Podcasts about district judge aileen cannon

In one of the biggest decisions of the term, the Supreme Court delivered a stinging defeat to President Trump, ruling he cannot institute tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Asha and Renato discuss whether the Supreme Court is finally turning against Trump and if the decision signals the beginning of a check on his executive power. Plus, they analyze yet another baffling ruling by District Judge Aileen Cannon, this time barring the release of special counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump's mishandling of classified materials. Tune in! Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/ Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/ Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicated Follow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.social Follow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.social Follow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/ Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/ Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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> The difference between the red and blue states are clear now. Those states that follow the green new scam are failing and those that are not are succeeding. Fuel prices are coming down except those states that are following the green new scam. ADP has revised its employment numbers back to 2010, the illusion is being exposed. The [DS] is now in a deep panic, they know that without their cheating system they will not be able to win the midterms. This is why in the end they will push another event to try to stop the elections and try to blame it on Trump, this will fail, they did this in 2020 and they cheated to overthrow the US government. All of the D’s crimes are being exposed, and in the end the D party will cease to exist.   Economy (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/StephenMoore/status/2019051853380514002?s=20 Trump’s Energy Agenda Lowers Gas Costs – Most Places  a new report notes that gasoline prices are dropping thanks to increased development under the Trump administration – but not everywhere. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, on Wednesday, took to his X account to share the news. https://twitter.com/SecretaryBurgum/status/2019070174779801671?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2019070174779801671%7Ctwgr%5E101bbd02c2c262b0bab597b657ae92b4f4696b9b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fwardclark%2F2026%2F02%2F04%2Ftrumps-energy-agenda-lowers-gas-costs-most-places-n2198829 Source:redstate.com ADP Employment Report Massively Revised to 2010 with Huge Erratic Differences in Month-to-Month Job Creation & Losses    The ADP National Employment Report data, released today by payroll processor ADP, was massively revised going back to 2010,     For example: In 2025, the new version (red) shows job declines in March, April, and May, when the old version showed substantial job gains (blue). Then for the second half of 2025, the new version (red) shows much bigger job gains of 345,000 for June through December, than the old version (131,000). For 2024, the new version shows big job losses in February and March (red), while the old version showed moderate gains (blue). And then again in September and October 2024, the new version showed job losses (red), when the old version showed massive job gains (blue). For 2023, the new version shows huge job gains for May, June, and July, while the old version showed much smaller job gains. These massive differences go back all the way back to 2010. The entire data set was massively revised. ADP's entire data series going back to 2010 was heavily revised, and shifted down by about 2.5 million jobs across the entire period. I Source: wolfstreet.com https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/2019085379178029264?s=20 Political/Rights One-Third of Washington Post's Entire Staff Is Being Laid Off Today they cut one-third of their staff. One-third of the Washington Post's staff is being laid off. Over 300 employees were let go today.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2019070303112962269?s=20 https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/2019021331728040047?s=20   served.” https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2018768203003170933?s=20   illegals arrest power. The braindead police chief says she didn't know he was illegal. NO CHANCE this is an accident. https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2018170822762823946?s=20 border fit that criteria. No one in Mexico or Ecuador or Honduras etc live in nations where there is any state persecution of any protected class. It's all fake, all the way down. 2. All non-Mexican illegals have transited through additional countries on the way to America where there are no forms of state persecution, thereby further disproving any hypothetical claim 3. As yet further proof the claims are fake, aliens turn down the opportunity to avoid this fabricated persecution by being safely resettled in another nation 4. Illegal aliens receive free and functionally unlimited legal services. When facing deportation, they and their lawyers (as a matter of course) automatically file fake asylum applications. It's a multibillion dollar fraudulent industry. It's gross, unethical, and deeply immoral. Everyone involved in this system understands and knows these claims are false. Adjudicating these knowingly false claims is a full-time job for thousands of people. 5. Federal law requires illegal aliens to be detained pending a hearing for their (fake) asylum claim. These are not prisons. They are not being punished. No one is being sentenced. Civil detention and removal is not part of the Article III justice system (in fact, Congress stripped Article III of jurisdiction over civil immigration procedure). The goal of the US government is to send aliens home immediately (they get cash and a free plane ticket) with the fewest days in custody as logistically possible. Any delay is caused by the fake asylum claim. 6. When the fake asylum claim is heard on the “non-detained” docket the illegal aliens rarely show for their hearings. Those few who do show stay in the country regardless after losing (unless placed into detention). Removal orders are ignored as a matter of course. If and when absconders are eventually found (at great time and expense) they still have to be detained to actually effectuate the removal. At this point in time their lawyers will file a motion to reopen their asylum claim or otherwise appeal the finding and seek release again. Regardless, no removal of any alien anywhere can occur unless in a detained setting. If the alien has children they are, by law, supposed to stay in a family residential center (that costs more per night than a high-end hotel, and includes full medical, dental, scholastic and other services) 7. Biden officials did not even bother with the pretext of performing intake interviews for the millions and millions and millions they released into the US. The aliens were simply released on sight, no questions asked, with court dates years away, in the hope and expectation that by the time their fake asylum claims were adjudicated and rejected years later, Democrats would be able to scream that these illegals have now lived here for X years and they and their children must be allowed to stay at our permanent expense. No one in the prior Administration responsible for these decisions actually believed the or now this has anything to do with asylum. To them, it is just useful propaganda in service of infinite mass migration. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2019043492899725395?s=20 DOJ Files Show Jeffrey Epstein Was Reportedly About To Cooperate With Federal Prosecutors Just Weeks Before He Was Found Dead in Jail Epstein was going to flip? Today we learned that Jeffrey Epstein was ‘set to potentially cooperate with the feds' in his sex-trafficking case. The bombshell revelation comes after it was known that his lawyers and prosecutors met just two weeks before he was found dead in jail. The New York Post reported: https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2017678803896836343?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2017678803896836343%7Ctwgr%5Ecf86d4f223327c36358f06870502d78d212d1ac7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F02%2Fdoj-files-show-jeffrey-epstein-was-reportedly-about%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/Wallstreet2024/status/2018911171869356233?s=20   https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2019027407429382358?s=20   screws on Acosta to understand exactly how this was allowed to happen. It's hard to believe he made that decision on his own. There's a story there, and maybe it even explains how, 10 years later, he ended up as Trump's Labor Secretary. How does something like that happen? https://twitter.com/KatieMiller/status/2019019126006505788?s=20   Epstein was arrested and jailed. In his second, he's released the files. It's curious why didn't these Democrats want Justice before? https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2018723390710858221?s=20   DOGE Geopolitical    Soybean count to 20 Million Tons for the current season (They have committed to 25 Million Tons for next season!), Airplane engine deliveries, and numerous other subjects, all very positive! The relationship with China, and my personal relationship with President Xi, is an extremely good one, and we both realize how important it is to keep it that way. I believe that there will be many positive results achieved over the next three years of my Presidency having to do with President Xi, and the People's Republic of China! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP War/Peace https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2018803094432502143?s=20 https://twitter.com/araghchi/status/2019135910881947914?s=20   Putin ‘Kept His Word’ On Ceasefire, Trump Says, As Large Attacks On Kiev Resume President Trump has praised his Russian counterpart for keeping his word on the brief winter freeze ceasefire. Last week Trump had picked up the phone and urged President Putin to refrain from attacking Kiev and other major cities. Trump said of the surprise pause that Putin had agreed to halt strikes for one week. Trump has newly told reporters that the agreement expired on Sunday, and that Russia kept its word. “It was Sunday to Sunday, and it opened up and he hit them hard last night,” Trump explained at the White House on Tuesday. “He kept his word on that… we'll take anything, because it's really, really cold over there.” And then as Reuters reported:   Source: zerohedge.com Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2019073176588919068?s=20  Chairman @SenRickScott 's letter & EXPOSING the rampant fraud in our health care system. https://twitter.com/susancrabtree/status/2019043192688042099?s=20 “HomeKey” housing program, which lacked basic verification systems. Shangri-La Industries, the ill-named homeless housing construction firm at the center of California’s fraud scandal, showered Newsom and L.A. County Democrats, as well as Rep. Robert Garcia with political donations. But so far, Newsom and the Dems are keeping the donations and didn’t respond to numerous RCP questions about whether they would give them back. The construction firm is STILL touting a Newsom endorsement and quote praising it on its Instagram account. Shangri-La Industries’ indicted and arrested CFO, Cody Holmes, is accused of looting taxpayer funding to convert seven motels to homeless housing. Holmes allegedly used the money to pay for a $46,000 a month rent for a Beverly Hills mansion, private jets, a Bentley and Ferrari, a gold diamond watch + Birken bags for his girlfriend, Madeleine Witt, plus 20 VIP passes to Coachella worth more than $50K. https://twitter.com/RebeccaTucker85/status/2018784027289993438?s=20   https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2019056005997383836?s=20  implicitly condones those who try to kill his political enemies. It starts as implicit, then it becomes explicit. Like all marxists throughout history. https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/2018747974663143563?s=20     https://twitter.com/NateFriedman97/status/2018770880931717299?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2019091187462979705?s=20   https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019060617257042222?s=20 https://twitter.com/TonyDGianino/status/2018802512586002723?s=20   of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Const. amend. I). You have the legal right to gather in public spaces for lawful purposes- – -like protesting, petitioning the government, or observing events—as long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t break other laws (e.g., no trespassing, no interfering with federal operations, no violence). Supreme Court cases like De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) made it clear: peaceable assembly is a fundamental right, cognate to free speech, and can’t be banned just because officials dislike the message. Governments can impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g., permits for large crowds, no blocking traffic) to protect public safety/order, but they can’t outright prohibit lawful gatherings or use force against peaceful participants. Bottom line: True peaceful assembly is 100% protected. Fake titles don’t create extra rights or shields for illegal interference. Stay lawful – – – stay peaceful—that’s the line.  President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019059790593376473?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2019056233177657425?s=20 https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2019059608271171723?s=20     Ryan Routh To Be Sentenced For Trump Assassination Attempt Today A federal judge is set to sentence Ryan Routh on Feb. 4 for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump. Prosecutors are seeking a life sentence while the defense is arguing for leniency. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sentenced Ryan Routh to life in prison for attempting to assassinate President Trump during the 2024 presidential election cycle, according to AP News.Federal prosecutors said Routh spent months planning the attack, showed willingness to kill anyone who interfered, and expressed zero remorse during the trial. They asked the judge to impose a life sentence on Routh to “send a message that seeking to assassinate a Presidential candidate will result in the most severe punishment.” Source: zerohedge.com  https://twitter.com/RedWave_Press/status/2019092540578807934?s=20   agency)—serving as vice chairman, according to CBS News. “President Trump intends to sign an executive order in coming days naming Vice President JD Vance as chairman of the task force, a move that’s meant to signal the importance of the effort to the president.” “The plan calls for Colin McDonald, who has been nominated by Mr. Trump for a newly created fraud investigator role at the Justice Department, to fall within the DOJ’s management structure – reporting to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche – but to work closely with Vance and Ferguson.” https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2019122766570496512?s=20 Raskin: Trump ‘Has One Objective in Mind Which Is Trying to Steal the Election'   Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said President Donald Trump has one objective in mind: “trying to steal” the midterm election. Raskin said, “We know it's not as simple as just turning the clock back to, the time before Donald Trump, because obviously, those were the conditions that allowed for Donald Trump and MAGA to penetrate our society and take over our government. We're going to have to fortify democracy and freedom to make them much stronger going forward. And having been through this nightmare together and with the heroic resistance and opposition that we're seeing all over the country, we are going to make it through.”  ” Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018765587359412584?s=20 https://twitter.com/AndrewKolvet/status/2018899622945771837?s=20 https://twitter.com/daily_romania/status/2019033991333265491?s=20   https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019024377862394140?s=20     https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018740338689441821?s=20  try to cheat in the election again via harvesting mass mail-in ballots. The only election the Dems have “won” was in 2020 when there were mass mail-in ballots due to the man-made virus that “leaked” from a US-funded lab, via a CIA/USAID-funded project. The only thing that could save the Dems now, is some sort of catastrophe that they can leverage to their advantage. https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018851005069226185?s=20  American People will see that the Dems are not actually all that popular. The Dems' perceived support is all one giant ruse. If we pass the SAVE Act, the 2026 election will serve as incontrovertible evidence that the Dems have been engaged in election fraud and treason. The public will have witnessed the sharp contrast with their own eyes. After the People see that the Dems are frauds that can only win by cheating, the public will not only be more willing to accept the reckoning, they will be cheering for it.  (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");  

Ryan Routh, convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump on a Florida golf course in 2024, was sentenced this morning to life in prison plus seven additional years. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon delivered the punishment after prosecutors argued Routh spent months plotting the attack and showed no remorse. Routh — who once tried to stab himself in court — had asked for just 27 years, but the judge rejected his plea, citing the severity and premeditation of the crime. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Little Rock NineOn September 4, 1957, a constitutional crisis unfolded in Little Rock, Arkansas, when Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block nine Black students—known as the “Little Rock Nine”—from entering Central High School. This came after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Faubus claimed the move was to prevent violence, but it was widely seen as defiance of federal desegregation orders.The legal showdown intensified the struggle between federal authority and states' rights. On September 4, the students arrived at Central High and were turned away by National Guard troops, prompting national outrage and escalating tensions over civil rights. In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court, and on September 20, a federal judge ordered Faubus to remove the troops.The confrontation culminated later that month when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, sent in federal troops from the 101st Airborne Division to enforce integration and protect the students. This marked one of the first times since Reconstruction that the federal government used military force to uphold civil rights rulings.This day is remembered as a pivotal moment in civil rights legal history, illustrating the federal judiciary's growing role in dismantling racial segregation and enforcing constitutional rights in the face of state resistance.President Trump's administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to urgently review a case challenging his use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. The request comes after a federal appeals court ruled on August 29 that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law historically used to sanction enemies or freeze assets, not to impose tariffs. Trump had used IEEPA earlier this year to justify tariffs targeting trade deficits and drug trafficking from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico.In the appeal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the stakes, arguing that blocking the tariffs could endanger national security and economic stability. The administration asked the Court to decide by September 10 whether it will hear the case, hoping for arguments to be scheduled in November.Small businesses and a coalition of 12 Democrat-led states sued to block the tariffs, arguing that only Congress can impose them. The appeals court agreed, stating that IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs and warning against giving the president unchecked economic powers. The ruling also cited the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive authority unless clearly granted by Congress in matters of broad economic or political importance.The Trump administration argues that these tariffs are key tools for diplomacy and economic leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying the ruling undermines the president's ability to defend national interests. Other court decisions have similarly rejected Trump's tariff strategy, and at least eight related lawsuits are ongoing.Trump takes tariffs fight to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $2.2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University, marking a significant legal win for the school. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found the administration's actions violated Harvard's First Amendment rights, characterizing the move as ideologically motivated retaliation. The administration had claimed the funding cuts were due to Harvard's failure to adequately address antisemitism on campus, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard had tolerated hateful behavior for too long but said the administration used antisemitism as a “smokescreen” for political pressure. She barred the government from cutting current or future funding and emphasized that academic research must be protected from arbitrary government action. Harvard had argued the funding cuts came after it resisted demands to restructure governance and academic programs to fit the administration's ideological expectations.The Trump administration has targeted several Ivy League schools over similar issues, including Columbia University, which agreed in July to pay $220 million to restore lost research funding. Trump previously said he would not settle with Harvard for less than $500 million. The administration has also tried to bar international students from Harvard and challenged its accreditation.While Harvard President Alan Garber praised the ruling for affirming academic freedom, he did not comment on ongoing settlement talks. The university's faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which co-litigated the case, opposes any deal with the administration, arguing it would compromise the rights of the academic community.Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard's funding, US judge rules | ReutersHarvard $2 Billion Funding Freeze Found Illegal by US Judge (3)Newsmax has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News Network, accusing them of using their dominance in right-leaning cable news to suppress competition and block Newsmax's growth. Filed in West Palm Beach, Florida, the lawsuit alleges that Fox pressured TV distributors to exclude or limit Newsmax, stalling the smaller network's expansion in the pay-TV market for nearly a decade.Newsmax claims Fox's actions deprived conservative viewers of diverse news options and calls for monetary damages and a court order to stop the alleged anti-competitive practices. CEO Christopher Ruddy stated the lawsuit aims to restore market fairness and consumer choice. Fox, in response, dismissed the suit as an attempt to mask Newsmax's market struggles, calling it headline-chasing.Founded in 1998, Newsmax entered the pay-TV space in 2014 and went public earlier in 2025. The company asserts its programming offers a non-establishment alternative to Fox and claims it now reaches over 40 million Americans. It also noted a ratings boost surrounding the 2020 election.This legal action follows Newsmax's recent $67 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election, and a previous confidential settlement with Smartmatic. Fox also settled with Dominion in 2023 for $787.5 million. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.Newsmax sues Fox, claiming TV distribution deals strangled business | ReutersNewsmax Sues Fox News Claiming Conservative TV News Monopoly (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's August 6, 2025, and these past several days have felt like a relentless ride on the legal rollercoaster that is the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's court trials. Just this week, chatter around Trump's name in courtrooms from Manhattan to Atlanta has heated up again, and the energy outside those courthouses is as buzzing as ever. Let me walk you through where all the high-stakes proceedings stand, and how Trump—now back in the White House—remains a central figure in the courtroom drama that continues to grip the nation.First, New York. The city's legal powerhouse, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, made history last year by securing Donald Trump's felony conviction. Back on May 30, 2024, a jury found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records, stemming from hush money payments and bookkeeping maneuvers during his first presidential run. But what turned more heads in January 2025 was the sentence. Justice Juan Merchan handed Trump an unconditional discharge—which means no jail time, but the felony conviction remains on his record. Even with Trump now serving as president again, the legal and political weight of being the only U.S. president ever convicted of a felony still looms large over his administration. Protesters and supporters alike continue making their presence known along Centre Street, where the courthouse became a national stage.Down in Florida, federal prosecutors faced a stunning twist in what was billed as the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Last July, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the entire indictment against Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had charged Trump with more than 30 counts of mishandling national defense information and several counts of obstruction, suddenly saw his case collapse over a controversy about his own appointment and funding. Although Smith appealed, by the end of January 2025 the Department of Justice had withdrawn all appeals—effectively ending federal prosecution in that venue, at least for now.Meanwhile, Fulton County, Georgia remains a focal point of public interest, as Trump and a cohort of alleged co-conspirators face charges connected to alleged interference in the 2020 election. The sheer number of defendants and legal maneuvers has kept this case from reaching trial quickly, but it's set to escalate in the coming weeks. Observers in Atlanta watch for the next moves from District Attorney Fani Willis, whose office charges Trump and others with racketeering and other election-related offenses.While those three criminal trials dominate headlines, there's more just beneath the surface. Federal courts in Washington, D.C. have paused most proceedings as higher courts continue to hash out Trump's arguments that he's immune from prosecution for acts taken while president—a fight reignited by a Supreme Court decision just days ago, sending questions about presidential immunity back to the lower courts. That pause means, for now, any trial regarding Trump's actions leading up to January 6 remains at a legal crossroads, adding yet more uncertainty to the picture.From Manhattan to Miami and Atlanta to Washington, the narrative of Trump in court remains ever-evolving—a mix of sharp legal arguments, unexpected dismissals, and the ceaseless spin of political consequence. As the country watches, the weight of these court proceedings shadows the highest levels of government.Thanks for tuning in to this week's recap. Don't forget to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

It's June 9th, 2025, and the past few days in Donald Trump's legal world have been nothing short of a whirlwind. Wherever you look, Trump's name dominates the courtroom headlines—legal drama never seems far from the former president.Just last week, Trump's ongoing legal saga was marked by a remarkable sequence: four separate court losses reported within just hours of one another. These setbacks added to an already heavy legal calendar, where the courts from New York to Florida continue to shape not only his post-presidency legacy but also the political landscape as the 2024 election aftermath lingers.In New York, Donald Trump was sentenced on January 10, 2025, in a case that has drawn relentless national attention. The outcome—an unconditional discharge—meant he avoided jail time, but the courtroom battles were anything but over. Trump's lawyers quickly moved to appeal both the final decision and earlier summary judgments, ensuring the legal fights would continue. Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, successfully requested consolidation of these appeals, accelerating the appellate process through a single record and set of briefs.Meanwhile, in Florida, the classified documents case made headlines again. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, on July 15, 2024, had granted Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment based on questions around Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding. The government's legal team counterpunched, filing an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The back-and-forth over classified documents—an issue that has haunted Trump since leaving office—remains unresolved, the case's fate depending on appellate rulings that could take months.Elsewhere, in Georgia, the legal chess match continued as Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court after an unsuccessful attempt to move his own criminal case out of state court. Trump and his co-defendants are also appealing various procedural rulings by Georgia Judge Scott McAfee, with oral arguments grouped together for efficiency—a testament to the tangled nature of the sprawling Fulton County election interference case.In the Manhattan hush money prosecution, Trump sought once more to move District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case to federal court, but Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied his request, and the higher courts rejected subsequent appeals.One legal defeat might be news for any former president. For Donald Trump, four setbacks in a single day were just the latest chapter. The trials grind on, with lawyers on all sides burning the midnight oil, and the nation tuned in to every new development as the 2024 election's legal echoes ripple through 2025.

Just a few days ago, the latest chapter in Donald Trump's legal odyssey unfolded—one that's been captivating the nation. On May 30, 2024, in a packed New York City courtroom, a Manhattan jury delivered a historic verdict: former President Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. This was the culmination of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a case that began with accusations that Trump had manipulated financial documents to conceal information during the 2016 campaign. The trial, presided over by Justice Juan Merchan, started back on April 15, 2024, and the verdict marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of felony crimes after leaving office.The world watched as Justice Merchan handed down his sentence on January 10, 2025. Trump received an unconditional discharge, meaning he won't serve jail time but the felony convictions remain on his record. This outcome reverberated far beyond the courtroom, fueling debate across political, legal, and public spheres.But New York is only one front in Trump's legal battles. Down in Florida, another high-profile prosecution took center stage. On June 8, 2023, Trump, along with aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, was indicted in the Southern District of Florida, accused of retaining classified national defense information, obstructing justice, and making false statements. By July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dropped the federal indictment, arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was flawed. The government swiftly appealed, but by November 29, 2024, the Justice Department dismissed its case against Trump, and by January 29, 2025, cases against his aides were dropped too.Trump's legal calendar is dense with ongoing appeals and litigation. In New York, Trump's legal team filed appeals against both Justice Engoron's earlier summary judgment and the final February 2024 decision in his civil fraud case. The Appellate Division, First Department, has consolidated these appeals, and the parties are in the thick of written arguments. Back in Georgia, legal wrangling continues in the sprawling case against Trump and allies over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with appeals regarding District Attorney Fani Willis's role all being heard together and oral arguments scheduled.Amid this legal storm, Donald Trump remains a dominant figure in American politics and headlines. Each courtroom drama brings new twists, sparking fierce reactions from supporters, critics, and legal experts alike. With appeals grinding forward and new legal challenges constantly surfacing, the courtroom battles involving the former president show no sign of slowing as the country follows every development.

It's been a whirlwind few days in the world of Donald Trump's legal battles. As I sit here on this Sunday morning, March 16, 2025, I can't help but reflect on the rollercoaster of events we've witnessed.Just last week, on March 14, the Department of Justice made a surprising move. They urged U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to keep Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report on Trump's handling of classified documents under wraps. This came mere hours after Trump publicly praised Judge Cannon, calling her "brilliant" and "the absolute model of what a judge should be." It's a stark contrast to the heated rhetoric we've seen in the past.But that's not all. The same day, a federal appeals court gave the green light for Trump to reinstate two controversial executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in federal agencies and government contractors. The three-judge panel from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court's injunction, allowing the policy to be implemented while litigation continues. It's a significant win for the Trump administration, though the judges cautioned that overzealous enforcement could raise constitutional concerns.Meanwhile, the New York criminal case against Trump continues to make headlines. Remember, he was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records back in May 2024. His sentencing, originally scheduled for January 10, 2025, was temporarily suspended following his November 2024 election victory. But now, we're all waiting with bated breath for the next development.Adding another layer to this legal saga, Trump recently asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of birthright citizenship. On March 13, his administration filed a request for the high court to allow enforcement of an executive order ending the guarantee of citizenship for virtually anyone born in the United States. It's a contentious issue that's sure to spark heated debate in the coming weeks.As we look ahead, there's no sign of these legal battles slowing down. Trump's team continues to fight on multiple fronts, challenging everything from election results to long-standing constitutional interpretations. Love him or hate him, there's no denying that Donald Trump remains at the center of some of the most consequential legal battles in recent American history.It's a lot to take in, and I can't help but wonder what the next few days will bring. Will we see more surprising court decisions? New executive orders? Or perhaps another unexpected twist in this ongoing legal drama? One thing's for certain – when it comes to Donald Trump and the law, expect the unexpected.

This Day in Legal History: Birth of NixonOn January 9, 1913, Richard Milhous Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California, a man destined to leave a complicated and indelible mark on American history. Nixon is perhaps the most paradoxical of U.S. presidents—on one hand, he created the Environmental Protection Agency, championed detente with the Soviet Union, and opened diplomatic relations with China. On the other hand, the man also gave us Watergate, wiretapping, enemies lists, and enough shady political machinations to keep conspiracy theorists busy for decades.Nixon's "greatest hits" of questionable decisions include the secret bombing of Cambodia, illegally expanding the Vietnam War while publicly claiming to wind it down, and the sabotage of peace talks to ensure his election in 1968. Let's not forget his role in orchestrating the War on Drugs, a policy whose consequences are still felt today, particularly in communities of color. And, of course, he made liberal use of “plausible deniability,” whether it was about spying on political opponents or using government resources for personal vendettas.While Nixon may have soothed the environment by founding the EPA, he simultaneously polluted the political landscape, cementing cynicism in American politics for a generation. If you're struggling to reconcile his good deeds with his transgressions, don't worry—you're not alone. Historians, politicians, and everyday Americans have been wrestling with the Nixon conundrum for decades.Was he a political genius or a paranoid megalomaniac? Probably both, in addition to being a raging narcissist and, by all accounts, a deeply unpleasant man. His favorite breakfast? Cottage cheese with ketchup – or black pepper if he was feeling spicy. On this day in legal history, we remember Richard Nixon—a … man. He would have been 112 had a blood clot not cut him down as he prepared dinner in his Park Ridge, New Jersey home in 1994. The U.S. Justice Department announced that it will not publicly release Special Counsel Jack Smith's full report on Donald Trump's handling of classified records, citing ongoing prosecutions against two Trump associates, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. While the report's section addressing Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election will be made public, the documents-related portion will remain accessible only to specific members of Congress responsible for oversight.Attorney General Merrick Garland confirmed that Smith completed a two-volume report on Trump, with the Justice Department stating that limited disclosure would balance public interest with protecting the legal rights of Nauta and De Oliveira. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon temporarily blocked the release of the report upon a request by the two defendants.Previously, Trump was charged with illegally retaining classified records and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, as well as attempting to interfere with the certification of President Joe Biden's election victory. However, the department dismissed these charges after Trump's November election, adhering to its policy against prosecuting a sitting president.Despite these dismissals, prosecutors are seeking to revive the obstruction case against Nauta and De Oliveira, who have pleaded not guilty. The Justice Department emphasized that its actions comply with federal regulations requiring a final report from special counsel investigations.US Justice Dept will not publicly release all of special counsel report on TrumpPresident-elect Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his sentencing in a New York criminal case involving hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. In a filing made public on Wednesday, his lawyers argued that further proceedings in the Manhattan state court would harm the presidency and federal government operations, citing presidential immunity.The New York appeals court recently rejected Trump's effort to delay sentencing, scheduled for Friday. His legal team has requested similar emergency relief from both the Supreme Court and New York's highest court. The Supreme Court has asked prosecutors to respond by Thursday, suggesting a swift decision is likely.Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment by his former attorney Michael Cohen to Daniels before the 2016 election. He denies any wrongdoing or the alleged sexual encounter with Daniels. His sentencing judge indicated Trump would likely face an unconditional discharge, leaving a judgment of guilt on record but imposing no jail time, fines, or probation.Trump's lawyers contend the case violates principles of presidential immunity established by a Supreme Court ruling granting former presidents broad protection from prosecution for official acts. They argue this immunity applies during the transitional period between his election and inauguration. Manhattan prosecutors have vowed to respond to Trump's request, marking the latest development in a historic case that made Trump the first U.S. president to be criminally convicted.Trump asks Supreme Court to halt sentencing in New York hush money case | ReutersZwillGen, a law firm specializing in technology and privacy law, has expanded into artificial intelligence with the acquisition of Luminos.Law, a Washington, D.C.-based firm focused on AI and analytics risk. The merger adds six attorneys and data scientists to ZwillGen's team, enabling the firm to offer services in AI bias and cybersecurity testing, which are increasingly in demand amid regulatory scrutiny.ZwillGen, founded in 2010, now employs over 45 attorneys across offices in Washington, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, with a total headcount of about 125, including subsidiaries specializing in subpoenas and gaming licensing. Its high-profile clients include Airbnb, Bose, DoorDash, NBCUniversal, and The New York Times.Luminos.Law, established five years ago, spun off a separate software company, Luminos.AI, in 2024 to offer custom AI risk management software on an enterprise platform. While Luminos.AI remains independent, Andrew Burt, co-founder of Luminos.Law, will focus on the software company while serving as a legal advisor to ZwillGen's new AI unit. Brenda Leong, also from Luminos, will lead ZwillGen's AI division.The deal is part of a broader trend of law firm mergers in 2025, particularly among small firms, as demand for legal expertise in emerging technologies grows.Tech, AI lawyers join forces in latest US law firm merger | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I talk about taxing oil wells. The United States is grappling with a crisis of orphaned and uncapped oil wells—sites with no accountable owner and no proper closure. These wells pose significant environmental and public health risks, leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and contaminating groundwater. Estimates suggest there are between 310,000 and 800,000 undocumented orphan wells, with over 120,000 already identified as uncapped. Addressing this problem is critical, but the cost—ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars per well—is increasingly falling on taxpayers.The root of this issue lies in systemic regulatory failures and cost-shifting practices within the oil and gas industry. Older wells are often sold to smaller operators who lack the resources to maintain or cap them. When these operators go bankrupt, liabilities are abandoned. Bonding requirements meant to ensure cleanup funds are woefully inadequate, typically covering less than 2% of the actual cost.To tackle this crisis, I propose an Environmental Liability Tax (ELT) on oil and gas extraction. Levied per barrel, this tax would ensure that cleanup costs are collected upfront, placing the financial responsibility on the companies benefiting economically from the wells. Funds from the ELT could be held in state or federal trusts dedicated to plugging orphaned wells and restoring lands.The ELT could also incentivize better practices by offering tax credits to companies proactively addressing environmental risks. By taxing extraction rather than chasing bankrupt operators, the ELT would create a sustainable, enforceable funding mechanism to address this growing environmental liability. As the U.S. approaches peak oil, the time for systemic reform is now—before the cleanup bill comes due with no one left to pay.Towards An Environmental Liability Tax For Oil And Gas Wells This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that the company plans to end its fact-checking program as part of a broader overhaul of how it moderates content on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. In a video, Zuckerberg said the move was an effort to prioritize "free expression" and called the 2024 election a "cultural tipping point." It was a notable policy shift ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration in a little more than week. Jason Koebler, co-founder of the tech website 404 Media, breaks down why the tech elites are sucking up to Trump.And in headlines: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon temporarily blocked the Justice Department from releasing Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigations into Trump, Trump doesn't rule out using military force to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal, and the conservative North Carolina Supreme Court blocked certifying the election results of one of its Democratic colleagues.Show Notes:Check out Jason's work – https://www.404media.co/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

Tuesday, January 7, 2025 Subscribe: Get the Daily Update in your inbox for free 1/ A federal judge in Florida temporarily blocked the Justice Department from releasing special counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump's classified documents investigation. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon justified her order “to preserve the statu... Visit WTF Just Happened Today? for more news and headlines, brought to you by Matt Kiser. The WTFJHT Podcast is narrated and produced by Joe Amditis.

President-elect Donald Trump announced that a billionaire from Dubai is investing $20 billion in the United States to build new data centers across multiple states. Trump also stated that he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland.U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the public release of special counsel Jack Smith's final report on his investigations into Trump. Meanwhile, a New York appeals court judge rejected Trump's attempt to delay his sentencing in the New York criminal case.The remains of former President Jimmy Carter were transported from Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington for funeral services. His casket now lies in state at the Capitol, where members of Congress have begun paying their respects.Firefighters in Los Angeles scrambled to contain a fast-moving wildfire as a potentially "life-threatening, destructive" windstorm hit Southern California. Forecasters warned that the worst may be yet to come, with the windstorm predicted to last for days.

In an excerpt from a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump in the election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in D.C. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – Smith's brief urging the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the charges against Trump in the classified documents case in Florida, which U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon recently threw out; and – The controversial arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov in France and the criminal charges accusing him of allowing criminal activity on his messaging app. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Subscribe to The Counsel for free to get more news at the intersection of law and politics each week. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In July, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed a criminal case charging former President Donald Trump with hoarding classified documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago and obstructing justice. Judge Cannon reasoned that the prosecutor in this case, Special Counsel Jack Smith, was not properly appointed by the Justice Department. Matthew Seligman of Stanford Law School and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston, who argued before Judge Cannon on opposite sides of this issue, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the legal basis for the special counsel role. Resources:  United States v. Nixon (1974)  Trump v. United States (2024)  Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman, Brief of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Trump (March 21, 2024)  Matthew Seligman, Motion for Leave to File Brief by Constitutional Lawyers, Former Government Officials, and State Democracy Defenders Action as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendant Donald J. Trump's Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Trump (April 3, 2024)  Judge Aileen Cannon, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Based on Appointments Clause Violation, United States v. Trump (July 15, 2024)  Jack Smith, Brief for the United States, United States v. Trump, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (August 26, 2024)  Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

In an excerpt from a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down President Joe Biden's proposal for term limits for Supreme Court justices. In the full episode, they further discuss Biden's proposed Supreme Court reforms, including an ethics code and a Constitutional amendment declaring that former presidents do not have immunity from criminal prosecution. Preet and Joyce also analyze the developments in former President Donald Trump's criminal cases: – Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's brief urging a New York judge to uphold Trump's Manhattan conviction, arguing the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision has no bearing on the case;  – Next steps once U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan regains control of Trump's prosecution in the D.C. election interference case following the Supreme Court immunity ruling; and  – Special counsel Jack Smith's forthcoming appeal of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's order dismissing the charges against Trump in the classified documents case. Subscribe to The Counsel for free to get more news at the intersection of law and politics each week. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:09)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:48)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:48)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:25)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Legal Eagles - Josh Hammer and Mike Donnelly fill out today's legal panel. They discuss Donald Trump's massive win as his classified documents case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. With all the talk about the RNC abortion platform, there are major issues with our “separation of church and state”. Finally, if elected for a second term, what should be the vetting process be for federal judicial appointees under Trump? Carly Atchison - Another breaking story yesterday was Donald Trump's selection of J.D. Vance as his running mate for the 2024 election. There are some who are skeptical of the nomination but Carly Atchison tells us why republicans can get behind him. Jon Root - The RNC is under way and there are republicans who are concerned about the direction of the party. The Log Cabin Republicans who stand for LGBTQ rights and want a more inclusive party, approved the new platform and called it a “historic moment”. What is the real direction of the RNC?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

Days after the attempted assassination of former President Trump, he appeared at the first night of the Republican National Convention. The convention's opening day unveiled the Trump-Vance 2024 ticket, as Ohio Senator JD Vance was selected as the GOP's vice presidential nominee. The theme of the first night, "Making America Wealthy Again," featured speakers focusing on the economy and how a second Trump administration would further American prosperity. FOX News Radio Political Anchor Jared Halpern and FOX News Radio Political Analyst Josh Kraushaar join the Rundown to talk about President Trump's first public appearance since the attempt on his life, the significance of the Senator Vance VP pick, and if the economic message will resonate with voters in November. In Florida, another legal victory for former President Trump and another legal setback for special counsel Jack Smith. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the criminal case against the former President's illegal handling of classified documents, a decision the Department of Justice says they plan to appeal. FOX News contributor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy joins to discuss why he believes a key legal clause takes away Jack Smith's authority to prosecute, how the Supreme Court's immunity decision impacts other Trump legal cases, and the role of politicized prosecutions in the 2024 race. Plus, commentary by columnist David Marcus. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)

ICYMI: Hour One of ‘Later, with Mo'Kelly' Presents – In-depth analysis of the attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump…PLUS - Thoughts on U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the Florida classified documents case against the former president AND Trump selecting JD Vance as his Vice President at the RNC & MORE - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app

Eric Zorn, Publisher of The Picayune Sentinel, joins John Williams to talk about Mincing Rascal Brandon Pope’s viral tweet on Milwaukee food, the assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump, Trump picking JD Vance to be his running mate, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the Trump classified documents case, and NBC pulling ‘Morning Joe’ off the […]

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:18)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Eric Zorn, Publisher of The Picayune Sentinel, joins John Williams to talk about Mincing Rascal Brandon Pope’s viral tweet on Milwaukee food, the assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump, Trump picking JD Vance to be his running mate, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the Trump classified documents case, and NBC pulling ‘Morning Joe’ off the […]

In a major ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday granted former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss his classified documents case. She ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unlawful under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee Monday, where former President Trump is expected to formally accept the Republican nomination for president. The former president said he has rewritten his speech for the convention following Saturday's assassination attempt. U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said the agency will “participate fully” in an investigation into the assassination attempt on former President Trump and work with Congress on “any oversight action.” She expressed confidence in the agency's security plan for the Republican National Convention. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

In a major ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday granted former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss his classified documents case. She ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unlawful under the Constitution's Appointments Clause.The Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee Monday, where former President Trump is expected to formally accept the Republican nomination for president. The former president said he has rewritten his speech for the convention following Saturday's assassination attempt.U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said the agency will “participate fully” in an investigation into the assassination attempt on former President Trump and work with Congress on “any oversight action.” She expressed confidence in the agency's security plan for the Republican National Convention.

The illegal documents case against Donald Trump, prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, centers on allegations that Trump unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency. These documents, which included sensitive national security information, were not returned despite multiple requests from the government.In June 2023, Trump was charged with multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information. Trump's legal team has argued that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacked the authority to prosecute the case. This argument was taken seriously by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, leading to extensive hearings on the matter.The Justice Department maintains that Smith's appointment followed legal protocols and that he operates under the Attorney General's oversight. However, the case has been complicated by legal challenges and procedural debates, reflecting the contentious nature of this high-profile prosecution​.Now, after all the back and forth and money spent, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case against Donald Trump  and in this episode we begin taking a look at that order and why she says the case had to be dismissed.(commercial at 8:28)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:cannon.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In an excerpt from a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down the new Louisiana law requiring public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. They also preview the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the law under the First Amendment. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss:  – The Florida hearings during which District Judge Aileen Cannon appeared skeptical of former President Donald Trump's arguments challenging special counsel Jack Smith's appointment as unlawful; and – A federal judge's order freezing enforcement of Iowa's controversial immigration law, which makes it a state crime to enter the country, and the state of Iowa, illegally. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

According to a report from The New York Times, two federal judges in south Florida urged District Judge Aileen Cannon to forgo overseeing the criminal prosecution of former President Trump when she was first assigned the classified documents case. Plus, new audio reveals Trump saying he “lost the election.”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Donald Trump suffered two setbacks as judges rejected his bids to dismiss criminal charges in the Georgia election interference case and the classified documents case. In Florida, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon rejected Trump's argument that he could retain classified documents based on the Presidential Records Act. In Georgia, Judge Scott McAfee rejected Trump's argument that the attempts to overturn the 2020 election were protected under the First Amendment. Plus, "No Labels" abandons its plans to field a third-party candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election. The group had been pursuing a "unity ticket," featuring centrist candidates who could serve as alternatives to voters unsatisfied with Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Then, excitement is growing for Monday's solar eclipse – the first in six years. Joyce Vance, Molly Jong-Fast, Peter Baker, Jen Palmieri, Tim Miller, Jim Sciutto, and Sean Wilentz join. 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will not dismiss the former president's classified documents case based on his claim he had the authority to take classified or sensitive documents under The Presidential Records Act. But in the same order, Judge Cannon also pushed back against special counsel Jack Smith's request that she make a final decision on whether the theory can be used at the trial, so that prosecutors could appeal to the 11th Circuit. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner joins AC360 to discuss Judge Cannon's ruling. Plus, Gary Tuchman travels to Cairo, Illinois to see how residents are preparing for the influx of eclipse seekers they'll get on Monday. The city is one of several in the country that will experience eclipse totality, and those who live there are excited about the prospect of tourists, and the boost to the economy they'll bring.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing in a Florida court Thursday that the federal classified documents case should be thrown out. President Trump arrived at the courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida on March 14 to appear before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. Former Trump Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he's assembling a team of investors to make a bid to buy TikTok. This comes after the House of Representatives passed a bill to address the threat posed by the short-video platform. The legislation would give Chinese owner ByteDance six months to divest from the U.S. branch of the company—or face a ban. The former treasury secretary said TikTok is “a great business” and that “it's worth a lot of money.” Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) has called for a thorough investigation of possible infiltration into the U.S. government after a customs officer at Chicago's O'Hare Airport targeted an American performing arts company with Chinese propaganda. A tour manager from New York-based Shen Yun Performing Arts said the officer described her as an “illegal” based on his presumption of her religious beliefs. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

It's been another busy week. Closed-door hearings in the case of the classified documents former President Donald Trump kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate began this week. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon first met with Trump's team and the special counsel's prosecutors on Monday.Meanwhile, America's political turmoil surrounding the 2024 presidential election is hot conversation at the Munich Security Conference. Former President Trump's remarks last week suggesting he wouldn't come to the aid of Europe in the event of a Russian invasion are causing concern among U.S, allies.Israel attacked Rafah Sunday evening, killing many Palestinians who had fled to the city to seeking shelter.And in South America, Guyana has accused Venezuela of violating international law in a dispute over a swath of oil-rich territory.We cover all this and more during the News Roundup. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon blew it by setting the Trump documents trial months before the 2024 election. If Trump is convicted, Democrats will use every effort to prevent him from running, and the entire goal of this is to interfere in the election and re-elect President Biden. This is going to tear the country apart like nothing before except the Civil War because nothing like this has ever been done before. There is no reason to hold this trial during the course of the election, and the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland is clearing the way for Biden. Every decision Judge Cannon makes from this point will interfere with the election now that the case has been delayed until May, after the Republican primaries. There are 37 charges against Trump in the first case, and we have no idea how many additional charges will be added in other cases being brought by Democrats, and all they need is a guilty verdict on one charge. The Democrat Party is dragging this country to hell, whether they target Trump or Robert Kennedy Jr. or a minimum wage factory worker because they are the state party and want total control. Later, Mark is joined by former Congressman Rick Renzi to discuss how he was attacked and wiretapped by Jack Smith while he was a Congressman, the abuses of the judicial system Smith has committed, and his connections to James Comey. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices