Objections: With Adam Klasfeld

The United States has joined the community of developed and democratic nations to have launched a prosecution of a former government leader. In this final episode of "Objections," host Adam Klasfeld gauges the reaction to the indictment of former President Donald Trump from Italy, whose former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi died shortly after that event. A front-page headline of a recent international edition of The New York Times read: "Berlusconi gave Trump a template," comparing their reputations as tycoons-turned-politicians known for praising Vladimir Putin, contesting elections that they lost, and now, facing repeated criminal accusations in court.Guest Luca Arnaudo, a law professor currently based in Rome who's also a distinguished lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law in the United States, analyzes Berlusconi's legacy, the differences between the U.S. and Italian systems of justice, and how both politicians used their criminal cases to rally their supporters. Host Adam Klasfeld signs off on a proud run of the "Objections" podcast.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Law&Crime Network's twisted series ‘Devil in the Dorm' is free and live on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by actress Elisabeth Rohm, the six-part podcast dives into the horrifying sex cult case involving Larry Ray, a disturbing man, who moved into his daughter's college dorm to prey on young students.LISTEN NOW: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/devil-in-the-dorm/id1667678268See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former President Donald Trump likely sexually abused author E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s, then defamed her by denying it, a federal jury found in an historic civil ruling. The panel, composed of six men and three women, reached their verdict in less than three hours and awarded $5 million.On this week's episode, "Objections" revisits the only testimony at trial that has an audio record: Trump's deposition, annotating key passages with excerpts from Carroll's closing arguments.During summations, Carroll's lead attorney Roberta Kaplan told jurors: "In a very real sense, Donald Trump here is a witness against himself."By splicing portions of Trump's deposition next to recitations of her arguments, listeners can hear those passages as they apparently were understood by the jury.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The arrest of 21-year-old Jack Texeira in connection with the Discord leaks once again raises questions about what the United States is doing to protect its secrets. This time, by all accounts, the suspecting leaker isn't someone who even has any pretensions of acting in the public interest. A young airman in the Massachusetts National Guard, Texeira reportedly wanted to impress a group of teenagers in a chat room for gamers. Experts believe his online boasting could put Ukrainians at risk in their war with Russia.Tracy Walder, an ex-CIA officer and the author of The Unexpected Spy, discusses why she thinks it'd be wrong to focus on age when it comes to mass leaks, and why she urges folks to set aside politics on the topic of classified disclosures. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After Fox's $787.5 million settlement averted a historic defamation trial, pundits across the political spectrum rushed to play down the deal.For Fox News critics on the left, the payout amounted to less than half of what Dominion Voting Systems demanded, averted an embarrassing six-week trial, and would be dusted off the shoulders by an unrepentant news giant. The Atlantic flatly declared: "Fox News Lost the Lawsuit but Won the War," and a prominent reporter for Mother Jones poo-pooed it as the network's cost of doing business. News outlets on the political right largely whistled past the legal earthquake that had just transpired. Fox News went on with its regular programming, and the pro-Donald Trump outlet The Federalist simply ignored it.Inside the media bar, attorneys were far less blasé. Three prominent First Amendment lawyers uniformly agreed that Fox's settlement was record-setting, massive, and would be too painful for the network to ignore.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Fox has been fighting to prevent Dominion Voting Systems from landing a $1.6 billion judgment for conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election that the network aired, as the case heads for jury selection this week.Even before trial begins, Fox heads into court with stinging defeats. A judge found, in a rare summary judgment ruling, that the broadcasts at issue in the case were false. Dominion only has to prove that Fox acted with actual malice.In the latest episode, First Amendment scholar Jeff Kosseff explains why that standard, established by the landmark SCOTUS decision New York Times v. Sullivan, remains Fox's "only lifeline" shielding the network from massive liabilities.Check out episode 79 for more information about what Dominion uncovered during discovery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The world was watching the arraignment of former President Donald Trump, but only 60 spectators were allowed in the courtroom. Some 210 others received the next best thing: seats in the overflow courtroom, where the proceedings streamed via closed-circuit TV.This week's episode of Objections begins with host Adam Klasfeld's brief observations from inside the courtroom.The episode then turns to an interview with former Manhattan prosecutor Diana Florence, who spent some 25 years inside the New York District Attorney's office and was DA Alvin Bragg's rival. She analyses the indictment through the lens of the office's historic cases.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thirteen people were randomly shot across Washington D.C. — in just three weeks — back in October 2002. As each new victim was gunned down, the FBI and local detectives struggled to track down a killer — until a tip helped them piece together the murder mystery. Journalist Tony Holt hosts Law&Crime Network's 10-part series, Chasing Ghosts: The Hunt for the D.C. Snipers, which takes a magnifying look at one of the most devastating killing sprees in U.S. history.All 10 episodes are available here!: https://bit.ly/3nGNev3See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former President Donald Trump predicted he would be arrested a little more than a week ago. He was wrong, but the press has been on high alert for what would be a history-making indictment of a former president.Still, nobody knows whether Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will indict him — or with what charges, if he does. That's up to a grand jury.If this is about hush money to Stormy Daniels, there's an extensive public record about what happened. In this episode, "Objections" breaks down the forgotten details of those half-decade-old filings.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jeffrey Epstein survivors and the Virgin Island government can pursue claims that JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture.The ruling ratchets up pressure on JPMorgan, whose CEO Jamie Dimon was recently served with a subpoena. Some of its former senior executive Jes Staley's roughly 1,200 messages with Epstein have spilled into the public sphere as a result of this lawsuit.This week, "Objections" rebroadcasts a previous episode of another Law&Crime podcast, "Sidebar," whose host Angenette Levy interviews Adam Klasfeld on the topic.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Just one month shy of a trial in E. Jean Carroll's rape case, a federal judge revealed, without explanation, that he is considering empaneling an anonymous jury.A relatively recent phenomenon, anonymous juries became an increasingly relied upon tool to protect those called to serve in high-profile trials, including mafia, terrorism, and sex trafficking cases. In theory, they're supposed to protect jurors from intimidation and safeguard their privacy from too much media scrutiny. In practice, whether you have one depends on many factors, like jurisdiction.On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast, appellate attorney Christopher Keleher details the fascinating history of anonymous juries, laying out their benefits and drawbacks. Keleher also explains why Trump might not know who's deciding Carroll's lawsuit — but the former president probably will know the identities of any prospective jurors if prosecutors charge him in New York City.He wrote the 2010 University of San Francisco Law Review article "The Repercussions of Anonymous Juries."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

One of Marilyn Manson's accusers has recanted her sexual abuse allegations against him, and her sudden reversal has raised a number of questions — including about the shock rocker's attorney.Named in court papers by his birth name Brian Warner, Manson has been in the middle of an aggressive counteroffensive against women accusing him of sexual misconduct. The saga started when his ex-girlfriend, actress Evan Rachel Wood, accused him of rape, physical abuse and cult-like behavior. Now, another ex-girlfriend, Ashley Smithline, suddenly reversed her claims and asserted Wood "manipulated" her, but a judge ruled that her sworn declaration won't be let into Manson's lawsuit against Wood.On this week's episode, Hollywood-based lawyer Jonathan Handel hashes out the latest developments — and why he believes that Smithline's voicemail raises questions about Manson's lawyer.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Before he became Oath Keepers spokesperson, Jason Van Tatenhove had been an aspiring gonzo journalist with a sense of adventure. So, he set out to the Bundy ranch with hopes to embed with Stewart Rhodes in 2014. He says that journey ended when he overheard a disturbing conversation with members engaging in Holocaust denialism.Van Tatenhove left the group long before the attack on the U.S. Capitol, but he shared his insights from his time there as a witness for the Jan. 6th Committee.In this week's podcast, Van Tatenhove discusses his new book “The Perils of Extremism,” threats he faced after his congressional testimony, and how to win the "war of mythologies."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Top Fox News executives, right up to Rupert Murdoch, were quoted deriding the same 2020 election conspiracy theories some in their network pushed, in an explosive new legal brief unsealed last week.Those revelations could prove damaging to Fox in defending a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion, one of the two voting machine companies scapegoated to explain Donald Trump's defeat in the last presidential race. On the latest episode, Professor Jeff Kosseff — a prominent First Amendment and cybersecurity scholar, and the author of the soon-to-be-released book “Liar in a Crowded Theater” — unpacks why the messages quoted in Dominion's brief might be the stuff of "nightmares" for Fox. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For nearly half a decade, a battle to unseal the names of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims, witnesses and accomplices has been raging in federal courtrooms in Manhattan.Now, attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell and one of Epstein's most prominent survivors have created a list of more than 150 people whose names may be unsealed in that open records case. They are the "John and Jane Does" at issue in Virginia Giuffre's long-settled lawsuit against Maxwell, who weren't parties to the litigation but whose identities may become public.In this week's episode, Law&Crime breaks down what information is likely to emerge. Two of the network's podcast hosts discuss, with Sidebar's Jesse Weber asking Objections host Adam Klasfeld about the developments.Read more on Lawandcrime.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Some of the videos of the horrendous abuse suffered by the first victim of “cult” leader Larry Ray are horrific to describe, let alone to watch. One of them shows Ray striking writer Daniel Barban Levin in the gut with a hammer, pulling on his tongue with a set of pliers and threatening to kill him.In a lengthy sit-down interview for Law&Crime's podcast “Objections: with Adam Klasfeld,” Levin emphasized that these were blackmail videos, which used to make him and his peers quake in silence.“It was part of why I didn't speak out for many years because I remembered the sound of that camera shutter when he photographed me during like this horrible, humiliating abuse, and I knew that he had these pictures and video,” Levin explained.That was then.“The incredible irony is that we were empowered to use this very same footage against him to put him in prison," he added.In the interview, Levin explains why he now embraces those recordings he once feared, which have been disseminated far and wide in news articles, podcasts, documentaries and TV broadcasts. Law&Crime's podcast "Devil in the Dorm," now on Wondery+, mines thousands of pages of public record and numerous court exhibits to examine Larry Ray's crimes. Levin talks in the interview about his participation in Hulu's soon-to-be-released documentary "Stolen Youth," and why he wanted the most grisly footage of his humiliation in the final cut.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The firearm enhancement statute laying a possible five-year prison sentence over actor Alec Baldwin's head was revised after the "Rust" shooting. On the latest episode of "Objections," former prosecutor Mitch Epner explains why that matters: the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, handing the actor a powerful tool to eliminate by far the most stringent possible penalty against him.In a wide-ranging interview, Epner reviews the documents released by prosecutors against Baldwin and his co-defendants and explains why he thinks the actor did himself no favors by agreeing to talk to ABC News."He believes himself to be very good at talking," Epner said, referring to Baldwin. "And what I try to explain to my clients is that no matter how good you are at talking, no matter how much money you've made at talking, the only reasonable thing to do when you are under criminal investigation is shut up."