First, some of our own podcast news: starting next week you can both hear and see us on YouTube, as we will be doing video recording of our episodes. Or you can continue to just listen along with us on your daily routines.

Now for the real news. Recent moves by President Trump and his administration have been following a pattern: “If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.”

We begin by breaking down the flurry of news surrounding voting by mail, starting with Monday afternoon’s decision by the Supreme Court lifting one (of two) lower court stays of President Trump’s executive order seeking to thwart voting by mail. The Court decided that the case was not “ripe,” i.e. it was brought too early, for reasons we explain, and so it was not (at least yet) a decision on the merits of the executive order.

We discuss what the Trump order seeks to do, and where we think this is going from here (spoiler alert, back to the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits). I discuss a useful hypothetical in thinking about the validity of the order: what if a president were to ban the distribution of ballots by the federal post office to anyone who is viewed as a Democrat (or, imagine an order targeting Republicans)? Well, the Trump executive order can be viewed in this light as it is a proxy for the government to “have the Postal Service act in a way that has a clearly disproportionate impact on certain voters.” I flag language in the decision on Monday that portends this Supreme Court nevertheless approving of such a tactic.

Then, we turn to Trump’s renewed effort to restrict birthright citizenship —even after he lost on this issue in the Supreme Court a New York minute ago. A motion was filed this week by plaintiffs seeking to have the district court reject Trump’s new executive orders that attempt to limit such citizenship. We break down what Trump is specifically trying to restrict and why it should fail under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Plus, we analyze the Second and Ninth Circuit rulings disqualifying U.S. Attorneys that it found were improperly appointed by Trump — in fact no court of appeals has ruled in favor of the Trump regime on its stratagem to avoid congressional or judicial oversight.

We end with an important nod to Minnesota’s suing the governor of Texas for not extraditing an ICE agent — who is now in Texas — back to Minnesota. The ICE agent is charged criminally in Minnesota with shooting a man (Julia Sosa-Celis) in Minneapolis and lying in order to falsely charge Sosa-Celis with a crime. Texas Governor Abbott is protecting the agent from facing the charges— I kid you not.

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

We start by addressing Todd Blanche’s “Meet the Press” interview with Kristen Welker this past Sunday. In it, the newly appointed Attorney General proclaimed that “no attorney general should ever pledge” to act independently of the White House, despite decades of the post-Watergate norm that the DOJ is supposed to be independent of the White House’s weighing in on who to prosecute and who not to. We discuss the various ways in which Blanche dissembled (a polite word - I am less polite in the episode).

Keeping in the Blanche vicinity, we detail a new civil lawsuit filed by former Michigan AUSA Sunita Doddamani (who we interviewed on the podcast a little while ago - a link to that episode is HERE). In her new civil complaint, she alleges she was fired without cause simply for doing her job prosecuting FACE Act violations. I relate it to a remarkable piece in The Atlantic this week by former CIA briefer Julia Curlee (if you have not read it, do yourself a favor and do so; you will be angered, moved, and inspired. The article is “THE WRONG KIND OF AMERICAN: The Trump White House needed me—until the fact that I am trans became public.” A link is HERE).

Then we dive into revelations of undercover agents targeting Minnesota nonprofit organizations as part of an investigation that led to indictments of protestors that, in our view,  included “a whole lot of First Amendment protected activity.” We discuss how the government appears to be targeting groups based on a specious “6 degrees of Kevin Bacon” theory. A chart that graphically illustrates this phenomenon, which we discuss on the episode, is HERE.

Plus, we address the “pro criminal” import of Trump’s changes to the “beneficial ownership” law which now makes it harder to find fraud and corruption — and I reveal the “tell” as to how you know this is precisely the point of the Trump Administration’s action. That is, why it is clear to me that this new Trump policy gutting this bi-partisan law is intended to help criminals and hurt law enforcement.

We end on two legal cases. Trump is now before the Supreme Court asking it to let him keep building the East Wing ballroom — and making new and specious arguments. Last up, an unsatisfying stall tactic by the 5th Circuit appellate court dismissing — on procedural grounds — the heretofore successful challenges to the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Another jam-packed episode.

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Something special this week. As loyal listeners to Main Justice know, we rarely have guests on the show, but we do so when there is something unique that they have to offer you. This is one of those weeks.

