Trump RUSHES to FED COURT after JACK SMITH TESTIMONY!!!

What this episode is about

Special counsel Jack Smith's testimony before Congress has prompted alarm among Donald Trump and his legal team, who are attempting to obstruct the release of key information related to the Mar-a-Lago document case. Despite Judge Eileen Cannon's prolonged delay in addressing the case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is forcing her to set a schedule for the release of Volume Two of Smith's report, which details allegations of document mishandling and obstruction by Trump.

Key takeaways

• Judge Cannon's delays suggest that justice may be just as classified as Trump's documents.
• The DOJ's protective instincts for Trump raise eyebrows: is there a constitutional right to hide theft?
• Jack Smith wants to testify, while the DOJ seems focused on legal gymnastics instead of transparency.
• Volume two may be under tighter wraps than the classified documents themselves—who are we protecting?
• In the game of political chess, it’s checkmate to transparency when court rulings become mere suggestions.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Ben Mycelis (Host) · 13 min speaking
• Harry Litman (Guest) · 9 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Jack Smith, Judge Aileen Cannon, Department of Justice, Donald Trump
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Judge Aileen Cannon, Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Jack Smith
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Judge Aileen Cannon, Jack Smith
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Department of Justice, Judge Aileen Cannon, Donald Trump, Epstein Transparency Act
5. 20:00 – 21:47: Minus Touch Network, Harry Litman, Talking Feds

Notable quotes from "Trump RUSHES to FED COURT after JACK SMITH TESTIMONY!!!"

• Allow special counsel Jack Smith to testify about that at the congressional hearing. You see, Judge Eileen Cannon has kept under seal all of the filings relating to volume two…

  about Judge Aileen Cannon · at 0:25

• Briefing schedule and said just get back to me sometime in like late January or February and you know as we predicted here on the Midas Touch Network what Pam Bondi was going…

  about Minus Touch Network · at 1:18

• Even talk about, anything that had not been public about the Mara Lago document case. Meaning, and so Jack Smith was Well, you want to provide me guidance of like what that…

  about Jack Smith · at 2:56

• Addition to Attorney General's unconstitutional appointment of Smith as special counsel, Attorney General Pam Bondi has determined that volume two is an internal deliberative…

  about Attorney General Pam Bondi · at 5:22

• Defendant in the case, who said to Judge Cannon, don't release these files. Now, Trump's personal law firm, the DOJ, says don't release the files. Just a reminder of what went…

  about Donald Trump · at 6:25

• I want to bring in Harry Litman of the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds podcast, Talking Feds Substack.

  about Harry Litman · at 8:02

• Harry, there's links here also with the videos you and I have done on the Epstein Transparency Act where we've been saying the problem is that who can enforce this? Usually the Department.

  about Epstein Transparency Act · at 15:12

• Everybody make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube. It's called Talking Feds. So after you finish watching this video and you subscribe here on our YouTube channel, subscribe.

  about Talking Feds · at 21:13

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Donald Trump — Person · Central referenced subject (accused/defendant) · 7 mentions · first at 0:00
  Discussed as the alleged subject of the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents investigation and as benefiting from DOJ/Cannon actions to keep 'volume two' from public release.
• Jack Smith — Person · Referenced investigator/witness (special counsel) · 8 mentions · first at 0:05
  Portrayed as the special counsel whose report/testimony is being constrained; central to the dispute over releasing and discussing 'volume two' related to the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
• Judge Aileen Cannon — Person · Referenced judge controlling sealing/release decisions · 13 mentions · first at 0:29
  Presented as the judge keeping filings under seal and setting briefing schedules that delay release; characterized by speakers as enabling suppression of the Mar-a-Lago case record.
• Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced government official (Attorney General) alleged to be driving suppression · 4 mentions · first at 0:00
  Described as directing DOJ positions and tactics to delay or prevent release of 'volume two' and to constrain Smith’s testimony; framed as aligned with Trump.
• Harry Litman — Person · Guest/commentator (legal analyst) · 2 mentions · first at 8:02
  Provides legal analysis and critique of DOJ’s deliberative-process argument, the alleged collusive posture, and the practical barriers to appellate review.

