Trump Stuned as Federal Judges Doom Him!!!!

Welcome to the Court of History. I'm Sean Wilentz with my co-host, Sidney Blumenthal. Subscribe to LegalAF, the Webby Award-winning LegalAF, and get us wherever you get your podcasts. Sidney, we've been talking a lot over the last months about the Supreme Court and about the courts and the federal judiciary, and it's no secret of where they've been going. But the courts are more than just, you know, what's going on at that building across from the Library of Congress. There are many courts, there are many federal courts, there are state courts. It's a very complicated story, and it's by no means been a single story. There's been a fair amount, more than a fair amount, of opposition to what the Supreme Court's been doing by those people who know more than anything, which is the federal judiciary. I mean, we're seeing a kind of, I don't want to say a revolt exactly, but something of a conflict, to be sure, within the federal judiciary, which you should not write off as simply those nine people, right? Well, as you point out, the judiciary, which is the third branch of government, has all kinds of branches on it as well. There are all kinds of courts appointed by many presidents, and there are all kinds of local courts. And there are also, importantly, former judges who play a very important role. There's the American Bar Association, which the Department of Justice has prohibited its personnel from participating with extraordinarily. And there are all sorts of associations. It's a whole world unto itself, and it is very much part of the constitutional system of Texas. Absolutely. Absolutely. And you say the former judges play a role in this, which is very, very important. And we just happen to have here... Yes. Let me just say one other thing. This role is not only a formal role. It is a role of authority, and including moral authority, as well as the authority of expertise. Absolutely. And especially under a regime like we have today, where authority is being usurped and false authority is being asserted, we rely all the more on those people who have authentic, genuine authority earned over the years. And I can think of no greater authority than the person we happen to have on today for the Court of History, and that's J. Michael Luddig. He's a friend of the court, maybe a best friend of the court. Judge Luddig is known for many, many things, a long and distinguished career in the judiciary. He served in the Fourth Circuit until 2006. He has been an outspoken advocate for American justice in our time right now. Welcome to the Court of History again, Judge Luddig. Thank you, Sean, and thank you, Sidney. It's always a special pleasure to be with you, but now more than ever, because these are the most historic times in all of American history, and the two of you are documenting those historic times for the rest of history. And I'm just pleased to be a small part of that documentation. Well, you're more than a small part, and you've been doing a great deal, especially recently. I wanted to open up by talking about what you've been doing in terms of around particular cases, but also more generally in mobilizing the moral authority of the judiciary that you know very, very well, and bringing together judges, former judges, to talk about the things that are going on today. Why don't you tell us a little bit, fill us in a little bit about what you've been doing? I'd be glad to. Let me set the context first, Sean, if I may. On his first day in office in January of 2025, this president, Donald Trump, literally instigated a figurative war on the federal judiciary, the Constitution, and the rule of law in America. He had no other choice but to instigate that war, because he knew that the only way he could succeed in his presidency was to cower and delegitimize the federal courts, and thereby the rule of law in the United States of America. And so it began. Every single initiative of this president on day one, and to this day, a year and a half later, Sean, has been either demonstrably unconstitutional or otherwise in palpable violation of the laws of the United States. In that sense, that very, very important sense for history, this presidency was doomed from the beginning. Now, what he did was take on the federal judiciary and the Constitution and the rule of law. And to this day, the courts, the federal courts of the United States have struck down every single initiative of this president. And of course, he's gone into a tirade over that and only escalated his vicious, unprecedented attacks on the federal courts and even the judges of the United States of America. Fast forward to today, when he tried his last effort to legitimize his entire presidency and his entire political existence by creating this slush fund to compensate him and his family and his allies and supporters on January 6, 2021. That was the final straw for Americans. They saw that effort for what it was, a brazen effort literally to reward himself and his family and his allies and supporters, many of those January 6 supporters having been convicted for federal crimes. Americans saw that as the final straw. They understood that at that point, that was a corrupt effort by the president of the United States at the taxpayer's expense to compensate himself royally for his unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional acts in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Now, I apologize to your question. The retired judges, you and Sidney said it right at the beginning, the judges of the United States as a whole, including the retired federal judges of the United States, are the only voices that could possibly be heard above the din of the political