Judicial Fireworks: Legal Dismissals and Gerrymandering Showdowns

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 lot of you, on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

In the wake of our nation's observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, we are back on the air here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media talking all about the reasons we have a nation, the operation of the rule of law, the conduct of government and the intersections with the administration of justice.

That is no small assignment, but yes, indeed, in the wake of our national observance of Thanksgiving,

In a weekend when Wisconsin is under its first major snowstorm of the season here on Civic Media, we are talking all about the law.

We are talking all about justice.

We're talking all about government and its effect on your life and your livelihood.

That is the mission.

That is the purpose of this broadcast.

Every week, every weekend, talking with you about those important issues that do affect your lives

and your livelihoods.

As always, I am delighted.

I am honored that you have chosen to spend some portion of your post thanksgiving.

observance here with me on this broadcast and also with my wonderful producer, Max, inviting you, as always, to be a part of our discussion, providing me, offering me your questions, your inquiries, your observations, your perspectives on the many issues that are on our syllabus on this weekend show.

That number, that telephone number, that text number, as you know, is 855-752.

four, eight, four, two, one more time.

That's eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.

Be a part of our discussion of these very important issues.

And they are, as always, numerous.

They're significant, they're important to address.

and let's get right to that.

Let's talk about the syllabus for our weekend broadcast here on AMICA, so a lot of you, the undeniably, the most significant news story of the week, that is the dismissal of these cases that we have been talking about for many weeks, ever since the time of the indictment of the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and present Attorney General of the state of New York, Leticia James.

There is also that third major criminal indictment against John Bolton, and the reason why that is also often included on this broadcast.

in this discussion is because all three of them have fallen on the list of the president's foes, his adversaries, as he has identified them and talked about the retribution necessary against them.

Just this past week, major, major news involving the pendency, the status of those cases involving James Comey and Letitia James.

Also, some additional activity as we talked last weekend in that case involving John Bolton.

But this week, this week, a federal district court judge dismissing those cases, dismissing them, bringing to an end at least for now.

the future prosecution of the criminal cases separate and distinct, but this time, based upon the same theory, both of them dismissed, gotten rid of, based upon the same fundamental concept identified by the federal district court judge, and that is that the second interim United States attorney, they're in Eastern Virginia.

That's the federal district where both of these cases were indicted and now briefly prosecuted.

The authority of that United States attorney not only questioned but now according to the federal district court judge non-existent.

Why?

As we'll talk in great length.

The problem was the way in which she was appointed by this president sequential 120 day interim terms and because of that the district court judge says that's not the way this is supposed to happen.

Supposed to move from the presidential appointment if necessary where to the local federal district judges and then at any time on to the United States Senate for Senate confirmation.

All of that is circuitous.

All of that is serpentine.

use the adjective you would like.

It is not intuitive, but it is the law.

And that's what the district court judge seized upon.

We'll talk about her 26 page order.

And what it means for the future of those cases, we'll talk about what it means for the future of the process generally.

And also right now, what it means for the Eastern District of Virginia, in which there was, at least before the Thanksgiving holiday, a significant amount of

about exactly who is in charge, who is responsible, who is the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for the Eastern District of Virginia right now, causing some confusion not only in those cases, but also for other criminal cases, and of course, civil cases, all of which, every single one of which,

the United States Attorney's oversight responsibility.

We'll talk about what we're hearing again as late as just a few days before the break for the Thanksgiving holiday about the confusion that this has caused and then also what happens in the future, even as the government promises an appeal of the dismissals of these major cases, a huge

wildly significant development in these retribution prosecutions initiated by the president.

We're going to spend some time talking about how that happened once again.

Then necessarily, as we always do, even times when they're not having oral arguments, the Supreme Court seems to attract our attention appropriately and they've done so again this past week.

Those cases

percolating out of various districts, various appeals, having to do, yes, once again, with gerrymandering, one in particular, coming out of the state of Texas.

You know what this case is all about?

You know what the news is all about.

It is this decision by the Texas legislature to redraw maps halfway through the decade, post census throughout the United States and in Texas.

To redraw those maps to create five majority Republican districts in that state.

That of course, that of course the subject of judicial review there by a three judge panel and the three judge panel recently saying that is the product.

perhaps of political gerrymandering, but also of racial gerrymandering.

We'll talk once again about why those two things, those two concepts, political gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering are related but different and with a consequence of describing them in one direction as opposed to another.

We'll talk about what that three judge panel did in saying to the legislature that it cannot in fact redraw these lines as it has done.

Why?

Because

they disenfranchise according to the federal judges there.

They disenfranchise major blocks of majority black communities, the black voting population in Texas.

We'll talk about how that case percolated up to the United States Supreme Court.

What Associate Justice Sam Alito has done to suspend the stay.

Again, you've got a double negative there, stopping the stopping of the action there.

What the status

of those five districts is.

And beyond that, beyond that, even as the Supreme Court calls for briefing, calls for oral argument on that major case involving gerrymandering that could indeed affect the conduct and the results of the election in November of 26, we'll talk about some other gerrymandering cases.

This still at the district core level.

We've got three judge panel in North Carolina.

Three judges finding that a gerrymander in that case alleged gerrymander is not in fact violative of the law and supporting a change in the lines in North Carolina different from Texas different case there they are a three-judge panel saying it's okay to draw the lines in that separate state different facts different circumstances, but also allegations about political gerrymandering

Racial gerrymandering, how those two things intersect, also a part of the district court's review there, going back to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court also taking up cases and also deciding not to take cases.

They're right now, they're up to 46 cases altogether on their overall docket here in the 2025.

2026 term, they have both said yes to a case involving asylum applications, much in the news, just as this post Thanksgiving weekend proceeds.

An asylum case in which they are going to review decisions by the federal government and lower courts, and a decision involving religion.

They've decided not to take on a particular case involving

prayer at a high school and in particular at a sporting event.

in the particular jurisdiction.

So lots of things going on at the Supreme Court.

And finally, in connection with the Supreme Court, we're going to talk about an interesting application and interesting submission made by the United States Department of Justice.

Having to do with that pending matter, yet another pending matter, they've accepted review on this one involving the National Guard.

You know what this is about, we've talked about it previously, comes out of Chicago.

That is the decision of a

District Court there, affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, comes up to the Supreme Court questioning whether or not the president has the capacity, at least in Chicago and arguably in other places around the country, to deploy the National Guard.

based upon the notion that there is sufficient violence, that there is insurrection, that there's rebellion going on in the particular area, that mandates that he respond by deploying National Guard to these cities.

That issue, pending, pending before the Supreme Court, and of course, also much in the news because of the tragic news, the absolute tragic news of the death of two of the National Guardsmen, one of them dead.

one of them still in critical condition following the shooting of both of them on the streets of Washington DC.

Many of these things in the courts, asylums, asylum applications, the court's going to be addressing that, even as the president announces that he is going to be suspending asylum applications across the board.

and also, of course, National Guard issues.

All of that coming out of the news, but all of it also pending before the United States Supreme Court at this time, this critical time in our nation's history.

There are other matters in the rule of law survey, which we always do.

They involve everything from some cases coming out of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, handing losses to the president in his lawsuit against James Comey,

and the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, a civil lawsuit affirming that the president needs to pay them about a $1 million in judgment against them for a frivolous lawsuit.

And a second 11 circuit case dismissing another case that the president brought against CNN, alleging that their use of the word big lie, the phrase big lie, was inappropriate.

Also also coming out of Georgia major news involving finally the dismissal of the last of those remaining cases against the president

at the time that he was a private citizen alleging various things like election interference and in New York the misrepresentation about the reasons for paying off Stormy Daniels and in Georgia a case involving election interference that case that case now dismissed as well as was

the case involving Mar-a-Lago documents.

We'll talk about the conclusion of the final of those four cases, now brought to an end in the wake of their...

prosecutions of recent years, all of that, all of that coming up here on Amicus Law Review, it is a lot, as we often say, it is important to understand all of that and more as we appreciate the significance of the rule of law in America and as this broadcast on the stations of civic media continues right after this.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media once again.

So very pleased that you have chosen to spend a portion of your post Thanksgiving celebration, still Thanksgiving weekend in America, also a time of the first significant snowfall in Wisconsin, in Northern Illinois, and other places across the Midwest and stretching all the way into Pennsylvania as well.

at this time, an important time in our nation's history, talking a lot here on this broadcast about lots of different cases, civil and criminal.

Pending principally although not exclusively in our federal courts across the country And that's what animates most if not all of our academic our intellectual our civics related discussion here on the broadcast Let's begin with this major news from early this past business week federal judge on Monday tossing out dismissing two separate major cases hugely in the news in recent weeks

charging two significant national leaders with violations of the federal law, FBI former director, James Comey, and Latisha James, New York's attorney general with violations of federal law, different cases, different kinds of underlying charges as to Comey, those two counsel edging basically making false statements, misrepresenting something about his directions to a...

colleague of his inside the FBI about an investigation and outreach to media, a whole lot more there to unpack in terms of what exactly that means when it comes to the allegations of a false statement that he may have made, allegedly made to senators.

on Capitol Hill way back in September of 2020, the other unrelated but much related case involving Letitia James, New York's Attorney General.

This one alleges also in a couple of counts that she engaged in bank fraud, sometimes called mortgage fraud, in misrepresenting allegedly the use to which she was going to put a recent purchase of hers, a residential purchase of hers in Norfolk.

Virginia and alleging specifically that she agreed to accept the loan under the understanding that she would not rent it out That's in fact what she did and that is a misrepresentation also like the Comey case an awful lot of substantive review of the documents there other things related to the Focus of those charges suggesting that there's really no there there that there really is not a basis for either one of those sets of charges Substantively and as you know as we

have talked at great length on this broadcast.

Scores of Assistant U.S.

Attorneys, including the former Interim United States Attorney in Eastern Virginia, FBI agents have looked at both of these and said, there is no there there.

There's no basis upon which to prosecute.

And Eric Siebert, the former.

Interim U.S.

Attorney in Eastern Virginia leaving, perhaps being fired by the president when he said that it is inappropriate based upon what we know about these cases to bring any prosecutions.

It is in the wake of that.

In the wake of that, we are reminded this past week by the federal district court judge who actually ended up dismissing those cases, albeit on authorization and not substantive grounds that is going to the facts of this case.

She and her 26 page order also recounts the notion that our president said this on September 20th about all of these and other cases he wrote on social media.

and then deleted very promptly the following text.

He wrote Pam.

He's making reference to Pam Bondi.

He said, I reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially, quote, same old story as last time, all talk, no action, nothing is being done.

What about Comey, Adam, Shifty, Schiff, Letitia, question mark, question mark, question mark, Letitia misspelled.

He goes on to say they're all guilty as hell, which is a major statement from to make, among many others, supporting this notion of a vindictive, retributive, selective prosecution.

We'll get back to that.

But nothing is going to be done.

He puts all of that in quotes.

He says, then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S.

attorney in Virginia with a really bad Republican past, a woke rhino.

who was never going to do his job.

This is a rant by the president in the public domain.

He rescins it, but it's out there.

He says that's why two of the worst dem senators pushed him so hard.

He's talking about a nominee for the United States U.S.

Attorney's Office, also there in Virginia.

He says, he even lied to the media and said he quit and that we had no case.

Well, now I think we're talking about the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James and perhaps others.

He says, no, I fired him and there is a great case, all of those words in capital letters and many lawyers and legal pundits say so.

Lindsay Heligan, you know her name from our past discussions.

She is the attorney.

who used to be inside the White House, a senior advisor to the president during the campaign.

Most recently, senior staff, senior legal staff inside the West Wing said she's a really good lawyer and likes you, Pam, a lot.

We can't delay any longer.

It's killing our reputation and credibility.

They impeached me twice.

This once again is all the president ranting on September 20th on social media.

They impeached me twice, he said, and indicted me five times exclamation point.

over nothing all capital letters justice must be served also all capital letters now exclamation point exclamation point exclamation point president djt why do i read that out loud well in part because it's a major portion of what the judge wrote just this past week in dismissing the very prosecutions that the president effectively commanded directed the u.s.

attorney and ultimately lindsay halligan to bring before a grand jury

securing a faulty, flawed indictment there, as we've talked before.

That's the genesis of it.

His anger about the fact that Letitia James, the attorney general from the state of New York, that James Comey, the former FBI director with whom he has also sparred publicly, certainly privately as well, and others.

He talks about Adam Schiff, who is the president

President Senator from California.

All of that gives rise to what the District Court Judge did just this past week.

We'll tell you about her decision in detail as Amicus Allara View continues here on Civic Media.

Here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media, my name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus Allara View.

Our weekly weekend review of all things significant in the areas of the rule of law, justice, and government.

We are beginning our broadcast this snowy weekend talking about what is arguably, and I say arguably because there's so many other things going on inside and outside our courts, inside and outside our judicial system that also warrant our attention or focus.

This one is significant because it goes back to the president's

promise of retribution initiated in many ways at his direction, at his command.

I read from a portion of the opinion of the federal district court judge who ultimately dismissed the first of these two cases brought by the Department of Justice at the direction of this president.

And we're going to talk more now about what judge Cameron McGowan Curry did this past week in getting rid of those cases, at least for now.

You may begin by asking, how is it that she is the one who's deciding these cases?

The answer is, of course, that she is there in the eastern district of Virginia, principally because the other district court judges who deal on a regular basis with the leadership and the assistant US attorneys, the staff,

of the U.S.

