monitor ongoing legal challenges to executive actions, such as the Capitol Police officers' lawsuit against the slush fund, to understand the mechanisms available for challenging government overreach.
- Recognize the critical importance of judicial independence and integrity in upholding the rule of law, as demonstrated by judges' willingness to dismiss cases due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Notable Moments
A federal judge in the Broadview 6 case expressed 'incredibly shocked' at the redactions in grand jury transcripts and the 'prosecutorial behavior' she uncovered, including excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case.
This moment highlights an extreme breach of prosecutorial ethics and judicial trust, leading to the immediate dismissal of a felony case and underscoring the severe consequences of government misconduct.
The U.S. Attorney, after a judge's scathing critique of prosecutorial misconduct in the Broadview 6 case, immediately dismissed the case with prejudice, freeing all six defendants.
This swift dismissal demonstrates the undeniable nature of the misconduct and the severe damage it inflicted on the government's case, serving as a rare but powerful victory for the rule of law against executive overreach.
Quotes
"If you say, 'Oh, you disagree with me? You're excused.' You've completely undermined that. I mean, this is like jaw-dropping as a former prosecutor for 20 years. Like, I just cannot fathom any prosecutor doing this."
"I will say that having reviewed the grand jury transcripts myself in full and unredacted form, there are significantly bigger problems than misinstructions to the grand jurors. I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts."
"Mistakes happen. They happen to all of us. But as I tell my children, you own it. You admit to it. You apologize for it and you move on. What you do not do is hide it."
"This administration just completely shifted that burden. Said we will just do things without seeing if they're legal and we'll put the burden on others to challenge it."
"The damage to the Department of Justice is just at this point immeasurable. And at some point in the future, if we get to that point where we have a rule of law based administration, they're going to have to rebuild that trust."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Trump DOJ REACHES NEW LOW Trying to SAVE Trump
"Professor Aziz Huck dissects the foundational principles of the rule of law, revealing how modern political partisanship and the Justice Department's 'weaponization fund' challenge core constitutional mechanisms and legal predictability."
Trump Panics As Own Lawyers Turn Against Him Over War
"Donald Trump faces scrutiny from his own Justice Department over alleged insider trading in oil markets tied to Iran war announcements, highlighting broader issues of political corruption and economic destabilization for profit."
Did Israel Drag Us Into the Iran War?
"The US administration's rationale for its large-scale military action against Iran is critiqued as incoherent and potentially influenced by Israel's independent actions, while a major conflict between the Pentagon and leading AI firm Anthropic highlights the urgent need for congressional regulation on AI's military and surveillance applications."
Justice Department CAUGHT pulling Epstein CON
"The Department of Justice released only half of the promised Jeffrey Epstein files, a move the hosts condemn as a deliberate 'rope-a-dope' strategy to suppress transparency and protect powerful figures."