Companies & orgs

• Department of Justice — Company · Key institution · 10 mentions · first at 0:56
  Central to the discussion about the handling of the Mara Lago document case and the Epstein Transparency Act
  Two outside the DOJ should rest with the sound discretion of the attorney general. The Department of Justice further acknowledges that it cannot provide the court with…
• Minus Touch Network — Company · Host platform · 2 mentions · first at 1:22
  The platform hosting the podcast where the discussion takes place

Concepts & topics

• Epstein Transparency Act — Concept · Referenced legislation · 1 mention · first at 15:17
  Mentioned in the context of discussing transparency and justice system issues

Media & podcasts

• Talking Feds — Media · Referenced media · 2 mentions · first at 8:03
  Mentioned as a source of analysis and commentary on the legal and political issues discussed

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 Attorney General Pam Bondi and Donald Trump's cover up continues. They were so intimidated by special counsel Jack Smith's testimony before Congress. They first refused to allow Jack Smith to discuss volume two of his report, which involved Donald Trump uh taking documents, classified information, and hiding it at Mara Lago and then obstructing justice. They refused to allow special counsel Jack Smith to testify about that at the congressional hearing. You see, Judge Eileen Cannon has kept under seal all of the filings relating to volume two and relating to the Mara Lago document case which she was presiding over. Even though she dismissed that case longer than a year ago, two years ago at this point, she still claims jurisdiction over the case and she says, "I am not going to allow volume two or anything about that case to be released until I hear further briefing from the uh Department of

0:58 Justice." Except you see Judge Eileen Cannon did nothing for over a year and then finally the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is like you realize you're the judge on this case still so you have to make a ruling about volume two and about when it's going to be released to which Judge Eileen Cannon responded by doing a briefing schedule and said just get back to me sometime in like late January or February and you know as we predicted here on the Midas Touch Network what Pam Bondi was going to do is she was going to, you know, have the DOJ do a long briefing schedule, then she would sit on it for a while, and then she would come up with ways to further delay. But it was going to be interesting to see what the Department of Justice says about volume two, the Mara Lago document case, because people like Pam Bondi and others in the regime, they go on Fox all of the time and they and Donald Trump, you

1:51 know, recently posting about Jack Smith, they attack him. Oh, he lied about this, he lied about that. He needs to be prosecuted. this and special counsel Jack Smith is like, I will talk to the the House, to the Senate, any committee you want to bring me in front of. I'm good. I want to talk about my investigation. Obviously, if it's highly sensitive classified information, I'm not going to talk about that. But I should be able to talk about the case and my role as a special counsel. The special counsel statutes say that the special counsel is essentially supposed to testify before Congress. And there's never been a situation where a special counsel has been from appointed by either political party has ever been prevented from testifying about their investigation. And that's precisely what happened. I mean, we all know special counsel Jackson testified this past week in Congress, but all he could testify

2:42 about was the January 6th case and not the Mara Lago case. The DOJ said, "Based on what Judge Cannon has ruled, we the DOJ will basically prosecute you, Jack Smith. We'll throw you in prison if you even talk about, you know, anything that had not been public about the Mara Lago document case." Meaning, and so Jack Smith was like, "Well, you want to provide me guidance of like what that means? No, we don't want to provide you guidance. Good luck. You say something about the Mara Lago case that we believe is under seal, we'll prosecute you, Jack Smith." And so that was put on the record as well. I'll show you that in a moment. But now we know what the DOJ's plan was all along. And they've made the argument here before Judge Cannon that everything in volume two, again, this is all of Jack Smith's report on the Mara Lago document case about uh Donald Trump taking these classified documents and

3:36 everything that was uncovered during the investigation constitutes quote deliberative communications, internal deliberative communications um and thus are not allowed to be produced ever. that volume two may never be released ever is the DOJ's plan. So, if you're keeping tabs, yes, they're covering up a child sex trafficking ring, not releasing the Epstein files, only releasing 1% of documents. Yes, they're now covering up volume two. Yes, the the administration that says they're the most transparent ever. Let me just read for you their word so you can see for yourself. United States response to December 22nd, 2025 order. Notice how Judge Cannon gave him like over a month to basically respond to her order after she sat on volume two for years at this point until the 11th Circuit said, "Judge Cannon, do something." So, it says, "The United States respectively submits this response to the court's

4:32 December 22nd order in which the court announced that its order in joining the release of volume two final status report um you know, since she had questions about it. The United States agrees with the former defendants in this case that volume two should not be released outside of the Department of Justice. As this court currently or correctly determined in its July 5th dismissal order, Jack Smith's investigation was unlawful from its inception. Smith not only weaponized the Department of Justice against the leading presidential candidate in pursuit of an anti-democratic end, but he did so without any legal authority and while targeting constitutionally protected activity. Apparently, you have a constitutional right to steal classified information, according to the DOJ. Put simply, Smith's tenure was marked by illegality and impropriy. In addition to Attorney General's unconstitutional appointment of Smith as

5:25 special counsel, Attorney General Pam Bondi has determined that volume two is an internal deliberative communication that is privileged and confidential and should not be released outside of the Department of Justice. And then they cite some law they say explaining that in the absence of an order barring the release, the decision release of volume two outside the DOJ should rest with the sound discretion of the attorney general. The Department of Justice further acknowledges that it cannot provide the court with additional assurances regarding the scope and adequacy of Smith's proposed redactions of rule 6E materials from volume 2. As this court previously observed, current department council has only secondhand information about the process by which Smith made redactions for rule 6E.

6:10 Current department council was not involved with Smith's investigation because Donald Trump fired everybody regarding Smith's investigation. And when the DOJ says we agree with the defendant's position, they're saying they agree with Donald Trump, who is a defendant in the case, who said to Judge Cannon, don't release these files. Now, Trump's personal law firm, the DOJ, says don't release the files. Just a reminder of what went down at the hearing with Jack Smith. Here's Jamie Rascin, Congress member and ranking member for the Democrats. Here's how he described volume two. Let's watch it.

6:42 You've done and nothing that I've done. Um, Jack Smith has not been able to answer the vast majority of questions about what's in volume two of his special counsel report relating to the stolen documents. Now, um it's been said that uh the the judicial order that Eileen Cannon um imposed will be um lifted in February. And so I would I guess my point of order is do we intend to bring him back so he can answer questions about volume two and about the the stolen documents case?

7:16 We'll take it under advisor. Okay. Well, then we'll see what the court decides to do, frankly.

7:20 I I got you. Well, then in that event, um, I've got the signatures of every member on our side who are writing to notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation of this hearing to answer all of the unanswered questions about the second half of his work.

7:37 That will certainly factor in tremendously when we make our decision. Okay. Because because we have a right on the minority day to have a witness. Um, and we will exercise that right.

7:48 You're going to call him back again? Yes. Wow. Okay. So, okay. I'm I'm I'm citing uh rule 11 clause 2J.

7:56 We look forward to seeing the letter and we'll find out. We'll take it all under adisement. As we said, that concludes today's hearing. We thank the witness for appearing.

8:02 I want to bring in Harry Litman of the Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds podcast, Talking Feds Substack. Again, Harry, apologize for that long opening right there. But what I wanted to share was what specifically in the words of the DOJ and the setup right here. Right. You have uh Jim Jordan, the MAGA Republican who's not a licensed lawyer, who chairs the judiciary committee, which always fascinates me that that's who they pick to chair the judiciary committee. We'll see what the judge does. The DOJ swoops in. The DOJ says, "Judge, these are deliberative communications. They are privileged. You can't produce them at all." Judge Cannon, who Trump appointed, this is the height of corruption. This is what you'd expect to see in Russia, Harry. Am I right?

8:40 100%. Uh Bannon, and notice what we're talking about, right? having foiled through the uh vagaries of election a case that anyone who's looked at thinks is completely righteous. Really, his conduct is indefensible. The the January 6 crimes alleged were more serious, grave as against the republic, but this is an open andsh shut case that would maybe well have been tried notwithstanding the uh ticking clock. But for Eileen Cannon, having defeated that, they are trying now and I think um in contrast to every single uh independent council investigation of which I'm aware, to just smother it from history, what is on the So on one side, the clear um important right of the public to know the possible uh criminal charges of the then um former former president and what's on this side. You know, everybody is a raid personally and politically against the truth coming out. But just to review the bidding, by

9:49 the way, how about that Jim Jordan, oh, we'll take that under adisement with that shittying grin, meaning like screw you, Jamie Rasin. But I I just want to put a finer point on what you said, Ben, because here's what happened. The case ended. It was dismissed as against Trump, but there was this extent order under rule six. You got to keep grand jury material safe. While a case is pending and she just froze it for a year, has done nothing. Finally, as you say, she got uh spurred to do it. And what did she do then? Invited Donald Trump is no longer a party. And the DO Well, the DOJ is a party. Can can you get your mind around this? What are they doing here? They're the prosecutors.