Attorney's Office right there in Alexandria, other locations too close.

And therefore, for good ethical reasons, have decided to accuse themselves.

The judge is brought in from South Carolina, and she has a hearing on this matter, as you know from our previous broadcast.

The question is whether or not the President's appointment of Lindsey Halligan was proper or not stems from a series of, frankly, machinations by the Trump administration.

following what the president himself has described in that over long truth social missive about his frustration, saying, nobody will do what I want them to do.

Eric Siebert, the previous interim US attorney, significant to note that, failed to do it.

He says there's no basis for bringing these cases.

What are we doing here, Pam?

He says, we gotta move forward on all of this.

And so in the wake of the Eric Siebert,

resignation following his determination that the cases should not have been brought in the first place he appoints Lindsay Halligan.

Inside the West Wing she is a lawyer.

She is an insurance lawyer principally and that is significant also as the judge begins her

order, her 26-page order describing the circumstances that bring Lindsey Halligan and these two charges, these two sets of charges, to the attention of the judge.

The court order dismissing both of them begins this way.

On October 9th, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, that's significant that she notes that.

Appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, having been appointed interim U.S.

Attorney by the Attorney General just two weeks before Ms.

Halligan secured a two-count indictment, charging New York Attorney General Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

She goes on, she actually issues two orders.

She issues a parallel order also, citing the same background, but as to James Comey noting the specific charge.

against him making false statements in front of the Senate committee that was reviewing his conduct at the time way back in September of 2020.

The reason why that first statement, those series of statements, not only set the stage for what is to come in the following 25 and 26 pages, those 25 and 26 pages in which the judge also decides

to record, to memorialize in her order, the genesis for all of this, which again is the president's focus on retribution against people.

He feels are his foes, his enemies, her adversaries.

She notes that as a result of that, and the need to move quickly to get these people prosecuted, the direction from this president in that setting and in others, to the attorney general, ultimately to the intramus attorney who he appointed,

In the wake of the first interim U.S.

Attorney's failure, decision, whatever you may want to call it to indict these people, the President wanted to indict.

In the wake of all of that, this comes.

Significantly, the judge does not address what we have talked a lot about before.

They're pending in another branch, if you will, of the federal court there.

She did not talk about the retribution portion of this.

She did not talk specifically about the vindictive or selective prosecution matters of this, although it looms large in the background, and frankly, even in the foreground of this 26-page order, nor does she talk about what we've also discussed.

great length in our broadcast of last weekend, which was the huge, huge, stunning, shocking nature of the prosecutorial misconduct, the grand jury abuse.

by Lindsay Halligan in securing these particular indictments, representing to them things about the Fifth Amendment, representing things to them about the apparent non-regard of the attorney-client privilege, representing to them things about stuff and evidence and information that they can consider that's not even on the record.

All of those kinds of things still out there will get back to that.

But that is not the focus of

the judge's order that was issued dismissing these cases just this past week.

It stems from all of that, but it's premised upon the notion, fundamentally, as the judge talks about in great detail, that according to the law established by the Congress, you can appoint one intra-MUS attorney for 120 days.

You can't stack them.

And so, when Eric Sebert leaves after his 120-day appointment, the only other remedies

As the judge concludes our one of two, you can either seek the appointment of the local federal judiciary, that is the district court judges, then responsible under the law for appointing a court appointed United States attorney, and or then going to the United States Senate, nominating somebody, having the Senate confirm that person, him, her, they,

to the position of US Attorney.

That's what's contemplated by the Congress.

And that's what is contemplated by the Constitution.

And all the processes that have led up to the appointments

of Senate-confirmed U.S.

attorneys in the past.

What the judge here says in her 26-page order is, none of that was followed.

And the stacking of these attempts to place multiple U.S.

attorneys in place there in eastern Virginia, in Alexandria, illegal, unconstitutional, no authority to do that.

And for that reason, the judge says not only, not only is the interim U.S.

attorney improperly getting these indictments,

as to James Comey, as to Letitia James, but also, also that the very prosecution of the case that follows from them is also similarly flawed.

She goes on at great length to talk about the procedural history here.

She says in the end this, resolving the...

petitions, the motions, requires first to decide whether or not Ms.

Halligan was validly appointed as interim U.S.

Attorney under the Appointments Clause and also under this particular statutory provision, it's called Section 546, that permits the appointment of interim U.S.

Attorneys on a routine basis.

She says, if the answer to the question is yes, I need not go any further, and the motions of these defendants must be denied.

But she says, if the answer is no, then the prosecutor, Ms.

Halligan here, had no authority to present these indictments to the grand jury, and then the question becomes, what remedy is appropriate?

Should the indictments be dismissed?

And if so, should they be dismissed with or without prejudice?

I address these issues in turn, beginning with whether or not Ms.

Halligan's appointment was valid under section 546.

And in the pages that follow, she addresses those in exactly the way that she describes, finds that 546 does not give her the authority that the president presumed she had to go ahead and seek these indictments.

She goes on to say that because of that,

The text, the structure, and the history of the section mandate, mandate one conclusion.

The attorney general's authority to appoint an interim U.S.

attorney lasts for 120 days.

From the date she first invokes it, after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S.

attorney.

If the position remains vacant at the end of that period, the exclusive authority to make further, further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court.

Those are the judges.

Well, where it remains,

until the president's nominee is confirmed by the Senate.

Exactly what I just outlined here.

And then here's the big language.

On page 16, Ms.

Halligan was not appointed unmanaged consistent with that framework.

The 120 day clock began running with Mr. Siebert's appointment.

He was the previous interamuous attorney on January 21, 2025, when that clock expired.

on May 20, 2025.

So, too, did the Attorney General's appointment authority.

Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms.

Halligan as an interim U.S.

Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, and that Ms.

Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22.

2025, everything else comes in the wake of that.

The cases dismissed on the basis that the prosecutor had no capacity, no authority to act in that capacity, can't go in front of the grand jury, can't sign off on the grand jury indictments in either of these cases, cannot prosecute them because she's not the United States attorney.

and indeed during the course of her discussion of this in the pages that follow.

Again, it is worth reading.

It is accessible.

In addition to Judge Curry's describing all of this, she also goes on to say that if she did not dismiss these indictments, the consequences to the criminal justice system would be enormous.

She says this, it would mean the government could send any private citizen off the street, attorney or not, into the grand jury room to secure an indictment, so long as the attorney general gives her approval after the fact.

And then the judge goes on to conclude that cannot be the law.

And that's the result.

Now, the only additional wrinkles from that, the dismissal of the cases, and they are dismissed are these.

First, of course, we know that the Attorney General has already reviewed them and is promising an appeal.

to the appeals court there in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those appeals will certainly take up the legitimacy of what the judge here, Judge Cameron McGowan Curry has done.