Will Rosenzwieg was an Assistant US Attorney in Florida working on a significant Medicare fraud case when he was summarily fired by then AG Pam Bondi, citing Article Two of the constitution (i.e. general presidential power). The circumstances of his firing are truly outrageous and the story his new civil complaint tells, challenging his firing, is one of lawlessness, callousness, and complete disregard for the interests of the public.

His attorney, Margaret Donovan, joins this episode to share how a years-old blog Rosenzwieg had written criticizing Trump—before he was ever a federal employee—led to his dismissal, hours after it surfaced on social media via a right-wing influencer. And seemingly at the behest of the criminal defendants Will was prosecuting — and whose trial was days away at the time of his firing! “It's remarkable that the government wouldn't recognize what is so flagrantly a First Amendment violation,” Donovan says. In addition, DOJ ended up doing the bidding of a criminal defendant according to the allegations in the complaint and not that of the public they have an obligation to protect. By the way, you will learn that Margaret Donovan is an impressive person in her own right. Her story is one, if you are like me, that you may find truly inspirational. A copy of the new civil complaint is HERE.

After detailing this remarkable complaint, Mary and I move on to Todd Blanche’s confirmation and what to expect now (interesting factoid: Blanche was sworn in by his old comrade-in-arms, now-judge Emil Bove - so that should tell us not to expect some new-found moral compass). We examine a ruling by Alabama federal judge Emily Marks rejecting a motion to dismiss the case against the Southern Poverty Law Center on grounds of vindictive prosecution. Our assessment of that opinion is that, while it is not completely wrong, the decision misses the mark in key ways in our estimation. Her decision can be found HERE.

Next, we look at the latest in Trump’s White House ballroom case after an appeals court (2-1) upheld the block on its construction last Friday. That decision is well worth a read, and can be found HERE. Here is a tidbit of the soaring language from the majority:

The White House is the People’s House, and under the Constitution’s Property Clause, Congress exercises plenary control over the building and its surrounding land …. Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence….We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now.

Plus: we briefly flag Trump’s two new executive orders targeting birthright citizenship- again! More on that later!

Stay engaged!

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In this week’s Main Justice, Mary and I discuss three stark illustrations of Trump’s control over the Department of Justice: Todd Blanche’s confirmation process, James Comey’s new motions, and the collapse of the case against David Hearn (the Olympian wrongfully charged in the reflecting pool case). It is a testament to the White House’s effort to annihilate the rule of law in America.

We start with the latest on Todd Blanche’s confirmation. After the mildest of prodding from two Republican outgoing Senators, Blanche released a Sunday night written order rescinding the $1.776 “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to pacify their concerns. And by all measures, his paltry words were enough for the Senators. But in my estimation, Todd’s statement was “the world’s smallest fig leaf.” And Mary calls it “basically a press statement,” rather than a legal order. We explain the numerous ways that what Todd did is not remotely binding: he could pay convicted criminals taxpayer money with abandon (in fact DOJ has already done that using other funds). And he left in place the release of Trump (and family and companies) of prior tax liability.

Then, we turn to former FBI Director — and current criminal defendant — James Comey and his recent filing of multiple motions to dismiss and for other relief in his “seashell” indictment case. One is on the grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution, one on the charges not being a “true threat,” another challenging search warrants for lies and material omissions by the government, and another for discovery of what prosecutors said to the grand jury.

These new court filings reveal an array of legal issues with the Comey case, and also how much the legal rules and decency have been perverted by the Trump administration. For instance, Secret Service agents, instead of doing valuable work, used their time to surveil Comey and his wife even when they went to the grave site of their deceased son. The combination of alleged illegality, corruption of due process, and cruelty described in the new filings is mind-boggling.

Next, Mary and I detail why Jeanine Pirro’s “Reflecting Pool” case against Olympian David Hearn fell apart, after a disastrous rush to charge before obtaining the facts. Another perversion of the criminal justice system, by government actors in the White House, in the Department of the Interior, and in the Department of Justice.

And last up: Trump asks the Supreme Court to hear an appeal over E. Jean Caroll’s $83.3 million defamation verdict.

It is yet another week where the rule of law took a beating.

