Podcast appearances and mentions of justice doj

This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a first-of-its-kind civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department over gun-carry permitting delays. So, we have a man at the center of the case on the show to discuss it. Kostas Moros is a gun-rights lawyer who works at the Second Amendment Foundation, which is involved in a private suit against the department. He has also been directly impacted by the permitting process, with his own permit having expired as he waits for the department to process his renewal. He also helped inspire the federal lawsuit. After he publicly advocated for the DOJ to pursue a pattern and practice investigation of the Sheriff's permitting process, the department reached out to him before following through. He said the DOJ's suit is largely focused on the same claims as the private one, but he thinks it is more than a duplicative effort. He noted the DOJ has more power, prestige, and potential resources than any gun-rights group. He argued DOJ can, and did in this case, require localities to hand over important statistics and documents. They can also obtain a consent decree and oversee the department's permitting process. Moros dismissed the Sheriff's Department's defenses for the delays. He argued funding or staffing issues aren't a viable excuse for years-long delays, especially when other counties don't have similar problems. Still, he said LA is not the only place the DOJ should consider filing this kind of suit, and he hopes this one is just a precursor to many others. Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

Trump issued an executive order last week saying he was directing the federal government to “a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence ..." He and his administration have maintained that political violence and domestic terrorism in the U.S. comes from a vast network left and progressive non-profits, donors, foundations, etc. Furthermore, they are mobilizing the federal government to crack down on this "vast network." This is despite the fact that most political violence with fatalities in the U.S. comes from people identified as "right" or "far right." In fact, studies show over 75% of political violence is committed by right wingers. (A Dept. of Justice (DOJ) study showed the prevalence of political violence on the far right, and the Trump administration took down the study from DOJ's website for stating this very fact.) Notable examples include the 2015 mass shooting at a black church in Charleston, SC, the 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, the storming and riot of the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6th, 2021 and, of course, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995--the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the United States taking 168 lives. In our latest, we talk about how the violence isn't a both sides issue, but instead one of ruling class repression. We discuss history, current events and lots of facts and studies. We discuss how political violence carried out against leftists, progressives or liberals is a reaction to equality and justice done in the interests of the ruling class (whether they want it or not is irrelevant).We're living in harrowing times and being as informed and educated as possible is more important now than ever. ------------------Outro- "Green and Red Blues" by Moody

A recent case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reveals how an insider was able to detect fraud in a large managed care organization (MCO).Although the topic of medical loss ratio (MLR) might be arcane to some, when the subject involves millions of dollars of potential fraud, it quickly becomes a large blip on the government's fraud detection radar.More on this topic will be reported during the next live edition of Monitor Mondays. That's when whistleblower attorney Max Voldman returns to the long-running Internet broadcast to report on how a payer, Inland Empire Health Plan, miscalculated its MLR in a scheme to rebate less money to the government than to which it was legally obligated.The weekly broadcast will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Cate Brantley, senior legislative affairs analyst for Zelis, will report on the news happening at the intersection of healthcare and congressional action.

President Trump is doing the very thing he accused President Biden of doing: weaponizing the Department of justice. There is no illusion of pulling strings behind the scenes either. Trump's demands that the DOJ prosecute his political enemies are blatant and public. Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media that he wanted to see justice served up in the form of criminal investigations into people like Senator Adam Schiff from California, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, writing that, "We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility." We will run it past our resident Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, author David Cay JohnstonJacob Ward will swing by the show. He is a former reporter for CNN, NBC and Al Jazeera. Jacob currently hosts The Rip Current. It is Tech Tuesday and Jefferson Graham is in town this week. He'll stop by to tell us what he has learned about the new iPhones and whether it's worth upgrading..The Mark Thompson Show 9/23/25Patreon subscribers are the backbone of the show! If you'd like to help, here's our Patreon Link:https://www.patreon.com/themarkthompsonshowMaybe you're more into PayPal.  https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=PVBS3R7KJXV24And you'll find everything on our website: https://www.themarkthompsonshow.com