Dismissing these cases based upon authority, that is pending.

But in addition to all of that, the judge has also said that she is dismissing these cases without prejudice.

And what does that mean?

I suspect regrettably in this time when we all need to understand all of the mechanisms by which judges act, federal judges, state court judges.

That means that the government, if it is so inclined to do it and gets a proper prosecutor in place, addresses the remedies that need to be addressed in this case, addresses the infirmities that are part of this process.

does not foreclose the possibility of these cases being re-indicted.

Those these cases can in fact come back.

That's what the Department of Justice is plainly going to seek in the days and weeks and maybe months ahead and significantly

that may be a big hurdle when it comes to James Comey, because as we know, the case as to him was indicted just moments, just days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, not much better in the case involving Letitia James also coming right up against that, the argument being made that because the statute has now passed, no further prosecution could be had, plainly, the Department of Justice pushing back on

and that theory, an awful lot more for the lawyers to be arguing about even in the wake of all of this, even in the wake of the dismissal of this, and even in the wake of the confusion now that has taken hold in the US Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia about who is in charge.

Who is the U.S.

Attorney in charge there?

When we come back, I'll talk more about that and why this goes beyond just the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James

here on Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

We are spending all of this the first hour on our weekend broadcast talking about this major rule of law news, and that is that the president's first foray into retribution of a major nature, that is the bringing of federal criminal prosecutions against James Comey, Letitia James, hitting more than a brick wall this past week when the federal district court judge who's looking at the authority of the

Interim US Attorney to prosecute it all finds there is none.

and goes in 26 pages into great detail about the reasons for that, says she is dismissing the cases without prejudice, which once again means that the prosecutors could bring these same charges to another grand jury if indeed those prosecutors have the authority to do so.

Lots to unpack there with respect to the statute of limitations, whether that's already passed with respect to one or both of these defendants, but the judge ruling early this past week.

that Halligan's actions, again, including her presentation of these cases to the grand jury, following her, what she described, what the judge described as a defective appointment, were, according to the judge, unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.

Now, why is that so important?

Well, it does bring, at least for now, the cases to a close.

arguments on appeal before the appeals court going ahead in the days, weeks, maybe months ahead.

A couple of additional commentary points as we think about this.

One, of course, is the confusion that this causes with respect to those cases.

If you don't have a United States attorney, the upshot is that you don't have a United States attorney.

You don't have someone who provides all of the assistant United States attorneys with authority to sign off to act on anything.

I was an interim U.S.

attorney.

I was initially appointed by an attorney general, then was appointed by the court.

And then under another administration, I was a presidentially appointed United States attorney, serving about six and a half years when you add all that time up.

And so I'm used to, I've had some affiliation with these kinds of sequential things that, again, the rest of America does not really need to know about, but for the fact,

and its consequences here with respect to these cases.

and underscored for me as it should now you as well, the notion that authority to act as the United States attorney derives where?

Well, ultimately from the president, but also through the attorney general.

And that authority goes to United States attorneys, they can be court appointed, they can be Senate confirmed, they can be initially attorney general appointed as well.

But they've got to have the authority to do it.

And so in the wake of the decision by a judge,

Curry that Lindsay Halligan does not have authority, a huge amount of what's been called panic inside the Eastern District of Virginia.

U.S.

Attorney's Office, as people were trying to scramble around to figure out how it is they sign off on pleadings, do they have the authority to do anything anymore in not just these cases, important, but also other criminal cases.

Lindsay Halligan was also the U.S.

Attorney for Scores of Other Criminal Cases, hundreds, presumably there in eastern Virginia, a very active district in our nation, and also civil cases.

in which her name also appears on the top of a piece of letterhead at the signature block with respect to any pleadings, motions to dismiss, provisions of discovery, motions for summary judgment, notices of all kinds, all bear

the name of the united states attorney why because it's under that authority that assistant u.s.

attorneys and frankly staff as well non-attorney staff critical to the functions of united states attorney they all act by virtue of that in the wake of this decision by judge curry an awful lot of confusion inside that office about who is in charge and how

on Monday and Tuesday, presumably Wednesday.

Maybe it's been resolved over this Thanksgiving hiatus, if you will.

Career prosecutors wondering out loud, apparently, about the West way forward.

And whether these decisions by the judge here, finding the Lindsay Halligan does not have the authority.

It should in fact prevent them from doing anything else.

In about three hours after the ruling on Monday, the deputy criminal chief there told prosecutors apparently to begin listing the first assistant.

in the office.

Robert McBride is his name.

He had arrived about a week before in that job as the top prosecutor named Mr. McBride in those filings.

And then an hour later, through another official in the office, all the employees are told to change the signature blocks on everything you do back to Lindsey Halligan.

The earlier direction was premature and it goes on back and forth, back and forth.

And as late as

Before Thanksgiving, this was still unclear.

Certainly needs to be and presumably will be resolved by the opening of business again in this coming business week, but it underscores the disruption.

When a president does this kind of thing, which is the first big issue here, the second big issue of course is the rule of law.

And beyond just this issue, it is important to note that those other matters that also come out of that vindictive, retributive,

posting by the president, those having to do with his need.

His perception that his adversaries need to be prosecuted, that has not yet been resolved.

There's another judge.

His name is Nakmanov.

We've talked about him before.

He is presiding over the trial of James Comey, for instance, and he has plainly got in front of him not only those issues related to selective prosecution and prosecution again based upon vindictiveness, but also all these things identified, again, in previous weeks by

him and by another federal magistrate judge, his name is Fitzgerald, you recall that, involving these wildly inappropriate things, illegal, unconstitutional things.

that Lindsay Halligan said to the grand jury to get these indictments in the first place.

Those issues, those major issues need to be resolved as well.

Not only the authority issue, upon which the cases are now dismissed, but also direction from federal district court judges, Nakmanov and others, that you don't do this, Mr. President.

This is not the way to conduct a Justice Department.

Attorney General Bondi, you need to make certain that the grand jury presentations have integrity and decency and are premised upon.

accurate and completely focused statement of what the law is.

Those cases, those issues, those matters, still not resolved, looking for them to be resolved in the weeks and the months ahead.

When we come back, more in the capacity of rule of law actions by judges and others here in the United States of America, stay with us for all of that.

This is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel.

This the second hour of our two-hour weekly weekend broadcast all about the rule of law and its administration in the United States of America often beyond as well.

We devoted the entire first hour to the discussion of this major blockbuster decision by a federal district court judge dismissing those retributive prosecutions against James Comey and also Letitia James.

explaining the process by which that was done, the predicates for it, and noting significantly that the judge had before her a singular issue that is with respect to the authority of the Interim US Attorney to do this at all, finding by virtue of the Constitution and the appointments clause and a particular congressional statute that the authority did not exist, therefore the indictments have to be dismissed without.

prejudice, which means that we'll be talking about this again down the road and also talking about it because left unresolved by the issues presented to this federal district court judge.