Stay engaged,

Andrew

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

This week (link below), Mary McCord and I begin our Main Justice podcast by addressing the Department of Justice’s dropping the grand jury subpoenas it had served on The New York Times journalists who reported on legitimate security concerns about President Trump’s new Qatari-government-gifted Air Force One jet. The subpoenas on the writers — as well as on two of their spouses and one of their mothers! — speaks to a failed effort of “chilling and intimidating” other reporters. We delineate the complete fiasco of the prosecutors making misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and error after error. Result: the Court chastising them and ordering the subpoenas to be quashed if they were not withdrawn. It’s quite a story. (It is the reason for the title of this week’s episode, the genesis of which is the old Ginsu knife commercial.)

But still, there were even more subpoenas: last week, the DOJ filed subpoenas for 14 major law firms as part of an ongoing lawsuit between the American Bar Association and the Executive Office of the President, which Mary and I believe is an effort by the government to try and get the law firms to pressure the ABA to drop this lawsuit.

We also touch on an update to journalist Katie Phang’s lawsuit against the federal government over Epstein files redactions and address the criminal referral of Jack Smith by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (and why the latter is devoid of any factual or legal support). Plus, two immigration-related cases: a judge’s decision to throw out a DOJ lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s immigration laws and an appeal court’s decision to reverse a lower court order releasing Pro-Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi.

It’s yet another jam-packed episode of Main Justice — thanks to the Trump Administration and its acolytes.

Stay engaged.

Andrew

PS: if you want to read a new review of my book, Liar’s Kingdom, How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America, you can find it HERE. (You can check out other recent reviews of my book Liar’s Kingdom, HERE and HERE .”) If you want to pick up a copy you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Last week, all eyes were on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing to lead the Justice Department. Mary and I begin with our takeaways: from Blanche’s “evasive, hyper-technical non-responses” to why his close relationship with Donald Trump led to a moment where Blanche referred to himself as currently “his lawyer” before quickly correcting himself to put it in the past tense — a Freudian slip if ever there was one.

We then turn to Trump’s Thursday night address, where he claimed that U.S. elections have been compromised for years. Separating fact from fiction, we look at what Trump’s undermining of public confidence could well portend for the upcoming midterms. His speech in our estimation is not just about his being able to say the midterms were rigged; it could be much more insidious.

Mary and I then highlight reporting from The New York Times indicating a slew of cases brought by ICE against protesters and immigrants are falling apart in court and even before. (A link to that NYT reporting is HERE.) We discuss how we see this phenomenon, and relate it to two updates: (1) a new civil lawsuit by former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who is alleging the government and private parties are conspiring to suppress criticism of Israel from pro-Palestinian demonstrators and (2) a speech by Secretary of State Rubio vilifying so-called leftwing advocates with truly dangerous implications for the First Amendment rights of us all.

Finally, to see the collapse in court of many of the administration’s efforts, a new report from Just Security, appropriately entitled “Zero Evidence,” is well worth a read. It can be found HERE.

Thanks for listening and thank you for supporting my new book, Liar’s Kingdom, which I was so reminded of when listening to Blanche and Trump this week. The book addresses how we can regulate false speech by candidates and politicians, as other countries do, so we don’t have to put up with what we are experiencing daily here in the United States. If you want to pick up a copy you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing is set to begin today, Wednesday, so we use this episode to look at the totality of his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department, detailing example after example of how — despite his role as a chief lawyer for the United States — he is still functioning as the de facto personal lawyer for the president. Here is a man who has been repeatedly found by federal judges to have engaged in improper— indeed, illegal — conduct. Yet, here he is being put up to be the head of the Justice Department.

We start things off by dissecting a deeply consequential and searing opinion this week from District Judge Kathleen Williams over Trump’s “sham” IRS lawsuit. The quote in the subtitle above, is from the court’s decision, in reference to her assessment of Blanche’s congressional testimony. The court effectively finds, in Mary’s telling, that the court case “was collusion. It was the president being on both sides of that case, and it's no adversity between the parties.” We discuss the court’s reasoning and the sanctions imposed against the lawyers involved —included Blanche.

You can read the court decision HERE. And my short MS NOW Instagram post about this scathing decision is HERE.

Then, we take a broader gaze into what Blanche has done in leading DOJ: his handling of the Epstein files and Ghislane Maxwell, the ongoing investigations and prosecutions of Trump’s political enemies, and how he has used the DOJ as the president’s personal law firm - without recusing himself as he should have.

