Podcasts about civil rights division

This week, we're discussing the seemingly contradictory gun litigation moves the Department of Justice (DOJ) just made. On the one hand, the DOJ filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging Washington, DC's "assault weapons" ban. On the other, it defended the federal switchblade carry ban. To make sense of the two moves, we have Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards back on the show. Cam said he is impressed by the DC suit. He argued that the DOJ might have a better chance of getting the law struck down than previous challenges did. He also said it could even be a candidate for Supreme Court review, though he noted there are several other cases that are much further along in the process. However, Cam said he's disappointed by DOJ's defense of the federal switchblade restrictions. He argued the Trump Administration has been inconsistent on Second Amendment questions, and the latest moves show a continued dichotomy between how it treats state and federal laws. He said he'd like to see all approval on gun-related legal questions run through the DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Second Amendment Section. We also discussed the reason Cam agreed to be a last-minute guest this week: Grabagun cancelled their CEO's planned appearance on the show. The company attempted to restrict talk about their involvement with Donald Trump Jr. before ultimately deciding not to do the interview. Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is moving away from wind and solar, coal demand is up, China was never going along with the green new scam. Trump is moving carefully through the [CB] minefield economy. Gold is on the move. Trump is moving the country out of the old system. The [DS] try to get Trump with the Epstein hoax, now that the information dropped the people can now see what the [DS] was planning. Ship building is coming back to the US. Trump signs the NDAA that has additional protections for the election. Every step of the way Trump is countering the [DS] cheating system. Economy https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2003156645388406992?s=20   consumption, or 4.95 billion tonnes. By comparison, US coal demand stands at 410 million tonnes, just ~5% of the world's total. Meanwhile, the IEA projects a gradual decline in demand over the next 5 years, to ~8.60 billion tonnes by 2030. However, past forecasts of peak coal demand have repeatedly proven wrong, as consumption continues to rise. Coal remains in high demand 23 US States Are At High Risk Of (Or In) Recession Currently  In 2025, states responsible for about a third of U.S. GDP are in recession, or face high recession risk. Another third are expanding, including Florida and Utah, based on payrolls, employment, and other key economic data. This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows recession risk by state in 2025, based on analysis from Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. In Recession/High Risk Treading Water Expanding State/District Business Cycle Status Share of U.S. GDP (%) Georgia In Recession/High Risk 3.03 Montana In Recession/High Risk 0.25 Wyoming In Recession/High Risk 0.18 Michigan In Recession/High Risk 2.44 Massachusetts In Recession/High Risk 2.73 Mississippi In Recession/High Risk 0.53 Minnesota In Recession/High Risk 1.70 Kansas In Recession/High Risk 0.80 Rhode Island In Recession/High Risk 0.28 Delaware In Recession/High Risk 0.34 Washington In Recession/High Risk 3.02 Illinois In Recession/High Risk 3.85 West Virginia In Recession/High Risk 0.36 New Hampshire In Recession/High Risk 0.42 Maryland In Recession/High Risk 1.86 Virginia In Recession/High Risk 2.66 South Dakota In Recession/High Risk 0.25 Connecticut In Recession/High Risk 1.27 Oregon In Recession/High Risk 1.14 Iowa In Recession/High Risk 0.86 New Jersey In Recession/High Risk 2.93 Maine In Recession/High Risk 0.33 District of Columbia In Recession/High Risk 0.64 Missouri Treading Water 1.54 Ohio Treading Water 3.14 Hawaii Treading Water 0.39 Arkansas Treading Water 0.65 New Mexico Treading Water 0.49 Tennessee Treading Water 1.87 New York Treading Water 7.92 Vermont Treading Water 0.16 Alaska Treading Water 0.24 Colorado Treading Water 1.92 California Treading Water 14.50 Nevada Treading Water 0.86 South Carolina Expanding 1.18 Texas Expanding 9.41 Oklahoma Expanding 0.92 Idaho Expanding 0.43 Kentucky Expanding 0.99 Alabama Expanding 1.10 Indiana Expanding 1.81 Nebraska Expanding 0.63 North Carolina Expanding 2.86 Louisiana Expanding 1.11 Florida Expanding 5.78 North Dakota Expanding 0.26 Pennsylvania Expanding 3.54 Arizona Expanding 1.88 Wisconsin Expanding 1.53 Utah Expanding 1.02 Currently, many coastal, Northeastern states are facing some of the worst economic conditions. In Maine, for instance, year-over-year GDP growth is just 0.8% as of Q2 2025, compared to the U.S. average of 2.1%. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s unemployment rate was 6.4% in July, significantly higher than the 4.6% U.S. average given sweeping federal cuts. According to Zandi's analysis, New York and California are “Treading Water”, together responsible for driving over 22% of U.S. GDP. In comparison, Texas, which fuels 9.4% of U.S. economic growth is expanding. Unemployment rates of 4.0% in July remain below the U.S. average. Additionally, the Texas economy is growing faster than the nation, while income growth rose 6.3% annually as of Q2 2025, outpacing the national average.   Source: zerohedge.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/unseen1_unseen/status/2003254895143461092?s=20   caused by falling home prices while increasing the affordability of homes. Home builders aren’t going to build more homes if they are losing money. Trump can’t force them to build homes. This is where thinking outside the box comes in play and things like the 50 year mortgage, interest rate cuts, lower down-payments, salt taxes etc get proposed. With deportations and the decline of the boomer generation from old age, supply will be increasing. Prices will come down. The trick is not to allow them to go into a free fall and keep demand high enough to soak up a great deal of that supply. Trump’s proposed $2,000 tariff rebate checks depend on Congress   President Donald Trump needs Congress to take action to make good on a proposal to send some Americans $2,000 tariff rebate checks next year. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett said the U.S. House and Senate will need to take up the matter. “I would expect that in the new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen,” Hassett said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. Details about Trump’s tariff rebate proposal remain sparse. Trump has said he wants to issue the rebate checks and use the rest of the tariff revenue to pay down the nation’s $38 trillion debt, even as the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet determined whether he has the authority to impose tariffs. Source: thecentersquare.com US Industrial Production Rises At Strongest Annual Rate Since Apr 2022 Following the much-stronger-than-expected GDP print, US Industrial Production also surprised to the upside, rising 0.2% MoM in November and pulling the YoY change up to 2.52% – the strongest annual growth since April 2022… Source: zerohedge.com Trump Boom: U.S. Economy Grows 4.3%, Fastest in Two Years, Smashing Expectations The U.S. economy grew this summer at the fastest pace in two years, far outpacing economists' forecasts. The Commerce Department said U.S. gross domestic product—the government's official economic scorecard—rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted 4.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter. The report on the July through September period was delayed due to the shutdown. Consumer spending grew much faster than expected, expanding at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of 3.5 percent. That's up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter and above the 2.7 percent expected. Source: breitbart.com    FULL steam ahead — “You haven't seen anything yet!” Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2003149733158588868?s=20 This list is just the table setting for the coming booming economy. Wait till Trump transforms the entire fiat world debt system. A Golden Age for the world approaches. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2003285919668011147?s=20    good news, the Market went up. Nowadays, when there is good news, the Market goes down, because everybody thinks that Interest Rates will be immediately lifted to take care of “potential” Inflation. That means that, essentially, we can never have a Great Market again, those Markets from the time when our Nation was building up, and becoming great. Strong Markets, even phenomenal Markets, don't cause Inflation, stupidity does! I want my new Fed Chairman to lower Interest Rates if the Market is doing well, not destroy the Market for no reason whatsoever. I want to have a Market the likes of which we haven't had in many decades, a Market that goes up on good news, and down on bad news, the way it should be, and the way it was. Inflation will take care of itself and, if it doesn't, we can always raise Rates at the appropriate time — But the appropriate time is not to kill Rallies, which could lift our Nation by 10, 15, and even 20 GDP points in a year — and maybe even more than that! A Nation can never be Economically GREAT if “eggheads” are allowed to do everything within their power to destroy the upward slope. We are going to be encouraging the Good Market to get better, rather than make it impossible for it to do so. We are going to see numbers that are far more natural, and far better, than they have ever been before. We are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! The United States should be rewarded for SUCCESS, not brought down by it. Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman! Political/Rights https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003309528805470611?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2003266300832038926?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003271819705389139?s=20   interfere with immigration operations. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003378383862817224?s=20 https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/2002573015142576350?s=20 https://twitter.com/TriciaOhio/status/2002801058897142114?s=20   This was a targeted operation to arrest Fernandez Flores, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras with a criminal conviction for making a false police report. Flores entered the United States illegally at unknown date and location without inspection by an immigration officer. He will remain in ICE custody pending further immigration proceedings. If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will find you, we will arrest you, and you will not return. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2003130997198713329?s=20https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/2003214521419333695?s=20 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/2003214521419333695?s=20 WATCH: Justice Department Releases Shocking Recreation Video of Jeffrey Epstein Trying to Kill Himself The Justice Department on Monday released recreation video of Jeffrey Epstein inside of his jail cell trying to kill himself. The video – which was revealed to be computer-generated – is timestamped August 10, 2019 at 4:29 am ET – Epstein was found dead at 6:30 am ET on August 10, 2019. Prosecutors previously said that the two CCTV cameras positioned outside of Epstein's cell had malfunctioned. The 10-second recreation video shows Epstein sitting on the floor of his cell attempting to kill himself. WATCH:  Source: thegatwaypundit.com  https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003476301970133417?s=20  “a circular line of erythema at the base of the neck” along with other marks of friction and bruising on his knee. Epstein told prison staff he didn't remember what happened but was afraid to return to the Special Housing Unit, saying it was “where he had gotten marks on his neck and he does not know why it happened.” He said he had only slept 30 minutes a night for five days due to noise and stress. His cellmate, ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione, had reportedly been harassing him, and Epstein claimed “he tried to kill me.” Staff noted Tartaglione had been aggressive and was seen mocking Epstein with a string around his neck. Despite these signs, the incident was labeled a “possible suicide attempt.” https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003292687835787393?s=20  were actively tracking and attempting to contact 10 individuals connected to Epstein’s crimes. The email references attempts to contact Brunel (modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, who later died in prison), Maxwell (Ghislaine, now serving 20 years), and mentions “Ohio contacting Wexner.” Les Wexner is the billionaire L Brands founder who gave Epstein his $77 million NYC mansion and served as his primary financial benefactor for years. A separate confidential document from law firm Debevoise & Plimpton lists SDNY matters they appeared in, including one entry: “Wexner: Epstein investigation.” 10 co-conspirators. Only Maxwell was ever charged. The names behind those black boxes are the real story here. https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2003358231780032675?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003480729624412240?s=20  and his residence as Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Profession listed: “Manager.” It's part of a trove of thousands of Epstein-related files released overnight. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003436034709995730?s=20   from Epstein's properties – computers, hard drives, disks, the digital nervous system of the operation. And they can't get it. At one point, frustration boils over into honesty: “The FBI is completely fucking us on this.” That's not a tweet. That's an internal DOJ message. Translation: the prosecutors responsible for bringing cases did not have a clear, reliable accounting of the evidence in the FBI's possession. Not what was seized. Not what was imaged. Not what was searchable. Not what was missing. This isn't incompetence in a vacuum. It's structural. Evidence control is power. Whoever controls the data controls the pace, the scope, and the fallout. And remember: Epstein died before trial. Maxwell was prosecuted narrowly. No broader conspiracy case ever materialized. Prediction: this is why. Not because the evidence didn't exist- but because it never cohered into something prosecutors could safely touch without detonating their own case. The scandal isn't just who was on the tapes. It's that even the feds couldn't tell you where the tapes went. That's not a cover-up movie plot. That's a system quietly eating itself. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2003457025695719784?s=20  and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 Election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.” New: More Epstein Files Drop, and Donald Trump Appears to Be the Star This Time Around So, what incriminating evidence against President Trump is to be found in this latest drop? Apparently, an email from January 2020 in which a federal prosecutor from New York – of course – to an “undisclosed person” claiming Trump had flown on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plan at least eight times during the 1990s, and one time there was a 20-year-old woman on the flight.  Here’s more: The email, which was sent in January 2020 from a federal prosecutor in New York to an undisclosed person, says, “For your situational awareness, wanted to let you know that the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported (or that we were aware), including during the period we would expect to charge in a [Ghislaine] Maxwell case.”  This big revelation is that Trump traveled a few more times than we previously knew, although this was during a time period that the president has already acknowledged having had an association with Epstein. Note the timing of the email – January 2020 is when the presidential election would be kicking into full swing. This anonymous federal prosecutor clearly thought they had a gotcha moment, but there’s a pesky little detail that puts things in perspective: “[Trump] is listed as having traveled with, among others and at various times, Marla Maples, his daughter Tiffany, and his son Eric.”  Source: redstate.com The specific document you’re referring to appears to be the complaint filed in the 2020 civil lawsuit Doe v. Indyke et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00484, S.D.N.Y.), which was part of the recently released Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice.  This lawsuit was brought by an anonymous plaintiff (“Jane Doe”) against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate (Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn) and Ghislaine Maxwell, seeking compensation for alleged sexual abuse and trafficking by Epstein.How Trump’s Name Appears in the DocumentOn page 4 of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during one of her encounters with Epstein (around the 1990s), he took her to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida when she was 14 years old. Epstein reportedly introduced her to Donald Trump (then the owner of Mar-a-Lago), elbowed him playfully, and asked, referring to the girl, “This is a good one, right?” Trump is described as smiling and nodding in agreement, after which they both chuckled. The plaintiff states she felt uncomfortable but was too young to understand why at the time. The document does not accuse Trump of any criminal wrongdoing or involvement in Epstein’s abuse; it frames this as part of the broader context of her grooming and exploitation by Epstein.How the Name Got Into the DocumentTrump’s name was included as part of the plaintiff’s personal allegations detailing her experiences with Epstein. The complaint is a legal filing where the victim recounts specific incidents to support her claims against Epstein’s estate and associates. It reflects her firsthand account, not a court-verified fact or evidence from other sources.  There is no mention of independent corroboration (e.g., witnesses, photos, or records) in the filing itself, and it has not been adjudicated in court as true.Source of the AllegationThe source is the anonymous plaintiff (“Jane Doe”), who claims to be a victim of Epstein’s abuse starting from age 13 or 14.  She was reportedly recruited at a summer camp in Michigan and alleges ongoing grooming and assaults by Epstein over several years. This Doe is distinct from other known accusers like Virginia Giuffre, though a similar incident (Epstein introducing a 14-year-old to Trump at Mar-a-Lago without the “good one” comment) was testified to by another accuser (“Jane”) during Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial.  https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2003236602374713557?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/BreannaMorello/status/2003196698974191914?s=20   that are protected under the Constitution. Under D.C. law, anyone wishing to own a firearm must register it with the MPD. However, the D.C. Code imposes a sweeping ban on the registration—and thus the legal possession—of a wide range of firearms. This broad prohibition, the Justice Department argues, infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to keep and bear commonly owned firearms for lawful purposes. Trump's DOJ Sues Washington, D.C. Police Department Over Unconstitutional Ban on Semi-Automatic Firearms The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department for enforcing a ban on semi-automatic firearms in violation of the Second Amendment. The lawsuit alleges that D.C.'s gun laws require registration of all firearms with the MPD; however, the D.C. Code imposes a sweeping ban on numerous protected weapons, making it legally impossible for residents to own them for self-defense or other lawful purposes. The DOJ said in a press release announcing the lawsuit: “MPD's current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms.” “Today's action from the Department of Justice's new Second Amendment Section underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. Bondi continued, “Washington, DC's ban on some of America's most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation's capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” Echoing this sentiment, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division added, “This Civil Rights Division will defend American citizens from unconstitutional restrictions of commonly used firearms, in violation of their Second Amendment rights. The newly established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to ensure that the very rights D.C. resident Mr. Heller secured 17 years ago are enforced today — and that all law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes may do so.” The case draws directly from the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic weapons in their homes for self-defense. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003192220753723840?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2003238094057955337?s=20 War/Peace https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2003334956479558072?s=20 there will be no escalation into broader conflict, and the decision has already been made. However, precision air strikes on cartel assets seems like a probable outcome. Trump is neutralizing Deep State assets around the globe, and South/Central American drug cartels are assets of the Deep State. They are transnational criminal organizations responsible for the drug, weapon, and human trafficking of the Western hemisphere, and their racket feeds the Deep State machine. My guess is, that cartel drug factories and assets are going to get smoked by the US MIL via precision air strikes, and the other powerful leaders of the world have already agreed to some sort of deal with Trump and no one will interfere. Just like Iran and Syria. I think most of the leaders/nations of the world agree with Trump that these transnational criminal organizations must be eradicated, and stability must be brought to the world. President Unveils ‘Trump Class’ Of Warships, Huntington Ingalls Shares Jump    build two new “Trump-class” battleships, to acquire 20-25 of these ships in the coming years.   In his address, the President noted these 30,000-40,000 ton ships will carry a large quantity of missiles, including hypersonic missiles, and will also be outfitted with electromagnetic rail guns and directed energy lasers. Trump-class battleships will also carry nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missiles (currently under development) adding an additional element of nuclear deterrence to the Navy. Trump-class destroyers appear to be designed as the center of enhanced command and control networks at sea, as the Navy looks to field more autonomous assets and traditional vessels in the coming years.   The first “Trump-class” battleship will be named USS Defiant, and it will be even longer than the Iowa-class battleships of the World War II era. However, at 35,000 tons, it will only weigh about half as much, and have a smaller crew of between 650 and 850 sailors; the Iowa had some 2,700 sailors. The new ships — which are being called “guided missile battleships” —  are part of larger vision for a “Golden Fleet.” The Navy has rolled out a website to promote that concept. Sources tell AP that construction of the Defiant is expected to start in the early 2030’s, with another 19 to 24 Trump-class ships to follow.   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2003231263520379120?s=20   that kind of money, they HAVE to build quickly!”   “We want the dividends to go into the creation of production facilities. We’ll be talking about CapEx, dividends and the pay.” “Also, buybacks…they want to buy back their stock. I want them to put their money in plants and equipment! So they can build these planes FAST, like, IMMEDIATELY!” Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2003224842078675311?s=20  of American institutions or threats to our food supply, economy, or public safety. Protecting the homeland means vigilance: every time, no exceptions. https://twitter.com/ThomasMoreSoc/status/2003262595566850541?s=20  precedent-setting victory, a federal court has permanently blocked California AG Rob Bonta and the CA Dept. of Education from forcing teachers to lie to parents about their own children’s secret gender transitions—declaring parents have a constitutional right to know and teachers have a constitutional right to share the truth. [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003205278796501397?s=20  larger scale. Don't forget that the Malthusians are antihuman and that they believe that 7 out of every 8 human lives on the planet must be terminated in order to save the world. Nearly 100 Minnesota Mayors Send Panicked Letter to Lawmakers Complaining About Fraud Scandal and the Leadership of Tim Walz Almost 100 mayors in the state of Minnesota have sent a letter to state lawmakers complaining about the fraud scandal and how it is going to impact the communities they serve. They are clearly not happy with the leadership of Governor Tim Walz and his connections to the fraud scandal that has rocked the state in recent weeks. The scandal is still unfolding and it's unclear what the final tally will be, but it's looking like something in the tens of billions. FOX News reports:  You can see the full letter here. These mayors should have demanded that Tim Walz resign. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2002771316345327905?s=20 Our crooked politicians have set up the biggest money laundering operation in the world and that 38 trillion in debt is almost all tied to fraud. this is the tip of the iceberg. Buckle up, its all being exposed. Your harder earned money was used to support a criminal syndicate.  President Trump's Plan  https://twitter.com/DcLidstone/status/2003338615917806050?s=20 John Brennan Lawyers Confirm Their Client is a “Target” of a Grand Jury Investigation Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein representing former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation. The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.   [SOURCE] Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan's lawyers as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation.  Mike Davis name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client. In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2003448097930662069?s=20  Cannon's courtroom. FANTASTIC. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2003133420021424297?s=20   Thune objected the president would be able to adjourn Congress for ten days and get his full team on the field. https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/2002953961595449763?s=20 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Contains Hidden Election Integrity Gem – Could Have Huge Implications for Voting Machines    With the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Donald Trump on December 18th, 2025, a little-known section was snuck into the 3000+ page bill:  Section 6805. Requiring Penetration Testing As Part Of The Testing And Certification of Voting Systems. This section amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by adding a “Required Penetration Testing” section that “provides for the conduct of penetration testing as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software” by an accredited laboratory. The amendment now requires the penetration testing as a condition of certification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and allows consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology or any other federal agency on “lab selection criteria” and “other aspects of the program.” While this is still short of a legitimate attempt at ensuring election integrity, it is an effort toward scrutinizing the voting systems by finally requiring cybersecurity experts to do what Clay Parikh was restricted from doing during his time as a VSTL contractor. Hand-marked paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level, is being utilized in Dallas County, TX for the 2026 midterm primaries, and is still the ultimate goal of the election integrity community to ensure free and fair elections in the United States. Source: thegatewaypundit.com Penetration testing, often abbreviated as “pen testing,” is a cybersecurity practice where authorized experts simulate real-world cyberattacks on a computer system, network, or application to identify and exploit vulnerabilities before malicious actors can do so. The goal is to uncover weaknesses in security measures, such as software flaws, misconfigurations, or inadequate defenses, and provide recommendations for remediation. It typically involves several stages: Planning and reconnaissance: Gathering information about the target system. Scanning: Using tools to probe for potential entry points. Gaining access: Attempting to exploit vulnerabilities to breach the system. Maintaining access: Testing how long access can be sustained without detection. Analysis and reporting: Documenting findings, risks, and fixes. In the context of Section 6805 of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which incorporates provisions from the SECURE IT Act (H.R. 6315), penetration testing is mandated as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification process for voting system hardware and software. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) must implement this requirement within 180 days of enactment, with accreditation of testing entities handled through recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This ensures that voting systems used in federal elections undergo rigorous cybersecurity assessments to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities, enhancing election security Poll: Trump's Approval Rating Lands at 50 Percent, 9 Points Above Water President Donald Trump enjoys a 50 percent approval rating, with a net approval rating of plus 9 points, according to the latest polling from InsiderAdvantage.  Source: breitbart.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