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In late 2010, a middle-aged man moved into his daughter's college dorm and created what has all the hallmarks of a cult. Over the decade that followed, he extorted millions of dollars from vulnerable young adults through violence, psychological torture, and forced sex work. Actress and Director Elisabeth Rohm narrates Law&Crime's 6-part investigative series, which draws from thousands of pages of transcripts, exhibits, audio files, and video recordings from a federal trial and explores the actions and motives of Larry Ray. This is Law&Crime's Devil in the Dorm. You can listen to Law&Crime's Devil in the Dorm now exclusively on Wondery Plus. Find Wondery Plus in the Wondery app or on Apple Podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Georgia prosecutor investigating former President Donald Trump and others over attempts to overturn the 2020 election results told a judge that "decisions on imminent" on charges.Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti analyzes what such a case could look like — and warns against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) pursuing a case under Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act."I think there's this belief that Trump is like a crime boss and kingpin — and this and that — and that essentially, all you need to do is just put it all out there, and that will be evident," Mariotti said. "What I would just say to the public is that white collar crimes can be very difficult to prove up."Mariotti opines that racketeering allegations could needlessly complicate a case over Trump's wide-ranging efforts to subvert Georgia's election results through his "word salad" phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and the fake-electors scheme.On the podcast, Mariotti also chimes in a federal judge's nearly $1 million sanctions against Trump and his lawyer — and what the discovery of classified documents in the homes of President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence could mean for special counsel Jack Smith's probe.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

More than a century after the Tulsa race massacre decimated “Black Wall Street,” the survivors are still waiting for justice — and their attorney says that their courtroom opponents have adopted a grim strategy.“Don't make any mistake about it: Their strategy is for these people to die,” attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons declared on the podcast.The lawyer explains why he believes that, the status of his clients' case, and how the public's understanding of the massacre changed since the litigation began. Solomon-Simmons, who grew up in the Tulsa neighborhood where the massacre occurred, also talks about his own journey toward learning about the history of what has been called one of the worst acts of racial terrorism in U.S. history. Read more here: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/their-strategy-is-for-these-people-to-die-tulsa-race-massacre-survivors-lawyer-accuses-city-of-brutal-bid-to-run-out-the-clock/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's a quadruple homicide case out of Idaho that has captivated much of the nation.Bryan Kohberger, a criminology student pursuing his Ph.D., stands accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, all between the ages of 20 and 21 years old. The students were found stabbed to death on the second and third floors of an off-campus house in the college town on Nov. 13, 2022.The slayings brought an uncommon amount of national attention to Moscow, Idaho, a city of roughly 25,000 people in the state's panhandle. In this week's episode, Law&Crime's Jesse Weber, who reported live on the ground there, provides the latest updates on that case — and interrogates why this criminal case unleashed a flood of online sleuths attempting to solve the crime. Weber also explains what happens when people's expectations for criminal justice, from social media and crimes dramas, hits up against the system as it actually exist, and how this case provides an opportunity to educate the public on just how the justice system works.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Almost exactly one year ago, a federal jury convicted Ghislaine Maxwell for sex trafficking minors for Jeffrey Epstein's predation. Maxwell received a 20-year sentence this past June, in a prosecution largely sparked by civil litigation by survivor Virginia Giuffre. In the year's final episode, Giuffre's lawyer Sigrid McCawley and the partner at her law firm Kenya Davis talk about what's next for the Epstein saga — and explain how New York's Adult Survivors Act has unleashed a flood of litigation that otherwise would have been barred by the statute of limitations.Those include lawsuits accusing JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank of "complicity" in Epstein's crimes, slated for trial in 2023.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We all want to believe that we are good judges of character; that if someone close to us was a bad person, we would know. But how well do you know your neighbors? How much can you trust those around you? What does a killer look like? Monsters don't live under the bed; they walk among us. From the award-winning team behind the UK true crime podcast — They Walk Among Us — They Walk Among America provides a unique and in-depth account of some of the most puzzling and polarizing cases from the United States. With extensive research and immersive audio, They Walk Among America is a storytelling-style podcast that delves deeper into the cases that have horrified and captivated the public. Hosted by Nina Innsted and produced in association with the Law & Crime podcast network.For more information, visit https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/ or https://theywalkamonguspodcast.com/APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/they-walk-among-america/id1585879757 SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/3dZDE1V7kaKq3TuZVoO6li?dl_branch=1&si=s4ENiLclR0ugpVatOWD1Ig See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The prisoner swap that traded Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout for WNBA star Brittney Griner inspired commentary across the political aisle. It also revealed how long Bout had been on the international bargaining table, for other U.S. citizens in Russian prisons. In the podcast, Bout's lawyer Steve Zissou confirms that former President Donald Trump passed on an opportunity to trade his client for former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. He also responds to a Twitter post from Donald Trump Jr. calling Bout a "terrorist."Diving deep into the more than decade-old trial of Viktor Bout, the interview explores his reputation as the "Merchant of Death," the sting operation that brought him down, and the sober account of what will become of his arms trade. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Shortly before a New York law targeting online hate speech took effect, a prominent First Amendment scholar joined two social media platforms in challenging it in a federal lawsuit filed in Manhattan. The plaintiffs are UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the social media company Rumble, and another website called Locals. Passed in the wake of the white-supremacist inspired mass murder in Buffalo, the challenged law forces social media platforms to post a policy for moderating content that would “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” against people based on race, class, gender or other protected groups. Those platforms would have to establish a reporting system for enforcement and would be subject to civil liability for violations. This week's guest — Professor Volokh, who runs the blog the Volokh Conspiracy — explains why he believes that the language of the statute is too broad to pass constitutional muster. He also hashes out Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is such a key law for free speech on the internet and why it's recently become such a lightning rod across the political aisle. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In light of the Senate's recent passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, this August episode featuring an interview with Jim Obergefell — the man behind the landmark Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality — is being rebroadcast.The day that the Supreme Court released its ruling for marriage quality, Jim Obergefell — the man behind the watershed decision — saw a sign of his impending victory on his admission slip."Every time I had been in the Supreme Court, the tickets were bright orange," Obergefell reflected on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld.""On Friday, June 26 — that day, it wasn't bright orange," he continued. "It was lavender, and when we realized that we all thought, 'Well, this has to be a sign. This has to be a positive sign. There's no reason for the ticket to have changed color, let alone being lavender.'"In an extended interview, Obergefell moves beyond the cold record of that case to reflect upon how he and his late husband John Arthur began their legal battle over their marriage. He describes how he became ordained to officiate weddings after his Supreme Court victory — and came to read the closing lines of the ruling that bears his name at "every" ceremony.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Most pundits have viewed the midterms results as a repudiation of 2020 election denialism and ex-President Donald Trump, noting that extreme candidates like Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania and Kari Lake in Arizona lost. So did most election conspiracist candidates for secretaries of state, who can exert substantial power over states' electoral systems. But upon closer inspection, a more complicated portrait emerges. A broad swath of the GOP House representatives who objected to President Joe Biden's victory won, as did other first-time candidates who embraced election lies.Detailing the complete and messy picture in this week's episode is Lindsay Schubiner, from the extremism watchdog Western States. She provides a needed antidote to the heady celebrations about the triumphant bounceback of American democracy.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Over the course of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes's seditious conspiracy trial, the government released a flood of secret recordings, encrypted messages, and other evidence highlighting the group's private communications around the time of the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol.This episode gathers much of that newly released evidence. It explores what it shows about the Oath Keepers' history dating back to its founding — and the group's efforts to keep former President Trump in power after his 2020 election defeat.Law&Crime has been reporting the trial from the ground extensively, and the show's host shares his insights and reporting about Rhodes's testimony and cross-examination.Note: The audio evidence released from the trial includes explicit language.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As lawsuits surrounding the Arizona drop box "vigilantes" swirled in court, an obscure group called Clean Elections USA and its Steve Bannon-linked founder took focus in the litigation. Investigative journalists specializing in elections, however, unpacked the less-covered role of True the Vote, a right-wing dark money group that's been an influential force in conservative politics for more than a decade.In our latest episode, the editorial director of an elections-focused news organization behind those exposés picks apart those connections."This is not a grassroots effort," VoteBeat's editorial director Jessica Huseman said on the podcast. "This is very much a thing that is very well-organized, very well-staffed. And so isn't nearly as a sort of organic as as many on the right have painted it to be."GUEST:Jessica HusemanSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Nearly 1,900 miles away from where leaders of the Oath Keepers have been standing an historic trial for seditious conspiracy in Washington, D.C., a watershed ruling combating so-called militia groups came down in a county courthouse in New Mexico.In that case, a Bernalillo County judge barred a little-known paramilitary organization known as the New Mexico Civil Guard from using "organized force" at protests or gatherings. Former Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord — now the executive director for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law — helped spearhead that fight.On the latest podcast episode, McCord details her legal strategy for bringing U.S. domestic extremists to heel — using statutes that have been on the books in most states for decades if not centuries. She views her current labors as a continuation of her work inside the Department of Justice, where she capped off her nearly 20-year tenure with a leadership role on national security."This is when a foreign terrorist organization, ISIS, declared a caliphate and was taking up physically taking over territory in Syria and claiming to be its own sovereign state," McCord reflected, noting that many U.S. citizens traveled abroad to take up that fight."The way that those who are adhering to extremist movements recruit — and spread and propagandize and monetize and plot and plan — is very similar to the way we see domestic extremists do similar recruitment," she noted. "They prey on people's vulnerabilities, their grievances. They create an 'us-versus-them.' You know, let's blame somebody else for our own problems, whether they're economic or what-have-you."This week's show features McCord's