We discuss the Justice Department’s recent actions with Blanche at the helm, including an example from the past week of the ongoing “assault on journalists”: subpoenaing New York Times journalists who wrote about the jet gifted to the US by the Qatari government.

Finally, we end by posing the one question we each would ask Blanche at his hearing. My MS NOW Instagram post on another question I would ask is HERE. (If you like my Instagram posts, please follow me there— a link to do so is HERE.)

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Mary and I start with a dive into the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the removal of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations from over 330,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria — a consequential ruling that affects TPS holders well beyond those who brought the case, leaving over a million people vulnerable to removal. As we note, this case was based on two claims: one being a statutory challenge that DHS didn’t follow the procedures set out by Congress, and the other a constitutional equal protection claim that this TPS status removal was “motivated in part by race” — both of which were struck down 6-3.

We discuss the particularly egregious “white-washing” of Trump’s racist language about Haitian (and other) immigrants - and how that is called out directly and forcefully in an unflinching dissent by Justice Kagan, which we read in relevant part.

We then call out a fascinating part of Justice’s Gorsuch’s opinion in another Supreme Court decision last week —the transgender decision — that seemingly is in significant tension with the Court’s Slaughter case (giving the President a new power to remove at will certain agency heads). His opinion suggests (in ways he may not have intended) a way for Congress to (finally) assert itself more through its power of the purse! We have not seen any discussion of this elsewhere and wanted to flag this for you. We also discuss the oddity of the Justice Kavanaugh majority opinion - and how it reveals a naivety and shallowness in its wrestling with the transgender discrimination claim.

Then, we look at Trump’s latest retribution efforts and overreaction by some, including the heavy sentences doled out over a protest that ended in a shooting outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center in Texas one year ago. We address the felony indictment of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly tearing part of the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; former CIA Director John Brennan’s going on offense to seek records to challenge the DOJ’s investigation into him, and we conclude by analyzing the DOJ’s response to an order regarding the disclosure of more Epstein files in a lawsuit filed by journalist, and our former colleague, Katie Phang.

Stay engaged, now more than ever. Thanks for listening.

Andrew

PS: Trump said this the other day about the US vs Belgium soccer game — making it plain he knows his election fraud claim is a big lie- just what you claim when you lose: “The game tonight’s going to be amazing,” Trump said today about tonight’s match. “We’re going to have a full team and Belgium is going to have a full team. And you know what? If they beat us, then they can be really proud. The other way, if they beat us, we’ll say it was— I say it was rigged just like the election was rigged in 2020.” The video of Trump saying this is truly remarkable, and can be seen HERE (at 30 second in).

PPS: PS: You can check out two new reviews of my book Liar’s Kingdom, by Peter Coyote and Jerry Goldfeder, HERE and HERE (thank you to both Peter and Jerry, who calls the book a “must read.”) If you want to pick up a copy you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

As I put it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” I give my first takes on several of the Supreme Court’s most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with a quick accounting of the decision not to hear the Trump appeal of the first of the E. Jean Carroll cases and the Court’s decision to uphold a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots that are sent by election day to be counted.

But I save my longer analysis for two similar cases with opposing results: the Trump administration’s firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have “cause” to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission for no reason at all. I explain three reasons why I believe the latter decision is deeply flawed, and exemplifies the dangerous trajectory of the conservative majority’s support for a “unitary executive.”

And finally, I break down the Court’s skin-of-its-teeth decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split on the constitutional issue is the story.

Thanks for taking a listen (as you will hear, I am flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode).

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

PS: Later today July 1, at 5 pm Pacific (8 pm Eastern), I am speaking at America at a Crossroads, for which you can register to attend remotely, below.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Most important, Mary and I are joined by Tess Bridgeman to pull apart the Iran “deal.” Tess is an international law expert who served as a senior legal advisor in the Obama administration. She has intimate knowledge about Iran and the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran — that’s the one Trump ripped up and denigrated. Tess lays out how President Trump’s new “memorandum of understanding” differs from the deals that were brokered in 2015, and what to watch for as critical negotiations continue. This is an indispensable, and highly informative discussion for all those trying to understand what deal we had in 2015, what interim deal we have now, and what comes next. I am sure you will be, like I am, in awe of Tess’s extraordinary ability to break this all down, so clearly and cogently.

