You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media throughout the state of Wisconsin and beyond.
I am honored and delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend in discussion with me, with all of us about those major news stories in the areas of law, the administration of justice, government, and the challenges that we face in this year.
presumably continuing well until next year in the areas of rule of law.
As always, we adopt and we pursue our mission here on Amicus Alarva View, pursuant to the very name in the title of this broadcast, which is Amicus.
Amicus Curiei is friend of the court.
The concept, the notion, the mission of this broadcast to be a friend to the community, to provide the information necessary for you to make those decisions about these many challenges, these many issues, these very, very contests in the areas of rule of law.
That is what this broadcast is all about.
That is why we pursue it under the title Amicus Allure Review.
And indeed, consistent with that, we have, as always, an ambitious but
achievable agenda and academic, but hopefully also an inspiring syllabus for you this weekend.
That begins by returning to an issue that we have talked about a lot in the past and that is the notion of civics instruction in America, both in academic settings.
for students of an official nature, but also civics understanding among our population in general.
We have talked before about David Souter's commission long before his recent death about his principal concern in the area of Americans understanding of how government works.
His concerns that if Americans do not understand how government works, it will all break apart.
We have seen that in others as well.
Another Supreme Court Justice Sandra
O'Connor has made much of her post retirement period
committed to teaching civics in America, not just the schoolhouse rock stuff, upon which, yes, the foundation is laid, but upon more sophisticated concepts that one needs to understand in 2025 and going forward, if you are going to understand the underlying predicates, the reasons why these challenges exist today in America, Sandra Day O'Connor, another one from the Supreme Court advancing these interests in civics.
We have seen this as well.
Well, from Elena Kagan recently and Katanji Brown Jackson, also bemoaning the fact that Americans from their perspective have not understood the fundamental trappings of our government, of the Constitution, and in some ways, even dramatically misunderstanding how government is structured.
Well, it's happened again just this past week.
We're gonna spend some time talking about what Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said just this past week in New York.
at the NYU Law School, a convocation there on Constitution Day, yes, September 17th, just this past Wednesday, will tell you all about her bemoaning the fact that Americans in her perspective do not have the appreciation, the understanding, the embracing that they should have with respect to civics in America.
And then we're going to contrast that in ways both big and small, other major news stories of this week,
We're gonna talk about what the president at the opposite end of the spectrum said just this past week about criticism of him
and how that figures into our overall analysis of constitutional rights and prerogatives.
It stands in marked contrast to what Sonia Sotomayor said about the liberties and the joys that we all have in expressing ourselves in America again, an issue under the First Amendment so very much in the news this past week.
We're also going to talk about other ways in which this administration has been pushing back upon the fundamental civics, the constitutional structures.
of our nation, the announcement by this administration in recent days and in recent weeks that it is going to crack down on so-called liberal groups.
People who are not advancing supporting the interests of this president will talk about why that is so hugely problematic.
And again, to the extent that it is embraced by anyone in the United States of America, how it is contrary to fundamental civics understandings about how our government works.
We'll talk, however, also about the ways that certain groups are pushing back on that.
Philanthropies, other nonprofit groups saying, no, Mr. President, we're not going to permit you to do that.
illegal, it is unconstitutional, contrary to what we understand as civics in America.
We'll talk about that as well on the other end of the spectrum once again.
We're going to talk about other things this administration has done to advance this unconstitutional, inappropriate, illegal notion that it has power.
in a way that plainly was not given to it by our founding fathers.
And in a living constitution to this day, nearly 250 years later after our nation was born, as we celebrate this past week, Constitution Day signed by the founders, by the people who put together the fundamental precepts of our nation back in 1787.
We'll talk about the limits of that
power, the constructs put in place recently by the Supreme Court that seem to undermine that notion.
And we'll talk about other things that this president has done just recently.
We'll talk interestingly about a new bill that is apparently circulating in the White House on Capitol Hill as well that would also give the president huge powers, huge powers in the area of international issues.
We know that the president recently has exercised some violent authorities on the high seas.
We'll talk about some legislation that would codify that and give him permission, give him permission to kill people that he deems narco-terrorists.
And the threat that that poses not only to our Constitution, but to the ways in which we are participants in the international community.
We'll talk necessarily about this other piece of breaking news late this past week.
that the government, yes indeed, the U.S.
Department of Justice, the people who are inside this administration, continue to fracture and continue to fall apart when indeed
United States attorneys appointed by this administration refused to do the bidding of this administration, contrary to the civics that we understand, contrary to the Constitution.
Another United States attorney, this one in Virginia, no longer in his job as of just late this past week.
Why?
Because he refused to do some things.
He refused to pursue an indictment.
that he knew and that his deputies knew, maybe even the deputy attorney general of the United States of America knew was unfounded.
You know what that's all about?
That is the president's push, again, inappropriately to impact the Department of Justice, to compel what?
A grand jury, to indict a state official.
on charges where the evidence simply isn't there.
We'll talk about why that is contrary to civics, contrary to the Constitution, and this continuing pattern of now getting rid of the very prosecutors who have served in this administration who refuse to do the bidding of this administration.
It is, yes, that's right, another guardrail.
And that is good to see, not to see the departure of good and decent and right people from our government.
We need them desperately.
But the fact that they are saying no,
just like federal judges are saying no, just like grand juries are saying no to the improper and illegal conduct of this president.
In that connection, we'll also talk about a recently filed lawsuit by former federal agents, former special agents of the FBI, alleging the same kinds of improprieties inside the FBI.
We'll talk about that lawsuit, pushback against this anti-civics, anti-constitutional approach of this president.
We'll talk about the fact that a federal judge days after the president filed another lawsuit attacking the media.
We're doing that a lot these days, obviously.
a lawsuit that has now been dismissed summarily by a judge who says not only is this bad lawyering unfounded, but it is contrary to who we believe we are in America.
We'll talk, interestingly, about another lawsuit in which another federal judge had said that the restrictions on some arts endowment in the United States of America by this president also illegal
also an unfavorable ruling, another guardrail.
Federal judges, grand juries, United States attorneys all say no to this president, even as he maintains.
that he has all of this power, a unitary executive theory.
We've talked a lot about that in the past.
This notion that the president can do virtually whatever he wants to do, a notion that regrettably has effectively not in those words, but can been conveyed to this president well over a year now by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, in that case, United States versus Trump,
talked a lot about that as well, not only finding that a president is immune for certain kinds of crimes committed in office, but also stunningly in those first pages talking about the incredible power, the necessary power that Chief Justice told us, of a president to act in a way that's not feeble, is nimble, is strong, is muscular, is quick.
And along the way is violative now of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is all of the same piece.
What we have on our broadcast this weekend are both further attempts by this president to establish a presidency, yes, an imperial presidency, pushing well beyond, well beyond anything that James Madison and others contemplated in 1787
Constitution Day, the time of the signing of the Constitution, and now being challenged in the court and being pushed back on by institutions of our government.
And yes, indeed, private people, private institutions as well.
We will talk also about another decision of a judge bemoaning the conduct, the conduct of the Trump administration's Justice Department administered by
Attorney General Pam Bondi, administered by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, more lies being presented to a federal district court judge who calls those out and says this is also contrary to our system.
This is also contrary to the checks and balances that we have in the United States of America.
Lawyers, on your behalf of the Department of Justice, making things up, this in connection with these attempts,
to place on planes a number of Guatemalan children stopped by the federal judge now further enjoined by the federal judge now taking the opportunity to call out the Department of Justice for what can only be called the lies articulated in open court about the motivations of parents the reasons for doing this we'll talk about that as well we'll also talk we'll also talk about something else that the
Department of Justice through the Deputy Attorney General has told us not just curiously but stunningly about that now back in July interview that he conducted of Glane Maxwell.
some stunning things, shocking things that really reveal his lack of appreciation for the civics, the constitution, the way these things work, suggesting somehow that Ghislaine Maxwell did not have an opportunity, absent his interview with her to speak out about her position.
We'll explain why that is wrong.
And by our attorney general, like the attorneys from the Department of Justice who are going into a court are misleading you, are providing misrepresentations about how this all works.
Finally, as we look forward in about 16 days from now to the start of the next term of the Supreme Court, we'll talk about the president going back, back to the Supreme Court.
Again, the emergency docket, it goes on seeking emergency authorization to fire that governor.
of the Federal Reserve and also, also with respect to gender identification and passports running back into the Supreme Court even while the underlying litigation goes on and asking the Supreme Court to stop what the lower courts are doing.
Again, contrary to the way that we have done litigation, challenges to policies, the process, the due process, all of that coming up here on this edition.
of Amicus, a law review.
Stay with us for all of that and more during
the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
You can be a part of our discussion here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media by calling our number.
That number is 855-752-4842.
That number, once again, 855-752-4842.
You can drop a text into our chat box.
You can call in and being part of our discussion, which is wide ranging this weekend as it always is.
And it begins the first
bookend in our discussion with Sonia Sotomayor, who's in New York this past week on Constitution Day.
note of personal interest.
I had the great opportunity this past Wednesday to celebrate Constitution Day with a group of people in Williams Bay gathered together 60 people in the library.
They're talking about the Constitution, about its basic trappings, the reason why it is important, the meaning, the content in 2025 and beyond, an incredibly diverse group and incredibly interested and engaging group.
Thank you for the neighborhood groups that organized that apolitical, non-political, non-partisan
gathering, a discussion that launched at 10 o'clock and continued after one o'clock.
I appreciate so very much that opportunity to be engaged with the people of our state and of our nation on the Constitution.
Sonia Sotomayor, at much greater visibility this past week, the same day in New York City at the NYU Law School, a major law school in our nation, she is be crying the fact.
and bemoaning the fact, or crying the fact, that Americans may not know the difference between presidents and kings, warning of the poor quality of civics education, and concern that Americans may not know the difference between those two kinds of entities.
She's the lack of education about those issues as the rule of law.
is compromising the status, the strength of our very nation.
She said, do we understand what the difference is between a king and a president?
And I think if people understood these things from the beginning, she says, they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy.
She doesn't make specific reference to Donald Trump.
She has plainly done that, not by name, but in many of her recent opinions, including that opinion on July 1 of last year in which the Supreme
court over her strong objection and that of two others, found that a president is indeed immune from criminal prosecution above the law and also, also can exercise a huge amount of authority and responsibility, tasks not conveyed to him one day her by the Constitution.
She has described that as an aggressive use, a unilateral executive power.
She has been this dissenting voice in many, many opinions.
Just this past week, Constitution Day, she has said that she is concerned beyond the specifics of any particular case about what young people are thinking today.
She said that she is looking at a poll.
that she found that says few long people even support democracy.
That's a stunning observation to make.
She said, without that, what's left?
She said, this does not mean the American people should always accept that laws on the books should never be changed pointing to slavery and segregation as examples.
She went on to say that the assumption that all laws are good is not necessarily a starting proposition.
We've already experienced in our country bad laws.
And again, without specifying
individuals, she criticized those lawmakers who proposed laws these days that, among other things, would criminalize free speech.
Obviously speaking to the recent events of this past week in which that issue has loomed large, she said that the Trump administration has been cracking down on speech.
It disfavors, particularly on university campuses.
We'll get back to that in just a moment or so.
And she goes on to bemoan, again, this overall problem among youth, among
adults not understanding how this works not appreciating the difference between a king and a president the consequences of that not simply nomenclature not just simply language and also taking an appropriate hit at the lawyers themselves who should know better she says this every time I listen to a lawyer trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way I think to myself
That law school failed.
Yes, indeed.
We've commented about that in the past when it comes to other representations made by people in Washington all around the country who presumably have been schooled at law schools about what our Constitution is about, even if you don't agree how it should be implemented, that fundamental notion of criminalizing free speech, doing other things that are so overtly contrary to what the law says in the Constitution.
that we celebrate just this past week.
Sonia Sotomayor bemoaning, decrying the fact that civics are a part of our national concern, our national challenge these days, just as some of our predecessors have, again, including David Souter.
Sonia Sotomayor continues to advocate for civics education America.
That is also a part of our mission here in Amicus.
To provide information and perspective and insight that helps you to understand and to reach your own conclusions about what is and what is not right and good for America, let's talk about something at the other end of the spectrum just this past week.
And again, the use of language, as Sonia Sotomayor indicates as well, that can be hugely problematic coming out of the NYU.
discussion, the interview that she had there in New York.
We also have the President of the United States at the other extreme using some other language that is contrary to civics and is contrary to the Constitution.
The President of the United States of America just this past week, again, in connection plainly with all of the dispute, the challenges, the discussion, the debate in America involving free speech and the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The termination by ABC of Jimmy Kimmel, other issues in connection with communication and free speech and discussion in America.
President Trump said late this past week that news reporters, news outlets around the country that covers administration negatively, who have said negative things about him have, hold on, broken the law.
Broken the law, he said.
And as a result of that, or in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, we'll talk more about what he said when we come back here on Amicus a Law Review.
And yes, we'll talk about what Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, has also played into this national discussion when Amicus a Law Review continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is amicus a law review on the broadcast stations of the civic media talking as we often do about all things constitutional Recognizing the justice past week.
We celebrated Constitution Day September 17 1787 federal convention adopts the final text of our Constitution number months later June 1788 to New Hampshire ratifies the decisions of the convention becoming the
Ninth needed state to adopt the Constitution itself.
George Washington sworn in on April 30th, 1789 as our first president in New York City, where Sonia Sotomayor was just this past week.
We get, we get the Bill of Rights is advanced again in the first congressional enactment of the new Congress.
And that Bill of Rights, of course, includes the First Amendment.
that we talk a lot about this past week in many other settings.
Congress, it says, Congress, by the way, interpreted to include government, public institutions generally, shall do what?
Shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, among other things in that First Amendment.
And so it is shocking when our President, Justice Past Week, says about the media.
The press itself, they'll take a great story, he said, and they'll make it bad.
See, I think that's really illegal.
Mr. President, your comments about that, suggesting to Americans that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, even things that are critical, yes, that's a part of what comes with the office of the presidency in the public domain.
That is what our nation is all about, healthy and vigorous debate, including criticism, including questions you do not like.
That's what the First Amendment is all about.
That's what James Madison contemplated the members of our first Congress, contemplated in passing the Bill of Rights in the start of our nation's history.
And yet there it is.
The President goes on, goes on this past week to do other things that are also consistent with that kind of view.
He says, among other things, just this past week,
They're going to unleash some powers, the federal government, not real specific yet.
We see this from a number of different outlets to punish what the president and others allege are left-wing network funds and others out there who are inciting violence, plainly seizing on the recent national controversy involving Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination and also
and also the firing of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC and other events that animate and swirl around those horrific events in our nation's recent history.
Donald Trump not only that there are the folks out there who are undermining his presidency, but also identifying Antifa as a group of people
that he is specifically going to go after.
Again, it's not a group, it's a concept, if you will, but that's how he alleges this and goes after that to say even more.
He says that we have some pretty radical groups and they get away with murder, the president said.
He doesn't name who they are.
He says that he was talking to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, about bringing charges against those unspecified groups under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.
That's Rico.
He says against some of the people, these are his words, some of the people that you've been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation, not specifying exactly who or what those groups are.
Those are the comments of the president just this past week.
Coverage of him that's negative is illegal.
We're going after those groups.
that are contrary to our positions, and we are going to invoke the processes of the Department of Justice, federal laws including RICO to go after you if you are not consistent with our views, expressly contrary.
to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Also reporting the cabinet secretaries, federal department heads are working to identify those organizations nationwide that have funded, that supported the kinds of things that the president believes are causing the nation harm.
And in fact, they make the nation stronger when we have vital and vigorous
Objection to discussion about disagreement about what is going on in America.
Interestingly, several other officials, you know this, well Vice President Vance, who is sitting down in place of Mr. Kirk during his podcast just this past week, said that, believe that violence, again, is a liberal problem, not a conservative one.
Vance going on to say that they would be cracking down on what they called leftist, non-governmental organizations.
using every available lever of the federal government to do so.
And we have Stephen Miller, again, obviously a senior advisor, head of the domestic initiatives of the White House saying this, with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, eliminate, and destroy this network, and make America safe again for the American people.
Mr. Vance again consistent what he said on Charlie Kirk's podcast reporting on the attempts to undermine this administration and the pushback that is going to come
And along the way, along the way, Vance saying that our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, but placing most of the blame for the political violence on the members of the far left goes on to say, we can thank God that most Democrats don't share those attitudes.
And I do, while acknowledging that something has gone very wrong with the lunatic fringe, a minority, but a growing and powerful minority
on the far left.
Well, it's not completely a unanimous majority on that side either.
Ted Cruz, senior senator from the great state of Texas on Friday, harshly criticizing not only the president, but yes, indeed, Brendan Carr.
Brendan Carr, you know, from the recent reporting, he is the head, he's the chair of the Federal Communications Commission.
This independent agency, not a part of the administration, not sitting around the table in the cabinet room at the
White House independent agency to make all important decisions about communications and freedom and the capacity to talk freely under the Constitution and the First Amendment that guarantees the freedom of press and the freedom of speech.
Brendan Carr also escalating this concern that he has adopted from the language of the president about attacks on the president that may in fact be illegal and threatening to withhold licenses and we know
very well how that is connected to the termination at least for now the suspension by ABC of the Jimmy Kimmel show all of that tied up even as Ted Cruz Ted Cruz takes exception there on Capitol Hill harshly criticizing the president harshly criticizing the vice president Stephen Miller and the FCC itself
Accusing the president of mafia-like tactics saying that his threat to retaliate against media companies and other groups on the airwaves were dangerous as hell.
That's what Ted Cruz says about what the president is saying these days.
Latest evidence again that there is more than a rift inside conservative circles about what is going on.
The president again comes back and says, no, Brandon Carr is a great American patriot and doubles down, doubles down on this notion that those people who criticize, who report negatively on the president are engaging in illegal actions, that is hugely
hugely problematic coming from the language of the man who's in the Oval Office right now.
We know as well that there is pushback, not just from Ted Cruz on this language and these proposals to go after groups, philanthropic groups, media groups, entities out there who are a part of our system of government.
We know that there are about a hundred philanthropies who are preparing right now to push back against the so-called crackdown that the vice president, the president, and Brendan Carr has threatened by virtue of the licensing authority, the FCC, about a hundred of them, philanthropies out there, including some of those who are specifically being targeted, we believe, by the Trump administration as a part of this anticipated crackdown.
those institutions, including the Ford Foundation and the foundation called the Open Society Foundations, put it a letter that forcefully defended the philanthropy sector.
It said, we can do this.
We can have a voice.
We should have a voice.
We do have a voice in America, even as the list of the signers of this letter doubled, doubled.
as they are turning back and rejecting what the president has said, the statement condemned political violence of the sort that we have seen in the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk and any possible retribution, but also said that free speech means something in America.
Went on to say this, in the letter, organizations should not be attacked for carrying out their missions or expressing their values in support of the communities they serve.
This from the letter of a hundred
Philanthropies out there in America responding to the attack on them and on the news media that their statements in the public domain are somehow illegal.
Organizations should not be attacked, they said, for carrying out their missions.
We reject these attempts to exploit political violence to mischaracterize our good work or restrict fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech and the freedom to give.
Attempts to silence speech, to criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving, undermine our democracy and harm all Americans.
Strong words coming from again non-governmental entities pushing back
on all of this.
They also accuse the president and others of fostering a culture of violence and report again very, very clearly, explicitly about the concerns that they have when the language is used in the way that it has been used.
The letter reveals that the nonprofits are expected to be at the forefront of pushing back on many of these attacks on them.
Other signers across the board include the MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Omadiar Foundation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, and many, many others out there are reacting to this attempt to crack down on the media, yes, but also other groups, in this case philanthropic groups, doing good things.
in America to promote things that are sometimes consistent, sometimes not consistent with the policies of political people and underscoring once again the importance of the First Amendment as we celebrate the Constitution just this past week.
All of that going on, philanthropies responding, other groups responding, Ted Cruz responding to all of this and telling the president, no, that the kinds of things that you're saying are inconsistent with
the America that has been in existence almost for 250 years, a constitution in place since 1787 and 1788.
We know in the midst of all of this, some other things going on with respect to the president's powers, not just domestically to go after groups he does not agree with, who do not agree with him, going after the media and pursuing this language war against them.
We also know that there is promotion of a draft bill.
that would apparently authorize the president to kill people if he deems them to be narco-terrorist.
There is draft legislation apparently circulating on the White House Capitol Hill, not yet been introduced, that would give to a president some sweeping power to wage war against drug cartels that he characterizes, that he deems to be terrorist.
And that would also include any nation, he says, has harbored or aided them
Again, this, according to some of the people who are working on, familiar with some of this legislation, many people look at this kind of thing.
Legal folks who do this on a regular basis have said that the U.S.
military attacks this month, we know them well in the Caribbean Sea, have probably almost certainly been illegal.
Donald Trump, our president, has claimed that those attacks have been authorized.
The Constitution gives him that power if he needs to pursue that kind of activity.
this broadly worded proposal, which would apparently legalize and authorize the president of the United States of America to kill people.
He deems to be narco-terrorist and attack countries.
He says would help them has set off alarm bells across the nation as people think about the implications of that as well.
When we come back, tell you a little bit more about that.
Tell you a little bit more about other things this administration is doing to push back.
on the American liberties and the capacity even of prosecutors to do things on behalf of the people of the United States of America.
All that as Amicus
Allaraview
challenge to who we are as a nation, not only from the language of the president, but also proposals for him, by him, through him, to all of us, maybe even legislative proposals to further strengthen authorities he does not have.
You know well about these three boat attacks, one of them reported by the president just late this past week.
killing in the caribbean sea what donald trump said were about 17 people he was accusing of smuggling drugs into the united states because of the latest in the series of military operations the president has undertaken without congressional authorization
And again, raising serious, very serious constitutional challenges about his authority to do just that.
Now we hear that there may be some legislation that would put the imprimatur of that kind of non-congressional authority in the executive branch.
Again, unitary executive theory and a very powerful chief executive, commissioned by John Roberts, well over a year ago now, all of that being reported out.
by reliable sources in Washington DC, not yet introduced in Congress, but the subject of development as legislation often is on Capitol Hill and also in concert with the White House.
It is the United States Coast Guard, sometimes with help from the Navy itself.
institutions that we know well that are responsible to, again, responsible supervisors inside those entities, indeed inside the Defense Department, ultimately responsible, absolutely, to the Commander-in-Chief.
Those are the entities that have long addressed drug trafficking on the seas as a law enforcement...
What do they do on a regular basis?
They interdict boats.
They arrest those crews if a search of them confirms drug smuggling.
That's how it's done.
And the concern about this, of course, is that the notion is that the president has the legal authority.
Under some constitutional power, he would allege that that's his right as the commander-in-chief to direct special operations forces to instead...
of those legitimate Navy and Coast Guard operations undertaken with due course, interdictions on the high seas instead to summarily kill those suspected of drug running as if they're combatants on a battlefield.
And citing about 100,000 overdose deaths of Americans, the president says, this is self-defense.
This is the law of armed conflict, and I've got the capacity to do that.
Now, needless to say, they're an awful lot of people.
not just lawyers, not just people schooled in this kind of international law who have said no.
This is unconstitutional.
Among them, you've got Adam Schiff, himself the target of one of these unfounded investigations initiated by the Department of Justice, that he's going to introduce a measure under the War Powers Resolution.
What's the War Powers Resolution?
That's way back in the 1970s, 1973.
It checks the president's power to wage a war without the consent of Congress.
It is in the
Constitution, it is an article one of the Constitution.
That is that the legislative branch, not the executive branch, is the one that declares war.
We've seen that violated many, many times in recent contemporary American history.
War Powers Resolution tries to balance that again.
Adam Schiff, as he hears about this legislation, is plainly planning to introduce laws, resolutions,
Whatever he puts together that would strengthen the war powers resolution presumably in anticipation of this legislation coming forward that would provide this exceptionally broad authority for the president upon his determination alone that There are narco terrorists a foot on the seas
would authorize his killing those people on those boats.
It is another dramatic example of the ways in which this administration running Russia, if it pursues this seriously, of the kinds of checks and balances, the limitations on his power, on any president's power to act under the Constitution of the United States of America.
We have other things going on, of course,
breaking news late this past week, another United States attorney, another United States attorney who was in the job beginning on Friday, and for 15 years before that, as an assistant United States attorney, this one in the eastern district of Virginia, no longer in that position.
Why?
Because that U.S.
attorney, among others, said no to this president, did his job
pursued his oath of office when the president was directing him in a complete violation.
We've talked so much about this, a complete abrogation of the necessary and important wall that has existed in prior administrations, not his in the first term, but all prior administrations between the White House and the Department of Justice to ensure that prosecutions in America
Through the grand jury process are not the product of political animus and pursuit, but are instead based upon facts and investigations.
As the United States Attorney in Richmond, which is again the eastern district of Virginia, right across from Washington DC, that's right across the Potomac there.
They do a lot of national security cases, a lot of cases that end up in our national attention, the national domain.
U.S.
Attorney.
late this past week, walked away from the position, arguably fired, arguably seeing the tea leaves, arguably saying that his position is no longer tenable because he will not do what the president is directing him to do.
The U.S.
Attorney investigating at the direction of the Department of Justice, New York Attorney General Leticia James, and former FBI Director James Comey for
What the president believes are violations of law told to investigate.
Coming to the conclusion now that there's not a basis upon which to present any cases against them.
Letitia James in New York, James Comey also there in New York.
No basis upon which to do that, to ask the grand jury to review this information as grand juries do and ask the grand jury to return an indictment against them under federal law.
Eric Siebert, S-I-E-B-E-R-T.
S-I-E-B-E-R-T.
That is the name of the U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
telling senior department justice officials that the investigation that he was directed to oversee through the FBI has found insufficient basis.
No evidence to bring charges against Satishia James, against James Comey.
And as a result of that, not going to go ahead and do it.
That's a part of his job.
That's his obligation.
And as of Friday of this past week, Eric Siebert.
U.S.
Attorney no longer in that position by virtue of being forced out, being fired, walking away from an untenable position.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, the second hour of our two-hour broadcast here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, once again thanking you.
appreciating you for your participation you're listening in on our weekly weekend discussion of all things rule of law related government related administration of justice related and you too can be a part of that by calling max my producer and me at 855-752-4842 855-752-4842 we are spending
all of our first hour and now this hour talking about the struggles between those people inside this administration, led by our president, who would not just push the envelope, but exceed the authorities of the executive under the Constitution, under the laws of the United States, both in word and in deed.
And those would push back.
and say no, we're not permitting that to happen in this hour, an awful lot of that focus as well.
The ways in which now former members of the government are sending messages to us about the
inappropriateness, the illegality of many of these things that our president is doing.
We'll talk about a lawsuit filed by some former FBI agents.