warfare. And as a result, they have been heard now, and they will be heard for the remainder of this administration to the particular effort. So, I think that it's one of the proudest things that I've ever done in my life to lead this very loose group of former federal and state judges, numbering 200 to 300. It's been my honor to lead that group who have wanted for a year and a half now to speak out from their retirements in defense of the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law in America. They assembled themselves, if you want to say it that way, and then I was just there and agreed to lead them into this battle for the Constitution and the rule of law. So, the way it works as a practical matter is simple. First off, as you would expect, no one tells any federal judge or state judge, retired or active, what to do. I don't do that. All that I do is offer this group opportunities to participate in the public sphere on a particular issue, and I offer it to them in a single email to all of them that says, for instance, apropos of our discussion today, would any of you be interested in filing an amicus brief before Judge Williams in Miami with regard to the so-called slush fund, period? Then we get back answers from the 200 or 300 judges as to whether they would be interested. As a practical matter, every single time, almost every single judge is interested. And then I proceed with Judge Nancy, former Judge Nancy Gertner, to arrange for the filing of that brief, which we did in the slush fund case. Once the brief is satisfactory to me and to Judge Gertner, it's circulated to the 200 or 300 judges, and then each individual judge responds and says whether he or she would like to be shown as joining that brief. And again, as a practical matter, virtually every single time, and maybe we've done this 10 or 12 times, every single judge on the list wants to be shown as joining that brief. It's never, ever has anything like this occurred in the 250 years of America's history. And of course, hopefully it will never happen again, because this is the only moment in American history, hopefully, when the need has presented itself by virtue of the conduct of the President of the United States of America. So you've really created, just to make clear to our viewers and listeners, the group of judges that you're talking about comes from across the appointment spectrum. It's not a group of Democratic appointees as opposed to Republican appointees. It is in defense of the Constitution rather than a political point of view. It's important for people to just understand that, that this is the judiciary standing up. These are people who understand the rule of law better than anyone, who are now constituting themselves, really, as an institution, in effect, an ad hoc institution, let us hope, to defend the Constitution of the United States. But I just want to make it clear, this is not a political act in any shape, manner, or form. That's correct, Sean. It is the opposite of politics or political. These are former judges who are joining together as former judges and speaking to the courts of the United States, their former colleagues, speaking as if they were speaking as sitting federal judges and state judges. What I'm saying there is that not one word that these judges sign on to would they not speak, you know, in their opinions, if that were to be an opportunity, which it would never be. But in other words, there is not one hint of politics in one word of anything that these judges submit to their former colleagues. This is an extraordinary effort. As you've pointed out, and Sean has pointed out, this has never occurred before. And it's in response to a very particular presidency and administration. And I wonder if you could speak to what it is about what this president has done that has provoked all of these former judges who tend to be very reticent in entering into public controversy of this sort in the past from coming together now and feeling compelled now to step forward. Yes. First, let me foot stomp the reticence point, Sidney. No judge, former judge ever, ever speaks publicly, let alone to other active courts and active judges, period. It is not done for obvious reasons. That brings us to this moment in American history. Not only never before has America seen or witnessed a president of the United States doing this, it's never witnessed any person in the United States of America doing anything like this. The final point being, it is not possible to attack the constitution and the rule of law in America anymore. It's not possible to attack the constitution and the rule of law anymore than this president of the United States of America has done for the past 18 months. It's now or never for the constitution and the rule of law in America and the judges active and retired understand this moment and they will not be sidelined because they know that there is no one else in America, least of all our so-called political leaders, who are going to stand up and defend even the constitution of the United States of America against this sitting president. And no one has more moral authority than you do too. There is no one that has any greater moral authority than the courts of the United States and the retired judges of the United States of America. As you said, Sean, they have earned that respect over the course of their lifetimes and they never ever expected that there would come a moment when they needed to use that earned respect in order to defend the constitution and the rule of law against a president of the United States. And what is extraordinary about this, of course, is that the current regime runs by intimidation. And we've seen one institution after another in this country be intimidated from the universities to the law firms, you name it. They've buckled one after the other in the face of this. And you're a group that cannot be intimidated. Not only do you have the moral authority, but you're above the system. They can't do anything to you. Although I did want to ask if you've received any blowback whatsoever from what you've been doing. Has anybody complained to you or say, you guys shouldn't be doing this, it's unprecedented? Anything like that at all? Well, first let me speak to your main point. It's by virtue of the constitution of the United States that judges cannot possibly be intimidated. That's not to say that they will not allow themselves to be intimidated. That sometimes happens, though that's rare. But it is not possible for any person, least of all the president of the United States of America, to intimidate a single federal judge. That's why the constitution gave those judges life tenure. Now, to your specific question, I've heard about and read a little bit about some gadflies out there who are saying, well, it's inappropriate for retired judges to be speaking out. Well, they're gadflies, and they're few, very few in number, because not even the gadflies are prepared to stand in front of America and say, the judges of the United States of America should stand silent by while this president corrupts the constitution and the rule of law. So, you know, in fact, the only people that you really hear that from is the president of the United States and his attorney generals, right? And then some of political supporters. But the main point is, these judges could care less about those comments. As judges, we decide what we must do and what we are going to do in anticipation of anything and everything that any other person could criticize us for. And then when we move, we move. And we don't care what anyone else says. Well, Judge Leung, we've discussed before the Supreme Court's decision on giving Donald Trump absolute presidential immunity for so-called official acts. And as a result of that, the court's reputation was severely harmed. It was a self-inflicted injury that it performed itself. Since then, the Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken about the problem of the court's legitimacy and reputation. What do you think is the cause of the loss of confidence in the Supreme Court? And what can it do to restore its own legitimacy that the Chief Justice worries about? Well, the Chief Justice, he can worry all he wants. But the plummeting in the public approval of the Supreme Court plummeting is attributable directly to the Supreme Court itself and to nothing else, nothing else. And its opinion first and probably primarily at this point in its decision written by the Chief Justice, we now know, in Trump versus United States, giving this president, Sidney, this president, he was the plaintiff, giving this president absolute immunity for virtually any crime that he could ever commit against the Constitution and the United States of America. We won't go back into that decision except to say this, in 250 years of legal and constitutional precedent and commentary, not one single person had ever even suggested the possibility that a president of the United States might not be liable for a crime against the Constitution. That was the state of the Supreme Court law, if you will, at the moment that this Supreme Court decided that, no, actually, a president is immune from all prosecution for any crime against the Constitution, the United States of America. But I digress and I apologize, but the court has followed a course this past year and a half with its so-called shadow docket. It put Donald Trump back in the Supreme Court's decision in Trump versus United States. And therefore, this Supreme Court has enabled this president to do all that he's done in the past 18 months in savaging the Constitution and law in America. So what has the Supreme Court done for the past 18 months? It hasn't just sat silently by. It's far worse. Through this so-called shadow docket, it has enabled this president in 24 instances to pursue his palpably lawless unconstitutional conduct without a single written word of explanation or reasoning under the Constitution of the United States, deciding all those cases by order, order, which means no explanation, no reading, no reasoning, no opinion that have stayed the lower court decisions that were eloquent opinions of law, 20, 30, 40, 50 pages in length, unassailable. The Supreme Court has stopped those decisions from being implemented against this president without ever once deciding the case itself. That is a self-inflicted wound from which this court will never recover and ought not ever recover. And some of the most egregious of those, of course, have had to do with voting rights and gerrymandering and the ways that these things have been allowed to set up the possibilities for this regime to continue. And I'm wondering, though, you made the point that the slush fund business has been something of a turning point. Why do you think that's the case? What happened in this case that woke America up after having put up with it for so long? Thank you for the question. To me, it's obvious, and it's obvious to the American people, though not this explanation. I think I said with Ali Velshi on the first weekend that in the end, there was the beginning. So that is a profound philosophical concept that, of course, both of you are well familiar with through all of time. And it simply means, in whatever context that it's used, that when we get to the end, we see that this is where it all began, i.e., we've not made any progress. In fact, after the journey, we ended up with what we started with. So in this context, that obviously just means this all started with Donald Trump and January 6, 2021. He has continued that corruption of America's democracy and the rule of law for whatever it is now, almost six years, right, until the slush fund. So what was the slush fund? Well, as we spoke about briefly in the beginning of this podcast, it rolled up everything, everything that Donald Trump is, everything that he stands for, and all that he's unlawfully done to corrupt America's democracy and rule of law into a grand finale, a personal grand finale of it all, by which, guess what? He would be exonerated for his tax offenses first, but then he and his family and all of his allies and supporters for these past six years would be compensated for the putative wrong that they suffered at the hands of America. Well, every man in the street, every man or woman at the bar, in the restaurant, in the cafes, down Main Street, everywhere, they understood that at the level that they needed to, which is, are you kidding me? You mean the president and his supporters are going to get $18 billion for what? And so there was a revolt, and that revolt, I believe, is the beginning of the end of this presidency. It was prophetic in a way, the slush fund, though, in retrospect, totally to be believed and expected, right? Where did all this end? It ended with Donald Trump trying to give $18 billion to himself and his supporters. That's why the profound philosophical phrase, in the end, there was the beginning. So to that point, stepping off from January 6th, we now face a midterm election, 2026, this year, in which Donald Trump clearly is frightened of a potential result where he will lose control of a sycophantic, subservient Congress, and one that applies oversight to him and his actions. And he is doing everything he can to undermine it. To wit, another unlawful act, appointment of Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Authority, as director of national intelligence, the law stipulates that that person must have an intelligence background. He has none. So this is clearly not a rightful appointment on its face. And Pulte, who has been responsible for various lawsuits against the president's designated enemies, is clearly there to use intelligence, if he will, to assist Trump in his retribution campaigns, but also potentially, in some ways, to upset the elections. So what is your sense about the doom of Donald Trump and how he is using these familiar means to try and prevent it? And what can be done? Well, at the level of history first, in the end, there was the beginning, right? And at this moment, what that means is, we've all come full circle with Donald Trump now. At the beginning of the circle, many, many millions of Americans saw him for what he was, but many did not. As he completes his own circle in the way that he wants to complete his own circle, is his doom. Because now, six years later, all Americans see Donald Trump clearly now. So to the lesser questions about Pulte and the new Attorney General candidate Blanche, first off, both Pulte and Blanche are exactly what Donald Trump wants. But in the sense that we've been talking, they, both of them, now are the symbol of Donald Trump. And it couldn't be better timed for America or worse time for Donald Trump, right? Because it's the slush fund that finally, only because it moved Americans, has moved the Republican Congress. So Blanche is the symbol, not only of the slush fund, but Donald Trump, the man and the president. And at this moment, there could be nothing worse for a candidate for Senate confirmation than that. And that's why I don't believe that Blanche will ever be confirmed. And I don't ever do politics, but I'm not doing politics in this discussion with the two of you. We're just talking about politics. And it seems to me, based on my 50 years in Washington, DC, and you two would know better, certainly you, Sidney, that's why Trump has rearranged his several nominees for Senate confirmation so as to force the Republican Senate to vote for Pulte first, because he knows that he can't get Blanche through. But he's banking on the fact that the Republicans will believe, wrongly, I think, of course, that we must have a national security director. So we'll give him Pulte, you know, and then we'll stop at Blanche, stop Blanche. That's what I think his strategy is. And of course, it goes without saying, he has held up now Clayton's nomination to be U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, which pales by comparison to the Pulte and Blanche nominations. The summary is that the House is crashing down around him at this point. He's desperate, and he's responding the way that he's always responded his entire life, when he is desperate. But this is desperation like he's never seen before, because even his MAGA base is beginning to abandon him because of the war and the Epstein fiasco, and now the slush fund. MAGA itself looks at the slush fund and goes, are you kidding me? This is what this movement has been all about? So, you know, if you took a straw poll today among Trump's staunchest supporters, we can all take judicial notice that there would be fewer of those supporters today than there were a month ago. With that summary statement, Judge Lode, let's conclude this session of the Court of History with great thanks to you and your colleagues for all you've been doing. It's really quite extraordinary. We want to move on to another session where we're going to talk more broadly about the 250th anniversary and the declaration itself. But for now, on behalf of my co-host, Sidney Blumenthal, and to subscribe to Legal AF, please do. But for now, this session of the Court of History is adjourned. Transcribed by https://otter.ai