But before Tess joined us, Mary and I analyze several examples of the Trump Justice Department’s consistent effort to avoid judicial review. For instance, it has refused to put into a sworn declaration that it won’t move forward with the “Anti-Weaponization” slush fund. And, separately, we address its outlandish argument seeking to dismiss a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit against Elon Musk’s xAI data center in Mississippi. Both reflect the Trump administration’s position that the courts have to defer to the wishes of the executive branch to dismiss private civil suits, with no discretion to refuse its demands.

We also tackle instances where, contrastingly, the government has positioned itself “on the offense” this week, including an indictment of 15 protesters on a conspiracy charge against ICE— and why the new ICE indictment is problematic, but not in our view for the reasons that many have claimed.

It’s a jam-packed episode. Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

PS: You can check out two new reviews of my book Liar’s Kingdom, by Peter Coyote and Jerry Goldfeder, HERE and HERE (thank you to both Peter and Jerry, who calls the book a “must read.”) If you want to pick up a copy you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Don’t worry, we are not playing “blue:” the title is a direct quote from a grand juror reacting to a prosecutor’s proposed indictment of protestors in the Broadview 6 case. That is the subject of the third segment of our Main Justice episode (link below).

This week, after a week of decisions coming in from all corners, Mary and I begin with a court order to remove Donald Trump’s name off the Kennedy Center memorial after a failed, last-minute attempt to stop it. We discuss that, leaving aside the legal issues, the Trump effort to put his name on the Kennedy memorial and his reaction to the ruling by hiding the taking down of his name (hiding it behind a tarp), tells you so much about him, his psyche, and his fixation on public perception and the illusion of success and power.

Mary refers to this court case as “good news in the fight against revisionist history,” which we relate it to a preliminary injunction issued to prevent the Trump administration’s changes to the National Parks. The Trump executive order, which has now been enjoined by a federal judge, called for whitewashing monuments, parks and memorials to rewrite and censor American history and science. What did Trump want to do: eradicate references to slavery, Jim Crow laws, women’s suffrage, the country’s history with indigenous peoples, and on and on. That has been blocked by a federal judge, saying it is seeking to whitewash our country’s history.

Then, onto a federal judge in Virginia who temporarily blocked the $1.776 billion slush fund and insisted on receiving a clear sworn, written statement from the administration that the fund is dead, given the mixed messaging from the administration about whether it would be set up.

Plus a decision by Judge Mehta in DC to overturn the Department of Energy’s cancellation of $82.1 Million in clean energy grants to grantees in “Blue” states across the country. Yes, you read that right: the administration has been cancelling grants to companies because they were in blue, and not red, states. The court restored these grants. And note this case made clear the the head of the Department of Energy was less than candid when he publicly said there was no validity at all to the lawsuit, only to have the administration’s lawyers having to concede that is precisely what happened. (I note this is precisely why I wrote my book Liar’s Kingdom, about how to stop political lies.)

Mary and I also touch on a Massachusetts District Court decision blocking Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue, finding it was illegal retaliation for protected First Amendment activity and was done to thwart the candidacy of James Talarico, his Democratic political opponent in Texas.

And last up, we summarize and discuss the eyebrow-raising grand jury transcripts of the “Broadview Six” case out of Chicago, so you don’t have to. It is well worth a listen to what the prosecution did to try three times to indict ICE protestors. It is shocking behavior, and we explain why.

Thanks for listening. Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

PS: thank you all for your support of my book Liar’s Kingdom, addressing the lack of candor raised by the type of actions evidenced in the above Trump administration actions and proposing solutions. If you are interested in purchasing it, you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

These are questions I am confident he will be prepped to answer at “murder boards” in advance of his hearing, but it’s hard for me to see any good responses (particularly since Blanche has already given palpably strained answers to some of these).

1. DOJ has not turned over all the Epstein files. You have claimed DOJ has only withheld documents that are duplicative, unrelated, or privileged. Leave aside that the law does not permit withholding of documents on any of these grounds: does Donald Trump’s name appear on any of the withheld documents, yes or no? Will you commit to turning those over now?

2. You met with Ghislaine Maxwell and asked her questions for hours. But among many questions you did not ask her, you did not ask about a key exchange with Jeffrey Epstein where they discuss Trump and why he is the “dog that has not barked.” You said you did not do so because you did not have those documents at the time. Did you go back and ask her about it after you had them, yes or no? Why did DOJ not have that text exchange and what other gaps in the investigation are there?

   Subscribe now

   Share

   Leave a comment

Read more

First, Mary McCord and I focus in the latest Main Justice episode on the latest news: Todd Blanche’s nomination to be Attorney General, a Supreme Court ruling on Alabama “redistricting” (with national implications), a terrific new immigration decision, and more (a link to the episode is below).

And watch a new series of posts I am doing with MS NOW, which you can watch on Instagram. It focuses on Todd Blanche and his track record. The latest IG post is HERE (on reports of DOJ’s dismantling the election command center which heretofore combatted election fraud). I ask the question: why would you do that if you are claiming to be fighting against election fraud? An earlier IG post is HERE (on Pam Bondi’s congressional testimony on Epstein, which breaks down why DOJ (and Blanche) are in violation of the Epstein Transparency Act law). The post already has over a million views - so thank you!

Finally, Gavin Newsom just posted, HERE, about his signing into law in CA a bill that he says criminalizes lying about elections with the goal of interfering with its counting ballots. Wow - that is precisely what I write about in my new book Liar’s Kingdom - which explores what we can do to stop election lies- and looks at various models other countries have used to hold politicians who lie to account. It’s great to see states taking action.

If you want to buy my book, you can do so HERE. Thank you to everyone who has made the book a #1 bestseller on the NYT list, Amazon list, and Publisher’s Weekly list. I am so very grateful.

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We weigh in on the Trump administration’s push for a $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off supposed victims of lawfare, its own pattern of politically motivated prosecutions, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s central role in both.

Listen to our conversation on Apple Podcasts: HERE.

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Mary McCord and I begin this week’s episode of Main Justice (link below to the episode) with the latest fallout from his planned $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as a result of a spurious “settlement” of a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. That is now under judicial review by a Florida federal judge, after a large group of former judges filed a motion arguing that the lawsuit that prompted the creation of the fund was “itself a fraud on the court.”

This led to the news this week, first reported by Axios, that the Trump administration would abandon the fund altogether. Todd Blanche then confirmed in his testimony before Congress that the DOJ would not go forward with the fund. But don’t be fooled: this does not end the Florida federal judge’s order demanding answers to her substantial questions about fraud on the court. Nor does it mean the DOJ is going to retract the broad civil release it (ie Todd Blanche) gave Trump, his family, and his companies. Nor does it mean that the DOJ will discontinue to give money to people who are criminals, i.e. not victims at all.

Mary and I then tie all this into another instance in which the administration is losing in the courts, with D.C. federal judge Mehta’s decision refusing to dismiss the indictment of Oath Keepers’ leader Stewart Rhodes, among others. Their sentences had been commuted by Trump (meaning the criminal convictions stand, but the sentences were terminated, ie they are let out of jail).

Now, DOJ seeks to dismiss the cases altogether, even though they have all been tried and convicted. Judge Mehta wants answers about why it is seeking to do so and why he should go along with the eradication of their criminal cases — exactly the same type of pushback that the Florida judge is demanding in the slush fund case.

We then move to a ruling by another federal judge ordering the removal of Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center memorial facade, a rejection of Trump’s attempt to reshape and rename the renowned center in his own image. We discuss the legal basis for the decision, and some of the outlandish arguments by the Trump administration to justify renaming the memorial for the slain former president. And we read from a moving passage from a President Kennedy speech about the role of the arts in society — well worth listening to in these times.

We conclude with an update on the criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, noting the acting Attorney General’s flip-flop on the facts that undermines the theory of the criminal case. I share some insight into how to solve for this type of retributive indictment, as I wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed which offers a path to stop such prosecutions altogether. A link to the piece is HERE.

If you are interested in some recent appearances about my new book, Liar’s Kingdom, they are HERE (a Politics and Prose talk with Carol Leonnig) and HERE (Commonwealth Club). If you would like to buy a copy of Liar’s Kingdom, you can do so HERE. Thank you all again for making the book #1 on the NYT, Publisher’s Weekly, and Amazon charts!

Stay engaged, now more than ever.

Andrew

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment