Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Torched by Judge for Refusing Oath

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Senior Federal Judge Brinkema in her new Order about the “weaponization fund” declared, in effect, that Acting AG Todd Blanche continued unwillingness to testify under oath and “put anything in writing” about the Fund actually supports her view that the fund is not “dead” but that Trump and Blanche still want to revive it if they can get away from Court oversight. Popok explains that Judge Brinkema’s order saying that she does not and cannot trust Blanche or the DOJ is extraordinary, as he explains what happens next. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. You know, with two dogs, a kid, and life just constantly happening in our house, I feel like I'm always cleaning something. I've tried a ton of products over the years, but Bullshot Carpet has honestly become one of those things I keep reaching for because it actually works fast. I've used it on rugs and upholstery, even after coffee spills and muddy shoes. I love that it dries quickly and doesn't leave a sticky residue behind. It makes cleaning just feel like less of a project. And Bullshot isn't just for carpets.

There's a whole line of professional strength foaming cleaners for the mess's life throws at you. There's Bullshot pet for pet stains and odors, Bullshot de greaser for kitchen grease, and Bullshot barbecue for grills and grates. No matter of the mess, Bullshot handles it. Just shake, point, and spray. Now, for a limited time, get up to 20% off Bullshot and free shipping when you text Bull to 64,000. That's Bull to 64,000 for up to 20% off and free shipping. That's B-U-L-L-L-S-E-S-E-E-Shiping.

message and data rates may apply. I'll say one thing for the Department of Justice under Todd Blanche. When they screw up, they screw up big time. When a federal judge, Judge Brinkima, in the Eastern District of Virginia, said, prove to me that the anti-weaponization fund is really dead. Don't do it outside the courtroom. Do it inside the courtroom under penalties of perjury with a sworn declaration. Let's get all the parties to the agreement that created the settlement fund

and tell me that it's dead. And if it is, you'll never see me again. I'll dismiss the case challenging the Jan 6 fund instead of taking her up on that offer. What did they do? They filed something of their own creation, the Department of Justice, filed a notice declining, not only saying, we're not going to file declarations under oath.

We'll never file declarations under oath, but you can't make us either. And it should be good enough for you, Judge Brinkham, senior status judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, it should be good enough for you that Todd Blanche said something like that in a congressional hearing. And that should be good because if he lied, then it's an 18 United States Code 1001 violation for lying to Congress. And then you also have the power under Rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure. And so you shouldn't have to worry about trusting the Department of Justice.

Well, we have the new order by Judge Brinkham. She's read the notice. and as expected she's not happy. The case is not being dismissed. She said in its essence, I don't trust Todd Blanche when he's not under oath. I'll read to you from it in a minute. And that's not the way courts work and evidence works.

And in addition to it, I'm going to keep the case alive because you seem to be very reluctant to get rid of this fund. Because on one hand, the Trump administration says, oh, we're not going forward with the fund. On the other hand, they say, we like the fund.

We wish we could go forward. with it. And this kind of last-minute dismissal of an action or cessation of an action to try to avoid judicial scrutiny, you can't do that. There's actually a doctrine that says you can't just stop the thing that you've been sued about, hoping that the judge will go away. I'm Michael Popock. We're not going away. We're on Midas touch it on legal a.F. Let's get to the case. It's styled Andrew Floyd versus the Department of Justice. It is a ruling. It is a case that was brought by our friends

at Democracy Forward, including Sky Perryman. And this is the order from Judge Brinkama that just came out. She's read the notice and she's not happy. We'll post the notice, the order for you on Legal AF Substack. Let me read it to you now. On June 12th, the judge writes,

defendants were offered the opportunity to end this litigation by filing written declarations under penalties of purge. That's sworn statements, affirming what they represented to the public, to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, our judicial colleagues, and this court. You said it, now I want you to say it under oath, namely that they will not take any action to create or operate the anti-weaponization fund, that the fund will not proceed in any manner under any other name while the court is considering the case. Instead of filing those declarations, defendants have filed a notice declining to provide such assurance under the penalty of perjury, saying that they're unnecessary.

Here's the quote from Todd Blanche that they want to rely on to tell the judge, see, he said it out loud somewhere. Isn't that good enough for you? Play the clip. We're not moving forward with the anti-weaponization fund. Is the $1.18 billion do you have a fund dead or is it on hold? It's, I'd have to ask the lawyers, I don't know. Look, we're not moving forward with the fund.

The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful. The reasons for the fund, I think, were, were, we remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund. We had a lawsuit that against us on the, you know, on the weaponization, where the judge, a radical left judge ruled against it. And we'll see how that all works out. We are not moving forward with the fund, period. She goes on to say, look, you're telling me that.

that he was under a penalty of perjury because he swore in for that, and therefore you should take him at face value. That's not good enough in a court of law, and that's not good enough under the Article III powers of a court. But then she goes further. She says on page three, that the defendants, the Department of Justice and Blanche,

have refused to accord a genuine degree of trustworthiness to their representations about the fund not going forward is particularly concerned. because of the president's consistent support for the fund, and acting Attorney General Blanche's acknowledgement that the fund remains important. She then goes on to remind Blanche that he doesn't like to put anything in writing. In fact, I've already done videos in analysis

that they would rather lose a case for the Department of Justice. I'll lose a case on vindictive prosecution, lose a case about indictments, lose a case about grand jury misconduct, and prosecutorial misconduct, misconduct and abuse of prosecutor power than have Todd Blanche testify, ever. The only time you're going to see him testify ever again, I think, is when he shows up in the Senate for a confirmation hearing and when he has to appear before oversight committees.

That's it. So she says, she calls that out. She says, although acting attorney general Blanche reiterated several times during his testimony that the fund was not going forward, when asked whether he would issue a new memo in writing rescinding that May 18th memo, he replied, I'm not committing to putting anything in writing, and I said it over and over again. As the court explained, a civil suit does not necessarily become mute when the defendants agree to stop the conduct in the litigation. Under the voluntary cessation exception, a party should not be able to evade judicial review or defeat a judgment by just temporarily halting some questionable behavior. And the reluctance that they show, she says on page four,

the fact that defendants are making a reluctant decision suggest a desire to return to their old ways if the court is not looking. She therefore concludes on the record before this court on page four, Judge Brinkhama says the president and the acting attorney general Blanche's continued interest in compensating alleged victims of alleged government reputization, the defendant's unwillingness to provide declarations

under the penalty of perjury, and acting attorney general Blanche's refusal to rescind his memo, which set up the structure for the fund, all support the conclusion that this civil action is not moot. Answer it by the end of July. Now, this goes hand in glove with another case that's going on in Miami in front of Judge Williams. She's trying to, this could be the silver bullet, she's trying to figure out whether the entire settlement agreement lawsuit that started the settlement agreement

that Todd Blanche entered into, along with the Treasury Department and the IRS, whether that whole thing was a fraud on the court and therefore should be taught. as illegitimate and illegal. That'll kill the fund. But we're still waiting to see what Judge Williams does next, likely an evidentiary hearing about, you know, these issues, you know, and to get to the bottom of it, which means Todd Blanche is going to have another opportunity not to testify,

apparently, in a very weird way. We're going to follow it all. In fact, I had, I just interviewed the local council in Miami in that case about Todd Blanche's testimony and whether we'll ever see it. Here's a clip. What do you think Judge Williams does next? I mean, she's got a new brief that just came in, 23 Democratic Attorneys General. As people on this show know, I've been to there. I've interviewed everyone of the Democratic Attorneys General. I've been to two of their conferences and done panels with them. So I know the group very, very well, was not surprised that they lobbed in that brief as well.

Does she have it? I don't want to put you in a position. where you have to reveal strategy. Do you think there's going to be an evidentiary hearing or hearing in the case? Well, look, first of all, I expect that she'll act relatively soon. It was just our papers were filed on Friday. You point out other very important papers have been filed. I expect we'll hear from Judge Williams relatively soon. Frankly, on the briefing done by the other side,

as really in the way that you've addressed it, Michael, they have not answered the questions. and I think the judge is going to want to hear answers to those questions, and the natural way to get answers is an evidentiary here. Welcome back. I'm glad we're at the intersection of law politics together on the Midas Dutch Network and LegalAF. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button over on LegalAF YouTube channel as we continue to follow all the new United States Supreme Court cases that are dropping over the next 24 hours.

You're going to want to know about them here or on LegalAF substack where I do live reports. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popuk. Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed the legal A.F. Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or an oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from Legal A.F are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal A.F. A.F on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.