In this Tuesday edition of What's On Your Mind, the discussion centers on a "wacky world" grappling with a surge of disturbing headlines. From the mysterious investigation at Brown University to the tragic aftermath of the terror attacks in Australia, the show explores how "deadly political correctness" and identity politics are preventing the West from speaking truth to power about Islamist ideology. The episode features a deep dive into the financial markets with David Fisher, who analyzes the Federal Reserve's latest moves and predicts a "golden era" for precious metals. Gun rights expert John Lott joins to provide data-driven insights into the failure of strict gun control in Australia and the positive shift at the DOJ under the new administration. The hour wraps up with a look at local healthcare advancements in rural North Dakota and a candid conversation about Donald Trump's controversial social media post regarding the late Rob Reiner. Standout Moments: The Failure of Incompetence in Providence: The crew breaks down the "clown show" investigation at Brown University, questioning why authorities are refusing to release what the shooter shouted before unleashing terror. Money, Markets, and Fed Predictions: David Fisher, CEO of Landmark Capital, discusses the Fed's quarter-point rate cut and predicts that the next Fed chairman—likely a "Kevin"—will drive rates even lower in 2026. The "Quantitative Swear Word": Fisher explains how his prediction of the Fed buying government debt came true in just 24 hours, though they are calling it "reserve management purchases" instead of quantitative easing. John Lott on the Australian Gun Confiscation: Dr. John Lott provides a historical reality check on Australia's 1996 gun confiscation, arguing that the policy was counterproductive and statistically misrepresented. DOJ Shakeup for the Second Amendment: News of a new section within the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, which Lott argues is essential for protecting minorities and the poor. Street-Smart Survival Tips: A range safety expert calls in with practical advice on "situational awareness," including the benefits of pepper gel over spray and a clever self-defense trick using car keys. Healthcare Expansion in rural North Dakota: Fred Fridley of Sanford Health details how North Dakota is bucking the national trend by adding 36 new hospital beds and expanding preventative services like endoscopy. Trump vs. Meathead: A candid reaction to Donald Trump's "harsh and inappropriate" post about Rob Reiner, balancing the president's "brawler" nature against the…

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: There has been another stabbing on the Charlotte North Carolina Light Rail The NICS Data is in and Sales were down for Black Friday A "Second Amendment Rights Section" has been added to the DOJ Weer'd interviewed James Fodor of the Science Of Everything Podcast on Defensive Gun Use Xander talks about the many issues with AI Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Main Topic Suspect named after man stabbed in chest on light rail train in north Charlotte  Black Friday Gun Sales Slump President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) is adding a "Second Amendment Rights Section" to its Civil Rights Division. The Science of Everything: The Science of Everything: Gun Control James Fodor Youtube James Fodor: Patreon At Townhall: Why National Concealed Carry Reciprocity will make Americans safer Independent Thoughts with Xander Opal: Microsoft's head of AI doesn't understand why people don't like AI, and I don't understand why he doesn't understand because it's pretty obvious OpenAI sued by parents of teen who died by suicide after ChatGPT allegedly encouraged him and provided instructions  

The U.S. Transportation Department on Friday threatened to pull tens of millions of dollars in funding from New York over commercial driver licenses improperly issued to non-U.S. citizens. USDOT said New York must take actions to address concerns about immigrant truck drivers within 30 days or the state could lose federal highway funding. The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it had filed lawsuits against Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Nevada after the states failed to provide their voter registration lists to the department. The department's Civil Rights Division also filed a lawsuit against Fulton County, Georgia, for records related to the 2020 election, it said in a statement.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new legal brief from the nation's largest gun-control groups filed in support of the Trump administration's position regarding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. We also discuss the DOJ's new Second Amendment division officially going live with an interesting take on who gun rights apply to.

On this installment of the Gutowski Files we sit down with investigative reporter Stephen Gutowski of thereload.com and discuss a recent DOJ announcement of a new office within the civil rights division dedicated to protecting the gun rights of "law-abiding" citizens.https://www.justice.gov/crt/second-amendment-sectionActive Self Protection exists to help good, sane, sober, moral, prudent people in all walks of life to more effectively protect themselves and their loved ones from criminal violence. On the ASP Podcast you will hear the true stories of life or death self defense encounters from the men and women that lived them. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, self defense and defensive firearms use, martial arts or the use of less lethal tools used in the real world to defend life and family, you will find this show riveting. Join host and career federal agent Mike Willever as he talks to real life survivors and hear their stories in depth. You'll hear about these incidents and the self defenders from well before the encounter occurred on through the legal and emotional aftermath. Music: bensound.com

Inside the chaos of the Department of Justice under Biden, deep-state interference, and Republican leadership roadblocks: ⚖️ Civil Rights Division collapse — 75% of attorneys quit, leaving Trump unable to prosecute

From Trump struggling to appoint prosecutors to the UK arresting citizens for private texts, this episode dives into chaos on multiple fronts: ⚖️ DOJ & Civil Rights Division: 75% of DOJ civil rights attorneys have quit Jack Smith's spying on Republican leadership, senators, & Jim Jordan Blue-slip tradition blocking Trump-appointed judges & prosecutors Arctic Frost & the consequences of “blue districts”

Today's episodes cover deep state chaos, UK censorship, NATO tensions, and explosive political drama: ⚖️ Trump, DOJ & Judicial Battles: 75% of civil rights attorneys in DOJ quit