10:32 They're the one who brought the case. that's the reason that they are parties to this case. And then Na and De Alivea, the you know potential uh defendants and that's going nowhere. So it's just a really crass and um completely transparent account from the same people. Donald Trump yesterday at Davos was protesting his innocence of one of the charges and they again and again did the official position of the Department of Justice before Judge Cannon was that this is completely illegitimate and the whole thing was you know total ultravirious.

11:12 That's like a a bad joke for anyone who knows the case. They may be referring to the complete um crazy ass ruling by Eileen Cannon saying there was something flawed about Smith's holding but about Smith's appointment but nobody I mean nobody I mean nobody who's looked at has been able to challenge the merits of the case at all now. So they come in and basically say the people of the United States should never know the facts of what happened as you say it. His previous testimony, DOJ, how do you like this? Said, remember, if you say a word about this, we're going to prosecute you and they're looking to prosecute him no matter what. And he said, okay, give me guidance what not to say. Sorry, you're on your own. These are these are just sheer, you know, antagonists looking to, you know, he and and Jim Jordan and Eileen Canon. They're all arrayed against him. I just want to note the so-called deliberative process privilege

12:11 and that's what they're saying. Uh unlike any other special counsel report ever, somehow this is just about the deliberative process uh presumably between Smith and the rest of the department, Merrick Garland. It is like most of these privileges a qualified privilege meaning it gives ground when there are is need on the other side. Now Eileen Cannon is never going to find need on the other side. But then I mean there's a standing issue, right? Cuz we're in a collusive situation now where the prosecution has become the defense and who is going to appeal whatever order she enters to the 11th circuit.

12:51 But if and when she does, the fair legal analysis here in my view is just not even remotely difficult. You have on the one hand basically nothing in terms of the interests of Trump and others in this information not coming out and on the other hand a really exagent I mean this is all we got right is what happened what will the verdict of history be that's precisely what they are trying to smother any any fairminded analysis of the deliberative process privilege would say sorry this now yields the question is how will it get to the 11th circuit to actually review what is going to be a complete, you know, phony baloney and skewed uh decision on her part. But this idea that it's the liver process is, you know, yields exactly as it should. It's totally bogus because they're pretending there's big interests on one side. What would those interests be, by the way, for the Department of Justice? You can

13:51 see Na and de Olivera saying, "Well, I just assume all this terrible stuff that I've done not come out in my life." You know that would that would be that much. What is the department of justice suggesting is the reasons for the justice system and that represents all the people that this should never see the light of day. You know it's completely Orwellian right but so there you know there's going to be some problem practically uh defeating this. I'll just say it may be this year by the 11th circuit. It may be 10 years from now from another attorney general. We will one day see volume two of Jack Smith's account. We will one day have a very clear historical exposition that Trump was as guilty as sin. Not just simply prolining the documents but repeatedly obstructing them. But it could be a long time and in between the inddehaticable campaign of Trump is to you know erase what was in front of everybody's eyes both January 6

14:55 and this part where he really doesn't as you say have a leg to stand on. So the pernitiousness of the department of justice not only corrupting the justice system itself but the very right of the democracy to know. Uh it's nauseating. You know, Harry, there's links here also with the videos you and I have done on the Epstein Transparency Act where we've been saying the problem is is that who can enforce this? Usually the Department of Justice is in theory the good guys or the good girls doing the work representing the justice. But where they are aligned with Gileain Maxwell, our system was not built on three players to a litigation. It's the prosecution and the defense, a plaintiff and a defendant. You know, we don't have a word or something to describe what this other thing is. And so here your point is, well, what happens when the DOJ and the criminal defendants are literally the same team, not just on this case,

16:00 but on all of these cases where if you give Donald Trump some money or you give his pack or you hire a Trump lawyer, the DOJ now becomes on your team and the federal judge takes its cue from what's being recommended by the federal judge,

16:16 by the executive branch and the prosecutor, you know. But e even in the other cases, Harry, where a federal judge is where we have I mean, Judge Cannon's egregiously corrupt, but think about the case with the new with the former New York mayor where the prosecution says, "We're no longer to pursue it." The judge can't be like, I mean, the judge can send a stern warning or write a nasty order or whatever it is, but the judge can't really be I'm the prosecutor now as the judge. I'm going to do this. And the same thing here, the 11th Circuit can't, you know, on its own doesn't have some like independent power to say, "We're observing what's taking place." Not cool. So, we're going to jump into you, Eileen Cannon. That's the problem. Like, so someone has to make a motion. And what's the Trump regime going to argue?

