Podcast appearances and mentions of justice doj

On Monday night, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a joint memo with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affirming prior findings in the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The memo concludes that materials related to the Epstein case prove that he had committed suicide in 2019, that Epstein did not have a “client list,” and that no other parties were materially implicated as a result of the government's investigation. Additionally, the memo stated that the federal government would keep materials relevant to his case sealed to protect victims.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think the government has a list of Epstein's clients? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The Small Business Administration is launching an investigation into the 8(a) business development program seeking to root out possible fraud. SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler ordered the full-scale audit after a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation uncovered a years-long fraud and bribery scheme involving a former federal contracting officer and two 8(a) contractors. SBA's Office of General Contracting and Business Development will lead the audit, starting with reviewing high-dollar ad limited competition contracts. The review will go back 15 years and work with other agencies, which awarded 8(a) contracts. The Justice Department found recently $550 million in contracts were fraudulently steered through bribery and abuse of a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracting officer, including to one 8(a) contractor who was officially flagged by USAID as lacking “honesty or integrity."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, we're looking into a bit of a Second Amendment legal mystery. Recently, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled silencers aren't "arms" and, therefore, don't enjoy constitutional protections. But then the Department of Justice (DOJ) changed hands and changed its mind on the case. In response, the panel took the unusual step of withdrawing its opinion. But we don't know what it plans to do next. That's why we've got federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show to give his view on what may be coming. A lot of other commentators and several gun-rights groups have taken the withdrawal as a strong sign the panel plans to reverse itself on whether silencers, often called suppressors, are arms. But Malor said that's unlikely to happen. He noted the DOJ's new position in the case doesn't actually argue silencers are arms, just that they enjoy some level of Second Amendment protection. He also said the panel thoroughly considered the arms question in its initial opinion and is unlikely to reverse, given no new facts or arguments are being presented. Malor also pointed out the panel addressed the basic argument DOJ is now backing and found it lacking, though it spent comparatively little time on that part of the case in its initial opinion. He said the panel is likely going to delve a bit deeper into the DOJ's new argument before returning the same basic ruling. Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

This week, Audra is joined by Megan Stifel, chief strategy officer for the Institute for Security and Technology, to discuss how ransomware has evolved from a business nuisance to now a threat to national security. Megan also shares how the United States' overall response to ransomware has the potential to impact the types of attacks faced by its organizations and touches on the need for greater transparency when it comes to international cyber information sharing. Megan Stifel is the Chief Strategy Officer for the Institute for Security and Technology. She is the founder of Silicon Harbor Consultants, which provides strategic cybersecurity operations and policy counsel. Prior to founding Silicon Harbor Consultants, she was an attorney in the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). She most recently served as Global Policy Officer and Capacity and Resilience Program Director at the Global Cyber Alliance. She was previously the Cybersecurity Program Director at Public Knowledge. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e337

Welcome to this educational and explosive, brand-new edition of Light ‘Em Up!Share us with a friend!  We are now being actively downloaded in 131 countries!We continue our intense focus on how the Rule of law and democracy are being endangered.Democracy hangs in the balance and is under constant daily attack — threatened on every front.What better example than the current Department of Justice (DOJ) ordering its civil rights division to halt the majority of its functions, including a freeze on pursuing any:—      new cases—     indictments or—     consent decree settlements.For civil rights this is a crisis!  It has only been 59 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. This was a landmark piece of legislation that helped to dismantle many discriminatory barriers and enforce the voting rights of African Americans.  Imagine having that office shut down during the LBJ Administration!  The KKK would have won!In a democracy, the majority can wield immense power, potentially leading to the suppression of dissenting voices and the marginalization of minority groups.You had better begin to ask yourself the tough question:Are you okay with your civil rights being suspended until 2028 and maybe beyond?White people, too, can have their civil rights violated.  Are you ready for that?Will the police be able to simply continue to brutalize people and get away with it as the Louisiana State Police did on May 10th, 2019, with Ronald Greene?Greene was an unarmed 49-year-old black man who, on a dark night in Monroe, Louisiana, 6 members of the LSP “goon squad” tazed, punched, kicked, pepper sprayed, and dragged face down on the concrete, only to place him in a chokehold until he died.Good night and good luck! Under this current Trump administration your civil rights will be “enforced” like his were.We are staring in the face of “soft despotism" or "soft tyranny".This occurs when a powerful, centralized state, while not overtly oppressive, gradually takes over the responsibilities and decision-making of individuals and communities.The state becomes like a benevolent but overbearing parent, providing for citizens' needs and ensuring their well-being, but in doing so, it diminishes their capacity for independent thought and action.  We've arrived there, stop fooling yourself otherwise.We'll discuss and analyze the current push from the ultra-conservative-talk-show host, Ben Shapiro to petition the adjudicated felon Donald Trump to federally pardon Derek Chauvin, the felon, former police officer — who drove his knee into the neck of George Floyd for more than 9 minutes, hastening his death on May 25th, 2020.We have passed the 5-year mark of this deadly encounter on the streets in Minneapolis, MN and tell me, what has changed for the better?Shapiro clearly sees this as an opportunity to continue to support his white, racist agenda as it gins up his base of white nationalist followers.  MAGA-folk and beyond!We ask out loud:Could a president do that?What would it matter, since Chauvin also is in prison on state charges?And we'll wrap things up looking at what happens to democracy when police regularly brutalize its citizens as the “politics of policing” has changed drastically since George Floyd's' death.The truth is under attack!  The truth is worth defending!Tune in for all of the explosive details.Justice comes to those that fight, not those that cry!Without fear or favor we follow the facts and tackle the topics that touch your lives.Follow our sponsors:  Newsly & Feedspot.We want to hear from you!

