Podcast appearances and mentions of bob mueller

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Join us this week as we sit down with Bob Mueller. Speaker, Author, Artist, Entrepreneur, former Professional Martial Arts Teacher and Bikram Yoga Teacher, Shihan Bob Mueller, in his own words, has had a varied and full life of learning and teaching. He is constantly looking for ideas, products and people that will enhance his life and the lives of his friends and family. Presently, Shihan Mueller is the President at Canada's Best Karate (CBK) Arts & Entertainment. His life story, “Finding Your Butkus”, won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Long Feature in 2008. He is a bestselling author with the Chicken Soup for the Soul Series (2014) and with his book “Finding Your Butkus – How to be Unstoppable in Life and Business” (2017) he tells his story. Shihan Mueller founded Canada's Best Karate, which was started in Ontario, and now has six locations in the Victoria, B.C. area. Others have commented that “Bob was a top competitor in the ‘70s and ‘80s. He trained with the best and decided to open his own dojo academy in 1994.” In addition to his martial arts, as Canada's Sports Artist, he has produced over 130 Sports Portraits over the past 15 years. In 2011 his art was featured in Canton Ohio with the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He has been featured on ESPN, NFL Network, NFL Films, NFL AM, CTV, CBC, and was a finalist on Dragon's Den. #PKCC #martialarts #karate

It's Friday Nashville! Chase and Big Joe start the show by celebrating moms around the town. WKRN's Bob Mueller called in and shared his wonderful memories and stories from when he was a kid growing up with his mom along with Chip Walters and Jill Jelnick. Later in the hour, Jim Wyatt, Senior Writer of the Tennessee Titans joined the show and shared his thoughtful memories of his mother when he was a kid. Jim shared his wonderful memories and relationship with his mom on the show. Listen to hear more. Then Fox 17 anchor Jen Waddell joined the show along with  MTSU head coach Derrick Mason and News Channel 5 Henry Rothenberg all shared their wonderful thoughts and memories about their mothers on this Mother's Day edition of the Chase and Big Joe show. Listen to hear more. 

Bob Mueller has been part of the Nashville media since 1980. He offers some captivating Titans stories and insight on the latest edition of The OTP, presented by Farm Bureau Health Plans.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After four long, painstaking years, the Durham investigation is complete. John Durham taught us one thing for sure…Democrats always win. The left can spy on presidential candidates, weaponize the justice system, invent crimes, spread hoaxes, and get Republicans thrown in jail for no reason. And they'll always get away with it. Three pathetic indictments. One pitiful conviction. Nobody fired or reprimanded. A colossal failure. John Durham should be embarrassed. Yes he exposed the biggest political scandal in history, but he failed at his job, which is “prosecuting” crimes. Ironically, the bombshell report he released this week is a huge win for the establishment. Durham proved beyond doubt that the ‘Deep State' is real. Yet he prosecuted merely three people, none of whom we have ever heard of, and two were acquitted. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Hillary, Mueller, Rosenstein, Jim Baker, Andrew the Pitbull, and yes…Obama and Biden…conspired to spy on Trump and accuse him of colluding with Russia. None has been charged with so much as jaywalking, and none were fired as a result of the probe. As always, the leftist establishment got away with it. They won. We lost. The biggest takeaway from the Durham probe was…wait for it..a REPORT! Not just any report. A damning report. Are we supposed to celebrate? When Trump threatened to fire Bob Mueller, he was accused of obstruction. He was compared to Nixon. It turns out, he would have been 100% correct to do so. It would have saved millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and endless heartache. In fact, some people believe that the reason Mueller was appointed in the first place, was an effort to lure Trump into firing him, which then would have been used by Pelosi to impeach Trump. However he did not take the bait. Amazingly, at the time the Russia hoax investigation was ongoing, some “conservative” pundits insisted that we should let the probe play out, and allow Mueller to finish the job. While many of us were screaming from the rooftops that the entire thing was a Deep State witch-hunt, others said that we should “stay the course”. Now some of those same people have turned into ‘Monday morning quarterbacks'. They are doing high-fives, and essentially saying “See! We knew it was a hoax all along.” They did the same thing with Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other scandals. Yet what is most astonishing, is that right now, other hoaxes are taking place. Trump is still being indicted on bogus charges. The Deep State is still weaponizing the justice system, targeting good people like Elon Musk and others. Some people are brave enough to speak the truth–not years later when John Durham gives them permission. But early on, when it's unpopular. When it can get them banned from Youtube and Facebook for ‘disinformation'. We need to call out the swamp, and prevent them from targeting and destroying anyone who does not support their narrative. Otherwise, we may all eventually find ourselves in the crosshairs of the ‘Deep State'. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-josh-m-show/message