17:03 Same thing they argued with Epstein. No standing. You're not a party. It's a criminal act. Random people can't jump in and ask the 11th Circuit. So that's the problem, Harry, is like what do you do when the whole system is now broken because you have a criminal regime.

17:19 It's exactly right. And there's actually is a name for this, you know, that you teach your law students, a collusive lawsuit, but what that, you know, really they're on the same side. There's a way of thinking about it that it should just go away, but it doesn't matter because we would be left with the status quo. Collusive just means that there wouldn't be standing. But that's, you know, forget about these legal uh highulutin terms. We are exactly where you say we are. The good guys are the bad guys. The bad guys are the bad guys. And they're raided together against whom? The country. The country. You look, if somebody doesn't doesn't want to see the facts, they don't have to read volume two of the report. But how can you say that this episode that so royal the country even if you take the you know bizarre counterfactual view that Trump was was phoning how can you not say that the country deserves the facts of

18:15 everything its government uncovered it's untenable but they don't ever you know they don't have to say it they just have to submit papers in front of Judge Canon that says oh yeah we agree with the defendants here never let it see the light of day. This is broader than anti-criminal stuff as the department is doing. It's broader than Bondi as the anti- DOJ. It is the government as the anti- uh democracy trying to you know it it is a as Orwellian as you get just trying to rewrite and erase and smother the history of you know what by any account and any political orientation has to be hugely important public uh uh understanding of what the hell the president of the United States did there. It's and to do it by the way to on the one hand say oh this is deliberative process and then on the other file the motion and take the official position of the department of justice the whole thing was illegitimate

19:24 and you know basically to trash it and make it seem that all these details that we won't reveal to you uh and if you looked at you could just assess are are somehow themselves um unfounded and inauthentic which is the farthest thing from the truth truth is is is just the height of, you know, hypocrisy and corruption,

19:47 right? You almost have to think about, you know, in a future administration, you know, does Congress need to pass laws that just completely reconceive of standing? And if you get captured by an authoritarian regime, can you empower an article three to sue a sponty intervene? And you know can a me like we we have to our language and the rules of the game are incapable of handling this because it was based on good faith and understandings and that and and the entire constitution is imbued with implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that doesn't work with Trump or future Trumps out there and you know you and I can spend hours devising what this can be or look like, but clearly our constitution and our laws cannot handle a lawless DOJ. It it doesn't work.

20:45 Mr. Mus, can I just say in closing and with no pandering intended, that's a frigin brilliant point that just uh really is so crosscutting for this administration. We're at the point the framers never thought they were infallible. They did the best they could. They understood that certain wickedness could in fact um penetrate these parchment barriers and that really is what we're living through week by week.

21:13 Everybody make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube. It's called Talking Feds. So after you finish watching this video and you subscribe here on our YouTube channel, subscribe to Harry Litman's search talking feds and subscribe to his Substack and subscribe to his podcast. Thanks, Harry.

21:29 Thank you, Ben. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump RUSHES to FED COURT after JACK SMITH TESTIMONY!!!"?

Ben Mycelis (Host), Harry Litman (Guest).

What is "Trump RUSHES to FED COURT after JACK SMITH TESTIMONY!!!" about?

Special counsel Jack Smith's testimony before Congress has prompted alarm among Donald Trump and his legal team, who are attempting to obstruct the release of key information related to the Mar-a-Lago document case. Despite Judge Eileen Cannon's prolonged delay in addressing the case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is forcing her to set a schedule for the release of Volume Two of Smith's…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

9 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Jack Smith, Judge Aileen Cannon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Minus Touch Network. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump RUSHES to FED COURT after JACK SMITH TESTIMONY!!!"?

The episode runs 22 min; the transcript is about 3,686 words in 33 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch