Transcript
Justice in the Crosshairs: Probes, Prosecutions, and Politics
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Apr 25, 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 delighted.
I am honored that you have chosen to spend some period of this your weekend in discussion, conversation, engagement with me on those major issues involving the rule of law.
The administration of justice and, yes, indeed, the operation of government in our state, our nation, and on the face of this planet.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour and also next hour, both hours joined in the studios here in Racine by my producer Max.
And together, we're taking your questions, your inquiries, those things that prompt you to scratch your head, your comments, your perspectives,
your views on some of the major issues in those areas.
You can call in to be a part of our discussion this weekly weekend review at 855-752-4842.
Max always reminds me that you can also be a part
of our discussion, our examination of these important rule of law topics by dropping your comments, your questions into our civic media chat box.
Either one of those mechanisms.
Be a part of our discussion this weekend as always here on Amicus, a lot of you.
We do as always have an ambitious and yet achievable agenda this weekend as in the past.
Let me tell you something
about what we're going to be covering in these next two hours.
We're going to begin exactly where we ended at the time of our last broadcast, and that is talking about this continuing investigation.
Not yet prosecution of former CIA director John Brennan will talk you to you not only about the departure of the now former principal prosecutor in that case, plainly signaling some problems with any prosecution of John Brennan for allegedly
Once again, lying to Congress, that is the continuing mantra, the canoeing claim of many of these frivolous investigations out there.
But there's been another development just this past week as a new prosecutor, actually one from the distant past brought back in to handle the case now and a major issue related to subpoenas issued in that matter.
We'll talk all about what happened this past week in that John Brennan investigation.
much related to it, although seemingly different, but in the same thematic area, what happened with the investigation of Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chief, the head of the Federal Reserve?
It was abandoned this past week.
That is the investigation and the presumed forthcoming prosecution by the U.S.
Attorney there in Washington, D.C.
We'll talk about the reasons for that that are political.
and also arguably substantive as well, the difficulties of combining those two concepts.
When it comes to trying to administer justice, we'll talk about John Brennan, we'll talk about Jerome Powell, and the lessons that we can take away from those faulty and frivolous attempts to identify and pursue
the president's political foes and will make references once again to what else is out there.
Yes, the continuing investigation of people like Adam Schiff and Cassidy Hutchinson and Chris Ray and others, the failed previous prosecutions of James Comey and the Tisha James, all of this a part of the president's retribution pursuit.
They're in Washington DC and around the country.
We'll talk once again about the importance of subpoenas and how this administration seems to regard them as something easily abused.
They are easily abused by this administration not to be in concept and we'll also talk about what these investigations are really about and whether or not they are about truly bringing justice to America or if they are really examinations of
the president's political foes for the purpose of living up to his promise of retribution made very spectacularly during the course of the last campaign.
Then we're going to go into an entirely different area, although again related
To the rule of law, the administration of justice will be talking about deterrence.
The reason why, the reason why prosecutors, legitimate prosecutors investigate and then seek charges against individuals and yes, also sometimes companies here in the United States and around the world.
The reasons for doing that, deterrence both specific, we'll describe that again and also general, we'll describe that again as well.
And we'll be using two particular
instances of prosecutions of just this past week.
One of them coming out of the state of Louisiana, where we witnessed a little over a week ago this horrific shooting in Shreveport.
We'll talk about the decision by prosecutors there to pursue, investigate, and yes, charge the supplier of the gun.
The supplier of the gun in that case will talk about that particular strategy gaining increased focus and momentum as the country continues to wrestle with what has to be a huge and dramatic health crisis in America that is gun violence in our streets, in our homes, in our schools, in our places of
common assembly.
And then we're also going to talk about something that has not been on our agenda before, but that is the announcement this past week of the prosecution of David Burke.
A major singer-songwriter goes under the name David with the A of David in the numerical representation of four.
We'll talk about the charges pursued now against him in connection with the alleged murder.
and the destruction of the life of a 14-year-old woman in his custody, in his control.
We'll talk about the specifics there.
Again, all of that in connection with a broader examination of the purposes of deterrence in America, the reasons why in part...
We do investigations of a criminal nature that we pursue prosecutions where the facts supported.
Always understanding as we are quick to add here on this and other broadcasts, the notion that everyone charged with offense conduct in the United States at a local level, at a county level, at a statewide level, at a federal level is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
by competent evidence, relevant evidence, material evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in our legal system.
Why?
because the stakes are so high because criminal prosecution is the most significant thing that a government can in fact do to anyone of its citizens or its residents and we don't want to get those wrong.
That is the reason why we impose that very high burden on prosecutors to ensure that if prosecutions result in criminal judgments against individuals and companies that is only done, only done after a competent jury or in some instances a judge
finds that the facts and the law support that kind of result beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment is not just compelling.
It is clear and convincing.
It is beyond that.
It is beyond a reasonable doubt.
And we'll talk all about those standards and all of that in at least our first hour, probably into our second hour here on the broadcast.
And then as necessarily we do virtually every broadcast because the Supreme Court is in our attention every week.
I'm going to turn back to the United States Supreme Court.
We'll tell you about a case involving the federal tort claims act.
decision by a majority of the Supreme Court, determining that a serviceman who was stationed an active duty in Afghanistan, at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan in 2016, can in fact sue a contractor who placed that serviceman in harm's way when a local contractor exploded a vest, causing him severe injuries, the deaths of other people.
This particular serviceman, in contrary, seemingly
to the explicit statements in the federal tort claims act but nonetheless carved out by the supreme court the supreme court this past week permitting that servicemen to sue the contractor for authorizing that particular employee plainly a terrorist
on those grounds of the air base for the injuries the servicemen suffered a fascinating case involving the interplay of federal law federal civil law and also our military operations overseas we're going to talk once again about standing as we did last week in connection with yet another environmental case this involving a canadian oil company that is responsible for a disintegrating pipe
underneath the lakes that we know well, lakes Huron and Michigan and the determination by the Supreme Court that they ran out of time when it came to removing, moving the case against it.
by the state of michigan from a state court into federal court a decision by the supreme court that again seems procedural very wonky but important in the environmental area it is a companion to the decision that we talked about last week also in the environmental area also affirming the right of oil companies and all companies to remove cases if they get the timing right from a state court to a federal court were presumably statistically at
least, they have received a better review, a better reception there when it comes to these major cases.
alleging environmental hazards, climate change.
Typically, state courts are somewhat more favorable than our federal courts.
And we'll talk about the implications of that in connection with another major Supreme Court case of just this past week.
We'll talk about the decision by the Supreme Court as it continues to animate and populate its docket for the next term that begins in September of this year.
A major case that it decided to take once again in the areas of yes, religion under the First Amendment and also LGBTQIA rights and interests and positions.
A case involving preschools that are declining to enroll young students, young boys and girls if their parents are in the same sex marriages or if their parents are gay, lesbian, LGBTQIA community.
the Supreme Court deciding this past week to review a lower court decision about the authority of those preschools or the lack of authority of those preschools to take children under those circumstances.
Once again, coming out of Colorado does seem to produce an awful lot of these cases involving the intersections of LGBTQIA issues and religion.
And finally, we're gonna step aside a little bit
from the Supreme Court and tell you about a major case coming out of the D.C.
Court of Appeals right down the street from the Supreme Court having to do with asylum claims and finding that the president has been doing in connection with the administration of those claims is unconstitutional.
and the likelihood that that case, as are many of these other cases, headed toward the Supreme Court's review itself.
Finally, we're going to review what the Supreme Court has been attending to, not only in connection with the United States Department of Justice, but other entities out there.
And we're going to talk in particular about the continuing animation of the Todd Blanche term.
He, as you know, is the acting
Attorney General of the United States of America in the wake of the firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, we're going to be reviewing a major announcement by the Attorney General involving the Southern Poverty Law Center, a case that could, depending upon its dimension, reach the Supreme Court one day, allegations of a criminal, yes, criminal nature, not civil, brought by the Department of Justice against the Southern Poverty Law Center for its practice of paying
undercover informants, a practice that is common to the government, including the FBI, federal agencies, to the US Department of Justice, and many major entities in the private sector, nonprofits, for-profits, involving the use and payment of undercover operatives to gather information and develop cases.
that are consistent with missions.
We're also going to tell you more about what Todd Blanche is doing in terms of targeting naturalized citizens, about 400 of them as a part of the initiative across the country, and then a major decision to reintroduce the firing squad in America when it comes to pursuing the execution of individuals on death row.
All of that coming up
In these next two hours here on Amicus Solar Review, stay with us for all of that and be a part of our discussion.
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
this weekend with an examination of court process and the ways in which subpoenas are used and arguably abused by this administration beginning where we left off in our broadcast of last weekend focusing upon this continuing investigation of John Brennan who's the former CIA director
The headline this past week as John Brennan and this investigation, this ill-fated investigation continues to be in the news of our nation is that the United States has rescinded, has drawn back, has decided not to pursue some subpoenas that it had just issued in this inquiry into John Brennan's activities.
Let's go back.
and make sense of what this is all about and the basis for it in particular.
The case, of course, again, focusing upon former CIA director John Brennan is on Statement City made to Congress way back in 2023, related to the January 2017 Intelligence Committee Assessment.
And that assessment was all about Russia's interference in the election of the previous year, including a judgment that the Russians out of Moscow, the leadership there, had anticipated and actually attempted to improve Donald Trump's chances of winning in that particular case.
Now, the way that this began was that the FBI wanted to include some information
about the involvement of Russia in an assessment of their involvement in that election.
CIA analysts, again, supervised by John Brennan, balked at that because its sourcing was unknown.
They did not want to pass along information that was not credible.
Brennan himself had told lawmakers that the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of what you may recall as the steel
dossier it's been a long time since you have heard about that the so-called still dossier because they were concerned about its legitimacy as a part of this intelligence
community assessment, lots of disagreement, lots of conflict to this day about the legitimacy, the integrity of that dossier, much attacked by the former and now current president, ultimately as a compromise way back then.
A summary, not the entire dossier, was attached to the assessment as an appendix, and Brennan had long stated that as a history on this.
Documents that the Trump administration declassified last summer
showed pretty much affirmed that the CIA analysts had objected to including the information even in an appendix.
Brennan decided to support the compromise on this and during the course of the testimony about all of this very much in the weeds transaction represent Jim Jordan you know him he's from Ohio and very much a supporter of the president made a criminal referral
arguing that Brennan's testimony in front of his committee about CIA opposition to that false statement, that dossier, that assessment, all that that I just described was in fact perjurious.
That is, Brennan had lied about it.
It's a lot.
It's a lot to follow.
But that's the factual predicate for all of this.
When you're getting into that much detail in a situation where perjury is already a very, very difficult thing to prove.
you know you're in trouble.
And that gets us back to the focus of this continuing investigation that has been proceeding inside the Department of Justice.
You may recall at the end of our broadcast last weekend, what did we tell you about?
We talked to you about the fact that the assigned prosecutor, the assigned assistant United States attorney, the criminal prosecutor assigned this
Brennan in Korea again, not yet the subject of charges, but play the under investigation.
Her name is Maria Medatus Long.
Ms.
Long had departed, probably out of her own will, but presumably also publicly fired.
Why?
Because she had not been moving aggressively enough to seek that indictment of Brennan.
almost certainly on the basis that as she looked at this evidence, no support for the notion that he had committed perjury in all of that information, all of those things that he said to the committee in Congress.
And so she is long gone now.
She is departed.
And in the wake of that, a couple of things happen and that brings us to this week.
In particular, there are finally the issuance of subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas for testimony about all of
these things before a grand jury in Washington DC were calling people in now based upon these grand jury subpoenas and almost as quickly as they are issued to various people seeking their information about what John Brennan presumably did or did not do what he did or did not say almost as quickly the Justice Department says never mind.
We're pulling all those back.
We're ascending all of those.
We're going to take those all back because, well, it's not clear because why we're doing this.
And in the end, these subpoenas are not pursued.
And in the wake of this, perhaps even in the midst of this, because of this, the timing somewhat unclear, it is significant that a fellow named Joseph DeGeneva
D-I-G-E-N-O-V-A.
Those of you who are long-tenured in politics and in government recognize his name.
He used to be the United States Attorney, yes, under the Reagan administration.
He is brought back by the Trump administration, by the Trump Justice Department, by Todd Blanche in charge of the Justice Department, and he is now put in charge of this Brennan investigation.
all of these things happening just this past week or so.
Again, the prosecutor, Ms.
Long, she departs.
Either she is fired, she departs because there's no there there.
Like many others have said, I'm leaving because I am being compelled to do something that is not supported by the facts and the law and will not compromise my ethical integrity, my bar license by pursuing an investigation and a prosecution that's not legitimate in the wake of that.
grand jury subpoenas are issued and they are withdrawn almost as quickly in this investigation and then or contemporaneous with that Joe DeGeneva a former United States attorney under the Reagan administration brought in
Either to clean up all of this, to pursue the president's interest in getting a John Brennan indictment out of all this, it is messy to say the least.
It is unprofessional.
And when we come back, I'll tell you why that is and why you need to understand what the importance of grand juries subpoenas are in this case.
And also, as we talk more about Jerome Powell, another ill-fated investigation here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media, inviting you to be a part of our discussion, our examination of some of these major news events in the area of rule of law, administration of justice.
The operation of your government by calling in to our station, calling in to be part of the discussion at 855-752-4842, 855-752-4842.
You can also drop your comment, your question, your inquiry into our chat box as always.
Our chat beginning our conversation, our discussion, our broadcast this weekend is all about John Brennan, the former CIA director.
who is under investigation by this administration.
Why?
We know why.
It's because John Brennan has actually been a strong critic of this president.
And as this president has done, as he has promised in his campaign and his statements, even since becoming president, it's all about retribution against those people who are his political foes and his critics.
John Brennan among them under investigation.
Formerly, apparently, in Florida, now a case removed, sent to Washington, D.C., where in a flurry of activity this past week, the former legitimate prosecutor who has some integrity says there's no there, there.
She leaves, she departs, replaced now by Joe DeGeneva, a former Reagan United States attorney now taking over.
The big news this past week, some grand jury subpoenas issued and almost just as quickly,
Withdrawn and when that happens an awful lot of people inside the Department of Justice look at this and say what is going on here normally normally if these witnesses who are the subjects of these grand jury subpoenas as they apparently are in this case when they say I'll cooperate with you FBI agents almost certainly want to go and speak with them individually frankly not even having them appear before the grand jury because
In those circumstances, the FBI agents, the Department of Justice, can get to know what the witness is going to say without committing those things under oath.
It is, of course, a felony.
It's a crime to lie to an FBI agent.
But you've got a more casual and more direct and more accessible, more efficient way of interviewing
those witnesses voluntarily without pursuing them before the grand jury.
That's what the Department of Justice did and then rescinded.
It is a mess.
Those subpoenas pulled back early this past week.
Law enforcement, law enforcement indicating that their plans had reverted to scheduling the voluntary interviews, which is how the Department of Justice normally acts.
Whatever this all means, whatever this mess portends for the future, the movement of this investigation from Florida where it was to Washington DC also indicates that it's not going away.
at least no time soon.
We've got the fairly clear, not public, but fairly clear representation by at least one now former prosecutor that there's no there there and we've seen this before.
We saw that in connection with events right before the indictment of James Comey.
when the prompt appointed United States Attorney there in eastern Virginia said there's nothing to indict here and then the indictment goes ahead.
We've got a parallel situation happening here and we have got mess of the highest order.
The effort that's underway in Florida under Jason
Reading Quinones, he's a U.S.
attorney there, is not limited to Brennan.
We'll see if this continues in Washington, D.C.
Apparently, according to U.S.
Attorney Quinones, as a sprawling investigation, seeking to find a basis basically to satisfy the president's interest in bringing criminal charges against somebody, somebody among former officials who were looking at him, who scrutinized him.
This is all about the Russian interference, so-called in the events
of that campaign.
And this notion, as the president has said, that there's a grand conspiracy against him, this a part of that.
And it's also significant that when Joe DeGeneva, again, this former Reagan US attorney is brought into the fold.
He has also disparaged the various investigations of the current and previously former president.
Monday evening, Todd Blanche, our acting attorney general, welcomes DeGeneva into this and posts a photo on social media of himself and DeGeneva.
They're together saying, according to the reporting there on the social media in the photograph, the attorney general writes, welcome to the fight, Joe.
Welcome to the fight.
That's what the attorney general says about.
the entrance of Joe Digenova into this mess of an investigation involving John Brennan continuing to this day, not good in any sense.
And the other comment that I would make about all this is the clavicular attitude.
expressed and exhibited by this administration in this matter and in others about the issuance and then the withdrawal the retraction of grand jury subpoenas subpoenas of any kind subpoenas are not letters they're not invitations of requests to come and appear those can happen and those should happen under these circumstances but subpoenas are court documents they're issued under the heading of a court
And for that reason, the issuance, their quick removal, their retraction, the mess that is being exhibited by the cavalier way in which these grand jury subpoenas are being issued in a cavalier way, not becoming of the Department of Justice.
It is court abuse.
These are court documents, court orders, and plainly the subject of very little thought before their issuance and
sort of a gotcha thought afterwards when there's a recognition that, oh, we should do this in a better way, consistent with the way the Department of Justice has in years past done its job.
Important to recognize this is as much about an ill-fated investigation of John Brennan as it is once again about the incompetence of this Department of Justice in so many ways.
It's failure to rely upon experts like the attorney who left this assignment.
convinced that there is nothing there, and now abusing the grand jury system, abusing court process, Americans of all varieties, of all political persuasions, regardless of your view about this particular investigation should be horrified by the cavalier way in which this Department of Justice is handling this investigation, certainly more to come.
more to comment on as this investigation messy though it is apparently not reaching an end in the wake of this mess that we have seen in just the past week.
Let's talk about another investigation also ill-fated also messy and we know about the results of this one all over the headlines late this past week.
Another target of the president's ire another person with whom he has not gotten along this one because yes
Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, has not agreed with the president on what on economic policy.
We know that the Federal Reserve has been created many, many years ago by the Congress to be independent of the White House, independent of any president.
Yes, indeed, presidents of all political persuasions have sparred with the directors, the heads,
of the Federal Reserve over economic policy, I would offer to you that for the good of the country, that independence is a good thing and economic policy should not be set by political whim and caprice.
And because of that, the president, as you know well, has sparred with Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, ever since, yes indeed, Donald Trump appointed Jerome Powell in that high level position.
They have been sparring a lot.
recently and the president in particular has called attention by a visit that he made not too long ago to the actual site of the Federal Reserve where what's happening there's a lot of reconstruction a lot of renovation physical renovation going on
just as there is arguably on the grounds of the White House these days, renovation that involves a lot of work.
And in that connection, Jerome Powell testified before Congress about what everybody acknowledges are cost overruns, lots and lots of monies associated with this, among other things.
In detail, he's talked about the discovery of asbestos, the overruns prompted by the need to remediate that, lots and lots of things to be focused on, and indeed for about two years,
Here is something called the Office of the Inspector General.
Inside every major agency, independent or associated with the executive branch directly, the Office of the Inspector General there at the Fed has been looking at this to try to figure out how this has gone badly, not that the construction itself is not needed and warranted, but we've got a lot of money being spent here.
Director, the head, the chief of the Fed, has appeared before Congress to explain all of this, and it is in that connection, in that connection, that there has been an investigation about whether he
He, Jerome Powell, himself, has lied to Congress.
Again, you're under oath.
The charge would be perjury.
What did he say about this reconstruction, this renovation?
As I said before, perjury, a very difficult thing to prove because you've got to establish not only the clarity of the thing that is the subject, but also the knowing and purposeful deceit.
The false statement made by the declarant, by the person who's testifying, it is not an easy thing to say and to do and to pursue, although we think about it a lot.
perjury, a difficult thing to show when you're in the weeds about things like construction overruns and expenditures.
And yes, in the case of John Brennan, things said and not said about an intelligence assessment years ago, it is of the detail that's going to make a perjury prosecution of anybody very, very difficult.
Well, that case again, proceeding a pace against the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.
Meanwhile, as you know, Jerome Powell's term.
with the Fed, concludes on May 15th, and you know well because you listen to the news, you know this well, that Kevin Warsh, W-A-R-S-H, has been nominated to serve in that same role after Jerome Powell leaves in about a month from now, a little less than a month from now, and he has had his hearings.
They've been colorful hearings in the United States Congress about whether or not he will be confirmed.
He certainly will, again, because
Both houses of the Congress are presently held by Republicans who will confirm that nomination, but for, but for a bit of a problem.
And that is Tom Tillis, one of the senators has said that he is not going to vote for the nominee, Kevin Warsh, until all this mess, all this stuff related to the present.
Leader of the Fed Jerome Powell this construction this renovation the testimony the investigation the perhaps anticipated prosecution of Jerome Powell for perjury based upon all of this Tom Tillis wants this all clarified and cleared up he wants it resolved and Disposed up before he's going to offer his vote for the new chair of the Fed Kevin Warsh politics entering into this
legal system as well.
The inquiry itself has drawn rebukes from not only of course Powell himself.
You may recall well that oddly confrontational but very very strong and appropriate statement by Powell after the investigation was announced.
Telling America he's done nothing wrong.
Telling America that the reason for the probe in the first place is for political purposes because the president doesn't agree with him.
Jerome Powell
in our public domain a rare a rare public rebuke of the president because he Jerome Powell and the president are not agreeing on interest rates and other economic policies and the independence of the fed Jerome Powell saying that's what this investigation is all about not any criminal perjurious conduct all of that happening in this mess of an investigation also not yet leading to a prosecution and then on friday of this past week
The U.S.
Attorney in the District of Columbia announces, never mind.
We're not doing this.
We're going to dismiss this entire thing.
We're closing this extensive investigation, which also included, like the investigation of Brennan, the issuance of some grand jury subpoenas.
The U.S.
Attorney withdrawing this investigation entirely in the wake of all of this will tell you more about the reasons for that happening just this past week.
And again, the incompetence that is this Department of Justice 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,
Plans.
The executed plans of this administration, yes, from the White House.
and from the Department of Justice to pursue the president's political rivals, and in particular, this investigation of Jerome Powell, who is, yes, the sitting chair of the Federal Reserve there in Washington, DC, setting interest rates, setting economic policy, not consistent with what the president wants to have happen.
The president has nominated a replacement for Jerome Powell as Jerome Powell's term ends in about a month from now, actually about three weeks from now or so.
And in the midst of all of this, what happens
course is that like the investigation involving John Brennan, this administration issues grand jury subpoenas.
And those subpoenas are seeking information about the renovations at the Fed and about Powell's testimony to Congress about those things, trying to determine whether or not he's committed perjury.
He almost certainly has not, but that does not prevent the Department of Justice for using this court process.
Cannot emphasize that enough.
These are court documents using the imprimatur of the court.
to summon people in before the grand jury for their testimony.
That move significantly, like the ill-fated move apparently in connection with John Brennan, that move also faded to fail.
And in particular, when a federal judge named James Bosberg, we've talked a lot about him on this radio station, he is asked to review the legitimacy of those grand jury documents.
He is asked to quash them and he does so.
Why?
Because he examines this case.
against Jerome Powell and says, once again, there's no there there.
There's no basis for pursuing any of this.
There's not even a centil of evidence to suggest that the grand jury process, the court process being invoked by the Department of Justice is legitimate.
In a blistering opinion of a while back, Judge Bosberg dismisses these grand jury indictments, describes them as an attempt, these are his words, not mine,
to harass and pressure Powell, either to yield to the president or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will.
Those are strong words by a federal district court judge.
He says, no, these grand jury subpoenas are not going ahead.
He quashes them.
He gets rid of them.
And the case again begins to disintegrate just as it does in connection with the investigation of John Brennan.
previously in Florida, now apparently returning to Washington, D.C.
It is in the wake of all of that mess by this Department of Justice that on Friday of this past week, Janine Pirro, again, the United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, announces what?
She says, no more.
We're closing this file.
No more investigation.
We're all done.
And the case is going away.
Now that's good news for Jerome Powell, who undeniably has to have spent lots of money on lawyers of his own in defending against that.
We'll get back to that in just a moment.
But it's also a reflection of the impropriety of this to begin with, if it is dismissed so abruptly,
in part, maybe major part, because of the disagreement of a senator named Tom Tillis, who says that he's not going to confirm the Powell replacement.
His name is Kevin Warsh to become the next chair of the central bank until all this stuff, all the investigation, the prosecution, whatever it is, the renovation inquiry is over.
And now it is.
And now it is look at that now after all of these machinations to try to hang around the Fed shares had some responsibility for perjurious statements allegedly
but not really made in front of the United States Congress.
We dismiss it with a snap of our fingers.
The prosecution revealed then as being illegitimate.
Why?
Because we do this.
We get rid of what should have been if it was a legitimate prosecution, a prosecution going ahead.
We dismiss it because of political reasons.
We need to get the president's new nominee in place and we need to get Tom Tillis's vote.
which we've now accomplished by virtue of dismissing what has been pursued by the Department of Justice up until now as a legitimate rule of law justice-based investigation revealed now to be not that, not that at all by virtue of the fact that it is dismissed for political reasons and there we have it.
the case involving Jerome Powell now gone, the case involving John Brennan probably disintegrating, also underscoring once again the abuse of the grand jury system, these subpoenas, and also underscoring something else.
When we think about all of these people, John Brennan, Jerome Powell, Cassidy Hutchinson, the former
Trump aide who during the course of those investigative hearings public hearings and from the January 6 house committee Testified about what Donald Trump was and was not doing on January 6.
She is under investigation Adam Schiff a frequent critic of the president senator now from California Chris Ray the former FBI director now under investigation others Lisa cook still on the Federal Reserve she under investigation apparently for
real estate fraud, once again, mortgage fraud, the same kind of thing that Tisha James is charged with, James Comey, previously charged with perjury, all the kinds of things, all of these cases either falling apart with no there or there, or never seeing the light of day.
Why?
Because of the president's insistence that his political foes, the people have been critical of him, are investigated and prosecuted.
And in the end,
The Powell investigation stands as a symbol, like the others, of what's going on here, and that is this.
The investigation is the punishment.
You don't have to get a criminal conviction.
You don't have to even get a criminal prosecution of a John Brennan or Cassidy Hutchinson or a Jerome Powell or an Adam Schiff or a Chris Ray or a James Comey or a Letitia James or a Lisa Cook.
You simply make the allegation, you start the investigation,
That is the punishment.
That is the retribution about which this president bragged during the course of his campaign for the presidency.
And that is the reason why, once again, there is a need for an independent Department of Justice that is not directed to indict or investigate people based upon the political interests of the president, but does so based upon the facts and the law.
as they are determined by legitimate investigators, reviewed by prosecutors, have the integrity to say yes, and also to say no.
The investigation is the punishment, and that's what's going on here.
When we come back, we'll talk about some legitimate investigations, some legitimate prosecutions, and show you the difference as Amicus O'Laraview continues.
And yes, my name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this the second hour of our broadcast this weekend as always inviting you to join my producer Max and me by being part of our discussion by calling in at 855-752.
4842 as we talk about these major issues, these news events in the areas of government and rule of law, justice administration and more, spending our first hour talking about these ill-fated and frivolous investigations.
Based upon animosities that the president has with various people in his sphere, including people like John Brennan and Jerome Powell, both of those investigations, one of them completely gone now with respect to Jerome Powell, the other one with respect to John Brennan, the former CIA director, also teetering terribly as it goes forward.
And focusing once again on the reasons why this incompetence is important for all of us to understand, number one, it is abusive.
It is inappropriate.
It is unethical for any government prosecutor to initiate investigation without some reason to believe that there's a there there.
You don't have to have a.
Prupyana reasonable doubt or even clear and convincing evidence or even just something more, something more than nothing.
That's what you've got to have.
And here, of course, something more than nothing is the president's animus, his interest in having these people prosecuted.
And we see what happens there along the way and abuse of the grand jury process and the court subpoenas, the grand jury subpoenas that are issued,
also noting along the way the larger issue, which is that these investigations are intended to be the retribution.
This is the punishment about which the president spoke during the course of his campaign, now coming to life in America.
Another reason for believing that our democracy here, when it comes to the administration of justice, is, in fact, in peril, as long as this Department of Justice, through main justice in Washington and also in other U.S.
attorney's offices around the country, continues to act at the behest not of the American people, not of the Constitution, not of what's right or wrong, but based
upon what the president wants his Department of Justice to do.
Let's talk about the ways in which prosecution should proceed and the legitimate reasons for it.
We've talked a lot about this in the past and that has included especially the focus on deterrence.
There are many reasons for investigating and prosecuting.
We recognize at the start of this that all prosecution, all investigations are human tragedy.
And that applies to every single one of them regardless of what's a state prosecution, a criminal prosecution at the federal system, at the federal level, wherever it is, they're all human tragedy.
Nothing to celebrate here, but a necessary part of ensuring that we are safe and secure, that people who violate not only our laws, but our understandings about how we are going to interact in a civilized society are brought to justice.
And yes, in some degree, are forced to confront
What they have done punishment is a legitimate goal of criminal prosecution and also Retribution not of the kind at all that the president talks about but an attempt to try to deter to deter
the kinds of conduct that are in violation of our laws and the ways in which we work together.
Not retribution, but deterrence and other efforts.
Once that process is done, we also embrace notions of a return to the community.
through programs in prison and outside of prison that restore basic abilities to live, to work, to have family relationships, all of those, those restorative processes, all of those should be a part of our criminal justice system.
Deterrence specific and individual deterrence specific as to one person, we need to stop you from doing the particular thing that you are doing.
In the case of Donald Trump, the prosecutions of him were to deter him from every
Again, should he be in a position of responsibility of any kind from encouraging an overthrow of our government?
We need to deter you in particular.
We needed to deter you from taking documents from the White House without authorization.
The larger reason is also for general deterrence, community deterrence.
We want to send messages to everybody out there who might do the same kinds of things, whether you're the president of the United States of America or an individual who is not involved.
in government and politics, but who is simply living your life in a reasonable and law-abiding way, these are the things that will happen if, in fact, you engage in the same kinds of conduct as these people who are being charged now with these kinds of illegal activities, deterrence specific as to the individual and general as to the community, sending the message.
so that all people know that they should not do these kinds of things.
Those are the purposes of deterrence.
And indeed, when you have legitimate prosecutions, those kinds of deterrence focuses animate what good prosecutors and decent prosecutors focused upon the law and the facts are doing.
We've got two examples of that in very different settings under very different circumstances, but both involving heinous crimes.
horrific, catastrophic things, also human tragedies.
We know well about this horrific shooting that happened about a week ago or so in Louisiana.
And in particular, various spots in and around Shreveport, Louisiana, where mass shooting occurred.
And in particular, eight children ages three to 11 were killed.
on a Sunday and a rampage that again spanned at least three locations there in northwestern Louisiana.
The gunman who's identified as Shamar Elkins, he was the father of seven of those eight slain children.
He also shot and wounded two others, including his wife.
She was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries, and Elkins himself later died in what appears to have been a confrontation with the police.
He had carjacked a vehicle after these horrific shootings and killings.
Officers pursued him, opening fire, unclear somewhat whether he killed himself or if he had suffered fatal wounds in connection with
the engagement with police there.
The police have not yet offered a possible motive and their investigation of this is ongoing even though the defendant or at least this defendant is dead.
Seeking still answers about how Elkins had obtained the gun after a previous weapons conviction in 2019.
We now know that Elkins was convicted
of this the illegal use of weapons after you fired a handgun at a vehicle five times near a school he's got a prior criminal record here as well and so as a part of that a part of that in the wake of these heinous
deaths.
These heinous shootings there in Shreveport, Louisiana, the investigators, the police legitimately doing an inquiry and investigation into how he got this gun.
And in fact, that's the story of this past week, the story of another prosecution that is intended to deter both the individual and the community specific and general deterrence, Louisiana man.
His name is Charles Ford.
He is from Shreveport, Louisiana, arrested this past week.
accused charged with providing the firearm that Ellis used and Elkins used in killing those eight children and critically wounding others over the past weekend.
What we know about this again coming out of reports is that this fellow again Charles Ford is accused of providing the firearm used in those shootings.
It's a .22 caliber Mossberg pistol.
And the gun, interestingly, as is often the case, originally purchased by a woman in February of 2025 and given to Ford, again, according to the investigation at this point, to hold while she was in the hospital, all that according to the criminal complaint against Ford.
Ford was prohibited himself, again, this is the second person, the focus of plainly investigative pursuit.
Ford himself prohibited from possessing a gun.
after his own robbery conviction in the year 2000, and after he had pleaded guilty to domestic abuse in 2011.
He's got his own criminal record again.
You know well, it is a violation of the law, the federal law, state law, to be a felon, a convicted felon, and be in possession of a weapon.
Many, many cases in U.S.
Attorney's offices prosecuted
under that particular statute.
Mr. Ford, this past week charged now with having provided the weapon, this Mossberg pistol to Elkins.
that is the weapon that's used in this statement.
Federal agents also accused Ford, according to their own reporting, of making some contradictory statements in several interviews after the shooting that can also get you in trouble, more deterrence based upon the charges that follow there.
Ford apparently told investigators that he kept the firearm in his truck, had noticed the weapon somehow missing from his vehicle in March.
He tells the federal agents after the shootings that
He kind of suspected Elkins had stolen the firearm from the truck because he was the only person to ride with him in the vehicle.
Said he confronted Elkins about the missing weapon, but said that Elkins had become offensive, so he decided to let it go.
Well, it turns out that those statements are not true.
At least that's the allegation.
False statements, again, being made to the police, also the subject of the prosecution, the deterrence prosecution there in Shreveport.
against now Charles Ford, the person who provided the weapon.
The U.S.
Attorney, his name is Zachary Kellery.
He's U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.
That's where Shreveport is, says in a statement this.
He says, our hope as we continue to investigate and prosecute this case, alongside our law enforcement partners, is that holding the person whose gun Elkins used to perpetrate the crime accountable will give some bit of solace to our Shreveport community.
And the U.S.
Attorney has got it just right, of course.
The reason why this prosecution has done a couple of them is, number one, to provide some level, imperfect, incomplete, terrible, terrible situation, some sense of accountability through the Justice Department, through the U.S.
Attorney's Office, through a prosecution here for those people who have lost
lost not only their own lives, but the families that remain behind these eight slain children and two others, also the victims of this horrific shooting.
Zachary Keller talking about that, but also talking about deterrence, right?
He's talking not only about deterring Mr. Ford, who apparently hasn't been deterred before, but Mr. Ford from ever doing anything like this again, that specific deterrence
and also general deterrence.
And that's what the US attorneys talk about.
If you are thinking about providing a gun,
to anyone who might be inclined to engage in this kind of behavior.
If you're inclined to violate the gun laws by yourself being a felon in possession of a weapon, many other ways in which you can violate the state and federal gun laws in this nation, if you're thinking about doing it, know that you will be investigated and identified and prosecuted just like Mr. Ford, and you will be charged with possessing a firearm as a felon for your conduct, making false statements.
If you do that, that's general deterrence.
And that is the larger takeaway, what's coming out of Louisiana and this terrible, tragic, catastrophic shooting of human beings there in Shreveport.
And that is the continuing focus of many prosecutors, investigators, and indeed the community at large responding to what is this horrific health crisis, law enforcement crisis in America involving guns.
And the fact that, again, the number one,
cause of death for our youth in America today, second in the state of Wisconsin, but number one across the country is firearms.
And our attempts to try to send messages not only about the things that legislators can do, we know what works to try to reduce this problem.
We need to have the political will to put those things in place, things like universal background checks, things like emergency protective orders, things like safe carrying and safe storage of
guns, all kinds of things, community involvement, initiatives there, education and community involvement, all those things are part of the response to horrific things like what happened in Shreveport.
When we come back, some kind of comments on that and then talk about another deterrent related prosecution going on in America, this one in California when the broadcast continues after this.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amicus, a lot of you.
We are talking about deterrence, a major focus of any criminal investigation prosecution, a legitimate...
Purpose-based fact-based law-based prosecution of individuals on America all of it human tragedy all individuals charged again presumed innocent until proven if ever by competent evidence before a jury or a judge We have talked about the difference between some of these investigations going on in Washington DC and legitimate investigations here now in Shreveport brought by the prosecutor as to the person who provided the weapon
that was involved in that horrific shootings, the gunman who carried out that rampage, leaving eight children dead in Shreveport, injuring two adults, the defendant Charles Ford, having provided the weapon, which is this .22 caliber Mospel, Mosberg pistol, to the shooter himself, the shooter himself killed in his encounter with the police.
The point of this is that, yes indeed, specific deterrence obviously is to forward.
Don't you ever do that again, because if you do again, the same thing will happen to you.
We're going to stop you from doing this, likely send you to prison for a long period of time, and deter you in that way from ever engaging in this kind of conduct, but largely to the community.
general deterrence that's the purpose for doing this as well sending this message increasing force around the country as prosecutors say not only are we going to prosecute the shooter we're going to prosecute those people who support the shooter by among other things knowingly and purposely
providing the weapons, the items by which these atrocities are committed.
In this case, the rifle, the pistol rather, that resulted in these horrific deaths.
And so we have seen that now in
Shreveport in Louisiana and other places around the country sending the deterrent message to all of us that if we know of or even worse if we provide a weapon to a person knowing that they are inclined to or not even having complete understanding of where they may be using that but knowing knowing that they may in fact be engaging in this kind of reckless horrific
conduct.
And we do that with an understanding of what we are doing that is providing a weapon that results in this kind of melee, this kind of atrocity, this rampage of the sort that we saw in Shreveport.
We ourselves may in fact be found guilty of engaging in crimes.
and supporting that very conduct.
That's happening around the country.
It's happening now in Louisiana, places like Illinois, Michigan, other places around the country that we have talked about.
That's the general deterrence.
That's the message coming out of this otherwise catastrophic situation in Shreveport, Louisiana, sending a message to anyone who might recklessly provide a weapon or somehow provide support.
to someone who goes on to commit the kind of rampaging activity that plainly Mr. Elkins in Shreveport did, taking the lives of eight children, seven of them his own children, and also critically wounding two adults in all of that.
We also see deterrence in another part of our country and that is in California same kind of legitimate prosecution Clearly and not a lot of lessons to be learned from this one of them Of course well known to everyone that if you commit murder you will be held responsible Those kinds of prosecutions proceed every day in state and yes sometimes federal court although more often than not
murder is the purview of state's attorneys and district attorneys but state and federal prosecutions when they're appropriate of people who are charged with murder the most serious crime that we can possibly imagine and indeed it's happened once again in California the Los Angeles district attorney announcing just this past week that David Burke
David Burke is going to be charged with first degree murder, first degree murder in the missing teenage girl's death.
that happened, began to happen in the fall of last year.
David Burke actually known nationally as David D4VD, a very popular singer in our nation, charged with the murder of a 14-year-old missing teenage girl.
Her name is Celeste Rivas Hernandez.
Her body was found severely decomposed in the trunk of David Burke's, David's,
in last fall in Los Angeles in the Tesla that he was driving.
The district attorney again, his name is Nathan Huckman.
He announces in addition to the charges of David Burke for first degree murder in the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez.
The defendant is also being charged with some special circumstances of lying in wait, we'll get to that, of committing the crime for financial gain and murdering a witness to an investigation.
All things charged again, specific as to David Burke.
Again sending this specific message to him but also to the larger community the community about general deterrence that if you commit murder we all know this but once again underlined underscored by this particular prosecution and You do these other things you will be charged and you will be held accountable That's the reason why one of the many reasons why we pursue criminal prosecutions Including a prosecution a murder of this
particular case.
Mr. Burke also charged with lewd and lascivious sexual acts with a person under the age of 14, and also with mutilation of a body, all of that, all of that, sending not only a message to David Burke, but also to the community at large.
The underlying facts of this are that on April 23rd of 2025, Celeste, who was then a 14, apparently went to Burke's house in Hollywood Hills and was not heard from again.
As a result of that, it is because of that the prosecutors are charging Burke with the special circumstances of lying in wait based upon that belief that information provided as a part of this prosecution.
The district attorney also goes on to explain the other charges here again for the purposes not only of deterrence,
and yes, punishment, which is also a legitimate purpose of prosecution, but also that Mr. Burke committed the crime of murder for financial gain, as the district attorney said, to maintain his lucrative musical career that Celeste was threatening.
When we come back, we'll tell you more about that and tell you more about the reasons for criminal prosecution legitimate in these circumstances when our broadcast continues.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a law review.
We are talking a lot today about prosecutions, legitimate prosecutions, illegitimate prosecutions, and the purposes for them, including among other reasons for doing criminal investigations and prosecutions, deterrence as to the individual who is the target, the specific individual target of the prosecution, and then sending messages to the community.
That's called general deterrence, that if you do this same kind of thing, you may suffer the same kinds.
of consequences, general deterrence, plainly being seen not only in now the prosecution of the individual there in Shreveport, Louisiana, who provided the weapon that resulted in the killing of eight children and the wounding of two adults there in Shreveport, and also now the prosecution of David Burke, who is this famous singer.
who is responsible according to the allegations in the complaint with these many, many charges.
Right before the break, talking about the district attorney explaining that this was also a murder according to the allegations for financial gain, as the district attorney said, to maintain his very lucrative musical career that Celeste was threatening.
In murdering here, the district attorney says, Burke also murdered a witness to an investigation.
Along the way, the prosecutor also describing other parts of this, saying, for example, that the detectives had learned that Celeste had been involved in a sexual relationship with Burke when she was a minor.
He was an adult, plainly a part of this investigation.
and that because the body of this young 14 year old was found dismembered and badly decomposed again that according to the complaint when it was discovered
The county medical examiner's office somewhat delayed in its determination of probable cause, but also a part of the charges in this case and wrapped up all together in the prosecution that will proceed against him.
Again, hasting to add as do his attorneys that David Burke is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
His lawyers say the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Hernandez and he was not the cause.
of her death, that is a part of our system.
Nonetheless, sending the message to him, individual deterrence, he is in custody and will certainly remain in custody through any trial, any disposition on these many charges and also messages of deterrence to the larger community.
All of that coming out of California just this past week.
Legitimate, horrific crisis.
type prosecutions responding to the crisis of murder, responding to the crisis of gun violence in our nation necessary to ensure the safety and security of our nations and the communities and the neighborhoods in which we live.
Let's go back to the U.S.
Department of Justice now and talk about yet another decision.
by the prosecution, this again by the United States Department of Justice, to prosecute an entity, not an individual, no individuals here, but an entity well known to you and many others.
The Department of Justice announcing just this past week that it is charging the prominent civil rights group, the Southern
poverty law center, civil rights group that has long tracked hate groups and done its own litigation on behalf of civil rights issues, charged now by the Department of Justice with financial crimes, accusing the Southern Poverty Law Center of defrauding donors by using their money to secretly pay informants
inside extremist organizations.
What did the acting Attorney General say at the time of this grand jury indictment's announcement?
He says this, his name is Todd Blanche.
He says that from 2014 to 2023, the group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, again, named as a company, if you will, a corporate, an entity, not an individual, no individuals here indicted, but the group itself indicted.
The group made payments totaling more than $3 million to people who were affiliated with extremist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and among others identified by the acting Attorney General, the National Socialist Party of America.
The law center, the SPLC as it's sometimes called, was, as he said, doing the exact opposite of what it told its donors it was doing, not dismantling extremism.
but founding it he accused the group of manufacturing racism to justify its existence and significantly when you look as you should at the indictment the charging document here it charges things like wire fraud and false statements to a bank and conspiracy to commit money laundering again no individuals but the corporate entity if you will the company the group the cohort itself charge with these particular fences financial crime
and that plainly is the headline.
The focus, of course, of this will be exposed in the coming days and weeks and years.
The prosecutors, again, given their day in the public domain, describe how one informant, for example, which the Law Center refers to as a field source, was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC.
The informant made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.
All of that according to the Department of Justice.
Between 2015 and 2023, the informant received about $270,000 from the SPLC.
And again, the focus of these charges, as in all cases, will be the subject of a trial for their disposition and resolution down the road.
A couple of comments, however, about this on the surface.
The charge is very serious.
Once again, wire fraud, false statements, conspiracy to commit money laundering, the document itself alleging abuses of monies generally,
by this organization to support these particular organizations more directly to support the work of its undercover informants.
And that's where this case begins, I believe, even at the start.
to not fall apart yet, but to be subject to an awful lot of scrutiny, which it also already has been exposed to.
Undercover informants used routinely by, yes indeed, the Department of Justice paid undercover informants historically and to this day as a legitimate way of investigating, yes.
hate crimes and the activities of hate groups, including other organizations that might be engaged in criminal conduct.
That is one of the ways legitimate, lawful, constitutional ways in which your government, through the Department of Justice, the FBI and others,
does indeed investigate people who may be believed to be in violation of federal law.
Nothing illegitimate, nothing illegal about that, and nothing wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, with paying them to do that.
That has been a part of the practice of the government for a long, long period of time.
And likewise, nothing wrong, nothing unconstitutional, nothing illegal about independent groups, not affiliated with the government, including not-for-profit organizations, including civil rights agencies, including other entities out there, likewise, that have as their mission, determining what others out there are doing, not only in violation, perhaps violation of civil rights laws, doing things that may also compromise our safety and security, identifying.
hiring and yes compensating undercover individuals to go to their meetings to be a part of their discussions to be a part of their engagements
in the very activities to find out more about those very activities in which they're engaged.
Now, there's a limitation on all of that.
It's especially true of the government.
It's especially true of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And that's why this is always so challenging.
And that is those undercover informants paid to gather information, in some cases, documents to return that information to their employers, the sources that are pursuing what these companies and organizations
organizations and groups are doing, they themselves, the individuals admonished, told expressly not to engage in the very criminal conduct that is the focus of those groups.
And so with respect to this event in Charlottesville, Virginia, as we recall in 2017, certainly instructed not to engage in the very criminal conduct that we saw.
at that time, not attending, not attending things in which crimes will be committed, doing that and not attending those at the direct express direction of the SPLC or of the government, again, to ensure that the people who are being paid
is an undercover source to get this information are not themselves engaging in crimes.
The very crimes are the subject of the information that they're gathering and that is an important gloss.
on this indictment.
We do not know, based upon the facts as said forth in this indictment, the exact connection between the wire fraud allegations, the money laundering allegations, the false statements to a bank, the connection between those very specific transactions and the things that are alleged in the criminal indictment in this case.
That will be the source and that will be the product of
discovery going forward.
The government now is obliged to provide that information to the SPLC as a part of the prosecution of this case.
The SPLC of course also
mandated to provide the government with its information if indeed it's going to call witnesses.
No obligation to do that, but before trial often does that kind of thing to ensure that there is a sharing of documents.
Many courts require that as well.
No requirement to come forward with anything in particular.
but will probably produce some of that information to the government as a way of defending against this case, even before trial, to let the government know about the policies and procedures that it followed in connection with the charges in this indictment.
Not at all unusual for defendants, again, who have got no obligation under our law to come forward with information to do so as the prosecution proceeds.
A lot of reasons to be focused upon this.
It is a criminal case.
It is not a civil case.
And again, the government will have the obligation to show beyond a reasonable doubt, presumably to a jury of 12 people unanimously, the specific wire fraud transactions that had as their purpose, a criminal intent, a criminal purpose, a criminal goal, that false statements were made to a bank that were materially false, again, for the purpose of identifying an inappropriate and illegal end.
money laundering as well to the same end that change exchange of of not only cash and other financial documents other things of value done as a part of a money laundering charge we're done with the express purpose of violating a law violating the law all of that is going to be on the burden of the prosecution
as this case goes forward.
An important case being brought again under the Todd Blanche administration charging financial crimes by the Southern Poverty Law Center that is known for investigating hate groups.
The Southern Poverty Law Center director himself responding to all of this, denying that there's any
any violation of federal law here.
The director is saying that these are false allegations and saying the indictment will not shake our resolve to fight for justice and ensure the promise of civil rights movement becomes a reality for all.
The director of the the Center the Southern Poverty Law Center goes on to say that the Southern Poverty Law Center is being targeted for political reasons That the reason for doing this is not the violation of some specific financial law But the Trump administration he said has made no secret of who they want to protect and who they want to destroy
The Attorney General, for his part, has denied that this prosecution is rooted in partisanship, and he says there's nothing political about this indictment.
As we come back, we'll talk a little bit more about other things the Department of Justice is doing, and then some rule of law snapshots coming out of the Supreme Court when Amicus, hold our review, continues.
This is the last segment of our tour broadcast this weekend to do some rule of law snapshots beginning again with the Department of Justice further helping you to understand what's going on inside the Todd Blanche administration in the wake of the firing of the former Attorney General.
Let's talk about those right now.
Todd Blanche announcing late this past week that he the Department of Justice those folks there who work for and with him have identified about 384
foreign-born, naturalized citizens, citizens of the United States whose citizenship it wants to revoke now, part of obviously the administration's push to increase the pace of denaturalizations by assigning these cases again, not to where they normally go, which is the Office of Immigration Litigation, sometimes called oil inside the Department of Justice, but to prosecutors in dozens of U.S.
attorneys around the country.
The senior Justice Department officials telling colleagues during a meeting last week that civil litigators in 39 offices around the country would soon be assigned to these denaturalization cases against these individuals.
two people familiar with the plans confirmed that the broader effort to ramp up these denaturalizations a part of the president's initiative and that going forward again Trump administration assigning denaturalization cases 384 people presently naturalized citizens
and assigned to regular prosecutors around the country for denaturalization.
It is a process it has gone on in the past with prior administrations generally not at this level.
and not at this assigned level throughout the country.
What else is happening at the Department of Justice this past week?
Todd Blanche also announcing on Friday that it will allow firing squads.
Yes, that's right, firing squads and readopt lethal injection as a part of a broader push to revive the death penalty.
The president has talked about this from his first day in office.
Todd Blanche said that the decisions by the former president to pull back on
capital punishment, a moratorium established by Merrick Garland during the prior term inflicted untold damage on victims of crime and ultimately to the rule of law.
That's the Attorney General speaking.
The Department of Justice reauthorizing the use of something called Pinto Barbatal to execute federal inmates, also permitting additional methods of execution, including firing squads.
Dick Turbin, who is retiring from the Senate fairly soon, calls these moves a stain on our nation's history.
He says it's turning back the clock by strengthening the barbaric practice of the federal death penalty, a cruel, immoral, and often
discriminatory form of punishment, as we have often noted here, the Supreme Court has ruled that under the Eighth Amendment, it is not cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty.
All kinds of limitations, procedural and substantive, have to go along with that in those states that do indeed have the death penalty.
Moving away from the Department of Justice down the street, a few more things from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court issuing a ruling justice past week that says an American soldier who's on assignment in Afghanistan can in fact sue.
He's injured in a 2016 suicide bombing event.
Justice is clearing the way for the soldier to proceed with the lawsuit against a military contractor who had authorized this particular person to be on the Bagram Air Force.
base when this happened, November of 2016, Veterans Day on the Bagram airfield.
The soldier can in fact proceed again this lawsuit, even in the midst of a federal tort claims act that would otherwise prohibit that.
It is a case written by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissent from San Milito.
and the Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh as well.
The Supreme Court also focusing upon another oil company, just like they did last week, and it rejects the position of a Canadian oil company that wanted to remove a case from federal court, from state court in Michigan into a federal court.
Supreme Court siding with Michigan officials.
It's a victory for the Michigan officials in a dispute
over the future of a petroleum pipeline that snakes between a waterway
lakes Huron and Michigan, unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, court held the company operates the pipeline has simply missed the deadline to move the lawsuit into federal court.
They're out of luck.
They have to stay in state court.
They're in Michigan, a victory again for Michigan, a victory for environmentalists who want the case to proceed there.
No small matter there.
And also an important case for the future of environmental concerns in the Great Lake.
the Supreme Court rejecting the oil company's argument in its fight over the Great Lakes Pipeline and also then the Supreme Court beginning to populate its next cases in its next Kerm.
They have agreed to hear a case involving Catholic preschools that reject the children
of gay parents.
Catholic preschools in Colorado that declined to enroll families with LGBTQIA children or parents sued to participate in a state-funded program.
Two Catholic preschools in particular in the Denver area said admitting those children would require them to violate their religious convictions.
To the contrary, a Colorado program pays for families to send their children to the preschool of their choice public or private.
including faith-based programs, but the state refused to grant an exception here, based upon its anti-discrimination rules, to allow these preschools to participate because of their decision not to enroll the students, the young people, of parents in same-sex relationships, parents, families with LGBT parents,
or children in them.
Lower courts have sided with the state, and the case will be heard again in the coming term of the United States Supreme Court.
No small matter.
The court has, as you well know, as we have talked about, spent a lot of its time focusing upon religion, which this has, and the status not only of parochial schools in the Catholic tradition, but also other religious preschools.
It raises issues once again under the First Amendment about the separation of churches
state and the capacity of states like Colorado to enforce their anti-discrimination statute, which has been the subject of a lot of cases before the Supreme Court in recent times.
We'll talk more about the Supreme Court in our future incarnations of Amicus, a law review.
Stay with us for those discussions for now.
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.