Transcript
Bombing Venezuela And The Definition Of An Occupation
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Jan 3, 2026
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.
I am your host for this hour and also next hour on these broadcast stations of Civic Media.
I am, as always, honored and most pleased that you have chosen to spend some of your weekend in discussion, in conversation, in review, in exposition of some of the major issues in the areas of law and government.
and the administration of justice in America and beyond and that reference this weekend to beyond takes on special meaning because we're going to spend some time in these initial moments these initial minutes this first hour of our broadcasting reporting on commenting on and providing some rule of law perspective about
this major international event that has happened overnight.
The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, announcing a large-scale strike against the nation of Venezuela.
We're going to be talking about that in great detail, talking in particular about the constitutional applications of that, and also an indictment, an indictment in the Southern District of New York.
against the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.
He and his wife now, presumably in United States custody, will talk about the legal implications of this, even as the news of this story.
probably somewhere around eight hours old happening in the very early morning hours of Saturday.
All of this happening as we think about the rule of law implications of this strike, this warlike activity, this attack upon Caracas and at least three other locations inside the nation, the sovereign nation of Venezuela, the justifications for that obviously already under review in disagreement.
We'll talk about what some members of Congress have already said about this, raising the very constitutional issues that we are going to discuss in these first moments of our broadcast.
We'll talk as well about some of the international reactions to it, both positive and negative.
We'll talk about the implications of that indictment.
And what that means for the future, the custody of Nicholas Maduro and, yes, his wife, Cecilia Flores, who is also now in United States custody, no longer in Caracas, no longer in Venezuela.
It is necessary to give some sense of perspective on all of this.
There will be a lot of that forthcoming in the hours, days, weeks, presumably months coming forward.
But this day, as we take in the news of this major military
military strike by the United States Army, the United States military, the United States Navy.
There plainly was a ground invasion.
That is the only way that we could possibly have acquired the custody, taken Nicholas Maduro and his wife into custody, taken them apparently onto the USS Iwo Jima, the warship in the Caribbean, and presumably, presumably anticipating
their arrival in the United States under custody to face charges here in the United States.
We're going to be talking about all of that with special emphasis once again on constitutional aspects and criminal procedure aspects of what is happening even as the news is breaking in Venezuela and the United States of America.
As always on that issue and the many other issues that we will talk about Principally in the second hour of our broadcast here on amicus a lot of you We invite your questions your inquiries your comments your perspectives on any and all of that.
It is important
that we hear from you.
This is not only a discussion, but it is also an exchange and exposition as are virtually all of the broadcasts on civic media of thoughts, perspectives, views, observations about the world in which we live.
Our broadcast, Amicus Allora View, meaning friend of the community, I tend to provide some information that animates, that animates and drives the discussion about policy and practice.
The phone number, the phone number for you to call in is 855-752-4842.
That phone number once again is 855-752-4842.
You can call in.
And my outstanding producer, Greg,
and I will take your phone call, your question, your inquiry, and you can also, you can also communicate with us by text, the same number, you can drop your comment, your question into the chat box of civic media, all of those ways of communicating with us on this special weekend, this special time of discussion once again about the ways in which the rule of law and constitutional procedure and the fundamental notions that guide our administration of justice
are impacted by and have applications inside the breaking news of these days.
This day, this weekend, having to do with the United States attack upon the sovereign nation of Venezuela, the apprehension of the leader.
of that nation and the return of the leader and his wife to America.
In addition to that, in our second hour, we will do what we normally do, which is to discuss other things in the area of the rule of law, the administration of justice, and the operation of government.
We're going to be spending some time talking once again, yes indeed, about the United States Supreme Court.
Why?
Because they are gearing up.
They're readying.
their pens, their pads, their questions, their assembly of rulings on now some 51 cases, 51 cases pending before the High Court of the United States of America.
We're gonna update you on some of those cases that are coming up for oral argument next week, next week, and we'll spend some time in our broadcast the following weekend talking about the takeaways, the tea leaves, if you will,
From those oral arguments on everything from yes, that's right, the Supreme Court taking up transgender women in women's sports, two major cases being argued on the 13th of January.
We'll talk about the implications of a major gun case going to be argued on January 20th, having to do with concealed carry, private properties, public properties.
And yes, we're going to talk about another issue related to the powers of the presidency, a major theme
of this Supreme Court's term, this time around, and also, of course, in recent times, this one having to do with whether or not the president of the United States of America has the capacity, the constitutional, the congressional power granted to him, or maybe not, to fire a member of the Federal Reserve.
Lisa Cook is her name and as you know her information and her status has been looming large in the stories of Washington and our nation as we think about the powers of the presidency with respect to independent agencies all of that is coming up in the next couple of weeks before the Supreme Court will give you an advance notice about those and then we're also going to hear from John Roberts himself because John Roberts just this past week issued his end of year report
We'll talk about what he said, we'll talk about what he did not say to the American population about some of the major challenges before the Supreme Court, but we'll talk about his affirmation of the independence of the judiciary, what that means for you, for me, for the Congress, for the presidency, and we'll talk also, also about what that means going forward.
This past week has also seemed some major rule of law news when it comes to once again the National Guard this issue that does not go away nor should it We know well that the United States Supreme Court on one of its emergency docket decisions of just the past 10 days or so Said that Chicago Chicago needs to be free at least for now of a National Guard intervention at the direction of the president without without
the consent, the invitation of the governor there of Illinois, the Supreme Court, sending to the White House a major blow in terms of its attempt to accomplish law enforcement in the city of Chicago by invoking, by deploying the National Guard, the Supreme Court, saying can't do it, at least for now, and upholding lower courts, restricting the president's ability to do just that.
A couple more developments coming out of this National Guard issue, even in the wake of that.
Supreme Court decision of last week, one, perhaps reading his own tea leaves, the president announcing that he is going to be abandoning his efforts to pursue and to deploy the National Guard in three major cities, including Chicago, going forward.
Not, not indefinitely indicating he may do this again down the road, but obviously saying that the Supreme Court is not amenable, not supportive of his decisions, of his approach to the deployment of the National Guard, the President unilaterally saying, I'm going to abandon my policies in those cities, and then virtually at the same time.
We have a decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out of California, the Ninth Circuit, of course, broader than just California, but a case coming out of Los Angeles challenging the presence of the National Guard at the borders and inside Los Angeles.
a major appeals court decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is not a district court, it's not a trial court.
It is a Ninth Circuit appellate court decision to that same end saying, you know what?
The president does not have the authority to do this.
Another major blow from the jurisprudential perspective to what the president wants to do.
All of that, a part of our presentation, our discussion with you about the rule of law.
And as always, we will spend some time
talking about many other issues in the area of rule of law, lots of rule of law snapshots, once again, affirming the continuing role of our federal district court, our trial court judges in places far and wide throughout our nation, entering orders that enforce the United States Constitution, that enforce the laws of our land and everything regarding arrests of immigrants at immigration courts.
We'll talk about the Louisville Police Department,
a decision there made by a judge.
We'll talk about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the status of South Sudanese immigrants, and their status pending their immigration reviews, and all of that, all of that, a part of our review of what district court judges are doing.
Time permitting, we'll also talk about something that Jack Smith spoke about just this past week.
You recall Jack Smith, the now former special counsel who prosecuted not to their conclusion, but along the way, the cases against Donald Trump.
focusing on Mar-a-Lago documents and the January 6 insurrection.
He appeared in front of the United States Congress just this past week, and in closed session, now released to the American public, testified about the compelling nature of the criminal prosecution that he would have presented, at least as to the January 6 case.
We'll tell you about what Jack Smith said, basically his modified opening statement that he would have given.
would have given if those cases had not been necessarily dismissed by the Department of Justice.
In that connection, we'll also talk about what something that Eileen Cannon did.
Remember her?
She's a district court judge presiding over that Mar-a-Lago case.
We'll tell you what she did, what she did in connection with that case involving the president's possession, arguably use of classified and other national security documents.
Eileen Cannon, back in the news,
Again, in connection with the Mar-a-Lago documents case, it is a lot.
As we always say, there is a lot going on in the rule of law.
There's a lot going on in the areas of justice.
And we'll also hear, we'll also hear in connection with the Venezuelan attack, the warlike attack upon the Venezuelan people and the nation there, the apprehension of...
a defendant facing indictment.
He happens to be the president of Venezuela.
We'll also hear about what our Attorney General Pam Bondi said about that and we'll comment on the nature of her response to all of this.
All of that's coming up here on Amicus.
A lot of you stay with us for that and much more here on Civic Media Stations.
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.
I am joined here in the Civic Media studio here in Racine Park by my terrific producer, Greg, and together we're taking your phone calls, your texts, your inquiries, your questions at 855-752-4842 or in the Civic Media chat box as well.
We are beginning, we are beginning our special broadcast this weekend by coverage of what we know.
about this story breaking less than eight hours ago when the president of the United States of America, his name is Donald Trump, he announced to the world, to our nation, to all of us that in the early morning hours on Saturday, the United States not only captured the president of Venezuela, his name is Nicholas Maduro and his wife,
and have bringing them back to the United States of America, but also announcing and also announcing and a major military operation described by President Trump in a social media post of very early this morning as a large scale strike inside Venezuela.
And that of course, as you know from your own listening to this broadcast and others here on civic media and throughout the world follows months of threats and warnings and accusations of drugs.
smuggling by Donald Trump against Nicholas Maduro.
And general antagonism attacks upon those Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean, other places in the high seas.
This morning, the president announcing again, this large scale strike against Venezuela, reporting along the way that the strike obviously attacked.
bombs and violence happening in the nation's capital there, Caracas, and also three other military bases, according to an awful lot of tracking data coming out of the reporting area in Venezuela and beyond.
We know all of this again because the president has confirmed it.
He has also indicated that he is going to be speaking to the American public, to the world sometime in about an hour from now, which is about
11 o'clock Eastern time on the East Coast, 10 o'clock Central time.
We'll cover that as well.
We'll provide you with some information about what he says in addition to what he said to us about the truth on truth social about this event.
Among others responding to this event, the vice president of Venezuela, she is still there in Venezuela.
This strike, this attack upon Venezuela in Caracas and in other military bases in three other provinces, three other areas of Venezuela, did not in fact take out, did not involve the death.
of any other leaders that we know of, apparently some casualties there in Venezuela, but not the death of any leaders in Venezuela.
Delcey Rodriguez, who is next in the presidential line of succession there, she issued a statement condemning
condemning what the United States has done.
And it appears as well that Maduro allies have survived these attacks.
They included of Vladimir Lopez, the defense minister, and Venezuela's top-ranking military officer, Diasoto Cabello, the interior minister, and one of Mr. Maduro's top
top allies, all of that, all of that suggesting that the government there still in place.
One of the questions, of course, being raised right away is, what about the opposition later?
You may recall her.
Her name is Maria Corino Machado.
Why do you recall her name?
Well, she won the Nobel Peace Prize not too long ago.
Recall this reporting about her leaving.
Venezuela to accept that award she didn't make it there quite in time but her daughter was there to accept the Nobel Peace Prize there in Oslo on her behalf questions now about what exactly may happen with respect to the next government it remains in place what about what about the opposition leader
Many people supporting her and suggesting that she perhaps should now be in a leadership position the president of the United States of America not yet committing not at saying at all anything about who if anyone the United States might support an awful lot of focus of course this morning upon regime change and this notion this notion about the authority of the president about any government to overthrow and
affect regime change of the sort that we are seeing there in Venezuela.
We've got, of course, an awful lot of response around the world, including some criticism, even from Democrats and others on Capitol Hill.
Representative Jim Himes, he's from Connecticut.
He's a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The president said the Democrats like him are weak.
Stupid people.
That's his statement at the time of this warlike activity.
Here's what the president went on to say.
He said already they should say, meaning the Democrats, they should say great job.
They shouldn't say, he said, oh gee, maybe it's not constitutional.
You know, the same old stuff that we've been hearing for years and years and years.
Indeed, people are already raising the issue that we will talk about next, which is the constitutionality of this.
Not providing you with answers because those will be forthcoming when perhaps congressional oversight kicks in, when more people weigh in on this late breaking story, answering the question that Jim Himes and others are raising.
that our president is dismissing.
suggesting that there is no constitutional dimension to this at all, suggesting, indicating very clearly that he has the power not only to do this, but also to do it with any sort of congressional oversight, suggesting that that thing related to the Constitution, that's what we've been hearing he said for years and years and years, suggesting that these people who say it may not be constitutional should be dismissed.
They should instead say, great job.
That issue.
of course, that Congressman Himes raised, and others will be raising in the times just ahead, comes where it does come from our Constitution.
We've talked about this before in connection with the Venezuelan boats.
You know where it's found.
It is in section eight.
of the first article of the Constitution establishing what should be a vibrant and muscular and powerful legislature declaring war that's within the power of the United States Congress granting letters of reprisal making rules about captures on land and water raising and supporting armies and doing other things like navies and rules of regulation of the land and naval forces
All of that in the Constitution.
When we come back, we'll talk more about that and more about the implications of what's going on in America and in Venezuela here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is amicus a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel together with my outstanding producer Greg We're taking your phone calls your questions your inquiries about this major breaking international national news story involving our attack upon the nation of Venezuela Caracas and the apprehension of the
President of that nation his name is Nicholas Maduro and his wife presumably being brought back even as we speak and as we think about these issues back to the United States of America all of that in the wake of a very early morning attack by our military upon places in and around The capital including some military bases as well lots lots of international and national responses coming in United Nations
Secretary General Antonio Guterres saying in a statement that he was alarmed by the events in Venezuela.
and warned that the United States military action there would could have wider implications for the region he said independently of the situation in Venezuela these developments constitute a dangerous precedent he called for international law to be respected plainly he's getting some support even from inside our nation suggesting not only concerns about international law but also about violations of the constitution that too that too will be
the subject of an awful lot of commentary, congressional review, perhaps oversight, commentary by Americans about the authority of a president to do this kind of thing.
And even as that is happening, an awful lot of commentary reaction from around the world, including other places, both our friends and our allies,
commenting upon all of this.
The implications of this with respect to a constitutional issue are real.
And as we think about and get more information about exactly what did and did not happen here, those questions about the constitutionality of a president engaging in this kind of conduct loom large.
We know well from some of the initial commentary from other members of Congress.
They were not previously advised of this particular action.
Certainly there's no declaration of war, nor were they provided with an opportunity to offer to the president to confirm for the president authority, which they have authority to do, to engage in this kind of military action on a limited basis.
It is possible for a president to go into the Congress,
obviously clandestinely, without public exposition, and ask for authority to do a limited kind of strike.
It appears that he did not do that either, which is again going to be the subject of an awful lot of review by members of Congress, perhaps on both sides of the political aisle.
That is the constitutional implication of all of this.
There is also, as I've indicated, a major, a major criminal procedural issue here as well.
Nicholas Maduro, now finding his way along with his wife back to the United States of America right now on a major warship.
They're in the Caribbean, the U.S.
Iwo Jima, a warship they're bringing him and his wife back to the United States of America.
We don't know exactly where they're going to be.
They are now in the custody.
The president of Nicaragua is now, I'm sorry, Venezuela is now in the custody of the United States of America.
because of an earlier indictment five years ago, there was an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the southern district of New York.
We have talked about that a lot in the past.
This once again is a grand jury of 23 American citizens gathered together to determine whether or not, whether or not there's probable cause to believe that an identified target, in this case, Nicholas Maduro,
has engaged in conduct that is violative of American law.
Important to note the difference between international law, which can in fact be the subject of other proceedings.
And here, a finding five years ago, back in 2020, by a federal grand jury in New York City, which is the Southern District of New York, finding that Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro, and several other Venezuelan officials, according to the indictment, participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy between one of the cartels and a group called FARC.
They're the armed
Colombian group known as FARC, a revolutionary group there.
You probably have heard a lot about them as well.
At the time, the United States Attorney General William Barr said that the Venezuelan regime that was the subject of this indictment, plaguing the country by their activity and plagued by criminality and corruption, and that Maduro and a number of high-ranking colleagues had conspired with the FARC to smuggle.
tons of cocaine into the United States that according to William Barr former Attorney General way back in 2020 at the time that this indictment was returned others charged in the 2020 indictment including Venezuela's Minister of Defense is Chief Supreme Court Justice and two other leaders of the FARC so that is the pending indictment and indeed it was in the wake of the announcement of the attack on Venezuela the
apprehension of Nicholas Maduro has been under indictment for all these years, the apprehension as well of his spouse, Cecilia Flores, all of them now in custody, presumably on this military ship, this warship, the USS Iwo Jima in the Caribbean, bringing them back, presumably to the United States of America to face an arraignment and further proceedings on that pending indictment.
Now,
as is often the case the attorney general of the united states of america her name again is pam bondy she weighed in on all of this even again in these early hours of this event she described the indictment she has posted an indictment she has suggested a couple of things she has suggested that there may in fact be a superseding indictment what is that that's a big word basically a a legal a criminal constitutional procedural word that says that we may
now amend that indictment to include additional charges, specifically focusing upon Nicholas Maduro's wife, Cecilia Flores, that may be forthcoming if it hasn't already happened, suggesting in social media that a superseding indictment could be forthcoming.
and also also noting in language that is stunning for an attorney general to repeat to announce to articulate in the public domain that while they're indeed are pending charges nothing wrong with that nothing wrong with announcing what those charges are the nature of the offense conduct the kind of thing that the defendants
face when they are coming back into the justice system here in America.
Nothing wrong with providing information necessary, important information for the people of this nation and of the world to know about the reason, the legal reason for not only the charges, but also their apprehension being brought to justice.
But based upon this indictment alleging these drug and weapons charges against Maduro, she has also indicated that he will, quote, soon face the full wrath, WRATH, the Wrath of American Justice.
I would offer to you, as we have talked about before, that language matters, that even in this time of what can only be called an international crisis, where quite literally we are,
engaging in warlike activity with another sovereign nation.
We have apprehended, perhaps illegally, perhaps illegally, perhaps invoking international law as the leader of the United Nations has indicated, the Secretary General, certainly promising an awful lot of debate about the constitutionality of the President's authority to do all of this.
All of that discussion in the midst of that, the principal, the Chief Federal Law Enforcement
officer of our nation, speaking about our criminal justice system being a force, a mechanism of wrath, of wrath.
No, Pam Bondi.
It is a mechanism for ensuring the safety and security of our nation.
It is a mechanism for ensuring that there is deterrence, both individual and general deterrence.
It's a mechanism for ensuring through the grand jury process, through the pretrial motion process, through the trial process, if there's a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous jury,
for a sensing proceeding and appeals.
Embrace all of that because that's what our system is all about.
And that's the reason why we should be so proud of the mechanisms that people like James Madison and George Mason put in place 236 years ago.
But it's not a system based upon wrath.
It's not a system based upon anger.
of interpretive kind of engagement of the sort that we're hearing from our Attorney General.
I would offer to all of you that while the Attorney General, yes indeed, does have an obligation, as does the U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of New York, of telling us more about what will happen, what will happen to Maduro and his spouse in the days and weeks ahead, and we will certainly follow this.
It will be a major story.
The notion that this should be a symbol of an illustration of what our criminal justice system
is all about here, which is wrath, according to our Attorney General, inappropriate and inconsistent with what has been well over 200 years of criminal justice in our nation.
We do not prosecute people based upon who they are, their moral worth, what the kind of person they may be.
We prosecute people upon the kinds of things that they do and the conduct in which they engage.
That's the predicate, not
based upon vindictiveness or other reasons, other reasons that may well also be the subject of the analysis going forward.
As always, we invite your comments, your questions, your observations about all of that, even as we continue to monitor this major event in Venezuela, in the United States, on the seas of the Western Hemisphere.
You can call in at 855-752-4842.
My outstanding producer tells me that
We have the possibility as well of hearing directly or indirectly from the President of the United States of America within the next few moments, the next hour or so, as he has promised to speak.
to the American population to speak to the world about the reasons for this attack, presumably about the apprehension of the Venezuelan president, what's happening next, responding perhaps to some of these constitutional challenges already being identified, talking about the
military event there, what happened, what did not happen.
We know that there have been casualties there.
We know that there's plainly been property destruction based upon this military initiative there in Venezuela.
We will anticipate hearing more from the president of the United States of America shortly as we think about all of these issues, international, national, and yes indeed, they have these rule of law.
administration of justice, operation of government issues, welded and embraced inside all of them.
We will continue, of course, to talk more about that as significant issues break.
We have other things, however, on our docket.
And those include, those include, things related to the United States Supreme Court.
We know the United States Supreme Court is addressing many of these issues in its current term.
specifically issues related to the powers and the authorities of this president to engage in various things.
The president's powers and authorities have already been the subject of tests in oral arguments.
We've talked about those in the past of the late months of 2025.
Cases involving the powers of the presidency
to terminate members of the Federal Trade Commission.
Remember, that's the case involving Rebecca Slaughter.
That case pending before the Supreme Court.
Another major case addressing the powers of the presidency having to do with tariffs.
And when we come back, we'll tell you more about some of the oral arguments coming up before the Supreme Court.
And we'll hear from the Supreme Court Chief Justice as well.
All of that coming up here on Amicus, a lot of you.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
This is Amicus.
A lot of you, we are continuing to cover this breaking story involving a major military action, a large scale strike against Venezuela, according to the president of the United States of America, taking place in the early morning hours of this Saturday.
the day in American history and also raising questions as we necessarily do, as all Americans can and should about constitutional issues, international law issues, and indeed, indeed as well, process issues related to the return of the Venezuelan president to American justice, to the American...
geography itself.
We know that just in the past several moments, a judge in the Southern District of New York, that is the venue, that's the district in which this indictment has been pending against Nicholas Maduro, has unsealed a new indictment, a new indictment against President Nicholas Maduro.
It opens by saying that for 25 years, the leaders of Venezuela have, quote, abused their positions of public trust and corrupted
once legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States.
The charges in this newly released new indictment are apparently the same as in the 2020 indictment from five years ago that provided the predicate for the apprehension of Maduro.
But there is a whole lot more political rhetoric inside this indictment.
There are four counts in both indictments, including narco-terrorism as before, conspiracy to
cocaine and possession of machine guns, which when combined with some of the drug trafficking charges, carrying potentially much longer prison sentences, not only under the statutory authority there, but also under the sentencing guidelines.
The earlier indictment, named five defendants, the new indictment, the new one, names six, including Maduro's wife and also his son.
The new indictment also names the Minister of the Interior, Rhondon, who was charged previously.
It adds two new defendants while dropping three others who had been charged in 2020.
Again, all of that, all of that late breaking when a district court judge does as a judge can do releases this newly returned indictment.
We will continue to monitor all of that.
We appreciate, as always, so much the contributions of callers and of participants in our discussion.
And we have Mark already on the phone from Prairie DuSac.
Mark, appreciate your participation here on AMICA's Solar Review.
Yeah, good morning.
It's kind of ironic to me that Donald Trump just got done pardoning
the Honduran president for 400 tons of cocaine that he was convicted of bringing into the United States and now he's going after Maduro on drug charges.
And equally, as I understand it, the founders were actually deeply concerned with the United States engaging in military adventures in which this has, even though there is some rule of law issues here, that they are deeply concerned about this military adventures and that's why we do not have a
They didn't want to have a standing army, and they were deeply concerned about some man using this kind of thing to become a new Caesar, because that's what Caesar did, is to achieve powers.
He went on his military adventures and gained himself a fortune, and doing so is how he bribed his way into becoming, coming back to Rome, as I understand history, and that it is just a...
deeply disturbing that we're doing this rather than-
Exactly.
Lots of history, and obviously folks are gonna be looking back, not only at international history, but our own history.
You're absolutely right, Mark, about what James Madison, others, contemplated.
There is a reason.
There is a reason why the powers to declare war are right there in the first article of the Constitution, Section 8, in the legislature.
We recognize well that in recent times, in our lifetimes, we have had
in the wake of World War II and World War I, where we did have declared wars sought by presidents, resolutions made by the Congress to declare war.
We have engaged in many other wars in which, yes, there have been resolutions of various kinds, but declarations have become almost antiquated.
We identify this issue of just this week and the attack there in Venezuela as being another opportunity for us to engage in discussion about what
the authority of the Congress is.
We know as well that the Congress has passed an awful lot of legislation that does give the executive some authorities when it comes to engaging in military-like operations of a limited nature, both in terms of the focus of it and the timing of it, but has not, has not, at least up until now, ceded that authority to declare war and do the other things that go along with it.
That language in the article
of the Constitution, the first article contemplates lots of authorities by the legislature to support and promote wars with our military.
And it also contemplates an execution of that by the president in his role as commander-in-chief, not to be overlooking that as well.
Mark, you make a very, very important point about all of this.
Historically, the questions will continue, the commentary will continue about this constitutional issue, and also necessarily about
this issue related to the process now facing.
Nicholas Maduro, his wife, others, presumably being returned at some point, an incredible event coming up at some point soon in our own American history of a president, presumably still a president of Venezuela, a sitting president appearing in a federal court.
in America facing arraignment being told by a federal district court judge what the charges are against him and his wife and then scheduling the matter on not only for further proceedings but making a determination as we've talked before about whether or not Nicholas Maduro faces faces and presents a risk of flight and a danger to the community the detention hearing coming up all of that going to be fascinating in the days just ahead as we think about the international
national and national implications of all of this.
When we return in our second hour, more related to that, more related to what our president may be telling us soon, and also visiting the Supreme Court on Amicus, Allah review.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, and my name is Jim Santel.
This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast addressing a great variety of issues all across the geography of rule of law, administration of justice, operation of government.
As always, inviting your questions, your comments, your inquiries, that telephone number, 855-752-4842.
My outstanding producer, Greg, and I will take those
phone calls from you, your questions, your comments, addressing in the first hour of our weekend broadcast, this breaking news having to do with the attack by our United States military upon Venezuela, upon the capital there, Caracas, at least three or four other locations there, including some military operations.
The president of the United States of America announcing very early on Saturday morning that the United States had carried out what he called a large scale strike against Venezuela and also confirming that the president of that nation, Nicholas Maduro and his wife have been captured and describing the overall operation he said is a brilliant operation actually significantly the Venezuelan government that is still in place in the
context of the vice president there has declared a state of emergency in response to the attacks, lots and lots of questions, lots and lots of facts, and we are in fact anticipating sometime soon, we don't know quite when, that the president of the United States of America may supplement
what we know about what's going on in Venezuela, supplement and add to the comments he made in the very early morning hours of this day, commenting upon that operation in Venezuela.
As the president takes the dais, as he takes the podium and provides that, Greg and I will provide you with either reporting on that or direct broadcast of what the president may say about this major rule of law event,
major international event, this major military event happening as we gather in these first days of 2026.
We know that in these first days, upcoming days of 2026, the United States Supreme Court is also going to be resuming oral arguments on many of those 51 cases on its docket.
Let me give you just a little bit of a sense of what's going to be coming up in the next couple of weeks.
Major issues
of the sort that it has also been wrestling with in the last months of 2025 on the 13th of January.
Just a couple of weeks from now, the Supreme Court is going to be entertaining argument in too much related cases.
One of them is called Little versus Hecox, H-E-C-O-X.
Another one is called West Virginia versus BPJ.
That's the initials of a youthful person.
Both of them having to do with the presence, issues related to the presence of transgender women, participation of transgender women in women's sports.
Lots of title nine.
issues there, lots of equal protection issues there as well.
Supreme Court is going to be wrestling with that major social issue, that major issue related to how we understand LGBTQIA issues, how we understand sports in America, and what we should be doing in connection with the enforcement of the Constitution and the laws of our United States of America, that coming up on the 13th.
On the 20th and 21st, two other major cases, one of the
them called Wolford versus Lopez.
This is a major, one of the major cases involving guns at the Supreme Court is always interested in.
This one has to do with the curing of concealed weapons on private property versus public property, some nuances there that will further add to the jurisprudence of what the Supreme Court has said.
under the Second Amendment about the capacity, the constitutionality of owning, possessing, using, in this case, carrying in a concealed status weapons in America.
That's Wolford versus Lopez.
And then the following day, a major case involving, again, presidential powers, which we're thinking about a lot in this weekend.
This case, Trump versus Cook,
the cook of that title is lisa cook she is on the federal reserve along with other members other members of the federal reserve that independent agency created by the congress to be independent of the president the president nonetheless has fired lisa cook
and said, I no longer need your services.
You are removed from your capacity.
And the question is, can he do that?
Does he have the authority to do that in a situation where at least legislatively, the legislature, when it created the Federal Reserve,
like many other agencies, has said the president does not have the authority, has the authority to appoint, but can only, can only terminate those appointments upon good cause for abuse, for malfeasance, misfeasance, things that would be good cause in the traditional sense.
Here, here for political reasons, for reasons related to differences that he has with Lisa Cook about Federal Reserve issues, he has said, I want you gone.
And the question is, can he do that?
Interestingly, while in the area of the Federal Trade Commission, which we heard about previously, it appears that the Supreme Court may be well inclined to grant the president powers to get rid of FTC commissioners and maybe others here, here.
The Federal Reserve not only has its own case separate and apart from that earlier oral argument,
But note, too, that the Supreme Court has routinely identified inside the Federal Reserve kind of a special status.
They've commented what may sometimes be regarded as dicta.
That is not really the rule of the case.
But commented that the Federal Reserve may have a special condition, a special posture that makes it different from those other agencies, maybe just maybe carving out something of an exception when it comes to presidential authority.
in that area and maybe finding that the president does not, does not have the authority.
We'll see.
On the 21st of this month, as in the United States Supreme Court, the members take up oral argument on that matter.
Many other cases, of course, coming up in February and March and April, all of those at any time leading to the issuance of decisions by the Supreme Court on the cases in which they've had oral argument, those could come at any time as you know well.
Many of them happen in late June, sometimes even early July, right before the 4th of July break.
In that connection, as we think about the upcoming anniversary, the 250th anniversary of our nation, the 236th anniversary we are in right now, the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is tradition for the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice to issue a year-end report.
And John Roberts has done that.
just this past week or so.
He closed out 2025 with a message that is steeped in history, lots and lots of history, all of us like history.
We've talked about it a lot on this broadcast.
He has invoked Thomas Paine's common sense and the Declaration of Independence to underscore what he describes as the enduring strength of America's constitutional framework.
And indeed the framework is still there and awful lot of questions about the
challenges to it, the constitutional crises when one
portion of our government refuses to do with another portion dictates an awful lot of issues about the authoritarian nation and nature of the executive branch and awful lot of issues about the great authorities that John Roberts Supreme Court has granted to this president in making decisions about what he can and cannot do much of that as you know well about and inside the emergency or shadow docket.
the Chief Justice not commenting at all upon that practice, but saying instead that the Constitution and Declaration are firm and unshaken.
Those are his words, firm and unshaken.
He's borrowing that line from a former president.
His name is Calvin Coolidge.
In 1926, in the sesquicentennial address, that's exactly what President Calvin Coolidge said about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
We are firm and we are unshaken.
John Roberts in 2025, late hours of last year says, true then.
true now.
It's a 13-page letter.
It's accessible.
It's online.
And although the Chief Justice, as I indicated, avoided any controversial issues, including what could only be described as those political storms that are out there, you'll recall well all of the ethics issues that have seemingly not grabbed recent history, but nonetheless remain looming large when we think about the ethics and the concerns about justices, engaging in decision-making in cases in which they may have some
personal and private interests, those are still pending without the articulation, the codification of a real ethics guide for the Supreme Court.
Nothing about that.
in the Chief Justice's year and report.
And nothing at all about these major decisions of the past couple of years, reversing in some cases 50, likely in one case, 90 years of precedent and doing it with the stroke of a pen, sometimes, sometimes adopting policies and procedures that can only be embraced inside the unitary executive theory, granting this president a huge amount of authority, including especially,
that major opinion on July 1 of 2024 finding for the first time that a chief executive or president is in fact immune is subject to protection from criminal prosecution for certain kinds of crimes that he one day she may commit inside the presidency itself.
All of that, all of that
A part of our history, none of it, none of it commented upon by the Chief Justice in his annual end of the year report.
Doesn't talk, nor should he talk about the tariffs issues, these executive power issues, the immigration issues, the Voting Rights Act issues, all of those things pending in front of him.
because, of course, it would be inappropriate to talk about the resolution of those, but we anticipate hearing from him on all of those.
Instead, the Chief Justice's focus is on the judiciary's role as what he describes as a counter-majoritarian check, a check inside the checks and balances of our system.
Reminding readers, reminding all of us, he is certainly instructing us, he's hoping that we'll take instruction that life tenure
and salary protections, those are established by the Constitution of the United States of America, or at least according to the ways it's been interpreted, that those ideas of life tenure and salary protections are designed to ensure what?
Judicial independence.
John Roberts writing about all of that, affirming these fundamental notions that has animated
much of our discussion about the Supreme Court in recent times.
Needless to say, a lot of that is going to be refocused when the Supreme Court makes decisions about these kinds of things in the future.
In the past, as you may recall, the Chief Justice issued what was a fairly rare rebuke.
of donald trump after the president called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against the president in a deportation case involving involving venezuelan migrants remember that uh... trump has also issued his fair share of warnings to the high court
late last year, the president warned the Supreme Court that in connection with its tariffs ruling, a ruling against him, he said, and that key case on his powers to apply tariffs would be the biggest threat in history to the United States national security.
That's what the president said, plainly directing that information to the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice not responding to that.
Instead, it's doing clear of controversies, but providing this historical framework, sending a signal about legitimacy, resting on principles that predate partisan battles.
All of that, all of that in this 13-page letter.
Now available for review for examination as the Supreme Court again in the weeks ahead Implements those processes these those procedures in the revisitation of these major issues when we come back We'll talk more about cases pending in the district courts and perhaps even here from the president of the United States of America as amicus a lot of you continues
This is amicus a lot of you my name is Jim Santel your host for this remaining hour of our weekly weekend broadcast and all things related to the rule of law appreciate so much the calls and the questions the increase the observations from our listeners out there including Greg who writes in with some very good thoughts identifying once again
All sorts of things about checks and balances.
Where are they?
He says.
These are being eroded under our very eyes.
How can the American people check and balance the government?
Again, identifying Greg as you do there, the major issue of our time.
We have talked on this broadcast in the past, Greg, to your very point about my assessment that we are now in a constitutional crisis that effectively by mid-March of last year at the time that the administration, the Department of Justice, first began to tell judges, no, we're not doing what you say, that with respect to those 238 migrants who were deported without due process to El Salvador, that happened.
in March of last year, mid-September, late September.
We entered what I view as an authoritarian government at the first time that a president at his Pacific behest got secured an indictment against a political enemy.
His name is James Comey.
There was more after that with respect to Letitia James.
That happened on September 25th, and we moved into yet another.
not unprecedented, but hugely concerning time in American history when authoritarianism taken over by a president who's now directing that his political enemies be indicted as they were.
Those cases now dismissed by virtue of some of the incompetence and the lack of precision by a Department of Justice doing what the president wants it to do.
Nonetheless, major events in our recent history that give us all
as they do to Greg and others among our listing group, that will continue to be one of the major questions, if not the major inquiry of 2026.
What does our government mean?
What do the three branches of government mean and what should they be doing in the midst of a system?
It does still exist.
where we do have checks and balances, as Greg notes, and they should be doing their jobs.
Big questions, Greg, as you know, about the role of the legislature.
We have been monitoring a lot this broadcast about what the Congress is saying about the President's apparently unilateral decision to attack Venezuela, the powers of the presidency, the powers of the Congress declaring war, not declaring war, getting prior notice of what the President is going to do,
That is a check and that's a balance that's appropriate for discussion.
There will be more discussions, obviously, about the role of the Supreme Court in making some of these major policy decisions when it comes to issues that maybe should be inside the legislature.
Where is the legislature deciding and ruling on
If enacting laws being signed by or not signed by the president, that are the roles of legislators.
We send people to Congress, the House and the Senate, so they can be our voices there.
Where are they?
And instead, do we not have a president who is legislating?
Through executive orders and doing a lot of that with the permission of the Supreme Court a Supreme Court saying in many instances Yes, you can do that.
Where is the legislature that too?
Greg is one of the one of the major
questions that are out there with respect to checks and balances.
Appreciate so very much the comment and the observation about where we are in America.
Chief Justice this past week issuing his end of the year report and saying that all of that remains strong.
There is integrity there, not, not addressing any of those issues that all of us are thinking about.
and all of us are concerned about regardless of political affiliation, regardless of where you stand on the partisan geography of America.
All of these things should be of concern and focus and attention.
When we continue to have our discussions, we'll be offering some ways in the next broadcasts about ways in which Americans, in response to Greg's good comment, can do things.
Can do things in response.
We've talked about those.
They're called the guardrails inside our Constitution, inside our system of government.
They are in many ways holding and that includes that includes among those guardrails the federal courts that includes principally federal district court judges.
There are a lot of them virtually every single week who enter orders that support and defend the Constitution that support the legislative actions made by our Congress.
They issue those orders and in many instances they are also the subject of appeals and indeed just this past week we've got a result coming out of the ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's California and other states it's the largest geographic appeals court in our land.
It's the Ninth Circuit telling the Trump administration here it is that it has to return hundreds of California National Guard troops to the authority and to the supervision of whom
Governor Gavin Newsom of the state of California.
Governor Newsom now has to resume control that according to the federal appellate court ruling just this past week.
The troops, as you know, are under the president's command since he sent them to Los Angeles this past summer following protests there over immigration raids that were attracting president's attention plainly, plainly the attention of Californians, including the governor.
and others.
The order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, undeniably a win for Governor Newsom, was vigorously opposed.
The president's moves to control the California National Guard.
Since the mobilization of some 4,000, 4,000 troops in June, most of those were later withdrawn.
Some 300 troops have remained
under federal control.
The governor is saying, I'm glad President Trump has finally admitted defeat.
We've said all along the federalization of the National Guard.
in California is illegal, we welcome our California National Guard service members back to state service.
That is what the governor has said.
And he has made implicit, if not explicit, reference to the other major news having to do with National Guard issues in America.
You may recall that last week the Supreme Court said that in the Chicago situation that it was wrong to federalize the Illinois
National Guard to respond to unrest there.
And in the wake of that, the President announced something else with respect to the future of National Guard deployments in America.
When we come back, I'll tell you about what the President has done here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amica Salawa, my name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about the initiatives, the efforts, the policies of this president to deploy.
to federalize the National Guard in various cities around our nation and the recent events both in the courts and outside the courts indicating that those efforts will be coming to an end in addition to decisions interim decisions of the Supreme Court indicating that at least in Chicago at least in Chicago the president cannot proceed with this plans to deploy the National Guard there over the objection of Governor Pritzker in that state and the wake of that
this additional decision by a ninth circuit panel, likewise telling them with respect to the presence of the National Guard in Los Angeles, that too cannot go forward.
And in the wake of all of that, in the wake of all of those unfavorable decisions indicating that members of the Supreme Court, members of appeals courts in Chicago and Los Angeles district courts around the country saying no, no authority to do this,
The president himself, finally as the governor of California has indicated implicitly, although he wouldn't use this language, admitting defeat and announcing just this past week that he is now abandoning.
He is now abandoning efforts to pursue, to deploy the National Guard in three major cities that includes Portland and Chicago and Los Angeles.
He nonetheless says that while he's going to be withdrawing that initiative, stopping that from going.
He suggested that his administration would not hesitate to deploy troops in the future if circumstances were warranting that kind of executive actions.
And so, lots of news here with respect to the National Guard and their presence, their non-presence now in these three major cities, other places where the National Guard has not been opposed by governors, even by mayors, where their presence is still used.
undeniably issues related to law enforcement America and the involvement of the chief executive, the head of the federal government in matters of state authority and municipal authority, those issues remain large and they are underlying lots of what we talk about here on this radio show and that you think about.
when we contemplate a concept of federalism, that is a difference between a federal government and its authorities and a state government and its authorities, all of that wrapped up in this breaking news, this important news about the National Guard in various states.
around our nation.
As always, we appreciate the comments and questions and inquiries from our listener.
Ali, thank you very much for joining us here on our broadcast.
I understand you have a comment or question about this major breaking news having to do with Nicaragua.
Or
I just was wondering if I understood correctly
that in that pre-existing indictment of Maduro and his wife, did it not say that accuse him also of plundering the people there?
It's called jurisdiction here, venue here, presumably also in the Southern District of New York.
And so all of these activities involving guns and cocaine and the other conspiratorial things that are set forth in both the original indictment and presumably in this new indictment now sealed are related to things that have happened here in this nation, but to your very good point,
because it's set forth in that way in indictment, and that's the way that charges, the criminal charges are set forth, doesn't mean to say that things related to things that he did in Venezuela would not be relevant.
The issues more generally, and again, in some of the introductory language, do suggest broader themes beyond just the particular charges, absolutely.
Go
ahead.
it was Pam Bondi that maybe said that.
Because I'm questioning that if we are allowed to go in there because we don't like the way he is running his country, then would it not be okay for another country to come in and snatch Donald Trump or Putin?
are
Well, I'd like to go.
This was one of the most stunning
effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.
And if you think about it, we've done some other good ones like the attack on Soleimani, the attack on al-Baghdadi, and the obliteration and decimation of the Iran nuclear sites.
Just recently, in an operation known as Midnight Hammer, all perfectly executed and done.
No nation in the world could achieve what America achieved yesterday, or frankly, in just a short period of time.
All Venezuelan military
Capacities were rendered powerless as the men and women of our military working with U.S.
law enforcement successfully captured Maduro and the dead of night.
It was dark.
The lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have.
It was dark and it was deadly.
but captured along with his wife, Cecilia Flores, both of whom now face American justice.
Maduro and Flores have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.
It's Jay Clayton for their campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens.
I want to thank the men and women of our military who achieved such an extraordinary success overnight with breathtaking speed, power, precision, and competence.
You rarely see anything like it.
You've seen some raids in this country that didn't go so well.
They were an embarrassment.
If you look back to Afghanistan or if you look back to the Jimmy Carter days, they were different days.
We're a respected country again, like
maybe like never before.
These highly trained warriors operating in collaboration with U.S.
law enforcement caught them in a very ready position.
They were waiting for us.
They knew we had many ships out in the sea, just sort of waiting.
They knew we were coming.
So they were in a ready, what's called a ready position, but they were completely overwhelmed and
very quickly incapacitated.
If you would have seen what I saw last night, you would have been very impressed.
I'm not sure that you'll ever get to see it, but it was an incredible thing to see.
Not a single American service member was killed, and not a single piece of American equipment was lost.
We had many helicopters, many planes, many people involved in that fight.
But think of that, not one piece of military equipment was lost, not one service member was more importantly killed.
The United States military is the strongest and most fearsome military on the planet.
By far, with capabilities and skills, our enemies can scarcely begin to imagine we have the best equipment anywhere in the world.
There's no equipment like what we have.
And you see that.
Even if you just look at the boats, you know, we've knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by sea 90% each boat kills 25 on average 25,000 people we knocked out 97% And those drugs mostly come from place called Venezuela We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe proper and judicious transition so
We don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years.
So we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.
And it has to be judicious, because that's what we're all about.
We want peace, liberty, and justice for the great people of Venezuela.
And that includes many from Venezuela that are now living in the United States and want to go back to their country.
It's their homeland.
We can't take a chance if somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn't have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.
We've had decades of that.
We're not going to let that happen.
We're there now.
And what people don't understand, but they understand, as I say this, we're there now, but we're going to stay until such time as the proper transition can take place.
So we're going to stay until such time as we're going to run it essentially until such time as a proper transition can take place.
As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust.
That is the president of the United States of America addressing all of us, addressing the world about this major event that happened in the early morning hours of this Saturday, the attack, the military attack by our military upon Venezuela, the apprehension of the president of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro.
Interestingly, in addition to the president speaking right now about that, providing us with a little bit of additional information,
Donald Trump just before this presentation, he's making it at Mar-a-Lago, not at the White House.
He just posted a photo on Trump, on Truth Social, which is of course his social media outlet, and that he said is of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima.
That is where Maduro and his wife have been taken after the apprehension.
The picture apparently shows Maduro in a gray sweatshirt and sweatpants.
Significantly, he is blindfolded.
and he's handcuffed and has large headphones on.
President also posting that as a part of his statement to the world of Venezuela about what has happened here.
The other significant takeaway there are many, even as the president continues to talk about this to all of us, is this.
We are going to run the country.
He said, we're going to run the country until such time as there is a safe and proper and judicious transition.
That suggests obviously an occupation by the United States of Venezuela and not only ground entry there, but also the notion that we are now in charge of Venezuela.
That is the kind of thing that plainly will attract the attention, not just of members of Congress, not just of all of us, but of the world in thinking about the ways in which one nation, as Ali has just said, in our
previous conversation, the ways in which we act and react on the world stage, the notion that Ali just raised about the prospect that another nation would come into the United States and apprehend our leaders and presume to take over what we are doing here raises a lot of issues as Ali has identified about national security, national sovereignty in particular, present indicating that we're now in charge.
of Venezuela.
Huge news, huge rule of law news, as Amicus a lot of you comes back.
Some final comments about that.
A few other perspectives on the rule of law in America on this major day of history in the United States.
Stay with us.
This is Amica Salaro View.
My name is Jim Santel.
In this special edition of Amica Salaro View, monitoring not only the events in Venezuela and here in America, the comments made by our president about
The focus of that, the reasons for that, the purposes of our military attack on Venezuela and posting now a photograph of the still continuing president of Venezuela now in custody being brought back to the Southern District of New York to face charges in a new indictment against him and his wife.
That related to everything from guns to drugs.
Also suggesting as Ali has indicated in our pre-presidential presentation
here, questions about the nature and focus of the proof that will be presented, undeniably focusing as indictments do upon events here in a particular jurisdiction, the venue, those kinds of things.
But I only made reference to the comments by our attorney general who talks generally about that.
conduct of the defendants, offering once again that to the extent that those things are inside the four corners of an indictment, they are proper and they're appropriate.
But if they're not, if they're not, those are the kinds of things that a chief federal law enforcement officer, a U.S.
attorney should not be commenting about because they are not a part of the precise focus of charges.
We appreciate so much Ali's concern and Ali's articulation of issues and the comparisons between
mean.
an indictment of Nicholas Maduro and of course of Donald Trump himself.
I promised at the start of our program this weekend that I would talk a bit about this major testimony by Jack Smith, the former special counsel appearing behind closed doors with the United States Congress and defending his decision to twice, two times, indict Donald Trump, accusing him of exploiting his word, not mine, violence on January 6th of 2018.
2021 to overthrow the 2020 presidential election.
That was one of the two indictments that was pending against this president, against Donald Trump.
Jack Smith, again, was vilified by the president as being partisan.
But during this eight hour closed door session on December 17th before the House Judiciary Committee, Jack Smith basically presented his own
opening statement, closing argument, telling the members of Congress how conclusive, how compelling the testimony would have been, and suggesting, suggesting, as he said, that there would have been a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous jury.
He said our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.
In this interview, Jack Smith sought to undermine this narrative that's out there from the president and others, that the president was some innocent figure persecuted by partisans who in fact had weaponized, using that word once again, federal law enforcement, weaponized the Department of Justice and defended against that.
The special counsel also said that
With respect to January 6, the evidence would have shown that Donald Trump's conduct caused the riot at the Capitol.
He caused it because it was foreseeable.
He said that the president was responsible.
for what happened on Capitol Hill that day and that it would not have happened without him.
All of that from Jack Smith describing the nature, the focus, the strength of the evidence that he would have presented had that case gone to trial.
Now, you know that Jack Smith was also responsible for the prosecution of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, a little bit of news in that connection as well.
Coming out of Judge Eileen Cannon just this past week, she took a step.
toward the public release of Jack Smith's final report on Donald Trump's handling of those classified materials that he had and perhaps used at Mar-a-Lago in 2021.
She had blocked that for about a year, but she said that she's going to release the classified documents by February 24th, but also open the door to the president, now the president, inviting maybe a legal challenge to that.
And so we're not yet certain we're going to see those documents.
week in which events related to those former prosecutions of our current president.
Both of them, as you know well, brought to an end by his own election, his re-election to the presidency by virtue of this internal memorandum of the Department of Justice that says you cannot prosecute a sitting president.
the Department of Justice in the end dismissing both of those on the eve of this president's inauguration, not because they did not have merit as Jack Smith was testifying this past week, but instead because of the impossibility consistent with the Department of Justice policy of not prosecuting a sitting president.
Nonetheless, Jack Smith effectively saying behind closed doors, not permitted to do it as he wanted to in an open.
open forum, saying that the attacks upon the capital were in fact the direct products of what the president had said on January 6, not raising specifically a First Amendment issue, but nonetheless noting the connections both before, during, and immediately as that attack was taking place between the president's conduct
his decisions not to intervene, at least not in a timely fashion, and noting along the way that absent once again Donald Trump's inviting that crowd, that riot to the Capitol, that the violence, the insurrection, the basis upon which that particular indictment was premised would not have happened without him, that he was the key figure.
And noting as well during his interview laying responsibility for the investigation on Mr. Trump, specifically the president's decision to pressure member of his party to reverse the results of that 2020 election.
That's what Jack Smith said.
And went on to conclude, I did not choose those members.
president trump did he accused donald trump of exploiting the confusion violence on the cap at the capitol on january six to further that criminal scheme that in the rule of law news of justice past week
The broadcast stations of Civic Media will continue, obviously, in the days and weeks ahead to address not only those issues, but also this breaking news coming out of Venezuela, coming out of our relationship with this foreign nation.
As Amicus Alora View continues in weeks ahead, 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.