Trump SLUSH FUND Instantly UNDERMINED by CONSTITUTION!!! | It's Complicated

Professor David Super explains that Donald Trump's $1.776 billion settlement for leaked tax returns, filed against his own administration, is legally problematic. The lawsuit was 'speculative, thinly supported,' and lacked standard legal requirements like demonstrating damages or compliance with the statute of limitations. The core issue is the collusive nature of the litigation, where Trump controlled lawyers on both sides, making it a 'play-acting' scenario that federal courts are mandated to dismiss.

President Trump's lawyers filed a very unusual speculative, and thinly supported lawsuit against the federal government claiming $10 billion. President Trump's lawyers, his other lawyers in the Justice Department, settled that case for a agreement that includes a 1.776 billion dollar fund... Congress has passed a law saying that you cannot get jurisdiction in federal court through a collusive lawsuit where both sides are working together.

The settlement attempts to draw funds from the Judgment Fund, a congressional appropriation for legitimate judgments or good-faith settlements consistent with federal law. However, this settlement is argued not to qualify due to its collusive nature and lack of merit. Furthermore, the $1.776 billion figure is not explicitly stated in the settlement document itself, making any payment above $1 a 'gift' and a potential violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which makes spending federal money without congressional appropriation a felony.

The Judgment Fund is a law passed by Congress, um, that says that where judgments have been entered against the United States, uh, those may be paid... But those settlements have to be arrived at consistent with federal law. And this one wasn't... So, at most you can charge $1 to the judgment fund. Everything above that is a gift. And the judgment fund has no provision for gifts.

The $1.776 billion amount for 'loss of reputation' is deemed wholly unprecedented for a single individual or even a small group, especially compared to large class-action settlements involving calculable damages for many people. The settlement was also rushed over a weekend to avoid a federal judge's impending ruling on whether the court had jurisdiction, as the judge had 'grave doubts' about the case's collusive appearance.

I can't recall a lawsuit against the federal government of any kind off the top of my head that would that has resulted in damages of that magnitude... The court had grave doubts that she had jurisdiction because the case looked collusive to her... The briefs were due today, Wednesday. And rather than filing those briefs... the Trump lawyers... settled it quickly over the weekend.

A separate Department of Justice memo, part of the settlement, promises to drop all disputes concerning the tax returns of President Trump and the Trump organization filed prior to the case. This effectively grants immunity from future tax audits for these entities, setting a dangerous precedent for civil liability and potentially allowing individuals to escape accountability through collusive settlements.

Then there's this other document in which the Justice Department promises to drop all disputes concerning the tax returns of President Trump and the Trump organization and so on, um, that have been filed prior to this case... for civil liability pardons don't work. So this sort of collusive settlement I think is going to be quite popular.

The Supreme Court's decision in *Cale* is criticized for effectively gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This ruling allows states like Alabama to implement redistricting maps that intentionally disenfranchise Black Americans, even after lower courts found intentional discrimination. This enables a return to maps previously deemed unconstitutional, undermining protections for marginalized groups.

The Supreme Court's decision in Cale... effectively guts the Voting Rights Act basically means that um states can redistrict in ways that disenfranchise black Americans... They literally um went to they was they were taken to court. A judge found that they intentionally intentionally discriminated against black people.

The Supreme Court is accused of applying a double standard regarding the Purcell principle, which advises against altering election rules close to an election to avoid voter confusion and depressed turnout. The Court previously blocked new maps from going into effect for the 2022 midterms but is now rushing to allow new maps for the upcoming midterms, with both instances appearing to favor a particular political party, significantly damaging the Court's credibility and legitimacy.

It seems like the court the Supreme Court has a very has a double standard when it comes to the Purcell principle... they didn't allow new maps to go into effect in time for the midterms. Now they're like rushing to let, you know, new maps be drawn in time for the midterms. It just so happens that they tend to favor a particular party both times.