Trump faces ‘perfect storm’ brewing against him in court: Legal expert

President Donald Trump might have just stumbled into a “perfect storm” that could lead to a federal court smackdown against his planned UFC cage match on the White House South Lawn, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance told MS NOW’s Alex Witt on Monday.

This comes as a lawsuit filed by two local activists, including a Vietnam veteran, details the appearance of corruption surrounding the event, as well as its defacement of public property and violation of multiple regulations and the constitutional separation of powers.

That complaint, noted Vance, tears at the heartstrings on top of it all: “If you don’t mind, I’ll just read you two sentences that explain where we are. Mr. Romano writes ‘One of the most moving and powerful aspects of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is its quiet tranquility. That tranquility both honors the fallen, the fallen, and allows those who have come to pay their respects an opportunity to reflect and remember without interruption.’”

This, she noted, is part of a “forceful case” that the UFC event will desecrate these sites, which gives them legal standing to challenge it.

“Can I ask you on a big picture level, Joyce, what is the point of having rules, of having laws that require congressional approval if they are treated as mere suggestions?” asked Witt.

This sort of brazen defiance of the law, Vance replied, is “the modus operandi for this administration” as they do all they can to “plow past laws and regulations that don’t suit them, acting on the assumption that no one will get in their way, that Congress will continue to be supine, that the courts won’t interfere.”

Unfortunately for them, Vance said, the lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta — a jurist who has a long history with Trump.

“They have a jurist who has shown a pronounced ability to look at the facts and the law and try to hold the administration accountable,” said Vance. Mehta, she continued, is the same judge “who permitted the civil case around January 6th to move forward, finding that the First Amendment might not cover the sort of language of incitement Donald Trump used that morning of the insurrection.”