Along with my terrific producer, Greg, I am delighted.
I am honored that you have chosen to send, bend some portion of your weekend here with me, with us in discussion, in review, in examination and exploration of some of those major issues in the areas of rule of law and government and the administration of justice.
We're beginning here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, just a bit delayed.
this weekend because of some gremlins in the system, but they have now left and we are together here talking about all of those issues and more.
Let me give you a bit of a sense of what is ahead in this hour and next hour as well as we explore those various areas.
We are necessarily going to be spending the lion's share of our broadcast.
talking about our Attorney General and that calamitous, that melee of a set of testimonial appearances this past week by the Attorney General before the House Judiciary Committee.
We're gonna talk about exactly what it is that Pam Bondi, our Attorney General, said.
two members of the House Judiciary Committee.
We'll talk about some of the lessons we should take from that in the areas of rule of law.
And yes, indeed, we're going to chat about things like professionalism and competence and humanity and compassion, humor, self-deprecating approaches to life.
We're going to talk about personality and engagement.
And yes, indeed, core legal skills as well.
How one can be effective as an advocate and how this past week's appearance by the Attorney General before the House Judiciary Committee was a masterclass in not doing any of that.
I'm gonna provide you with some perspectives of mine based upon my 30 years of employment and work under nine different attorneys general of both parties.
I'm gonna talk a little bit about some of the things we think about when it comes to law schools and the work that I am doing as many of you are doing as well, engaging with young people, in particular, my work with high school and college mock trial teams and the things that we talk about.
that apparently our Attorney General of the United States of America does not appreciate and not understand.
This was undeniably one of the most significant rule of law events of recent years.
This administration, obviously, has had many of them, virtually all of them, upsetting the basic norms and standards by which our nation has lived and breathed for the past 238 years.
Nonetheless...
a new low this past week.
As our Attorney General appears in front of the House Judiciary Committee, one of the other major themes of our discussion today is going to be none of this had to happen.
And indeed, she could have performed, could have presented herself, could have presented information and insight in a way that would have garnered applause, if you will.
But she chose not to do that.
and went in the opposite direction, we're going to talk about all that and going to hear some of the exchanges, not all of them from the five hours of her testimony, but some of the exchanges between her and members of the House Judiciary Committee.
In our second hour, a few more rule of law issues.
Again, a busy week in America having to do with this decision by a federal grand jury not to charge, not to charge those members of Congress.
formally in the military, formally in national security, with what?
Violations of what federal law?
For stating what the law is, which is simply that military officers have not only the right but the obligation
to decline to follow unconstitutional and illegal orders for doing that.
They've attracted the attention of this administration.
They've attracted the attention of America this past week, a grand jury declining the invitation of the United States attorney, declining the invitation of the attorney general to indict them, charge them with crimes for their involvement in that video that you have seen repeatedly in the past weeks and months.
And then we're also going to talk about in that.
same context, a decision by a federal district court judge blocking, blocking the defense secretary, his name is Pete Hegseth, for punishing, from punishing.
Senator Kelly for his involvement in that event.
Then we're going to go inside the Department of Justice itself, talking a lot about the ways in which these days, the Department of Justice having difficulty not only retaining good people, experienced people, the people who know what they're doing, but also, also showing the door to many people who should remain there, having significant problems in recruiting.
recruiting new assistant US attorneys, new trial attorneys, and we'll talk about one of the application questions that new applicants for Department of Justice positions now need to respond to as a part of this administration's recruitment of new attorneys.
We will also talk a little bit about in the context of rule of law snapshots, a little bit about Steve Bannon back in the news.
Again, some behavior by our department of justice that gives him yet another pass on being exposed to.
responsibility for the criminal actions in which he has been involved and we'll talk a little bit more about that Fulton County raid of a number of weeks ago the revelations that come out of the disclosure of the underlying affidavit that gave a judge arguably probable cause to believe that there were
There was evidence of a crime in those election records, some 700 boxes of polling information, somehow justifying a search of materials that are at least five years old, if not more.
We're going to talk about all that, but necessarily beginning with the Attorney General of the United States of America.
Her name is Pam Bondi, and before we get...
to the events of this past week.
Stunning though they are.
We're gonna go back and do something that we haven't done in a long time and that is give you some sense of who Pam Bondi is because she was much on display this week in a way that I will offer to you is different from any of the nine attorneys general for whom I worked over a period of 30 years and should draw appropriately, not just the criticism, but the condemnation.
of any American regardless of your political persuasion, your partisan views for her behavior and her conduct.
We'll do all of that when Amicus, a lot of you, continues right after this.
This is Amica, so long of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am joined in the studios here of Racine Radio Park, my outstanding producer, Greg Hu.
As always, make certain that we are on the air.
He addressed those issues that prompt a bit of a late start, but we're not going to compromise on any content.
Greg and I, instead, are going to be taking your phone calls, your insights, your perspectives, your questions.
That phone number is 855-752-4842.
855-752-4842.
You can also be in touch with the two of us by dropping your comments, your questions into the Civic Media.
cat box.
Let's get right to it.
Let's talk about Pam Bondi promising you a little bit of background, which we have not done in a couple of years.
Important to go back and figure out who this, this representative of ours is, who now occupies this highest position in our nation with respect to federal law enforcement.
Let me tell you a little bit about Pam Bondi, Pamela Joe Bondi.
born on November 17th of 1965.
She is now serving as the 87th United States Attorney General.
I'm gonna talk about nine other attorneys general in just a few moments.
And she served previously as the 37th Attorney General of the state of Florida.
Lots and lots of information about her because she has been in the public domain.
She was the lead attorney.
In an unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you know that it was Obamacare.
In a case called Florida versus United States Department of Health and Human Services, in that lawsuit that she spearheaded, Florida and some 26 other states argued that the individual mandate provision, remember that?
Of the ACA violates the United States Constitution.
Unsuccessful in that litigation.
In 2018, Bondi joined with 19 other states in an effort to overturn the ACA a second time, this time on its ban on health insurance companies charging people with pre-existing conditions.
Remember that issue?
higher premiums as a result of that.
Once again, Pam Bondi and those other attorneys general, while she was serving as the attorney general in the state of Florida, unsuccessful in doing that.
She defended something called amendment two.
It's a 2008 amendment to the Florida constitution, not the federal constitution, the Florida constitution that banned same sex marriage against legal challenges on behalf of the state.
Once again, unsuccessful in that.
And interestingly, lots of other things in her official capacity, actually her private capacity that also
gathered a lot of attention, a lot of focus.
In August of 2018, while she was serving as the Florida Attorney General, she co-hosted a show called The Five on Fox News and got a lot of criticism for that.
Again, a public official serving as a co-host on what is undeniably a partisan news operation.
And she told the Tampa Bay News at the time that no decision made by a commission that was reviewing this could be binding.
on her.
She said the commission's general counsel did not make a determination about whether or not her appearance on that as a host violated the Florida Code of Ethics.
The Tampa Bay newspaper described it as unprecedented for a sitting elected official to host a TV show.
You may recall especially this bit of information.
Remember as well that when she was running for the position of
of Attorney General, she received a number of fraud complaints regarding a thing called Trump University.
And a spokesman for the Attorney General at that time announced that her offices were considering joining a lawsuit initiated by Eric Schneiderman, who at that time was the Attorney General of New York regarding potential tax fraud charges against this particular entity, Trump University.
Four days later, and in the wake of that information,
A political action committee established by Bondi to support her reelection received a $25,000 donation from Donald Trump and his foundation.
Bondi subsequently declined to join the lawsuit against Trump University.
Both Bondi and Trump, who is now our president, have denied the propriate, defended rather, and denied any allegations that the donation was improper.
All of that a part of our history.
It is also a part of our recent history that Pam Bondi in November of 2019 was hired by the first Trump administration
To help the president help the White House during the first impeachment proceedings, her position was described the following month as being
the role of attacking the process of the impeachment inquiry.
Ultimately, as you know, President Trump not removed from that position.
And finally, just by way of official information out there about her in the past in November of 2020.
Again, on another appearance of Fox News, the host challenged Bonnie to provide evidence for her repeated claims of fraud in the 2020 election.
And she said, we know that ballots have been
She later claimed that Donald Trump had won Pennsylvania despite votes indicating that indeed he had won not only the national election but also there in Pennsylvania.
A lot of things that have been a part of Pam Bondi's official
out there, public record, since she has been the attorney general of the state of Florida and since she has been the attorney general of the United States of America.
One other thing related to background, which is relevant to what I'm going to talk about in this hour and next hour as well.
And that is that Pam Bondi is a graduate of the Stetson College of Law, S-T-E-T-S-O-N.
It is located in Gulfport, Florida.
I'm gonna give you the address and the name of the dean later on in our broadcast.
Among some 100 schools in the United States of America, law schools ranked by US News and World Report.
You know they do that for all kinds of upper level institutions.
There are quite literally hundreds of law schools throughout the United States of America, the US News and World Report Agency news source.
ranks all of them, and the Stetson Law School ranks 99th out of 100.
That is not, that is not to say anything about the quality of the education that is a law school that is indeed accredited by the American Bar Association, but it is significant that in its promotion as a
school in the United States of America that teaches people law that 36 years ago granted a law degree to our present Attorney General presently and at that time as well described itself as a leader not only in ethics but also in advocacy on its present website.
The Stetson Law School totes the fact that it takes a holistic approach to advocacy skills, oral advocacy skills, education that incorporates emerging trends to ensure that we are teaching with methods that remain relevant in an ever-emerging legal landscape.
A huge amount of information about teaching legal communication effectively, being an effective advocate.
doing that with ethics, and the present director of an institute on legal advocacy and involvement there at the Stetson College of Law said this.
through rigorous and critical exploration of the discipline.
She's talking about advocacy in the public domain, in the public venue.
We play an essential role in leading the ongoing development of our discipline, both at the academic as well as the practical level.
She went on to say, through this work, we set a high bar for practice.
We ensure access to justice,
And we protect the very systems that sustain our democracy.
You know why I'm talking about that.
You know why I'm talking about Stetson University.
We'll get back to that at the end of our exposition here on Amicus of what our Attorney General, a graduate of Stetson University, did this past week.
I would offer to you in violation of all those fundamental things.
that the Stetson College of Law advocates for as a part of its education for its graduates, including our Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Let's get to what she did just this past week, once again, appearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
And this is a part of the House Judiciary Committee's
plan and policy and requirement under the Constitution to engage in what we call oversight.
This is exactly one of the key roles of the United States Congress to ask questions, remember that as well, ask questions of witnesses, of people appearing in front of them about the operation of government.
Why?
Because it is the legislature that provides the guardrails in many ways for what the government does in other branches.
Yes, including the judicial branch, including especially the executive branch, its oversight function envisioned by James Madison and George Mason as a part of our Constitution 238 years ago.
And so when they call Pam Bondi in this past week, planned, obviously,
Undeniably the focus was going to be in part upon the Jeffrey Epstein files and the failures of this administration the failures of this Department of Justice to comply with the law that the president signed passed by the Congress to ensure the timely and complete and Unredacted in many ways versions of the records unredacted with respect to the perpetrators of the sexual abuse and human trafficking and sex trafficking for which
Plainly, Epstein and others have been well known, but also ensuring the protection of victims, survivors of all of this.
That was one of the major focuses.
We'll get to some of that in just a moment or so.
The other major focus of her appearance, this oversight appearance before the House Judiciary Committee had to do with the politicization of the Department of Justice.
This notion that because of the president's directives,
to the Department of Justice because of the ways in which all the walls have now been broken down between the White House and this Department of Justice, the president basically serving as an additional attorney general, maybe even a super attorney general in directing who will be prosecuted, how that will happen.
who will be the targets of investigations, all the things that we have seen that have given rise to what we've described here on this broadcast as the constitutional crisis and the authoritarian government we have been in since 2025.
Let us begin by talking then and providing some background.
for much of what happened over a period of five hours this past Wednesday.
It was one of the most raucous, uncontrolled, and unprofessional presentations by any representative of an executive branch in front of the legislative branch in recent memory.
Representative Jamie Raskin.
Jamie Raskin, you know him well.
He is a representative from the state of Maryland.
He is now the ranking member on that committee began his opening statement.
He's the top Democrat.
And unfortunately we need to talk about partisan politics in this.
He's the top Democrat on the panel.
Jim Jordan is the chair of the panel.
He is playing the top Republican there.
He delivered a salvo of what can only be described as discussed in his opening statement about what he sees as a decimation of the United States Department of Justice.
He started by criticizing
Pam Bondi's handling of the release of the investigative files involving Jeffrey Epstein and Elaine Maxwell as well.
Here's what he said.
He said, you're siding with the perpetrators and you're ignoring the victims.
He said, that will be your legacy.
And indeed that's the reason why we begin in reporting on this.
I'm talking about the legacy of this attorney general.
He said, that will be your legacy.
Unless you act quickly to change course, you're running a massive Epstein cover-up right out of the Department of Justice.
That's how this committee hearing began this past week.
Initially, of course,
the Attorney General appeared somewhat unmoved, but she had a harder time evading some of the visuals in that hearing room, embodied by, you know, they were there, the Epstein survivors, who sat solemnly behind her in that gallery, and during the course of this, declining, declining to apologize to them, only briefly casting her eyes in that direction.
And along the way, along the way, more discourse between the representatives on that committee and Pam Bondi will get to that right after this break here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus.
A lot of you we are spending this hour and much of next hour as well talking about this calamitous testimonial appearance by our Attorney General in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
Already told you a little bit about how Jamie Raskin, the ranking member, began that hearing.
We're going to go right into the first of a number of excerpts from this calamitous five-hour hearing.
What you're about to hear is an exchange among
the Attorney General Pam Bondi, Jerry Nadler, who is a representative from New York, and that same Jamie Raskin from Maryland.
Listen to the tenor and the content of this exchange.
So I really have just one question for you.
How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted?
How many perpetrators are you even investigating?
You showed it.
I find it.
How many have you indicted?
Excuse me.
I'm going to answer the question.
Answer my question.
No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question.
No, you're going to answer the question the way I
asked
it.
Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people.
How many of you?
But I'm going to answer the question.
How many of you
belongs to me.
I think it's very interesting.
You're claiming my time.
I think it's very interesting.
You're claiming my time.
And he talks about they indicted.
The
president said they indicted him
to us.
Mr. Chairman, please.
We
don't like the answer, Chairman, because it's honest.
So
he asked a four minute question.
Restore 45 seconds, Mr. Navarro, please, Mr. Chairman.
You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch.
Not on our time.
No way.
And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started.
You don't tell me anything.
Yeah, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
You also heard briefly from Jim Jordan and of course the Attorney General.
It was in the wake of that exchange that she referred to Jamie Raskin.
who did also graduate from a law school in America.
The name of that school is Harvard.
She called him a washed up loser attorney.
Suggested he may not be an attorney at all, which of course is completely wrong.
Why do we begin with that particular excerpt?
Because it gives you a sense of the demeanor and the lack of professionalism.
by this Attorney General in a situation where none of this had to happen.
I note it is significant that even in connection with the question asked by Jerry Nadler, how many people have you prosecuted?
Well, we know that there have been at least two.
We know that there was the prosecution of Ghislaine Masque while she is in
prison right now for 20 years.
And we know that there was the beginning of a prosecution before he committed suicide in custody of Epstein himself.
The other significant answer that she could have given other things that she could have done rather than engaging in the attacking language, the bad demeanor that is unbecoming of any government official, including the highest federal law enforcement officer in the land is.
that given the fact that most of these events happened long before the...
indictment of Jeffrey Epstein.
The most recent one of those happened in 2019.
He was previously charged in 2008.
There were indications that all this horrific behavior began as long ago as the mid 1990s and 1995.
There were all sorts of events between 1995 and 2019 that were, in fact, the subjects of prosecution.
She could have answered that factually.
talked about the truth which she made reference to and then what could have indicated that you know what as much as we support the victims who are here in this chamber who are here and deserve our respect and our concern the fact of the matter is that the statute of limitations has now run.
That's the kind of thing I would expect from a lawyer.
who is schooled in the law, who is holding this high position, who could have responded in a way that is factually responsive and meaningful to a good question.
that many Americans are asking about now.
The fact of the matter is that all of these events, happening certainly long before 2019, you do some math there, you realize that bringing a prosecution today, unless they're events after 2019 and 2020, that would revive, if you will, the statute of limitations.
That would have provided an appropriate answer by my attorney general.
She chose not to do that.
And in so doing, lacking the professionalism that we would expect from anyone in that position, the name calling, the lack of basic civility, the respect that you owe in both directions.
Congressman to witness, all of that lacking in this presentation.
Beyond that, beyond that, a huge amount of lack of confidence here.
Prepare to answer questions about things that the members of the committee were interested in asking about, and we're gonna hear from more of them in our second hour.
Instead, focusing immediately on the attacks, I will tell you that this kind of presentation also underscores for me,
Just like the deputy attorney general in his examination of Ghislaine Maxwell remember that when he went down there and met with her and deposed her in a an embarrassingly bad deposition Here we have another reflection of one of our top lawyers in America Disclosing revealing how bad they are as lawyers
This is not the kind of thing that any competent lawyer would do.
Instead, you'd be prepared.
All those volumes there would have answers to questions that are, in fact, answerable.
And instead, as we'll get to in our second hour, they're referred to as burn books.
What all of these are, they are preparation for attacks by this attorney general on the people who are appearing before her.
all of that about the lack of competence that she also brings to that the deficits in these areas of professionalism and preparedness which we would expect of any attorney general beyond that as I've indicated earlier a lack of humanity a lack of humor a lack of personality and some of those core legal skills that we would expect of lawyers and of law enforcement people in our nation when we come back
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the second hour of our weekend broadcast on all things rule of law related.
We are devoting virtually all of our time this weekend in exploring with you this calamitous, embarrassing, unprofessional presentation by Attorney General in front of the House Judiciary Committee just this past week.
And we're providing you with some specific examples out of five hours of testimony.
I hasten to add, as my window producer Greg also encourages me to do, that none of this is edited.
This is taken from C-SPAN.
It is pure audio, and we are excerpting, admittedly, some portions, but not editing it.
You're hearing exactly what the exchanges were between our Attorney General and various members of the committee.
We talked already about the exchange between Jerry Nadler and Jamie Raskin.
and the chairman of the committee, Jim Jordan, and also Pam Bondi, that showed the lack of professionalism that any other attorney general of years past would have shown absent this one.
Let's talk now about more exchanges between members of the committee and the attorney general.
Each one of them has a lesson to pull out about the deficits.
presented by our Attorney General this past week.
You're going to hear next from an exchange between Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, and a Colorado Representative named Joe Naguz.
He's asking about the employment and hiring practices of the Department of Justice.
The man in that video, the one who is in the police-worn body cam footage, the one allegedly yelling kill him,
at police officers on January 6th.
His name is Jared Wise.
He
does work for
us.
He works for you at the
Department of
Justice.
He does.
This is an individual whom a federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his participation in the attack on January 6th.
One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, interfering with police with the intent to commit another felony.
This is who you choose as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire at the Department of Justice someone on video Yelling kill him at police officers Right I believe he was pardoned by President Trump.
Oh, he was pardoned.
You're right You're right Pardoned by President Trump for his offense pardoned for yelling kill him at police officers
And yet you expect hard-working police officers across the country to believe that you take law enforcement seriously.
You could imagine the reaction of so many folks across the country hearing the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States refuse to even condemn what that individual whom you've now hired did.
He makes this all important point there, those final words.
Aside from the outrage of someone like this who, again, pardoned by the president for his violent attack upon our nation on January 6th, and now back in the employment, apparently something that is a matter of some pride, perhaps, by this attorney general.
Jonah Goose actually invites the attorney general to do exactly what she should have done as a professional as the chief federal law enforcement officer.
It's also a basic trial tactic.
I don't mean that in a bad sense at all.
It establishes credibility when you acknowledge you are wrong.
What Jonah Goose was saying was this was a mistake and every American knows about it.
And every American understands that this person should not have been hired.
Here, Madam Attorney General, once again, here's what you should have said rather than what you did, which is that we made a mistake.
And when you do that kind of thing, as I teach law students and teach undergraduates and high school students who are engaged in trial practice exercises, when you acknowledge you have made an error,
It pretty much shuts down the further examination.
The outrage is still there, but you embrace the error that you have made.
You embrace the problem, and you make yourself more credible.
This attorney general doesn't understand that, even after presumably three years of law school at Stetson College of Law.
After all these years in the public domain, that's what the answer should have been.
And it wasn't, once again, a lack of competence in preparing for these kinds of things and acknowledging, once again, that you can indeed admit an error.
And it actually enhances your credibility because when it comes to those things that you do want to fight about, you've got a better footing.
Now I recognize fully that that is not this administration.
plainly this president does not admit any errors and many people have commented about the fact that she was playing to a body, an audience of one, I would offer that she was playing yes to the president but also playing to an awful lot of other people and that's the reason why public domain presentations like this are so damaging to the nation because what she is saying is
that the government number one is perfect it is not and I can say that loving my country loving the government that I worked for for 30 years but also acknowledging that we have got work to do nothing wrong about that nothing inconsistent about that but it also sends the message to Americans
that this kind of behavior where you refuse to acknowledge that there have been errors, that that is acceptable, and that this behavior by this Attorney General denying any responsibility is something that all Americans can and should do.
It is sanctioning the very thing that should be getting...
the condemnation of all Americans listening to her.
That's the lesson from that brief excerpt between Jonah Goose from Colorado and Pam Bondi repeated many times over the period of five hours.
It's also of course the lesson between that initial presentation that we replayed between Nadler and Raskin.
and Jordan and Pam Bondi.
We're going to go to another one and pull out yet another lesson of what should have happened, but what didn't happen from our principal chief federal law enforcement officer in the nation.
We're going to play now and excerpt from an exchange between Pam Bondi and Ted Lu.
He is a Congresswoman in California, and he also has some questions.
Listen to this exchange between Ted Lu, Congressman Ted Lu, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein.
I want to know, were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?
This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.
Everyone knows that.
This has been the most transparent presidency.
He's the one that asked for those
files.
I got your
answer.
You said it's
going to put up another document from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations Center because I believe you just lied under oath.
There is ample evidence in the Epstein
file.
Don't you ever accuse me of a crime?
I
believe you just lied under oath and this is all on videotape.
Let's do a little bit of law practice since that's in College of Law promotes so much the advocacy here Plainly, this is an example of a number of things including the a non responsive answer and that's the reason why
but not only Ted Lu but others during the course of this extensive examination repeatedly said I want to reclaim my time what they're doing there is they're saying this witness who is called here to answer questions not ask them not engage in attacks is using uptime and for that reason
is answering in a way that necessitates reclaiming the limited amount of time that members of Congress have to examine the witness.
It underscores as well this other fundamental part of what
an attorney general any lawyer any practicing trial lawyer knows as well and that is that questions are asked of the by the lawyers and they are responded to if at all not here they're responded to by the witness the witness does not engage in attacks the witness does not ask questions of her own
That's not how this works.
That's not how the legal system works.
And I would offer that even though this is not a court of law, she is under oath.
She is called there by this committee of the United States Congress as a part of its oversight to answer questions.
And in doing what she did, she once again either decided affirmatively not to regard, not to take into account any of the legal schooling that any of the lawyers in America get.
about the role of a witness and the obligation to provide answers, but also to do it in a way that is confrontational, that would, if you were in a court of law, incur the ire and the condemnation of a presiding judge.
What you have here is someone who once again decided not, not to answer the fundamental questions non-responsive.
Reclaiming time necessarily is Ted Lu as a part of this exchange between him and Pam Bondi.
Of course, what you should do and what you can do, undeniably, the Congressman accuses her of engaging in perjury.
She can calmly but resolutely pause, which we often teach as a part of our law school efforts as well and instruction as well, and simply say, Congressman,
I reject that notion.
I am testifying accurately.
I am testifying honestly to the best of my ability.
And you push back on that allegation without engaging in the kind of invective that only discredits your response that you do in fact make.
That's the lesson coming out of that exchange.
with Ted Lu.
We're going to go now to another one, and this is going to be a bit of a diversion, if you will, but it underscores the other part of public presentations, which is some humanity, and yes indeed, even in the midst of a calamity where we're talking about human trafficking, the notion that some self-effacing, some self-deprecating humor can also reduce the amount of tension.
Listen now to a much more lighthearted exchange in the middle of this between Jared Moskovitz.
He is a representative from Florida and the Attorney General in which he talks about something called a burn book.
Now I'm at a return job.
I've like 25 seconds left.
So because I'm curious and I just I'd like to see you flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder.
I'm interested to see what staff provided on the on the oppo on me and because we're in the Olympics.
I'm going to give it a grade.
I just want to see how good it is.
So give me your best one.
So first of all, nothing is funny about mocking the Bible and holding up
the Bible.
That's what you did.
That's the best.
You made a joke and I find a sense to that.
That's all I have to say.
I want it from the burn book.
Shame.
I want it from the burn book, which is the best one.
What you got?
There
This is not taught so much at law schools, but it is a part of public presentations.
Our great presidents were self-effacing leaders who injected humor even sometimes here in the midst of great tragedy.
Here is what the Attorney General could and should have done.
Why not simply acknowledge what you're doing?
We all saw it.
You've got these binders in which you have got information about all these members of Congress, not information responsive once again, not information prepared by your staff and by you to provide the information that an oversight proceeding should be asking for, but rather attacks on them.
Here's what you should have done.
is simply read out loud exactly what it is she has in the burn book with respect to Jared Moskowitz.
How effective that would have been and how meaningful it would have been in her presentation.
This is Amicus, a love review.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are spending a lot of time this weekend on our broadcast, necessarily talking about this presentation made by our Attorney General, examining why it is, why it is that America is responding so very badly to her appropriately, and the things that she could and should have done as our Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer to engage with admittedly
members of an opposition party answering questions, acknowledging when there are errors, perhaps from time to time, showing a little bit of personality and humor along the way when she's got that opportunity, and also providing a sense of compassion.
We know that along the way, one of the most uncomfortable moments in the course of this five-hour period was when Representative Pramila Jayapal
She is a Democrat again from from Washington She made an emotional appeal for the Attorney General to tell women that she was sorry for this sluggish release of the Epstein documents inadvertently including the disclosure of victims names that were supposed to have been redacted and of course along the way also also eventually inviting
the Attorney General to acknowledge that in the course of this exposition, there are members of this victim survivor group right there called upon to stand up to identify themselves.
You have seen the photographs, you've seen the video of this, the Attorney General not even acknowledging them.
Again, another fundamental
portion, another fundamental instruction of any good trial attorney is eye-contacting.
Letting people know that even if you disagree with them, whether it is members on the panel, but especially people who are there, these are the very victims that you support, the victims, survivors you purport to represent and to care for, you turn around and you look at them.
And although it was unlikely.
In that moment, I was thinking once again that this is an outstanding opportunity for my attorney general to say, every member come up here.
I want to hear your names.
I want my staff to take your names.
And yes, indeed, once again, we have failed in not talking with you.
We are going to do that right now.
Let's get your names.
Let's get your phone numbers.
Let's be in touch with you, not in the public domain, but ensure that exactly what the Department of Justice and U.S.
Attorney's offices should be doing.
is done here, which is engaged with them after the chances for more prosecution have been put aside, but showing exactly the kind of humanity and compassion that, again, every other U.S.
Attorney General for whom I worked has shown during the course of his or her tenure
every other person appearing in that situation would have done.
That humanity and compassion completely missing.
And then we have this.
Then we have an exchange between yet another congressman.
And it also underscores one of the lessons about how this should have gone, how the attorney general failed in making anywhere near a good and effective presentation.
This is an exchange between Thomas Massey.
You've probably heard a lot about this as well.
He is a representative of Kentucky, and listen to the exchange between him and the Attorney General about the disclosure law.
So I'm going to put the language of the bill up on the screen.
Chairman, may I give my answer on that?
Here's the question.
Here's the question.
And I need to give my answer on
It's my turn.
Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question.
You can give me.
Within 40 minutes,
Wexner's name was added back
then.
Then 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.
Red-handed?
There was one redaction out of over 4,700, and we invited you
in.
This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.
You're a failed politician.
I want you to watch the video.
Chairman, please restore his time
and remind the witness
of the rules here.
Himself, there is no
credible information.
None.
If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals.
Is that your position as well?
My position is any victim who comes forward, of course, we would love to hear from them.
1-800-CALL-FBI.
Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last four years?
Did you talk about Epstein?
I'm
reclaiming
my
time.
I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland.
Because this is
bigger than
Watergate.
This goes
over four administrations.
You don't have to go back to Biden.
Let's go back to Obama.
Let's go back to George Bush.
This cover-up spans decades, and you are responsible for this portion of it.
There is so much.
in that minute and a half exchange between Congressman Massey of Kentucky and the Attorney General to unpack.
Let's try to do some of that.
His last point is the reason why we're pulling it and presenting it to you again.
This is not edited.
This comes right off of the C-SPAN recordings of this.
What does he say?
And what should be, what should be and could be the answer of this Attorney General?
I made reference before to the fact the statute of limitations has run.
Why?
Because Jeffrey Epstein's horrific behavior with respect to girls and women began in the 1990s.
1995 was the time that the first apparently a 14-year-old girl came forward.
Had to get the attention of law enforcement.
Goes into the early aughts, June of 2008.
He is first
prosecuted.
He gets 18 months in prison, spends 13 months in jail, and ultimately re-indicted by the federal system in 2019, the case pending at the time of his suicide.
What is the point of that?
What is what is Congressman Massey saying?
There is responsibility over the period of decades.
That's the answer that you give, Madam Attorney General.
Instead, what you do is you attack.
the Congressman himself, who's given you the very answer to the question that he's asking.
You call him a failed politician.
The name calling continues once again.
You also talk about this redaction.
Again, I simply acknowledge that there was a redaction that had to be remedied and that this Congressman was a part of that process, restore the integrity of the record, sort of cryptic in that particular recording.
All of those kinds of things.
should have been the focus of measured and decent responses by this attorney general.
They were not, in fact.
And that's the reason why we play all of this.
As we talk more, we're going to chat more about the exact reasons for America to be outraged by this conduct, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a law review.
We are in this segment beginning to conclude our exposition of this horrific rule of law event from this past week, which was the appearance of our Attorney General in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
Now, admittedly, this is a partisan proceeding.
And everybody, everybody knows that they're on cameras.
And everybody knows that the things that they're going to be saying are going to be bandied about in America, just as we have done on this broadcast.
And so, and so the focus on our attorney general is once again, the professionalism not shown here.
The lack of basic competence in not preparing substantive answers, knowing that there are good substantive answers to some of the questions, her decision is said simply to interrupt and charge the members of the committee with partisan animus here.
Her focus instead upon attacks, name calling, which of course is exactly what her boss, the president does, lack of humanity and compassion.
in turning around and looking at those survivor victims in the very chambers in which she was appearing.
Some self-effacing humor.
Acknowledge that you've got a burn book there, and you will, I'm sure, I'm sure, get smiles.
Maybe even laughter.
You heard a little bit of that during the course of the exchange between her and a congressman, Jared Moskowitz.
A lack of engagement, lack of personality,
In any trial setting, and this is not a trial, this is not a courtroom, but you're trying to persuade the American public, you are arguably trying to persuade members of this committee, providing them with information.
You're trying to persuade them, although it's a difficult task, that the Department of Justice is acting appropriately, and so do it in a way that engages them, that acknowledges the legitimacy of their questions.
She did none of that.
Core legal skills missing.
How is a witness effective?
You listen to the question.
You pause, which is something that I advocate for all of the students that I teach.
You think about your response.
You are respectful in doing so.
You admit errors, as I've said repeatedly.
We know today that this administration can do it.
There's reporting as late as this weekend that the leadership of ICE is indicating that indeed there were a couple of officers that lied in connection with the shooting of a fellow named Julio Cesar Sosocelos in Minneapolis.
They shot him
in a leg, there is an investigation going on there.
Why?
Because someone acknowledged that something bad happened.
That is appropriate for government to do on its core level.
It also enhances your credibility.
Everything that this attorney general should have known as a lawyer, as a trial lawyer, none of it on display this past week in a way in which she could have presented facts and information much more competently.
And in the end, as I started out, bad advocacy.
It comes, interestingly, it comes at the same time that her law school, as I said at the outset, touts its advocacy skills.
And certainly 36 years ago, that was also a part of what the Stetson College of Law was all about.
And so the question comes.
The whole the question comes, what about history?
I've worked for nine different attorneys general.
And most of them, six of them are Republicans, three of them are Democrats.
I worked for Ed Meese and Richard Thornberg and, yes, William Barr in his first incarnation.
Those are my early years as an assistant U.S.
attorney.
I worked directly at Maine Justice for Janet Reno for two years, also with Eric Holder.
I worked with John Ashcroft when I was the interim U.S.
attorney, court appointed and also attorney general appointed.
I worked with Alberto Gonzalez also when I was
in Iraq for a couple of years.
I was there with him at the embassy.
talking with him, engaging with him.
I worked with Michael Mukasey, also another Republican, during the time that I was in Iraq and coming back.
I worked playing with Eric Holder, was my boss when I was the Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, and I worked for Loretta Lynch, who was my colleague from New York, who became the U.S.
Attorney, nine different attorneys general, Republicans mostly, some Democrats, at no time during any of those exposures with them, and I had direct contact
With many of them in the latter portion of my time with the Department of Justice, did I see any of the lack of professionalism and compassion and basic understanding about how this works that this Attorney General has shown?
This is, if not unique, it is certainly atypical and Americans should know that.
I also want to comment about this other aspect related to...
practice of law.
I mentioned now a number of times that I work with high school students and college students and some law students as well in their mock trial areas.
I talk about all these kinds of things, including listening and pausing and thinking thoughtfully about the answers to the questions that are being posed to witnesses.
We talk about the ways in which you follow up with witnesses who are not responding.
In this case, in Congress, it's reclaiming your time.
In a courtroom, it's asking the judge to compel the witness to
answer the question that you have asked all of that all of that to indicate that Pam Bondi knows better or she should know better and as the chief federal law enforcement officer she should be embarrassed by this particular performance now what do we do what do we do with all this we can complain about it we can be outraged as I plainly am by the performance of my attorney general atypical of anything that I have seen from republican and democratic
attorneys general in all of my time.
What do we do?
Well, once again, it's going to go back to what I've advocated in the past.
And I'm going to give you some addresses and some phone numbers because I believe that if in fact the American population lets this attorney general and her staff know that we do not
only appreciate her performance.
We condemn her performance as being a waste of time, no serious information being conveyed.
When there were answers to those questions, we could have benefited from some of the information provided.
Let's go back.
Let's go back, number one, to the Stetson College of Law.
The dean of that college, not the dean when she was there, is named D. Benjamin Barrows, B-A-R-R-O-S.
Write him a letter and ask if the Stetson College of Law
that promotes itself as being a high level advocacy teaching law school that promotes itself a holistic approach to advocacy skills is proud of this graduate of the Stetson College of Law.
Here's the address.
Dean D. Benjamin Barrows.
The Stetson College of Law, 1401 61st Street South in Gulfport, Florida.
1401 61st Street South in Gulfport, Florida.
The zip is 33707.
And the phone number, if you care to call and leave a concern about the level of advocacy that is now being shown by their graduate, is 727-562-7800.
They are an institution that should in fact know.
About the lack of advocacy the lack of skill the lack of professionalism and humanity and yes indeed also also the lack of basic humor and Personality and genuineness that adds credibility to any witness like this
This is not a graduate of whom the Stetson College of Law should be proud.
And there is another address, as we have done before, and we'll talk about that one as well.
And it is, of course, the address for the Attorney General of the United States of America.
She is Pamela Bondi.
She is the Attorney General of the United States of America.
Her address is 950-950-Pennsylvania Avenue, N Period W Period, Northwest.
950-Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest.
That's Washington, D.C., you know that.
The zip code is 20530.
And the phone number is 202-514-2000.
202-514-2000.
It is appropriate for Americans to send a letter to your attorney general.
She is there, as she said, during one of the exchanges.
She is there to represent the American population.
And she's also there to respond to criticisms, concerns.
She's there also to take all kinds of comments from you.
Why?
Because she serves you.
She does not.
She does not serve the president.
nor do U.S.
attorneys serve the president, they serve you.
Even though she has said that publicly, even though that's what the president has said, that is not her role.
And so that perhaps is one of the things you want to remind her about when you write that letter to her at Maine Justice, the RFK, Maine Justice Building on 9th and Constitution Avenue, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
two, zero, five, three, zero.
You may think it may not accomplish anything.
And we'll do at least these two things.
You may be assured I worked there directly and was visiting at Maine Justice many, many times during the course of my career.
For two years I worked in that building.
I know that letters to an attorney general are received and staff looks at them.
And I know too that on admittedly rare occasions, they do have, they do prompt responses.
by the elected and appointed representatives in Washington, DC, including someone like the Attorney General who's appointed to serve and provide support to you.
Do that.
It will also do one other thing, and that is prompt you to codify your views.
That's the role of this...
broadcast, to give you some information, to give you some sense of perspective, but also to permit you to win and sift through all of this and make determinations about how you feel.
You don't have to write a letter that includes all the things we've talked about over the period of the last two hours, but identify two or three of them, the lack of professionalism, the lack of compassion, the focus on the failure of the Department of Justice to do what it was obliged to do under the legislation, even absent legislation to provide this information.
The continuing failure of the Department of Justice plainly to provide support for the victims, survivors of the Jeffrey Epstein Melee, of the catastrophe that has attacked this nation for decades now.
Write about something that you care about and let Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States of America, know how you feel.
That is an important thing to do.
That's representative democracy and at a time when we are challenged both by a crisis in constitutional basic structures We are in a constitutional crisis since almost almost out for the past 11 months since March of last year We are plainly working under an authoritarian government all of that
requires that Americans be heard, that all of that continue to be a part of the advocacy that you do, you do with respect to our government.
We have got, as I said at the outset, an awful lot of other things that happened during the course of this past week in the area of the rule of law.
Let me give you some
Samplings of some of those things you have heard about them because in the wake of this catastrophic event on Capitol Hill You should know that some of the safeguards and the guardrails continue to be in place You know well that a federal grand jury in Washington DC this past week Refused to do what the Attorney General and the president wanted to do and that is indict Mactive duty members of the military and intelligence community
of and former members of the military who had gone on a public forum to tell members of the military that they have an obligation to refuse illegal orders and as a result of that of that conduct
which is a part of their First Amendment rights, as you know.
The administration responded badly to this, initiated proceedings inside the Pentagon with respect to one of those members of that group.
And also, also this past week, sought to indict them, sought to indict six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or in the nation's national security agencies.
It is remarkable.
It is remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury presented presumably with charges against these six individuals said no.
That's a guardrail of which everyone in America should be proud once again, regardless of your partisan view.
That system works.
It is the system established by our founding fathers that requires that before you can be charged in a federal system, it's not an attorney general.
It's not a president.
It's not a U.S.
attorney.
It's not an FBI agent.
It's not an assistant U.S.
attorney.
It is members of the public brought together, convened together in a grand jury to determine whether there is probable cause to indict.
And this past week, and a grand jury said no.
When we come back, we'll talk a little bit more about other things from which we can take solace in the rule of law.
Here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the final segment of our broadcast this weekend, talking about reasons to be positive in America.
Even the wake of this calamitous presentation by our Attorney General this past week on Capitol Hill, we've got a grand jury that has refused to indict six members of Congress for stating what the law is.
That's a representation of how our Constitution still works.
On Tuesday, prosecutors presenting a case.
attempting to persuade these grand jurors, their members of the public, that these lawmakers had violated a statute.
What does it do?
It forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the U.S.
Armed Forces.
And the grand jury said, no, we're not inditing.
Go away, members of the prosecution team.
That's significant.
No First Amendment violation here in their speaking as they did.
A grand jury refusing to indict.
That is power.
That's authority of the people.
You've got inside the judiciary another judge.
His name is Richard Leon.
We've talked about him before.
He's in the DC.
a federal court there.
He wrote in a 29-page opinion, the Defense Department's move to discipline Mark Kelly, who's a Democrat from Arizona, for participating in that video that warned about active duty service members not following illegal orders.
The judge just this past week saying, saying that Hegseth and the Pentagon generally cannot take any steps to reduce the senator's retirement rank or pay or using the findings against
Kelly in a criminal proceeding, rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Democrats might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters.
That's what Judge Richard Leon said in shutting down the other.
Attempt by this administration to go after these members of Congress including including Mark Kelly There are other things going on in America with respect to federal judges.
We've got federal judge of James Bosberg again in the DC
trial court, who this past week finally ordered that those deported Venezuelans be returned to the United States.
He orders that the United States bring back 137 Venezuelans and cited as precedent the well-documented return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador's high security prison.
The order, of course, coming after literally almost a year of the judge's attempt to wrestle.
with what the government has done, deceptions and lies and and misconstruing the facts in front of him.
Of course, that will be appealed.
But the judge is saying to the government, return these people and give them the due process that they deserved, that they were not afforded almost a year ago.
And we've got another judge.
And this one is Georgia Alex Alexakis.
And she is in the federal district court in the northern district of Illinois.
She is in Chicago.
And she is doing something in the wake of some of the calamity in that city.
She is allowing the release of evidence, including body camera footage and some text messages from October.
At that time, you may recall there was a shooting of Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old teacher's assistant by border patrol agents there in Chicago.
The evidence then was gathered together in the thought that actually Martinez might be charged with a crime.
In fact, that now defund criminal case had been abandoned, but had been sealed by a protective order.
The judge saying, you know what?
In the wake of all of this activity,
The American public, including the folks there in Chicago, need to hear about this.
They need to see the video of this incident as soon as the materials can be redacted to obscure the identities of some other parties not involved.
And that could happen.
That could happen as soon as this coming week.
Again, Georgia Alexakis from the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entering an order.
that affirms the transparency of what our government should be all about and needs to be all about going forward.
Many other things going on, and we're gonna talk about them in our next installment of Amicus a Law Review.
We're gonna talk about things going on inside the Department of Justice, yes, with respect to questions being asked of new incoming assistant U.S.
attorneys, questions about loyalty to the president.
We'll talk about yet another U.S.
attorney.
as a revolving door in the Northern District of New York being hired and fired.
We'll talk about that affidavit coming out of Fulton County.
Release this past week that shows, in fact, that there was little to no probable cause that justified the seizure of those 700 boxes of voting materials.
And we'll talk, yes, indeed, about the decision by this Department of Justice, by this Attorney General to abandon any further case involving Steve Bannon.
basically sending a message to the Supreme Court to send the case, the criminal case, for contempt of Congress back to the lower courts so what can happen so the Department of Justice can move to dismiss that prosecution easily.
The second, if not the third time, that Steve Bannon has gotten the privilege of knowing this president and having an attorney general or Department of Justice who meets out justice in a way that covers and fails to ensure the enforcement of the law.
Steve Bannon once again not not being subject to the kinds of things that you and I are the rule of law again not applicable to everyone in America there is a lot going on there's a lot to be concerned about there is a lot to be proud of in this nation of ours because we can still speak about these things we can still advocate about them we have grand juries we have federal district court judges we've got letter writing we've got people inside our institutions of government including our major agencies
And we've got you who can continue to be heard on the streets of Wisconsin and in every other state and territory of this nation All of us can be heard as a part of our process going forward That's what America is all about and that's why this continuing effort to ensure that the democracy that we have pursued for the last 238 years is preserved
going forward.
Always my pleasure, my honor, and my delight to be a part of your weekend.
I encourage you to tune in next week for more of this right here on Amicus, a lot of you here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
