Podcasts about Eastern District

Nicolle Wallace on Lindsay Halligan, the Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, admitting a potentially huge procedural error in the government's case against former FBI Director James Comey.For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewhTo listen to this show and other MSNOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts.   For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

After more than 40 days, Congress has passed legislation to end the government shutdown. The bill funds the government through Jan. 30. It also includes three full-year appropriations bills to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture through Sept. 30, 2026. Left only with time until the end of January to fund the government long-term, appropriators will have to come up with legislation soon to fund the agencies that did not get full-year appropriations.Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James will try to disqualify interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan on Thursday. The defense attorneys will argue that a U.S. attorney can only serve 120 days on a temporary basis before needing Senate confirmation. If the judge concludes that Halligan's appointment is invalid, the decision could be a fatal blow to the cases against both Comey and James.

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

A federal judge came in “hot” off the bench and right at Trump's DOJ and Lindsey Halligan, excoriating them for “indicting first and investigating second” in the Former FBI Dir. James Comey criminal case, and ordering them to immediately turn over tens of thousands of documents and ALL the secret grand jury transcripts to the defense ASAP. Michael Popok examines Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, who used to be a Division Chief in Halligan's once proud Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney's Office, and he wasn't having it with the DOJ's footdragging and incompetence, given that we are only 60 days until the start of the trial! Learn more about the Popok Firm at https://thepopokfirm.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

November 6, 2025 ~ Barb McQuade, law professor at University of Michigan and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, joins Chris and Jamie to discuss the Supreme Court hearing arguments on Wednesday regarding if the president holds the power to implement sweeping tariffs. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

November 4, 2025 ~ Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, joins Chris and Jamie to discuss the Dearborn men conspiring a plan to commit a terrorist attack in Michigan over the Halloween weekend. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

November 4, 2025 ~ Barb McQuade, Former US Attorney of the Eastern District of Michigan and Professor at the University of Michigan Law School, joins Kevin to discuss what happened during the hearings on the deployment of the National Guard in DC and Memphis. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The psychopaths running the government are not going to let a crisis go to waste. They're taking advantage of the shutdown to cut SNAP benefits and fire civil servants — or they would if courts would let them. Plus, the Ninth Circuit and even the Supreme Court (GASP!) are putting the kibosh on Trump's plan to flood blue states with troops. And still, Lindsey Halligan, the wannabe US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, is finding new and creative ways to screw up the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.   Links:   Massachusetts v. USDA [SNAP benefits] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71783393/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/   AFGE-AFL CIO v. US [shutdown RIFs] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71502325/american-federation-of-government-employees-afl-cio-v-united-states   Drake v. UMG [trial docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69546009/graham-v-umg-recordings-inc   Oregon v. Trump [Ninth Circuit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71554902/state-of-oregon-et-al-v-trump-et-al   SCOTUS Docket: Chicago Troop Deployment https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a443.html   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/united-states-v-comey/?order_by=desc   US v. Ramirez [Essayli] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71166841/united-states-v-ramirez/?order_by=desc Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

October 29, 2025 ~ Matthew Schneider, Partner at Honigman and Former US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, joins Kevin to discuss what was in the Oversight Committee's report on President Biden's autopen. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week in the free episode: the indictment of John Bolton and how it's pretty different from the Comey indictment, plus Trump's apparent demand that the Justice Department pay him $230 million for the indignity of being prosecuted.Paying subscribers also get to hear a dive into two wild NBA-related indictments that came down this week in the Eastern District of New York. One indictment alleges that conspirators, including an NBA coach and members of four of New York's Italian mafia families, ran rigged poker games to fleece unsuspecting players out of millions of dollars. The other alleges a conspiracy to fraudulently bet on NBA games — or more specifically, on propositions about NBA games — through the use of inside information. Both of these cases have crazy factual details, and the NBA betting one also involves some interesting, novel legal issues.Also: an update on lawsuits over National Guard deployments (and some theories about why an unfavorable ruling for Gavin Newsom did not get a rehearing en banc), a look at the case demanding that Speaker Mike Johnson hurry up and seat the Democrat who won a special election in Arizona several weeks ago, and an update on Hunter Biden-related litigation.Visit serioustrouble.show to upgrade your subscription.

Portland Trail Blazers head coach and basketball Hall of Famer Chauncey Billups, Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier and former NBA journeyman Damon Jones are among 34 people indicted in connection with two separate federal gambling investigations announced by the Eastern District of New York on Thursday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

October 23, 2025 ~ Barb McQuade, law professor at University of Michigan and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, joins Lloyd and Jamie to discuss President Trump pressing the DOJ to pay him $230 million in a settlement for investigations into him during the Biden administration. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

October 23, 2025 ~ Barb McQuade, Former US Attorney of the Eastern District of Michigan and Professor at the University of Michigan Law School, joins Kevin to discuss how President Trump has filed a claim seeking $230M from the DOJ over investigations. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Will Jim Comey succeed in seeking dismissal of his criminal charges? In an excerpt from this week's Insider episode, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss the former FBI Director's motion to dismiss his indictment citing the unlawful appointment of Lindsey Halligan as the Eastern District of Virginia's interim U.S. Attorney.  In the full episode, Preet and Joyce analyze Comey's other motion to dismiss on the basis of selective and vindictive prosecution. They also share their reactions to the indictment of former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton.  CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; Deputy Editor: Celine Rohr; CAFE Team: David Tatasciore, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

About the Guest(s):Paula M. Jones has been practicing law for almost 25 years. After a decade at large international law firms, she opened her own practice in 2016.LinkedIn - Paula M Jones, EsqHer domestic estate work includes wills, trusts, powers of attorney, living wills and beneficiary designations. She employs marital, residuary, disclaimer, dynasty, asset protection, grantor-retained annuity and intentionally defective grantor trusts, as well as family corporations to protect and preserve assets for many generations. She represents trustees and beneficiaries of trusts in trust-related matters. Her Orphans' Court practice includes trust reformations, trust mergers and divisions, terminations, accountings and audits. She represents parties in negotiations to avoid fiduciary litigation.Her work with international clients includes efficient planning in regard to U.S. estate and gift taxation, qualified domestic trusts, residency determinations, tax treaty applications, pre-immigration planning for non-resident aliens coming to the United States, expatriation tax planning for residents and citizens leaving the United States, administration of estates of foreign individuals with U.S. property and other related matters. She has represented many individuals in regard to foreign account and asset compliance issues.Paula is currently an adjunct professor at Western New England University School of Law where she teaches International Estate Planning. She has guest lectured at Columbia University, Temple University School of Law's Masters of Laws Program and Rutgers University School of Law. She lectures frequently for organizations such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Society for Human Resource Management and the American Bar Association, as well as local estate planning councils.Paula has authored several articles in respected industry journals such as Trusts and Estates, AICPA's Tax Advisor and the ABA's Practical Tax Lawyer. In addition, she developed a workshop on estate planning basics, titled “Will Power: Wealthy or Not, Your Estate Matters.” The companion book was published by The Graduate Group.Paula is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.Episode Summary:In this episode of the Money Roots podcast, host Amy Irvine engages in an enlightening discussion with Paula Jones, the esteemed owner of Jones Estate Group. With a robust background in international and domestic estate law, Paula delves into the intricacies of cross-border estate planning. She offers valuable insights into the roles her firm plays in estate planning, particularly emphasizing the importance of having a qualified team comprising estate attorneys, financial planners, and immigration lawyers when considering dual citizenship or cross-border living.Throughout the podcast, Paula addresses key issues associated with holding assets across different countries and the complex scenarios faced by individuals with multinational ties. Her discussion includes an exploration of residency determinations, tax treaty applications, and the vital significance of qualified domestic trusts in safeguarding assets. Paula's practical advice caters to a growing audience interested in international living, offering concrete steps to ensure seamless estate planning while navigating diverse legal systems.Key Takeaways:Having a qualified team of advisors, including an estate attorney, financial planner, and immigration lawyer, is crucial for...

Andrew Weissmann is the co-host of the popular podcast Main Justice and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNBC. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for it, as well as The New York Times, The Atlantic, & The Washington Post. From 2017-2019 Andrew served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation , was a New York Times bestseller. He is also a Professor of Practice at New York University and teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. He also served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from 2002-2005 he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company's collapse. And he was also a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division and prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families. Andrew joins me fresh on the heels of the breaking news about his interview in London with former special counsel Jack Smith. We discuss this compelling conversation as well as the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

October 15, 2025 ~ Lloyd and Jamie talk with Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of Michigan, about the Supreme Court rejecting Alex Jones' attempt to block a $1.5 billion defamation judgment. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jonathan Byrne and Jackie Tarlton of the Eastern District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Sentencing Guidline Amendments and Fourth Circuit Court news.

Former FBI Director James Comey court arraignment on perjury charges was such a disaster for Trump and his Insta-Prosecutor US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan, that the proceeding left her, according to witnesses, “rocking back and forth in her chair and nodding”; as 2 North Carolina prosecutors had to be imported in at the last minute to handle the arraignment when NO career prosecutor in Halligan's own office would help her! Michael Popok puts on his court clothes to dissect what just happened, including Trump chickening out on “perp walking” Comey, and how the judge setting a trial less than 3 MONTHS from now works to Comey's advantage. Mack Weldon: Go to https://MackWeldon.com and get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code LEGALAF Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Gangland Wire, retired Kansas City Police Intelligence Detective Gary Jenkins pulls back the curtain on one of the FBI's most troubling scandals—the case of Joe Stabile, a corrupt FBI agent whose fall from grace revealed just how deep organized crime's influence could run. The story begins in November 1978, when Stabile pled guilty to corruption charges. But as Gary explains, that plea was only the tip of the iceberg. Behind it lay years of whispered rumors, shady deals, and quiet payoffs—stories that painted Stabile not as a straight-arrow G-man, but as a hustler working both sides of the law. Drawing on conversations with retired FBI agents who once worked alongside Stabile, Gary explores the tangled web of mob connections and compromised investigations. Listeners will hear how mobsters slipped him bribes to make gambling cases disappear, and how his background as a New York City cop may have set the stage for the choices that pulled him deeper into the mob's orbit. The episode also highlights the work of honest agents, such as Tony Villano, who began piecing together the truth about Stabile's corruption. Through case files, informant accounts, and law enforcement interviews, Gary demonstrates how the FBI struggled with a culture of silence that often protected its own—even when integrity was at stake. As the story unfolds, the lines between right and wrong blur, exposing systemic cracks inside federal law enforcement during a time when the Bureau was shifting its focus and fighting for credibility. Gary closes with reflections on the lasting impact of the Stabile case: what it meant for the FBI's war on organized crime, and how Stabile himself may have continued to live in the shadows after his conviction—a man caught between two worlds, crime and law enforcement, never fully belonging to either. This is a must-listen for true crime fans, Mafia historians, and anyone fascinated by how organized crime once ruled the Jersey Shore. Listen now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app. Hit me up on Venmo for a cup of coffee or a shot and a beer @ganglandwire Click here to "buy me a cup of coffee" To go to the store or make a donation or rent Ballot Theft: Burglary, Murder, Coverup, click here To rent 'Brothers against Brothers' or 'Gangland Wire,' the documentaries click here.  To purchase one of my books, click here. 0:06 Introduction to Joe Stabile 1:19 The Corruption Unveiled 3:14 Breakfast with Retired Agents 5:59 The Connection to Organized Crime 9:06 Investigating Stabile's Allegations 14:18 The Gambler's Payoff 20:19 Confronting Stabile 21:39 The Aftermath of the Indictment 23:35 Stabile's New Life 25:39 Reflections on Undercover Operations [0:00] Well, hey, all you wiretappers, Gary Jenkins, retired Kansas City Police Intelligence [0:04] Unit detective back here in the studio of Gangland Wire. I welcome each and every one of you. I've got a story that it's really interesting how I found out about this. That's part of the story. Let's go back. Here's what I'm talking about. A corrupt FBI agent named Joe Stabile. That's S-T-A-B-I-L-E. November 1978. [0:26] It was a Monday and FBI agent Joe Stabile was pleading guilty in federal court to corruption charges. Now, you don't hear about this very much. I know a couple of three here in Kansas City over the years that got popped for doing something. A couple of them were involved in a stolen party or a stolen property ring. A couple of others were one of them was just running his mouth too much and he was drinking too much. I don't think they actually end up charging him anything, but he did run his run his mouth way too much. Joseph Beal only admitted in this guilty plea that he lied about some money transactions, but that's just a tip of the iceberg in this, folks. [1:03] The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District was sitting in the spectators that day,

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the Trump peace plan for Gaza has two phases, which is genius. Phase one, to be implemented immediately through early next week, involves Israel ending its siege on Gaza and withdrawing to an intermediary line covering 52% of the territory, in exchange for the release of all 48 hostages (20 believed alive) and the freeing of nearly 2,000 terrorists and criminals from Israeli prisons, including 250 severe offenders and mass murderers. Phase two is the dirty work, it  requires disarming, dispersing, and removing Hamas from Gaza, with governance and demilitarization details still being worked out; failure to execute it voids the agreement.  There's not another person who could have even brought the situation to this point besides Trump, with pressure applied on Hamas via demands to Qatar, and Turkey to force or expel Hamas leaders in their countries, contrary to media reports. Later, Sen Lindsey Graham calls in explain that that true peace in the Middle East extends beyond hostage releases. We must address threats from Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis. Graham warns that Iran's theocratic regime, driven by religious extremism aiming to destroy Israel and expel the U.S., must be neutralized to prevent regeneration of proxies. Also, NY AG Letitia James has been indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia on charges of bank fraud and making false claims to a financial institution. Afterward, Democrats, led by Hakeem Jeffries, ruined the U.S. healthcare system through Obamacare, which is a flawed, expensive money pit that no Republicans supported. Democrats are using the continuing resolution (CR) as a ploy to blame Republicans and Trump for the government shutdown, while pretending to defend the broken system. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, the insurrection act has been used at least 20 times starting in 1808. President Trump has to use it because we have Democrats who refuse to follow the law. Right now, we have a Democrat party usurping the Constitution. Governors and cities are not in charge of immigration. They don't have the power to prevent ICE from doing their job. Also, former FBI Director James Comey is a serial liar, leaker, and scoundrel who absconded with government documents, interfered in the 2016 election more than foreign powers, and brought disrepute to the FBI. Comey belongs in court and is lucky to avoid charges for other unethical acts.  The democrat talking point is that acting US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia prosecuting the Comey case has no prosecutorial experience. But in 1961, President John Kennedy nominated his 35-year-old brother, Robert, to be attorney general.  RFK had no state or federal courtroom experience of any kind. The Democrat controlled Senate confirmed him. Later, Trump announces that “Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan. This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace. All Parties will be treated fairly!” The broad parameters of the deal sound very good.  Rep Mike Lawler calls in to discuss the first phase of the Gaza peace plan. Trump has worked tirelessly to get the hostages home, but Hamas cannot remain in power. Lawler also discusses his confrontation with Rep Hakeem Jeffries over the government shutdown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In stunning and breaking news, Trump has the NY Attorney General Leitia James— who successfully had Trump and his family declared fraudsters by a NY judge — indicted and framed on mortgage fraud charges, using his hand picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. Michael Popok pulls all the information together, including the refusal of the career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney office to indict AG James, and Letitia declaring to the world that she is ferocious and will not back down to Trump no matter what. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're following breaking news, as another political foe of President Trump has been indicted. New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia. Tensions are rising on Capitol Hill with lawmakers still at odds over how to reopen the federal government. And Honolulu police have arrested a 54-year-old man for arson after a Nanakuli townhouse went up in flames. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wednesday, October 8th, 2025Today, Jim Comey will be arraigned in the Eastern District of Virginia; members of Congress will hold a press conference with Epstein survivors about the discharge petition to release the Epstein Files; furloughed workers are being told they may not receive backpay; the Supreme Court shoots down a Republican challenge to Washington State's Climate Commitment Act; Pritzker and Newsom threaten to withdraw from the National Governor's Association; CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis replaces the agency's general counsel with himself; Pam Bondi refuses to answer key questions in a Senate Judiciary hearing; Texas AG Ken Paxton continues his genocidal rhetoric against trans people; ICE bought vehicles with fake cell sites to spy on protestors; Roy Cooper shattered fundraising records in the first quarter for his Senate run; blue states should come together to declare an emergency; Jimmy Kimmel is more popular than Donald Trump; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, SmallsFor a limited time, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, when you head to Smalls.com/DAILYBEANS.Guest: Alder Dina Nina Martinez-Rutherford Alder Dina Nina Martinez- Rutherford District 15 (WI) Running for WI State Assembly District 76votedinanina.comDinaNina.com@dinaninaxo - Bluesky, DinaNinaXO (facebook)DinaNinaXO (IG)Alder Dina Nina Martinez- Rutherford (she/her) - cityofmadison.comDinaNinaforMadison (IG)Dina Nina For Madison (facebook) StoriesFurloughed workers not guaranteed back pay after shutdown, OMB claims | The Washington PostICE bought vehicles equipped with fake cell towers to spy on phones | TechCrunchC.I.A. Deputy Director Has Replaced Agency's Top Legal Official With Himself | The New York TimesBlue states should come together to declare an emergency. Here's how | Opinion | The GuardianRoy Cooper raises $14.5 million last quarter, shattering records | POLITICOJimmy Kimmel more popular than Trump after show suspension, poll finds | The GuardianGood TroubleKeep calling Mike Johnson's office to have Adelita Grajava sworn in. She is the 218th signature. And right now the people of Arizona 7th are being re-taxed without representation because he won't swear her in. His number is 202-225-2000 or 202-225-2777  -  Especially if you're in Arizona's 7th district.**Vote Yes 836 - Oklahoma**OCTOBER 18 - NoKings.org**Yes On Prop 50 | Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Fire Kilmeade - foxfeedback@foxnews.com, Requests - Fox News**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good NewsAdopt Magnolia - Potential adopters email StrotmanHousehold@gmail.comAurora Animal ShelterReduce stress and boost happiness with 4 daily gratitude practices | CNNWordPress Accessibility Day 2025Adopt-A-Pet(Mark your calendar for November 14th, 2025 - Chicago, Illinois - Dana)Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia finds no probable cause to indict the New York Attorney General Leticia James for mortgage fraud.Subpoenas have been issued in a criminal investigation against the Fulton County DA Fani Willis.The state agency tasked with appointing a new prosecutor to take over Fulton County DA Fani Willis' case against Trump and others in Georgia has asked the judge for an extension. They were originally given 14 days. Court battles continue over National Guard troops being sent to Portland and Chicago. Plus, Rudy news!Thank you, CB Distillery!Use promo code CLEANUP at CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase.Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations.Thank you, Mint Mobile.Get this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at  MINTMOBILE.com/CLEANUP Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Former FBI Director James Comey was arraigned on Wednesday after federal prosecutors charged him with lying to Congress five years ago. The charges were brought against Comey by U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsay Halligan. Halligan’s predecessor was ousted for refusing to charge Comey. Amna Nawaz discussed more with NPR's Carrie Johnson. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann IndictedOn October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy's body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state's forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump's high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersU.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston's continued oversight.The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They're seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston's previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.US judge who blocked Trump's mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | ReutersIn September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it's unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank's appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.Turkey floated $100 million Halkbank settlement idea at White House last month, sources say | Reuters 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

Former FBI Director James Comey was arraigned on Wednesday after federal prosecutors charged him with lying to Congress five years ago. The charges were brought against Comey by U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsay Halligan. Halligan’s predecessor was ousted for refusing to charge Comey. Amna Nawaz discussed more with NPR's Carrie Johnson. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The government may be shut down, but ICE is not. We'll compare Trump's efforts to deploy the National Guard in LA, DC, Portland, and Chicago. In better news, Alex Jones looks to be at the end of the road with his plot to use bankruptcy to shield his company from the Sandy Hook parents. And we have breaking news in Law and Chaos's FOIA suit against the DOJ. Plus for subscribers: Was Lindsey Halligan lawfully appointed as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia? Asking for James Comey.   Links:   Res Ipsa Media v. DOJ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71236135/res-ipsa-media-llc-v-department-of-justice/   First Circuit Birthright Citizenship Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521.00108348619.0.pdf   Oregon v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71481149/state-of-oregon-v-trump/   Newsom v. Trump (N.D. Cal.) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump   Newsom v. Trump (Ninth Circuit) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70527602/newsom-et-al-v-trump-et-al   Alex Jones Bankruptcy https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66583024/alexander-e-jones-and-official-committee-of-unsecured-creditors/   DOJ FY 2026 Contingency Plan https://www.justice.gov/jmd/media/1377216/dl   National Review - Lindsey Halligan - Alito 1986 memo https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.578930/gov.uscourts.njd.578930.61.1.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In Mary and Andrew's estimation, there is no effort from the Trump administration to say things softly, the quiet part is very much out loud. They begin with the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey by Trump's newly installed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, noting how much these targeted charges upend the tradition of a separation between the White House and the Justice Department. The next stop is Portland Oregon, where the president announced his intent to deploy troops to the city in a Saturday Truth Social post, calling it “war ravaged”. Oregon immediately sued to stop the national guard deployment, so Mary and Andrew catch listeners up on where this stands and what to expect. And last, they turn to Trump's domestic terror memorandum, announcing his intent to investigate left-leaning groups he suggests may be funding political violence. Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On Thursday, The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced the indictment of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he gave during congressional testimony related to the Trump–Russia probe. The indictment includes two counts, which together carry a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors initially considered bringing a third count related to a separate alleged false statement, but that count was rejected by the grand jury. The indictment was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, just before the five-year statute of limitations for Comey's September 2020 testimony was set to expire. Comey is due to be arraigned on October 9.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: How significant do you think Comey's indictment is? Let us know. Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Will Kaback and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Department of Justice installed one of Trump's personal lawyers, Lindsay Halligan as the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, and, four days later, she obtained a two-count indictment against former FBI Director Jim Comey for lying to Congress and Obstruction. The Trump Administration continues to imperil criminal cases with extrajudicial statements as a federal judge finds multiple Department of Justice employees may have violated local rules guaranteeing Luigi Mangione's right to fair trial.Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff Chad Mizelle and Jim Comey's son in law Troy Edwards have both resigned their positions at DOJ.Trump's Justice Department shut down an investigation into the Border Czar Tom Homan for accepting a $50,000 cash bribe in exchange for government contracts. Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod?  Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, there are a growing number of young people who do have hatred for Israel in colleges and universities, yet Megyn Kelly says “everyone under 30 is against Israel.” That's an absurd, disgusting statement. Antisemitism is prevalent among Generation Z, fueled by influencers like Tucker Carlson who perpetuate tropes about Jewish control over politics and media.  Also, President Trump's second term has been marked by a persistent campaign of domestic terrorism from the left, driven by inflammatory rhetoric from Democrats and progressives. There's been Molotov cocktail attacks on Tesla dealerships amid, riots and ambushes targeting ICE facilities, and an armed intrusion at a Border Patrol annex in McAllen, Texas, just to name a few.  Later, as some former federal prosecutors label the case against James Comey as weak, the real issue is the Biden-appointed judge in Alexandria's Eastern District of Virginia, where juries have shifted toward more Democratic and bureaucratic leanings over time. Afterward, the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, which is a mistaken interpretation of the 14th Amendment with no basis in the Constitution or statutes.  Finally, Trump has a fantastic tough stance against Democrats threatening a government shutdown over demands for $1.5 trillion in new spending, including funds for illegal immigrants' healthcare. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump's newest appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, needed less than a week to get an indictment from a grand jury on James Comey. The former F.B.I. director has been charged with giving false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, and he could face up to five years in prison if convicted. FOX's Ryan Schmelz speaks with Jared Halpern, FOX News Radio D.C. correspondent and co-host of the 'From Washington' podcast, who breaks down the charges and the history between President Trump and James Comey. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. In this recording from a Substack livestream, Preet and Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney and co-host of the Insider podcast, share their reactions to the Comey indictment and the danger of politicizing law enforcement, describing it as a moment that has “crossed the Rubicon.” They break down the lead-up to the charges, the merits of the case and the strength of the evidence, the reactions from Comey and from Trump's supporters, and how the case is likely to unfold. Join the CAFE Insider community to stay informed without hysteria, fear-mongering, or rage-baiting. Head to cafe.com/insider to sign up. Thank you for supporting our work. You can now watch this episode! Head to CAFE's Youtube channel and subscribe. Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on BlueSky, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 833-997-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Friday, September 26th, 2025Today, Trump's US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia has secured an indictment against Jim Comey for false statements and obstruction of justice; Hegseth summons top generals and admirals to an urgent in-person meeting on the eve of a looming shutdown with no explanation given; the White House is scrambling to quash the Epstein files discharge petition; porn addict and supreme bigot Ryan Walters is resigning as Oklahoma school superintendent, the Justice Department pushes for an investigation into the Soros Foundation; the White House tells government agencies to prepare for mass layoffs in the event of a government shut down; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, HelixSleep25% Off Sitewide, when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeansThank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Thank You, Fast Growing TreesGet 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeansGuest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything - John Fugelsang, The John Fugelsang PodcastJohn Fugelsang - Substack@johnfugelsang.bsky.social - Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang -TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang - OUT NOW!Stream John Fugelsang in Conversation with Cristela Alonzo: Separation of Church and Hate | 92nd Street Y, New YorkJohn Fugelsang - “Separation of Church and Hate” | The Daily Show StoriesHegseth orders rare, urgent meeting of hundreds of generals, admirals | The Washington PostWhite House begins plan for mass firings if there's a government shutdown | The Washington PostTop GOP and White House allies working behind the scenes to prevent Epstein vote on House floor | CNN PoliticsRyan Walters resigns as Oklahoma's top public schools official to lead conservative educators' group | AP News Good TroubleOCTOBER 18 - NoKings.org, Leave some notes around town to spread the word.**California needs your help | Proposition 50 Vote YES !! Yes On Prop 50 | Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us**Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.org, @firedbutfighting.bsky.social on Bluesky**SIGN THE STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY for the FEMA Katrina Declaration.**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Fire Kilmeade - foxfeedback@foxnews.com, Submit a request – Fox News**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good Newsnokings.org#DouglassWeekARLINGTON TOWN DAY 2025Mass Die-In at the Michigan Capitol | SWIM Member WebsiteWE DO NOT CARE | WDNC(Mark your calendar for November 14th, 2025 - Chicago, Illinois - Dana)Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing!  patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Shortly after his inauguration for his second term, Trump named Erik Siebert to be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). Siebert then spent months investigating New York Attorney General Leticia James and former FBI Director James Comey. Apparently finding no evidence supporting criminal charges, Siebert refused to indict those two Trump enemies.A furious Trump then erupted on social media demanding prosecutions of his enemies. Siebert resigned and Trump named an insurance lawyer and former beauty pageant contestant, Lindsay Halligan, as the new US Attorney for EDVA. And it now looks like Halligan may actually try to indict James Comey for allegedly lying to congress five years ago.The question is: Can Halligan find a federal prosecutor unethical enough to indict Comey, simply because Trump is demanding an indictment? Glenn explains the likely consequences and results of that vindictive prosecution.For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode of Fox Across America, Jimmy Failla reacts to former FBI Director James Comey getting indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Comedian Charles McBee shares his thought on when and why late-night talk shows started to get political. PLUS, Jimmy's son Lincoln stops by to preview the third game of the football season for the Clarke Rams. [00:00:00] Former FBI Director James Comey is indicted [00:38:04] More reaction to Comey getting indicted [00:56:30] Charles McBee [01:15:07] Recent history of the left's divisive rhetoric [01:39:04] Lincoln Failla Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Friday, September 26th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Chinese Communist court upholds prison sentence of 10 Christians On September 11, a court in the Inner Mongolian region of North China upheld a ruling that sentenced 10 Christians to prison for distributing legally published Bibles, asserting that their actions equated to an illegal business operation, reports International Christian Concern. The believers were arrested back in 2021 for purchasing legally published Bibles and reselling them at a significantly lower price as a means of evangelism. Although the Bibles were published legally, the court deemed the distribution of them illegal because the house church that the distributors belonged to was not officially registered with the Communists. Additionally, the church refused to join the government-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement church. Trump now wants Russia to return all captured Ukraine territory After campaigning on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, President Donald Trump had repeatedly stated any negotiations to end the war will likely include Ukraine ceding captured territory to Russia, reports American Family Radio News. However, there's now been an about-face, a big one, that sounds like Trump now supports a military counter-offensive by Ukraine.  This week, President Trump stated that Ukraine, with help from NATO and the European Union, can retake all territory it has lost to Russia and restore Ukraine to its “original form.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored Trump's efforts to bring peace to the region even after face-to-face talks in Alaska earlier this summer. Mark Montgomery, a former rear admiral, believes that Putin has embarrassed and irritated Trump. Listen to this soundbite from Washington Watch with Tony Perkins. MONTGOMERY: “President Trump was disrespected by President Putin. After every meeting, Putin would go back to Russia and would immediately engage in significant hypersonic missile strikes on civilian personnel in Ukraine, and as well as engaging in military kinetic actions along the front line, ignoring the president's request for Vladimir to stop, ignoring the president's request to come to the negotiating table. “I think President Trump gave President Putin all the wiggle room he could. And then he had enough.” Former FBI Director James Comey indicted on federal charges Federal prosecutors on Thursday announced they had won an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in federal courts, reports The Epoch Times. Comey was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on charges of making a false statement and obstruction in a criminal case. In a post on X, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “No one is above the law. Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.” Panic seizes Pentagon over Hegseth's meeting of all generals Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has ordered all top U.S. military commanders, worldwide, to convene at the Quantico, Virginia Marine Corps Base next week for a no-notice meeting with no published agenda. To call this unprecedented might be an understatement. The order covers about 800 general officers and admirals, and each of the attendees is directed to bring their senior enlisted adviser with them, reports RedState.com. It's also very likely that Hegseth will want to discuss the epidemic of non-compliance and malicious compliance wreaking havoc on the policies he and his team are attempting to put into place. For instance, trans members of the military are still being promoted even though they have been ordered discharged. DEI training continues despite Hegseth's order banning such nonsense. The Judge Advocate General Corps, the stronghold of everything leftist in all services, survived an early decapitation attack and roared back more woke and more disloyal and vindictive than ever. They openly discuss how to circumvent Department of War directives and frequently refer to their commanders who are following lawful orders from the Secretary of War as "nazis" and "war criminals." Man who shot at ICE Dallas facility sought to bring terror The 29-year-old man, Joshua Jahn, who opened fire on a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility from a nearby roof on September 24th left behind handwritten notes at his home in Oklahoma that shared a motive for his attack – to terrorize ICE employees, reports Fox4News.com. He killed one detainee, and injured two other detainees before taking his own life. According to FBI Director Kash Patel, Jahn downloaded a document titled "Dallas County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management," which contained a list of Department of Homeland Security facilities. He also conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the "Charlie Kirk Shot Video" between September 23 and September 24. Jahn allegedly left handwritten notes behind that read in part, "Hopefully, this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ‘Is there a sniper with [armor piercing] rounds on that roof?'" At a press conference, FBI agent-in-charge Joseph Rothrock said, "Jahn specifically intended to kill ICE agents. He fired at transport vehicles carrying ICE personnel, federal agents, and detainees. He also fired multiple shots into the windows of the office building, where numerous ICE employees do their jobs every day." The Department of Homeland Security is also increasing security at all ICE facilities across America. Christian leader Voddie Baucham died at 56 And finally, Voddie Baucham, an American pastor, author, and educator, died yesterday at the age of 56. TimesNowNews.com reports that Baucham had dealt with serious health issues in the past. In February 2021, he experienced “full-blown heart failure.” The following month, he underwent successful heart surgery. Later, doctors found another blockage, which led to a quadruple bypass surgery. On Facebook, his ministry wrote, “We are saddened to inform friends that our dear brother, Voddie Baucham, Jr., has left the land of the dying and entered the land of the living. Earlier today, after suffering an emergency medical incident, he entered into his rest and the immediate presence of the Savior whom he loved, trusted, and served since he was converted as a college student. Please pray for Bridget, their [nine] children, and [three] grandchildren.” Indeed, I urge you to send a sympathy card to Bridget Baucham, c/o Voddie Baucham Ministries,1020 S. Ferdon, Crestview, FL 32536. Voddie served for nine years as Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia and was the Founding President of Founders Seminary in Cape Coral, Florida. Known for his passionate preaching, teachings on faith, and books on Christian living, Baucham left a deep mark on the Evangelical community. His books included Family Driven Faith: Doing What It Takes to Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk with God, Family Shepherds: Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes, and Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe. Listen to Voddie Baucham explain how Ephesians 6:1 has been turned upside down by the world. BAUCHAM: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. We've turned this on its head. “First of all, your children are not yours. ‘Children, obey the state, for this is right.' We've even moved from that. “'Children obey your feelings, for this is right.' And then on top of that. We say, ‘Parents, obey your children's feelings, for this is right.' So, if Johnny comes to you and says that Johnny is now Susie, it is your job not to instruct Johnny that he's not Susie, but to instruct Susie that you affirm her as Susie. That's your job. “Your job is to obey, to submit to what it is that your child says that he or she is. Sounds like the same twisted logic of the evangelical feminist.” Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” Watch Voddie's last talk in which he addressed Charlie Kirk's death at New St. Andrews College. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, September 26th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Thursday, September 25th, 2025Today, Jimmy Kimmel returns to air with a fantastic monologue worthy of the moment; the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia is going to try to get a grand jury to indict jim Comey despite investigators saying there's no probable cause; Adelita Grijalva wins the special election in Arizona - 7 to fill her late father's seat and she is the final signature needed on the discharge petition to release the Epstein files; a judge warned that the DOJ may have violated Luigi Mangione's right to a fair trial; a federal judge said Trump violated the law when he fired all those inspectors general but stopped short of reinstating them; a sniper opened fire on a Dallas ICE facility killing one detainee and wounding two, turning the gun on himself; the Trump administration is rehiring hundreds of federal employees fired by DOGE; Reality Winner speaks out in her new memoir I Am Not Your Enemy; a big ol' bronze statue of Trump and Epstein holding hands has been removed from the National Mall. Dana is out and about.Thank You, Mint MobileMake the switch! MINTMOBILE.com/DAILYBEANSThank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Guest: Reality WinnerI Am Not Your Enemy: A Memoir by Reality Winner | Spiegel & GrauReazlepuff - BlueSky, @reazlepuff - Instagram StoriesDemocrat Adelita Grijalva wins special election for her late father's House seat in Arizona | NBC NewsNewly appointed US attorney will attempt to charge James Comey despite prosecutors finding no probable cause: Sources | ABC NewsSniper opens fire on Dallas ICE facility, killing 1 detainee, wounding 2: DHS | ABC NewsLuigi Mangione case: Trump DOJ 'may have violated' fair trial rule, judge warns | All Rise NewsJudge won't reinstate 8 government watchdogs fired by Trump | CBS NewsTrump administration rehires hundreds of federal employees laid off by DOGE | CNN PoliticsA Statue of Trump and Epstein Holding Hands Is Removed From the National Mall | The New York TimesGood TroubleThe US DOE has released the details of its Patriotic Education Program. States have a choice to opt in, but they're basically dangling the grant money like a carrot on a stick. Teach history our way, or else.Partners of the curriculum include Prager U and Turning Point USA, which push a glossy whitewashed narrative of slavery, rather than the brutal honesty students need.There is a comment period open until October 17th. So please lend your voice against extreme RW ideology creeping into our public schools.|Accessing the comment portal has a few steps and a long link, so here's a FB post from Mrs. Frazzled that lays it out with some screenshots to help.https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14JbkUitj1D/Comment here:Proposed Priority and Definitions—Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Promoting Patriotic Education **California needs your help | Proposition 50 Vote YES !! Yes On Prop 50 | Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us**Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.org, @firedbutfighting.bsky.social on Bluesky**SIGN THE STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY for the FEMA Katrina Declaration.**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Fire Kilmeade - foxfeedback@foxnews.com, Submit a request – Fox News**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good Newshttps://www.facebook.com/share/p/14JbkUitj1D/Proposed Priority and Definitions—Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Promoting Patriotic EducationThe Art of Anger - Fresno, CAMelissa Knight, Knight Vision Consulting & CoachingRYSE HawaiiOur Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Michael Popok of Legal AF briefs the audience on new reporting that the reason that real reason that Trump fired the Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney who refused to bring false charges against Trump's political enemies was to allow him to quickly put in one of his lackeys and former defense lawyer Lindsey Halligan into the role, in order to indict former FBI Director James Comey before this Tuesday, when a statute of limitations for lying to congress runs. Moink: Sign up at https://MoinkBox.com/legalaf right now and listeners of this show get FREE WINGS for life! Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FBI Director James Comey is expected to be indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia in the next few days. His minions in the prosecutors office there are doing all they could to try and save him -- it's too late! New details are revealed that police came into encounter with the Charlie Kirk assassin just hours after he killed Charlie. A government shutdown is looming as Trump has the dems back into a corner, once again. And the space race with China is on, America is winning! What about he aliens and UFOs? We talk about it all on today's show!Guest: Congressman Mike Haridopolos - FLSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

While it was generally understood that Donald Trump's installation of his own personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, as U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia to replace the abruptly departed Erik Siebert, was related to his stated desire that his personal enemies be criminally prosecuted, it wasn't entirely clear until today's MSNBC report on the expectation of an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey what was really going on. Jen Psaki reports on Trump's disdain for Comey and his frighteningly direct tactic of assigning unquestioning loyalists to attack his enemies.Jimmy Kimmel returned to his late-night TV show, not only defiant, but before a significantly larger audience, a reflection of the broad support he has received after the Trump administration tried to bully the corporations that carry his show into taking him off the air. Terry Moran, former ABC News senior national correspondent, talks with Jen Psaki about Donald Trump's miscalculation about the importance of free speech to Americans.And the Trump administration sank to a new low as former Trump lawyer turned DOJ attack dog is dabbling in Sandy Hook conspiracy theories with Alex Jones. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Trump is forcing the resignation of the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia because he wouldn't indict the New York Attorney General Leticia James for mortgage fraud. Another January 6th rioter is suing the Department of Justice. There's no proof that Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud in Michigan. We already saw the documents in Atlanta showing she didn't mark her second home as a primary residence. Now we have no evidence in Michigan either. Plus, some weird Rudy Giuliani reportingThank you, CB Distillery!Use promo code CLEANUP at CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase.Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Monday, September 22nd, 2025Today, Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan took a $50K cash bribe for government contracts but Pam Bondi's DOJ dropped the investigation; the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia resigns in protest after refusing to indict Leticia James and Jim Comey; Justice Department officials tell NBC Charlie Kirk's shooter has no connections to left wing groups; the UK, Australia, and Canada vote to recognize a Palestinian state; RFK Jr's new vaccine skeptics panel votes against recommending vaccines for children; Democrats unveil an alternate government funding bill; a Phoenix man was arrested after threatening to shoot up a gay bar near his apartment; Trump asked the Supreme Court to restore birth sex passport requirements; uniformed military members are asking whether the boat attacks in the Caribbean are lawful; the Pentagon muzzles reporters by requiring pre-authorization; Trump's new $100K visa fee sets of panic and confusion; California lawmakers protect medical data for transgender people; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, DeleteMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, WILDGRAINGet $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/DAILYBEANS to start your subscription.Thank You, Fast Growing TreesGet 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeansGuest: Adam KlasfeldAll Rise NewsAll Rise News - Bluesky, @klasfeldreports.com - BlueSky, @KlasfeldReports - Twitter, @senecaprojectus - InstagramRising This Week: A weaponized governmentThe Breakdown Please LIVE on the Meidas Network - The BreakdownStories'No evidence' found yet of ties between Charlie Kirk's shooting and left-wing groups, officials say | NBC NewsUK, Australia and Canada recognize a Palestinian state, prompting anger from Israel | AP NewsRFK Jr.'s vaccine panel makes a controversial change to the childhood vaccine schedule | POLITICOTrump asks Supreme Court to restore birth-sex passport requirement | POLITICOTrump's new $100,000 visa fee sets off panic and confusion | NBC NewsPentagon demands journalists pledge to not obtain unauthorized material | The Washington PostTom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump's DOJ shut it down. | MSNBCU.S. Attorney Investigating Two Trump Foes Departs Amid Pressure From President | The New York TimesPhoenix man accused of threatening to shoot up gay bar amid political anger | Arizona's FamilyCalifornia lawmakers approve measure protecting medical data of transgender people | The HillGood TroubleDisney needs to hear from us. Let them know how you feel about their capitulation to authoritarianism. Contact Disney - The Walt Disney CompanyDisney's Corporate Social Responsibility team: responsibility@twdc.com**California needs your help | Proposition 50 Vote YES !! Yes On Prop 50 | Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us**Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.org, @firedbutfighting.bsky.social on Bluesky**SIGN THE STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY for the FEMA Katrina Declaration.**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Fire Kilmeade - foxfeedback@foxnews.com, Submit a request – Fox News**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on EducationFrom The Good NewsYou Can Vote For Dana !  2025 Out100: Cast your vote for Readers' Choice!!Contact Us - The Walt Disney CompanyGeorgia Mountain Food BankBringing Hope and Light to Ukraine | Episcopal Church in MinnesotaOur Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Former Special Counsel in the Trump investigations, Jack Smith, speaks at length about the weaponization of the department of justice at an event at George Mason University.Trump Administration officials push to fire the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia over his refusal to indict NYAG Tish James and former FBI Director Jim Comey.A trial jury finds a Los Angeles protestor not guilty of assaulting a Border Patrol Agent; and another assault case is dismissed in the District of Columbia.The Department of Justice quietly deletes a study on the politics of domestic violence amid calls from Todd Blanche to investigate Trump protestors. Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

September 19th, 2025, 5pm: The latest play in Trump's revenge might find a U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia fired for refusing to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud. Alicia Menendez — in for Nicolle Wallace — and our panel of political experts discuss Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department. Plus, New York City officials arrested in ICE holding facility protest and the latest targets in the crackdown on free speech.For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewhTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In an unsurprising abuse of presidential power, ABC News reported: "Trump officials pressuring prosecutors to bring criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James". and "Trump himself has pressured the Department of Justice leadership to investigate James more aggressively (and two Trump officials) have pushed the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to seek an indictment of James." This pressure to indict her is being applied, notwithstanding the fact that there is not "sufficient evidence supporting such charges". Glenn discusses what likely would happen in the event the Trump administrations brought a baseless, vindictive prosecution against James.For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.