reflections on her career, her work against U.S. paramilitary groups, and her analysis of the ongoing Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy case.GUEST:Mary McCordSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Just days apart from each other last week, two of the most high-profile death penalty cases in memory reached sharply different outcomes. The Supreme Court paved the way for the execution of Dylann Roof, the neo-Nazi behind the massacre at a historic Black church in Charleston. Then, two days later, a jury delivered a life sentence — rather than the capital punishment sought by the government — in the case of Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz.Several families of the Parkland victims expressed disgust at the latter verdict, saying that they were "devastated and shocked" that the jury gave Cruz life imprisonment rather than death.The three jurors who spared Cruz from capital punishment have a high-profile defender: the Rev. Sharon Risher, who lost her mother Ethel Lance and her cousins Tyzwana Sanders and Susie Jackson in the 2015 Charleston massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church."They voted their conscience," Risher said of the jurors on the latest episode of the podcast. "They voted what they felt in their heart, and our legal system gives the jurors the power to take all the evidence in and to vote their conscience. And that's what they did. It took a lot for them to go against all of the others. It took courage to do that."The Rev. Risher explains how the profound loss of three of her family members in the Charleston church shooting led her on an unlikely patch toward anti-death penalty activism. She reflects on seeing her mother and cousins' murderer in court, moving beyond a desire for retribution, and shares sentiments in support for Parkland jurors as they increasingly come under criticism.GUEST:Rev. Sharon RisherSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The fourth anniversary of Jamal Khashoggi's death has passed, and the public's understanding of his murder continues to evolve. The struggle for information about the incident continues, and leading some of those fights is his widow: Hanan Elatr, who married Khashoggi in Virginia just months before he died. On the latest episode of “Objections,” Ms. Elatr Khashoggi and her lawyer Randa Fahmy detail their various battles for information. They have threatened a lawsuit against the NSO Group, the maker of spyware that the Washington Post reportedly found on Elatr's phone before her late husband's murder. They have requested the return of Khashoggi's electronic devices from the Turkish government and asked President Biden's Director of National Intelligence to exert pressure on Ankara for that to happen.After years of seemingly being written out of Khashoggi's story, Elatr has become increasingly vocal in changing the perception of his legacy.On the podcast, Elatr says the slain Washington Post reporter never viewed himself as a Saudi dissident — and she lashes out at a phenomenon she describes as “Jamal, Inc.,” the various interests she accuses of capitalizing on her late husband's legacy. GUESTS: Elatr Khashoggi: Jamal Khashoggi's widow. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When announcing an investigation last week into the relocation of 48 migrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar denounced "political posturing" at the expense of asylum-seekers. He also credited one immigration attorney in particular with shining a light on their plight: Rachel Self, who had been on the ground helping the migrants on the island.On the latest episode of "Objections," Self reflects upon her conversation with the sheriff, her encounters with the immigrants, and the possible criminal liability of those who "victimized" them."They knew there would be no infrastructure, nor any organizational capacity on Martha's Vineyard to be able to help anyone," Self said in the interview, referring to those who sent the migrants there. "They knew that they wouldn't be able to leave easily. So it was either designed to be confusing, demoralizing and frightening for them, or maybe worse: It was designed without thinking how they would feel at all, because the people who pulled this stunt didn't think of them as people. And they can't conceive of anyone else thinking of them as people, either."SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When former President Donald Trump submitted candidates for a special master to review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, one of his two choices was from the firm Jones Day, whose attorneys filled his administration. That nominee ultimately didn't make the cut, but make no mistake: the firm's fingerprints are still seen throughout Trump's circle.The definitive account of how the firm became the former president's go-to legal shop — sometimes, to turmoil inside the firm — New York Times investigative reporter David Enrich's book Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump, and the Corruption of Justice is much more than a chronicle of one firm's history with the MAGA movement. It shows how that firm's evolution from its origins in Cleveland to an international powerhouse reflects broader trends in the legal industry, reflecting on a time before the law was viewed as a business.In a lengthy conversation reflecting the book's investigative, historical and philosophical journey, Enrich opens up about his findings on Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld." He also discussed the chapter of his book, "Trump's Stallion," about how the former president once tried pay a lawyer with a deed to a horse. The deal never went through, but Trump ultimately paid part of what he owed, Enrich reports.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The former special master for the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund and Deepwater Horizon disaster made clear in an interview that he saw no need for a similar process to take place with respect to the highly classified documents found in former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago property."I think that this is judicial overreach, especially in a case involving highly sensitive classified documents," prominent attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who has served as a special master in high-profile litigation and government appointments, says on the podcast. "The court should not be intervening in such a executive branch function, traditionally and historically."A little more than a week ago, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon did just that, finding judicial oversight justified by the "undeniably unprecedented" nature of an investigation of a former president. The government has appealed the order to the 11th Circuit, warning that the disclosure of the documents with "TOP SECRET" markings alone would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to U.S. national security. Prosecutors did not seek a stay of the ruling as to the more than 11,000 government documents without classification markings that the FBI found inside Mar-a-Lago.With a special master review imminent in at least some form, Feinberg answers questions about the process going ahead — starting with, what is a "special master," anyway? Though he disagrees with the judge's ruling and Trump's legal team, he also articulates what he believes their strongest arguments are.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieSidebarThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If federal prosecutors were to pursue charges against Donald Trump because of his handling of classified information, a top national security lawyer believes the former president would face an uphill battle at any trial."It would be a very complicated piece of litigation only because Trump would try to bog it down in pretrial motions, no doubt," attorney Bradley Moss says on the podcast. "But if a charge is brought — if the information is as we believe it is, at this point — I don't foresee a way he would avoid conviction." Moss, a leading expert on classification matters, answers all the questions you may have about the FBI's recent search off Mar-a-Lago, Trump's primary home. He explains what the search required, which statutes the DOJ may be considering, how high the sign-off on the raid likely went, and what federal authorities might do with information they may have found in the former president's safe and home.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The day that the Supreme Court released its ruling for marriage quality, Jim Obergefell — the man behind the watershed decision — saw a sign of his impending victory on his admission slip. "Every time I had been in the Supreme Court, the tickets were bright orange," Obergefell reflected on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld.""On Friday, June 26 — that day, it wasn't bright orange," he continued. "It was lavender, and when we realized that we all thought, 'Well, this has to be a sign. This has to be a positive sign. There's no reason for the ticket to have changed color, let alone being lavender.'"In an extended interview, Obergefell moves beyond the cold record of that case to reflect upon how he and his late husband John Arthur began their legal battle over their marriage. He describes how he became ordained to officiate weddings after his Supreme Court victory — and came to read the closing lines of the ruling that bears his name at "every" ceremony.He also discusses his ongoing political campaign for state office in Ohio and movement on Capitol Hill right now to preserve same-sex marriage with the Respect for Marriage Act.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After finding himself inside the crosshairs of an investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Georgia state Sen. Burt Jones (R) successfully disqualified the prosecutor who announced that he was a "target." Jones may not have wide name recognition outside of Georgia, but he's currently running for lieutenant governor, the state's second highest executive branch post. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), in what a Georgia judge described as a "What were you thinking" moment, attended the fundraiser of his rival. "This is not an invisible prosecution," Georgia appellate attorney Brandon Bullard — who is intimately familiar with the Peach State's laws and politics — noted . "Every step is going to be scrutinized and to think that this wasn't going to matter: It's a lapse — at least a lapse in awareness — if not a lapse of judgment." In the latest episode, Bullard helps unpack what's next for the Fulton County DA's investigation. He also explains that while this is a loss for the prosecutor, it may also be a blessing in disguise for the integrity of the case that she is building.SUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As WNBA star Brittney Griner faces the possibility of 10 years in a Russian prison, that country's government reportedly hopes to swap her for a notorious arms trafficker locked up in a U.S. prison.The latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast “Objections: with Adam Klasfeld” looks into the global phenomenon of “hostage diplomacy” and the difficult choices governments face when an authoritarian regime detains one of their citizens.“We don't want to continue to put ourselves in situations where Americans are just taken at will so that Russians or other countries that have somewhat of a hostile relationship with the United States are able to negotiate for things that they want,” noted attorney Adrienne Lawrence, a TV host and the author of the book Staying in the Game: The Playbook for Beating Workplace Sexual Harassment.The episode explores why Griner played the off-season in Russia, gender pay disparities in professional basketball, and the trade Russia reportedly wants to make for "Merchant of Death" Viktor Bout.READ FULL TRIAL RECAPS:lawandcrime.comSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaSidebarLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Following through on its legal threats, Twitter sued Elon Musk in Delaware in a lawsuit seeking to follow through on a $44 billion deal, and some experts have envisioned a worst-case scenario that would put a vital court for American business on a collision course with the richest man in the world.In the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," attorney David Lurie — a trial lawyer and frequent legal commentator — rejects the thought experiment that Musk might defy a ruling against him.If a chancellor orders Musk to complete the deal, Lurie predicts, the billionaire simply has too much on the line to thumb his nose at the court."Keep in mind: Elon Musk is not a Russian oligarch," Lurie notes on the podcast. "He's a citizen of the United States. He's heavily invested in major companies that are established in Delaware and headquartered in the United States, with their assets in the United States. He has really no way to shield himself from the authority of a court."Lurie provides analysis charting the likely course of litigation, the legal issues involved, and what the discourse surrounding it says about our national moment.READ FULL TRIAL RECAPS:lawandcrime.comSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaSidebarLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After the U.K. formally approved the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, First Amendment groups in the United States expressed broad opposition to his prosecution. Does he deserve it?Prosecutors accuse Assange of conduct that go well beyond traditional journalism, including conspiring to break into a U.S. military database, gaining unauthorized access to an Icelandic government computer, and picking targets for hacker collectives to breach. One of those targets was the New York Times, prosecutors say.Still, Jameel Jaffer, the director of the prominent Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, calls Assange's prosecution a “dagger to the throat of press freedom.”In the latest episode of “Objections,” Jaffer fields questions about some of the toughest criticisms of Assange, from U.S. prosecutors and others, and says that in the end, the case is about more than him.READ FULL TRIAL RECAPS:lawandcrime.comSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaSidebarLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Toward the end of its most recent public hearing, the Jan. 6 Committee released a roughly two-minute video laying out how former President Donald Trump and his allies raised $250 million off what they called the "big rip-off."According to the committee, they pitched a supposed "Official Election Defense Fund" that did not exist in order to fight bogus claims of election fraud that even Trump campaign officials knew were false.What's more, a top official for an anti-corruption watchdog that's one of Trump's staunchest critics says Trump is likely to escape any criminal or civil liability over it—at least, based on what's currently known about it."It is incredibly frustrating to learn how many things are highly unethical, but probably legal, and this is probably one of them," Robert Maguire, the research director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld."READ FULL TRIAL RECAPS:lawandcrime.comSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaSidebarLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Department of Justice turned up the heat on the Proud Boys by charging the extremist group's leader and some of his accused co-conspirators earlier this week with seditious conspiracy.For one former federal prosecutor, that development served as a prelude for the Jan. 6 Committee's main challenge in their upcoming hearings over the attack on the U.S. Capitol: demonstrating who allegedly provided "brains" to their "muscle.""They did not come up with the legal theory behind why interfering on that day was going to change the outcome of the election," said Shanlon Wu, a former general counsel to ex-Attorney General Janet Reno. "They didn't come up with the idea, 'Hey, we can put these slates of alternative electors in states like Georgia.' They were just the muscle. And where there muscle, there's got to be a brain. The muscles not moving involuntarily there."The day after the interview, a federal judge wrote in a ruling that Trump's legal team referred to "the January 6 strategy" in an email well before the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," Wu breaks down the committee's challenges during their debut hearing, where they are expected to present their initial findings, disclose previously unseen material and hear from two witnesses. Wu breaks down how the Committee might make its case to the American people.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After a Virginia jury handed Johnny Depp a resounding victory in his defamation battle, Amber Heard's legal team floated new messaging: The verdict was a "tale of two trials"—the U.S. trial that the Pirates of the Caribbean star won and the U.K. one that he lost.The latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld" takes a deep dive into the differences between the two legal systems, featuring an exclusive interview with Swedish criminologist Teresa Silva, whose peer-reviewed critique of the U.K. ruling made her the toast of Depp's online supporters.Prominent British barrister Gavin Millar, who represented an investigator reporter for The Guardian in another high-profile defamation battle involving Cambridge Analytica, picks apart the similarities and differences between the two systems. Both interviews took place on the day of closing arguments in Depp and Heard's U.S. case, before they delivered their surprising—and, by some accounts, contradictory—mixed verdict. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke in 2018, the now-former director of the Federal Trade Commission bureau that put Facebook under a consent decree about a decade ago recalled feeling "pissed."Now a professor at Georgetown Law, David Vladeck led the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection when it put Facebook under a consent decree specifically aimed at curbing its privacy violations. Facebook's violation of that order during the Cambridge Analytica scandal resulted in a record-breaking $5 billion civil penalty against the social media giant some six years later.After the federal government dropped the hammer, the fallout continued on the local level in a recently filed lawsuit by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D), who accused Zuckerberg of being "personally involved" in the decisions that led to 2016 election manipulation. Racine described his litigation as a "David v. Goliath" battle in a recent interview with CNBC.On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," Vladeck agrees with that analogy and says that accountability for Facebook will only come when Zuckerberg feels pain from regulators."Unless Zuckerberg is responsible for compliance, there really is no other way to threaten Facebook," Vladeck said.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

By the count of some advocacy groups, more than half of U.S. states will likely ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is stricken down, and 12 of those already have such laws on the books—just waiting for a Supreme Court ruling to activate them."If in fact we see our highest court in the land wipe away 50 years of settled precedent and deem Roe v. Wade to be 'egregiously wrong,' the balance is going to shift to the state courts," Miriam Krinsky, the executive director of the advocacy group Fair and Just Prosecution, observed on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld."A longtime former prosecutor, Krinsky has been gathering dozens of elected district attorneys and attorneys general from coast to coast who have vowed not to enforce any laws criminalizing abortion. That list, by her organization's count, has grown to nearly 70 elected prosecutors to date."I think we're going to see elected local prosecutors become the last line of defense in many instances, and seeking to use their settled discretion to protect these kinds of decisions—and refuse to bring them into the criminal legal system," Krinsky said.In this episode, Krinsky describes organizing elected DAs and describes how state courts will become key battlegrounds if the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturn Roe resembles its final form.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Despite the aftershocks of Politico obtaining and publishing a draft majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, monumental Supreme Court leaks have a history dating back centuries.Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Professor Steven Lubet unpacks that tradition on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld" and explains why he believes the chief shares some responsibility for what he calls the Supreme Court's "accountability-free zone."The Supreme Court is the only one in the United States never to have adopted a code of conduct, and it has remained silent in the face of controversies involving justices, on the left and right.In the episode, Lubet traces the development of the first U.S. judicial code of ethics to former President and ex-Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and he explains efforts after Watergate to make those guidelines mandatory, rather than aspirational. He also unpacks ongoing efforts in Congress that would require the Supreme Court to develop an ethics code, create new mechanisms for recusal, and expand access to court proceedings through live-streams.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) took to the witness stand in an administrative courtroom in Atlanta, she answered a number of questions mostly related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with variations of "I don't remember" or "I don't recall"—more than 80 times by her challengers' count.Attorneys for Georgia voters seeking to knock her off the ballot under the 14th Amendment's Section Three disqualification clause characterize her lack of recall as "half-hearted post-hoc attempts to distance herself from the violence" that took place on that day.Offering a full-throated defense of his client's sworn testimony on Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," her attorney James Bopp Jr. calls that nonsense."This isn't a memory test," Bopp said in a lengthy, rambunctious interview.A longtime attorney for prominent GOP causes, Bopp has built a career around high-profile legal battles involving the First Amendment. Most notably, he spearheaded the Citizens United case that produced the landmark Supreme Court ruling relaxing campaign finance laws. On the podcast, Bopp is pressed on Greene's misspelled text message about "Marshall law" to former President Donald Trump's ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows. Bopp also sounds off on his quickly-withdrawn series of lawsuits after the 2020 presidential election and why he believes Trump's lawyers did a "terrible job" trying to overturn it.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Across the country in Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina, candidacy challenges have bubbled up in courthouses seeking to knock politicians off the ballot for their alleged support of "insurrection" on Jan. 6. On Friday, the challengers advanced farther than ever before toward that goal in a evidentiary hearing in Atlanta, where Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) had been forced to testify under oath about her activities before the attack on the U.S. Capitol.The lawyer who faced off against Greene inside that administrative courtroom opened up on his interrogation in the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," tackling such questions as the historical meaning of insurrection and whether candidacy challenges like these are leading up to an effort to disqualify Donald Trump in 2024."One step at a time," remarked attorney Andrew Celli, in an interview recorded two days after he went toe-to-toe against Greene.At the heart of the candidacy challenges is the third section of the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War and barring anyone who swears an oath to the Constitution from engaging in or aiding an insurrection against it. Greene took her oath of office on Jan. 3, 2021, and for the challengers, her actions over the ensuing three days was enough to trigger that constitutional remedy. A federal judge already has allowed them to advance that challenge on the law.Indiana University Law Professor Gerard Magliocca also speaks on this episode about his testimony in Greene's case about how insurrection historically has been understood in the United States.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

They call themselves the "Depp Heads"—the Johnny Depp superfans who travel from across the country to a small county courthouse in Fairfax County, Va.Every morning, they wait in line as early as 5 a.m. in order to be among the first 100 people to secure a wristband that will allow them to attend the trial between Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard, who accused the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star of domestic abuse in 2016.Law&Crime's correspondent Angenette Levy details the travels, origins and beliefs of the "Depp Heads" on the latest episode of the podcast, "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld.""Remember the Grateful Dead you had the 'Deadheads,' right?" Levy asked. "They were the people that traveled around and followed Jerry Garcia and the rest of the band and went from city to city. Well, now we have apparently 'Depp Heads.'"On the first day of jury selection, Depp Heads were out in full force from across the country, and Levy taped interviews with those who flew in across the country, including California, Minnesota, and elsewhere. Miniature pirate flags—an allusion to Depp's breakaway role as Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean"—waved in the breeze outside the courthouse with constant regularity, and handing them out to eager recipients was Minnesota mom Kristina Gibbons, who had brought her four children with her."Only two of them are here right now," Gibbons told Levy.On the podcast, Levy describes her travels among the Depp Heads, describes other scenes from the courthouse, and explains why the case found its way from Hollywood to a courthouse in Fairfax County, whose defamation laws have made it an attractive jurisdiction for people ready to litigate over bad press.The music is "Hoist," by Andy G. Cohen. "Objections" is produced by Sam Goldberg. Michael Deininger and Ashton Schwinn run the YouTube page.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Barraged with criticism after two top prosecutors resigned in protest, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) released a statement last week insisting that his investigation into former President Donald Trump remains ongoing.Not everyone, however, is persuaded, particularly Michael Cohen, whose congressional testimony sparked the probe into Trump some three years ago.On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," Cohen holds nothing back about his confidence in Bragg to pursue the 45th president, splashing cold water on the Manhattan DA's claim on CNN that he is pursuing new evidence and leads."I call bullshit on that," Cohen sounded off. "I know the evidence that they had. I was responsible for providing them with a lot of it. I also know that Alvin Bragg came out and made a statement that there's some new evidence that we're going to follow and that's what we do. I call bullshit on that. There is no new evidence that we did not discuss."Beyond the Manhattan DA probe, Cohen discusses reports about Trump's children and the Jan. 6 Committee and his civil lawsuit over being sent back to prison after announcing plans to write a book, a sequence of events that one federal judge found to have been retaliation.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.