Tanya Chutkan

Look, I was US attorney in DC for four months.

I was toe-to-toe with, uh, Boasberg and Chutkan and all these people, and they're just lawless.

They're just beyond.

They think they, they think and operate beyond the law.

... and overseas, there are gonna be charges.

And just, just look, Judge Tanya Chutkan, the DC US attorney, uh, hinted at this when she said that there's, uh...

She indicated there could be an investigation when Ilhan Omar's, uh, re- disclosed finances in the House go from almost nothing to, like, 25 or $30 million, a 13,000% increase in one year.

Wow.

And then there are the, you know, the people in the judiciary who enjoy, shall we say, special protections, uh, like Boasberg and, and really all of those DC judges, DC d- federal district judges in, in Washington.

Um, Tanya Chutkan, uh, Emmet Sullivan, the guy who was in charge of the, uh- Um, Michael Flynn case, who behaved so atrociously.

Uh, you would think that there would be some body or person or authority that had some say in whether they were performing under good behavior, as the Constitution says.

Now, don't they have, don't they have to be, uh, impeached by Congress? Isn't that the way?

Look, I was US attorney in DC for four months.

I was toe-to-toe with, uh, Boasberg and Chutkan and all these people, and they're just lawless.

They're just beyond.

They think they, they think and operate beyond the law.

It does not require a plan fiduciary to have a crystal ball.

So the courts are very clear that prudence is not judged by the performance of an investment option, but rather the prudent process.

Here, however, the plaintiffs are premising their claim on the fact that the investment option did underperform during the relevant period.

Did it seem like there wasn't much disagreement among the justices about whether to require meaningful benchmarks?

We're gonna do a couple more of these.

Uh, and of course, uh, Judge Chutkan has just approved a 180-page brief, uh, which means there will be a Trump Trials and Tribulations this week.

It's gonna have to be at a special time because we, uh, are gonna need to read that brief, which is gonna take a little doing.

So that'll be on Friday, not on Thursday.

Brian Cates says, "I fully expect the same pattern to play out again, this time with executions carried out by the military." Maybe I should read the article.

"Supreme Court already established in '20 with the four test cases that the shadow government attempted to block with Judge Chutkan that Trump and the attorney general have the authority to conduct the executions of state-level prisoners by the federal government.

Now, when numerous injections are filed," excuse me, "injunctions are filed by the rogue judges to attempt to block Hasan's military execution once the date is set for him to be shot, the very first setting of such a date since '61, Supreme Court will once again clearly establish the precedents and clear the way for several thousand military executions coming over the next two years." Oh my God.

Now this is when it starts getting really heavy.

A lot of people have forgotten that Aileen Cannon, when she disqualified Jack Smith, said that he was illegally, illicitly appointed by Merrick Garland, the attorney general at the time, that it was an unconstitutional and illegal appointment, and therefore he had no power, and he could not investigate or prosecute.

That was news to the judges of 93 other federal, uh, district courts, including, uh, Judge Chutkan, who had a election interference case against Trump brought by the same special counsel.

No declaration or finding by the Supreme Court that it was invalid, but to Judge Cannon in her world, in her one-judge courtroom up in Fort Pierce, she wanted to slay the dragon that was up against Donald Trump.

And so she made that declaration.