We'll talk once again about federal district court judges who continue to be, continue to be among the bastions that people are pushing back the guardrails for the rule of law in America.
We talk also about grand juries.
We understand that some of them are also refusing to indict
which is also their prerogative under the Constitution of the United States of America, when this administration present presents evidence or lack of evidence in support of proposed charges.
And that brings us to the late breaking story of this past week, which is no longer, no longer is Eric Siebert, S-I-E-B-E-R-T, the Senate confirmed, presently appointed United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
That is of course right across the river from Washington DC.
What happened here?
Well, we know that Mr. Siebert, pursuant to directives from probably the White House, certainly the Department of Justice as well, has initiated investigations.
That too can be problematic if indeed investigations are pursued, files are open without any basis to believe that there is criminal activity.
But let's get beyond that for the purposes of this discussion and assume
that there was something out there, something out there, perhaps something out there beyond what we know in part this came from.
There's a fellow named William Pulte, P-U-L-T-E's, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
It's a relatively obscure housing agency inside the federal government.
He is the fellow who has been alleging, among other things,
Mortgage fraud we've heard that a lot a lot of people apparently according to mr. Pote engaging in that that includes Leticia James that includes Lisa cook the governor of the Federal Reserve will talk about her status in just a while and Senator Adam Schiff we've already heard from him in connection with this attempt to push back on what the president appears to be doing in his attempt to acquire greater international military authority
on the high seas in other places.
All those people, according to Mr. Polti, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, urging that these people be investigated, makes a referral to the Department of Justice, goes to the U.S.
Attorney's Office again in Virginia.
Investigation is done and pursuant to the authority given to him.
His oath of office as the United States Attorney, yes, to pursue investigations.
But also to determine on a regular basis where there are no cases to prosecute to do just that.
To decline prosecutions.
It is as much an obligation of a prosecutor to say no.
There is nothing here.
There is no reason to prosecute as it is to prosecute when there is a basis to do so.
That's fundamental.
The Supreme Court has said that.
It is emblazoned on the walls and on the annals and in all the directives.
Reps until this administration of the Department of Justice.
That's the responsibility.
You do that apolitically.
You do that without animus from the president.
When I was U.S.
Attorney, like every other U.S.
Attorney specifically told that if the president ever calls you on the phone.
and my assistant says the president or someone from the White House is calling, the answer is you don't take the phone call, you refer it back to main justice, and they're the ones who intercede.
Why?
Because there is that wall between prosecution decisions and the political things that a White House may want you to do.
That wall has been completely broken down now in this second term, and indeed, we're even beyond that notion.
Beyond that notion exhibited illustrated again with what happened with now former United States Attorney Sebert just late this past week He does in fact pursue an investigation mortgage fraud With respect to Leticia James in addition there is an investigation pursued about the viability of charges against James Comey
And like the mortgage fraud investigation with respect to Letitia James, going nowhere, no basis upon which to charge anything there, that's the result that the U.S.
attorney comes up with.
The investigation of James Comey, likewise, that he lied under oath.
Also, without any force, any compelling facts to support that, prosecutors apparently recently subpoenaed a Columbia law professor and a close friend and advisor to Comey.
You may recall this story from the past.
In connection with this investigation to whether the FBI Director James Comey had lied about whether he authorized, he authorized this law professor to leak information to the news media.
Recall this is a years old story.
investigated again and the U.S.
Attorney again through the FBI determines nothing there, nothing to see here.
It is inappropriate, inappropriate to seek an indictment, nothing to charge here, communicates that to main justice, communicates that to the Attorney General and to Todd Blanche as he should do, doesn't get back in touch with the White House as he should not do, tells them we are closing these cases and the answer comes back
you need to go.
That's not the response that we want.
At least it comes back from the White House.
It is very interesting to note that both the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and Todd Blanche, apparently privately defending Mr. Siebert against these individuals, including Mr. Pulte, including others who would have his head, apparently, for not going ahead with this.
Todd Blanche, actually, behind the scenes, will hear more from him in just a moment or so.
Actually, questioning.
himself, deputy attorney general, second in charge of the U.S.
Department of Justice saying, I'm not so certain there's a case here, and that's probably understating it dramatically.
The legal viability is not clear.
He finds about bringing charges against Letitia James and also against James Comey.
There's nothing there to see, nothing there to prosecute, presumably Pam Bondi of the same view.
And indeed, they're an awful lot of people.
that come to the defense of Eric Siebert in his overall conduct in this case, turns out that Mr. Siebert is again a highly regarded career prosecutor, a political nonpartisan even though in this administration...
He has worked very closely, has an ally and a fellow named Emil Beauvais.
Recall him, he was the principal deputy associate attorney general early days, continuing until recently, responsible for a lot of the firings inside the Department of Justice, January 6th prosecutors, prosecutors responsible for the cases against Donald Trump.
He was an ally, if you will, of Mr. Siebert's and Emil Beauvais, a defender of the good work that Mr. Siebert has done.
This is not a holdover from the Biden administration.
And if anything, it is a signal that an awful lot of people inside the Department of Justice think very highly, highly of the work that Mr. Siebert has done, not just recently in this administration.
He has been active on immigration gang cases during this administration.
He spoke very favorably about his relationship with the Department of Justice.
And way back in 2019, this is not someone who is unskilled.
This is someone who is doing the work of the Department of Justice.
He was a deputy criminal supervisor in the Richmond Division of the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
Great responsibility there for overseeing what cases are investigated, how they're done, ensuring they're done consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution.
He became the interim U.S.
Attorney in Eastern Virginia in January and made the federal judges
in the district unanimously chose him to pursue that in this role.
He is no longer there.
After all of that, why?
Because he said, I am not going to proceed with an indictment charges in a situation, two situations.
where there's no basis to do so.
I'm not going to do that as to James Comey.
I'm not going to do that as to Letitia James.
And as of this past week, Mr. Sebert is no longer in that position.
Interestingly, his first assistant, his first assistant, sort of the second in command who's responsible in many ways for operating the overall functions of the U.S.
attorneys, she's been demoted.
To a line attorney position varies very honorable still nothing wrong with that as well doing the work of the office But she's no longer there question is who is now going to take on this job after the president has presumably said I want these people indicted Here is somebody who will not do my bidding and for that reason that us attorney is gone We recall as well the same thing happened to the interim us attorney in the southern district of New York when she refused to sign off and what the president wanted that
as the dismissal of those fraud charges against the mayor of the city of New York, Eric Adams.
She said, no, it's a good prosecution.
There's no reason to do it.
And the only reason for doing this is because you want to curry favor with him and him with you with respect to immigration enforcement in Manhattan.
A federal judge begrudgingly granted that motion to dismiss saying,
This looks like a quid pro quo, a deal to me.
But along the way, the U.S.
attorney there as well says, you know what?
This is so important, I'm leaving.
I will not support this administration.
I will not be a part of a Department of Justice that engages in this kind of political gamesmanship.
Instead, we're gone, as now is Eric Siebert.
That's the kind of thing that's going on in this Department of Justice these days.
That's a reason to be concerned, not only about.
A language of this president, proposals to crack down on liberal groups, proposals to vest in him, tremendous authority, now we're finding out about narco-terrorists, authorization to kill people at his discretion, that he believes are a threat to the nation.
All of those kinds of things happening in recent days inside this administration are reason to be concerned about civics and also the Constitution.
of the United States, America, all of that hugely significant.
We appreciate so much the callers who call in.
Joe, you've been waiting on the line for a while.
Thank you for joining us.
Glad to have you a part of the broadcast.
Great, Joe.
Really appreciate the detail and your context that you provide.
I just wanted to add a comment as I understand it.
Trump is saying that any critical coverage of him is quote really illegal
illegal back on yeah falls back on the First Amendment I There was a comment that was in the Facebook section of New York Times and by a guy named Peter or excuse me Paul Naranja And I just said some of the words in it.
I think are really important to remember at this time He this person says the First Amendment is not optional
It's
not
a suggestion, not a privilege that politicians can pick and choose from.
He goes on to say the First Amendment belongs to the people.
It says rights are not guaranteed, granted by government, they are protected from government interference.
And so I look at this and I think by what law?
I mean, it specifically says in the First Amendment, you have the right of, you know, freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for redress grievances.
What law would he possibly go on to say no critical criticism of no critical coverage as he regards a critical coverage of me
allowed?
I understand that when it comes to the FCC, maybe you can talk about this after the break.
we go about doing
Absolutely.
What law?
What law is out there?
Certainly this is the Constitution.
Joe, I appreciate the comment tremendously.
We'll pick up on that very important point right after this as Amicus, a law review continues.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about the conduct of this administration, both in word and in deed, specifically talking about the actions with respect to U.S.
attorneys, but also proposed legislation for the break hearing from Joe from Madison.
calling in with an incredibly important point that is in connection with our first observations.
The president announcing this past week, not only that they're going to go after a crackdown on various groups that are articulating things, taking positions that are contrary to the president's policies.
That's what the First Amendment is all about.
We all know that.
And also saying that criticism of him by the media, especially in the wake of events of the past 10 days or so, is really illegal.
Really illegal.
That's what he has announced to the world.
And Joe, on destroying the notion, as she articulately said, that the First Amendment is not discretionary.
You don't have a choice about whether or not to adopt it and pursue it.
It is not one of those things that you can pick up and drop at your leisure as the president.
It says Congress shall make no law.
abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances could not be any clearer.
In fact, as we're talking about Constitution Day, it was a premise.
as we know in the Federalist Papers, that the first Congress, the first Congress of the United States, would pass a Bill of Rights, including that kind of statement.
That was the promise made to those states that were concerned about the passage of the Constitution without that provision, without that language, promise that it would come forth, that the Constitution would be amended in the first Congress
And that's the condition on which all the states then eventually ratified the Constitution in 1787 and 88.
And we have the First Amendment as a result of that.
That's how important this was.
It's not voluntary.
You don't show up and simply pick and choose when and under what circumstances you want to do it.
Joe, I appreciate very much that call, that observation made about the words that our president is using, the deeds as well.
Talking as well.
about, again, the destruction of this all-important barrier that has existed, at least in my tenure and the tenures of people long before me, between the White House and the prosecution, the federal prosecution offices right down the street there at Ninth and Constitution at Maine Justice, and yes, indeed, in 93 different U.S.
attorney's offices around the country, each one of them
Not given free reign to do whatever they want, responsible, yes, to an attorney general, responsible to a deputy attorney general, but not the attorneys for the White House, not the attorneys for the president, the attorneys for whom?
the attorneys for the people of the United States of America.
And when assistant United States attorneys stand up, as I did for much of my career, U.S.
attorneys stand up in court and in other places, United States Attorney James Santel, I represent the United States of America and the people of that nation.
This attorney general has not only endorsed this breaking down of that wall, but has expressly said that you work for the president of the United States of America.
And when that
happens when that happens you get catastrophic things like this that is prosecutors being fired shown the door when they refuse to do the things the political things that the president wants them to do refuse to undermine
and violate the oath of office they have taken to uphold the Constitution and the laws, refuse to indict people for whom there is no support, refuse to ask a grand jury to return charges when there's no evidence for that.
That's what you want US attorneys to do.
That's what you expect.
That's what the system contemplates.
And once again, this past week, this administration has shown that it does not care about that.
Fascinating to see who it is who will follow.
in this position, in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia, the president plainly upset that Mr. Sebert refused to indict James Comey, refused to indict Letitia James.
Will the next U.S.
Attorney either be required to do so, required to present that, and then should we count upon a grand jury as yet another guardrail to say no?
If in fact there is no evidence, and presumably there will be none,
will we then require that grand jury to decline and be the next step, the next step in pushing back on these rule of law violations by the U.S.
Department of Justice and and the Attorney General and most importantly the White House.
There is more to that.
We know that a couple of weeks ago, there's some FBI agents, former agents, who again, were fired.
We're fired good, just like Siebert, good and decent and long tenured agents doing their job apolitically without partisan pursuit.
Fired by this administration.
They filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Washington, DC.
That's the district court there.
That's the trial court.
And they alleged that their firings were as a result of.
President Trump's involvement, directing basically their termination as special agents of the FBI, supervisory special agents.
They do this, they make those allegations in a lawsuit that's filed about 10 days or so ago in the U.S.
District Court there in Washington, D.C., three senior former bureau officials, their names, Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans.
They are all former senior
positions to the FBI, accused the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, working on behalf of the president, and dismissing them that their dismissals were a part of a campaign of retribution, which this president promised during the course of the campaign, for their failure to demonstrate sufficient political loyalty in the same piece, in the same kind of thing that's happening now with U.S.
attorneys around the country.
68-page complaint.
suit describes some accounts about key Trump appointees, including Cash Patel and Stephen Miller.
Again, the domestic policy advisor there, Emile Bovet, shows up in the previous story we talked about with respect to the U.S.
Attorney in Virginia.
And all of them, all of them described in this account in this complaint about the engagements, the political engagements of the White House and the FBI.
That also includes the deputy director.
His name is Dan Bongina.
We'll tell you more about what's alleged in that complaint, that civil complaint here on Amicus.
A law review as we continue after this brief break.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amica Salaroview on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are talking both about the challenges presented by this administration in ways big and small and in between to the rule of law, the administration of justice, and the basic trappings of government.
And we're also talking about the pushback, the guardrails in the opposite direction saying, no, we're not permitting this to happen, including a civil lawsuit.
Important to underscore the fact this is a civil lawsuit.
It is not a criminal proceeding.
brought by three former senior members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, leadership at the main FBI building right there on Pennsylvania Avenue, their names Brian Driscoll, Stephen Jensen, and Spencer Evans.
The lawsuit accuses Stephen Miller and Emile Beauvais again in the White House and at Maine Justice.
of running Russia over the institutional independence of the Department of Justice and in particular of the FBI and doing what in pursuing investigations not based on the fact that the president wants someone, investigator or prosecuted, but based upon some reason to believe that crimes have been committed.
You gotta have more than simply animus and dislike.
Have to have some reason to open up a file.
That is the fundamental standard that we have talked about in the past.
Don't have to have probable cause.
That comes later, if at all, upon a charging decision or upon a decision based upon a need to go in to search a place, a home, a business, even a safety deposit box, those kinds of things.
This is a challenge to the independence of the FBI.
And the view of these agents alleged in this civil complaint, seeking their return to the FBI, seeking damages against the FBI for their improper firing, was that the dismissals of them were for no reason other than as they describe a lack of confidence that they would carry out the president's agenda.
That's what's alleged in this civil complaint.
according to the FBI Beauvais, Emile Beauvais, stated that he was receiving pressure from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to see symmetrical action at the FBI as had been happening at DOJ.
In other words, through the conduits of Stephen Miller, Emile Beauvais, sending this message that I want you to fall in line, do what the president wants you to do.
Laws that goes on to say Beauvais made clear that he and Miller wanted to see personal action like reassignment removals and terminations at the FBI, not based upon merits, not based upon the good work or frankly, the insufficient work of FBI agents around the country, but rather who is loyal and who is not.
We have seen these reports in the past about testing, loyalty testing going on inside the FBI.
Driscoll and Jensen evidence all fired about a month ago.
They're asking once again the judge to miss been assigned to reinstate them and declare
tell the world their dismissals are in violation of the federal civil service protections that are afforded yes they're civil servants they're not political appointees they were hired through the civil service system and their constitutional rights to free speech and due process constitutional principles raised in this civil lawsuit as well that also going on the efforts to
Protect the Bureau, its employees, according to the lawsuit, created a groundswell of support.
within the FBI for Driscoll's and the leadership of other people.
And interestingly, again, pop culture, as it often seems to enter into this.
As a part of that show of support agents, apparently around the country, at least at the FBI in Washington, quietly started to circulate videos of the Batman movie franchise, depicting Driscoll as a hero and Beauvais as a villain.
That apparently, perhaps understandably,
Irritated Emil Beauvais, who by the way is now in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, the court just below the Supreme Court, didn't like that.
And so, according to the complaint, Beauvais told Driscoll that he was angry that in parody videos apparently created by FBI employees, Beauvais was portrayed as the Batman villain Bane, while Driscoll was portrayed as Batman.
Driscoll responded that he did not make the video nor could he control unknown individuals' feelings or expressions of those feelings.
Nonetheless, all of them are dismissed.
Perhaps in part because of some parody videos inside the FBI, developed, created perhaps by other FBI agents who are supportive of these very three who are now no longer in the jobs.
The lawsuit goes on to say that they became alarmed at one point by the intense focus that Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the FBI, was devoting to increasing online engagement through his social media profiles
In an effort to change his followers' perception of the FBI, the complaint goes on to say that Bongina was spending more time on, quote, creating content for his social media pages than on actual FBI investigations, serious allegations.
They probably, probably will be this focus and source of a lot of discovery going forward now, maybe going to trial at some point down the road, seeking the return.
of their jobs, the restoration of their positions inside the FBI, but along the way also underscoring this completely inappropriate breaking down of the wall between the White House and the FBI, which is a portion.
It is a component of the FBI.
The FBI director responds to whom?
to the Attorney General.
You look at the organizational chart, the FBI is not an independent agency, it's inside the Department of Justice.
Cash Patel reports to Pam Bondi and to Todd Blanche, who are those two responsible also for these firings by virtue of that.
It is significant to note that lawsuit pending now in the District of Columbia.
We've got some other judges, however, we've done some other things.
Federal District Court judges as the Bastions once again
pushing back upon these kinds of things.
Again, the injunction function, we talk a lot about that, of judges who say no, who say no to the president doing various things.
Here are two of them, federal judge, Stephen Meridae, M-E-R-R-Y-D-A-Y.
He is a U.S.
District Judge in the Middle District of Florida, not the Southern District, Middle of Florida, 85-page complaint issued filed by Donald Trump.
dismissed four days four days after its file there in the district court Trump files a defamation suit against the New York Times a part of his tack upon media we've seen that obviously both through the FCC and directly with respect to CBS and ABC and other news functions the complaint is called by the federal judge who dismisses is out of hand as improper and impersonal
I'm impermissible in its present form, the lawsuit that the president, your president had filed asking for 15 billion with a B in damages, accusing the Times and four of its reporters as the, and along with the book publisher Penguin Random House of disparaging him, disparaging his reputation, seeing bad things about him as a successful businessman that he is.
President files that lawsuit saying the New York Times cannot say that.
Of course, it's completely contrary, once again, to the First Amendment in the Constitution, New York Times versus Sullivan, all of those kinds of things we've talked about.
The judge saying unnecessarily lengthy, digressive, and goes on to say, Mr. President, in his order dismissing this four days after
It is filed, a complaint is not a public forum, Mr. President, for vertuperation and invective, not a protected platform to rage against an adversary.
Federal District Court Judge Stephen Meridae, putting the president in his place just this past week.
lawsuit could be refiled, gives him 28 days to clean this up to say something that is in fact a cause of action.
It cannot be made.
But he's given some time to repair the damage that's been done here.
In the meantime, Donald Trump can't go ahead with that kind of lawsuit pushed back by a federal district court judge.
Here's another one.
Here's another one.
This particular federal court judge in Rhode Island ruling that a new national endowment for the arts policy.
Now this one, of course,
inside the president administration of reviewing grants, the NEA grants, to see if they comply, to see if they're consistent with Donald Trump's executive order on gender ideology.
That new policy, according to a federal judge, just this past week, violative, here we go, of the Constitution cannot be implemented.
Judge William Smith, senior district judge, there for a long time, noted that the 1965 law creating the endowment had included provisions ensuring that all grants be awarded, as the court described it, on talent alone.
Irrespective of the artist's viewpoints of the messages conveyed in their works, the new regulations that Judge said ran afoul of that goal cannot do them, Mr. President, cannot do that through the National Endowment for the Arts new policy that you would have under this gender ideology assessment policy.
Lawsuit was filed in the springtime of this year.
by a number of different organizations, including the Rhode Island Latino Arts Group, a group that promotes Latinos and National Queer Theater,
It challenged that regulation appropriately by stating that the federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology, challenging that new ruling, and also challenging the Donald Trump's order that included the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.
Again, this invective language, a part of the president's language in his executive order,
and it is interpreted and put into place as a new rule the national endowment for the arts no more at least as to this past week cannot do that cannot implement that kind of rule and regulation in america not under the constitution and not under the specific
commission made by the Congress in creating this that once again says you make these grants you make these grants to arts groups around the country based not upon the content of what they are advocating and what their theatrical presentations may convey as meaningful expressions of artistry and theatricity in America you do not do that you do not do that based upon who they are
What the particular group is, but instead you do that based upon merit and talent alone.
The violation of it clear, according to the judge, William Smith.
who once again stands just like other judges have in recent times as a bastion against this kind of action by the president on so many fronts that seem to push back on the basic understanding as of who we are.
We've got other situations involving the Department of Justice.
Let me begin with one involving our Deputy Attorney General.
We've talked about him a lot already.
We know that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche engaged in that recent interview with Ghislaine Maxwell.
We talked about that at great length on this broadcast.
A ridiculous interview, both in its execution and its purpose.
For what reason?
Well, we know.
Again, the president directing basically the Deputy Attorney General, his former lawyer.
sitting with him in that case, in which our president was found guilty of 34 felony violations of the law of the state of New York, directing his deputy attorney general to go there to Florida to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell, presumably to get information exonerating the president of the United States of America during the course of that embarrassingly bad deposition that would not have been pursued by anyone in that way by a legitimate investigator, including agents of the FBI,
The powder puff questions asked of her, plainly she lies about a number of things, and we have this past week that Todd Blanche breaks his silence on that meeting and says it's impossible to say.
if she was credible.
Well, no, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, an awful lot of things on their face.
Incredible.
He said he met with her for two days.
He said that it's really up to the American people now to determine whether they believe her answers are credible on whether they found her credible or not.
Well, the answer, once again, Mr. Deputy Attorney General is no.
A jury, a trial jury found her incredible.
And for that reason, adjudicated her guilty, and she is spending 20 years in jail.
When we come back, we'll talk about that, and yet another misrepresentation by the Department of Justice in the public domain here as Amica Salaroview continues.
This is Amica Salaro of you.
My name is Jim Santel talking in this last segment about things your Department of Justice lawyers have been saying in the public domain that are simply wrong and demonstrably so, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America now for some reason seeming to feel the need to justify that unfounded and pointless discussion that he had with Galene Maxwell back in July by saying, I asked her questions.
that he says, I believed all of us wanted answers and she answered them.
She answered them.
He said, I didn't.
The point of the interview was not for me to pressure test every single answer she gave.
Of course not.
Well, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, you should know better.
That's exactly what an investigative interview is all about.
To determine the credibility of the person who's sitting right in front of you.
You didn't do that.
Not even close and did not in fact test the credibility of this person.
And here's the big one goes on to say.
The point of the interview was to allow her to speak, hold on, which nobody had done before.
Mr. Deputy Attorney General simply wrong.
Of course the system permitted her.
She was tried in front of Federal District Court Judge who asked her on the record outside of the jury whether she wanted to testify on her own behalf.
She decided under the Fifth Amendment she chose not to do that.
She's got the right not to do that.
She doesn't have to present any evidence.
That's the way our system works.
But that's the forum.
That's the forum.
And nobody has done this before.
Of course that's the case.
There is a court that permitted her to come forward and explain her.
facts to give her perspective on what happened here.
She declined to do it.
It was not up to you to go there and give her a forum that she had already been afforded and furthermore to create a record that is pointless, meaningless, meritless, riddled with lies and misrepresentations.
Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America this past week telling you things that simply aren't true to justify probably his own embarrassment now about what happened.
in that connection.
Here's another one.
We've got lawyers for the Department of Justice appearing in front of Judge Timothy Kelly.
You may remember that Judge Kelly previously and again this past week.
has prevented the Trump administration from deporting hastily hundreds of Guatemalan children.
Remember this story?
They're in planes and he says, keep those planes on the ground.
And he has re-stated that order just this past week.
But along the way, along the way, he has basically said that the government has lied to him.
He said that the government has relied on false pretext presented in court that crumbled like a house of cards.
That's what the judge said about what the Department of Justice has told him.
presenting those positions in court, writing that the government has misleadingly presented its actions, that is the removal, the intended removal of these Guatemalan children as a reunification effort with their parents, bringing children back to their parents in Guatemala, who it said had requested their return.
It turns out just the opposite is true.
And in fact, in court then, the Trump administration lawyers, Department of Justice lawyers backed off claims that these hundreds of Guatemalan children it had attempted to send to that country last month had been requested by their parents to do so.
Justice Department attorney now acknowledging that government's earlier claims had no factual basis, in fact, and have been contradicted by review of the Guatemalan government.
that review again before the court who is angry about the misrepresentations made by the Department of Justice said the parents for most of the children could not be located and those who were largely suggested that they wanted their children to remain in the United States for economic opportunities precisely the opposite of what government lawyers with an oath of office had said to the court.
Judge, Judge Timothy Kelly.
The judge is not happy.
He plainly is identifying this as crumbling like a house of cards and plainly will hear more from him.
His frustration is not done.
He is upset.
And once again, as we talked before, the presumption of regularity with respect to representations made by Assistant United States Attorneys and Department of Justice lawyers before the government, the courts could previously always count
upon the reliability of statements made no longer, that presumption of reliability once again thrown in the fire destroyed this past week in a court in which a judge says the Department of Justice has lied, has misrepresented, again, what the motivation, if any, of the Guatemalan parents is for the return of these hundreds of children.
How dare you lie to me?
The Department of Justice is effectively what the judge has said.
At the other end of the Department of Justice on the Pennsylvania Avenue, the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we've got more Supreme Court action.
Again, the president added, yet again, more of the shadow docket at emergency applications asking the Supreme Court.
Asking the Supreme Court to immediately allow the president to remove.
We talked about her already.
Lisa Cook, he has also maintained without support.
She has not been charged, not convicted.
A mortgage fraud wants to get rid of her, as you well know, as a Federal Reserve governor.
Setting up once again these key issues about whether or not the president has the authority to do that.
The Supreme Court, as you know, has repeatedly permitted the president to do this in some areas with respect to some other agencies, but has previously indicated that when it comes to the Federal Reserve, that may have kind of a sacrosanct posture.
Nonetheless, the president once again leapfrogging over, over what the lower courts have done, asking the Supreme Court in the shadow dock an emergency application to permit him to fire her now.
The Trump administration also asking the Supreme
court late this past week to allow it to require passports to reflect only a person's sex as listed on their original birth certificate.
Federal trial judge in Massachusetts had earlier blocked that new Trump administration passport policy, stopping it from going into effect.
The administration now once again leaping over the litigation
asking the Supreme Court to do in this emergency docket what is not happening at the lower courts.
All of that going on inside government these days, inside the rule of law in America, inside justice.
We'll continue to be with you on these and other stories here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media here on Amicus Allah Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
Have a good
weekend, everybody.
But it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.