Podcast appearances and mentions of justice doj

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein files

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kevin BrewerTake a walk with me down Fascination Street as I get to know Kevin Brewer. Kevin is a U.S. Navy veteran, who served for 7 years in multiple overseas duty stations; before being employed by both the Department of Justice (DOJ) & the Department of Defense (DOD). In this episode, we chat about why he joined the Navy, and what his job was in it. We discuss his duties as a cryptologic technician, and what his role was in narco terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, counterintelligence, and counter terrorism. Kevin has Top Secret security clearance, and I ask him to tell me all of the secrets! He politely declines, and then we move onto his health issues. While serving in Afghanistan, Kevin developed several serious health issues which culminated in his gaining nearly 100 pounds, and an inability to exercise, run, or even walk to the refrigerator. He was in a pretty dark place both physically and emotionally. He ended up doing a ton of online research and began to figure out some things that turned his health around. Kevin changed his diet, adjusted his mindset, and sought out specialized STEM CELL treatment. Slowly things began to change. Kevin lost some weight, started narrowing down the food items that were triggering him and causing inflammation, and eventually lost the weight. He gives most of the credit to a change in his mental performance and adjusting his perspective. Now Kevin has acquired a depth of understanding with regard to 'Mental Performance Mastery' & 'Heroic Performance', as well as regularly competing in Spartan Races. Kevin's new mission is to share what he has learned and spread the knowledge he has gained during this process. He has a daily affirmation podcast called RISE AGAIN FROM THE STRUGGLE, which has released nearly a thousand 1–2-minute episodes of encouragement & inspiration. Follow Kevin on Instagram at Coach Kevin Brewer and check out his podcast everywhere podcasts are available.

Share your Field Stories!Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ted Boling, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP about Updates on NEPA, the IAIA Conference in Italy, and Cumulative Effects.  Read his full bio below.Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode.  Perkins Coie is a leading global law firm, dedicated to helping the world's most innovative companies solve the legal and business challenges of tomorrow. Learn more about our work and values at https://perkinscoie.com/Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Ted Boling at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-boling-66326811/Guest Bio:Ted advises clients on renewable energy and transmission projects, resource development, transportation, and related infrastructure development, building on more than 30 years of high-level public service.Ted Boling's experience includes deep involvement in the environmental review and authorization of federal infrastructure projects, environmental mitigation and conservation programs, and leadership of the comprehensive revision of CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. He served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Ted's work at CEQ included the development of the National Ocean Policy, CEQ's climate change guidance, and the use of environmental management systems in environmental impact assessment. Ted advised on the establishment of numerous national monuments, including the first marine national monuments in the United States and the largest marine protected areas in the world. He represented CEQ as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the board of directors of the Udall Foundation, and the U.S. delegation to negotiations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. He also assisted in briefing three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.At DOI, Ted served as a deputy solicitor and counselor to the assistant secretaries for land and minerals management and for fish and wildlife and parks. Ted handled matters involving energy development on the outer continental shelf and the fast-track process for solar and wind energy projects on public lands. At DOJ, Ted was a senior trial attorney and litigated significant cases involving NEPA, endangered species, marine mammals, wetland protections, and management of public lands. He was involved in litigation concerning the Northwest Forest Plan, National Forest management decisions, and Federal Transit Administration decisions and U.S.Support the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

Back in 2011, I took my first business class in college. I had heard about this professor who had a really innovative way of teaching inside of the business school at ColumbiaAfter taking that class, I ended up having quite a few classes with him and he ended up becoming my Advisor for a little while. It was in 2012 during my junior where I took my first entrepreneurial class with him, created my first business plan and learned that Monopoly actually could be tied back to business (my family strongly dislikes playing with me now). Some of my favorite classes ever were taught by today's guest and I consider him my first mentor in the business world. The fact that we are sitting together now on my podcast over a decade later, it feels very surreal and I'm grateful. My guest today is Dr. Sean Siebert. Dr. Siebert's Bio:Dr. Sean Siebert's breadth of knowledge and experience, combined with his story-telling ability, make him a much-sought-after speaker, panelist, educator, and consultant. His messages resonate with audiences, leaving them both motivated and committed to embrace a future of endless possibilities. Currently, Siebert has authored the award-winning books, Fighting The Good Fight and Conversations on Grief.Additionally, Siebert serves as a contracted subject-matter-expert (SME) for the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR). His work in the industries of education; workforce development; entrepreneurship; and economic development continues to be recognized across the United States and around the world. Dr. Siebert has been honored by the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) with the prestigious Friend of Education Award for his work with school districts across the State of Missouri. Dr. Siebert was the national recipient of the National Association of Development Organizations Innovation Award, for his work that helps communities, and individuals, to combat the mental health and opioid epidemics. Siebert has also been honored as the Entrepreneur of the Year, Citizen of the Year, Faculty Member of the Year, and he was the recipient of the Exclamation Award for Excellence. Siebert has been recognized on numerous occasions by the Missouri Department of Economic Development as he was a featured keynote speaker at the Governor's Conference on Economic Development in 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2023. In May 2024, Siebert's work was identified by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), as a best practice for addiction and recovery that leads to hope and resilience. Connect with Dr. Sean Siebert:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sean.siebert.7 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sean-siebert-23109746/ Twitter: @DrSeanSiebertWebsite: www.50ByFriday.com Builders of Authority:FREE Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/7685392924809322 BOA Mastermind: https://buildauthority.co/order-form-mastermind GoHighLevel Extended 30-day Free Trial w/TONS of Personal Branding Bonuses: http://gohighlevel.com/adammcchesney

Send us a textIn Fiscal Year 2024, the federal government collected $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements (FCA). In this episode, Captain Integrity Bob Wade explains what happened. Hear how the qui tam bar is still active, why Stark Law and Fair Market Value issues (FMV) are still very big issues for compliance, how the Department of Justice (DOJ) gives you credit for cooperation & self-reporting, a deep dive into the numbers from 2024, and some fun facts about the settlements. Learn more at CaptainIntegrity.com 

This week, we highlight new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related discrimination. We also examine the Acting EEOC Chair's letters to 20 law firms regarding their DEI practices, as well as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Director's orders to retroactively investigate affirmative action plans. EEOC and DOJ Warn DEI Policies Could Violate Title VII  The EEOC and the DOJ jointly released guidance on discrimination in DEI policies at work, warning that these policies could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the guidance does not define DEI, it provides clarity on the EEOC's focus moving forward. Acting EEOC Chair Targets Law Firms Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms warning that their employment policies intended to boost DEI may be illegal.  OFCCP Plans Retroactive DEI Enforcement A leaked internal email obtained by The Wall Street Journal reveals that newly appointed OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach has ordered a review of affirmative action plans submitted by federal contractors during the prior administration. These reviews will be used to help determine whether a federal contractor should be investigated for discriminatory DEI practices. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw384 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This week we are pleased to bring you one of our most popular episodes of 2024. Please enjoy, and we will be back next week with more insights from the Corruption, Crime, and Compliance podcast.Have you heard of the recent controversies around Boeing 737 MAX and its safety? Have you wondered what is being done about the concerns around it? In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, Michael Volkov delves into the latest developments in the Boeing 737 MAX case, highlighting the recent plea agreement proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Boeing 737 MAX case took another dramatic turn. On July 24, 2024, the Department of Justice filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas a proposed plea agreement with Boeing. Under the Plea Agreement, Boeing will plead guilty to the original Information filed in 2021 with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA"). The discussion focuses on Boeing's alleged failure to implement adequate compliance measures, leading to significant risks and violations, and the ongoing legal and ethical implications of the case. Tune in to hear a detailed analysis of the complexities and legal ramifications of Boeing's recent plea agreement and what it means for corporate compliance and accountability.You'll hear him talk about:Certification Issues: Boeing failed to ensure its 737 MAX certifications were accurate, risking false certifications to the FAA.DOJ Plea Deal: Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., facing opposition from victims' families who find the resolution insufficient. The plea agreement, which has been filed under Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), requires the Court to approve and accept the deal. The Court can reject the plea deal and require the parties to renegotiate the terms.Victims' Rights: The proposed resolution has been controversial because of the opposition of the families of the victims, who have opposed the plea agreement and general disposition of DOJ's investigation and prior resolutions as insufficient to vindicate the public interest and their rights as victims of Boeing's malfeasanceCompliance Failures: Boeing breached its DPA by not implementing effective compliance controls, particularly in safety and quality processes.Independent Monitor: Boeing will be monitored for three years and must invest $455 million in compliance and safety improvements.Ongoing Challenges: Boeing's anti-fraud measures still have gaps, with broader implications for industries where safety is critical.Resources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

This week, we're looking at a few actions the Trump Administration just took on gun policy. To wade through those moves and navigate where the signs point, we've got Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms back on the show. We look at different stories from Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As Cam noted, some were bigger deals than others. First, HHS deleted a Biden-era report calling for new gun restrictions--like an "assault weapons" ban--from its website. Cam said that move was one well within the President's authority. He said that while the action arrived at a comparatively slow pace to some of the other things the Trump Administration is doing, it mirrored what it did in shutting down the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and could signal more is coming in the short term. Then there is the first rule related to guns from the new administration. The DOJ published a plan to restart the gun rights restoration process. Cam said it was more of a plan to make a plan, but he argued it was another strong sign the administration plans to follow through on promised gun rulemaking. The final development points in the same direction and may be the strongest indicator of what's to come, according to Cam. That's the appointment of Robert Leider as the new ATF Chief Counsel. Cam argued that Leider, a Second Amendment scholar and gun-rights advocate, will likely put his expertise to use to help enact numerous pro-gun reforms. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 aims to centralize power in the White House, leveraging the unitary executive theory to expand presidential control over the federal government. This vision is championed by conservative legal scholars and has been embraced by the Supreme Court in recent years. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order issued by Trump in October 2020 that was later rescinded by President Biden. Schedule F would strip career government employees of their employment protections, allowing the president to fire and replace them with loyalists and ideologues. This move would fundamentally alter the civil service system, which has been merit-based since the Pendleton Act of 1883. As the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Public Policy Director Jacque Simon warned, "If all of their recommendations were implemented, it wouldn't just eviscerate our statutory collective bargaining rights and pay system but undo the basics of the apolitical, merit-based system we have today"[5].The implications of Schedule F are far-reaching. It would enable the president to reward cronies and punish enemies, creating an environment ripe for corruption and abuse of power. Independent agencies, which currently provide crucial oversight and accountability, would be rendered ineffective. This could lead to a chilling effect where government employees are discouraged from speaking out, and agencies might be incentivized to suppress the truth and spread misinformation[2].Project 2025 also outlines drastic changes to various federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move would revert the country to a pre-9/11 era, potentially compromising national security efforts and intelligence sharing. The Department of Education would be dismantled, with oversight and federal funding for education handed over to the states, a change that could severely impact Title I funding for high-poverty schools and exacerbate existing teacher shortages[5][3].The Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would undergo significant reforms. The DOJ would be tasked with combating "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and its Civil Rights Division would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argued that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law. This approach would fundamentally alter the DOJ's role in protecting civil rights, instead aligning it with a conservative agenda[1].In the realm of public education, Project 2025's proposals are equally alarming. The plan would eliminate Title I funding, which has been critical for high-poverty schools since 1965, and replace it with no-strings-attached block grants to states. This change could lead to significant budget strains for already underfunded schools, undermining academic outcomes for millions of vulnerable students. Additionally, the project advocates for weakening regulations on charter schools and promoting federal voucher laws, which could siphon funds from public schools and destabilize state budgets[3].The project's stance on healthcare is also contentious. It proposes cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and reversing many of the healthcare policies implemented by President Joe Biden. This would strip away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, a move that has been widely criticized by Democrats and healthcare advocates. Vice-President Kamala Harris has been vocal about these plans, stating that Project 2025 is a "plan to return America to a dark past"[3][4].Project 2025 also delves into environmental and social policies. It recommends reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and proposes making the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent, including defunding its stem cell research. The project suggests criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBT discrimination, and ending DEI programs. It even proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, the connections between the project and his administration are clear. Many of the project's architects and supporters are former Trump officials, and several Trump campaign officials have maintained contact with the project. After Trump's 2024 election victory, he nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his second administration. An analysis by *Time* found that nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025[1].The public's reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative. Polls indicate that the more Americans learn about the project, the more they oppose it. A Navigator poll found that 53% of Americans, including 37% of non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the project, while only 12% support it. The opposition stems from concerns about the plan's impact on healthcare, education, and the overall erosion of democratic institutions[3].As I reflect on the breadth and depth of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government operates. The project's proponents see it as a last opportunity to "save our republic" by aligning it with a far-right agenda. However, critics argue that it would dismantle the administrative state, undermine national security, and strip away fundamental rights and freedoms.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and judicial oversight. As the country navigates these potential changes, it is crucial for Americans to remain informed and engaged. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the radical nature of its proposals, but also due to the incremental and strategic ways these policies are being implemented. This 900-page blueprint, crafted by the Heritage Foundation and a cohort of conservative scholars, is more than just a distant vision; it is a meticulously laid out plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 aims to centralize power in the executive branch, a move that critics argue would erode the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. One of the most alarming aspects of this plan is the proposed reinstatement of Schedule F, an executive order that former President Trump issued in October 2020. This order would strip career government employees of their employment protections, allowing the president to fire and replace them with loyalists and ideologues at will[3].The implications of Schedule F are far-reaching. It would politicize the civil service, enabling the president to dismiss dedicated civil servants who have spent years serving the nation, regardless of their performance. This move would not only undermine the continuity and integrity of government operations but also pave the way for an authoritarian takeover. As the Kettering Foundation explains, "Understanding the Schedule F threat is critical to stopping it," because it fundamentally changes the character of the federal government, advancing the US toward authoritarianism[3].Project 2025's vision for federal agencies is equally troubling. The plan calls for dismantling or abolishing key agencies such as the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security, while significantly altering the roles of others like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The DOJ, for instance, would be thoroughly reformed to combat what Project 2025 terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," a move that would involve prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[2].The impact on public education is particularly devastating. Project 2025 proposes eliminating Title I funding, which has provided critical financial support to high-poverty schools since 1965. Instead, states would receive no-strings-attached block grants with zero regulations or oversight. This change would strain already tight education budgets, undermine academic outcomes for millions of vulnerable students, and exacerbate teacher shortages in low-income communities. As Will Ragland from the Center for American Progress notes, "Removing Title I funding would mean losing thousands of teachers and ultimately limiting children's access to quality instruction"[4].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025's proposals are starkly at odds with the needs of many Americans. The plan includes slashing Medicare and Medicaid, stripping away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, and criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications. These measures would have far-reaching consequences, particularly for women facing severe health risks during pregnancy, who may be denied life-saving care if abortion is not considered healthcare[1].The project's stance on immigration is equally draconian. It recommends transferring custody of immigrant children from Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), prioritizing enforcement over welfare. This move would expand detention centers and worsen the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable immigrant children. Additionally, the plan proposes mass deportation of illegal immigrants and the deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement[1][2].In the realm of media and technology, Project 2025's policies are designed to align with a conservative agenda. The plan includes reducing agency accountability and decreasing wasteful spending, while promoting national security and economic prosperity. For instance, it suggests that Big Tech companies should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, currently funded through telephone bills. The project also advocates for increasing transparency in media ownership to ensure national security and reducing regulations on media ownership to stimulate competition[5].The broader theme here is one of control and centralization. Project 2025 seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the DOJ, the FBI, and the Federal Communications Commission. This expansive interpretation of presidential power, rooted in the unitary executive theory, aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. As Kevin Roberts, a proponent of Project 2025, puts it, all federal employees should answer directly to the president[2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this is not just a policy agenda but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's architects see it as "the next conservative President's last opportunity to save our republic," but critics, including Vice-President Kamala Harris, describe it as a plan to "return America to a dark past"[4].The latest developments are equally concerning. Despite Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the plan, many of his allies and former administration officials have been involved in its creation. Since his re-election in 2024, Trump has nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to key positions in his administration. Analysis by *Time* found that nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025[2].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 will become increasingly evident. The upcoming months will be crucial as these policies are implemented and tested. The American public, already largely opposed to the plan, will be watching closely. Polls indicate that the more people learn about Project 2025, the more they dislike it, with 53% opposing the plan and only 12% supporting it[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a substantial threat not only to individual rights but also to the very foundation of American democracy. Its incremental steps, already being taken in states and through legal challenges, foreshadow a future where the rights of marginalized groups are further compromised. As we navigate this critical period, it is essential to remain vigilant and informed, ensuring that the democratic principles that have defined America are not eroded by the radical ambitions of Project 2025.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation and backed by over 100 conservative organizations, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a policy proposal, but a sweeping vision for a radical transformation of the American government. This 900-page document, often described as a roadmap for a second Donald Trump presidency, outlines a comprehensive and far-reaching set of policies that aim to reshape the very fabric of federal governance.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to dismantle the administrative state, the network of federal agencies and programs that have been the backbone of American governance since the late 19th century. The plan promises to eliminate or significantly reduce the roles of several key agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Education, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For instance, DHS, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks to coordinate national security efforts, would be abolished, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is not only seen as a step back to the pre-9/11 era but also as a significant risk to national security[1][2][5].The Department of Education, another target, would be eliminated, with oversight of education and federal funding handed over to the states. This shift would come with severe consequences, including the loss of Title I funding, which has been crucial for high-poverty schools since 1965. The elimination of this funding would strain already tight education budgets, potentially leading to the loss of thousands of teachers and limiting children's access to quality instruction[3].Project 2025 also aims to gut environmental regulations, particularly those enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The plan calls for the elimination of many EPA regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations a free hand to pollute, endangering public health by compromising the air, water, and food Americans rely on[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to the federal workforce. The plan seeks to end collective bargaining for public-sector workers and reinstate Trump's executive orders that bust unions. It also proposes the reinstatement of Schedule F, a classification that would allow the administration to hire and fire federal employees based on political loyalty rather than merit. This move could affect over 500,000 employees, stripping them of their work protections and undermining the apolitical, merit-based civil service system established by the Pendleton Act of 1883[1][2].The project's vision for law enforcement is equally alarming. It calls for a thorough reform of the Department of Justice (DOJ), bringing it under closer White House control and directing it to combat what the authors term "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism." This would involve prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, arguing that these programs violate federal law[2].Project 2025's authors also advocate for a significant expansion of presidential powers, aligning with the unitary executive theory that centralizes control over the government in the White House. This would mean that all federal employees would answer directly to the president, a move that critics argue would endanger democratic institutions and concentrate power in a way that is not loyal to the Constitution or the law[2][4].The plan's impact on media and technology policies is no less profound. It proposes reducing funding for public broadcasting, such as NPR, which Trump has labeled a "liberal disinformation machine." Additionally, it suggests increasing agency accountability while decreasing wasteful spending and promoting national security and economic prosperity through measures like expanding 5G connectivity and making Big Tech companies contribute to the Universal Service Fund[4].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 recommends drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and the reversal of protections for pre-existing conditions. These changes would strip away healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, particularly those who are most vulnerable. As Vice-President Kamala Harris put it, "It is a plan to return America to a dark past"[3].The project's stance on immigration is equally harsh, calling for the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants and the deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement. It also proposes enacting laws that criminalize the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications, reflecting a strong alignment with the Christian right's agenda[2].As I reflect on the breadth and depth of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this is not just a policy blueprint but a manifesto for a radical shift in American governance. The plan is met with widespread opposition, with polls indicating that over 50% of Americans, including a significant portion of non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the project's proposals[3].In the words of AFGE President Everett Kelley, "Project 2025 will take away freedoms and rights from every American, will hurt the middle class and working families, and is a threat to our democracy." This sentiment is echoed by many experts and critics who see the project as a dangerous and comprehensive attempt to dismantle the checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of American democracy[1].As the country moves forward, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will be a critical test of American governance. With the 2025 presidential term already underway, the next few months will be pivotal in determining how many of these radical changes will be enacted. The American public, policymakers, and civil servants are all watching closely, aware that the future of the federal government and the rights of its citizens hang in the balance.

John is joined by John Nadolenco, Managing Partner of Mayer Brown's Los Angeles office and Kelly Kramer, partner in Mayer Brown's Washington, D.C. office.  They discuss how John and Kelly won an eleven-year legal battle over the Bahia Emerald, the largest emerald in history.  The 789-pound gemstone was illegally mined in Bahia, Brazil and smuggled into the U.S.  The emerald first entered the U.S. in San Jose, California where the importers falsely declared it to be a piece of concrete with no value.  It later surfaced in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, was transported several more times, and was eventually seized in Las Vegas by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 2014 when one party seeking to claim the emerald reported it stolen.  This led to an action in Los Angeles Superior Court to determine the rightful owner.  When news accounts of the action reached Brazil, the government contacted John and Kelly to intervene.  They worked with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which filed a federal case in the District of Columbia invoking a little-known provision from the Patriot Act, which allowed the emerald to be frozen pending forfeiture.  Meanwhile, Brazilian courts convicted those who illegally mined and exported the gemstone and, after years of appeals, issued a final forfeiture order.  The DOJ then moved to enforce the Brazilian ruling, ultimately securing the emerald.  The emerald is now set to be repatriated and displayed in a museum in Rio de Janeiro, bringing an end to one of the most extraordinary asset recovery cases in modern history.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In the realm of False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement, state attorneys general (AGs) are increasingly collaborating with federal authorities and fellow state AGs to address allegedly fraudulent activities. Companies operating across multiple states are under heightened scrutiny, particularly in the healthcare sector, where compliance with regulations is critical. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) highlighted this collaboration with state AGs in its announcement of FCA recoveries last year, noting that DOJ is working closely with state AGs to recover funds for both federal and state Medicaid programs. There also has been increased coordination targeting third-party investors, such as private equity and venture capital firms, to ensure that they conduct thorough due diligence and maintain robust compliance programs when investing in healthcare companies. This increased coordination aims to hold all parties accountable, from healthcare providers to their financial backers, in preventing and addressing alleged fraud. In the latest episode of MoForecast, Morrison Foerster partners Carrie H. Cohen, global co-chair of the Investigations + White Collar Defense Group and State + Local Government Enforcement team, and Adam Braverman, a partner in the Investigations + White Collar Defense Group, examine the current dynamics of state AG enforcement under the FCA. They explore the implications of multijurisdictional investigations and the growing involvement of third-party investors in healthcare fraud cases. Their discussion provides valuable insights for companies navigating these complex legal challenges, highlighting the importance of proactive compliance measures and strategic responses to enforcement actions. Tune in to the podcast to gain a deeper understanding of the future of state AG enforcement in the FCA arena. MoForecast is a podcast series discussing enforcement and policy trends we can expect from the new presidential administration. This episode continues our focus on state AGs, which aims to provide valuable insights for in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and defense lawyers navigating the evolving landscape of state AG enforcement.

Presented with limited interruptions by: https://BlackoutCoffee.com/KYLE (20% off your first order with PROMO "KYLE")https://www.givesendgo.com/texas_whistleblowerIn this conversation, Eithan Haim, MD, shares his journey from a surgical resident to a whistleblower exposing unethical practices at Texas Children's Hospital regarding transgender interventions. He discusses the personal and professional challenges he faced, the moral imperative that drove him to speak out, and the divine providence he felt throughout the process. The conversation also touches on his background, family life, and political awakening, providing a comprehensive view of his motivations and experiences. In this conversation, Dr. Haim discusses the ethical dilemmas faced in the medical field, particularly regarding patient data sharing and whistleblowing. He shares his personal experiences of navigating the complexities of reporting misconduct within healthcare, the psychological toll of witnessing the consequences of COVID-19 policies, and the challenges of confronting federal authorities. The discussion highlights the moral responsibilities of medical professionals and the impact of systemic issues on individual lives. In this segment, Eithan Haim, MD, recounts his harrowing experience with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the legal battles that ensued after he was accused of violating HIPAA regulations. He describes the unprofessional conduct of the prosecutors, the threats made against his wife, and the decision to go public with his story as a means of self-defense. Haim discusses the subsequent indictments, the unraveling of the DOJ's case, and the conflicts of interest that emerged, highlighting the corruption within the system. His determination to fight back against the allegations and the political motivations behind the case are central themes in this narrative. In this conversation, Eithan Haim, MD, shares his harrowing experience with a gag order imposed by a judge, the escalation of his legal case by the DOJ, and the emotional journey of finding freedom after a long battle. He discusses the need for accountability in the justice system, the dehumanization he faced, and the parallels to historical injustices. The conversation also touches on the state of various institutions and the importance of maintaining a positive outlook amidst adversity.Keywords:whistleblower, transgender interventions, medical ethics, personal journey, divine providence, journalism, Texas Children's Hospital, Eithan Haim, medical ethics, conservative values, medical ethics, whistleblowing, healthcare, COVID-19, patient privacy, legal pathways, mental health, federal investigation, medical profession, healthcare policies, Eithan Haim, DOJ, legal battles, whistleblower, corruption, HIPAA, indictment, public exposure, medical ethics, political influence, gag order, judicial accountability, DOJ, freedom, accountability, dehumanization, institutions, future outlook, positivity, adversity

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by conservative extremists and political operatives, I am struck by the sheer scope and ambition of this radical plan. Released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023, Project 2025 is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive roadmap for a sweeping overhaul of the federal government, designed to be implemented in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election.At its core, Project 2025 is a 927-page manifesto divided into 30 chapters, each targeting a specific federal department. The authors, many of whom are former Trump administration officials, envision a future where the federal government is radically reshaped to align with far-right ideologies. This vision is encapsulated in the project's stated goal to "destroy the Administrative State" and replace it with a system where political loyalists hold key positions of power[3].One of the most alarming aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to centralize executive power, effectively undermining the independence of various federal agencies. The plan advocates for the elimination of civil service protections, allowing the president to hire unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This scheme, known as Schedule F, would transfer apolitical civil service employees into a category where they would be vulnerable to political overreach and abuse of power. As Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a unitary executive theory that seeks to consolidate greater control over the government in the White House[2][3].The implications of such a shift are profound. For instance, Project 2025 proposes dismantling or abolishing several key agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. In their place, the plan suggests installing senior leaders in "acting" roles that do not require Senate confirmation. This move would ensure that these agencies are run by individuals loyal to a conservative president, rather than by career civil servants who might resist partisan manipulation[2].The Department of Justice (DOJ) is another target, with Project 2025 aiming to eliminate its independence. The plan recommends that the DOJ prosecute anti-white racism instead of protecting against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, a stark reversal of current civil rights priorities. This aligns with the broader theme of Project 2025: to prioritize enforcement over welfare and exclusion over inclusion. As seen in the proposal to transfer custody of immigrant children from Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this approach would likely worsen the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable immigrant children[1][2].Healthcare is another critical area where Project 2025's policies could have devastating consequences. The plan includes proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid, strip away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, and criminalize the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications. These measures would not only undermine reproductive rights but also leave millions of Americans without essential healthcare services. As Vice-President Kamala Harris warned, "Project 2025 is a plan to return America to a dark past"[4].The impact on public education is equally dire. Project 2025 plans to gut federal education funding, eliminate Title I funding for high-poverty schools, and introduce federal voucher laws that would benefit private schools at the expense of public education. This would exacerbate existing teacher shortages and destabilize local school budgets, ultimately limiting children's access to quality instruction. Jessica Levin of the Education Law Center aptly described the Arizona voucher program, which Project 2025 aims to model, as "Exhibit A" of the disastrous implications for students and public schools[4].In addition to these domestic policy changes, Project 2025 also outlines a series of controversial measures related to media and information control. The plan proposes defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status, and forcing them to relocate to less favorable positions on the FM dial. This would pave the way for religious programming to dominate public airwaves. Furthermore, the project suggests banning TikTok and preventing social media companies from removing "core political viewpoints" from their platforms, which could lead to the unchecked spread of misinformation[2].Despite Donald Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the connections between the former president and the initiative are undeniable. Many of the plan's architects and contributors are former Trump administration officials, and Trump has nominated several of these individuals to positions in his administration following his 2024 election victory. As CBS News noted, nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025[5].The public's reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative. Polls indicate that a significant majority of Americans, including a substantial portion of non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the plan. The more people learn about Project 2025, the more they dislike it, with concerns ranging from the firing of civil service employees to the stripping of healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions[4].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will be a critical test of American governance. The plan's proponents are gearing up for a rapid rollout of their agenda, with a 180-day playbook outlining specific steps for the new administration. This includes a prepared stack of executive orders ready to be signed on the first day in office. The coming months will reveal whether these radical changes can be enacted without significant resistance from Congress, the judiciary, and the American public.In the words of Kevin Roberts, "the nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." However, for many, Project 2025 represents not a revolution but a regression—a return to a past marked by inequality, exclusion, and the erosion of democratic principles. As the nation navigates this tumultuous period, one thing is clear: the future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the choices made now will have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.

In this riveting episode of the Dead America Podcast, host Ed Watters welcomes Aiden Gabor, author of Conflicting Loyalties, to delve into his extraordinary life journey. From his challenging childhood shaped by mob influences to his role as a feared mob enforcer, Aiden unravels the compelling decisions that ultimately led him to become a crucial Department of Justice (DOJ) informant. With raw honesty, he shares the struggles of navigating personal respect, loyalty conflicts, and a battle with alcoholism, as well as the redemption he found through spirituality and a supportive second marriage. This episode is not just a tale of transformation but a powerful lesson for young listeners. Aiden explores the consequences of his choices, highlighting the value of standing up for justice, overcoming personal struggles, and finding purpose in life's second chances. His story is a testament to resilience, courage, and the ability to forge a new path, no matter how daunting the circumstances.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and alarm. This sprawling initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving a myriad of conservative groups and former Trump administration officials, is nothing short of a blueprint for a radical transformation of the U.S. federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manifesto that outlines a vision for a second Trump presidency, one that would usher in sweeping changes across various federal agencies and policy domains. The project is divided into four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The plan advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is profound. For instance, it proposes dismantling or abolishing several key departments, including the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Education, in particular, would see its role significantly reduced, with control over education funding and policy transferred to the states. This would include closing the Department of Education and shifting programs under the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) to the Department of Health and Human Services[1][2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a future where federal involvement is minimal. It suggests allowing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expire, thereby removing $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. The Head Start program, which provides essential services to children of low-income families, would be ended, with critics like Roger Severino arguing it does not provide value, though without providing evidence[1][2].The project's stance on environmental policy is equally contentious. It seeks to reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights would be closed, and the agency would be barred from using private health data to determine the effects of pollution. The expansion of the national electrical grid would be blocked, and funding for renewable energy projects would be curtailed. Instead, the project advocates for the development of vast oil, gas, and coal resources, including Arctic drilling[1].Project 2025 also has a clear agenda on social issues. It proposes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The DOJ would be tasked with prosecuting what the project terms "anti-white racism," and affirmative action programs would be targeted as violating federal law. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argued that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society "comes at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violates longstanding federal law"[1].The project's approach to law enforcement is another area of significant change. The DOJ, described as a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda," would be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The director of the FBI would be personally accountable to the president, and consent decrees between the DOJ and local police departments would be curtailed. Capital punishment would be promoted for "particularly heinous crimes" like pedophilia, and the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service would be authorized to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, which the project describes as "infested with crime"[1].In terms of economic policy, Project 2025 advocates for a flat income tax on individuals, reducing taxes on corporations and capital gains, and cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It suggests merging several statistical agencies, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the role of the National Labor Relations Board would be significantly reduced[1].Despite its comprehensive nature, Project 2025 has faced significant criticism and public opposition. Many see it as a dangerous plan to expand presidential power and gut the system of checks and balances. The American public, according to various polls, is largely united in their disapproval of the project's proposals[2].Donald Trump, despite his administration's deep ties to the project, has attempted to distance himself from it. In a social media post, he claimed, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." However, the involvement of former Trump officials and the alignment of the project's proposals with Trump's past policies and current campaign promises suggest a closer connection than he admits[3].As we look to the future, the implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and profound. If implemented, these policies could fundamentally alter the fabric of American governance, impacting everything from education and environmental protection to law enforcement and economic policy. With Trump's second term underway, the next few months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals become reality.In the words of Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, "The Inflation Reduction Act is crucial, and it is vital that Republicans engage in supporting good energy and climate policy." Her sentiments reflect a broader concern among many Americans: that Project 2025's vision for the future may be at odds with the nation's long-term well-being and the principles of democratic governance[1].As the nation navigates this complex and contentious landscape, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a pivotal moment in American politics, one that will shape the course of the country for years to come. Whether its ambitious plans will be realized remains to be seen, but the debate it has sparked is undeniable—a testament to the enduring power of ideas and the unyielding spirit of public discourse.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureMexico is going to tariff China to offset the US tariffs, this fell right into what Trump wants, China is being tariffed. Trump signs EO for lumber, tariffs are coming. A new crypto reserve has been setup in the US, now we have a gold reserve and a crypto reserve.Trump has now trapped the [DS] and Zelensky in their own narrative. Trump can see the board world wide and here in the US. He sees who is for war and who is for peace. Obama's team tried to coach Zelensky on his response to Trump, a setup within a setup. Trump has now forced the [DS] into defending the indefensible, it will get worse of the D's and the [DS].   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1895555248418406589 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1896009036539273297  United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources and made us reliant on foreign producers." https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1895652150472327180     TAX on tips, NO TAX on Social Security, and NO TAX on overtime. This isn't about any one member of Congress; it's about delivering the mandate the American people demanded when they elected President Trump—who is far more popular than any of us—in November Political/Rights https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1896257539752517863 https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1895889758884413947  Panicked AOC Sends Desperate Letter to AG Pam Bondi, Begging to Know if She's Under Investigation for Coaching Criminal Aliens on How to Evade ICE AOC proudly announced that she was holding webinars to teach illegal aliens how to avoid ICE agents in New York City. In a frantic letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the New York congresswoman is scrambling to find out if the Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating her for coaching illegal aliens on how to evade ICE. The controversy erupted when Tom Homan openly criticized Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, accusing her of leveraging her platform to obstruct immigration enforcement efforts.   Read the full letter below: “I write to request clarity on whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) has yielded to political pressure and attempts to weaponize the agency against elected officials whose speech they disagree with. Over the past two weeks, “Border Czar” Tom Homan has gone on multiple forums threatening political prosecution against me, citing resources I distributed informing my constituents and the American public of their constitutional and legal rights. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1895918496569328056 The Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is a key unit in the U.S. Army, designed as a mechanized infantry force that balances rapid deployment with combat power. It's built around the Stryker vehicle—an eight-wheeled, armored platform that's lighter than tanks but more robust than typical infantry transport. The SBCT is one of three main types of brigade combat teams in the Army, alongside infantry (IBCT) and armored (ABCT) variants, and it's meant to fill the gap between the highly mobile but lightly equipped infantry units and the heavier, slower armored units. An SBCT typically consists of about 4,500 soldiers and over 300 Stryker vehicles, organized into several battalions: three infantry battalions, one reconnaissance (cavalry) squadron,

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power, and implement a far-right agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is about centralizing power in the White House. The plan advocates for the elimination of the independence of key federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to federal staffing. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with individuals loyal to the president. This is not a new idea; during Trump's first term, he established the Schedule F job classification by executive order, which was later rescinded by President Biden. However, with Trump's return to office, this classification has been revived, paving the way for a significant purge of federal employees deemed disloyal[1].The project's impact on education is equally profound. It envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This would mean the end of federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides $18 billion annually to schools in low-income areas, and the Head Start program, which supports children from low-income families. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers that could be used for private or religious schools, a move that critics argue would exacerbate educational inequality[1][3].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to social safety nets. It recommends reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and ending programs aimed at forgiving student loans. The plan also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggesting a reduction in its independence and the defunding of stem cell research. These changes are part of a broader agenda to align scientific research with conservative principles, with a particular emphasis on reducing funding for climatology research and reversing the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health[1].Environmental policies are another critical area where Project 2025 seeks to make its mark. The plan advocates for the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the expansion of oil and gas drilling, and the blocking of the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased methane emissions. The project also proposes incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, further undermining efforts to address climate change[1].The project's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. It calls for the reform of the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and proposes that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plan also suggests curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and authorizing the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, a move that critics argue would further militarize law enforcement[1].Project 2025's economic policies are designed to favor corporations and reduce regulatory oversight. It recommends the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the shrinkage of the National Labor Relations Board, and the merger of several statistical agencies into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The plan also advocates for a flat income tax, reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains, and the relaxation of regulations on small businesses, particularly in rural areas[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his policies is striking. As CBS News noted, at least 270 proposals in the project's blueprint match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on changes to FEMA, align with Project 2025's call to shift disaster response costs to states and local governments[4][5].The reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative from many quarters. Critics argue that it would gut the system of checks and balances, create an imperial presidency, and devastate public education and social safety nets. The National Education Association (NEA) has warned that the project's education reforms would deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed. Environmental groups have condemned the project's climate policies as disastrous and misguided[2][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's architects see it as a last opportunity to save what they perceive as a beleaguered republic, but critics see it as a dangerous blueprint for extremism and authoritarianism.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and public opposition. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is likely to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this vision for a radically reshaped federal government becomes a reality or remains a contentious blueprint on the fringes of American politics. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

In this conversation, Carl Jackson discusses the concept of 'sue and settle' as a legal strategy used by advocacy groups to influence federal agencies, particularly focusing on the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a slush fund for the Democrat party. He explores the implications of this strategy on policy-making and provides real-world examples of its application, particularly in the context of environmental regulations and corporate settlements. The discussion highlights the potential corruption and lack of accountability within bureaucratic agencies, emphasizing the need for reform. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com NEW!!!! THE CARL JACKSON SHOW MERCH IS HERE. SUPPORT THE PODCAST GETTING A T-SHIRT NOW! https://carljacksonmerch.itemorder.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this conversation, Carl Jackson discusses the concept of 'sue and settle' as a legal strategy used by advocacy groups to influence federal agencies, particularly focusing on the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a slush fund for the Democrat party. He explores the implications of this strategy on policy-making and provides real-world examples of its application, particularly in the context of environmental regulations and corporate settlements. The discussion highlights the potential corruption and lack of accountability within bureaucratic agencies, emphasizing the need for reform. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com NEW!!!! THE CARL JACKSON SHOW MERCH IS HERE. SUPPORT THE PODCAST GETTING A T-SHIRT NOW! https://carljacksonmerch.itemorder.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals and ideological ambitions that promise to reshape the very fabric of American governance. This 900-plus page blueprint, often referred to as the “Mandate for Leadership,” is more than just a collection of policy ideas; it is a comprehensive roadmap for a future Republican administration, particularly one led by Donald Trump, to implement sweeping changes across various sectors of federal government.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the executive branch. The project advocates for a significant consolidation of power in the White House, aligning with the unitary executive theory that aims to centralize control over government agencies. This includes plans to eliminate the independence of key agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)[3].For instance, Project 2025 suggests that all Department of State employees in leadership roles should be dismissed and replaced with individuals more loyal to a conservative president. Kiron Skinner, who wrote the State Department chapter of the project, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced. This approach is part of a broader strategy to ensure that federal employees answer directly to the president, a move that critics argue would undermine the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system of government[3].The project's impact on federal agencies extends to areas such as disaster response and emergency management. Project 2025 proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs from the federal government to states and localities. This recommendation is based on the argument that FEMA is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt"[1].President Trump's recent actions reflect this alignment, as he established a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities and suggested that states should take more responsibility for disaster response. "That's what states are for, to take care of problems," Trump said, echoing the project's call for a more localized approach to disaster management[1].In the realm of public education, Project 2025 outlines a radical overhaul that would gut federal funding and dismantle critical programs. The proposal includes plans to deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed and to sanction discrimination against LGBTQ+ students. The National Education Association (NEA) has vehemently opposed these plans, highlighting that they would be disastrous for the nation's education system[4].The economic implications of Project 2025 are equally profound. The initiative proposes eliminating key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been instrumental in funding transformative infrastructure projects across the U.S. This move could significantly hinder the mobility of Americans without cars, making it harder for them to get to work or travel within their communities[2].Additionally, Project 2025 targets social safety nets and labor protections. It recommends cutting overtime protections for millions of workers, limiting access to food assistance for over 40 million people, and restricting safety nets for farmers to only "unusual situations," despite the common and unpredictable challenges farmers face[2].The project also seeks to roll back civil rights protections, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and LGBTQ+ rights in healthcare, education, and workplaces. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argues that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law. This perspective underpins the project's call for the DOJ to prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with DEI or affirmative action programs[3].Environmental regulations are another area where Project 2025 aims to make significant changes. The initiative proposes reducing environmental protections to favor fossil fuels and defunding stem cell research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These moves are part of a broader agenda to prioritize corporate and special interests over public welfare and environmental sustainability[3].The project's authors and supporters are not shy about their ambitions. Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, praised Trump's early actions as "home runs" that exceeded their expectations. "They are in many cases more than we could have even dared hope for," he said, reflecting the project's readiness to implement its vision[1].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's emphasis on centralizing power, dismantling social safety nets, and rolling back civil rights protections paints a picture of a future where the government is more aligned with conservative ideologies and less concerned with the welfare of all its citizens.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will likely face significant opposition and scrutiny. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is expected to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals become reality and what the long-term implications will be for American governance and society.In the words of the People's Guide to Project 2025, this initiative is "among the most profound threats to the American people," promising to create a country that prioritizes special interests and ideological extremism over the well-being of its citizens. As we navigate this complex and contentious landscape, it is imperative to remain vigilant and informed about the potential consequences of such sweeping policy changes[2].

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals, ideological convictions, and far-reaching implications for American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving over 100 conservative groups, is more than just a policy guide; it is a blueprint for a radical transformation of the federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-plus page "Mandate for Leadership" authored by former Trump administration officials and other conservative stalwarts. The project is built around four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration, a database of potential personnel, training for these candidates, and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the redistribution of power within the federal government. The project advocates for a significant expansion of presidential powers, aiming to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. This includes eliminating the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). According to Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, all federal employees should answer directly to the president, reflecting a unitary executive theory that centralizes greater control in the White House[2].This centralization of power is not limited to administrative restructuring. Project 2025 also proposes sweeping reforms in various federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Education is slated for dismantling, a move that would gut federal education funding and deny critical resources to vulnerable students. The National Education Association has warned that such changes would devastate public education, sanctioning discrimination against LGBTQ+ students and undermining the very fabric of the education system[3].In the realm of disaster response, Project 2025 suggests a drastic shift in the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposal recommends reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, rather than the federal government. This aligns with Trump's recent actions, where he established a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities and suggested that states should take over disaster response management. The project's authors argue that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness," leading to deep debt and an unsustainable model[1].The project's stance on law enforcement is equally contentious. It calls for a thorough reform of the DOJ, criticizing it as a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda." The proposal suggests that the DOJ should combat "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and that the Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This vision is starkly at odds with traditional civil rights protections and reflects a broader agenda to reverse decades of progress in civil rights[2].Project 2025's economic policies are no less radical. The plan includes proposals to cut overtime protections for over 4 million workers, stop efforts to lower prescription drug prices, and limit access to food assistance for millions of Americans. It also aims to eliminate funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. These changes would make it significantly harder for Americans without cars to commute to work or travel around their communities[5].The environmental implications of Project 2025 are equally alarming. The plan seeks to undermine critical climate action by attacking the EPA's "Endangerment Finding," a cornerstone of federal efforts to curb emissions under the Clean Air Act. By 'updating' this finding, Project 2025 would make it harder for the EPA to take action against climate change, effectively rolling back hard-fought gains in environmental protection[5].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's architects and supporters have been nominated to key positions in his administration. This close alignment between Trump's policies and Project 2025's proposals has led critics to argue that the project is, in essence, a roadmap for Trump's second term. As CBS News noted, nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025[4].The broader themes of Project 2025—centralization of power, dismantling of social safety nets, and a radical shift in federal policies—paint a picture of an initiative that is both ambitious and deeply divisive. As the American public becomes more aware of these proposals, opposition grows, reflecting a deep-seated concern about the direction in which this project could steer the country.Looking forward, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will likely be a contentious and highly politicized process. With the project's architects now in key positions within the administration, the next few months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals become reality. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a profound shift in American governance, one that could have far-reaching and lasting impacts on the lives of millions of Americans.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a comprehensive plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance. This project, designed to guide the next Republican president, has been a topic of both intrigue and controversy, especially given its alignment with many of the policies implemented by President Trump in his second term.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-plus page policy guide authored by former Trump administration officials and other conservative thinkers. The project is built around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, training programs for these candidates, and a strategic plan for implementing these policies[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambitious plan to overhaul the executive branch. The project advocates for a significant consolidation of power in the White House, aligning with the unitary executive theory that aims to centralize greater control over the government. This vision includes making all federal employees directly accountable to the president, a move that critics argue would undermine the independence of crucial agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)[3].The project's authors are clear about their intentions to transform key federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 proposes dismantling or abolishing agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Education (ED), while significantly reforming others. The DOJ, in particular, is targeted for a thorough overhaul, with the project describing it as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people. The proposed reforms include having the DOJ combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[3].The impact on social and economic policies is equally profound. Project 2025 calls for rolling back civil rights protections across multiple fronts, including cutting DEI programs and LGBTQ+ rights in healthcare, education, and workplaces. It also proposes limiting access to food assistance, which affects over 40 million people monthly, and eliminating the Head Start early education program that serves more than a million children. Additionally, the project suggests restricting safety nets for farmers, which could disproportionately affect low-income farmers and those without extensive assets[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025's proposals are just as far-reaching. The plan includes pushing more people towards Medicare Advantage and other private options, which critics argue would be worse for patients. It also recommends restricting access to medication abortion and ending coverage of emergency contraception. These changes are part of a broader agenda to reshape healthcare policy in line with conservative principles[2][3].The project's stance on immigration and border security is another critical area. Project 2025 aligns with President Trump's recent executive actions, such as deploying active-duty troops to the southern border to "seal the borders and maintain the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the United States." The plan also calls for suspending refugee admissions and shifting resources away from the Refugee Admissions Program to address what it describes as a "collapse" of U.S. border security and immigration enforcement[1][3].Economic policies are also a focal point, with Project 2025 advocating for significant changes in taxation, trade, and regulatory oversight. The plan includes reducing taxes on corporations and capital gains, instituting a flat income tax on individuals, and reversing former President Biden's policies. It also proposes reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and combining various regulatory agencies to streamline oversight, a move that could have far-reaching implications for economic data collection and business regulation[3].The project's vision for law enforcement is equally contentious. It suggests that the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service should enforce the law outside of the White House and its immediate surroundings, reflecting a broader concern about crime in the District of Columbia. Additionally, Project 2025 promotes the use of capital punishment for "particularly heinous crimes" and advocates for a more lenient approach to small businesses under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)[3].As I navigate through the detailed proposals of Project 2025, it becomes evident that this initiative is not just a set of policy recommendations but a comprehensive blueprint for reshaping American governance. The project's architects, many of whom have been nominated to positions in Trump's second administration, are clear about their goals: to centralize power, roll back civil rights protections, and implement a conservative agenda across various sectors.Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, encapsulates the project's ambition when he describes President Trump's actions as "home runs" that are "in many cases more than we could have even dared hope for."[1]However, these proposals also raise significant concerns about the potential impacts on American society. Critics argue that these changes could devastate working people, small businesses, and the overall health of the economy. The elimination of programs like the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, for instance, could undermine federal investments in communities and public transportation, making it harder for Americans to make ends meet[2].As we look ahead, it is clear that Project 2025 will continue to shape the policy landscape of the United States. With many of its proposals already being implemented through executive actions, the next few months will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes. The Senate's role in confirming key appointments and the public's response to these policies will be pivotal in shaping the future of American governance.In the end, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. Whether this shift will be seen as a positive transformation or a dangerous consolidation of power remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the implications will be far-reaching and profound.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally different America. Led by the Heritage Foundation and crafted by former Trump administration officials, Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan that spans four pillars: a policy guide, a database of potential administration personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for the first 180 days in office[4].At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power, aligning the federal government more closely with conservative principles. One of the most striking aspects of this initiative is its proposal to overhaul the structure and function of various federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 advocates for the dismantling or abolition of key agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Education (ED). This would allow the president to implement the Project 2025 agenda with minimal bureaucratic resistance[3].The project's authors argue that many federal agencies have become bloated and inefficient. For example, they suggest that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt." To address this, Project 2025 proposes reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, with the federal government covering only 25% of the costs for small disasters and up to 75% for truly catastrophic ones[1].This shift in disaster response management is not isolated; it reflects a broader theme of decentralization and reduced federal involvement. Project 2025 also recommends ending preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that "DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated"[1].The impact of such changes would be far-reaching. For instance, the elimination of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) at the Department of Commerce could undermine the federal government's ability to invest in transformative infrastructure projects. The EDA has been instrumental in awarding billions of dollars for key public transportation projects and other community investments, resulting in the creation or saving of 220,000 jobs and generating nearly $20 billion in private investment[2].Another critical area of focus is the restructuring of statistical and regulatory agencies. Project 2025 proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single organization, aligning its mission with conservative principles. This move is seen as a way to centralize data collection and analysis under direct presidential control, which critics argue could politicize essential data that businesses and policymakers rely on[3].The project also targets social and economic safety nets. It suggests limiting access to food assistance, which over 40 million people rely on monthly, and eliminating the Head Start early education program that serves over 1 million children. Additionally, it proposes pushing more people towards Medicare Advantage and other private health insurance options, which could affect the healthcare of millions of Americans[2].In the realm of labor and employment, Project 2025 recommends rolling back overtime protections for 4.3 million workers and keeping the overtime exception threshold low to avoid burdening businesses, particularly in rural areas. It also advocates for work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which issues food stamps, further complicating the lives of those already struggling to make ends meet[2][3].The initiative's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. Project 2025 views the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people. It proposes a thorough reform of the DOJ, with the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) being personally accountable to the president. The project also suggests combating "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism" by prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[3].One of the most alarming aspects of Project 2025 is its expansion of presidential powers, based on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory. This vision aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House, eliminating the independence of agencies like the DOJ, the FBI, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As Kevin Roberts, a key figure behind the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[3].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his past policies and campaign promises is striking. Trump has nominated several of the project's architects and supporters to positions in his administration, and analysis has shown that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025[3].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 are daunting. The dismantling of federal agencies, the consolidation of executive power, and the rollback of social and economic safety nets could fundamentally alter the fabric of American governance. The project's vision of a more centralized, conservative government raises critical questions about the balance of power, the role of the federal government, and the future of social welfare programs.In the coming months, as the project's proposals begin to take shape, Americans will be watching closely to see how these changes unfold. Will the vision of Project 2025 become the new norm, or will it face significant resistance from Congress, the judiciary, and the public? The answer to this question will determine the course of American governance for years to come.

This podcast is an exclusive one-on-one live interview with Attorney General #PamBondi at #CPAC 2025. The interview is conducted by #TedCruz and covers a range of topics related to Bondi's role and actions as Attorney General. Here are the key points discussed: 1. Introduction and Context - Bondi has been the Attorney General for 15 days and discusses her immediate actions and priorities. 2. Restoring Integrity to the #DOJ - Bondi emphasizes her mission to restore integrity to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and end its politicization. - She mentions issuing 14 executive orders on her first day, with the primary focus on ending the #weaponization of the DOJ. 3. Support from DOJ Employees - Bondi notes that many DOJ employees have expressed relief and gratitude for the changes she is implementing. 4. #LawEnforcement and #Crime - The interview highlights Bondi's efforts to refocus law enforcement agencies on fighting violent crime. - She discusses the importance of returning to core functions and stopping politicized actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago. 5. #Immigration and #BorderSecurity - Bondi addresses the issue of illegal immigration and the actions taken to combat it. - She mentions the arrest of criminals involved in human smuggling and the designation of cartels as terrorist organizations. 6. #Fentanyl Crisis - The interview covers the fentanyl crisis and the administration's efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the country. - Bondi expresses anger at the previous administration's inaction on this issue. 7. #SanctuaryCities and Legal Actions - Bondi discusses lawsuits against sanctuary cities like New York and Chicago for not complying with federal immigration laws. - She emphasizes the danger these cities pose to law enforcement and public safety. 8. Challenges and Deep State - Bondi describes the challenges of dealing with the "deep state" and the resistance within the DOJ. - She mentions finding large portraits of Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and Kamala Harris still hanging in her office. 9. Human Trafficking and Child Protection - The interview highlights efforts to combat human trafficking and protect children. - Bondi shares a disturbing story about a "rape tree" and the exploitation of children at the border. 10. Anti-Semitism on College Campuses - Bondi addresses the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses and the DOJ's commitment to protecting students. - She mentions the creation of an October 7th task force to tackle this issue. 11. Pardons and Accountability - The interview touches on the issue of pardons given by Joe Biden and the lack of accountability for his actions. - Bondi asserts that no one is above the law and emphasizes the importance of prosecuting violent criminals. 12. Personal Reflections - Bondi shares her personal commitment to making America safe and her dedication to her role. - She describes the intense workload and the support from her team and President Trump.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the podcast, Former United States Attorney Bud Cummins breaks down the bribery and corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, as well as the controversial decision by President Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop them -- a decision that has sparked multiple resignations. Cummins shares his skepticism about the case, pointing to Adams' acceptance of gifts and trips over the span of one decade, with a total evaluation of around $125,000 — questioning the strength of the federal prosecutors evidence. He takes rightful aim at the DOJ's lack of trust and political interference in this day and age, drawing comparisons to his own experiences while serving as a political appointee of President George W. Bush and under Attorney General John Ashcroft.Furthermore, Cummins shines light on the shocking case of Brian Malinowski, who was fatally shot by federal agents during a raid, underscoring the urgent need for DOJ reform and accountability.You can follow Bud on X (formerly Twitter) by searching for his handle: @BudCumminsAR. You can also visit his website to learn more: BudCumminsLaw.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Ted Boling, Partner at Perkins Coie LLP about Environmental Executive Orders, Managing Shifts between Administrations, and Sailing.  Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form perkinsSpecial thanks to our sponsor for this episode Perkins Coie - https://perkinscoie.com/Showtimes: 2:29 - Nic and Laura dive into tacking Challenging Work10:08 -  Interview starts with Ted Boing18: 50 - CEQ Updates  32:15- Changes from the new administration 41:20 - Sailing  Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Ted Boling at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-boling-66326811/Guest Bio:Ted advises clients on renewable energy and transmission projects, resource development, transportation, and related infrastructure development, building on more than 30 years of high-level public service.Ted Boling's experience includes deep involvement in the environmental review and authorization of federal infrastructure projects, environmental mitigation and conservation programs, and leadership of the comprehensive revision of CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. He served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Ted's work at CEQ included the development of the National Ocean Policy, CEQ's climate change guidance, and the use of environmental management systems in environmental impact assessment. Ted advised on the establishment of numerous national monuments, including the first marine national monuments in the United States and the largest marine protected areas in the world. He represented CEQ as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the board of directors of the Udall Foundation, and the U.S. delegation to negotiations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. He also assisted in briefing three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.At DOI, Ted served as a deputy solicitor and counselor to the assistant secretaries for land and minerals management and for fish and wildlife and parks. Ted handled matters involving energy development on the outer continental shelf and the fast-track process for solar and wind energy projects on public lands. At DOJ, Ted was a senior trial attorney and litigated significant cases involving NEPA, endangered species, marine mammals, wetland protections, and management of public lands. He was involved in litigation concerning the Northwest Forest Plan, National Forest management decisions, and Federal Transit Administration decisions and U.S. Coast Guard activity in New England.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: NeverSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

The Trump administration's war on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) just escalated. Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued sweeping directives aimed at eliminating DEI programs, not just within the Department of Justice (DOJ), but also in private companies, nonprofits, and universities that receive federal funding. Under Bondi's orders, the DOJ will investigate, penalize, and potentially pursue criminal cases against DEI programs that it deems discriminatory. Internally, the DOJ will purge DEI policies, training programs, and hiring initiatives, replacing them with identity-neutral guidelines. This directive raises legal and civil rights concerns. Critics warn it's a thinly veiled attack on corporate diversity programs and affirmative action efforts that have already been under fire after the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we are joined by Jeff Williams, former Global Chairman of OWASP and Founder and CTO of Contrast Security, who is discussing what could happen to "Secure by Design" in the next administration and how to secure software through regs. Ben has the story of Elon Musk's and DOGE's incursion into federal databases. Dave's got the story of a man who was wrongly convicted of identity theft. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an audience survey! Let us know how we are doing! Links to the stories: Inside Musk's Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government He Went to Jail for Stealing Someone's Identity. But It Was His All Along. Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our Caveat Briefing, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to N2K Pro members on N2K CyberWire's website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing covers the story of the Department of Justice (DOJ) suing to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, arguing that the merger would reduce competition in the wireless networking industry. The DOJ claims Juniper has pressured rivals like HPE to lower prices and innovate, and consolidation would weaken these benefits, potentially harming industries reliant on wireless networks. HPE and Juniper dispute the DOJ's claims, insisting the deal would enhance competition and improve networking infrastructure. Curious about the details? Head over to the Caveat Briefing for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration is making alarming moves inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In an unprecedented move, at least a dozen federal prosecutors tied to special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump have been removed. But it doesn't stop there. Sources say top FBI officials have also been fired, including those handling investigations into the January 6th insurrection. Critics warned this is a blatant attempt to dismantle accountability, gut law enforcement independence, and shield Trump's allies from prosecution. Senate Intelligence Chair Mark Warner is sounding the alarm, saying these firings could put national security at risk, calling it a dangerous political takeover of institutions meant to be neutral. Meanwhile, civil rights groups fear a chilling effect on future investigations, especially those tied to democracy and voting rights. The question now, with the FBI and DOJ under Trump's thumb, is who will hold the powerful accountable? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Harlan F. Stone Appears Before Senate Judiciary CommitteeOn January 28, 1925, Harlan Fiske Stone became the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This marked a significant turning point in the judicial confirmation process, as prior nominees were not required to appear in person. Stone, a former Attorney General and respected legal scholar, was nominated by President Calvin Coolidge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The decision to have him testify was unprecedented and came in response to concerns raised about his political independence and potential ties to Wall Street interests.  During his appearance, Stone assured the committee of his commitment to judicial impartiality and independence. He addressed questions about his legal philosophy, his past work, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution. His calm demeanor and straightforward responses helped to dispel doubts and earned him bipartisan support. The hearing was also held publicly, setting a new standard of transparency in the confirmation process.  Stone's testimony contributed to his swift confirmation as an Associate Justice by the Senate, where he served with distinction. Later, in 1941, he became the Chief Justice of the United States, further cementing his legacy as one of the nation's most respected jurists. This event set a precedent that has since become a critical part of the Supreme Court nomination process, allowing the Senate and the public to scrutinize nominees more thoroughly.  The decision to include nominee testimony is seen as a key development in ensuring accountability and public trust in the judiciary. Stone's appearance before the committee reflected a shift toward greater transparency in government, a principle that continues to shape the confirmation process today.A transgender inmate, identified as "Maria Moe," has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order mandating federal recognition of only two unchangeable biological sexes. The order requires transgender women to be housed in men's prisons and ends funding for gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated individuals. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, argues that the order violates the Fifth Amendment's due process clause by discriminating based on sex and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It also alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by denying medically necessary care. Following the executive order, Moe was informed of her impending transfer from a women's prison to a men's facility, and her official prison records were altered to reflect a male designation. The lawsuit claims that such a transfer would expose Moe to heightened risks of violence and sexual assault. Additionally, Moe's access to hormone therapy, which she has used since adolescence to treat gender dysphoria, is at risk of being discontinued. Moe's legal team is seeking to block her transfer, maintain her medical treatment, and have the executive order declared unconstitutional. Both the U.S. Justice Department and Moe's attorney declined to comment.Transgender inmate sues over Trump's order curtailing LGBT rights | ReutersNovo Nordisk has agreed to cap insulin prices as part of a settlement with Minnesota's attorney general, who accused the company and two other major insulin manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Sanofi, of inflating insulin prices to unaffordable levels. Under the settlement, Novo Nordisk will limit out-of-pocket insulin costs to $35 per monthly prescription for cash-paying patients, regardless of insurance status, and will provide free insulin to low-income Minnesotans earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level (about $128,600 for a family of four). This agreement mirrors earlier settlements Minnesota reached with Eli Lilly and Sanofi in 2024. Together, the settlements are expected to cut insulin costs for patients by over 90%. While Novo Nordisk denied any wrongdoing, the settlement will remain in effect for five years pending court approval. Minnesota's attorney general, Keith Ellison, criticized insulin makers for prioritizing profits over patients' lives, accusing them of artificially inflating list prices while negotiating rebates with pharmacy benefit managers. Insulin is a life-saving drug for individuals with diabetes, particularly type 1. Minnesota's legal battle began in 2018 under Ellison's predecessor, Lori Swanson.Novo Nordisk to cap insulin prices in Minnesota settlement; joins Lilly, Sanofi | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's recent federal hiring freeze has disrupted career plans for thousands of law students seeking government jobs or internships. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the IRS, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have revoked permanent job offers to third-year law students accepted into prestigious honors programs. Additionally, hundreds of summer internships, both paid and volunteer, have been canceled, impacting over 2,000 positions in total. The DOJ, the largest legal employer among federal agencies, has rescinded job offers and canceled its summer programs, which typically place around 1,800 students annually. The hiring freeze has also led agencies to withdraw from law school recruiting events and remove job postings. Career services officials warn that these cancellations harm both federal agencies, which lose a critical pipeline of future talent, and students, who miss out on essential work experience often leading to full-time positions or judicial clerkships. Judicial clerkships, funded separately, are unaffected by the freeze. Law schools nationwide report significant disruptions, with many students left scrambling for alternative opportunities. Legal professionals and career advisors express concern over the long-term impact on government hiring and students' career trajectories. The White House has not commented on the issue.Trump's hiring freeze leaves thousands of law students out in the cold | 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

In this episode of Bionic Planet, Season 10, Episode 115, we dive into the significant environmental implications of the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. Originally, we had planned to focus this season on Africa, but the rapid changes in U.S. environmental policy prompted us to shift gears. I connected with Tim Male last week. Tim, who founded the Environmental Policy Innovation Center in 2017, has a wealth of experience in environmental policy, having worked in various capacities, including at the White House and with organizations like Defenders of Wildlife. Both Tim and I share a commitment to addressing climate challenges, despite our differing perspectives on party policies. In our discussion, we unpack Tim's recent LinkedIn post, where he meticulously breaks down the ten executive actions that target environmental regulations. We explore the unprecedented number of executive orders issued in such a short time frame and the potential consequences of these actions. Tim emphasizes that while executive orders can set priorities for federal agencies, they must still align with existing laws, which can lead to legal challenges. We delve into specific orders, starting with the requirement for the "God squad" under the Endangered Species Act to meet more frequently and expedite reviews of projects that could impact endangered species. Tim explains the historical context of this committee and its potential to prioritize development over environmental protections. Next, we discuss directives to the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite permitting processes under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, raising concerns about the implications for environmental safeguards. Tim provides insights into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its role in ensuring that federal actions minimize environmental harm. We also examine the revocation of President Carter's executive order aimed at making environmental impact statements more accessible to the public, which Tim argues could lead to confusion and inconsistency across federal agencies. The episode continues with a discussion on the rescinding of protections for ancient forests and the withdrawal from international efforts to combat deforestation. Tim highlights the significance of ecosystem service valuation and the potential loss of guidance that could have helped quantify the benefits of environmental services. We touch on the broader implications of these actions, including the potential for increased energy production at the expense of environmental protections. As we wrap up, we reflect on the long-term consequences of these executive orders and the potential for legal challenges. Tim expresses concern about the sweeping nature of these actions and the message they send to communities affected by energy projects. This episode serves as a critical examination of the intersection between politics and environmental policy, providing listeners with a deeper understanding of the current landscape and the challenges ahead in the fight against climate change. Timestamps 00:00:00 - Introduction to Season 10 and Episode Overview 00:02:09 - Trump's Executive Orders on Environmental Policies 00:03:29 - The Role of Executive Orders in U.S. Government 00:04:01 - Critique of Trump's Environmental Actions 00:05:01 - Legal Challenges to Executive Orders 00:06:19 - Endangered Species Act and the God Squad 00:10:11 - Clean Water Act and Emergency Procedures 00:13:42 - Understanding NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) 00:16:03 - Revocation of Carter's NEPA Executive Order 00:19:12 - Rescinding Protections for Ancient Forests 00:21:49 - International Cooperation on Deforestation 00:23:09 - Ecosystem Service Valuation Guidance Rescinded 00:28:05 - Nature-Based Solutions and Their Importance 00:29:59 - Action Plans for Energy Production Regulations 00:32:19 - Suspension of Policies Related to Energy in Alaska 00:34:27 - Impact of Schedule F on Federal Employment 00:38:11 - DOJ Teams and Federal Workforce Changes 00:41:00 - The Role of Professionals in Government 00:44:25 - Conclusion and Future Implications Quotes "On his very first day in office, President Donald Trump signed 78 executive actions, and 10 of them targeted environmental policies." - 00:02:09 "It's pretty hard to find the wheat among the chaff in this set of actions from the environment." - 00:04:01 "What this order is foreshadowing is a bunch of people who are much more likely to prioritize a development project are going to get the final say on conflicts involving endangered species." - 00:09:33 "This is really just we're not going to do it." - 00:04:33 "The law is pretty limited in terms of who can, you know, ask for an appeal of the decision." - 00:10:21 "This is a part of that same executive order from President Biden that is being rescinded." - 00:20:25 "It's a broad and messy brush that they're painting across the forest landscape in a way that is pretty harmful." - 00:21:18 "This is a White House that's showing great interest in expanding the power of the White House." - 00:18:00 "There's people across the federal government who are very creative at saying, well, you've told me to do it this way, and that's not legal." - 00:42:19 "At the end of the day, I don't know what your philosophy is on how democracy is supposed to work, but, you know, at some level, the winner is supposed to get to decide what happens next." - 00:36:38 Keywords Bionic Planet Season 10 Episode 115 Donald Trump Tim Mayle Environmental Policy Innovation Center White House Defenders of Wildlife Nairobi LinkedIn Endangered Species Act Alaska Clean Water Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Obama administration Biden administration Anthropocene Steve Zwick snail darter whooping cranes Trans-Alaskan pipeline liquefied natural gas (LNG) Tongass National Forest U.S. Digital Service Virginia Youngkin ecosystem services climate emergency energy dominance fossil fuels Native Alaskans Paris Accord Washington, D.C. environmental impact statements mitigation banking biodiversity carbon sequestration emergency procedures federal workforce Schedule F Department of Justice (DOJ)

This week Leonard Bailey, Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, joins us this week. We dive into the role of the DOJ in addressing the vast and ever-changing landscape of cybersecurity. Bailey shares insights on partnering with federal agencies as well as the private sector, navigating information sharing pathways, evolution of incident and cyber threat reporting procedures, and the recent release of the Harmonization of Cyber Incident Reporting to the Federal Government. He also helps debunk information sharing myths and spotlights available tools and benefits of cyber threat information disclosure.   Leonard Bailey The Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit and Special Counsel for National Security in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Criminal Division. He has prosecuted computer crime cases and routinely advised on cybersecurity, searching and seizing electronic evidence, and conducting electronic surveillance. He has managed DOJ cyber-policy as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division and then as an Associate Deputy Attorney General. He has also served as Special Counsel and Special Investigative Counsel for DOJ's Inspector General. Bailey is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School. He has taught law courses at Georgetown Law School and Columbus School of Law in Washington, DC. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e317

In this conversation, Amy Nelson shares her harrowing experience with civil forfeiture, the FBI raid on her home, and the subsequent legal battles against Amazon and the DOJ. Amy Nelson is the founder of Riveter, a married mom of 4 daughters, an attorney, writer, and spoken across the world on many stages including Fortune's Most Powerful Women. Amy speaks to her community of over 500,000 on social media at @amy_k_nelson. She discusses the psychological impact of battling the DOJ and Amazon on her family, the importance of advocacy, and how social media became a powerful tool in her fight for justice. The conversation highlights the complexities of the legal system, and the resilience required to navigate them. Amy Nelson shares her harrowing experience with the Department of Justice (DOJ) surrounding her husband's case. She discusses the relentless pursuit by the DOJ, the unusual vacation of pleas, and the emotional turmoil of living in legal purgatory. The conversation delves into the flaws in the legal system, including judicial conflicts of interest and the need for fairness in legal proceedings. Nelson advocates for significant reforms, particularly in civil forfeiture laws and the FBI, emphasizing the importance of equal application of laws and the impact of prosecutorial power. The discussion concludes with a hopeful outlook for change and the necessity of continued advocacy for justice. Show sponsors: Navigating the challenges of white-collar crime? The White-Collar Support Group at Prisonist.org offers guidance, resources, and a community for those affected. Discover support today at Prisonist.org Protect your online reputation with Discoverability! Use code NIGHTMARE SUCCESS for an exclusive discount on services to boost your digital image and online reputation. Visit Discoverability.co and secure your online presence today. Skip the hassle of car shopping with Auto Plaza Direct. They'll handle every detail to find your perfect vehicle. Visit AutoPlazaDirect.com "Your personal car concierge!"

New York health insurer Independent Health and its former executive reached a settlement that will amount to up to $100 million with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a whistleblower over False Claims Act allegations that they made Medicare members appear sicker than they really were to get more money from the government, a practice known as risk adjustment fraud.Betsy Gaffney, former CEO of now-defunct vendor DxID, agreed to pay $2 million to resolve allegations she helped DxID mine patients' medical records for diagnoses that risk-adjust, nudging doctors to approve them up to a year after the patient visits, all while pocketing up to 20 percent of the additional revenue generated for Independent Health by these unsupported diagnoses.Reporting the lead story during the next live edition of Monitor Mondays will be famed whistleblower attorney Mary Inman, partner in the law firm Whistleblower Partners.More than four weeks since its last news broadcast, Monitor Mondays will return this coming Monday with a cadre of the smartest minds in healthcare auditing. You'll hear auditing news you won't find anywhere else – except here and in RACmonitor.Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Cate Brantley, senior government affairs liaison for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.Register now to listen to this exclusive news edition of Monitor Mondays; all this and more will be coming up at 10 a.m. EST on Jan. 13, 2024.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/02/2025): 3:05pm- At 3:15am on Wednesday morning, a man behind the wheel of a pickup truck purposefully struck pedestrians celebrating the New Year on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana—ultimately leaving 15 people dead. FBI officials identified the attacker as Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar and revealed he had an ISIS flag in his possession at the time of the attack. He also made several posts to social media in support of ISIS. The attack is now being investigated as an act of terrorism. 3:15pm- On Thursday, Las Vegas officials identified Matthew Alan Livelsberger as the man likely responsible for detonating a car bomb outside of the Trump hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada—though, they insisted they would not know the man's identity for certain without confirmation via a DNA test. Investigators say they do not believe there is any connection between the attack in New Orleans and the car explosion in Las Vegas. 3:30pm- Dr. John Eastman—Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute and Author of the spending clause entries in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Legal History and the Heritage Guide to the Constitution—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article for The Federalist, “How DOGE Can Tackle the National Debt by Returning to Constitutional Spending.” You can read the article here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/11/how-doge-can-tackle-the-national-debt-by-returning-to-constitutional-spending/ 3:40pm- While speaking to the press on Thursday, President Joe Biden condemned the attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas while stressing that preliminary investigations have found no connection between the two acts of terrorism. 4:05pm- “New Orleans' FBI Office, Police Department Are Chock Full Of DEI Nonsense.” Eireann Van Natta of The Daily Caller writes: “The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) and the city's FBI field office are staunch advocates for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)—and those same agencies are investigating the terrorist attack that killed at least 15 people early Wednesday morning. The New Orleans FBI Field Office has aggressively promoted diversity initiatives on social media, especially in its recruitment efforts.” You can read the full article here: https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/02/new-orleans-police-department-fbi-office-dei-diversity-terrorist-attack-15-jabbar-new-years/ 4:30pm- Nicole Neily—Founder and President of Parents Defending Education—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a newly released report “revealing that from 2021-2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) spent over $100M in federal funding in 36 states, 946 K-12 school districts and over 3M K-12 students to promote restorative justice practices, social emotional learning, and DEI in the classroom.” You can learn more about Parents Defending Education here: https://defendinged.org 4:45pm- Listener Minnie calls into the show from Texas and reveals she is the founder/president of the Matt DeSantis fan club! 5:00pm- Will Mike Johnson Retain the House Speakership? According to The Wall Street Journal, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) will not vote for Johnson on Friday. Siobhan Hughes writes: “House Republicans have 219 seats, compared with 215 for Democrats, who are expected to stay united in backing their leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.). The math means if only one other Republican joins Massie in voting for an alternative candidate, Johnson could fall short of a majority. While other Republicans have grumbled about Johnson and say the speaker vote could go to several rounds, none has said they would vote against him.” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/politics/thomas-massie-needs-backup-to-take-out-mike-johnson-e5db12df?mod=hp_lead_pos2 5:15pm- “As Covid Lab Leak Suspicion Lingers, WHO Urges China to Share Virus Origin Data.” Mari Eccles of Politico writes: “The World Health Organization (WHO) has urged Beijing to share data on the origins of the coronavirus, f ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- “New Orleans' FBI Office, Police Department Are Chock Full Of DEI Nonsense.” Eireann Van Natta of The Daily Caller writes: “The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) and the city's FBI field office are staunch advocates for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)—and those same agencies are investigating the terrorist attack that killed at least 15 people early Wednesday morning. The New Orleans FBI Field Office has aggressively promoted diversity initiatives on social media, especially in its recruitment efforts.” You can read the full article here: https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/02/new-orleans-police-department-fbi-office-dei-diversity-terrorist-attack-15-jabbar-new-years/ 4:30pm- Nicole Neily—Founder and President of Parents Defending Education—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a newly released report “revealing that from 2021-2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) spent over $100M in federal funding in 36 states, 946 K-12 school districts and over 3M K-12 students to promote restorative justice practices, social emotional learning, and DEI in the classroom.” You can learn more about Parents Defending Education here: https://defendinged.org 4:45pm- Listener Minnie calls into the show from Texas and reveals she is the founder/president of the Matt DeSantis fan club!

Morrison Foerster partners Kate Driscoll and Nate Mendell, both former federal prosecutors and members of the firm's Investigations + White Collar Defense Group, hosted the seventh episode of When Your Life Sciences Are on the Line, where leading practitioners and thought leaders share the insights and advice needed to manage business and legal risk in the life sciences sector. In this episode, Kate and Nate spoke with Chen Zhu, a partner in Morrison Foerster's Investigations + White Collar Defense and FCPA + Global Anti-Corruption Groups, and James Koukios, co-head of Morrison Foerster's FCPA + Global Anti-Corruption Group and former senior deputy chief of the Fraud Section at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Together, they discussed anti-corruption and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) considerations and enforcement concerns for life sciences companies, especially those operating in both the U.S. and China.

Federal civil rights enforcement in the employment area is handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP,) and the Department of Justice (DOJ.) This webinar will explore efforts to coordinate enforcement by the three agencies and look at ways to avoid duplication of efforts to streamline and […]

Federal civil rights enforcement in the employment area is handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP,) and the Department of Justice (DOJ.) This webinar will explore efforts to coordinate enforcement by the three agencies and look at ways to avoid duplication of efforts to streamline and strengthen civil rights and equal employment opportunity enforcement in the United States. It will also look at recent efforts by the federal government to increase the presence of DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) programs in the federal sector and the public response to these developments.Featuring:Jon Greenbaum, Founder, Justice Legal Strategies PLLCProf. George R. La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore CountyCraig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates; Former Director, OFCCPHon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Former Director, OFCCP; Former Chair, EEOC(Moderator) Robert J. Gaglione, Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association; Former Deputy Director, OFCCP

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica sits down with Sam Levine from The Guardian to unpack the future of voting rights under the Trump administration. They explore the role of the Department of Justice, the impact of stalled federal legislation, and the current state of the Voting Rights Act. Sam also clarifies common misconceptions about election fraud and administration, highlighting what to watch for in the coming years. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Trump Administration and Voting Rights: Sam Levine outlines the anticipated approach of the Trump administration regarding voting rights, including the potential use of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to challenge election outcomes and influence election administration.2️⃣ Role and Powers of the Department of Justice: The DOJ's role in enforcing federal laws, particularly civil rights and voting rights laws, is explained. Shifts in administration can significantly alter DOJ priorities.3️⃣ Election Security and Misconceptions: The podcast addresses common misconceptions about voter fraud and the robustness of election systems. Sam Levine stresses the rarity of voter fraud and the extensive safeguards in place.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@srl

While Americans rely on debit transactions for the necessities of life, most are unaware of the networks that drive those transactions, nor are they aware that one company, Visa, has monopolized debit transactions, penalized industry participants that seek to use alternative debit networks, and co-opted innovators, technology companies, and financial institutions to forestall or snuff out threats to Visa's debit network dominance.” So begins the monopolization lawsuit filed on September 24 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against the country's largest card company, Visa Inc.On one level, the case is simple: The DOJ alleges a clear violation of laws protecting markets against monopolies. But the case gets more complicated when looking at the details, in part because payment systems are mostly invisible part of the financial ecosystem. In effect, the DOJ alleges that Visa is pulling the levers of a really opaque and complex system to preclude competition and squeeze fees out of banks and vendors for itself.To understand the complexities and implications of the case, Bethany and Luigi are joined by Kathryn Judge, Harvey J. Goldschmid Professor of Law at Columbia University. Judge is an expert on banking, financial crises, regulatory architecture, and intermediation design beyond finance. Her book, Direct: The Rise of the Middleman Economy and the Power of Going to the Source (HarperBusiness, 2022), was on the long list for the Financial Times Business Book of the Year Award. Together, the three of them discuss both the surface-level and structural issues of an economy where consumers and small businesses are shortchanged on what is essentially a private sales tax on all debit-card purchases—and how to look for collective solutions when opt-outs aren't possible.Episode Notes: Also check out the ProMarket article “A DOJ Victory Against Visa May Not Help Merchants or Consumers” by Lulu Wang, Assistant Professor of Finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Congresswoman Elise Stefanik—U.S. Representative for New York's 21st Congressional District & House Republican Conference Chair—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to react to Kamala Harris and the far-left baselessly comparing Donald Trump to authoritarians. Rep. Stefanik notes that the claims are obviously ridiculous and false, and the strategy illustrates that Democrats don't have policy ideas that are resonating with Americans. 4:20pm- Rich takes calls from listeners—what are you expecting on November 5th? 4:25pm- On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had filed a lawsuit against the Virginia State Board of Elections for removing non-citizens from their voting registration list. In August, Governor Glenn Younkin signed an executive order which was designed to “cancel the registrations of non-citizens who have registered to vote in a local, state, or federal election by falsely claiming that they are a citizen, including the forging of documentation or any other means of improper registration.” Why is the Biden Administration fighting Virginia over its prevention of non-citizens from voting in the 2024 election? 4:40pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Auschwitz survivor Jerry Wartski demanding that Kamala Harris apologize for outlandishly calling Donald Trump a “fascist.” Dr. Coates is the author of the upcoming book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win” which features a forward from Senator Ted Cruz.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (10/25/2024): 3:05pm- On Tuesday, The Atlantic published a piece written by Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg which alleges that Donald Trump praised Nazi generals for their loyalty, and that he once demeaned fallen American soldier Vanessa Guillen—refusing to pay $60,000 for her funeral. On Wednesday, Guillen's sister—Mayra Guillen—responded to Goldberg's claims via her X account: “Wow. I don't appreciate how you are exploiting my sister's death for politics—hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today.” During a CNN townhall event, Kamala Harris explicitly stated that she believes Trump is a “fascist.” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre echoed identical sentiments on behalf of the Biden-Harris Administration. On Friday, an Auschwitz survivor named Jerry Wartski appeared in a social media video demanding that Harris apologize for the outlandish comparison: “I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes. For her to accuse President Trump of being like Hitler is the worst thing I've ever heard in my 75 years of living in the U.S." 3:20pm- No, Trump is Not a Fascist. Rich Lowry of National Review writes: “Kamala Harris has officially ended the ‘joy' phase of her campaign, and has instead entered the ‘Trump is a fascist” stage. Asked at a CNN town hall whether she thinks Donald Trump is a fascist, Harris said, ‘Yes, I do.'…Until now, Harris has tended to make a case against Trump as a standard Republican who caters to the needs of the wealthy. Now, she's portraying him as an American Mussolini.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/no-trump-is-not-a-fascist/ 3:40pm- The International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 of Philadelphia announced that they are ending their endorsement for U.S. Senator Bob Casey's reelection campaign (D-PA) and will now be supporting his challenger, Republican Dave McCormick. 4:05pm- Congresswoman Elise Stefanik—U.S. Representative for New York's 21st Congressional District & House Republican Conference Chair—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to react to Kamala Harris and the far-left baselessly comparing Donald Trump to authoritarians. Rep. Stefanik notes that the claims are obviously ridiculous and false, and the strategy illustrates that Democrats don't have policy ideas that are resonating with Americans. 4:20pm- Rich takes calls from listeners—what are you expecting on November 5th? 4:25pm- On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had filed a lawsuit against the Virginia State Board of Elections for removing non-citizens from their voting registration list. In August, Governor Glenn Younkin signed an executive order which was designed to “cancel the registrations of non-citizens who have registered to vote in a local, state, or federal election by falsely claiming that they are a citizen, including the forging of documentation or any other means of improper registration.” Why is the Biden Administration fighting Virginia over its prevention of non-citizens from voting in the 2024 election? 4:40pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Auschwitz survivor Jerry Wartski demanding that Kamala Harris apologize for outlandishly calling Donald Trump a “fascist.” Dr. Coates is the author of the upcoming book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win” which features a forward from Senator Ted Cruz. 5:00pm- During a Trump campaign event on Tuesday, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard—who served in the House of Representatives as a Democrat—announced that she was joining the Republican Party. She appeared on Fox News and explaine ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (10/15/2024): 3:05pm- On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had filed a lawsuit against the Virginia State Board of Elections for removing non-citizens from their voting registration list. In August, Governor Glenn Younkin signed an executive order which was designed to “cancel the registrations of non-citizens who have registered to vote in a local, state, or federal election by falsely claiming that they are a citizen, including the forging of documentation or any other means of improper registration.” Why is the Biden Administration fighting Virginia over its prevention of non-citizens from voting in the 2024 election? 3:30pm- On Monday night, Donald Trump participated in a town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania. Sadly, two attendees had medical emergencies during the event. In reaction, Trump decided to suspend the Q&A portion of the event and instead played some of his favorite songs for those in attendance—including “YMCA” and “Hallelujah.” The Harris-Walz campaign and media members are now claiming that by playing music instead of answering questions, Trump somehow revealed he is unfit for office? ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran debunked the narrative that the event was cut short/altered for anything other than medical emergencies in the crowd. 3:50pm- Is Donald Trump dancing to YMCA a threat to democracy? 4:00pm- Michael Whatley—Republican National Committee Chairman—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to recap Donald Trump's event in Oaks, PA last night. Plus, Chairman Whatley offers an update on the state of the election. 4:15pm- While appearing on Roland Martin Unfiltered, Kamala “Galileo” Harris discussed astronomy and constellations, but at no point answered the question about crime that was posed to her. 4:30pm- According to the political betting platform Polymarket, Donald Trump now has a 58% chance of winning the 2024 presidential election. Plus, is Kamala Harris going to appear on Joe Rogan's podcast as part of an effort to appeal to male voters? 4:40pm- An incredible video of vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz resting a shotgun on his crotch while attempting to load it has gone viral on social media. There is no way that is comfortable… 5:00pm- The media is already making excuses—claiming that Kamala Harris might lose the 2024 presidential election because America is sexist! 5:10pm- On Monday night, Donald Trump participated in a town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania. He answered questions from Pennsylvanians concerned about grocery prices, domestic manufacturing, inflation, and border security. He even mentioned Hannibal Lecter! 5:20pm- Jim Copenhaver and David Dutch—two men shot and wounded during the assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania—spoke with NBC News. Both men said they believe the Secret Service should have done more to prevent the shooting. 5:25pm- Democrats Run Away from Damaging Electric-Vehicle Push with Michigan up for Grabs. James Lynch of National Review writes: “Democratic politicians are distancing themselves from the Biden administration's electric-vehicle push to prevent the unpopular slate of subsidies and environmental regulations from tipping Michigan to their Republican opponents. Addressing rally-goers in Flint, Mich., earlier this month, Kamala Harris insisted that the Trump campaign is misrepresenting her record on electric-vehicle mandates…As a senator, Harris co-sponsored legislation introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, designed to transition the U.S. economy to electric vehicles by 2040. The legislation would require 50 percent of new-vehicle sales to be ‘zero-emission' cars by 2030 and all new-vehicle sales to be emission-free cars by 2040.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/democrats-run-away-from-damaging-electric-vehicle-push-with-michigan-up-for-grabs/ 5:30pm- DOJ Tells Police, Fire Depar ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had filed a lawsuit against the Virginia State Board of Elections for removing non-citizens from their voting registration list. In August, Governor Glenn Younkin signed an executive order which was designed to “cancel the registrations of non-citizens who have registered to vote in a local, state, or federal election by falsely claiming that they are a citizen, including the forging of documentation or any other means of improper registration.” Why is the Biden Administration fighting Virginia over its prevention of non-citizens from voting in the 2024 election? 3:30pm- On Monday night, Donald Trump participated in a town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania. Sadly, two attendees had medical emergencies during the event. In reaction, Trump decided to suspend the Q&A portion of the event and instead played some of his favorite songs for those in attendance—including “YMCA” and “Hallelujah.” The Harris-Walz campaign and media members are now claiming that by playing music instead of answering questions, Trump somehow revealed he is unfit for office? ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran debunked the narrative that the event was cut short/altered for anything other than medical emergencies in the crowd. 3:50pm- Is Donald Trump dancing to YMCA a threat to democracy?

Kash Patel is an American political figure and attorney known for his roles in national security and intelligence. He served as a U.S. National Security Council official, senior advisor to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, and Chief of Staff to the Acting United States Secretary of Defense during the Trump Presidency. Patel's career began as a public defender, where he managed complex criminal cases. He later worked as a terrorism prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ), leading high-profile investigations and prosecutions against terror groups like Al-Qa'ida and ISIS. He also served as the DOJ Liaison Officer to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Patel now works with his foundation to provide legal funds for whistleblowers within the federal government. Patel is committed to educating the public on topics the mainstream media refuses to cover. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://unplugged.com/shawnryan https://babbel.com/srs https://moinkbox.com/srs https://rocketmoney.com/shawn https://mypatriotsupply.com https://bubsnaturals.com/shawn https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/the-old-man https://ShawnLikesGold.com | 855-936- GOLD #goldcopartner Kash Patel Links: Website - https://www.thekashfoundation.com Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/FightWithKash Truth Social - https://truthsocial.com/@Kash Movie - https://warroom.film Book - https://www.amazon.com/Government-Gangsters-State-Battle-Democracy/dp/1637588240 Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram | Download Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices