The Biggest Scandal in US History. Todd Blanche Should Be in Prison. And Trump, Obviously.

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:03 Thomas: Have enough people just decide that trump's god then you can just literally just raid the treasury for you and your buddies who

0:00:18 Matt: Since this is almost certainly some of it is going to be going to January 6th defendants defendants who've already been pardoned, pardoned, really a gross message that people are freedom fighters, right?

0:00:33 Thomas: Hello and Welcome to opening agreements. This is episode 1 ,263. I'm Thomas that over there's real-life attorney, Matt Cameron. How you doing?

0:00:39 Matt: Only have one question for you, Thomas. Have you or any of your loved ones ever been harmed by government weaponization?

0:00:44 Thomas: Yes.

0:00:47 Matt: May be entitled to compensation.

0:00:49 Thomas: Sweet. Awesome. Free money.

0:00:51 Matt: All right. That's the good news. The bad news is everything else about this compensation. Really really sucks.

0:00:57 Thomas: Yeah. We can't even, I guess, skip the pleasantries. We Can't Even Have a Conversation. This is so bad. We got to just skip.

0:01:04 Matt: I'm going straight to the ad. I'm just going to help everybody with their compensation claims because I don't see any reason at all that I can't sue the Trump administration or claim that I'm going to see the Trump administration, is not limited to anything. So let's all file our claims.

0:01:05 Thomas: My God. Yeah, unbelievable. I'm sure

0:01:18 Matt: It's bad.

0:01:18 Thomas: People have seen the news. Have have been waiting to hear you try to make sense of it uh good luck but level of corruption surely surely cannot stand I could anyone defend this I no way I think there's some line I know I know we have no expectations but this is still too far over the line wow

0:01:24 Matt: I will not. Todd Blanche got the chance to defend it yesterday. We'll listen to a little bit of that in front of the Senate. But I will say there's one question that I know is on everybody's mind when they heard about this news. And I'm gonna answer that question, which is, is this worse than Teapot Dome because the previous standard for presidential scandal over a century ago, and I'm going to have to address it. I will take that question up, the question that everyone's been asking. Otherwise, we've got to talk about this nutty thing that's happened between Reed O'Connor, the Northern District of Texas federal judge, going after Rhode Island and Rhode Island responding. It's one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen happen between federal courts.

0:02:15 Matt: And it really says a lot about where we're at right now and also where the DOJ is at. But it has to do with protecting trans kids and their medical records, which I would not think I would have to say out loud that we can't just be releasing the medical records of minors. But that is what the DOJ is looking for. Sequence of events is one of the craziest things I've ever heard happen in a federal court. So we'll have to talk about that. Yeah.

0:02:36 Thomas: A lot of news and it doesn't, any of it seemed good, but we got to cover it.

0:02:39 Matt: No, not really. The Mifepristone thing we talked about last week was actually extended by the Supreme Supreme Court entirely, through the entirety of the case. So that was expected, but very good news. Yeah, otherwise, I'm going to promise at the end, as I often do when we have bad news shows, that we're going to have a super fun footnote involving a rap battle between personal injury lawyers. So yeah, it's pretty fun. We even actually did some journalism on this one and reached out for comment. So I do have comment from the parties. I know. Yeah, been a busy journalism Day for us.

0:02:59 Thomas: That does sound fun. Wow. We did a journalism.

0:03:09 Matt: I am a journalist at the end of the day, so here we are.

0:03:12 Thomas: Well, good for you.

0:03:14 Matt: Can be a journalist too.

0:03:15 Thomas: We've, uh, we've, we FOIA'd, you know, we FOIA'd before we've dabbled in FOIA. We'd done some stuff.

0:03:19 Matt: We've had exclusive releases. We've had things that, yeah, nobody else has had.

0:03:21 Thomas: You know, it's hard because like traditional journalism is like, Oh yeah. Reach out for comment. But most of the stuff we cover, it's like, yeah, we know your stupid comment. Fucking Like almost always it's some dumb dumb anti-woke thing that like that the news is their comment and then and you can you get a load of these assholes you know and so I we haven't done that a lot there have been a few times I'm like oh man I almost I almost feel like doing the journalist thing and reaching out for comment but uh yeah for the most part it's like yeah yeah I know I know what your comment is yeah

0:03:50 Matt: Mean, you remember when, because obviously we're not going to reach out to DOJ for comment ever, as you said, it's always pretty public. But remember when Bari Weiss tried to do that, tried to spike that story about the CCOT, because she said that the government hadn't responded to the request for comment so she couldn't run it yeah

0:04:03 Thomas: Well, I didn't get, get any interview in there. Yeah.

0:04:04 Matt: Ridiculous ridiculous anyway a lot to talk about um the stuff where even if it's bad as some of the stuff is it's super interesting it's actually some of those interesting stuff I've ever looked at for the show so

0:04:14 Thomas: I, I'm very interested in how we're going to put these people in prison for this. Uh, it's gotta happen. This can't stand, cannot so stupid. I can't even, can't Even entertain that notion, Matt. All right. Well we're gonna dig into it after this break. Um, please support the the show. Support journalism. Good, good, hard-nosed gumshoe journalism like we're doing over here. Tracking down every lead, you know. We're just going through people's mail. I don't know. What do journalists do? I don't know, but we're doin' it. We're doin' it. Support at patreon.com/law. Get the goodies a lot off of movies. Can't wait for the next one of those. I'm excited. Did

0:04:19 Matt: And all need to get paid for the pain and trauma they're putting us through yeah right oh yeah

0:04:54 Thomas: We pick something yet?

0:04:54 Matt: I think we've settled on something, but we will see. We'll see.

0:04:57 Thomas: I know someone had some you can always throw out ideas by the way patrons anybody someone said we should do a uh uh jimmy stewart movie so that I because because I made the claim that he's not a good actor so that that that could be yeah

0:05:09 Matt: That's Anatomy of a Murderer. It's one of my favorite movies. You really should watch it. It is a great movie. We will see, we

0:05:12 Thomas: All that'll be we might do it I don't know we'll see

0:05:16 Matt: Will get there. Well, we got some options.

0:05:18 Thomas: All right patreon.com/law avoid the ads get the goodies see you after this all Alright, Matt, where do we want to start? How do we get paid?

0:05:28 Matt: Okay, well, so just to remind everybody, there was a lawsuit that we talked about a few weeks ago in which the and his family and the Trump Organization brought suit over the release of his tax returns by Mr. Littlejohn. You might remember we've talked about this before, of course. You've mentioned it several times now that he's still in prison, and Trump is now looking for $10 billion to be paid it out from the IRS. Now, this is ludicrous, not just because it's the president suing over his own IRS and his own commissioner. Again, this all happened under Trump that little John decided on his own initiative to release these things. This is not some sort of government conspiracy. It had nothing to do with Joe Biden, who was not in power at the time. But also ridiculous because the statute that he's suing under, 26 U.S.C. 7431, caps damages at $1,000 for each act. It does allow for punitive damages if there's a willful disclosure, as there was here, but I can't imagine that punitive damage would ever reach $10 billion or anything approaching what's been talked about in this litigation. So this is one of those things. I mean, the fact is the media keeps calling this thing a settlement. The government's calling it a settlement. And it is a crime. It's

0:06:31 Matt: A robbery. This is a conspiracy. I mean, it's a settlement the same way that if you're a bank manager and I'm a bank robber, right? And we just decide, right.

0:06:37 Thomas: And we're the same guy? Yeah, and we're like,

0:06:40 Matt: We're buddies, right.

0:06:40 Thomas: I agree, we're taking all of the money.

0:06:43 Matt: That's right. I'm going to hand you the money. And

0:06:44 Thomas: You wouldn't call that a transaction. You wouldn't call it a business loan or something yeah

0:06:48 Matt: It's a conspiracy, I'm not putting a gun to your head. I, you were my buddy and you're just giving me billions of dollars because you want to, and maybe I'll give you some of it. But is not a settlement. They have reached something called a settlement, but I want to emphasize just how egregious this is. And the judge did it the best she could, Judge Williams in her order. This is a very unusual order to begin with that she released, closing the case. It says close, like not dismissing. They moved for voluntary dismissal because she had ordered the parties to brief whether this is even a lawsuit, because she's like, it kind of seems like you're suing yourself. Maybe this isn't an adversarial proceeding. Proceeding.

0:07:21 Thomas: That one of the like principles the fundamental principles of justice is that there have to actually be adversarial parties yeah

0:07:28 Matt: It's really important. And you can't have a collusive lawsuit, which is definitely what this was. And so she had ordered a briefing due on the 20th, which was the day that we're recording this, actually, in which the parties are supposed to respond and say as to why they thought this was or wasn't a collusive lawsuit. And just to get ahead of it, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal in which they explained to the judge that they'd reached an agreement. And this is very unusual for quite a number of reasons, as the judge points out. It is, it's self -executing, right? When you file the voluntary dismissal, she's supposed to come back with a sentence basically just saying she sees it and that's it and it's done, right. But she writes a three -page order with lots of footnotes, which I appreciate, lots of citations. And has all of these citations in the second footnote to all this collusive litigation, like talking about all these different places where, you know again she had not reached a finding on this because she didn't get that far but she made it very clear that she thought she would have um there's no jurisdiction anymore to actually do a ruling so she just builds the record and

0:08:21 Matt: Comes out and says there is no settlement of record right so I wasn't shown a settlement I haven't signed off on a settlement I guess you guys have reached a settlement but that's important because as far as this litigation is concerned this is just a dismissal there's nothing that the court is aware of that's actually happened.

0:08:35 Thomas: Okay so it's not even like the bad thing with the eric adams where it at least there was something for the judge to look at and, you know, try to maybe have an opinion about. And we covered that a bunch back then, but this is just, yeah, that's weird. So what, what is this then?

0:08:46 Matt: It very unusual position because obviously, the government is not usually in a hurry to pay people out. That's a real theme we're going to develop here. Also mentions, of course, that DOJ is supposed to be working in the public interest and we should know what they're doing.

0:09:05 Thomas: Yeah. You think, yeah.

0:09:06 Matt: Fact that they hadn't provided with the settlement or had to sign off on it or in any way answered the question about whether there's even a case or controversy in the lawsuit, it's pretty extreme reprimand to DOJ in a dismissal order. And put in his notice that this is going to be dismissed with prejudice. And she notes, of course, that this is just extinguishing the claims regarding the tax returns, right? And so this whole thing is supposed to be about the release of his tax returns which again is capped at $1,000 plus potentially punitive damages. Making it very clear that the claim has been voluntarily ended by the plaintiff, not through any kind of court order, not during a settlement that she's aware of. So she's doing the most that she can do. She's not using any of the words you might want to see her use about how this is clearly collusive, but she's very clear in the record that she does not like what is happening here. And what is happened here? So it's way worse than I thought when I started looking at this, because it's not just the alleged settlement agreement. We can talk about the settlement agreement for a moment, but there is a second thing that Todd Blanch tacked onto here that is so bad that he should absolutely be tried for this, like this should be a crime

0:10:05 Matt: Unto itself, this thing that he has done.

0:10:06 Thomas: There's a lot of things you should be tried for.

0:10:08 Matt: Yeah, no, but this one, this is so over the top unnecessary, like nobody nobody called for it.

0:10:13 Thomas: Do not think there are going to be consequences guys. They don't think, and you know what? They're not crazy to to think that they're not crazy to think there won't be consequences but we need to make there be consequences this is this is too far this is Too Far I know a lot's been Too Far this is like I can't even I can' believe this oh

0:10:17 Matt: Don't. Yeah. Yeah. No, never forget that there's a whole series of trials in the Nuremberg trials just just for the judges and lawyers who were collusive with the Nazis. And again, I don't want it to end like the Nuremberg trials. I don't believe in the death penalty, but these people should not be free after this, after what they've done here, because this is so extreme. This is so far from normal. The actual settlement agreement will take you through very quickly, but basically it sets up a commission with five people on it, four of which are appointed by the attorney general. So it's controlled by Trump and one of which is appointed with the attorney General in collaboration with the leader of the Senate. So that's kind of weird.

0:11:03 Matt: Yeah. John Thune, the leader of the senate, has said he's not comfortable with this. He's But you know, again, he gets to help appoint one of these people.

0:11:06 Thomas: Well yeah he has no choice because it's in the that they're doing I don't even know what again what is this I

0:11:15 Matt: Right. It's called a settlement agreement, but... And

0:11:18 Thomas: Love how a settlement too like when when I saw my lawsuit could I've said and the leader of the senate is also gonna be a part how can you just do that?

0:11:23 Matt: Right. Let's get his opinion. I know, it's so weird that there's no like... Because usually in an actual fund, right? Because I'll tell you how they're getting there, the legal vehicle here. But the things that Congress has set up, like you have like an actual commissioner appointed, you have a judge overseeing it, right? You have something, some kind of independent third party who is supposed to determine the validity of these claims and how much is going to be paid out. Nothing like this. Just these people appointed by the Trump administration that will review these claims of lawfare and weaponization, which again, I know these are extreme technical legal terms, but it turns out those don't appear anywhere in our statutes. There's no such thing as lawfare or weaponization. Give examples in the settlement of Democrats and Biden.

0:12:04 Thomas: Tort of lawfare or the, yeah.

0:12:05 Matt: Or the crime of weaponization, right? It's just not a thing. And so anybody who's been harmed by the government, apparently, in any way, and I've got a couple of claims myself, I'm ready to go here because nothing here limiting it. And Todd Blanch had to say that under oath the other day, that this is not partisan, even though it mentions Democrats and Biden. Harmed by Trump administration should be able to bring a claim here. And if they start dismissing all the Trump claims and Biden claims, then that's an APA violation in itself because they're clearly doing partisan distribution. I mean, the whole thing is an AP violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, the entire concept of this. It's so janky and stupid. Has nothing to do with the ostensible lawsuit, which is the tax returns. He's complaining about his other suits involving involving the what he calls the unlawful raid on Mar-a-Lago, where they came and got some things while he wasn't home. Russia collusion hoax, which it's amazing to see that in a settlement agreement that is signed by the head of the IRS and the DOJ. It's incredible. I also he's going to receive a formal apology, but Trump and his family and the other plaintiffs are not going to receive monetary payment or damages of any kind from this settlement. There's nothing saying that they can't receive it from the thing that's being set up from this fund. This is extremely not normal, but then DOJ, as required by the settlement, released a statement about, and I don't even know what to call this. I'm calling it a statement because I don' t know what it is. It's like a memo basically, but it's a bunch of bullet points about how they're going to administer this because the Attorney General has to appoint these things, has to point the people. There's no dollar amount given or how it's supposed to actually work or what this vehicle is for doing it. Because again, Congress is usually supposed to appropriate this kind of money. But they're doing, just so people understand how this works, is they're taking advantage of the fact that Congress did set up kind of an indefinite open -ended fund for any time the government has a final claim against it that has been settled by a court, right? That actually is a final judgment. So that way you don't have to get congressional authorization every single time somebody wins a suit against the government. It's called the a judgment fund. It makes sense. Like on paper, it makes sense, excuse

0:14:03 Thomas: For real stuff, I'm sure it does.

0:14:05 Matt: Real stuff. And traditionally, this has been for final claims that

0:14:10 Thomas: This is like in our bank example, when the guy's stealing from the bank, that's he's also the manager of being like, yeah, so normally, we there's a check we write to people. So like, this isn't really like that. Like, it's just, it's pretty normal, actually. And like normally I'm wearing a suit and stuff like that that's all normal like this is totally regular

0:14:28 Matt: Checks out. We're in a conference room. We're signing things. Yeah? This resembles deals I've made before. Yeah... Excuse the judgment fund is authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1304. And again, in the statute, it says that it's for final judgments, final awards, compromise settlements, interest and costs. Now the regulations interpreting this also allow for settlements in which DOJ believes that there's going to be an imminent lawsuit, which is pretty janky in itself. And that has generally been interpreted to mean something where out by the fund, right? A lawsuit could they could actually be resolved by the fund, which this wouldn't be because this has statutory caps and no judge would pay you as much as he's asking for in punitive damages ever. So it's just, it's absurd. Kinds of problems with this. Let's just start with the idea that the initial allocation from Todd Blanche, from the attorney general is $1.776 billion, 1 Yeah. Excuse me. 1.77 6 billion. Yeah, but they had to go with the stupid number. And since this is almost certainly some of it is going to be going to January 6th defendants who've already been pardoned, it's really a gross message that people are freedom fighters, right?

0:15:00 Thomas: Billion right yeah yep oh my god it's just incredible there's

0:15:29 Matt: It is. And not even getting to the really bad part, I'm sorry to say. This anti -weaponization fund, as they're calling it, they're saying in this memo that it's not going to been exact amount, this 1.76, but it's going to the projected amount, out, the valuation of the claimant's claims, and they can always come back and pay more. Todd Blanche said under oath that if they can, they'll return the rest. I don't think that's going to happen. I think there's going to be paying out plenty.

0:15:51 Thomas: Anything left over after we steal it all

0:15:53 Matt: After we give it away to our friends, yeah, there nothing in there that stops Trump or his family or his organizations from being paid off. And I will point out too, the settlement, Just think about this. His representation in the settlement is his personal lawyer, Daniel Epstein, the unfortunately named Epstein & Co. In Florida. That must be kind of tough for him.

0:16:09 Thomas: Can't get away from Epstein. She loves them.

0:16:12 Matt: Yeah, he just can't. He loves his Epsteins. Stanley Woodward, who we've talked about before, but he was involved in the Trump defense team. He represented Walt Nauta, who was the co -defendant in the Mar -a -Lago case. And he is now, of course, the third highest person at DOJ. And the head of IRS, which is Frank Bisognano, who's a corporate tycoon who gave Trump's 2024 campaign $900,000. And now he gets to run the IRS. So about a billionaire who is running the IRS.

0:16:13 Thomas: Unbelievable. A good investment, by the way.

0:16:38 Matt: Yeah. What a deal.

0:16:39 Thomas: Smart investment.

0:16:40 Matt: That's some good ROI on that for you and your friends. I had to laugh at this. I mean, because you have no choice, but once the funds are deposited into the designated account, the weapon anti -weaponization fund, the United United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of these funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other kind of fraud or misuse of the funds. They had to put that in writing.

0:16:53 Thomas: What? Jesus.

0:17:00 Matt: Go ahead and steal it. Go ahead. And just defraud us.

0:17:02 Thomas: But I also don't like, what does that functionally do? Because why would they even care if the United States has liability?

0:17:08 Matt: Guess you're going to allege mismanagement of the fund. Once it's in their account, it's the account and we can do whatever we want with it, I think is what they're saying.

0:17:13 Thomas: Yeah, I know. But if they're sort of indemnifying the United State, why do they give a shit about the United United States

0:17:19 Matt: It was a good point. That's true.

0:17:19 Thomas: Is what I'm asking like

0:17:20 Matt: They clearly don't.

0:17:20 Thomas: Why do they care yeah

0:17:21 Matt: They're taking our money. They have the gall to say at the end that previous cases have been settled on similar and they give only one example. Yeah, previous cases. Todd and Blanche really held to this in his testimony the other day. They're giving the example and they say, for example, but they only give this one, Keepseagle v. Vilsack. And this was a very different situation. I can't see how you could possibly say this is anything close.

0:17:45 Matt: It is. Oh, just listen though. I mean, Keepsegel, think about what they're comparing it to.

0:17:44 Thomas: This is crazy the gall I mean jeez okay here we

0:17:50 Matt: In the Keepsegal litigation, which took years, you've got Native American farmers correctly claiming that they had been denied credit and loans by banks systemically, and that the government had been in on this. And reached reparations, basically, like extensive reparations for about $700 million. And of what I'm talking about here, not even half.

0:17:50 Thomas: Go for oh my god oh

0:18:10 Matt: That was signed off on by a judge and administered by the government, as you would expect to get those reparations out. Yeah. And that's not a similar situation. It's nothing close to a similar situation.

0:18:09 Thomas: My God yeah the balls I can't I can we can't let this happen everybody this can't stand there's no this is just too far you don't have a country anymore more like getting to the point where it's like so we just don't have a country so if enough people have enough people just decide that trump's god then you just you can literally just raid the treasury for you and your buddies who tried to pull an answer it did have an insurrection it's you can't this isn't this Isn't a country you can do that I

0:18:47 Matt: Don't think that the most corrupt people from running the countries that all my clients come from, I think they'd think this might be a little much to

0:18:53 Thomas: Think they would I yeah that's not even wrong like that's Not a joke like I think even the most corrupt leaders in the the world would be like this is a little maybe

0:18:55 Matt: -weaponization fund. No, it's, you maybe disguise that a little more?

0:19:05 Thomas: You want to like dress it up a little bit yeah

0:19:07 Matt: Yeah, Yeah, exactly. Like, just put a face on it. Pretend that this is legal, right? I mean, this is just, I mean... And again, I'm always interested, and I've been, like, sickly fascinated all the way through the Trump years about, like... Whenever I see a headline, I wonder what law they're going to cite to say this is illegal, right. And of course, they're doing the judgment fund thing. Judgment fund requires that there be an actual claim. And they're basically saying, anybody who wants to bring a claim, saying they've been weaponized, we'll just go ahead and see if we can settle with you. And makes no sense because, again, you have to have something that would be an actual eminent suit. Also, by the way, no longer an eminent suit when you're dismissing it. So I'm not really sure

0:19:09 Thomas: This is oof oof yeah yeah

0:19:40 Matt: How that works, right? There's

0:19:41 Thomas: So so that whole thing I'm trying to understand just I don't know how much of you know freaking matters but so they're trying to cite a thing that was more like okay this is just a way to get people money that they've rightfully kind of won in a lawsuit against the government that

0:19:55 Matt: Except without the lawsuit part. Yeah. Right. In this case. But yes, that's the purpose of the Judgment Fund, right.

0:19:58 Thomas: Case so like yeah I was trying to understanding the normal thing is like so it doesn't so it doesn't get bogged down or something right

0:20:03 Matt: So Congress doesn't have to authorize every single payout. When a court orders it, they can just pay it out. Settlement also gives of the commission, the Anti -Weaponization Committee or whatever it is, the authority to issue apologies, which is not something the Judgment Fund does. So I'm not even sure, and again, who cares, but what's the statutory basis for issuing an apology, right?

0:20:20 Matt: It's not something that, like, who are they representing? What agency is this? I mean, it's insane. I don't know what's going on. I really don't even anymore. I mean we're not even pretending. So Blanch got called in and did his Todd Blench thing in the Senate the other day. I'm just going to show you a quick clip here from Van Hollen, really grilled him, did a good good job. Patty Murray also did pretty well. And even Susan Collins get on the action a little bit. Here's a quick clip from Chris Van Holling trying to pin Todd Blanche down on one particular defendant who really should not get paid. So let's just listen to this.

0:20:20 Thomas: Oh my god

0:20:50 Clip: Me come back to the slush funds because there's also an individual who, after being pardoned by the president, went on to molest two children. And that person actually tried to buy the silence of these children by saying that he he would pay them some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush fund. Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund? Well, you're obviously lying in your question because there's no way that this person committed to that. The slush fun, as you call it, which it's not, didn't exist. But I can commit. Mr. Attorney General, don't ever do that again. I am reporting what he said. He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds from a payout. You said from the slush funds, Senator, and that didn't exist when he said that. This is the fund

0:21:17 Thomas: Fund what didn't

0:21:50 Clip: That the president and all of you have been telegraphing all along that you're going to use to help the president's friends. Can you point to a single telegraph I made? What telegraph did I make? I have a last question for you.

0:21:50 Thomas: Exist

0:22:01 Matt: Telegraph.

0:22:03 Clip: Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress. I am very well aware of that. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

0:22:02 Thomas: Are you kidding

0:22:13 Matt: That might come back to haunt you, Todd Blanch. One of the things he said under oath was that he's never read the Washington Post before, which I thought was very very funny. That can't be true, Todd Blanche. So there's an easy lie. A Little Too Much of Todd Blanche today. I it. I should not have watched that much, but there's just enough for you. I just wanted to address the thing that Von Holland was talking about, because that did did happen. There Johnson, who was in fact arrested for abusing children after he was pardoned by the president for his actions on January 6th. And told the kids that he was going to be getting $10 million because he was a J6er from Donald Trump, and that he would pay them off, basically, as long as they didn't tell anybody. He was using the promise that Ed Martin had given him, and he confirmed at some point that Ed Martin, the former U .S. attorney, he couldn't make it in DC, former Trump pardon attorney, formerly on the Anti -Weaponization Committee himself. So obviously he was working

0:22:19 Thomas: Matt

0:23:03 Matt: To plan this thing. Ed Martin told him that they were going to be getting payoffs, and

0:23:07 Thomas: So he's been in communication with a pedophile assuring him he's gonna get a payout okay cool incredible

0:23:12 Matt: And then the pedophile assuring his victims that he would be able to pay them off with these Trump bucks from our taxpayer dollars. Astonishing. Blanch's response to this is that can't be true. True. That's a lie.

0:23:19 Thomas: Well and the thing yeah like he's it's a fair question but it's also he didn't even set up that like it was because of this he was setting up that hey can you make sure when you do your slush fund that you're not paying out this guy and then blanche is trying to bicker and argue with like well it couldn't have been and I like how he slipped and said because the slush fund wasn't set up then yeah

0:23:46 Matt: Right? Yeah. Nobody else knew about it. Right, challenged him to confirm that none of this money would be going to people who actually assaulted police officers in January 6th. He couldn't do that. Some of the January 6 officers have brought, the ones you've seen the most in public, have brought a lawsuit immediately as soon as this was announced. Not sure they're going to have standing, unfortunately, even though they were obviously injured on January 6th, but they brought a suit with really great language in it, like stating directly that this can't happen and nobody should be paid out for this, for the stuff they suffered.

0:24:14 Thomas: They probably don't have standing because they're trying to say you shouldn't pay out these people but I'm glad they're doing it to at least get some good language out there like like you're saying.

0:24:22 Matt: Yeah, it starts with the complaint begins with, in the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald Donald J. Trump has created a $1.76 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund.

0:24:32 Thomas: Think that's ever. I think we're at the ever phase. I don't I don'T THINK THERE'S ANY PRESIDENT WHO WOULD EVER HAVE DONE THIS EVER.

0:24:35 Matt: It's ever. I'm absolutely going to make that point in a moment here. But yeah, no doubt. No doubt. I mean, this is corruption we have never seen before in this country, even hinted at. Point out the slush fun is to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name. And of course, this was a slush. This is from Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, two people that would know about that violence because they suffered it.

0:24:55 Thomas: UNREAL.

0:24:56 Matt: So they filed it immediately as soon as this fund was announced. I'm sure they were expecting it. So not the worst part. Worst part is coming up.

0:25:02 Thomas: DON'T KNOW, MATT. HOW'S IT GET WORSE?

0:25:03 Matt: It gets a lot worse. I'm very sorry to tell you. I really have to prepare you for this.

0:25:07 Thomas: RIGHT. WELL, LET'S TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE HEAR HOW IT GETS WORSE.

0:25:11 Matt: Yeah. Get some water or a drink of your choice. See you in a minute.

0:25:14 Thomas: YEAH ALL MATT, GOOD LUCK. GOOD good luck with this getting worse. Like, I'm sorry to doubt you. I'm doubting Thomas over here because I just don't see, it's already maximum. We're already at maximum.

0:25:29 Matt: Remember how I told you on May 18th, the day of the settlement, DOJ released a memo. I don't know what else to call it. It doesn't even have a title that explained how they were going to interpret the settlement and how they're going going to set up the commission, the money that was going to go into it. That all, again, was somewhat normal, even though none of this is normal. That was kind of what you might expect. Here's the really, really insane part. The next day, May 19th, 2026, Todd Blanche signs the memo I've just sent you, and I want you to take a look at part C. Now, settlement agreement directed the attorney general to issue an order establishing funding and any other relevant requirements for the fund. Relevant requirements should not include what you're about to read at section C, if you'd like to read that out for us.

0:26:04 Thomas: Quick clarification. There is a settlement agreement or there isn't? I thought this wasn't even a settlement before, but

0:26:10 Matt: Think it should be called a settlement, but that's what they're calling it. That's what the document is called.

0:26:13 Thomas: I thought the court said there wasn't a settle like sorry

0:26:16 Matt: She's saying, I haven't seen one. I don't know. I mean, you're telling me there's a settlement. But usually, they would send it to the court. They'd attach a copy to the voluntary dismissal saying, here's the agreement we've reached. She said, there's nothing on record. I'm going to tell

0:26:25 Thomas: This note that the bank robber wrote to himself okay capitalized united states releases waves acquits and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims counterclaims causes of action appeals or requests for any relief including including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations, or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorneys, fees, expenses, and or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the effective date of the settlement agreement, have been or could have been asserted by defendants against any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, Including without limitation, family or others filing jointly or parties, including trust, parent, sister or related companies, affiliates and subsidiaries by reason of it with respect to and connection with or which arise out of one, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case or the pending agency claims to lawfare and or weaponization or three, any matter is currently pending or that could be pending, including tax returns. Returns filed before the effective date before defendants or other agencies or departments.

0:27:47 Matt: Right now, this is worse than the Epstein -Pley agreement, which is the worst agreement ever reached with the government in any situation I'm aware of before, which basically immunized anybody who might have ever been associated with Epstein, named or unnamed. This is worse than that because the plaintiffs in this case, remember, are the president, his organizations, and his family. And that would include things like his cryptocurrency company, which has already committed multiple crimes. The president himself has committed all kinds of insider trading, no doubt by this point. I he recently released another round of his stock trades. And outer limits of presidential immunity, your job as president does not include trading stocks. It just doesn't. So I have to think that even John Roberts would think this is outside the limits of presidential immunity, even though I'm sure you can say, especially if you're trading stocks based on information you have as the president. That's extra crime. Barred and precluded from prosecuting. Now remember, the plaintiffs in this case, Trump and his family and his organizations and anything associated with Trump, the defendants are the IRS and the government. Of the reasons that little John wanted to release those returns is because he probably committed a number of tax crimes along the way.

0:28:46 Thomas: We already weren't going to get him for.

0:28:48 Matt: No way. Statute of Limitations is gone, but I'm just saying all of this other stuff that he's done in office recently, and I'm sure he would rely on the immunity decision, but there are actually limits to that immunity decision. There have to be. Roberts claimed that there were. Eliminates those. This kills those limits. So basically any kind of financial crimes that you've committed, or arguably lots of other their crimes too. I mean, it's the United States releasing him. So like anything that you or your family or your organizations or your companies, including again, cryptocurrency companies, Truth Social, all of these other ventures that are super shady that they've all been involved in. This is obscene.

0:29:20 Matt: This is so bad. I had to stand up and walk around the room when I read this.

0:29:20 Thomas: It's insane.

0:29:24 Matt: This is awful. For this. This does not say anything about criminal stuff or any other kinds of claims.

0:29:31 Thomas: Matter if anybody did ask for it. Shouldn't be happening.

0:29:34 Matt: No. It should not be happening. And it's just totally gratuitous that Todd Blanche just taxed this on. And I really have to wonder at some point, what is in this for Todd Blanch, besides being the acting attorney general and maybe ultimately hoping to be the AG, but how can this be worth it? I mean, it's true.

0:29:48 Thomas: You can't criticize a man in love okay. You do crazy things when you're in love with your with your Mr. President. It's just I I love, I love say, I'll say, Mr. President, I love you. I love you with my whole heart. I don't care what role I have. I just, I'd love you, Mr. President so much. I'll steal for an entire treasury for you. One true love.

0:29:52 Matt: That's right. We've all been there. I almost forgot he said that. Yeah. So that's the really bad part. I mean mean, it's all bad. There's no good part to this. It's very, very bad. The only good part, as I said, is that anybody, including me, could bring a claim about weaponization of government at any time, apparently. And I will say there have been multiple instances in which I feel like I've been abused by ICE officers, and I've watched my clients be abused, and it's caused me great trauma. In fact, one time, an ICE officer told my client that I was a real piece of shit. I want to see for everything. Give me $10 billion, please. I'm still staying up at night because of that. It's the trauma of it. Got any claims? Got to bring a couple.

0:30:41 Thomas: My claim is this, this shouldn't be happening.

0:30:44 Matt: This is awful. Yeah, it hurts. It hurts to read and to think about. It's just today's news and it will be on, but we're going to keep talking about it and we're gonna keep watching to see what this stupid commission does. Whatever you've heard about this thing, it's worse than that. That's my take.

0:30:58 Thomas: It's that we can't, we can' we can do it. We can't with

0:31:02 Matt: Know what else? Since I teased this, I'll just mention it. We don't have a lot of time for it, but it is way worse than Teapot Dome, which do you know which president Teapod Dome was? I've been asking everybody because I'm obsessed.

0:31:10 Thomas: Teapot. Dumb. Oh man. Man, I knew it one time, but it's all left my brain. It's pretty old timey, right?

0:31:17 Matt: It's very old-timey. And actually, it's appropriate because last week we were talking about Woody, Woodrow Wilson, and this is actually Winnie, his successor, Warren G. Harding. His childhood nickname was Winnie for some reason. Hardin was generally considered to be, before the recent round of presidents, considered to being the worst president of all time because he was just really bad at it, and he was super corrupt, and he filled his cabinet with what they called the Ohio Gang, like all his buddies, basically. Would love to do a whole episode on Teapot Dome because it's incredible to me. When I was growing up, I was a real nerd about presidents. And one of the conventional wisdom points about presidents is that Harding was the most corrupt president and Teapot Dome was one of the biggest scandals of presidential history.

0:31:52 Matt: And going back and reading about it now, I really didn't actually have anything to do with designating this land that was extremely valuable for oil purposes. It land was transferred over to the Secretary of Interior, who was his buddy, and then the Secretary Interior made a bunch of money off of it. Like, from what I remember, and I actually confirmed this today, oh, yeah, exactly.

0:32:09 Thomas: Like Tuesday, Matt. That's called a frigging Tuesday now. That's nothing.

0:32:15 Matt: Giving away some federal land of Trump buddy?

0:32:17 Thomas: He would do that in the open proudly. It wouldn't even be like that's where we are.

0:32:25 Matt: Is where we are. It's astonishing too, because Harding basically just signed an executive order. He didn't really look at it. There's testimony that he didn't even really know. He just figured his buddy had done it. It's probably fine. And then when somebody questioned about this without even really looking into the details, He's like, well, I trust this man. I'm sure it's fine. So, he got associated with it basically without actually really benefiting from it. And that's considered to be one of the most, I mean, really the most corrupt thing that a president has done. He did lots of other corrupt stuff too, but that's sort of the leading thing in the Harding array of things that people talk about.

0:32:55 Thomas: Too bad. Sorry, Warren. We've got the wayne gretzky of of corruption now every record is now trump's that's not close

0:33:03 Matt: It really is. But I just want to say for the record, worse than in Teapot Dome. I mean, pretty much every, like you said, every Tuesday since Trump was inaugurated, this time around has been worse than that. But it's

0:33:14 Thomas: The thing we we get all the scandals we don't even get it like a little nickname anymore like it was nice watergate teapot dome you know the petticoat affair I don't know some other you know there's like they used to we don'T even bother we donT bother coming up with a cutesy name for anything they're just every day is a scandal it's just called trump administration that's what what it's called.

0:33:34 Matt: We've discussed before, I'm not sure the word scandal is even appropriate anymore because it's just Trump. That's just how it is. I mean, we should keep using it. It is a scandal.

0:33:40 Thomas: We, yeah, we, yeah. Somehow we need to keep that. Shock and, you know, being appalled. We do need to, but also simultaneously pointing out how regular this is for this guy. It's hard to do. It's a hard balance to strike, but we got to do it.

0:33:54 Matt: Absolutely. No, man, we're going to keep doing it. But before we transition just to have something fun, I've been kind of obsessed with Warren G. Harding for quite a while. And I I was reminded of one of my favorite H.L. Mencken. Of course, H.L. Mencken was the greatest to ever do it. Still absolute classic. I'm just going to send you this line so you can enjoy it. Is what he has said about the way that President Warren G. Harding wrote, and it really applies to Trump's Truth Social post, I think, if you'd like to give that a read. It's an amazing paragraph.

0:34:16 Thomas: Writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges. It reminded me, it reminds me of tattered washing on the line. It reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It the dark abysm of pish And crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble, it is flap and doodle, it is balder and dash. Wow, that's pretty incredible

0:34:40 Matt: Abysm of Pish. I love I love it. H.L. Mencken. What a genius.

0:34:57 Thomas: You what it's not even worth going to that amount of work for that for trump it's not even it would be a waste of time to because that's a brilliant bit of writing not even worth doing for how bad trump is yeah

0:35:07 Matt: That's true. But I do like it. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it that doesn't describe some of those posts.

0:35:13 Thomas: Does it does really apply let's just reuse that one it's pretty close sorry

0:35:18 Matt: Had some fun with Warren G. Harding to wash the taste out of our mouths. We're going to have to very quickly dive into this other insane thing the DOJ did this week. I'm just going to set this up very quickly. The procedural stuff on this is a little lengthy, but I'm not going to go too deep on it. What what you need to know is that the Trump administration, unfortunately, has been delivering on its promise to just make trans kids' lives miserable. Entire thing just emphasizes more Than ever why we have to protect trans kids, because the government is going hard on this. This is bad. In in July while last year, they sent out about 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that were doing what they called transgender medical procedures on children. And the main attempted purpose of this, now, again, Pam Bondi said at the time pretty clearly that they're just trying to come after healthcare providers that are helping kids work through gender dysphoria. The ostensible purpose of this is they're looking for instances of non -FDA -approved use of puberty blockers, which is no FDA approved use of puberty blockers as I understand it for gender dysphoria they've just been understood to be used that way for a long time that was one of the main main arguments in Scrimeti as I remember um contrast and and I just looked this up to because I was pretty sure it was true Ozempic has never been approved by the FDA for weight loss right but it's obviously

0:36:28 Matt: What people use it for

0:36:30 Thomas: Off -label, right? Something like that. Yep.

0:36:32 Matt: Off label some of the other GLP ones have been approved for weight Loss but like Ozempics still hasn't officially and that's the original one. There's a lot of this kind of stuff going on. People constantly use off -label stuff. I mean, it's a normal part of medicine, but they're going to make it into a crime. So they served all the subpoenas, and obviously this is just to harass healthcare providers and try to intimidate them and try to get them thinking that they're gonna be charged with crimes. And last year, demanding five years of records for every minor that they'd ever treated for gender dysphoria. They wanted names, they wanted socials, they wanted family info.

0:36:41 Thomas: It's normal. Wow.

0:37:03 Matt: Rhode Island Hospital refused to turn this over. April 30th of this year, just a few weeks ago, DOJ filed an enforcement petition in the Northern District of Texas, not in Rhode Island, where you might think it would happen, not in D.C. where the investigation is happening, but in the Southern District of Kansas with Reed O'Connor. And you might remember that name because Reed O'Connor is a very popular MAGA judge. He has done quite a lot for the cause. He is somebody, if you want to shop for a judge for your right-wing cause, he is the guy to see. It. We've talked about Reed O'Connor just in the context of any number of cases on show already. But reason that they filed it in the Northern District of Texas, and again, this is an enforcement petition to enforce a subpoena that Rhode Island Hospital very reasonably is refusing to comply with. They're saying that 18 U.S.C. 1346C allows them to enforce a subpoena anywhere with jurisdiction where the investigation is being conducted. Been no previous indication that this investigation of trans healthcare was being conducted in the Northern District of Texas. It doesn't make a lot of sense that there would be. As far as I know, from what I could tell, the people investigating this are based in DC, but they filed, and this is true, a sealed affidavit. The court notes this in a footnote, and the court said that it was so important that they filed this thing that they could file it ex parte sealed. A sealed affitavit in which they claim, and the lead prosecutor, by the way, I need to name and shame, Lisa Kaye Tsao. Worked in consumer protection for many years, starting the Obama administration. She knows better. I have to think she

0:37:22 Thomas: Oh, good.

0:38:22 Matt: Knows better?

0:38:23 Thomas: Now she's on the other side of it. She's like, I'm tired of protecting consumers. I want to F them over.

0:38:26 Matt: That's right. That's right, and I should mention, I meant to mention in the last segment, the top treasury lawyer quit over this horrible thing that we talked about last, over the settlement, and she needs to leave. It's time for her to go over this. This is bad, she's filed this sealed thing saying that, yeah, no, we're doing the investigation out of of the Northern District of Texas, which maybe they've got one FBI agent stationed there so they can say that. I don't know, but I doubt it. I really doubt it." They want this judge, and this is clearly blatant judge shopping. Child advocate in Rhode Island, which is a state agency, files a motion to quash in Rhode island, which was where they should have done this, obviously. And Judge Mary McElroy, who of course they know they're going to get a blue state judge if they did it in Rhode Island, she wrote an amazing decision, which we'll link to on the 14th of May, and she basically found that DOJ can no longer be afforded the presumption of regularity, that they'd misled the plaintiffs to buy time and surprise them with this Texas thing, that they've lied to the court, and that this whole thing is nonsense.

0:39:21 Matt: O'Connor talking about judge shopping and how bad it is, the guy who they shop to.

0:39:26 Thomas: They always like to do that. That's what you lawyers like to do. Hey, if you're going to cite something, cite where this asshole said the thing. Yeah, it's good it's a good tactic I like it I approve

0:39:28 Matt: That's right, that can't go wrong. Like with the previous segment, this is all pretty out of line. Obviously, this is really unusual, but then Judge O'Connor comes back on the 18th on Monday with something extra nuts, like something that I've never seen before, and I hope I never see again in a court order. Orders that the subpoena be enforced and that they deliver all of these materials they're looking for in the form of USB flash drives before midnight on May 19th. And it is further ordered. Rhode Island Hospital is entitled to seek reconsideration or file any other motion in this court and to seek relief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whichever sees him, of course, or the United States Supreme Court, but not in front of any other court, including Rhode Island, apparently, where, you know, the subpoena is happening. To avoid the waste of duplication, rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts and piecemeal resolution of issues, she's quoting here, Rhode is hereby enjoined from seeking relief, encouraging others to seek relief, or

0:40:30 Thomas: I How can you be enjoined from encouraging? Is that okay?

0:40:33 Matt: With others in seeking relief from any other court related to those proceedings, and from aiding and abetting others or encouraging others from seeking relief from other courts but those identified above.

0:40:47 Thomas: What? Who, wait, what others though? I don't, I

0:40:52 Matt: The Rhode Island Child Advocates, which is as a division of the Rhode Island government got involved. Rhode Island also got involved, but I think he's saying there's other third parties here. And it seems to suggest that the lawyers, like even lawyers who might consider bringing suit or would try to bring suit in Rhode Island or any other place that they might have a claim would be aiding and abetting and subject to contempt is what he's say. I mean, this is insane. I have never seen anything like this. He should be impeached. Like he should be straight up impeached, this is really bad. For him, this terrible, this so out of line.

0:41:16 Thomas: God, they they feel impunity. They feel impunity and they're NOT really technically wrong because Because they've had impunity. It's got... This is too much.

0:41:28 Thomas: God, this episode. This is a killer, Matt. This is going to be some of the worst bullshit ever. No, it's not fault.

0:41:31 Matt: Have. We've got some fun coming up, I promise, but interesting in the way that fascism is interesting. And he's mad that Mary McElroy of Rhode Island called him out. And this is his response is, don't go back to Rhode Island. And I will say I'm disappointed because before the deadline on midnight on the 19th, the parties sought the First Circuit review of this and the First Circuit deferred and basically said, we're going to let this play out.

0:41:36 Thomas: Give a shit. Sucks. I want to know what's going on. Wow.

0:41:58 Matt: He can keep it in camera. Basically, he's going to take the information, and I guess some of it's going to be anonymized at the court's order, but he's going to be able to hold on to it just in case they win the appeal, and then it can be turned over, but it's going to be in camera for now. So they're saying there's no harm because, you know, just Reed O'Connor gets to read it.

0:42:08 Thomas: My God. Just this really trustworthy stand -up guy.

0:42:15 Matt: Yeah. Who clearly cares about trans kids and their privacy.

0:42:19 Thomas: Oh, and cares about the freaking rules.

0:42:21 Matt: Yeah right right. Is a very quick pressy that I've given you here because we're running out of time, but this is, I just want to give you, I mean, even just what I've told you, that's enough. You've got the idea. This is very bad, it's radical.

0:42:32 Thomas: There more?

0:42:32 Matt: More about the suit and about what they're trying to do. And I would like to spend more time on this and we should be talking more about what DOJ is trying to do to providers that are helping trans kids and with gender dysphoria generally, and I want to make sure we keep this on the radar, but it is so bad. And is shameful stuff. He should be impeached in a better administration under a better Congress. Just another reason that we're going to get the power back.

0:42:54 Thomas: Boy. So we need so many more senators than we're probably ever going to get, but it's I mean we got to do we got start somewhere man. I don't know. This is so terrible. This is absolutely terrible. God unbelievable. How do we get more people to know what the F is going on? Share the share the show. I don't fucking know. I so frustrating. It's so unfair. I don't even know how to deal with it.

0:43:22 Matt: We still have a lot of very good judges, including Mayor McElroy in this story. Not inundated with Trump judges yet, but if we continue on this path, especially if we don't control Congress, then we're gonna get more of these people. That's what they want. They want to fill the bench with these people.

0:43:34 Thomas: That and it's like, even, if we stop filling with horrible, filling the bench with horrible judges, like there's still no consequences for the crap they're doing. And it just, it's just, it's hard to be someone who at all cares about justice and just unfairness in general. Like it's really, really a tough time to be alive.

0:43:55 Matt: It And if only there were a place where I could collect for all of the pain and suffering that I've experienced throughout this administration. TBD, this is a good one. It is.

0:44:03 Thomas: Yeah. All right. Well, let's take our last break. And then Matt has promised a good footnote. Very good one. Right, Matt, what do you got for us?

0:44:15 Matt: You ever heard an ad for Top Dog Wah?

0:44:17 Thomas: No.

0:44:18 Matt: It feels like every time I get an Uber, and the first time that I heard this in an Uber I was not entirely sober and I thought I was taking different drugs than I was taking. I mean, it was really insane. Was like, how is this an ad? And we're just going to play a little bit here.

0:44:29 Thomas: I love it.

0:44:30 Matt: I will send you quick a commercial now. We're Top Dog that much, but I wanted to to give you the context because Top Dog is involved in this story. Don't advertise. I don't feel like we really need to advertise. If But you're a personal injury lawyer, I understand you do need to advise. That's part of the job.

0:44:31 Thomas: I already like this. What would your ad be? Hey, are you an immigrant getting fucked over right now? Oh, we already have too many. We just already don't. We don't need more.

0:44:49 Matt: We're inundated. But certainly always ready for a consultation. But, yeah, we're not necessarily needing to advertise So here is a Top Dog radio commercial just to give you the idea. And this has become kind of a trend of this kind of commercial.

0:45:05 Clip: Received a call from top dog told you your settlement check was ready think it to yourself damn that was quick seemed like it just happened you asked top dog how much is the check he asked you where you sitting down you told him yes he told you got a couple commas you want to know the rest come see me jump in your car it's office give him a hug

0:45:40 Matt: You get the idea,

0:45:47 Thomas: I'm gonna hear him out oh wow that's the best advertisement I've ever heard in my life that rules

0:46:06 Matt: Just imagine just being you know a little high at like one in the morning in an uber on a saturday night and you get in and you hear this while you're looking at your bank account and realizing that you do not in fact have a top dog law check in your bank count or anything close to it it's

0:46:17 Thomas: I would think I was on a show or something like I was in a some sort of not reality

0:46:22 Matt: Insane uh I'm not going to say too much about a very litigious personal injury firm on the show uh they're not really a law firm exactly they're more of a like a consultation referral thing like a lot of these people that advertise a lot so they'll They'll hook you up with, like, a local council in Massachusetts. They do have attorneys on staff, and I'm just going to send you so you can see them. There's a particular hiring practice, you may notice, if you want to take a quick look at their attorney's page. See if you can spot the all white.

0:46:47 Thomas: They're all white except one guy I see one non -white guy

0:46:50 Matt: There's one black man at the bottom, and they're all men except for two white women. For a firm that, like...

0:46:55 Thomas: Yep you don't get to call yourself top dog and have that ad I'm sorry you they're like but we hired the one black guy so it's okay no sorry it's not okay I take back all my praise for you for your ad top dog more like like bottom dog

0:47:00 Matt: No, that's, yeah. Very much my point. Yeah. No. Um, also, uh, I, I'm going to introduce you to an underdog. Uh, this is, uh I'm just very excited about this and full credit to Olivia for finding this on Instagram. I don't spend time on Instagram, but she's been wanting to cover this for a while and I'm totally sold. So Resnick, I'm gonna introduce you very quickly to Joe Resnik, uh attorney and he's from fourth generation from Chelsea, Massachusetts, uh which is a very underprivileged community now in Massachusetts. And this guy is for real, like he's the real thing. He's actually a Harvard Law graduate who was a speechwriter for Obama, and he has a pretty well -established rapping career, and he's actually a pretty good rapper. Calls himself the best lawyer in Boston, I'm not really sure how he gets to do that, but you can say that if you want. Here he is hanging out by the aquarium doing some raps. Boston.

0:47:54 Clip: I'm flossing da bring charges on you that's gonna cost da see me on some charges and toss No surprise last 12 trials. They lost them. Plus. I just filed a lawsuit Best lore

0:48:08 Matt: Much better. Also has a great ad making fun of Morgan & Morgan, if you've seen those guys, he's great. But the one that brought my attention is he did a beef track, like an actual diss track, against Top Dog Law. And we got to play this. It's so good. And we have called them for comment, both sides.

0:48:21 Thomas: This is fantastic oh stupid

0:48:26 Matt: I'll tell you about the comment in a moment. But But here we go, here is this diss track.

0:48:42 Thomas: Oh man he's got a bunch of cute dogs I don't

0:48:51 Matt: The implication that he shot a dog, I don't really like, but

0:48:52 Thomas: Yeah I don' t I like the it's funny to have the gunshot at the end but I don''t like the implication that you are uh your Christy Gnoming it. I don't like that implication. Okay, well, that was incredible.

0:49:03 Matt: He's taking on Top Dog Law on their own ground and he's better at it. He's a better rapper than anybody they've put up.

0:49:09 Thomas: Than anybody they've put up. So ridiculous.

0:49:12 Matt: He's got bars, man. He's good. He's got a real rapping career. He's done plenty of recording. And the internet loves him. And love to talk to him on the show because he seems like a pretty entertaining guy. We did reach him for comment today. So I will read you his comment when we asked him about the videos. We also, I will say, just because we are journalists, we did try to reach Top Dog Law. They have not responded as of the time of recording. So we're going to go for no comment on this beef.

0:49:23 Thomas: Sorry, I'm Barry Weiss. We can't air this segment. I'm going to have to.

0:49:38 Matt: That's right. Yeah. I just again, full credit to Olivia for doing the journalism here at my direction. Didn't think that she was actually going to reach to Joe Resnick, but she did. And he did tag them in this video, so we're not exposing anything here. He wanted them to see it, and I think it's awesome that he did. Resnik's official comment is, is, fuck Top Dog, they ain't on the Black Dog.

0:49:43 Thomas: No kidding.

0:50:02 Matt: He also wants to communicate that he is willing to fight them in a mock trial, a boxing ring, anywhere, you get the picture.

0:50:08 Thomas: Yeah, I just want to make sure I got it. Fuck Top Dog what? What?

0:50:11 Matt: They ain't the Black Dogs. Ain' on the black dog, sorry. Yeah, my rapping is not so good.

0:50:16 Thomas: Yeah, we're, we've done it. I was gonna start doing rap commercials for you, but maybe, maybe you're not, get out for it. Sorry. They ain't on the block, Doug. Okay, I love it.

0:50:22 Matt: I gotta practice a little more. No, appreciate that we reached him for comment, and that was his official comment on the video. Yeah. Yeah.

0:50:29 Thomas: That's so good. That is awesome. Done.

0:50:35 Matt: Like he's a man of the people. I mean, again, for a Harvard Law graduate, he's fourth generation Chelsea, Massachusetts kid. And that's awesome. Like you can tell he's got street smarts and he's doing the right thing.

0:50:45 Thomas: That's fantastic.

0:50:46 Matt: Don't usually promote, and this is not an endorsement. I have no idea about his legal services. We're not endorsing him on the show. I'm just saying I like his ads and I think he's cool. And maybe we should have him on show.

0:50:54 Thomas: I agree.

0:50:56 Matt: Joe Resnick.

0:50:57 Thomas: Fantastic. Well done. To I hear that one more time. I gotta hear it one more more time. Let's go out with this. So good.

0:51:22 Matt: Well, I got one more short one. If you want to hear one more Joe Joe Resnick before we go out, because we deserve it. It's really been a show. Theme, not Top Dog related, but

0:51:32 Clip: Just crashed my hootie like a goofy now I'm feeling loopy You still deserve to call joe when you

0:51:45 Thomas: We do. Car accident, slip and falls, criminal defense. Oh man.

0:51:48 Matt: Used to support Sandra Day O 'Connor's general view that lawyers shouldn't advertise at all. And I still am, I can be persuaded to that. She wrote dissents over the years for many years saying that we just shouldn't be advertising. It brings down the profession. You know, you got to reach people where they're at. And right.

0:52:02 Thomas: It's a different time and this rules. So well done.

0:52:05 Matt: Yeah. Yeah, and he's got bars. So well done, Joe.

0:52:08 Thomas: Good times. Well, I do feel a little better. Thanks. Thanks, man. I feel a Little bit better. Let's go, uh, let's go take down the government, everybody. We just, this is unacceptable. Uh so much for the a breakdown. Thanks for listening, everybody. Please share this. This is a, when you get this message out there and Thanks to, uh、 Joe Resnick for, for comment. I love that.

0:52:27 Thomas: So good. Oh boy. Have a good weekend, everybody, and we'll see you on Monday.

0:52:27 Matt: Yeah I appreciate it. Protect trans kids.

0:52:38 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

0:53:10 Matt: They ain't on the Black Dog.