It's Senator Eric Schmitt vs. George Stephanopoulos, and George absolutely embarrasses himself as Schmitt demolishes his left-wing narrative on live TV. Then Pags highlights POTUS' cabinet meeting, where Trump takes questions from the usual slanted reporters — and of course, POTUS wins every exchange, turning it into a hilarious back-and-forth the media won't replay. Pags also breaks down how Biden's border failures are still haunting the country today. Then Harmeet Dhillon joins the show with a powerhouse interview. As Assistant AG for the Civil Rights Division and a key figure in Texas redistricting, she explains why 14 states are refusing to turn over their voter rolls, what they may be hiding, and why transparency matters. She also warns about states trying to chip away at Second Amendment rights, and details the legal challenges she's launching — calling out Hawaii and California by name. A sharp, loaded, can't-miss hour. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I detail the latest monthly gun sales data, which showed Black Friday failed to juice gun sales as it has in recent years. We also cover the reaction from gun-rights groups to the Department of Justice's new dedicated Second Amendment office in its Civil Rights Division. Plus, I chat with a Reload subscriber in a new member segment.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Major UBI study finds the more cash you give to the poor, it just makes them quit and not want to work. The debt is out of control 24 cents of every dollar goes to interest. The [CB] is collapsing. The [CB] mission is to destroy their old system and bring the people to a new system. Trump is helping them destroy their old system. The [DS] is desperate, Trump is ushering in peace and they know if this happens they will lose even more leverage to start a war. The [DS] is trying to divide the people this country and the movement that elected Trump. The know that arrests are coming and they are trying to break the counterinsurgency so the people are not behind Trump. This is already failing, nothing can stop what is coming, nothing. Economy https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1993658495468728570?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1993526341665542237?s=20 https://twitter.com/ultrapepemqtter/status/1990938476666048584?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1993692907115524320?s=20 Political/Rights Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Takes Victory Lap Over ‘First Rebuilt House' in Pacific Palisades After Fires – There's Just One Little Problem Los Angles Mayor Karen Bass recently did a little victory dance about the ‘first rebuild' of a house in the Pacific Palisades after the wildfires. Hey, it has only been almost a year, right? There is one little problem with the house that Bass is celebrating, however. It was a developer project that was in the works before the fires even happened. That's right, this house wasn't even one of the average homes destroyed by fires and her incompetence. What a surprise. The New York Post reports: https://twitter.com/austinbeutner/status/1992983832640073862?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1992983832640073862%7Ctwgr%5E1948d10752ca8b2e751627587116d657aa7f9737%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Flos-angeles-mayor-karen-bass-takes-victory-lap%2F. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1993619585392853496?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBISanAntonio/status/1993324194008875091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993324194008875091%7Ctwgr%5E6ff9acc0b508c58b2c0e326d3b42fe771bbb42d2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fwardclark%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fnew-san-antonio-sweep-nets-51-confirmed-tda-criminals-n2196559 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1993341609824731480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993341609824731480%7Ctwgr%5Ea663c448b933df11eb2c62c9f899610bb785a839%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Fag-bondi-gives-update-memphis-safe-streets-task%2F https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1993419780108550293?s=20 DOGE https://twitter.com/epaleezeldin/status/1993404838596792723?s=20 ZILCH! If Ed Malarkey wants the EPA to release any more funding to Massachusetts for lead pipe replacement, he will have to tell his state to submit a plan to us ASAP on how it is going to spend what it has received previously and is still sitting on. The Trump EPA isn't messing around when it comes to TOTAL ACCOUNTABILITY of precious U.S. taxpayer dollars. Geopolitical https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1993535086462152800?s=20 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is establishing a new office within its Civil Rights Division specifically dedicated to enforcing and protecting Second Amendment rights, which guarantee the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution. Named the Second Amendment Rights Section, this office is set to open on December 4, 2025, and will focus on investigating and challenging local or state laws, policies, or practices that the DOJ deems as infringing on gun rights.  This move is part of a broader shift in priorities under the Trump administration, reallocating resources to emphasize conservative-leaning civil rights issues, such as gun ownership, over traditional areas like racial discrimination or police misconduct oversight. The initiative stems from a February 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump, which instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and address any federal, state, or local infringements on Second Amendment rights.  The office will operate using existing DOJ funding and personnel, without needing new congressional approval, though Congress was notified of the plans.   former DOJ officials, argue that this emphasis on gun rights dilutes the division’s core mission of safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups, especially amid ongoing gun violence issues in the U.S. (with 378 mass shootings reported as of November 25, 2025).  https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1993654295263350864?s=20 SHAME: Brazil Descends Into Tyranny, as Supreme Court Justice Moraes Orders Bolsonaro To Start Serving His Unjust 27-Year Prison Sentence for Fake ‘Coup' Bolsonaro, man of the people. The fakest coup ever. Liberty-loving people in Brazil and around the world are saddened, as a major injustice has taken place. Out-of-control Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a sanctioned human rights abuser, has ordered that former President Jair Bolsonaro begin serving his 27-year prison sentence for plotting an ‘attempted coup'. Under socialist Lula da Silva, the rogue Judiciary is persecuting right-wingers – and no target was more valuable than Bolsonaro. Sanctioned Justice Moraes is still running the country unopposed. CNN reported:   Source: thegatewaypundit.com War/Peace https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993435854480539753?s=20   despite Trump's January directive to restore all troops forced out under Biden's Covid shot mandate. Officials blame Stephanie Miller, the DoW undersecretary controlling personnel systems, who designed and enforced the original mandate and previously served as the Pentagon's DEI chief. Her husband's work as a defense and pharmaceutical lobbyist adds further conflict concerns. Hegseth and senior Trump deputies have spent months fighting internal resistance to comply with the order. https://twitter.com/ColonelTowner/status/1993459007978172629?s=20   schools/homes repeatedly Russia decides to protect the Ukrainians in the Donbas and therefore according to the CIA: it’s Putin’s war. Trump Says No Firm Deadline for Ukraine, Russia to Reach Peace Deal Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One as he flew to Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday, said U.S. negotiators were making progress in discussions with Russia and Ukraine, and Moscow had agreed to some concessions. He did not detail them. A U.S.-based framework for ending the war, first reported last week, prompted fresh concerns that the Trump administration might be willing to push Ukraine to sign a peace deal heavily tilted toward Moscow. Trump said his envoy Steve Witkoff would be traveling to Moscow soon to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who helped negotiate the Gaza deal that brought about an uneasy ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, was also involved. Trump in recent days had set the Thanksgiving holiday as the day when he wanted to see Ukraine agree to a deal to bring about an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine. But he and his aides have backed away from a firm deadline and now say they would like an agreement as soon as possible. Trump said it appeared that Russia had the upper hand in the war and that it would be in Ukraine’s best interests to reach an agreement. Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/kadmitriev/status/1993424275592954337?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1993448542397251701?s=20   President Putin in Moscow and, at the same time, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll will be meeting with the Ukrainians. I will be briefed on all progress made, along with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. I look forward to hopefully meeting with President Zelenskyy and President Putin soon, but ONLY when the deal to end this War is FINAL or, in its final stages. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter, and let's all hope that PEACE can be accomplished AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Medical/False Flags BREAKING: Government Accountability Office Director Reveals Covert Effort Inside GAO to Defy RFK Jr., Preserve Vaccine Data Deleted by HHS (VIDEO)  A Government Accountability Office Director was caught on undercover video revealing a covert effort to defy RFK Jr. and preserve vaccine data deleted by the HHS. The O'Keefe Media Group posted video of GAO director Steven Putansu admitting to possible violations of federal records and theft laws. Per OMG: Putansu admitted on hidden camera GAO staff “stole and backed up” federal data to keep it outside RFK Jr. led HHS control – a potential violation of several federal statutes, including: – Unauthorized Removal or Destruction of Public Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071) – Theft or Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641) – Computer Fraud & Abuse Act – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) for accessing or copying government data without authorization. “We've stolen and backed those things up so that someday they can come back to government,” he said to the undercover OMG journalist. Putansu trashed the ‘vaccine deniers' in the HHS. “I'd watch out for the vaccine denying HHS who's going to ruin health care in this country even more than it already is,” he said. “It limits the amount of permanent damage… research he's trying to delete is stored outside his control,” he said. WATCH: The GAO released a statement in response to OMG's undercover video operation: “Regarding your inquiry, GAO collects & retains data for requested audits & engagements in accordance with GAO's statutes & agency protocols. GAO is committed to meeting the highest level of independence, nonpartisanship, & professional standards while conducting audits, evaluations, & investigations & we take seriously any suggestion otherwise.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1993477109831119259?s=20  prohibited from removing, copying, or concealing official records without authorization, especially to interfere with executive branch operations or policy implementation.’ ~ Grok All told, because sentencing would run concurrently those involved could easily get a 10-year sentence. However, if the DOJ and judge decide to make an example of him/them, they could get more—along with an 8 to 9 figure for restitution + multi-million-dollars fines, effectively bankrupting them and taking everything they owned. Enjoy, shitbirds!  https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1993372507043242297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993372507043242297%7Ctwgr%5Ea7086b8f00b98d794a84ab5935e8ccda69f80d81%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fkatie-jerkovich%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fone-guess-why-worlds-strongest-female-winner-was-stripped-of-title-n2196553 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1993374918315319533?s=20 https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/1993411604520505719?s=20   for contributions to qualifying Scholarship Granting Organizations, marking the first time a federal tax credit directly supports private donations for K-12 education. Treasury is working with states now to ensure readiness for implementation. Education is the first step to financial freedom, and the Trump Administration is committed to providing pathways to support students nationwide. [DS] Agenda Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Surrenders to Authorities After Allegedly Laundering $5 Million in FEMA Funds — Allegedly Bought 3.14-Carat Yellow Diamond Ring A sitting Democratic member of Congress from Broward County, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, surrendered to federal authorities Tuesday in Miami amid explosive allegations that she orchestrated a scheme to steal and launder $5 million in FEMA COVID-19 disaster relief funds, and used a portion to bankroll her 2021 congressional campaign and purchase a luxury yellow diamond ring. “The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to steal that $5 million and routed it through multiple accounts to disguise its source. Prosecutors allege that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds was used as candidate contributions to Cherfilus-McCormick's 2021 congressional campaign and for the personal benefit of the defendants. According to the Miami Herald, the money trail reveals a stunning web of alleged financial abuse and deception: $2.4 million transferred into the bank account of Cherfilus-McCormick's consulting company. $1.2 million routed to relatives. $830,000 moved into an account where the congresswoman was an authorized signer. $334,000 sent to a co-defendant, Nadege Leblanc, to orchestrate straw donor contributions. $190,000 transferred to a company associated with her brother, Edwin Cherfilus. $109,000 allegedly used to purchase the now-infamous 3.14-carat Fancy Yellow Diamond ring. The indictment alleges that more than $1.14 million was then funneled into her campaign account in September and October 2021, just in time for her congressional race, funds prosecutors say were “illegally sourced and misrepresented” on campaign reports and tax returns. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ZohranKMamdani/status/1993107017100304653?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993107017100304653%7Ctwgr%5E271a9bb4777a48bf3973b6303388944477019e08%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fmamdani-names-radical-cop-hating-professor-to-community-safety-post%2F https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1993111704629395961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993111704629395961%7Ctwgr%5E271a9bb4777a48bf3973b6303388944477019e08%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fmamdani-names-radical-cop-hating-professor-to-community-safety-post%2F   humanity. This is the worldview Mamdani is bringing into city government. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993689427940426054?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993491221902418137?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1993497362451296263?s=20  context, as people need to understand certain precedents that illustrate the following points: 1. What the Sedition 6 have done is unprecedented since the Civil War. 2. Historic U.S. military success in some cases may never have happened had the Sedition 6 had a say at the time. 3. The exercise of lethal force we are seeing again the invading drug boats is both legal and consistent with past US actions by some of our greatest Presidents, and is consistent with the Monroe Doctrine. 4. The act of undermining a nation's military through perfidious information ops is a classic behavior of fascists and communists. History speaks, and should be our guide. Links: THREAD President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1993590807002333358?s=20  n Without War to advertise seditious-adjacent behavior on billboards. And Win Without War has multiple Congressional liaisons on their “About” page. National Lawyers Guild is an infamous supporter of antifa per @MrAndyNgo , which of course is now a foreign terrorist organization. cc: @CynicalPublius https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1993668483125576071?s=20   Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) is a fiscally sponsored project of the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ), and the NLG as a whole is widely recommended as the primary legal contact and support provider for participants in pro-Palestine and immigration protests. Win Without War is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center for International Policy (CIP), as disclosed on CIP's 2019 IRS Form 990. The Center for International Policy (CIP) is a progressive think tank advocating for a non-militaristic U.S. foreign policy centered on diplomacy, transparency, human rights, and solutions to war, corruption, inequality, and climate change.  CIP's major funders include Open Society Foundations (George Soros), Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Charles Koch Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation and McKnight Foundation, among others (per Cause IQ and public 990 filings). https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1993720894020063590?s=20  presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the First Amendment. That's why Democrats didn't face charges for objecting to Republican presidential wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016. Fani Willis took our country https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1993418873127805086?s=20   allegations that she had placed the explosive devices outside Democratic and Republican party offices. ODNI officials said the agency received a tip from a person affiliated with a media organization about potential criminal wrongdoing by an individual believed to be working at an intelligence agency and set about documenting it in a memo. A short time after the unfinished memo began to circulate, the conservative news outlet, Blaze News, published details similar to those in the draft, including the woman’s full name. CBS News was not shown the memo, but sources said McNamara had accessed confidential files to obtain details about the woman for the draft memo, including her place of work and Social Security number. The federal security officer cooperated with the FBI, sources close to the matter said. Her lawyer said publicly she had done nothing wrong. Both the woman and her lawyer declined to comment. She returned to work after being placed on a brief leave, one of the sources said.” Another “Seven Ways from Sunday” Effort Against DNI Tulsi Gabbard – The J6 Pipe Bomber Was Wrongly Identified  CBS is writing a narrative through the background story of how the wrong identity was originated, and that tracks back to Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.  In essence, a hit against Tulsi Gabbard emerges, and the details end up showing a transparent intelligence operation for those who have paid close attention. According to CBS an anonymous “whistleblower” originally contacted the ODNI, Tulsi Gabbard's office, with information about who the J6 pipe bomber was.  Subsequently, “a unit overseen by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard drafted a memo identifying the woman and describing allegations.” As the article is written, “Several sources told CBS News that the classified draft memo, which was on ODNI letterhead, was written by Paul McNamara, who is in charge of Gabbard's Director's Initiatives Group, which is tasked with providing “transparency and accountability” and executing President Trump's intelligence-related executive orders.” Shortly thereafter, Steve Baker at Blaze News then wrote an article naming the accused pipe bomber, using information that directly paralleled the report within the DNI's office. The accused woman was cleared during an FBI investigation that stemmed from the memo and The Blaze report.   The woman provided an alibi and recordings of her activity timestamped during the time when she was accused of walking through the streets of Washington DC.  CBS narrative doesn't focus on The Blaze or the reporting of Steve Baker, instead the media hit shifts responsibility to Tulsi Gabbard who is operating outside her intelligence oversight lane and conducting independent investigations which includes information from “outside sources.” Having followed the operations of these embed “intel officials” the motive for this operation against the office of the DNI is clear.  You, me, all of us can see with clear non-pretending eyes, the intent of this op was to change the way Tulsi Gabbard is receiving information and to block the delivery of external sunlight. Source: theconservativetreehosue.com https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/1993418804794474815?s=20   eliminating political opposition. These records are only the tip of the iceberg. https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1993425046849692155?s=20   totally false. Come on Kash, let's take a picture to show them you're doing a great job!” Do not believe the Fake News! https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1993489608034693365?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1993455727718060348?s=20  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was founded in 1957 to ensure fairness in a union struggling to become more perfect. Yet somewhere along the way, bad actors saw an opportunity to play with the scales while Justice donned her blindfold. Our new Assistant Attorney General of the division is Ricochet's dear friend Harmeet Dhillon — and she's back to remind Americans that Justice has an enforcement arm. Harmeet gets us up to speed on her team's investigation into the latest riot at UC Berkeley; reports on how they've handled the workload with only one-third of the manpower; and reiterates the righteousness of the division's purpose while clarifying how she and the ambitious lawyers under her plan to balance the scales on a level playing field. James, Steve, and Peter weigh the president's approval numbers on the economy and foreign policy; and they have reason to believe that Democrats will continue to be hardest hit as Epstein files work their way to the public. Sound clip from this week's open: TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet explains how UC Berkeley administrators worked to undermine their event last week. 

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The politicalization of the Department of Justice took a new turn last week when US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced an indictment against Trump nemesis and former FBI head James Comey. Donald Trump has made clear that this term, he intends to go after his personal enemies, but the capitulation of DOJ to his demands has raised troubling questions. With career prosecutors and FBI agents being fired or leaving in droves, we talk about what is happening to the Justice Department. Guests: Ismail Ramsey, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Quinta Jurecic, staff writer, Atlantic Magazine - Jurecic's most recent piece for the Atlantic is titled "The Comey Indictment Is an Embarrassment" Glenn Thrush, reporter covering the Justice Department, New York Times Ejaz Baluch, attorney, Baluch resigned from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice earlier this year Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A federal judge restores hundreds of research grants to UCLA. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division is suing LASD over Second Amendment concerns. Kamasi Washington talks about his residency at the Blue Note L.A., which starts tonight. Plus, more in this Evening Edition of The LA Report. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comVisit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support the show: https://laist.com

There are few, if any, more qualified to talk about America's scourge of left-wing violence and the organizations that commit it than Assistant Attorney General ⁠Harmeet Dhillon⁠ who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University two weeks ago, President Donald Trump has activated his administration to confront these anarchists head on, going so far as to designate Antifa a “⁠domestic terrorist organization⁠.” For more than a decade prior to taking her post at the Department of Justice, Dhillon was suing Antifa members and institutions that suppressed free speech due to the threat of left-wing violence on behalf of clients across the country. Dhillon joins ⁠“The Signal Sitdown”⁠ this week to discuss how the Trump Justice Department is restoring law and order in the public square. Keep Up With The Daily Signal   Sign up for our email newsletters:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠     Subscribe to our other shows:    The Tony Kinnett Cast: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2284199939⁠ The Signal Sitdown: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376⁠   Problematic Women:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741⁠   Victor Davis Hanson: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327⁠     Follow The Daily Signal:    X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal⁠ Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Truth Social:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1⁠    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court has vastly reshaped American democracy — rolling back voting rights, enabling secret money in politics and expanding presidential power. These decisions have a real impact on all Americans by making it harder for citizens to exercise their freedom to vote, easier for wealthy interests to sway elections and more difficult to hold leaders accountable.In this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast Leah Litman, Campaign Legal Center Senior Vice President Bruce V. Spiva and Campaign Legal Center Campaign Finance Senior Counsel David Kolker. Together, they unpack the real-world impact of landmark Supreme Court decisions — from voting rights cases like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC to campaign finance rulings like Citizens United — and explore what reforms could restore balance, accountability and trust in the Court.Timestamps:(00:05) — What do Americans really think about the Supreme Court?(02:18) — Why does the Supreme Court's power matter for democracy?(07:01) — How did Shelby County v. Holder weaken voting rights?(16:39) — What was the impact of Brnovich v. DNC?(23:39) — How has the Supreme Court reshaped campaign finance?(29:24) — Why did Citizens United open the floodgates for money in politics?(32:37) — How have super PACs changed elections?(34:02) — How have wealthy special interests reshaped U.S. elections?(35:44) — What does presidential immunity mean for accountability?(37:30) — How do lifetime seats protect the Supreme Court from accountability?(39:22) — What role can Congress play in restoring trust and democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan and a former Supreme Court clerk. In addition to cohosting Strict Scrutiny, she writes frequently about the Court for media outlets including The Washington Post, Slate, and The Atlantic, among others, and has appeared as a commentator on NPR and MSNBC, in addition to other venues. She has received the Ruth Bader Ginsburg award for her “scholarly excellence” from the American Constitution Society and published in top law reviews. Follow her on Bluesky @LeahLitman and Instagram @ProfLeahLitman.Bruce V. Spiva is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He is an attorney and community leader who has spent his over 30-year career fighting for civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, consumer protection, and antitrust enforcement.Over the past three decades, he has tried cases and argued appeals in courtrooms across the country, including arguing against vote suppression in the United States Supreme Court in 2021. In 2022, in his first run for public office, Bruce mounted a competitive run in the primary election for Washington, D.C. Attorney General. In addition to founding his own law firm where he practiced for eleven years, Bruce has held several leadership and management positions as a partner at two national law firms. Most recently, Bruce served as the Managing Partner of the D.C. Office and on the firm-wide Executive Committee of Perkins Coie LLP, where he also had an active election law practice. He first-chaired twelve voting rights and redistricting trials across the country, and argued numerous voting rights appeals in U.S. circuit courts and state supreme courts during his tenure at Perkins. David Kolker is Campaign Finance Senior Counsel at Campaign Legal Center. He focuses on both short- and long-term strategies to improve campaign finance laws across the country, and precedent interpreting those laws. David has spent decades litigating cases in both the public and private sectors. He worked for nearly 20 years at the Federal Election Commission, where he litigated cases on federal campaign finance law and for several years led the agency's Litigation Division. He represented the government in dozens of oral arguments, including the government's defense in SpeechNow.org v. FEC before the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. He litigated many cases decided by the Supreme Court, including the landmark cases of McConnell v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC. David joined CLC from the Federal Communications Commission, where he served as the deputy bureau chief, Enforcement Bureau. He previously was a partner at the law firm Spiegel and McDiarmid in Washington. Early in his career, David worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Links:The Supreme Court Needs to Start Standing Up for Democracy – CLCThe Supreme Court's Role in Undermining American Democracy  – CLCSupreme Court's Impact on Voting Rights Is a Threat to Democracy  – CLCWhy the Current U.S. Supreme Court Is a Threat to Our Democracy  – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCWhat Does the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Arizona Decision Mean for Voters? – CLCAlito Flags the Fatal Flaw of the Supreme Court Ethics Code – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCImproving Ethics Standards at the Supreme Court – CLCSupreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules – The HillU.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCCampaign Legal Center Responds to SCOTUS Ruling Limiting Court Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCProtecting the Promise of American Citizenship – CLCBringing the Fight for Fair Voting Maps to the U.S. Supreme Court – CLCThe Supreme Court Must Uphold Fair Voting Maps for Fair Representation – CLCAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Harmeet Dhillon, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, joins the Chicks on the Right to reveal how Trump's DOJ is taking on anti-Semitism on college campuses, dismantling DEI initiatives, and holding leaders accountable for COVID-era abuses. She also addresses foreign influences behind radical student movements, explains why “DEI will DIE,” and shares what's next for justice in America.

It's Friday, August 8th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus ISIS soldiers behead Christians in Mozambique, burning churches International observers are reporting that ISIS-aligned soldiers are beheading Christians and burning churches and homes in central and southern Africa – with some of the most brutal attacks happening in the nation of Mozambique, reports Fox News. The Middle East Media Research Institute – a counter-terrorism nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. – is sounding the alarm about what it describes as a "silent genocide" taking place by Muslim terrorists against Christians.   Alberto Fernandez, their Vice President, spoke to Fox News. FERNANDEZ: “What we see in Africa today is a kind of silent genocide or silent brutal, savage war that is occurring in the shadows and all too often ignored by the international community. We see rampaging jihadist groups from West Africa and even in the south in Mozambique. “The fact, for example, is that jihadist groups are in a position to take over, not one, not two, but several countries in Africa. It is very dangerous for the national security of the United States, let alone the security of the poor people who are there.” Fernandez spoke bluntly about the goal of these Muslim terrorist groups in Africa. FERNANDEZ: “The goal is eliminating Christian communities completely. These jihadist groups want to eliminate all the Christians in that area, take that area over, and keep pushing.” And he's grateful for President Trump's willingness to become involved. FERNANDEZ:  “The President's initiative in stopping the growing war between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, its neighbor, is very significant, because this could have become a terrible war. We know that jihadists like to take advantage of vacuums, security vacuums, ungoverned spaces.” The migration agency said Monday that attacks by Muslim insurgents in Mozambique's northern Cabo Delgado province displaced more than 46,000 people in the span of eight days just last month. Sixty percent of those forced from their homes were children. The Muslim jihadists of Africa would do well to follow the advice of Gamaliel, the Pharisee from the time of Christ. In Acts 5:38-39, he said, “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Amazon Web Services gives the Trump admin $1 billion coupon In the United States, Amazon Web Services is giving the Trump administration a $1 billion coupon to use their services for the federal government's digital transformation and artificial intelligence capacity, reports Politico.com. On Thursday, the General Services Administration announced a sweeping “OneGov” agreement with Amazon Web Services that would yield up to $1 billion in cost savings for federal agencies shifting to cloud services. But the Amazon deal is not exclusive. Similar OneGov agreements are in the works with other major cloud providers, including Microsoft and Google. Oracle also recently signed a deal giving government agencies a 75% discount on Oracle technology. Trump cancels half billion dollars of federal funding for UCLA over anti-Semitism The Trump administration has canceled $584 million in grants for the University of California in Los Angeles, claiming they did not take a strong enough stance against on-campus anti-Semitism, reports One America News. UCLA recently reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the school in a civil rights dispute, claiming pro-Palestinian protesters were permitted to block them from accessing certain areas on campus in 2024. President Donald Trump's office announced that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA in violation of the Equal Rights Act of 1964 “by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.” Catholic priest met homosexual prostitute in church parking lot Clemente Guerrero-Olvera, a Catholic parochial vicar at St. Ann Church in Clayton, North Carolina, was arrested and charged with soliciting prostitution with a 20-year-old man he allegedly met on the homosexual app named Grindr in the church's parking lot, reports LifeSiteNews.com. During an unrelated search for a missing person around 1:00 a.m. on August 4th, a police deputy spotted the young man, identified as Ja'Quavis Brinson, inside a vehicle in St. Ann's parking lot and another man, later identified as Guerrero-Olvera, who ran away, according to the Johnston County Report. The 47-year-old Catholic priest was promptly arrested and charged with felony solicitation of prostitution after an investigation revealed that he had arranged to meet the 20-year-old via Grindr, allegedly for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Guerrero-Olvera was booked at the Johnston County Detention Center and later released on a $2,500 secured bond. Brinson of Benson, North Carolina was charged with misdemeanor prostitution.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Two weeks after cancellation, Colbert doubles down on liberal jokes And finally, it's been over two weeks since CBS announced on July 17th that it was cancelling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert as of May 2026. In the first show after the cancellation was announced, the leftist comedian addressed the news. COLBERT: “On Friday, Donald Trump posted, ‘I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings.” (audience boos) “Over the weekend, it sunk in that they're killing off our show, but they made one mistake. They left me alive!” (audience laughs) However, Colbert has responded by doubling down on the same liberal jokes and liberal guests that made viewers (and advertising dollars) turn away in the first place, reports Newsbusters.org. According to a new Media Research Center study, Colbert's political jokes targeted conservatives and Republicans 95% of the time, and 100% of his political guests, in the two weeks since his cancellation, were liberals. In the eight episodes from July 21 through July 31, Colbert told 129 jokes about right-leaning individuals or groups compared to only seven about left-leaning people or groups. That 95% disparity is considerably higher than his 2023 number of 86% or 2024 number of 82%. The Late Show has been losing a whopping $40-50 million a year because Colbert has used his network platform to belittle half the country, reports the New York Post. COLBERT: “They pulled the plug on our show because of losses pegged between $40 million and $50 million a year. $40 million is a big number. I could see us losing $24 million, but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other 16 million? Oh, yeah.” (audience laughs) That was a dig, referencing the $16 million settlement CBS' parent company reached with President Trump just weeks ago regarding the deceptive editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to aid her candidacy. Here's the edited version which aired on 60 Minutes in a segment with CBS reporter Bill Whitaker. WHITAKER: “But it seems that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu is not listening.” HARRIS: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” And here is the unedited version, featuring Kamala's signature “word salad” which did not air on 60 Minutes. WHITAKER: “But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he, that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu. And in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration's entreaties.” HARRIS: “Well, Bill, [long pause] the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” Exodus 20:16 records the ninth commandment that God gave Moses on Mt. Sinai.  “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, August 8th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Since Donald Trump's reelection, the Justice Department is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Once guided by norms of independence from the White House, the department now appears closely aligned with the president's personal agenda. NPR's Ayesha Rascoe and Justice Correspondent Ryan Lucas look at how Trump's new team—many of them his former personal attorneys—are reshaping the DOJ's mission, from the handling of specific prosecutions to sweeping changes in the Civil Rights Division. Critics call it the weaponization of justice; supporters say it's a long-overdue course correction.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In this episode of Stanford Legal, the tables are turned as Professor Diego Zambrano interviews the show's usual host, Professor Pam Karlan, about the growing politicization of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. Drawing on her experience in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division during both the Obama and Biden administrations, Karlan describes how recent loyalty tests, internal purges, and retaliatory transfers have hollowed out one of the nation's most critical legal institutions. Karlan and Zambrano explore how the DOJ has historically relied on a “thin layer” of political leadership atop a deep bench of expert, nonpartisan career lawyers—and why that structure is now under threat. They discuss the DOJ's broad civil rights mandate, the challenges of a politicized environment, and the legal and moral consequences of eroding prosecutorial independence. The conversation makes the case that what's happening now is not just a policy shift—it's an institutional crisis that threatens the rule of law and the very idea of justice in America. Links:Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law pageNeukom Center for the Rule of Law >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Constraints Under Civil Service Reform Act(00:05:01) The Impact of Political Agenda on DOJ's Functioning(00:08:31) Challenges Faced by Career Lawyers(00:14:16) Interaction Between Political Appointees and Career Lawyers(00:17:46) Meritocracy and Recruitment in the DOJ(00:20:01) comparative perspective in understanding the DOJ's special role

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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 at nexfirm dot 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 transcription 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 dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.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 at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.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 at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, 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 a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.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 at nexfirm dot 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 at Substack dot 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 dot substack dot 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, July 23. 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

There are now 364 days to go until the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a historic document that remains relevant as we approach the semiquincentennial. Eight days have passed since the executive branch of the federal government demanded the resignation of University of Virginia President Jim Ryan. There's a lot happening, and Charlottesville Community Engagement is intended to document as much as possible. I'm Sean Tubbs.In this edition:* Five people were shot in the city's Fifeville neighborhood late Friday night including two children* A Charlottesville Circuit Court judge has thrown the city's zoning ordinance out after a legal deadline was not met (learn more) (learn even more)* President Jim Ryan has resigned from the University of Virginia and the path is known for his replacement (learn more) (learn even more)* Former Attorney Ken Cuccinelli continues to serve on the UVA Board of Visitors despite his confirmation being rejected by a Virginia Senate committee, prompting a legal case* Seventy-four new Americans were sworn in as citizens on the morning of July 4 at Monticello (not yet in print)* Hundreds of people were on hand for a protest at UVA just a few hours later to demand steps to prevent the public institution from more federal interference (not yet in print)* Greene Supervisors vote to move forward with smaller water supply (learn more)Thanks for reading Charlottesville Community Engagement ! This post is public so feel free to share it.A note before we beginThis edition should have gone out yesterday as soon as I finished the version for WTJU, but I chose to attend a social event instead. I'm glad I went but do wish I had stayed to complete the work.You will also note that this edition has written versions for three stories including the one about the shooting. I didn't have a lot of audio to work with this week, and I wanted to document in audio the zoning code and the Ryan resignation. The headlines are sparse because those are slugs. The protest story and the naturalization story will be posted to Information Charlottesville before going out in Monday's newsletter.No written shout-outs in this one because I want to get this posted, but I'm going to be experimenting as I go.Five people shot in Fifeville Friday nightAn Independence Day celebration in Fifeville turned tragic late Friday night when gunfire erupted, sending five people to the hospital including three children.A series of firework displays had begun after dark across the neighborhood causing many people to be outside to see and hear the explosions.According to an information release from Charlottesville Police Department, officers responded to multiple calls of a shooting on Orangedale around 11:23 p.m. The first officers arrived a couple of minutes later and found five people who had been shot.The victims were a 10-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, a 17-year-old male, an 18-year-old female, and a 52-year-old male.“Due to heavy foot and vehicle traffic, emergency medical units were initially unable to access the scene,” reads the release. “Officers and medics worked together to transport the victims on foot and in patrol vehicles, applying pressure to their wounds until additional EMS personnel arrived.”Everyone shot was reported to be in stable condition as of the release sent out at 11:13 a.m. this morning. The Criminal Investigations Division and Forensics Unit are investigating and police want to see video footage.The Fifeville Neighborhood Association is holding a community gathering at 6 p.m. at Abundant Life at 782 Prospect Avenue.Copy for UVA RYAN:Facing pressure from the United States Department of Justice, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned from his position on June 27.The Cavalier Daily reports that the Civil Rights Division under the control of President Donald Trump sent seven letters to UVA between April 11 and June 17 insisting that not enough had been done to demonstrate that programs to encourage and promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion had not been sufficiently dismantled.In a statement, Ryan said he did not want to put federal grant funding at risk to save his job, a job he planned to leave in 2026. So he resigned and Executive Vice President J.J. Davis will serve as acting president.Many groups have condemned the pressure from the federal government including the Faculty Senate. The Virginia Conference of the American Association of University Professors sent a letter on June 30.Later on in the program we'll have audio from a protest held at the University Avenue side of the Rotunda on July 4.The Board of Visitors had been scheduled to meet on July 1 for a personnel matter but canceled the virtual event before it began. The claim is that the meeting wasn't needed, but on that same day former Rector Robert Hardie was served with a lawsuit arguing that one of the members of the Board of Visitors continued to sit in the position unlawfully.On June 9, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee failed to confirm Ken Cuccinelli for the seat. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares advised Hardie and others to ignore that out of a claim that the entire General Assembly had not taken a vote. Members of the committee have sued in Fairfax County Court and are seeking an injunction.More from that protest in a moment.DEVELOPMENT CODE copyNearly five years ago, the City of Charlottesville embarked on a process called Cville Plans Together which sought to update the city's housing policies, the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning code. The general idea was to increase development rights across the entire city and to remove City Council from many of the decisions about density and height.City Council voted unanimously on December 18, 2023 to enact the code, and a group of property owners who disagreed with the blanket approach filed suit in Charlottesville Circuit Court asking for the new rules to be declared voided ab initio, a Latin term meaning “from the beginning.”The plaintiffs in White v. Charlottesville survived an attempt by the city to have Circuit Court Claude Worrell dismiss the case. In April of this year, Judge Worrell ruled that the case would proceed to trial and a date was set for June 2026.However, attorneys for the plaintiffs noticed that the outside counsel for the city, Gentry Locke, failed to respond to a directive to submit a particular document. On June 2, they filed for default judgement and the next day the city's attorneys filed for permission to file late.In a hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court on June 30, Judge Worrell sided with the plaintiffs and expressed lament that the case would not go to trial.“There are things in this case I thought might be useful about what zoning is and what zoning isn't,” Worrell said. “It would have been interesting.”The next day, the city's Department of Neighborhood Development Services sent a note to the development community.“Pursuant to the order issued by the Honorable Judge Worrell of the Charlottesville Circuit Court on June 30, 2025, the City of Charlottesville is currently reviewing all zoning and development applications on file to assess appropriate next steps,” reads the email.The next day, Charlottesville City Manager Sam Sanders called the default judgement “terribly disappointing.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

On June 20, 2025, the Fifth Circuit returned its decision in the Louisiana Ten Commandments case (here), upholding the District Courts order blocking the law from going into effect. This was followed by a petition on June 26 for a rehearing en banc by the State (here). At the same time, Texas passed its on bill (here) requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. On June 24, that law was challenged in the Northern District of Texas (here) by a group of parents seeking to stop the bill from going into effect. Needless to say, our topic today is very timely, discussing the history of public displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. My guests are Mark David Hall and Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, who wrote an article on the topic pending publication in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal entitled Ten Commandments in the Public Square and Public Schools (draft here). Mark David Hall (bio) joined the faculty of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in 2023. He is one of the most outstanding scholars of early America, whose many distinguished publications have argued persuasively for the crucial importance of Christianity in the flourishing of America's experiment in ordered liberty. Andrea Picciotti-Bayer (bio) is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. She got her start as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. Resources noted by the guests: RFI, John Witte's book, and The Sacred Rights of Conscience (Liberty Fund) book. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon joins Mary Margaret Olohan to discuss her civil rights agenda at the DOJ, including rebalancing FACE Act enforcement, addressing gender ideology in medicine, and confronting internal resistance to restoring equal protection under the law. Get the facts first on Morning Wire. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – In Oregon, State House Republicans challenged Democrats' rejection of a bill requiring school sports be designated by biological sex, citing President Trump's executive order. After hearing testimonies from displaced female athletes upset by a male competitor's podium finish, they've urged DOJ's Civil Rights Division to investigate civil rights violations and restore fairness in women's athletics...

Active duty servicemembers and reservists and national guard troops called to active duty have particular rights and protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Department of Justice wants to remind them, and the organizations with which they do business, about these protections. Here with more on DOJ's two new SCRA fact sheets is the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mac Warner.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For nearly 70 years, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division led efforts to protect voting rights and fight racial discrimination at the polls. But in January 2025, DOJ political appointees froze all new civil rights cases and dismissed every major pending voting rights lawsuit—prompting most career attorneys to leave the Division. With federal challenges to restrictive voting laws now dropped in several states, the fight for voting rights falls to individual voters and advocacy groups, raising urgent questions about the future of enforcement.In this episode Dani Schulkin, Director of Democracy Initiatives at Just Security, is joined by Chiraag Bains. Chiraag is a senior fellow at Democracy Fund, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former Deputy Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice & Equity. He also previously served in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.  Show Notes:  Chiraag Bains, “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration's Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits.” Collection: Just Security's Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions  Just Security's DOJ Archives Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Joe Piscopo's guest host this morning is Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Master's in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of "Lost Angeles: Silver Bullets on the Sunset Strip." 51:13- Josh Hammer, Author of "Israel and Civilization," host of "The Josh Hammer Show" podcast, syndicated columnist, senior editor-at-large for Newsweek, and senior counsel for the Article III Project Topic: Israel accepts US proposal for a ceasefire with Hamas 1:01:50- Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss his role in combating terrorism in the U.S. and working with the intelligence community. Topic: Combating terrorism in the U.S. 1:12:45- Kevin McCullough, host of "Radio Night Live," heard Tuesday-Friday at 7 PM on AM 970 The Answer, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schliter on remembering Bernard Kerik, who was the commissioner of the NYPD during 9/11 and former Acting Interior Minister in Iraq. Topic: Remembering Bernard Kerik 1:26:24- Jennifer Van Laar, Managing Editor of RedState, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter on the resurgence of the Police Institution post 9/11 and how it can get back to the way it was under the Trump Administration. Topic: Bernie Kerik's passing, other news of the day 1:37:48- Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss how idealism caused a spread of movements in colleges and how the Civil Rights Division has helped stop movements like anti-semitism on college campuses. Topic: Lawsuits against colleges like Harvard, the new direction of the Civil Rights division 1:49:32- Commissioner Ray Kelly, the longest-serving Commissioner of the NYPD in history, who was in charge of the Secret Service during his tenure as Deputy Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, joins Joe Piscopo to reminisce the late Bernard Kerik and his effect on New York City during his time as the commissioner of the NYPD. Topic: Remembering Bernard Kerik, the legacy of Bernard Kerik in the NYPD 2:04:30- Liz Shield, Senior Editor of American Greatness, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss how Trump has successfully taken away the issues that the Democrats have imposed, especially helping out the working class. Topic: Latest from the Trump administration 2:15:06- Tim Young, comedian, CEO of the Veebs app, and Heritage Media Fellow for Strategic Communication, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss the media surrounding the Trump Administration and the media surrounding the Democratic Party and its supporters as well. Topic: Media in the second Trump administration See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Today's episode we discuss Elon Musk's exit from the Trump Admin while DOGE work continues. He played a very real, very critical role in the future. We talk about my run for Governor and the future of farming in California. I meet with Jennifer Horn to discuss Karen Bass's silence over the massive LA riot that took place this past week. I'm then joined by Harmeet Dhillon, the US Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, to discuss their lawsuit against California's laws for men in women's sports. This is an episode you don't want to miss!