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group's podcast, All Things Investigation. In this podcast, host Tom Fox is joined by HHR lawyers Mike DeBernardis and Katherine Taylor about the recent speech by Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ);  his attendant Memo entitled Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime; and the updates to the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy; and finally the new Memo on Monitors and Monitorships. Key highlights: Is meaningful cooperation credit finally here? Did we move from a presumption of a declination to something stronger or at least more tangible? Is the Kenneth Polite “double secret—we know it when we see it” cooperation requirement now a thing of the past, or at least defined? Enhancements to the Whistleblower Program—Initial Thoughts. Monitors—dead and gone or something else? What, if anything, does this change about the role of corporate compliance today? Resources: Mike DeBernardis Hughes Hubbard & Reed website Katherine Taylor

Hui Chen is a luminary in the world of Ethics and Compliance, and she is our guest on today's episode of Great Women in Compliance. Today, Hui is one of the co-founders of CDE Advisors, which stands for “Culture. Data. Ethics.” Most of us know Hui from her work at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and her contributions to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance for the Fraud Section. However, my career path included being a prosecutor, in-house compliance work, and even being inspired to pursue a Master's degree in Divinity after the 9/11 attacks. Hui discusses the origins of the ECCP and her perspective on its current use. She also discusses the opportunity in the “FCPA pause” and how organizations can broaden their ethical considerations beyond foreign bribery to focus on relationships with all stakeholders. She discussed how the focus on regulatory guidance, particularly on bribery outside the United States, is just one of many areas to consider as a compliance professional.  She also offers practical advice based on her experiences working with global compliance functions and the lessons she has learned.

This Day in Legal History: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent's justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story's later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent's reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump's use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump's broad claims under IEEPA.Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith's team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ's personnel decisions.US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | ReutersA group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk's vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany's far-right AfD party.The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump's inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | 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

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy emerges. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is a comprehensive blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its adherence to the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that centralizes control in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has explicitly stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been reinforced by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society[4].The plan's ambition is evident in its proposals for radical changes within federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has been vocal about her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The project's scope extends far beyond the State Department. It includes proposals to eliminate entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions are part of a broader effort to streamline the government and cut costs, with the goal of saving $1 trillion. However, the methods employed by the Trump administration, particularly through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have been criticized for their chaotic and legally questionable nature. Musk's DOGE has already led to the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The elimination of agencies like the CFPB is a stark example of Project 2025's intent to dismantle regulatory bodies seen as obstacles to conservative policy goals. The CFPB, established to protect consumers from financial abuse, is viewed by proponents of the project as an overreach of government power. By abolishing such agencies, Project 2025 aims to reduce what it perceives as bureaucratic inefficiencies and restore what it sees as proper executive authority.The potential implications of these changes are far-reaching and have sparked significant concern among various stakeholders. Critics argue that these actions will have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals under Project 2025, highlighting the potential harm to workers and the erosion of regulatory protections[3].Experts warn that the centralization of power envisioned by Project 2025 could undermine the independence of critical agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This could lead to a politicization of law enforcement and judicial processes, compromising the integrity of these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are also targeted for similar restructuring, which could have profound impacts on telecommunications and consumer protection policies[4].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 is likely to face numerous legal and political challenges. The chaotic execution by the Trump administration has already tested the legal system, and future actions will undoubtedly be scrutinized by courts and Congress. The upcoming months will be crucial as various stakeholders, including federal employees, advocacy groups, and lawmakers, navigate the implications of these sweeping changes.In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in American governance, driven by a conservative vision of centralized executive power. While its proponents see it as a necessary reform to streamline government and restore presidential authority, critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic checks and balances. As the project continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these ambitious plans will shape the future of the federal government and the lives of millions of Americans. One thing is certain: the journey ahead will be marked by intense debate, legal battles, and a profound redefinition of the role of the executive branch in American politics.

Amanda Wick discusses her book "The Catalysts: The Accelerating Forces Forging the New World Financial Order" on the evolving global financial and political landscape, including the perceived decline of American empire due to the erosion of dollar dominance and shrinking middle class. She touches on the rise of authoritarian capitalism and technocracy, exemplified by countries where citizens may prioritize economic stability over democratic participation and privacy. She explores bitcoin and CBDC policy under the Trump administration and actions other nations are taking. Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rumble / Substack / YouTube Geopolitics & Empire · Amanda Wick: American Dominance & the Coming New World Financial Order #561 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://easydns.com Escape Technocracy course (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.com Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Amanda Wick Website https://www.amandawick.com About Amanda Wick Amanda Wick served as a federal prosecutor for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for nearly a decade, specializing in money laundering and cryptocurrency. She worked in three US attorneys' offices (Atlanta, Birmingham, and St. Louis). After that, she moved to Main Justice to serve in the Criminal Division's Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Session. As part of a DOJ leadership program, she served as a detailee and senior policy advisor at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In 2020, she left the government to serve as the chief of legal affairs at Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics company. In 2021, Wick returned to government service as the lead financial investigator for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol. She went on to found and run a global non-profit organization, the Association for Women In Cryptocurrency. The organization aims to build a global network of women and male allies in the cryptocurrency, blockchain, and web3 industries who will advocate for the equal inclusion of women in the future of digital finance. Wick also serves as a principal with Incite Consulting. In that role, she provides expert and litigation advisory services to law firms and advises a wide range of cryptocurrency-related businesses. She remains a digital nomad living out of a carry-on suitcase and a National Geographic backpack. The Catalysts is her first book. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

On May 12, 2025, the Head of the Criminal Division for the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum outlining its enforcement priorities. In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske and Jonathan Porter break down what is new and not so new in DOJ's announcement. They explore the memorandum's revisions to the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, its treatment on individual liability, and how whistleblowers may be impacted. Importantly, Jonathan shares takeaways on what hospices and their boards should do to stay vigilant.Additional resources:05.12.2025 DOJ Memorandum: Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime

On the eve of the five-year commemoration of George Floyd's death, the Trump administration is withdrawing Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight for police departments in Minneapolis, Phoenix, Louisville, and other cities where the DOJ previously found civil rights violations against Native Americans and other people of color. Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted global calls for accountability for long standing inequities. Now, Native American racial justice advocates say any progress toward improving unbalanced treatment by law enforcement agencies is stalled, at best. We'll assess the direction of racial equity in the criminal justice system over the five years since George Floyd's high-profile death.

Southwest Airlines files to fly to all Open Skies countries, the TSA explains last year's New Jersey drone scare, a Lufthansa A321 flew for 10 minutes without a pilot at the controls, sleep and fatigue in military aviation, a new direction for the Boeing criminal charge, and lithium-ion fires onboard airplanes. Also, a resurrected aviation podcast and a brand new one. Aviation News Southwest Airlines seeks permission to expand international network Southwest Airlines filed a request with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to fly international routes to all countries with Open Skies agreements. That would include European countries, Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The airline has not confirmed specific new routes yet. International air travel is governed by bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries, and so airlines need economic authority from the DOT. These Open Skies treaties set the terms for airlines to operate between nations, including route rights, frequency, and capacity. See: U.S. Air Carriers and International Economic Authority from the DOT. Economic Authority is authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in the form of a certificate for interstate or foreign passenger and/or cargo authority. Newly Released Documents Show What the Feds Knew About the New Jersey Drone Scare In December 2024, the President said the “drone” sightings were "nothing nefarious." Congress received a classified briefing indicating no threat to the public, but the FAA imposed flight restrictions. At the time, TSA presented an internal slideshow (“official use only”) showing four incidents as normal air traffic. That slideshow is now publicly available. Lufthansa Jet Flew 10 Minutes With No Pilot at Controls After Cockpit Emergency Spanish investigators say the Captain on Lufthansa flight LH1140, an A321, took a toilet break, and then the First Officer in the cockpit suffered a “sudden and severe” incapacitation. The Captain had difficulty getting through the security door and the plane flew for 10 minutes without anyone at the controls. Report to Congress on Sleep and Fatigue in Military Aviation The report titled Management of Sleep and Fatigue in Military Aviation [PDF] was published by the Congressional Research Service on May 13, 2025, and examines the effects of sleep deprivation and its impact on operational readiness and aviation safety. The report highlights that military aviators face significant psychological and physiological demands, which can lead to sleep deprivation and fatigue. These conditions are exacerbated by factors such as unpredictable schedules, long-duty days, challenging flight conditions, and disruptions to circadian rhythms due to crossing multiple time zones. Research has shown that sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive, physical, and emotional functioning, increasing the risk of accidents in training and combat environments. To mitigate these risks, the Department of Defense employs both non-pharmacological and pharmacological strategies. Non-pharmacological measures include administrative policies that limit duty hours, regulate flight schedules, and educate aviators on the importance of sleep. Pharmacological measures, such as FDA-approved medications, are used selectively when behavioral strategies are insufficient. The report also discusses congressional considerations regarding fatigue management policies and their effectiveness in ensuring aviator safety and mission success. US proposes dropping Boeing criminal charge In an online meeting, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials told families of the 737 Max crash victims that the Government may allow Boeing to sign a non-prosecution agreement to settle the case. This would avoid the criminal fraud trial scheduled to begin on June 23, 2025. An earlier settlement agreement was rejected by a judge. A DOJ official said after the meeting that a decis...

Welcome to the Rocky Mountain UFO Podcast. Today, we are discussing Dr. Steven Greer's latest comments based on a recent interview he did, excerpts of which are available in our sources. Dr. Steven Greer, described as a famed researcher and retired emergency medical doctor who heads a disclosure project focused on ending the secrecy around UFOs and UAPs, was a guest on Vlad TV for an interview1. He mentioned this was the first time he was meeting the interviewer face-to-face1. During the interview, Dr. Greer discussed a variety of topics related to the UFO/UAP phenomenon and the ongoing efforts towards disclosure1. He spoke about a task force organized under the House Oversight Committee that has a number of objectives, including UAPs1. However, he noted that achieving meaningful disclosure through these efforts is hindered by the lack of a select committee with subpoena power and insufficient funding for specialized staff1.... According to his experience, even when dispositive evidence and firsthand witnesses are presented, disinformation operatives can gaslight those in Congress1. He stated that these people in Congress, while often meaning well, are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject1. Dr. Greer believes there are two pathways for this investigation2. The first is through Congress, which would require subpoena power to compel high-value targets to testify under oath2. The second, which he considers more viable, would require executive orders from the President and operate under the executive branch and law enforcement2.... Law enforcement, unlike Congress without subpoena power, can compel testimony, and lying to a federal agent is a felony2. He suggests referring the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as it involves criminal activity, allowing them to conduct a proper investigation, pull people in for interrogation, and retrieve evidence from corporate locations and secret facilities3. He mentioned recommending five executive orders to the administration3. A significant part of the interview focused on disinformation and the hoaxing of an alien threat3.... Dr. Greer stated that individuals like Lou Elizondo and Chris Melon are professional disinformation operatives who mix truth with misinformation3.... Their agenda, according to Dr. Greer, is to convince people that aliens are a threat, thereby supporting the military-industrial complex and the cabal that has kept the secret, ultimately attempting to seize control under the ruse of an outer space threat3.... He described this as a "poison pill," where some facts are presented on the outside, but the core narrative is disinformation3. He asserted that the bigger secret is not extraterrestrials themselves, but a covert illegal operation possessing technologies that can outperform advanced human aircraft like the B2 stealth bomber3.... He claims these technologies are human-made and have existed since the 1950s3. This covert operation, he argues, is a threat to the US Constitution and is the "lynch pin" in being able to hoax an alien invasion or threat4. He described this as a 70-year plan concocted around 1953-54 to create an alien threat to unite the world around a totalitarian, militaristic situation, citing Wernher von Braun4. Dr. Greer expressed concern that Congress and the White House currently lack the bandwidth to comprehend the vastness of this problem and discern information from disinformation4. He likened the organization keeping the secret to the Wizard of Oz, skilled at scaring people because of the lack of professional staffing looking into the matter4. He warned that a "little knowledge on this is a very dangerous thing"5. He connected this concept to ideas like Project Blue Beam and fictional works like Watchmen and Independence Day, noting that the Independence Day movie was "right out of CIA scop psychological warfare scripting"5. He believes this narrative has reached saturation, citing a personal experience from 30 years ago where a first grader asked if he was afraid of being abducted by aliens, which he interpreted as evidence that "scops have reached saturation" between movies, entertainment, and ufology mythology5.... Dr. Greer also discussed the Jake Barber interview, referring to him as an Air Force veteran who was on retrieval teams out of U.S. Delta Force, contracted for operations to down and retrieve extraterrestrial vehicles or non-human intelligence (NHI) craft9. Barber was in charge of security and transport for these special operations at black sites9. Dr. Greer stated that very little of what Barber knows has come out yet9. He confirmed that the egg-shaped craft Barber came in contact with was of ET origin11. He noted that it is often hard to distinguish between a non-human craft and a reverse-engineered one unless one is an expert11.... He mentioned that any non-human shape seen has often been copycatted for false flag operations12. Regarding technology, Dr. Greer claimed that gravity control was mastered in October 1954, based on information from an intelligence source who was a top scientist at the Naval Research Labs11. He stated that after 70 years of technological development with brilliant minds and virtually unlimited black budget funding, the technology being flown could deceive even high-level officials11. He elaborated on the man-made lookalikes used for psychological warfare and to cover up real events9.... These include fake alien abductions and cattle mutilations, which he attributes to a "covert human operation," not ETs7.... He stated he has debriefed about two dozen individuals operational in programs doing this13. Most of the information on this subject, according to Dr. Greer, is "part information spun in with disinformation"13. He explained that retrieval teams can be cleared into higher levels when dealing with man-made UFOs and ET things, going beyond retrieving downed conventional aircraft13.

 21st May: Blockchain DXB podcast

Facing serious federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, Sean "Diddy" Combs has enlisted a former Department of Justice (DOJ) asset forfeiture expert to his legal team. This strategic move aims to protect his estimated $400 million fortune, which encompasses luxury properties, vehicles, a private jet, and his Bad Boy Records label. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the government can seize assets linked to criminal activities. The expert, with three decades of experience in asset forfeiture and money laundering at the DOJ, is expected to advise on safeguarding Combs' assets from potential government seizure.The inclusion of this specialist underscores the high stakes of Combs' legal battle, where a conviction could not only lead to life imprisonment but also the loss of his business empire. The defense is likely to argue that the assets were acquired through legitimate means, challenging any direct connection to the alleged criminal conduct. This addition complements Combs' already formidable legal team, which includes prominent attorneys like Marc Agnifilo and Alexandra Shapiro. Their collective expertise reflects a comprehensive approach to defending against both criminal charges and the threat of asset forfeiture.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Facing serious federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, Sean "Diddy" Combs has enlisted a former Department of Justice (DOJ) asset forfeiture expert to his legal team. This strategic move aims to protect his estimated $400 million fortune, which encompasses luxury properties, vehicles, a private jet, and his Bad Boy Records label. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the government can seize assets linked to criminal activities. The expert, with three decades of experience in asset forfeiture and money laundering at the DOJ, is expected to advise on safeguarding Combs' assets from potential government seizure.The inclusion of this specialist underscores the high stakes of Combs' legal battle, where a conviction could not only lead to life imprisonment but also the loss of his business empire. The defense is likely to argue that the assets were acquired through legitimate means, challenging any direct connection to the alleged criminal conduct. This addition complements Combs' already formidable legal team, which includes prominent attorneys like Marc Agnifilo and Alexandra Shapiro. Their collective expertise reflects a comprehensive approach to defending against both criminal charges and the threat of asset forfeiture.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Facing serious federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, Sean "Diddy" Combs has enlisted a former Department of Justice (DOJ) asset forfeiture expert to his legal team. This strategic move aims to protect his estimated $400 million fortune, which encompasses luxury properties, vehicles, a private jet, and his Bad Boy Records label. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the government can seize assets linked to criminal activities. The expert, with three decades of experience in asset forfeiture and money laundering at the DOJ, is expected to advise on safeguarding Combs' assets from potential government seizure.The inclusion of this specialist underscores the high stakes of Combs' legal battle, where a conviction could not only lead to life imprisonment but also the loss of his business empire. The defense is likely to argue that the assets were acquired through legitimate means, challenging any direct connection to the alleged criminal conduct. This addition complements Combs' already formidable legal team, which includes prominent attorneys like Marc Agnifilo and Alexandra Shapiro. Their collective expertise reflects a comprehensive approach to defending against both criminal charges and the threat of asset forfeiture.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance, and its implications are far-reaching and complex.At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to centralize executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control. This is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. As Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, puts it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to consolidate authority in the White House[5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. These agencies, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been crucial in coordinating national security efforts and preventing terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is not only seen as irresponsible but also perilous, as it would undermine the significant progress made in protecting the homeland[1].Another agency on the chopping block is the Department of Education. Under Project 2025, this department would be eliminated, with oversight of education and federal funding for education being handed over to the states. This move would also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination, discrimination based on gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The potential consequences for educational equity and civil rights are dire, as states may adopt varying and potentially discriminatory policies[1].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also targeted for significant changes. Project 2025 proposes eliminating FEMA and transferring its responsibilities to either the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation, possibly in conjunction with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This shift would place the burden of disaster preparedness and response on state and local governments, a move that could exacerbate the challenges faced during natural disasters and other emergencies[1].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another agency facing drastic cuts. The plan includes eliminating many of the EPA's regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, scientific integrity, and risk information. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute the air, water, and food, posing a significant threat to public health[1].The expansion of presidential powers is a recurring theme in Project 2025. The initiative seeks to eliminate the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This centralization of power is based on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which has been supported by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[5].In the realm of foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a purge of leadership roles within the Department of State. All employees in these roles would be dismissed before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced with those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any specific examples[5].The potential implications of these changes are vast and multifaceted. Experts warn that such a concentration of power in the executive branch could lead to a significant erosion of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy. The dismantling of critical agencies and the decentralization of their functions to states or private entities could result in a patchwork of policies that lack consistency and effectiveness.As we move forward, the first 100 days of President Trump's second term have already seen many of these plans being rolled out. The coming months will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes and how they will be implemented. The re-election of President Trump has set the stage for a dramatic reshaping of the federal government, and it remains to be seen how these reforms will impact the daily lives of Americans and the broader health of the nation's governance[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. federal government operates, with far-reaching consequences for national security, education, disaster response, environmental protection, and the balance of power within the executive branch. As these proposals continue to unfold, it is imperative to monitor their implementation closely and consider the long-term implications for American governance and society as a whole. The future of these reforms will be shaped by the ongoing interplay between political will, public opinion, and the resilience of the institutions being targeted for change.

On this episode of the podcast, Emmy Award-winning Actress Martha Byrne joins host Amanda Head to share the harrowing story of her husband, Mike McMahon — a retired NYPD Officer and private investigator who she says was wrongfully convicted in a case marred by FBI misconduct and political pressure. Byrne details how the FBI built its case on flimsy evidence, including a search warrant tied to a single email and how key exculpatory evidence was allegedly suppressed. She goes on to expose the overlooked role of Chinese agents in the case and accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of failing to protect her family. Furthermore, Byrne speaks candidly about the emotional toll, the broader implications for justice in America, and her hope for pardon from President Donald Trump. You can follow Martha on X: @MarthaByrne10 and buy her forthcoming book, “In The Interest of Justice” which will be on bookshelves and online on June 5, 2025.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore a subject more fully. Are you looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this Compliance into the Weeds episode, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly take a deep dive into the declination recently given by the DOJ to the Universities Space Research Association (USRA). In this episode, Tom and Matt dive deeply into a recent decline issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the University Space Research Association (USRA). The discussion focuses on the organization's exemplary behavior in self-disclosure and cooperation during an investigation into an employee's misconduct. This misconduct included unauthorized export of software to Beijing University. The hosts highlight the case as a textbook example of effective compliance practices, self-reporting, and cooperation with regulators. They also explore the DOJ's guidelines on self-disclosure and the importance of internal controls in high-risk areas. Key highlights: Case Overview: USRA Declination DOJ Press Release Insights Details of the Misconduct USRA's Response and Cooperation Resources: DOJ Press Release on Universities Space Research Association Declination Tom Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn Compliance into the Weeds was recently honored as one of a Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcast and a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As enforcement guidance sharpens and the legal spotlight intensifies, how are organizations supposed to navigate DEI now?In this episode, we take a deeper look at what has unfolded since Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” was signed in January 2025. While the order targeted federal agencies, its ripple effects are reshaping how private companies, nonprofits, and universities approach diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.So what exactly has changed—and what's still allowed?Women Offshore walks through the Department of Justice's new enforcement role, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) March 2025 guidance, and how leaders can keep building opportunity-driven workplaces while staying aligned with the law.In this episode, we cover:What the Department of Justice (DOJ) was instructed to do under Executive Order 14173What the new EEOC guidance says about hiring, training, and employee groupsWhat merit-based hiring meansHow outreach, mentorship, and leadership development can (and should) continueWhy This MattersThe maritime workforce shortage isn't going away. If anything, it's becoming more urgent. Offshore rigs, shipping companies, and maritime employers need to attract and retain talent across a broader spectrum to meet demand—and create resilient, future-ready teams.Smart, sustainable DEI practices aren't just about compliance. They are critical to solving the workforce crisis ahead.Join Us at the Women Offshore Leadership Summit

Community Health Network, Inc. of Indiana (CHN) entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in December 2023 to settle alleged violations of the False Claims Act. The settlement amount of $345 million was the largest settlement of its kind in history. Dave Hesselink, Managing Principal, SullivanCotter, A.J. Orille, Consulting Principal, SullivanCotter, and Mark Ryberg, Practice Leader, Physician Workforce, SullivanCotter, discuss the particulars of the 2023 CHN settlement with DOJ, with a focus on the valuation components. They also share some practical takeaways for health care organizations looking to maintain their physician compensation compliance programs. Sponsored by SullivanCotter.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

Amanda Wick served as a federal prosecutor for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for nearly a decade, specializing in money laundering and cryptocurrency.#cryptolaundering #blockchain #amandawick================All Episodes can be found at www.thecryptopodcast.org All about Roy / Brain Gym & Virtual Assistants athttps://roycoughlan.com/------------------   About my Guest Amanda Wick: Amanda Wick served as a federal prosecutor for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for nearly a decade, specializing in money laundering and cryptocurrency. She worked in three US attorneys' offices (Atlanta, Birmingham, and St. Louis). After that, she moved to Main Justice to serve in the Criminal Division's Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Session. As part of a DOJ leadership program, she served as a detailee and senior policy advisor at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In 2020, she left the government to serve as the chief of legal affairs at Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics company.In 2021, Wick returned to government service to serve on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol. She went on to found and run a global non-profit organization, the Association for Women In Cryptocurrency. The organization aims to build a global network of women and male allies in the cryptocurrency, blockchain, and web3 industries who will advocate for the equal inclusion of women in the future of digital finance.Wick also serves as a principal with Incite Consulting. In that role, she provides expert and litigation advisory services to law firms and advises a wide range of cryptocurrency-related businesses. She remains a digital nomad living out of a carry-on suitcase and a National Geographic backpack. "The Catalysts" is her first book. What we Discussed: 00:20 Who is Amanda Wick02:45 Her Crypto Journey with the Government04:30 What happens when the Federal Government get Crypto from Criminals06:50 How hard is it to trace Criminal Crypto10:10 The IRS is Watching your Crypto Gains13:00 Is there Trackers in Crypto Wallets16:15 What Wallet does the Government use17:45 The Presidents should not be allowed use Meme Coins21:15 Dumb Money22:20 The Reason she wrote the book and what she covers27:10 Financial Fraud by City & Governments32:30 The EU is not as good as People think33:25 Credit System and protecting your funds39:05 Corruptible & the advantages of Sovereignity43:30 People are Moving hoping to find a better place44:00 Women in CryptoHow to Contact Amanda Wickwww.amandawick.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/amandawick/------------------All about Roy / Brain Gym & Virtual Assistants at ⁠https://roycoughlan.com/⁠ ___________________

​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.

​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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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.

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

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

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)

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!"

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!