Executive Summary: The Dawn of a Real Estate Behemoth   The definitive merger agreement between Compass, Inc. (NYSE: COMP) and Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE: HOUS), announced on September 22, 2025, represents a landmark event in the residential real estate sector. Structured as an all-stock transaction, the deal is set to create a combined company with an enterprise value of approximately $10 billion, including assumed debt.1 This strategic union is not merely an acquisition but a fundamental realignment of the industry's competitive landscape, driven by the ambition to unite Compass's sophisticated, technology-centric platform with Anywhere's expansive, global network of agents and its diversified business operations.1 The new entity will emerge as the largest brokerage platform in the United States, boasting a network of approximately 340,000 real estate professionals spanning over 120 countries.1 From an investor standpoint, the transaction promises significant financial efficiencies, with Compass anticipating more than $225 million in non-GAAP OPEX synergies.1 Furthermore, the deal is expected to add over $1 billion in diversified revenue from Anywhere's established franchise, title, and escrow businesses, providing a more resilient financial foundation in a challenging market.1 However, the initial market reaction, characterized by a 16% slide in Compass's stock price while Anywhere's shares soared over 48%, signals a degree of investor apprehension about the deal's valuation and the complexities of its execution.2 For real estate professionals, the combined platform offers an unprecedented scale of technology tools, a broader range of service offerings—including mortgage, title, and relocation services—and a vastly expanded referral network.4 The success of this union hinges on the delicate process of cultural integration and the critical task of retaining Anywhere's agents, who are the core assets in this transaction.7 For the wider industry, this merger represents a powerful consolidation that challenges the established power dynamics held by third-party portals like Zillow and the traditional Multiple Listing Service (MLS) model. The combined entity's control over a massive volume of listings could reshape the flow of information and commerce in the residential real estate market.9   The Transaction: A Detailed Financial and Structural Analysis   The merger of Compass and Anywhere Real Estate is a testament to the strategic use of financial and structural engineering to achieve transformative scale. The mechanics of the deal and its stated financial objectives provide a clear window into the companies' long-term vision.   Deal Mechanics and Valuation   The transaction is structured as an all-stock merger, a mechanism that aligns the interests of both companies' shareholders by deferring immediate cash payouts in favor of a shared stake in the future enterprise.1 Under the terms of the agreement, each share of Anywhere common stock will be exchanged for 1.436 shares of Compass Class A common stock.1 This share exchange ratio was determined based on Compass's 30-trading-day volume-weighted average price as of September 19, 2025, and represents a per-share value of $13.01 for Anywhere shareholders.1 This valuation is a major component of the transaction, as it translates to an approximate 84% premium over Anywhere's closing stock price on the Friday preceding the merger announcement.2 The total acquisition value for Anywhere is cited at about $1.5 billion, or $1.6 billion in other reports, which contributes to the combined company's total enterprise value of roughly $10 billion, inclusive of debt assumption.2 The ownership structure of the new entity reflects the strategic power balance. Upon completion, current Compass shareholders will hold approximately 78% of the combined company on a fully diluted basis, while Anywhere shareholders will own the remaining 22%.1 This allocation grants Compass a controlling interest and solidifies its leadership, with Compass CEO and Founder Robert Reffkin designated to lead the new organization.3 The market's initial reaction to these terms was bifurcated. While Anywhere's stock experienced a significant surge, Compass's shares fell sharply, indicating a degree of market apprehension.2 This response suggests that investors may be weighing the strategic benefits against the potential costs. A significant area of concern for the market appears to be the assumption of Anywhere's substantial debt burden of $3.34 billion, a liability that Compass will inherit.12 The market's apprehension suggests that the valuation, while seemingly a windfall for Anywhere, may be perceived as an overpayment for an acquiring company that still faces significant operational hurdles.   Financial Projections and Synergies   A central tenet of the merger's financial rationale is the realization of meaningful operational efficiencies and the diversification of revenue streams. Compass anticipates achieving over $225 million in non-GAAP OPEX synergies, a figure that is a key component of the deal's value proposition.1 These efficiencies are expected to be realized by integrating redundant operations and leveraging the new scale to lower costs across the board. The acquisition of Anywhere's business units—specifically its franchise, title, escrow, and relocation operations—is projected to add more than $1 billion in revenue to Compass's top line.1 This represents a crucial strategic move to diversify Compass's revenue away from its commission-heavy model, which is highly susceptible to the cyclical nature of the housing market.14 By acquiring businesses that generate revenue from various stages of the real estate transaction, Compass is building a more resilient and stable financial profile. The combined company's anticipated 1.2 million transactions annually present a significant opportunity to cross-sell these ancillary services, creating a more seamless and integrated experience for clients while boosting revenue per transaction.1 The combined company is also projected to generate significant free cash flow and strengthen its balance sheet.1 To support its financial strategy, Compass has secured a $750 million financing commitment from Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., with a stated goal to deleverage to a net leverage of approximately 1.5x Adjusted EBITDA by the end of 2028.1 This aggressive deleveraging plan indicates a commitment to long-term financial health and suggests that the company is keenly aware of the debt it is assuming.   Strategic Rationale: A Symbiotic Combination of Strengths   The merger is fundamentally a move to create a new kind of real estate platform by combining the distinct and complementary strengths of two industry leaders. The strategic logic transcends a simple consolidation play; it is about combining a technology-first model with a vast, established network to create a dominant market presence.   Compass's Strategic Imperative   Compass has long positioned itself as a property technology company, investing over $1.8 billion to build an end-to-end platform for its agents.4 The company's business model revolves around empowering real estate professionals with sophisticated tools for customer relationship management (CRM), marketing, and transaction management.14 This technology-driven approach has enabled Compass to attract a network of approximately 40,000 agents and focus on high-margin, high-end properties.2 The Anywhere acquisition represents an opportunity to accelerate this strategic vision on a massive scale, instantly expanding its network to approximately 340,000 professionals and broadening its geographic and demographic reach.2   Anywhere's Strategic Value   Anywhere Real Estate, a legacy player in the industry, brings a wealth of brand equity, a globally recognized footprint, and a diversified business model to the table. Its portfolio of leading brokerage brands—including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Better Homes and Gardens, and Sotheby's International Realty—provides a powerful foundation of consumer trust and a massive agent network.2 Anywhere's business model is a mix of franchise operations and company-owned brokerages, which allows for expansive growth without the overhead costs of a fully centralized model.4 Furthermore, its ancillary businesses in relocation, title, and escrow provide a stable, recurring revenue base that complements Compass's more transaction-dependent business model.1   The Combined Value Proposition   The central value proposition of the merged entity is to create a "premier real estate platform" by integrating Compass's technology with Anywhere's scale and brands.1 The stated goal is to create a seamless, all-digital, end-to-end platform that streamlines agent workflows and enhances the consumer experience.6 This merger is an attempt to execute what has been referred to as the "Apple playbook" within the real estate industry.14 Just as Apple controls the entire value chain from hardware to software and services, the new Compass seeks to control every stage of the real estate transaction, from lead generation and marketing to the closing process itself. This is not just a growth strategy; it is a fundamental move to build a vertically integrated ecosystem that captures a larger share of the total revenue generated from each transaction, making the business more resilient to market fluctuations and increasing profitability.   Market Implications and the Redrawing of the Competitive Map   The merger is a profound example of the strategic consolidation taking place in the residential real estate sector. It occurs at a time of significant market stress, with a multi-year U.S. housing slump and elevated mortgage rates putting pressure on all industry players.2 This transaction is part of a broader trend, as evidenced by other recent, large-scale deals like Rocket Cos.' acquisitions of Mr. Cooper and Redfin.2 This consolidation is a direct response to a challenging macroeconomic environment, with companies betting that scale, diversification, and technology can unlock efficiencies and strengthen their competitive position.   The New Power Dynamics   The combined Compass-Anywhere entity, with an estimated market share of approximately 18% of U.S. transactions, creates a powerful new "Goliath" in the industry.2 This new scale has significant implications for key industry players and the traditional real estate ecosystem. A major strategic element of this merger is the power it grants the new entity in its ongoing disputes with online portals, particularly Zillow. Compass has been embroiled in a lawsuit against Zillow over its policy banning "Private Exclusives," or off-market listings shared only within a brokerage's network.9 The combined company's control over a massive amount of "content," in the form of listings and transaction data, provides unprecedented leverage.10 By normalizing off-MLS inventory at a national scale, the new Compass could bypass Zillow's portal and the traditional MLS, creating a self-contained ecosystem that forces consumers to go through a Compass agent to access a critical mass of listings.9 The deal is not just about agent count; it is a strategic bet on controlling the flow of data and the attention of buyers and sellers, a battle for who will ultimately "rewrite the rules of how homes get marketed".9 This industry shift also poses a long-term challenge to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), whose historical strength was built on a fragmented network of independent brokers.13 As power consolidates into a handful of large entities, the influence of a trade group designed to serve a decentralized industry may diminish.   Critical Challenges and Risks to Execution   Despite the compelling strategic rationale, the success of this merger is not assured. The integration of two such different organizations presents a number of significant and complex challenges, from regulatory hurdles to the intangible risks of cultural alignment.   Regulatory and Antitrust Hurdles   The merger is subject to regulatory approval by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.1 Given the combined company's significant market share of approximately 18%, the deal will almost certainly face intense regulatory scrutiny.2 A key precedent for this risk is Compass's previous acquisition of @properties, which required the divestiture of certain assets to satisfy regulatory compliance.18 The scale of the Anywhere transaction amplifies the risk of similar divestiture obligations, which could force the new company to restructure the deal and potentially undermine its strategic vision.18 Compass has proactively addressed this risk by hiring a former DOJ antitrust leader as its Chief Legal Officer, a move that underscores the seriousness with which the company is approaching this issue.19   Cultural Integration and Agent Retention   Perhaps the most significant risk to the merger's success is the challenge of uniting two fundamentally different corporate cultures. Compass is a technology-driven, centralized organization with a focus on high-end, high-margin transactions.14 Anywhere Real Estate, in contrast, is a long-established, decentralized franchise network with a vast portfolio of independent brands.16 Robert Reffkin has stated his intent to "preserv[e] the unique independence of Anywhere's leading brands" 2, but the very purpose of the merger is to bring agents onto a "shared network" and a common technology platform.1 This creates a fundamental tension that could lead to a culture clash, a factor that has derailed past mergers, as seen in the cautionary tale of Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods.20 The ultimate assets in this deal are the real estate agents, who are independent contractors and can easily migrate to competing brokerages if they are dissatisfied with the integration process, a change in their commission splits, or a cultural misalignment.8 Successfully retaining Anywhere's 300,000 agents will be the true test of the merger's viability.   Financial and Operational Risks   In addition to the assumed debt, the integration of technology platforms is a complex and costly endeavor.7 Compass's proprietary software must be seamlessly integrated with the disparate systems and workflows of Anywhere's many brands. This is a monumental operational task that carries the risk of delays, cost overruns, and a negative impact on agent productivity during the transition. The financial projections of over $225 million in synergies are predicated on the successful navigation of these complexities. Any shortfall in realizing these efficiencies could jeopardize the company's deleveraging plan and its long-term financial health.   Conclusion and Forward Outlook   The merger of Compass and Anywhere Real Estate is a watershed moment for the residential real estate industry. It is a bold, strategic bet that in an era of market contraction and technological disruption, a combination of scale, brand recognition, and a sophisticated platform is the key to long-term survival and dominance. The strategic synergies are compelling, particularly the opportunity to diversify revenue, increase profitability through operational efficiencies, and gain significant leverage against third-party players like Zillow and the MLSs. However, the path to success is fraught with significant execution risks. The ability to successfully navigate regulatory scrutiny, integrate two vastly different corporate cultures, and retain the massive agent network it has acquired will be the primary determinants of the deal's ultimate success. If Compass can overcome these hurdles, the new company will be poised to lead a new era of "platform-driven" real estate, fundamentally reshaping how homes are marketed and sold in the U.S. and beyond. If it fails, the merger will serve as another costly lesson on the complexities of combining disparate business models in a rapidly evolving market. BONUS LINK: To celebrate this historical moment in organized real estate, you are invited to join a powerful new real estate referral club created for all those who are part of this new merger. Here is the invite link. Be sure to invite those you may want to include.  This podcast was AI produced.

JOIN SHERI HORN HASAN @ FOR THIS WEEK'S ASTROLOGICALLY SPEAKING PODCAST WHICH DROPS SEPTEMBER 19 @https://www.karmicevolution.com/astrologically-speakingToday's podcast explores that fact that this month's waning third-quarter of the lunar cycle—which leads us to the September 21 Virgo New Moon solar eclipse--has been a time to wake up & smell the coffee that our constitutional rights here in the U.S. are under threat.So, before we even reach this second eclipse in this fall's series--which began with the Pisces Full Moon total lunar eclipse on March 7--we're asked at the end of the monthly lunar cycle to adjust to several realities. Doing so allows us to better recognize what seeds we're being called to plant at the Virgo New Moon solar eclipse on September 21.Since the assassination of prominent right-winger Charlie Kirk on September 10, we experienced the September 13 Sun/Mercury superior conjunction in Virgo. And since then, Mercury has moved ahead of the Sun to become an evening star, meaning he's more prominently visible in the night sky.In turn, this B symbolizes it's now time—between September 13 & November 9 when Mercury once again stations retrograde—for clear observation & rational, logical, organized, & pragmatic thought that leads to ultimately to action.I often point out that my astrological philosophy is that the universe is benign & that it has no interest in making any of us suffer. Rather, it simply provides opportunities every moment of everyday for us to grow in consciousness. And if we don't recognize these moments, the universe doesn't give up!With that in mind, we're tasked right now with recognizing the pain of injustices that curtail the rights of both individuals & groups. And to begin to recognize we must push back against such injustices, or we'll continue to be subjected to additional onslaughts against our rights, such as the right free speech.We've witnessed an outpouring of grief on many different levels since the Pisces New Moon total lunar eclipse & during this monthly lunar cycle's last week. But the main one was the silencing via murder of an outspoken conservative who used religion as a shield to justify his prejudices against those he did not like. The aftermath of his murder brought grief, pain, & suffering to both those who followed him AND those who KNOW that killing someone because of his speech is morally WRONG.And not only wrong, it's unconstitutional, at least here in America. As Kirk's death began to sink in amongst the masses of both his followers & his critics, the powers that be began to curtail the speech of his detractors which has resulted in the stifling of voices such as late-night comedic talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.So what began with an outpouring of pain & grief has culminated in a discussion of how our current political polarization has wounded us—as evidenced by September 16's Mercury quincunx wounded healer Chiron, Venus's trine to Chiron, & Mars' opposition to Chiron.By September 17, however, the pushback against allowing anyone other than conservatives to speak freely began as Mercury in Virgo opposed Saturn retrograde in Pisces on September 17. Mercury then entered Libra & opposed Neptune retrograde in Aries, & trined Pluto in Aquarius September 18. In addition, Venus in Libra quincunxed Saturn in Pisces & the Virgo Sun quincunxed Chiron in Aries then too.GRIEF OVER THE ASSASSINATION OF FREE SPEECHQuincunxes are 150-degree aspects between planets, which makes them so far apart that they do not recognize or “see” each other. Most astrologers agree they are indications that an adjustment must be made. Like needing to turn your head to see what's out of your immediate range of peripheral vision, a quincunx alerts us it's time to look both ways before proceeding.In this case, as these quincunxes begin to register, they are waxing us toward this next solar eclipse. Mercury also trines Uranus & Pluto, Venus enters Virgo & quincunxes both Neptune & Saturn, squares Uranus, & quincunxes Pluto. In addition, the Virgo Sun opposes Saturn in Pisces, & ALL of these aspects occur between September 18 & September 21 in the lead up to the upcoming solar eclipse. Instead of parsing each of these individually, let's simply analyze what's occurred in the collective as we reach the end of this month's lunar cycle, shall we? What we have in fact seen--& are in fact experiencing now--is a rude awakening to the extremes that divergent political stances can bring. Even to the point where ignoring—or worse yet, excusing--gun violence by rationalizing it as a necessary by-product of such polarization because conservatives believe it's an expression of our rights as American under the Second Amendment.So, as we approach the 29'05” Virgo New Moon solar eclipse at 12:54 p.m. PT & 3:54 p.m. ET on September 21, it might then be a good time to engage in meditation, prayer, or mindfulness about what Mercury, the Sun, & the Moon's oppositions to Saturn & Neptune at this eclipse are asking us to do.Again, the collective is mirroring the answer back to us right now, and that is to resist pressure against our constitutional rights, most importantly the right to speak out. On September 15, as we waxed toward Mercury's quincunx & Mars' opposition to Chiron September 16 & Mercury's opposition to Saturn September 17 Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) said the following in an interview posted on Youtube:“There's free speech, and then there's hate speech,” she announced while declaring that federal law enforcement will “go after” Americans for hate speech.The problem? There is, in fact, no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment. The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution says the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”The fact is that the First Amendment was set up by America's founders to restrain the government, not individuals. In other words, the Supreme Court has parsed out in many cases what is acceptable under the First Amendment & what is not when it comes to both the government & individuals. Speech inciting “immediate violence” is prohibited under this amendment, but political speech is protected. For more on this--& remember, it pays to know the facts--see: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266In any case, it's now time to adjust our thinking as per all of these quincunxes & to push back against these oppositional threats to our constitutional rights—including that of free speech as it exists under U.S. constitutional law. By the time Mercury entered more negotiable & comprisable Libra on September 18, Bondi was forced to “walk back” her words about “going after” Americans for constitutionally protected “hate speech.” TIME TO FIGHT BACKThe other important transits happening around this solar eclipse is that Mars, which moves into Scorpio just before the Sun enters Libra at the fall equinox on Septembers 22, is waxing toward its third quarter “crisis in consciousness” waning square to Pluto in Aquarius on September 24. This podcast explores the history of this Mars/Pluto cycle from its  beginning in February 2024 until now, so tune in for more!But basically, in the common parlance of a born & bred New Yorker, the response to Pam Bondi's threats against free speech--& as a trained lawyer & the Attorney General for the state of Florida before being appointed head of the DoJ Bondi CLEARLY knows better—“dem's fightin' words!”All of these oppositions & quincunxes point now to this solar eclipse's culmination. That's because, according to astrologer Ronnie Dreyer, it's energies technically began when the transiting true nodal axis reached the 29'05” Virgo South Node position circa January 22/23 only days after the inauguration of President Donald Trump.In total, the question now is can we plant seeds that lead to the further clear sighted analyzation of what's occurred since January of this year that's blocked us from being protected by established constitutional law? And, can we muster up the energy necessary now to fight back before it gets even worse?U.S. history tells us we can. But it's going to involve leaving behind any confusion about what's going on now, calling a spade a spade, & formulating a pragmatic, logical plan to uphold our rights as Americans. In short, we've done it before & we can do it again, but we must wake up to reality & understand we can't give up without a fight.Tune in to all of this & more Astro News You Can Use, starting today @ https://www.karmicevolution.com/astrologically-speakingSee you then! Namaste…

Healthcare compliance just shifted fundamentally.Traditional whistleblowers who needed inside access are being replaced by artificial intelligence (AI)-powered relators who mine public datasets and flag statistical anomalies that could signal fraud.The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) logged 979 qui tam cases in 2024, many of which were reportedly triggered by mathematical outliers, rather than insider tips. Government agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), have already recovered $820 million using algorithmic detection.During the next live edition of Monitor Mondays, senior healthcare analyst Frank Cohen will reveal a possible solution for hospitals, health systems, and physician practices.The weekly broadcast will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Adam Brenman, senior government affairs analyst for Zelis, will report on the news happening at the intersection of healthcare and congressional action.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating claims that the Washington, D.C., police department manipulated crime data to publish more favorable stats claiming the city is far more safe than what is being said about it. This, just over a week after President Trump federalized the Metropolitan Police Department to respond to a series of high-profile killings, violent attacks and car-jackings. Federalizing the MPD also included sending hundreds of National Guard members and various federal law enforcement agents from various states to the nation's capital. Fox's John Saucier speaks to David Spunt, Washington D.C. based correspondent for FOX News Channel, who shares the latest on the investigation and the current law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating claims that the Washington, D.C., police department manipulated crime data to publish more favorable stats claiming the city is far more safe than what is being said about it. This, just over a week after President Trump federalized the Metropolitan Police Department to respond to a series of high-profile killings, violent attacks and car-jackings. Federalizing the MPD also included sending hundreds of National Guard members and various federal law enforcement agents from various states to the nation's capital. Fox's John Saucier speaks to David Spunt, Washington D.C. based correspondent for FOX News Channel, who shares the latest on the investigation and the current law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating claims that the Washington, D.C., police department manipulated crime data to publish more favorable stats claiming the city is far more safe than what is being said about it. This, just over a week after President Trump federalized the Metropolitan Police Department to respond to a series of high-profile killings, violent attacks and car-jackings. Federalizing the MPD also included sending hundreds of National Guard members and various federal law enforcement agents from various states to the nation's capital. Fox's John Saucier speaks to David Spunt, Washington D.C. based correspondent for FOX News Channel, who shares the latest on the investigation and the current law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this compelling episode, host Stephanie Weidle welcomes Trent McCotter, seasoned partner at Boyden Gray PLLC and head of its administrative-law practice. Trent previously served as Deputy Associate Attorney General of the United States and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Trent dives into the landmark settlement between Feds For Freedom (F4F) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), signed on August 7, 2025, following their challenge to the federal employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued on September 9, 2021. He recounts the lawsuit's timeline, from securing a pivotal January 2022 injunction that preserved over 400,000 federal jobs, to the recent agreement where the DOJ committed to actions like destroying certain vaccine status records (with opt-out options for those seeking discovery, such as employees facing ongoing retaliation, versus opt-in for those preferring a clean slate). Trent addresses whether this settlement implicitly acknowledges government overreach, contrasts negotiating with the Biden DOJ versus the incoming 2025 Trump DOJ, and speaks to critics who argue it falls short on accountability. He shares eye-opening discoveries from four years on the case, explains why his firm boldly took it on when others declined, and explores how this non-precedential win can still advance justice for others still seeking remediation. Feds For Freedom's Press Release: https://www.fedsforfreedom.org/settlement

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally asked federal judges to unseal the grand jury exhibits—not just the testimony transcripts—from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The request, filed on August 8, 2025, specifies that any released materials should redact victim identities and sensitive personal information, while notifying individuals named in exhibits not previously admitted during Maxwell's trial.   The DOJ has also requested that these materials remain sealed until after August 14 to allow time for notifications to relevant third parties.The move follows mounting pressure from the public, victims, and lawmakers for greater transparency in the Epstein‑Maxwell cases. Victims and their attorneys remain divided: some support unsealing for accountability, while others worry about their safety, privacy, and potential political motivations behind the DOJ's timing.   Maxwell's legal team strongly opposes the unsealing, arguing that, unlike Epstein (who is deceased), Maxwell is alive and actively litigating her case. They warn that unsealing grand jury materials could intrude on her due process rights and jeopardize her ongoing appeals and any future retrial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ seeks to unseal Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury records

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally asked federal judges to unseal the grand jury exhibits—not just the testimony transcripts—from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The request, filed on August 8, 2025, specifies that any released materials should redact victim identities and sensitive personal information, while notifying individuals named in exhibits not previously admitted during Maxwell's trial.   The DOJ has also requested that these materials remain sealed until after August 14 to allow time for notifications to relevant third parties.The move follows mounting pressure from the public, victims, and lawmakers for greater transparency in the Epstein‑Maxwell cases. Victims and their attorneys remain divided: some support unsealing for accountability, while others worry about their safety, privacy, and potential political motivations behind the DOJ's timing.   Maxwell's legal team strongly opposes the unsealing, arguing that, unlike Epstein (who is deceased), Maxwell is alive and actively litigating her case. They warn that unsealing grand jury materials could intrude on her due process rights and jeopardize her ongoing appeals and any future retrial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ seeks to unseal Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury recordsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally asked federal judges to unseal the grand jury exhibits—not just the testimony transcripts—from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The request, filed on August 8, 2025, specifies that any released materials should redact victim identities and sensitive personal information, while notifying individuals named in exhibits not previously admitted during Maxwell's trial.   The DOJ has also requested that these materials remain sealed until after August 14 to allow time for notifications to relevant third parties.The move follows mounting pressure from the public, victims, and lawmakers for greater transparency in the Epstein‑Maxwell cases. Victims and their attorneys remain divided: some support unsealing for accountability, while others worry about their safety, privacy, and potential political motivations behind the DOJ's timing.   Maxwell's legal team strongly opposes the unsealing, arguing that, unlike Epstein (who is deceased), Maxwell is alive and actively litigating her case. They warn that unsealing grand jury materials could intrude on her due process rights and jeopardize her ongoing appeals and any future retrial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ seeks to unseal Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury recordsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

President Donald Trump paid a rare visit to the Federal Reserve Thursday, as he ramps up pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates. While touring the central bank's headquarters, the two clashed publicly over a controversial renovation project expected to cost billions of dollars.House lawmakers on Thursday voted to subpoena the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Epstein-related files and to compel several high-profile figures—both Democrats and Republicans—to testify. This comes as the DOJ's deputy attorney general meets with Ghislaine Maxwell.Columbia University will pay more than $200 million to settle federal claims of discrimination against Jewish students and employees. The agreement follows months of controversy, protests, and suspended funding.

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published a report claiming that President Donald Trump signed a letter containing a lewd drawing and sexually suggestive text as part of a birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The Journal says it reviewed the contents of the previously unreported album and letters but has not released any of the documents. President Trump strongly denied writing the letter and, on Friday, filed a defamation lawsuit against The Journal and its owners. Separately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury testimony from Epstein's sex-trafficking prosecution as part of an effort to address ongoing public interest in the case. 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: What do you think about the alleged birthday note? 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.

​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

Darrell Castle continues his discussion of Jeffrey Epstein and the list of his customers which doesn't exist along with the subjects of his blackmail which as we know does not exist either. DOES THE EPSTEIN LIST REALLY MATTER Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. There are many things of vital importance today such as war in the Middle East and war in Ukraine but I have decided to continue my discussion of Jeffrey Epstein and the list of his customers which doesn't exist along with the subjects of his blackmail which as we all know does not exist either. Just to refresh your collective memories a little bit last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Jeffrey Epstein did not maintain a client list of prominent people who were being blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein acting as the agent for the Israeli Intelligence Service, Mossad. There are many reasons why the list is so important and why it threatens what's left of government credibility. First of all, it's extremely frightening to think that we have a government that is completely untrustworthy in all respects. I'm not talking about Democrats and Republicans I'm talking about the U.S. Government in general. Who would want to pay taxes voluntarily or serve in the military of a government like that. To further complicate things throughout history when people have lost faith in their government's credibility revolution has been the result. Two prominent examples would be the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian/Communist Revolution of 1917. In both cases the government which came forward to save the country from chaos and mass murder was far worse and killed far more people than its predecessor. Here in 2025 America, we have a government which came in with such promise for most of us and certainly for the President's followers who were known as MAGA. Together, America was going to be great again. MAGA had certain goals which carried the campaign to victory. There would be an end to illegal immigration and there would be deportation of illegal criminals. So far so good although Democrats in congress fight each and every deportation even when the one being deported is a known criminal. Now we hear rumors that Trump might be considering some form of amnesty but his base rebelled when that test rumor was circulated. The answer to the rebellion was simple. Amnesty was proposed piecemeal and in a disguised fashion. The folks in big agriculture, the restaurant business and chicken slaughterhouses need their cheap labor so maybe the President would consider an exemption for workers in those industries.  The heart of MAGA was of course the hope of peace. This president was going to bring peace and withdraw America from forever wars. Trump said in his campaign that he could end the war in Ukraine with a few phone calls but now six months after inauguration the war rages on and it has become his war. Just this week he decided to bully Vladimir Putin by giving him 50 days to comply with Trump's demands or he would “ruin Russia financially.” Zelensky said that it is too long and just wastes time and lives. I guess he just wants to get on with killing. He is shipping “billions of dollars” of new weapons to Ukraine including long range missiles designed to reach deep into Russia, but now he says they won't be used to hit Moscow. I hope that someone reminded the President that Russia has about 6000 nuclear warheads with systems to deliver them which cannot be defeated conventionally. He would also be wise to remember that Genghis Khan, Nepoleon Bonaparte, and Adolph Hitler were all unsuccessful in their efforts to intimidate and then conquer Russia. The point is that with a couple of notable exceptions the peace president is no more. The notable exceptions were Marco Rubio's successful negotiations to bring peace to the Pakistan-India War and a war in Africa which had been on again off again for decades.

​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.

Gail Slater is the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the Department of Justice (DOJ). She was nominated in December of last year and confirmed by the Senate in March on a bipartisan 78-19 vote. She inherited some major antitrust cases brought by prior administrations—including against Google, Apple, Visa, and LiveNation. And in her short time, she has launched probes, brought and settled cases, and offered the DoJ's opinion in private litigation. But beyond her role as a law enforcer, Slater is a manifestation of the realignment of not just politics generally, but antitrust policy specifically. Her first speech in her new role was titled “The Conservative Roots of America First Antitrust Enforcement.” And in recent interviews, she has shed light on how she sees her approach to antitrust contrasting with the laissez-faire approach of the Chicago school and the aggressive posture of her predecessors in the Biden Administration.When it comes to technology, Slater has taken a strong view that antitrust and US competitiveness are not at odds, but rather that antitrust makes the US more competitive vis-a-vis China. And just recently, she announced action the DoJ has taken at the intersection of antitrust and free speech, another key area of focus. Evan and Slater discuss what “America First Antitrust” means, how the approach is similar and different from her predecessor in the Biden Administration, and the relationship between antitrust and national security.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.