Kash Patel's Lawsuit Could Backfire—BIG TIME (w/ Andrew Weissmann) | Illegal News

Andrew Weissmann argues that the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for allegedly misleading donors is 'bogus' because it fails to specify any false statements made to donors. Unlike cases like 'Build the Wall' where specific misrepresentations were proven, this indictment lacks evidence of what donors were explicitly told about how their money would be used, making it legally weak.

The indictment does not include any specific statement made to any donor as to how the money would be used, nor any fundraising brochures or emails that would contradict SPLC's actions. The FBI itself pays informants, making the SPLC's alleged use of payments for intelligence gathering not inherently criminal.

Kash Patel's $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic is analyzed as a strategic move to curry favor with Donald Trump. As a public figure, Patel must prove 'actual malice' (that The Atlantic published knowing or recklessly disregarding falsity), which is a high bar. The host suggests The Atlantic should push for an immediate trial, forcing Patel to testify under oath and potentially exposing uncomfortable truths.

Patel's actions are framed as an attempt to show Trump he 'knows how to fight back' against the media, especially given his perceived 'thin ice' status with Trump. The plaintiff (Patel) would have to testify under oath, which could have repercussions, including state or civil liabilities not covered by a federal pardon.

The Department of Justice's recent firings of prosecutors involved in FACE Act cases, following a report by the 'weaponization working group,' are presented as a disturbing example of political targeting. One prosecutor, who had never handled a FACE Act case before being assigned one, secured a unanimous jury conviction, only to be summarily fired without due process. This highlights a broader pattern of cruelty and injustice within the DOJ.

The interviewed prosecutor had years of experience, including leading the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping scheme prosecution, and was fired via an 'Article 2 letter' with no notice or opportunity to be heard. This contradicts the Attorney General's own directive to zealously advocate for assigned cases.

Judge Mehta ruled that Donald Trump is not immune from civil liability in a January 6th-related case brought by Capitol police. This decision aligns with Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in the Supreme Court's presidential immunity case, emphasizing that actions taken as a candidate, rather than in an official presidential capacity, do not qualify for immunity. The judge parsed specific allegations to determine the capacity in which Trump was acting.

The court found that the vast majority of Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6th were in his capacity as a candidate seeking to remain in office, not as a dispassionate president concerned about election integrity. While some interactions with the DOJ were deemed potentially presidential, the core allegations of inciting the events were not subject to immunity.

The Westfall Act is being used to funnel taxpayer money to Trump allies through settlements, effectively making the American public pay for legal ramifications of actions taken by individuals who aligned with the former administration. This 'collusive' practice means the DOJ is settling cases where Trump is on both sides of the litigation, potentially without full transparency until a future administration.

Examples include a $1.25 million settlement for Michael Flynn and an anticipated comparable settlement for Carter Page. Donald Trump himself has a lawsuit against the DOJ, raising concerns about further taxpayer-funded payouts.