After four long, painstaking years, the Durham investigation is complete. John Durham taught us one thing for sure…Democrats always win. The left can spy on presidential candidates, weaponize the justice system, invent crimes, spread hoaxes, and get Republicans thrown in jail for no reason. And they'll always get away with it. Three pathetic indictments. One pitiful conviction. Nobody fired or reprimanded. A colossal failure. John Durham should be embarrassed. Yes he exposed the biggest political scandal in history, but he failed at his job, which is “prosecuting” crimes. Ironically, the bombshell report he released this week is a huge win for the establishment. Durham proved beyond doubt that the ‘Deep State' is real. Yet he prosecuted merely three people, none of whom we have ever heard of, and two were acquitted. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Hillary, Mueller, Rosenstein, Jim Baker, Andrew the Pitbull, and yes…Obama and Biden…conspired to spy on Trump and accuse him of colluding with Russia. None has been charged with so much as jaywalking, and none were fired as a result of the probe. As always, the leftist establishment got away with it. They won. We lost. The biggest takeaway from the Durham probe was…wait for it..a REPORT! Not just any report. A damning report. Are we supposed to celebrate? Here are the indisputable facts: There has never been a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia The Clinton campaign was behind the entire Russia hoax The fake Steele Dossier, upon which virtually the entire Russia hoax was based, was paid for by Hillary's campaign The FBI lied repeatedly to the courts to obtain a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign The convictions of General Michael Flynn and George Papadapolous would never have happened, had there not been an investigation. They were ‘process crimes' manufactured by the anti-Trump FBI. The Mueller probe was initially led by Stzrok and Page, until it was discovered that they are rabid leftists who despise Trump James Comey admitted under oath that he assured Trump on three separate occasions that he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Trump urged Comey to make a public declaration, yet Comey repeatedly refused. That led to Trump firing Comey, which prompted the appointment of Mueller. Can you blame Trump for firing Comey? Would any of us have done differently? Carter Page, the Trump staffer who was spied on by the FBI because of Russia ties, was known to be a CIA asset. Although the FBI was aware of this, attorney Kevin Clinesmith altered an email to hide this fact from the FISA court, to obtain a warrant to spy British intelligence officials were unwilling to aid in the Russia hoax, because they knew that it was “devoid of predicating evidence.” Former Intel officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, promoted the bogus Russia collusion narrative, despite knowing there was no evidence While long forgotten, Trump was mocked and ridiculed in 2017 when he revealed he was wiretapped at Trump Tower. It turns out, that was the small tip of a very large iceberg. When Trump threatened to fire Bob Mueller, he was accused of obstruction. He was compared to Nixon. It turns out, he would have been 100% correct to do so. It would have saved millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and endless heartache. In fact, some people believe that the reason Mueller was appointed in the first place, was an effort to lure Trump into firing him, which then would have been used by Pelosi to impeach Trump. However he did not take the bait. Amazingly, at the time the Russia hoax investigation was ongoing, some “conservative” pundits insisted that we should let the probe play out, and allow Mueller to finish the job. While many of us were screaming from the rooftops that the entire thing was a Deep State witch-hunt, others said that we should “stay the course”. Now some of those same people have turned into ‘Monday morning quarterbacks'. They are doing high-fives, and essentially saying “See! We knew it was a hoax all along.” They did the same thing with Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other scandals. Yet what is most astonishing, is that right now, other hoaxes are taking place. Trump is still being indicted on bogus charges. The Deep State is still weaponizing the justice system, targeting good people like Elon Musk and others. Some people are brave enough to speak the truth–not years later when John Durham gives them permission. But early on, when it's unpopular. When it can get them banned from Youtube and Facebook for ‘disinformation'. We need to call out the swamp, and prevent them from targeting and destroying anyone who does not support their narrative. Otherwise, we may all eventually find ourselves in the crosshairs of the ‘Deep State'.

The acceleration and intensity of the gender movement has caught many off guard including the church. Dr. Bob Moeller from For Keeps Ministries joins Bill for a difficult yet hope-filled conversation on helping our children and what is at stake. Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here * This encore episode originally aired on September 26, 2022

The FBI on Monday conducted a surprise search of Donald Trump's home and resort at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The investigation appeared to involve the retention of classified information by the former president after he left the White House. There's not a whole lot of information, but Trump did confirm the search.To go through it all, Benjamin Wittes sat down on Twitter Spaces with Lawfare senior editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Andrew Weissmann, a former senior prosecutor for Bob Mueller. They talked about what we know and what we don't know, what sort of investigation this might be, where it may be going, and whether this has anything to do with Jan. 6.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

One of the most decorated local TV anchors in the country, News-2 anchor Bob Mueller joined Joe andJohn, which turned into an hour-long laugh fest and roast. Bob discusses his illustrious 42-year career atNews-2, explaining how the business morphed into a 24/7/265 news cycle, his toughest challenges, andhis most harrowing assignment.  AMONG THE TOPICS, MARATHON MANIA, THE SCARIEST MOMENTOF BOB'S CAREER (AND IT WASN'T COVERING THE WAR IN AFGANISTAN) AND TO SHAVE OR NOT TOSHAVE THE MUSTACHE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

One of the most decorated local TV anchors in the country, News-2 anchor Bob Mueller joined Joe andJohn, which turned into an hour-long laugh fest and roast. Bob discusses his illustrious 42-year career atNews-2, explaining how the business morphed into a 24/7/265 news cycle, his toughest challenges, andhis most harrowing assignment.  AMONG THE TOPICS, MARATHON MANIA, THE SCARIEST MOMENTOF BOB'S CAREER (AND IT WASN'T COVERING THE WAR IN AFGANISTAN) AND TO SHAVE OR NOT TOSHAVE THE MUSTACHE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

One of the most decorated local TV anchors in the country, News-2 anchor Bob Mueller joined Joe andJohn, which turned into an hour-long laugh fest and roast. Bob discusses his illustrious 42-year career atNews-2, explaining how the business morphed into a 24/7/265 news cycle, his toughest challenges, andhis most harrowing assignment.  AMONG THE TOPICS, MARATHON MANIA, THE SCARIEST MOMENTOF BOB'S CAREER (AND IT WASN'T COVERING THE WAR IN AFGANISTAN) AND TO SHAVE OR NOT TOSHAVE THE MUSTACHE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

One of the most decorated local TV anchors in the country, News-2 anchor Bob Mueller joined Joe andJohn, which turned into an hour-long laugh fest and roast. Bob discusses his illustrious 42-year career atNews-2, explaining how the business morphed into a 24/7/265 news cycle, his toughest challenges, andhis most harrowing assignment.  AMONG THE TOPICS, MARATHON MANIA, THE SCARIEST MOMENTOF BOB'S CAREER (AND IT WASN'T COVERING THE WAR IN AFGANISTAN) AND TO SHAVE OR NOT TOSHAVE THE MUSTACHE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

You can't get past page 6 of the Mueller Report without laughing your ass off (unless you're clueless or a Marxist).  Benedict Bob Mueller lists Konstantin Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence asset even though by 2018 Mueller had HUNDREDS of pages of State Department documents that disclose how central Kilimnik was to EVERYTHING in Ukraine and Russia.  (Another person thrown under Baghdad Bob's bus because Kilimnik knows where the FBI buried the bodies.) Q: What the hell was Mueller's source to arrive at his "findings"???   PS-Mueller still has no idea what FusionGPS is.

For the first time in a couple weeks restauranteur Italiano makes an appearance to discuss the launch of his Cafe… Other subjects include: 4 day work weeks in the UK, Greg's state of employment, President Tulsi and VP McConaughey, PA Senate drama, Taylor Lorantz, Bill Gates, Bob Mueller, Hunter Biden, Taylor Swift and Treason.

We have been talking about the Katie Quackenbush story since 2017.  Quackenbush, was charged in the shooting of Gerald Melton on Music Row on April 26, 2017. Melton, who was 54 when he was shot, survived his injuries.  Her mugshot went viral and we've been talking about it since!   Here is a montage of our converstations across multiple episodes (Ep. 58, 85, 86, and 122) and a news update from our friend Bob Mueller of WKRN!  Her sentencing hearing is being held on on May 12, so we shall all see what happens   

Et sjeldent bilde: Tre nøkkelspillere i Russia collusion. FBI-sjef James Comey, hans forgjenger Bob Mueller og Obama. De har noen hemmeligheter sammen som de smiler av. Foto: Det hvite hus. Barack Obama og hans nettverk mistenkes for å være den/de som trekker i trådene og er ansvarlig for Biden-regimets ekstreme politikk. Obama bestyrte Russia collusion-konspirasjonen, som spesialetterforsker Bob Mueller ikke fant spor av. Likevel snakker Obama som om konspirasjonen ikke fant sted. Han vet at hvis han innrømmer at den var falsk, vil det rive med seg ikke bare ham selv, men også Hillary. Alt renkespillet henger sammen. Nå er det en ny spesialetterforsker som gransker Russiagate: John Durham. De første rettssakene begynner 18. mai mot advokat Michael Sussmann som løy til FBI. Hillary ligger tynt an, men det gjør også Obama når det kommer til stykket. Det legges derfor merke til at Obama i en tale på Stanford University snakket om konspirasjoner og desinformasjon utelukkende som et problem på høyresiden. Han hadde en løsning: Steng det ned. Obama var klar på at moderering ikke var tilstrekkelig. Da finner de mørke kreftene smutthull. Nei, en total nedstengning er det eneste som hjelper. For å redde demokratiet. Dette er det edle motiv som kjøres frem som forsvar for sensur. Bare to uker etter Obamas tale forteller leder av Department for Homeland Security at det er opprettet et nytt kontor under DHS  som skal bekjempe desinformasjon. Det lyder som et svar på Obamas anbefaling. Tucker Carlson bemerker at det er viktig at det er lagt inn under DHS som har politimyndighet. Nå opprettes det et Sannhetsministerium i USA helt etter «1984». Fienden kommer innenfra og det er ikke vanlige borgere, men den føderale regjering. Vi tar for oss Obamas tale og kommenterer måten han selger sensur på for å «redde demokratiet». Bestill gode bøker fra Document forlag: Kjøp Kents bok her! Kjøp Alf R. Jacobsens politiske bombe «Stalins svøpe: KGB, AP og kommunismens medløpere» her! Kjøp «Et vaklende Europa» av Carl Schiøtz Wibye her! Vi setter stor pris på et bidrag til vårt arbeid, bruk Vipps eller konto:

Highlights:     “I think one of the most amazing things that promise to happen as a result of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter and its restoration as a free speech platform is that we're going to be finding out a lot about Hunter Biden and Hillary and the Russian collusion hoax that cost taxpayers tens of millions of wasted dollars in a complete wild-goose chase led by Bumblin' Bob Mueller.” “The Clinton campaign, as well as the DNC, are all arguing before the courts that Fusion was not retained to do opposition research, but to ‘support' Perkins Coie's legal advice to Democrats, and therefore all the documents are covered under attorney-client privilege.”Durham has just revealed that he has hundreds of emails between Fusion GPS and lamestream media reporters, we're talking ABC News, the New York Times, Slate, all the who's who of leftist print propaganda, and as Durham notes in his filing, not a single one of these emails are knowingly disseminating false information. Not a single one had any lawyer copied to the email, which proves that their relationship with the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with legal advice.”Timestamps:     [02:33] The latest bombshell from the Durham investigation[05:25] How pundits are admitting that the Clinton campaign is becoming increasingly desperate in the face of indictments[06:50] How Durham is closing in on Hillary and her surrogates even if they invoke an attorney-client privilegeResources:  Subscribe to our email list here: https://www.turleytalks.com/subscribeSupport this channel. Get Your Brand-New PATRIOT T-Shirts and Merch Here: https://store.turleytalks.com/Ep. 945 The Woke Left Is in SHOCK After LOSING TWITTERIt's time to CHANGE AMERICA and Here's YOUR OPPORTUNITY To Do Just That! https://change.turleytalks.com/Get your own MyPillow here. Enter my code TURLEY at checkout to get a DISCOUNT: https://www.mypillow.com/turleyPatriotSwitch.comBecome a Turley Talks Insiders Club Member and get your first week FREE!!: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com/welcomeFight Back Against Big Tech Censorship! Sign-up here to discover Dr. Steve's different social media options …. but without censorship! https://www.turleytalks.com/en/alternative-media.com Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture!If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts. 

Photo:  "A Cure for Deceit." The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his associates: all proven and announced to have been untrue, albeit not given much publicity.  "Igor Danchenko, the guy who supposedly gathered all the spurious 'dirt' in the infamous Steele dossier, is accused of lying at least five times to investigators, special counsel John Durham alleges. Those lies were to cover up the fact that he really had no sources for his claims — or, in some cases, the sources were Clinton associates.  . . .  The FBI never found the least confirmation of any of it. Neither did special counsel Bob Mueller's vast team. The bureau interviewed Danchenko just days after Trump's inauguration and learned how utterly baseless the gossip truly was — yet it was years before that was made public." @Batchelorshow 6a/13: #DurhamReporting.(1/2) Five years after January 5, 2017, and the beginnings of Russiagate @Lokhova #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety

KCB 2021 convention details; how to be eligible to win an accessible computer; Thanksgiving Day sale on a barcode reader; humor and wisdom with Bob Mueller, a presenter at a meeting of the Louisville Downtown Lions Club

KCB 2021 convention details; how to be eligible to win an accessible computer; Thanksgiving Day sale on a barcode reader; humor and wisdom with Bob Mueller, a presenter at a meeting of the Louisville Downtown Lions Club

PLUS: Adam Schiff says the reason that the Mueller (hoax) probe failed is because Bob Mueller was incompetent. According to a new report, the Trump DC Hotel lost $70 Million during Trump's term (don't tell the media). And much more. 

In this episode, co-hosts Kristina, Mike & Sharon sat down with Bob Mueller, an officiant in the Louisville Kentucky area, to discuss what makes a ceremony memorable, personal and most of all legal.We are gathered here today to talk about all things ceremony! Tune in to listen to co-hosts Kristina, Mike & Sharon speak with a wedding officiant about how to make your ceremony memorable, personal and legal.Don't miss this episode! The podcast team sat down with a wedding officiant to discuss the marriage ceremony, finding an officiant that “fits” and licensing requirements.Listen to this episode to learn more about personalizing your wedding ceremony, the average ceremony length and how some out of the country destination weddings aren't legally recognized in the United States.BY THE TIME YOU FINISH LISTENING, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND how to make your wedding ceremony memorable, personal and most of all - legal!Tell us about your unique wedding ceremony and the officiant you used and tag us on Facebook or Instagram @theringtheblingandallthethings While you're there, make sure you follow us @theringtheblingandallthethings so you can see behind the scenes where me, Mike & Sharon will take you from engagement to your wedding day and beyond with The Ring, The Bling & All The Things ABOUT OUR GUEST:Bob Mueller, Wedding Minister/OfficiantBob Mueller is a Wedding Minister, Officiant and a Bishop with The United Catholic Church.  Bob can help with weddings, memorial services and baptisms.http://www.bobmueller.org/Our vision is to bring vendors, venues, show producers, wedding groups and engaged couples to ONE amazing place! We have built a platform that you can use us to access local vendors, video and photo inspiration galleries, mood boards, wedding stories and articles, engagement stories, exclusive savings, wedding show and expo events in your area, online stores, resources like wedding registries and informative podcasts as well as education events! www.ringblingallthethings.com

Freedom of the press has eroded over the years. Now there is confusion and chaos in reporting, and seeking the truth has evaporated. Norfolk naval base is being commanded by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Is Biden giving away our sovereignty? Kim and Patti Kurgan discuss Patti's most recent op-ed, Colorado Initiative 25: LEAP for Who? (kimmonson.com/featured_articles/colorado-initiative-25-leap-for-who/). These series of Op-Ed's is seeking Truth and clarity regarding LEAP. In a recent interview with Heidi Ganahl, Executive Director of RESCHOOL Amy Anderson, states that RESCHOOL is part of the coalition supporting LEAP, Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress, and “That it is new money that is being raised to support learning accounts along the lines of what we are doing this summer … It's additional money coming into the system on top of K-12 funding.” Sounds like LEAP is RESCHOOL being funded by taxpayers. This should be done in the free market. Parental choice is limited to a preselected list of vendors. It is only for “eligible children” with priority given to low income families and it is unlikely that middle class families will have access to the LEAP dollars. The Authority is governed by an unelected and unaccountable board. Finally, the core problem that our kids are falling behind in our current government run school system, is not addressed. Castlegate Knife and Tool is hosting a knife sharpening event this Thursday, August 5, from 3-6pm. Come visit the store in Sedalia and have your everyday knife sharpened. Guest Julie Kaewert, best-selling author of mystery books, reviews Sharyl Attkisson's book Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism. Ms. Attkisson witnessed from the inside, the movement of reporting the facts to reporting the narrative. Some of her news stories were not published because she reported the truth based on facts. Two examples are her stories on the Boeing Dreamliner and the 2013 Green Energy bill. Suppression of reporting the facts dates back to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Obama. They used government to harass journalists, including Ms. Attkisson; her computer was bugged by both the DOJ and the FBI under Bob Mueller. Julie and Kim also discuss LEAP. Julie states that our young people are being crippled by not being told the truth and instead taught the narrative. It was leaked to Slate that the New York Times year-long editorial content was to push the concept of “racism” in each story and issue. In Marxism, everything that exists needs to be destroyed. In this case, the truth. Orwell warned us of this type of journalism.

This week’s guest is Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director of Counterintelligence at the FBI, who oversaw all espionage investigations across the US govt. He served for 25 years as a Special Agent, which included countering economic espionage in Silicon Valley, being appointed the FBI’s Chief Inspector, and heading up the Cleveland Division. He is the recent author of “The FBI Way” and a current columnist and national security correspondent for NBC News.   In this week’s episode we talk about a sitting member of congress and a presidential candidate who were just a little too close to foreign intelligence services, and hear some of his thoughts on former FBI Director’s Bob Mueller and James Comey. Unfun fact: Frank’s first unit chief at FBI HQ was at the center of, “possibly the worst intelligence disaster in US history.” Listen to find out more.Buy Frank's book "The FBI Way" here: https://bit.ly/3xEx99s 

We've ll know he was a treasonous campaign chair for Donald Trump since 2016. We even knew he was working with a Kremlin spy Konstantin Kilimnik, but that wasn't quite good enough for Bob Mueller who couldn't see the collusion so apparent before our eyes. Then out of the blue, the Biden Treasury Department blasts out a statement which confirms what we all know - it was collusion after all. Thanks for the A+ on the scorecard, teach, but if you knew all along, why did you still sell out America? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We've ll know he was a treasonous campaign chair for Donald Trump since 2016. We even knew he was working with a Kremlin spy Konstantin Kilimnik, but that wasn't quite good enough for Bob Mueller who couldn't see the collusion so apparent before our eyes. Then out of the blue, the Biden Treasury Department blasts out a statement which confirms what we all know - it was collusion after all. Thanks for the A+ on the scorecard, teach, but if you knew all along, why did you still sell out America? Lincoln's Bible, Greg Olear and Zev Shalev on The After Show.

Josh Campbell lit his cigar and extinguished the match. It was Inauguration Day 2017, and he was on the roof of his Washington D.C. apartment building. As the outgoing Obama’s made their way overhead on a helicopter, he turned to his father who had flown up from Texas for the event and remarked, “I hope Trump is good for the FBI.” Josh Campbell, former Special Assistant to the Director of the FBI, was chosen by James Comey because he didn’t shy away from speaking his mind. No matter what your politics are, you will want to hear him speak his mind and listen to his fly-on-the-wall account of some of the most momentous events in the modern history of the FBI. He was present at a meeting in Trump Tower on January 6, 2017, two weeks before the inauguration, that would later lead to his boss being fired; it would also lead to his former boss Bob Mueller being appointed as Special Counsel to head up an investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. Before the Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, and indeed before Mueller’s appointment, the FBI headed up a counterintelligence investigation into the allegations they codenamed Crossfire Hurricane (yes, after the first line of the Rolling Stones most performed and perhaps best loved song, 1968 hit Jumpin’ Jack Flash!). This is also the name of Campbell’s recent book – Crossfire Hurricane: Inside Donald Trump’s War on Justice & the FBI – written as part of his effort to speak out after leaving the FBI. Campbell, who is now a CNN correspondent, spoke to Andrew at an International Spy Museum event on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2021. We couldn’t get you two Irishmen, but we did get the next best thing: a Scot and an American with a very Scottish last name. This episode may lead to heated arguments: but if it does, it will merely be keeping in line with pub culture in Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin! Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Listen and decide for yourself what is and what is not extraordinary and what is and what is not evidence – because due diligence dictated that it couldn’t be all holding hands around the campfire between Andrew and Josh. P.S. Not too much longer before SpyCast 2.0

On this episode of UnAmerican, Brandon, Franklin and Jim take a look at one of prime time's loudest grifters, Sean Hannity. We'll discuss the Trump years in this first, but most certainly not last, look at politics through Hannity's lens. From Election 2016 to Bob Mueller's Russia probe and impeachment to, well...impeachment...we'll touch on the biggest scandals of the Trump Administration as presented by the guy who may be mostly responsible for making Fox News synonymous with the term "State TV".

Robert S. Mueller III – Bob Mueller – is an American hero.  Though best known as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as the Special Counsel that led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the story of Bob's public service starts half a century earlier.As recounted in the first episode, Bob was born in Manhattan and raised in Princeton, New Jersey.  The oldest of five children, and the only boy, he was a star three sport athlete in high school and excelled in the classroom and on the lacrosse fields of Princeton, where he went to college.  Following the death of a Princeton teammate in Vietnam, Bob volunteered for service there.  In 1968, after officer training, including graduation from the rigorous Army Ranger School, the Marines deployed Bob to Vietnam.  There, as a young second lieutenant, he led a rifle platoon along the Demilitarized Zone.   Bob did not fear death in Vietnam – though death was all around him.  He feared failure, which meant he had to do all he could to ensure that the young Marines under his command survived the war and made it home.A recipient of the Bronze Star (with valor) and the Purple Heart, Bob returned to the United States after his service in Vietnam and graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law.  He became a federal prosecutor in San Francisco, and embarked on a career that would take him to the heights of federal law enforcement in this country, and to the helm of the FBI.This episode – the second part – begins as Bob becomes the Director of the FBI, just a few days before the devastating attacks of 9/11.  A meeting with President Bush in the White House on the morning of September 12 dramatically changed Bob's assessment of what the FBI needed to do to prevent another attack and led to an extensive restructuring of the FBI – one that was not immediately embraced in all corners of the organization.Bob navigated difficult challenges as he led a post 9/11 FBI, including an effort – that he opposed – to split the FBI into two agencies along the lines of Britain's MI-5 and MI-6.  He also forbid FBI special agents from conducting interrogations of terrorist subjects that did not adhere to well established constitutional rules and procedures – a decision that was not particularly popular within certain quarters of the FBI at the time, but that turned out to be wise and prescient.            It is fascinating to see the FBI through the eyes of the man who served for 12 years as its Director – the second longest tenure in history – and the only person ever to be nominated as FBI Director by two presidents – George W. Bush and Barack Obama.I should again add a word about what is not in either episode – any detailed discussion of Bob's work as Special Counsel leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Bob was clear when he testified before Congress about this work and his report, and that the report spoke for itself.   He did not opine about his findings and does not do so here, either. One of the things I learned while working for Bob Mueller at the FBI is that you take this decent, honorable, and courageous man at his word.  Because he is a man of few words, each word matters a lot and so it is worth listening carefully.Bob shares with host Chuck Rosenberg in this second part (of a two-part interview) the story of his tenure at the FBI, leading it through a challenging and difficult post 9/11 period.  *** A postscript:  On February 2, 2021, the day before we published this episode, heartbreaking news out of Sunrise, Florida, underscored the sacrifices that men and women who take the oath often make in service to our nation: two FBI special agents, Daniel Alfin, 36, and Laura Schwartzenberger, 43, were killed in the line of duty while serving a court-authorized search warrant in a child predator investigation.  Three additional FBI special agents were injured.   Bob Mueller spoke in this final Season Four episode of the anguish he felt when FBI special agents – indeed any law enforcement officer – were killed in the line of duty.  Though not widely known within the FBI, Bob kept pictures of these fallen heroes in his office during his tenure. Special Agents Alfin and Schwartzenberger avowed the same oath so many of our other guests avowed – to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  On the morning of February 2, 2021, after years of selfless, noble, and honorable service to the FBI and to the nation, they made the ultimate sacrifice.  May they rest in peace.***If you have thoughtful feedback on this episode or others, please email us at theoathpodcast@gmail.com.Find the transcript and all our previous episodes at MSNBC.com/TheOath

Robert S. Mueller III – Bob Mueller – is an American hero. Though best known as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as the Special Counsel that led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the story of Bob's public service starts half a century earlier.Bob was born in Manhattan and raised in Princeton, New Jersey. The oldest of five children, and the only boy, he was a star three sport athlete in high school and excelled in the classroom and on the lacrosse fields of Princeton, where he went to college. Following the death of a Princeton teammate in Vietnam, Bob volunteered for service there.In 1968, after officer training, including graduation from the rigorous Army Ranger School, the Marines deployed Bob to Vietnam. There, as a young second lieutenant, he led a rifle platoon along the Demilitarized Zone. Bob did not fear death in Vietnam – though death was all around him. He feared failure, which meant he had to do all he could to ensure that the young Marines under his command survived the war and made it home.A recipient of the Bronze Star (with valor) and the Purple Heart, Bob returned to the United States after his service in Vietnam and graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law. He became a federal prosecutor in San Francisco, and embarked on a career that would take him to the heights of federal law enforcement in this country, and to the helm of the FBI.My interview with Bob Mueller is in two parts. The first part covers his childhood through his selection as the FBI Director. The second part, which we will publish later this season, picks up where the first interview leaves off – and covers his tenure as Director, guiding the FBI through a difficult and challenging post 9/11 world.I should add a word about what is not in either episode – any detailed discussion of Bob's work as Special Counsel leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Bob was clear when he testified before Congress about this work and his report, and that the report spoke for itself. He did not opine about his findings and does not do so here, either. One of the things I learned while working for Bob Mueller at the FBI is that you take this decent, honorable, and courageous man at his word. Because he is a man of few words, each word matters a lot and so it is worth listening carefully.Bob shares with host Chuck Rosenberg in this first part (of a two-part interview) the story of his service in Vietnam, his time as a new federal prosecutor, and his ascent through the Justice Department to become the FBI Director. This interview with Bob Mueller is the only full one he has given since leaving public life, and it may be the only full one he gives.If you have thoughtful feedback on this episode or others, please email us at theoathpodcast@gmail.com.Find the transcript and all our previous episodes at MSNBC.com/TheOath and read The Mueller Report at https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

The Democratic effort to remove President Trump from office was a calculated hit job, which started when Bob Mueller was hired to lead the special counsel investigation to the ultimate showdown with the Senate’s Impeachment trial. This dramatic attempted coup is the subject of the new book: Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump. Newt’s guest is Byron York. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Andrew Weissmann was the general counsel of the FBI. He was the head of the Justice Department's fraud section and helped run the Enron Task Force. And yet, he is best known these days for having been one of Bob Mueller's top prosecutors—and certainly the most smeared of Bob Mueller's prosecutors. Weismann's name became a kind of tagline for Mueller's supposedly evil alter ego as the investigation went on, and Andrew's new book, "Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation," recounts the whole experience. In it, Weissman describes what the Mueller investigation did right, what it did wrong, what it could have done differently and how it all went down from the inside. He joined Benjamin Wittes for a Lawfare Live event to discuss the book.

Bob Mueller is the Director of Sales and Marketing for Streetside Classics Imagine being able to work and play around classic cars all day long. Bob Mueller is the Director of Sales and Marketing for Streetside Classics, a woman owned business founded by CEO Donna Robbins. Streetside Classics is also known as the Nation's Trusted Consignment Dealer, providing sellers and buyers alike with the peace of mind that only comes from partnering with one of the largest classic car dealerships in the country. Since they first opened their doors in 2008 in Charlotte, North Carolina, they have grown nationwide with multiple locations from east coast to Arizona, welcome Bob to the show. Here are some of the questions I asked Bob during the interview: What is Streetside Classics process of buying and selling Mustangs? What advantages are there to using a consignment dealership like Streetside Classics? Take me through the process for a new Mustang buyer. What are some problem signs to look for as a buyer? Tell me how someone determines value of their car? How does someone know they are getting a fair deal? In the world of Mustangs what are you seeing as popular and a good investment? What are some tips for people looking to sell their cars? How about the buyers, what are some secrets? Why a broker or dealer over do it yourself? Are you a Ford guy? CHARLOTTE SHOWROOM 800 Derita Rd, Suite A Concord, NC 28027 LOCAL: (704) 598-2130 TOLL FREE: (866) 542-8392 Contact: https://www.streetsideclassics.com/contact Website: https://www.streetsideclassics.com/ How to get in touch with Bob Mueller: bob.mueller@streetsideclassics.com Have an idea for the show or think you'd make a great guest, send an email to the host: doug@turnkeypodcast.com Thanks for listening, keep it safe, keep in rollin' and keep it on the road! Until next time.

Howie Kurtz and Emily Jashinsky on a rather detached Robert Mueller and fallout from his testimony, Democrats push for impeachment and Joe Biden promises to take off the gloves. Follow Howie on Twitter: @HowardKurtz Follow Emily Jashinsky on Twitter: @emiljashinky For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is not looking good for Bob Mueller and the Democrats so far. We have all of the live highlights.

Howie and Emily Jashinsky, of the 'Federalist', break down Robert Mueller's first public statements on the Russia probe and was the warship 'USS McCain' kept out of the president's sight while in Japan? Follow Howie on Twitter: @HowardKurtz Follow Emily Jashinsky on Twitter: @emiljashinky For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We discuss the Bob Mueller press conference and its impact on Trump's presidency. Also, we get into the reelection in Israel and Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore and his Trump support. Plus more on Podcoin FIND US ON PODCOIN!!! #EmbraceTheRant #JoinUs on Facebook.com/democratsrepublican Twitter.com/demrepubpodcast #BREAKING WE ARE NOW ON INSTAGRAM www.instagram.com/democratsrepublican --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/DemocratsRepublican/support

After submitting a 448 page report that summarized the findings from a 674 days long investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller finally breaks his silence, reading a prepared statement from the press room in the Justice building. After announcing his resignation to private life, Mueller stated the Special Counsel did not "make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime," explaining the reasoning behind that decision was due to the "long-standing department policy: a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office." Added the veteran prosecutor, "charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider." He added that he and his team of investigators were "guided by principles of fairness" and that "any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report…the report is my testimony." Now, the members of "The Investigation" led by Chris Vlasto break down the Mueller press conference with former Governor of New Jersey and former U.S. Attorney now ABC News contributor Chris Christie. "I think what [Mueller] was doing was being what Bob Mueller is: which is a boy scout," the former Governor tells "The Investigation." As for whether Democrats will pursue impeachment proceedings, Christie says "I would say game on. Bring it on if you want to do it, that's your constitutional right to do." Follow Kyra on Twitter @kyraphillips Follow Chris on Twitter @vlasto Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmosk Follow John on Twitter @santucci Support this podcast with a review on Apple Podcasts: http://bit.ly/2UJIsJs Recommended listening... -- Start Here: The daily 20-minute news podcast from ABC News. http://bit.ly/2SA62eg -- Powerhouse Politics: Headliner interviews and in-depth looks at the people and events shaping U.S. politics. http://bit.ly/2SsGwr7 -- FiveThirtyEight Politics: Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight team cover the latest in politics, tracking the issues and "game-changers" every week. https://53eig.ht/2RF3eb1 ==================== The Investigation is produced by ABC Radio.

Impeach Him Or Shut Up Today's topics include: Bob Mueller gave the Democrats the opening they wanted to push forward with impeachment talk...; next, Jeffrey Miron (director of economic studies at CATO Institute) joins the show to talk about the on-going opioid epidemic. Miron believes more of the blame should be placed on the government vs. drug companies taking the heat; and finally, Charles "Cully" Stimson (senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation) joins the show to further discuss the statement Mueller gave earlier today, and if President Trump should call his op-posers bluff on the dreaded "I" word - Impeachment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bob Mueller delivers his report to Attorney General William Barr.

"The Investigation" sits down with former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who opens up about the Special Counsel's investigation and Robert Mueller himself, calling him "an American hero." Cobb takes us inside the Trump White House, revealing his thoughts on President Trump the individual: "he is a very direct, forceful presence," to his own first day on the job: "within the first 15 minutes...Kelly replaces Reince, and Scaramucci gets fired. So I was a footnote on day one." Plus, more insight and analysis from our ABC News Investigative Team on upcoming Congressional committee hearings and more anticipated testimony from former Trump associates. Follow Kyra on Twitter @kyraphillips Follow Chris on Twitter @vlasto Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmosk Follow John on Twitter @santucci Support this podcast with a review on Apple Podcasts: http://bit.ly/2UJIsJs Recommended listening... -- Start Here: The daily 20-minute news podcast from ABC News. http://bit.ly/2SA62eg -- Powerhouse Politics: Headliner interviews and in-depth looks at the people and events shaping U.S. politics. http://bit.ly/2SsGwr7 -- FiveThirtyEight Politics: Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight team cover the latest in politics, tracking the issues and "game-changers" every week. https://53eig.ht/2RF3eb1 ==================== The Investigation is produced by ABC Radio. More info: http://www.abcnewspodcasts.com

Last Friday, just like Punxsutawney Phil, DC District Court judge Beryl Howell emerged from her chambers, saw her shadow, and announced six more months of Bob Mueller. Judge Howell's extension of Mueller's grand jury, which was set to expire over the weekend, was widely expected—the special counsel's office has made clear in recent weeks that it has plenty of unfinished business—but the extension underscores just how much work is still left in Mueller's probe.

This week's interview is a deep (and long—over an hour) dive into new investment review regulations for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). It's excerpted from an ABA panel discussion on the topic, featuring: Tom Feddo, who currently oversees CFIUS; Aimen Mir, who used to oversee CFIUS; Sanchi Jayaram, who is in charge of the Justice Department's CFIUS and Team Telecom work; David Fagan, a noted CFIUS practitioner; and me as moderator. It turns out the new CFIUS law may be the most innovative—and sweeping—piece of legislation on national security in years.   In the news, it's time for a Cyberlaw Podcast victory lap, as our bold election-eve prediction that foreign governments would not successfully hack the election seems to hold up well, despite laughable Internet Research Agency claims in a new meta-trolling propaganda campaign. I note that challenges to FISA are increasing as it starts to play a role in more criminal cases. I ask David Kris whether Bob Mueller took unwise risks with intelligence equities when he charged a Russian company with criminal election trolling, since that company is now seeking discovery of intelligence intercepts. Dr. Megan Reiss notes that China is making what might be called great strides in “gait recognition” software to supplement face recognition, taking what looks like a global lead in the technology. This reminds me that fifteen years ago, when DARPA was researching gait recognition for terrorist identification, the left/lib NGOs got Congress to kill funding by lampooning what they called “a Monty Python-esque ‘Ministry of Silly Walks.'” Not so funny now, is it guys? Especially in light of evidence that China is exporting its cyber surveillance tech to Africa. How does China do it? According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, with plenty of help from the universities of the English-speaking world. Apparently the People's Liberation Army has been sending its scientists to the West under light cover to study cutting edge defense tech. Nate Jones and I examine the latest chapters in the now-encyclopedic tale of Silicon Valley v. Conservatives. We take a look at a Trump immigration campaign ad that Facebook and broadcast media (Fox included) refused to run. Gab is back, but just by the skin of its teeth. Meanwhile, the pitchforks and torches are being mustered for LinkedIn, which apparently hasn't been sufficiently cowed by lefty censors. And Facebook's effort to suppress Alex Jones's InfoWars site is running into trouble. Megan and I talk about the prospect that Iran is getting ready to launch cyberattacks on the US and Israel. Nate covers the collapse of IronChat security as Dutch police managed to decrypt 258,000 messages in the app. Maybe spurred by my taunting, Edward Snowden denies that he ever endorsed the product, notwithstanding the claim on IronChat's website. My tweet on same: “Hey, @Snowden, IronChat sold secure phones at exorbitant prices because of your endorsement.” Pakistan says “almost all” its banks have been hacked.  Wouldn't it be ironic if North Korea was buying nuclear and missile technology from Pakistan with money stolen from Pakistani banks?  Download the 239th Episode (mp3).  You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or our RSS feed! As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with Stewart on social media: @stewartbaker on Twitter and on LinkedIn. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested interviewee appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!   The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Hugely busy week, which means a hugely busy podcast. This week, the invaluable Byron York stops by to set us straight on just who might have penned that NYT op-ed, where in the world Bob Mueller is, and other D.C. shenanigans. Then Christopher Scalia, who knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court, joins to discuss the Kavanaugh circus, er, hearings. Also, so long, Bandit — you were one the of... Source

In his first show after the weekend when Donald Trump had yet another Twitter storm, which as Max has long said, are essentially windows into the Trumpsters soul, so we can look into over one dozen Tweets to realise that Trump really only cares about himself.  Now we know 19 women have accused Donald Trump of inappropriate behavior, yet will the so called Evangelicals still support the Donald. Of course they will! It is also very good to know that Fox & Friends is the sole source of “intelligence” if that's the right word, for Trump, yet he has the best intelligence agencies on the planet. But apparently Fox & Friends has better sources than the CIA, FBI etc etc. Max also outlines how Trump has become Churchillian much to his amazement. Meanwhile Trump goes after everyone but Russia, so much for protecting the United States. Finally, Max begs the Democrats to get their act together.

Bob Mueller is famously nonchalant amid life's toughest moments. Much of that public calm stems from the fact that he's a Magnificent Bastard and, specifically, the lessons of December 11, 1968.

It's treason then! This week we discuss how the Jedi botched the removal of Chancellor Palpatine. Had they done it more carefully, maybe the Empire would have never risen. Stephen is joined by guests Josh Gilliland of The Legal Geeks and Kate Sanchez of the But Why Tho Podcast.  Also on this episode, Stephen and guests discuss the indictments made by Bob Mueller in the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Josh explains the charges made against Paul Manafort and more. Later, we share our week in bantha fodder and read a bunch of awesome listener email. Lots of treason this week!   Get in touch with everyone on the show! Follow Josh and Kate on Twitter @BowTieLaw and @OhMyMithrandir  Leave us a review on iTunes and tell us what you think of the show! Subscribe and connect with us on Twitter: @Stephen_Kent89 | @SwaraSalih1 | @JuanJohnJedi | Please share our show with a friend, review us on iTunes and shoot us some feedback. We grow in quality every time someone reaches out to tell us what they liked. We want to hear from you! You can send us your thoughts on the show and topics at BeltwayBanthas@gmail.com. If you like this episode, check out our previous one! Get full access to Geeky Stoics at www.geekystoics.com/subscribe

8 AM - 1 - Young people want to move out; Do rich people get rich by hard work?. 2 - Washington Post reporter Matt Zapotowsky on Bob Mueller being named special counsel. 3 - The News with Marshall Phillips. 4 - Employee drug testing is still a thing.

Some musicians have the ability to transform your very being with the gifts of their artistry. Master pianist and composer, David Lanz, is that kind of force. The Grammy nominated pianist, has enthralled music lovers around the world for decades with his engaging playing style and original compositions.  Ahead of his time, the visionary Grammy-nominated and chart-topping pianist has remained a pioneer in the genre of New Age music. Nominated for a Grammy in 2000, he is well known as a top instrumental recording and concert artist, reaching worldwide prominence with his number one Billboard hit, Cristofori's Dream.  His unique impressionistic style is emulated by countless pianists, and his compositions and arrangements are performed and studied around the world. His release, Cristofori's Dream was a million-selling musical thank you note to Bartolomeo Cristofori, the man who invented the piano in the 17th century. It resonated with a wide array of listeners and topped Billboard's Adult Alternative/New Age chart for months. For over thirty years, the visionary recordings and live performances of David Lanz have served to heal, to inspire, to provide spiritual nourishment to diverse audiences around the globe. Get the OFF TO WORK CD by Sister Jenna, like us on Facebook.  All photos of David Lanz are copyrighted by the photographers Roseanne Olson, Joe Del Tufo, Kyle Zimmerman, Carole May, Bob Mueller and BHP Images. Specific Credits listed at: http://davidlanz.com/photo.html