Our issues presented to the trial judge, who at least until this past week was also anticipating trying these cases on their merits.

His name is Nakmanov and he is before him.

Those cases, those issues, those challenges,

Arguably even more significant that is whether or not the very prosecutions themselves putting aside the Person the nature of the authority in those people to prosecute putting that to one side where the all of this is indeed the result of the president's directive as a part of his retribution campaign vindictive prosecution and Selective prosecution a huge issue

for resolution in these cases, because the evidence is so very clear of just that it is important for a federal district court judge to wrestle with those issues and tell America what happened here with respect to the very pendency of these lawsuits, the president's direction and demand that these cases be prosecuted.

A clear instruction to this White House, to this president needs to happen.

that says that that cannot proceed.

That cannot happen.

That is not the way our judicial system works.

And oh, by the way, along the way, the very way in which these cases were presented, a mess when it comes to exactly what indictment was presented to the grand jury, whether the final version of it was seen by all the members of the grand jury, who yes, have to vote on it.

That's out there.

Also issues related to what Lindsey Heligan actually said to the grand jury.

Did she tell them things about the Fifth Amendment that were simply not true?

Did she tell some things about the basis upon which they can indict, which is simply not true?

Did she violate the attorney client privilege and disclosing information the grand jury should not have?

All of those issues related to the...

problems with these indictments still unresolved and maybe will be resolved down the road.

My perspective, my offer to you this weekend is that they need to be resolved as significant as this procedural disposition is, whether the cases come back or not somehow.

The world needs to hear.

Our nation needs to hear.

The people of Eastern Virginia need to hear.

And yes, indeed, these defendants need to hear that the president's retribution is unconstitutional and the mechanisms for which this was accomplished.

before the grand jury constituted grand jury abuse and government misconduct.

All of that also needs to be a part of the history of these sorry and misguided cases.

Here on Amicus Law Review, we are so very pleased always to have your calls, your questions, whether it's on the text line.

also calling in at 855-752-4842.

We are delighted as always to take your questions, your inquiries, and that includes this weekend, Mark, who's calling in from Prairie du Sac.

Mark is always thrilled to have you a part of our discussion this weekend.

Go right ahead.

Yeah, and actually today I'm up in the Northwoods during the deer season, but I'm gonna head out pretty soon.

But it just seems strange that

What brought to mind is the recent dismissal of the charges against people down in Georgia.

Yes.

Over the election interference thing,

which we will get to in just a few moments as well, but go right ahead.

Yes.

Which brings to mind, you know, that, that that was involved in Trump's impeachment.

I mean, that's all part and parcel of the charges of impeachment against the president of the United States for the election interference, the whole January 6th insurrection back in January 6th.

That was this part of the second impeachment.

And my question is because.

those pardons were granted for the people committing a crime related to the impeachment.

Should those pardons be negated because the Constitution clearly says to accept in cases of impeachment?

So my question is, and maybe this is a stretch, but I'd say that these people potentially were witnesses against Donald Trump for his impeachment for January 6th.

Should those...

should those not have been allowed because it does not say impeachment and in conviction in that particular provision, but it just says merely impeachment.

And maybe I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it just seems to me because of the relationship of those, you know, grant I'm angry enough about them, the people who violently engage in a nationwide conspiracy down in Georgia and everywhere else.

They're getting those things all quashed because, oh, it's going to take too long.

And they really wasn't criminal intent there.

Well, I'd say nonsense to that because they knew they were committing a crime.

They just didn't care.

We're just supporting Donald Trump.

But the issue you raised, Mark, is a very, it's a fascinating one.

And it underscores number one that we don't have to be lawyers.

We can all read the Constitution, right?

You're doing just that.

This is section two of article two of the Constitution saying, indeed, President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

And your point is, gee, that's a very

broad piece of language there, and are the pardons that he has issued related to January 6th, that is about 1200 people or so, pardoned for their actions and the actions that led to their convictions in federal district court there in the District of Columbia, the pardons that he granted related to the very thing for which he was also impeached, right?

The subject matter is all the same, and as we'll talk in just a few moments from now, also,

much related to this case in Georgia just this past week or so finally dismissed.

Fascinating concepts here for America to think about that is the connection between the president's conduct himself and the notion that he was impeached, not convicted, not removed for January 6th.

His pardons also derived from that same set of events.

What is the connection brought through the language of section two of article two that

except in cases of impeachment, pardons cannot be issued.

It is, from my perspective, an interesting linguistic argument mark and one that plainly

Unfortunately, the times of our lives need to be addressed here.

My overall sense has always been that the language of that particular provision of the Constitution means that the president cannot extend a pardon in situations where the impeachment proceeding results in a conviction.

of presumably any could be a could be a president but could be anyone else obviously also subject to impeachment not just not just presidents but you raise an interesting legal issue and certainly these days an awful lot of creativity out there about how these things interplay and the fact that you do have a president but your question really underscores mark is the notion that we have a president who is both impeaching i'm sorry who is pardoning people for those that conduct on january six

the same conduct for which he was impeached, not convicted, and not removed.

Interesting thing to think about and appreciate very much, even as you are away from Pray to Sack this weekend, hunting there.

Appreciate very much.

You're taking the time to call in and offer.

Those perspectives are not just on language, not just on the Constitution, but things that Americans should be considering when we think about the ways in which the rule of law is applied in America.

Mark, as always, we appreciate your contribution to our broadcast.

Mark made reference, of course, to the major decisions coming out of other cases, other

venues around the country.

We're going to get to that case involving Georgia, the Rico case, finally brought to an end by a petition, a motion filed by the subsequent prosecutor there in Fulton County.

We're going to get to that in just a moment or so.

Let's move down.

Pennsylvania Avenue right now to the Supreme Court.

Once again, we'll scurry around the Capitol building, the legislature and go back to the Supreme Court because they have been active again this past week, noting, noting as we often do that the coming week, they're back in business hearing oral arguments.

There are four oral arguments scheduled for just this coming week on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday.

Again, always you can hear those live.

You can hear those in the recorded format as well.

There's a case.

involving copyright infringement.

There's a case involving the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

There's a copyright involving investigative authorities of a particular institution that's providing some pregnancy-related services and the question about whether or not a subpoena of the documents and the records of that particular agency can be moved upon.

There's a section 1983, a civil rights case, procedural issues there as well.

All of those pending

in front of the Supreme Court this week on oral argument, and then the following week, the eighth, ninth, and tenth also, and that includes on the eighth of December, coming up in a little bit more than a week or so, major oral argument on that case involving the FTC, a case involving that commissioner of the FTC named Slaughter, who was fired by the president, a major case involving authorities of the president to fire the leadership

of independent federal agencies, including the FTC.

We know that there are other cases out there involving, yes, indeed, the Federal Reserve Commission.

That case is coming up for oral argument in the not too distant future.

National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, all of these federal agencies, independent of the White House,

The president pursuant to his view of a unified executive of a broad, broad power of the White House, maintaining he's got the capacity to tell those agencies, those independent entities what to do, including if he's unhappy with the governors, with the board members, the commissioners, the capacity to fire them.

A major question having to do with the authority of this president,

First being tested now on the 8th of December, again a little bit more than a week from now, but even this week coming up with a lot of cases on their docket.

We know as well that just this past week, the Supreme Court also said yes and said no to other cases.

They said yes to an important asylum case very timely.

They made this decision before the president's very recent announcement that he's suspending all asylum petitions and applications and

processes but even before that the Supreme Court had decided to take up a case this on the Southwest border having to do with the practice of permitting applicants for asylum to enter into the the country while those Applications are pending or whether they need to stay on the other side of the border on asylum issue before the Supreme Court and they also decided not to take

another case and that involves religion.

They focused on this a lot in the past as we have talked.

They decided not to take a case involving the broadcasting of a prayer over a public address system during the course of some interest school football tournament and decided not to take that case, decided not to pursue that particular matter.

on their docket.

What they have done, as you well know, is take a look at gerrymandering cases.

And we come back when we talk about a significant thing that Justice Sam Alito did in connection with that district redistricting, reline drawing case coming out of Texas, what that means, and also then what's happening in North Carolina, in a federal district court, all of that coming up here on Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santella.

This is Amicus, a lot of you, once again thanking you for spending some time this weekend in consideration with me and my producer, Max, of all these major rule of law issues, as always taking your phone calls, your comments, your questions, your insights, your perspectives at 855-752.

4-8-4-2, turning now to the United States Supreme Court, a week in which they did not have oral arguments, although they're going to resume those next week, oral arguments, four altogether between Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

The following week, again, some additional four arguments.

They've even got them scheduled into January, mid-January, the 12th, 13th, and 14th, the 20th, and the 21st, including many of the cases that we have talked about before on this broadcast.

They will have those decision-cons.

along the way, typically on Fridays.

And sometimes we get some insight into what they're going to be doing with respect to additional cases they're taking on, sometimes cases they're not taking on when the announcements come of the results of those decision conferences conducted on Friday, but the results announced on Monday.

This past week, this past week, the Supreme Court again, even though not out there on the bench for public discussion, public debate,

still active and doing lots of things that affect our lives and our livelihoods.

In particular, in particular, some action with respect to Texas.

You know this case well.

You know this news well.

At the encouragement of both the governor of the state of Texas, his name is Greg Abbott, and the encouragement of the president of the United States of America, his name is Donald Trump, asking and getting from the

Texas legislature way back in August a decision to redraw congressional lines to create five majority Republican districts doing that at the encouragement of the president why so that in November of 2026 if this mechanism goes through if this strategy goes through presumably sending from Texas to Washington DC five more Republican controlled seats affecting plainly the leadership

the control the majority of the House of Representatives.

You know this story, having tendrils in places beyond just Texas across the country as other legislatures and other states also determine whether or not they should be redrawing lines to accomplish majority Republican, majority Democratic,

other kinds of district redrawings that will affect the election in November of 26.

Well, what happened in this particular case is a number of people came forward and said, you know what?

The decision by the legislature to redraw these lines in Texas, while we recognize they said that political gerrymandering is no longer within the purview of the federal courts, courts a long time ago, the Supreme Court said we're no longer in the business of deciding whether or not

Politically animated redrawing is proper or not, that's off the table, but racial gerrymandering still is.

You can't draw lines to disenfranchise people based upon race, at least

Not up until now.

You know that there's that Louisiana case called Calais.

We've spent a lot of time talking about it.

Supreme Court may at some point during this term determine that, in fact, the section two of the Voting Rights Act is no longer applicable.

And maybe, maybe in America for the first time since the 1960s, racial gerrymandering will also take hold.

But before that happens, before that happens, if it does, we've got this case coming out of Texas.

People challenging what the Texas

Legislature is done saying, you know what?

This is not simply political gerrymandering.

This is racial gerrymandering.

You are disenfranchising large proportions of the black population in Texas.

And by doing that, you're violating the Voting Rights Act.

You're acting unconstitutionally.

What happened fairly recently is that a three-judge panel, and that's how these things are disposed of,

Three judge panels under the voting rights act, they took a look at that.

And they said that the map, the state's GOP controlled legislature, the map they adopted in August halfway through the decade here, that that map was likely racially gerrymandered and thus unconstitutional.

They say, you know, it might have been politically gerrymandered also, but that almost doesn't matter here because the racial gerrymandering, which is something we can remedy, that's quite clear.

The map, which made again five districts in the state more favorable to Republican candidates, cannot be used, cannot use it next year in 2026.

And so what are we going to do?

We're going to revert back to the congressional boundaries that were drawn in 2021 and used in the congressional elections since that time.

That's what the three judge panel told Texans, the legislature,

voters in those various congressional districts told all of us.

And of course, in response to that, the governor of the state of Texas, again, his name is Greg Abbott, runs where he runs quickly to the United States Supreme Court.

And what the Supreme Court does, again at the hands of Sam Alito, who is the assigned associate justice for that, that's the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, he enters an administrative stay.

basically stopping the lower court, the three judge panels order from going effect, effectively, at least for now, reinstating what the legislature had done in creating these five majority Republican districts, going back to the way it was when the legislature drew those lines.

Lots of back and forth, lots of ping pong going on here, lots of double negatives when the Supreme Court stops a stay,

and basically reverts to what the legislature had done previously, not going back to the lines drawn in 2021, just as Leto makes clear that based upon his order that he wants briefs on this, that the Supreme Court's gonna take this up, presumably going to have oral argument on this case, which is huge given the nature of what they're doing generally in the area of voting rights.

And so that's not the final word.

But for right now, those maps in Texas

are the way the legislature designed them, but we'll hear more of that from the Supreme Court in the times coming up as they address this issue once again about racial gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has said is still on the docket, redrawing lines, and the

The interposition, the connection between racial gerrymandering and what many of these legislators are saying in states like Texas and beyond, that in fact it's not just racial gerrymandering.

If at all, it's political gerrymandering.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about a little bit of the Supreme Court and a district court in North Carolina also dealing with gerrymandering as the broadcast continues.

Here on the broadcast stations of civic media.

This is amicus a la review.

My name is Jim Santel your host for these remaining minutes segments

Conversation times here on our broadcast, you can be a part of that conversation, 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.

We are talking, as we often do, about the United States Supreme Court.

Its decision, at least to the pen of the Associate Justice, his name is Sam Alito, to suspend the rescission, if you will, again, double negatives there following all of this, to basically reinstate the five majority Republican districts creating

by the Congress, by the legislature of Texas back in August, but promising more review of that, not the final word from the Supreme Court on that at all.

Along the way, we know what the lower court did and did not do.

We know the lower court said that those districts are the products of racial gerrymandering, and basically rejecting the notion that this is just political gerrymandering.

Now, permissible by the Supreme Court and permissible for many years, but along the way, the judge, Jeffrey Brown, who writes the majority opinion for the three-judge panel.

appears to be aware of the fact that this is going up to the Supreme Court, even as he's writing his opinion.

He's right about that, of course.

He says, quoting in his 160 page, 160 majority opinion, it's written by Jeffrey Brown.

He opens with a famous quote from the Chief Justice himself, John Roberts.

John Roberts very notoriously, famously said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,

is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

And then goes on to explain how that's exactly what the courts are now trying to do to stop the discrimination based upon race that the legislature has accomplished.

That decision now subject to review.

Along the way, the judge who wrote the majority opinion, again, Jeffrey Brown, said that the Roberts precept in all of this, the basis for doing all this, requires the invalidation of the new maps because they're prompted by, once again, the President of the United States of America, this letter that urged the state to redraw at least four of those districts with race specifically in mind.

Brown, the judge, points to what DOJ officials said were

Racial criteria previously used to allow a candidate of a distinct minority group to have a strong chance to elect a candidate of their choice.

All of that coming out of the three judge panel.

We know as well that Judge Brown decided to do some schooling as well of all of us.

And yes, this is the portion of the broadcast.

It includes a little bit of law school, some civics as well.

Another word, another principle called Purcell, P-U-R-C-E-L-L.

It comes from a Supreme Court case.

It's called the Purcell principle.

Basically, it's a reference to the Supreme Court's past holding way back in 2006.

on an emergency docket dispute.

Yes, it comes from that.

The courts should butt out of, they should keep out of, should not act on voting related cases as an election nears.

And Brown, in his opinion, spends a substantial period of portion of his discussion, a lot of his discussion there, suggesting that the Supreme Court has given some very inconsistent guidance about when the Purcell principle, which once again says, if you're closing in on an election, you should not disrupt that, stay away, do not issue an opinion as you're approaching that time period.

Judge Brown says, Supreme Court,

You've been very inconsistent and not helpful when it comes to explaining what it is the Purcell principle means.

He said in one case that the justices made a naked citation to Purcell without any accompanying, accompanying reasoning or analysis.

2022 case blocking a redistricting order, he noted.

The Supreme Court did not cite to a singular case to support its stay, not even to Purcell.

Supreme Court, he writes,

has stayed a lower federal court's election-related injunctions at least six times in the last 11 years.

The court is not, this court, Judge Brown writes, is not naive to that reality, but this court is also not naive to the likely unconstitutional realities of the 2025 map.

In other words, what he's saying is, I know Priscilla's out there.

I know we shouldn't be changing things.

As we go into 2026 and the requirement as soon as the spring for candidates in Texas to not only know what districts they're running from, but also file their papers for the constituents to know what districts they're in.

But he also says that there's something about constitutional voting and the voting rights act is still in place.

And so he says, tell us more about how Purcell should apply.

Get rid of this inconsistency, but for now I'm going ahead and we're going ahead to find that those maps are unconstitutional.

We'll see what the Supreme Court says on that.

We know as well that in another district

district that is another three judge panel in North Carolina in the middle of this past week allowed the state's newly redrawn congressional map there to go into effect for the 2026 midterm elections there unlike in Texas North Carolina three judge panel says go ahead and

pursue the new lines, the new districts there in North Carolina.

The judges, they're in the middle district of North Carolina, unanimously, unanimously, all of them, siding with the state's Republican leaders in that legislature, the legislature and the lawyers for them had argued that the motivations there were to draw the new map based upon partisan political reasons.

And again, the Supreme Court has said they're not going to get involved in that.

So that's how you accomplish this kind of thing.

You describe it as being partisan.

Significantly, the legislators, again, represented by the lawyers and adopted by that three judge panel in North Carolina say in North Carolina, this is not racial gerrymandering.

We didn't do this because of race.

It was simply because we wanted to create more Republican majority districts, in particular one.

And that distinction wants to get important because the Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymandering, that's okay, or at least we're not gonna touch it.

Racial gerrymandering is not.

and the folks in North Carolina, the legislature, the three judge panel, the lawyers arguing on behalf of the legislature all saying that we're running a foul knot of any racial gerrymandering prohibition, but this is simply partisan gerrymandering.

The new North Carolina map, very likely to give Republicans an extra house seat, just one there in North Carolina.

Again, redrawn in October by the state's Republican control legislature after Texas

did what it did, did in creating those five district seats there.

We know as well that there is a lot of litigation going on in places around the country that plainly includes California, that plainly includes other jurisdictions where this is happening a lot.

And so we'll continue to monitor all that here on Amicus Law Review.

Significantly, in North Carolina,

the old congressional map had tilted 10 out of North Carolina's 13 congressional districts already toward the GOP.

This adds to that one-sided result.

Something that plainly those who are going to contest this are going to identify as they argued, as they will argue in the future.

that this is all about racial gerrymandering.

It is a lot.

It is necessary in 2025 and 2026 to understand these fine points.

the fine points of how the voting rights act, how these gerrymandering cases are being resolved differently by three judge panels in different states, again, based upon different circumstances, different lines, different populations.

And it's also significant that we have now reached that new era where we are now redrawing lines, not just in the wake of the annual 10-year

census, which is where we've done it in the past here in Wisconsin, other places throughout the Midwest in every place in the United States of America.

But now we're doing the middle of a decade as well.

Nothing illegally, constitutionally prohibiting that, but recognizing that in 2030, we're going to do this all again.

And by the time we get to 2026, that census is going to happen again in just four years from then, and we're going to redo the districting lines again.

in every state, including North Carolina, including Texas, including California, and Missouri, and Indiana, and other places around the country, including Wisconsin.

And maybe now we're entering because of this new era in which we are in, in which everything is so very politicized, a new era which is going to be constant, constant reviewing of those district lines.

Constant gerrymandering again unless the Supreme Court changes the rules with respect to racial gerrymandering the guidelines to this day remain Political partisan gerrymandering that's okay.

You can do that to accomplish a political result You can't do it if you are in fact disenfranchising a significant portion of people of color.

They're voting blocks

And we've gotten different results coming out of Louisiana, coming out of Texas plainly, now North Carolina, other places around the country.

And all of this ultimately to be addressed by and presumably resolved by the Supreme Court, even as these cases involving challenging specific state.

redrawings of lines will continue.

A lot going on again in the Supreme Court and one final thing before we leave the Supreme Court and that is this.

There's some fascinating analysis that's coming out from some reporting including especially the New York Times.

You know well in matters not related to gerrymandering the Supreme Court now has in front of it this major case

coming out of Illinois, coming out of the Seventh Circuit, coming out of the Midwest and Chicago in particular, in which a district court judge, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, basically said that this is not an insurrection, this is not a rebellion.

And for that reason, the invocation and the deployment of the National Guard there in Chicago cannot go ahead.

a lot of events there involving orders that are variously stayed and put back in place.

But the Supreme Court right now addressing this large issue coming out of Chicago, but plainly having implications around the country whenever there are deployments by the president.

typically over the objections of the state governor to deploy the National Guard in situations where the president declares there's an emergency, there's rebellion, there's insurrection, there is a huge amount of violence going on, and indeed that's what prompted the Chicago case.

That matter right now pending in front of the Supreme Court for decision, and central the administration's argument there is this notion that violent

protests are preventing agents there in Chicago from enforcing immigration law.

That's the basis upon which the president has deployed, at least at the periphery, the National Guard all around Chicago.

Not moving in.

But that's the question.

Can they in fact move in?

Is this an insurrection?

Is this a rebellion there?

What is the nature of the violent protests?

And there is fascinating reporting coming out of a review of one of the things submitted by your Department of Justice on behalf of the Solicitor General, obviously in support of the President's position

that indeed there is sufficient violence there there's sufficient insurrection type activity sufficient rebellion type activity to justify this deployment and analysis by an awful lot of reporters including especially the new york times indicating that appended to the position this position by the department of justice to support this notion that there are violent protests

are indications and reportings about the nature of events there that are simply inaccurate.

They're simply wrong.

They misstate things that happen on various days, including October 4th.

and drawing heavily from some court declarations, misstating some of those, misunderstanding the chronology of that, having to do with what happened there in the aftermath of a car crash, a shooting, and, yes, indeed, the nature of political protests there, indications of inaccuracies presented to the Supreme Court as they're taking all of this on.

When we come back, a few more rule of law snapshots, including what happened to that case.

in the district of Fulton County and Georgia generally.

All of that as Amicus continues.

This is Amicus, all of you.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is that portion of our broadcast when we do some rule of law snapshots and this weekend's edition, no exception to that, but we begin with a snapshot that's also very significant for the history of America and understanding what has happened.

You may recall well, you do recall well that our present president, while he was a private citizen in between his terms, prosecuted in four different cases, four different criminal matters.

You know that that New York case involving us making misstatements, material.

important misstatements about payments to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet in advance of the 2016 election 34 felony counts that remains in place the petition by the now current president to attack and to seek the reversal of that jury judgment finding the president guilty

for the 34 different counts of misstatements there in New York.

That's still pending the appeals court.

That is still present.

We know as well that the case involving the Mar-a-Lago documents dismissed by that judge, Eileen Cannon, whose name recently resurfaced in connection with the dismissal of these cases involving James Comey and Letitia James.

It's all connected, is it not?

We know as well that the other federal case involving insurrection on January 6, both the documents case and the

insurrection case prosecuted by Jack Smith.

That dismissed by the government based upon basically expiration of time and the decision by the Department of Justice to conclude that prosecution on the premise that memorandum of the Department of Justice says you can't prosecute a sitting president.

So that addresses three of the four and just this past week.

The fourth case this also a state prosecution.

This was that Georgia Rico prosecution omnibus case multiple defendants including Donald Trump including Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows all sorts of people there that case now also Also has been dismissed by the judge there in Fulton County upon the petition upon the motion of the subsequent prosecutor there.

His name is Peter Skandalakis

And he is the executive director of the state's nonpartisan prosecutorial counsel in a 22-page filing to the judge.

He was a career prosecutor.

He says, among other things, that bringing this case before a jury in 2029 or 2030 or 2031 would be nothing short of a remarkable feat.

He said the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to 10 years and notes that the decision of the Supreme Court to grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to this president and others would require an awful lot of additional litigation moves the court to dismiss that RICO prosecution against Donald Trump, which was still pending.

and the others, the judge grants that motion, bringing to close three of the four cases.

Again, that fourth case, the other state case in New York still pending before the Court of Appeals on those criminal convictions for misstating documents, misstating the financial nature of transactions involving Stormy Daniels.

A couple more.

involving recent decisions by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's, of course, one of the major circuit courts in the United States of America.

Two cases not favorable to Donald Trump, both civil.

The Eleventh Circuit Justice, past week, upholding, upholding, saying yes to a penalty of about $1 million that was entered against President Donald Trump.

and an attorney named Alina Habba, and she is, of course, much in the news as well, concluding that they had committed some sanctionable conduct by previously filing what the court, the 11th Circuit, said was a frivolous lawsuit against whom?

Against Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey, the 11th Circuit saying in rejecting, once again,

any appeal from Donald Trump and Ms.

Habba that the Trump and Habba legal arguments are indeed frivolous, the cases gotta go away, and the judgment against them in the amount of just about 11, or rather, $1 million stands.

That is a loss.

That is a loss for the president, again, in the civil arena.

And yet another one, another panel of judges, again, on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down

the president's attempt to keep a lawsuit against CNN alive.

You may recall this one as well.

In an eight-page ruling just this past week, the panel from the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that the president's claim, both publicly and in this civil lawsuit against CNN, was frivolous once again, was meritless.

You may recall the president had been sparring with CNN.

He argued that CNN had defamed him.

by calling his objections to the outcome of the 2020 election, the big lie.

He objected to the use by CNN of that language, brought a lawsuit, and as a result of what the 11th Circuit has done, not only, not only telling him that yes,

Your lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and against James Comey, that was frivolous.

You have to pay the $1 million judgment there.

They've also affirmed now the dismissal of another lawsuit.

And they say this, Donald Trump alleges that CNN published false statements of fact when it used the phrase big lie in relation to Trump.

which he asserted was intended to associate him with Hitler and Nazi propaganda.

The Court of Appeals goes on to say this, they dismissed this notion out of hand.

They say to be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump's actions and statements were designed to be and actually were.

variations of those that Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations.

Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN's statements.

Therefore, he has failed to state a defamation claim, and they reject some other related claims, similarly as Maryland's.

All of that, all of that coming out of the Eleventh Circuit, again, handing him two losses in civil cases,

even as all of this litigation continues to proceed ahead.

All of it, all of it, a part of our broadcast.

Why?

It's a part of our mission to ensure that you know what's going on.

It is not everything that's going on.

An awful lot, of course, focused on problems with related to, related to the cutting room floor.

But here on Amicus Alara, we will continue to address all of those in future broadcasts.

Stay with us then and in those future weeks and have a good weekend, everybody.

The national news cycle never stops, 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.