(AURN News) — The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the city of Chicago is making race-based hiring decisions — specifically, whether it has hired ‘too many Black people' — according to a letter sent to Mayor Brandon Johnson. The probe follows comments Johnson made during a recent visit to the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn, where he praised the racial diversity within his administration. In remarks cited by the DOJ, Johnson listed several senior-level city officials and highlighted their race. According to a letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division, the department's investigation is “based on information suggesting that you have made hiring decisions solely on the basis of race.” The letter quotes Johnson as saying: “Business and economic neighborhood development, the deputy mayor is a Black woman.” “Department of planning and development is a Black woman.” “Infrastructure, deputy mayor is a Black woman.” “Chief operations officer is a Black man.” “Budget director is a Black woman.” “Senior advisor is a Black man.” According to the letter, Johnson reportedly concluded that list by saying he was “laying” these positions “out” to “ensure that our people get a chance to grow their business.” In response, the DOJ says it is examining whether such decisions reflect a broader “pattern or practice of discrimination” in city hiring. “If these kind of hiring decisions are being made for top-level positions in your administration, then it begs the question whether such decisions are also being made for lower-level positions,” Dhillon wrote. The letter also states that no conclusions have been reached and invites Johnson's cooperation in the ongoing investigation. This marks the latest move by the Trump administration in what it has described as a fight against ‘woke DEI.' Officials have made rolling back diversity-focused hiring initiatives a key policy goal. One lingering question: How does this benefit Black America? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss today's Oval Office meeting between President Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. They also discuss Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio's second day of Senate hearings on U.S. foreign policy. Then, they talk about Maryland Governor Wes Moore's decision to veto a bill that would have set up a state commission on slavery reparations. Plus, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson after public statements about his hiring practices. Next, Tom talks to RCP White House reporter Phil Wegmann about the status of the budget bill and the behind-the-scenes negotiations within the Republican House caucus. And finally, Carl talks to Democratic strategist Dan Strother about the current state of the Democratic Party and the impact of recent revelations concerning Joe Biden's health and acuity during his presidency.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, River City Hash Mondays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme court ripped Trump and his cabinet to shreds.Then, on the rest of the menu, nearly three-quarters of the attorneys working for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have resigned in protest of Trump's “perversion” of the department's mission; libraries across the country are cutting back on staff and services after Trump's order to dismantle the small Institute of Museum and Library Services; and, Trump set up a tip line for federal employees to snitch on colleagues working on DEI initiatives, and not one of the fifteen thousand employees at the EPA used it.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where a pro-European Union centrist pulled off an upset in Romania's presidential election; and, Putin outlawed Amnesty International in his latest crackdown on dissent and activists.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!"I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia ChildBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine sweeping changes in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration. Reporter Sam Levine joins host Jessica Levinson to discuss how the division, long tasked with enforcing voting rights and other protections, has seen over 70% of its attorneys depart amid a shift in priorities toward the president's agenda. The episode explores what this means for civil rights enforcement, voter protections, and whether former DOJ lawyers can fill the gap by taking their expertise into private practice.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Role and Function of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and Voting Section: The conversation starts with an explanation of what the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice (DOJ) does. It is tasked with enforcing America's civil rights laws—including the Voting Rights Act—and consists of 11 sections dealing with various aspects of civil rights (voting, housing, education, anti-discrimination). Impact of Administrative Changes on DOJ Priorities: A significant theme is how changes in presidential administrations can redirect the focus and priorities of the DOJ and its sections—especially the Voting Section. While career attorneys (not political appointees) do most of the day-to-day work, political appointees set overarching priorities. Normally, shifts happen between administrations, but under the Trump administration, changes were described as “radical departures,” shifting focus to investigate noncitizen voting and prioritizing policies aligned with the president rather than traditional civil rights enforcement.Dismissal of Civil Servants and Dismantling of the Voting Section: The episode highlights the mass removal of senior civil servants in the Voting Section under Trump's administration, replacing experienced managers and ordering the dismissal of all active cases. This unprecedented action is portrayed as a clear signal of political influence overriding apolitical legal work—and is said to undermine the department's ability to fulfill its civil rights mandate.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@srl

Harmeet K. Dhillon is a nationally recognized civil rights and constitutional law attorney, founder of the Dhillon Law Group, and founder of the Center for American Liberty. Born in Chandigarh, India in 1969, she moved to the U.S. as a child and has become a prominent Republican Party official and legal commentator. From 2016 until April 2025, she served as a Republican National Committee official, where she championed election integrity and the rights of parents and religious minorities. She was nominated by President Trump in December 2024, and confirmed by the Senate in April 2025, to be the next United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

How is the Trump administration transforming the Department of Justice's civil rights priorities?Joining us today for a deep dive is DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the civil rights division.Their jurisdiction includes a wide range of constitutional issues, from religious freedom to Title IX protections, race-based discrimination, and enforcing voting rights laws.The views expressed in this video are those of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

White House Boys , Florida School For Boyshe Florida School for Boys, also known as the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys (AGDS), was a reform school operated by the state of Florida in the panhandle town of Marianna from January 1, 1900, to June 30, 2011.[1][2] A second campus was opened in the town of Okeechobee in 1955. For a time, it was the largest juvenile reform institution in the United States.[3]Throughout its 111-year history, the school gained a reputation for abuse, beatings, rapes, torture, and even murder of students by staff. Despite periodic investigations, changes of leadership, and promises to improve, the allegations of cruelty and abuse continued.After the school failed a state inspection in 2009, the governor ordered a full investigation. Many of the historic and recent allegations of abuse and violence were confirmed by separate investigations by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 2010, and by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in 2011.[4] State authorities closed the school permanently in June 2011. At the time of its closure, it was a part of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.[5]Because of questions about the number of deaths at the school and a high number of unmarked graves, the state authorized a forensic anthropology survey by University of South Florida in 2012. They identified 55 burials on the grounds, most outside the cemetery, and documented nearly 100 deaths at the school. The state said it did not have authority to allow exhumation of graves, which would permit determination of cause of death and identification of remains. (In addition it wanted to sell land on the property.) A family member of a student who died at the school in 1934, and who wanted to reinter his remains, filed suit and gained an injunction against the state's moving ahead with the sale before remains could be exhumed and identified. The state responded to the court injunction and authorized more work by a multi-disciplinary team from the University of South Florida, including exhumations. In January 2016, the USF team issued its final report, having made seven DNA matches and 14 presumptive identifications of remains. They will continue to work on identification.After passage of resolutions by both houses of the legislature, on April 26, 2017, the state held a formal ceremony to apologize personally to two dozen survivors of the school and to families of other victims. In 2018, bills were being considered to provide some compensation to victims and their descendants, possibly as scholarships for children.In 2019, during preliminary survey work for a pollution clean-up, a further 27 suspected graves were identified by ground penetrating radar. Many people, including former detainees, believe that over 100 bodies were buried on the schools grounds, and that further investigating should be done until all the remains have been identified and cared for. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Trump has so destroyed the DOJ's reputation for candor and integrity that federal judges won't handle their cases unless a court reporter takes down every word in a transcript to ensure that their words are not twisted out of all meaning. Michael Popok looks at new reporting that Trump's former criminal lawyer Emil Bove is running amok at the DOJ, destroying its Public Integrity Unit and its Civil Rights Division to use the DOJ to intimidate students on college campuses and threaten them with deportation or worse to chill their First Amendment expression. Allermi: For 60% off your order, head to https://Allermi.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press This week's show is sponsored by: EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News Fulton Fish Market

Thanks for listening to The Morning Five! Thanks for listening, rating/subscribing The Morning Five on your favorite podcast platform. Learn more about the work of CCPL at www.ccpubliclife.org. Michael's new book, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, is now available! You can order on Amazon, Bookshop.org, Barnes & Noble, or at your favorite local bookstore. Join the conversation and follow us at: Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@michaelwear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclife Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MichaelRWear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclifeAnd check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tsfnetwork⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music by: King Sis #politics #faith #prayer #education #technology #NewYork #DOJ #civilrights #Canada #MarkCarney #elections Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is there really a “bloodbath” in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, joins Glenn to discuss firebombing at Christian churches, “violence” against free speech, and the fate of the innocent people persecuted under the Biden administration. Harmeet reveals how the FACE Act doesn't just protect abortion centers but pro-life pregnancy centers as well, says it's time for violent activists to be prosecuted, and explains why “you don't have to sue everybody.” Then, she and Glenn break down anti-Semitism on college campuses, her focus on the Second Amendment, and her advice to Congress to prevent a repeat of COVID-19 government tyranny.         GLENN'S SPONSOR      American Financing   American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial 800-906-2440, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Quang'sadvocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather than a...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

What would it look like for the Ten Commandments to make a comeback in public schools? In this episode of The Narrative, Andrea Piccotti-Bayer joins CCV President Aaron Baer, Policy Director David Mahan, and Communications Director Mike Andrews to discuss the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments and why public schools should return to the religious roots that our country was founded on. Andrea explains how these tenants have a rightful place in our classrooms and breaks down the historical and legal arguments for their proposed return to public education, such as would be allowed by Ohio Senate Bill 34. Before talking with Andrea, Aaron and Mike celebrate the recent Senate Bill 1 victory banning DEI at Ohio's state colleges and universities. They also discuss the proposed House budget and Senate Bill 156, which would require schools to teach the Success Sequence. More about Andrea Picciotti-Bayer Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. Andrea started as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. Before leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the US Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. She frequently appears in the media to discuss religious freedom controversies and legal victories. In 2021, she received First Place for Best Coverage—Religious Liberty Issues from the Catholic Media Association. She is also a legal analyst for EWTN News and a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Her writing has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Fox News, Newsweek, CNN en Español, and other well-regarded publications. She has also joined Fox News, Newsmax, and various other shows to share expert commentary. Andrea has ten children and lives in the Washington, DC area. For more, check out the video put together by the Conscience Project: Louisiana Ten Commandments: When Does The Government Go Too Far In Promoting Religion?

A week into the second iteration of Donald Trump's White House, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord take stock of the abrupt and unrelenting changes to our federal government. Andrew points to security details yanked and security clearances revoked as blatant retaliation against Trump's perceived foes. Mary highlights several judges who are pushing back against blanket pardons for J6 convictions. Then, they turn to Trump's executive action on birthright citizenship, reviewing several challenges already in motion, including a case brought by Mary and her ICAP team. And before wrapping up, our two resident career litigators look at the withering independence of the Justice Department from the White House, and how all roads lead through the DOJ.Further reading: Here is the New York Times' piece on Kash Patel that Andrew mentioned in this episode: F.B.I. Pick Pushed False and Misleading Claims About Trump InvestigationsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

This week; Chris Wray announces that he will resign as FBI Director before Trump would have to fire him; Trump names Harmeet Dillon to head [upend] the Civil Rights Division at DoJ; DoJ OIG releases its January 6th report; as the plus listener questions.Thanks to GiveWell for sponsoring our showGo to Givewell.org pick PODCAST and enter Jack at checkout. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the arrest of Luigi Mangione in the murder of the UHC CEO, looking at the attempt to extradite him, the use of surveillance cameras to catch him, and the legal status of ghost guns similar to the one used in the crime.  Then, the #Sisters explain clemency, contextualize its recent use by President Biden, and weigh its pros and cons.  They also share their takes on Harmeet Dhillon's appointment to the head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, the importance of the FBI Director's 10-year term, and the Inspector General. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  More From The #Sisters: From Joyce on Pardons, Chris Wray, and DOJ's Inspector General From Barb on The Art of the Counter-Punch From Barb on Why Trump Can't Just End Birthright Citizenship From Jill on Why Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son Hunter From Kim on How Clemency Can Help Save Us All Chris Wray's Resignation The Tree Moat: Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Osea Malibu: Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Thrive Causemetics: For 20% off incredible clean and cause-focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Get Barb's New Book: Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC