Best Podcast Episodes About Department of Justice
Everything podcasters are saying about Department of Justice — curated from top podcasts
Updated: Apr 02, 2026 – 46 episodes
Listen to the Playlist
Ridealong has curated the best and most interesting podcasts and clips about Department of Justice.
Top Podcast Clips About Department of Justice
“… defense table with him in his case in New York and obviously working in the government. So, Kelly, take us inside some of your conversations at the Justice Department. What was the reaction? Was it surprise or was this anticipated to some extent? I think it's both. I mean, there is a sense of she could not have been more loyal, more present, more there. She rode in the car with him yesterday to the Supreme Court. She is. I spent a lot of time at the White House because the attorney general is at the White House. And so closeness there, I think from in the building today, very quiet, very quiet. So …”
“… where the law is or what the power of an attorney general actually is. and whomever takes over that position. Lee Zeldin is an attorney, but has never been a prosecutor. Obviously, Todd Blanche, the president knows very well, having sat at the defense table with him in his case in New York and obviously working in the government. So, Kelly, take us inside some of your conversations at the Justice Department. What was the reaction? Was it surprise or was this anticipated to some extent? I think it's both. I mean, there is a sense of she could not have been more loyal, more present, more there. She rode in the car with him yesterday to the Supreme Court. She is. I spent a lot of time at the White House because the attorney general is at the White House. And so closeness there, I think from in the building today, very quiet, very quiet. So there is not a hubbub of activity in response to this. Also, you know, with an acting coming in who is already a part of the Department of Justice, the transition is likely to be smooth. She talked today in her post about taking a month of transition, if it will even take that long. They've worked closely together.”
View more
Ridealong summary
Pam Bondi's dismissal is tied to controversies like the Epstein files and pressure from Trump to target political rivals, reflecting deeper issues within the administration.
Pam Bondi's dismissal reflects President Trump's growing frustration with her handling of high-profile cases and his impatience with the Justice Department's progress.
Pam Bondi's departure from the Trump administration is seen as a predictable move within the dynamics of 'Trump world,' with her future in the private sector still aligned with supporting the president.
“… States, I think we tend to obscure one of the most damaging aspects of Trump's presidency. And it's exactly what Pam Bondi has been doing at the Justice Department, which is eliminating the idea, the very concept that there is such a thing as independent, impartial justice in this country.”
“… John Mitchell on that list who actually went to jail for his role in the Watergate cover up. Because we're so understandably distracted by things like war in the Middle East and the immigration crackdown that has wreaked havoc around the United States, I think we tend to obscure one of the most damaging aspects of Trump's presidency. And it's exactly what Pam Bondi has been doing at the Justice Department, which is eliminating the idea, the very concept that there is such a thing as independent, impartial justice in this country.”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Trump administration's potential replacement of Pam Bondi with Lee Zeldin is driven by a desire for a more lawless DOJ that aggressively targets political opponents.
“… What do you predict, Mike Davis? I think that Dave may be right on that. I think that the Supreme Court, the Trump appointed Supreme Court justices may very much disappoint on this one. I think they're going to follow the politics instead of the law. Why are the Trump appointed justices so much wobblier than Alito and Thomas? Can I answer that? Truly, why? They were raised in a different generation. The law schools got a lot more Marxist when they went to law school than when Justice Alito and Justice Thomas went to law school And so when you trying to be accepted in these elite Marxist …”
“… a really nice guy. So, you know, you should have him on the show sometime. But he should we should have Shan Wu and John Yoo and then we could have quite a debate about all aspects of this tough, tough case. Well, you predict seven to possibly Dave Ehrenberg. What do you predict, Mike Davis? I think that Dave may be right on that. I think that the Supreme Court, the Trump appointed Supreme Court justices may very much disappoint on this one. I think they're going to follow the politics instead of the law. Why are the Trump appointed justices so much wobblier than Alito and Thomas? Can I answer that? Truly, why? They were raised in a different generation. The law schools got a lot more Marxist when they went to law school than when Justice Alito and Justice Thomas went to law school And so when you trying to be accepted in these elite Marxist law schools like Harvard you have to be the acceptable conservative. And I think that's the problem with the Trump justices. They care too much about being the acceptable conservative. Megan? I have another follow-up for you. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to my 30th Harvard Law School reunion next week. And yes, and I'll bet you that none of the alums …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices may disappoint on critical cases due to their desire to fit into elite circles, according to legal experts. This raises concerns about their reliability compared to justices like Alito and Thomas, who are seen as steadfast constitutionalists. The discussion hints at potential retirements that could reshape the court's future and its handling of significant legal issues.
“… has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is, and as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils, and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation, I think the same …”
“… says, we're in a new world. There's 8 billion people who could come over here at any moment with one plane ride. And John Roberts says, it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. A really beautiful moment. Take a listen. Mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is, and as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils, and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation, I think the same principle applies here. There was an audible pause, an audible pause when Justice John Roberts hit him with that constitution line, an audible pause. Listen, plain right away from having a child is a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.”
View more
Ridealong summary
In a dramatic Supreme Court moment, Trump's birthright citizenship argument faced fierce skepticism, even from justices he appointed. John Roberts emphasized that while the world has changed, the Constitution remains the same, leaving Trump's legal team scrambling. This tension highlights the ongoing constitutional debate around citizenship in America.
“… part of that is, of course, also that I'm short. Okay, well, getting into the arguments, Carrie, I want to go back to what we heard from the chief justice, this moment where he says it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. That was a moment where I found myself, my eyebrows raised when I heard it. What was your reaction to that? Yeah, a number of the justices at the center of the court, from the Chief Justice John Roberts to Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, to Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, raised some questions about the Trump administration's case. Roberts said their arguments …”
“… is to look and see what's going on in this courtroom, at least before the proceedings begin. And they said, well, I'm sorry, this isn't our decision. This is a new rule that the White House imposed on us. So I didn't see anything of the president. But part of that is, of course, also that I'm short. Okay, well, getting into the arguments, Carrie, I want to go back to what we heard from the chief justice, this moment where he says it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. That was a moment where I found myself, my eyebrows raised when I heard it. What was your reaction to that? Yeah, a number of the justices at the center of the court, from the Chief Justice John Roberts to Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, to Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, raised some questions about the Trump administration's case. Roberts said their arguments in some ways were quirky and idiosyncratic. Kagan called them esoteric. Gorsuch talked about how the Solicitor General John Sauer was reaching to sources in Roman law to make his argument that the 14th Amendment didn't mean what it says. And I think all of those things were significant. Also, you know, the Trump administration has been advancing …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism towards the Trump administration's arguments against birthright citizenship during recent hearings. Chief Justice Roberts highlighted the quirky nature of the examples used to support the administration's case, while Justice Kagan emphasized the need for substantial evidence to overturn a principle upheld for over 160 years. This illustrates a critical moment in the ongoing debate over the 14th Amendment and its implications for citizenship.
“… we know where Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to vote. We got all that. I'll play you some of her in a moment. But we need people like the Chief Justice John Roberts. We need him to vote with us. Here's how that went today. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500. This is not John Roberts. This is the guy arguing for our side. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis …”
“… today. But a thousand battles will be fought to save the United States of America or lose it. And some battles are more important than others, as I said. Taking away birthright citizenship is really, really, really important. Now to do that, look, we know where Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to vote. We got all that. I'll play you some of her in a moment. But we need people like the Chief Justice John Roberts. We need him to vote with us. Here's how that went today. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500. This is not John Roberts. This is the guy arguing for our side. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us? I think it's, I'd quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan dissent, where their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they've made a mess, their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court's stance on birthright citizenship could change America forever. With over 500 birth tourism companies operating out of China, the legal implications of citizenship are under intense scrutiny. As justices debate, the stakes couldn't be higher for the future of American citizenship laws.
“… he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act, Justice Alito. And that's clear from Wong Kim Ark, and it's clear from the debates. What the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically not a subject of any foreign power, that another country considers you a sanguinous citizen, then lawful permanent residents, all foreign nationalists. Well, ordinary public meaning of that would certainly …”
“So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act, Justice Alito. And that's clear from Wong Kim Ark, and it's clear from the debates. What the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically not a subject of any foreign power, that another country considers you a sanguinous citizen, then lawful permanent residents, all foreign nationalists. Well, ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not? Justice Lito, if you think that the language of the 1866 Act was ambiguous, as Wong Kim Mark says, the shift to the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity. What I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who are …”
View more
Ridealong summary
A child born in the U.S. to foreign parents could automatically be considered a citizen, but what does that mean for their ties to their parent's home country? This debate hinges on the interpretation of the 1866 Act and the 14th Amendment, questioning if being a national of another country makes them subject to foreign power. The implications are vast, affecting how we view citizenship and national duties today.
“… on the court You got to get five of them I have a hard time seeing any of the liberals going with this And as we seen occasionally everyone from Justice Gorsuch to Justice Kavanaugh to Justice Coney Barrett have shown some and just and pardon me Chief Justice Roberts of course have shown some willingness to sort of avoid conflict for lack of a better term in construing sort of bucking conservative orthodoxy here But this is one that's just such a head scratcher, Sarah, because of how clear the language of the Constitution is and how consistent so many of the interpretations are of it going back …”
“… and interpreting them in that way flies in the face of that interpretation. So they would really have to strain and squint, I think, to come up with a coherent way of saying that, but also to win over five of even the I guess the six conservatives on the court You got to get five of them I have a hard time seeing any of the liberals going with this And as we seen occasionally everyone from Justice Gorsuch to Justice Kavanaugh to Justice Coney Barrett have shown some and just and pardon me Chief Justice Roberts of course have shown some willingness to sort of avoid conflict for lack of a better term in construing sort of bucking conservative orthodoxy here But this is one that's just such a head scratcher, Sarah, because of how clear the language of the Constitution is and how consistent so many of the interpretations are of it going back at this point more than a century. You know, just I'm going to I'm going to call my shot on this.”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court faces a critical test: can it redefine birthright citizenship despite clear constitutional language? As discussions heat up, the court's conservative justices grapple with the implications of interpreting the Constitution in today's context. This ongoing debate could shape the future of immigration law in America.
“Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is an idiot, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who literally, when she was going through her Supreme Court nomination hearing, said she didn't know, couldn't tell you what a woman is. Stop everything and just think about that for a second. We descended into insanity so far that we, not we, but society in general, the Democrat Party, decided there were more than one gender, and they couldn't tell you that a woman is an adult …”
“Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is an idiot, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who literally, when she was going through her Supreme Court nomination hearing, said she didn't know, couldn't tell you what a woman is. Stop everything and just think about that for a second. We descended into insanity so far that we, not we, but society in general, the Democrat Party, decided there were more than one gender, and they couldn't tell you that a woman is an adult female. male there is still no excuse for that there's still no defending that but kataji brown jackson is so bloody stupid she doesn't know it here is a little montage of her first year as a supreme court justice with her signature phrase i don't understand can i just understand and i don't understand and so what i don't understand um i don't …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, igniting fierce debate over free speech and parental rights. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent raised eyebrows as she seemed to dismiss the significance of free speech in medical contexts. This ruling has potential national implications, challenging similar laws in over 20 states.
“… of America. they launched the FBI like a missile against January Sixers bringing over a thousand arrests of over a thousand of them they sent the Justice Department Rovers' Way got overturned and they dug up some old obscure law the FACE Act and went after pro-life pastors sending the FBI to their door throwing pro-lifers in prison as fast as they possibly could just in a hissy fit over Roe versus Wade. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, the soon-to-be Republican nominee, the White House coordinated, we know this now too, by the way, not a mystery, coordinated with the Fulton County DA in …”
“… they stole an election. We can argue about that. I believe it. But whatever. They got into power in 2020. Right? They got into power in 2020. And they did something with that power that had never been done before in the history of the United States of America. they launched the FBI like a missile against January Sixers bringing over a thousand arrests of over a thousand of them they sent the Justice Department Rovers' Way got overturned and they dug up some old obscure law the FACE Act and went after pro-life pastors sending the FBI to their door throwing pro-lifers in prison as fast as they possibly could just in a hissy fit over Roe versus Wade. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, the soon-to-be Republican nominee, the White House coordinated, we know this now too, by the way, not a mystery, coordinated with the Fulton County DA in Atlanta to try to throw Donald Trump in prison before he could be the nominee. They also went after Donald Trump in other jurisdictions, of course, Florida, New York, Donald Trump was actually convicted. Donald Trump was a convicted felon because Democrats in whatever jurisdiction they held power tried to throw the Republican nominee in prison before …”
View more
Ridealong summary
In a dramatic move, Democrats have weaponized the FBI against Trump supporters, leading to over a thousand arrests linked to the January 6th events. This unprecedented action, alongside attempts to imprison Trump before the election, raises serious questions about political accountability and the use of power in America. The implications of these actions could reshape the political landscape for years to come.
“… And I would say that it's hard to imagine for anybody who truly believed that sort of analysis. So I put that part of analysis as another way from Justice Ho trying to audition for the Supreme Court. Like, hey, you think you found a conservative judge somewhere in D.C.? Look at me. I'm even more. And that's what it is.”
“… having the standing to challenge abortion pills. They wouldn't be able to see those cute little ultrasounds anymore. And it just that part of rationale is quite just insane. I think that part, I don't know if that is something that he truly believed. And I would say that it's hard to imagine for anybody who truly believed that sort of analysis. So I put that part of analysis as another way from Justice Ho trying to audition for the Supreme Court. Like, hey, you think you found a conservative judge somewhere in D.C.? Look at me. I'm even more. And that's what it is.”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Fifth Circuit Court's recent ruling imposed significant restrictions on the abortion pill Mifepristone, potentially limiting access for women. Judge Ho's concurrence raised eyebrows with its unusual arguments, suggesting that doctors experience 'aesthetic injury' from abortions, which some view as an extreme audition for the Supreme Court. This legal turmoil reflects the ongoing battle over reproductive rights in the U.S.
“… that's leading to whites being in the minority in this country. Carrie, so we know what the president has said about this, but I do wonder what the Justice Department's arguments will be. A senior Justice Department official this week basically said that the 14th Amendment was designed in the era after the Civil War. And very clearly, the intent of that amendment was to ensure that the children of newly freed slaves were citizens of the U.S. But DOJ also argues that there's this concept of allegiance, that people are here only temporarily, people who are here on work visas or student visas or …”
“… population and be able to have more strength politically in those countries. So it's sort of ironic now that what's taking place in this country for why it's intended to be changed is mostly being pushed in part because of the demographic change that's leading to whites being in the minority in this country. Carrie, so we know what the president has said about this, but I do wonder what the Justice Department's arguments will be. A senior Justice Department official this week basically said that the 14th Amendment was designed in the era after the Civil War. And very clearly, the intent of that amendment was to ensure that the children of newly freed slaves were citizens of the U.S. But DOJ also argues that there's this concept of allegiance, that people are here only temporarily, people who are here on work visas or student visas or people who come here as tourists and maybe overstay and have children, that they don't have the same kind of allegiance to the U.S. that's needed to become a citizen. And so I expected the Solicitor General John Sauer to raise that point of loyalty or allegiance in arguments tomorrow when he has his crack at it. And they talk about birth tourism. And …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The push to change birthright citizenship is driven by demographic shifts and political motivations rather than constitutional principles.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is a shortcut around constitutional amendment processes, reflecting demographic shifts and historical colonial strategies.
The push to change birthright citizenship is driven by demographic shifts and political motivations rather than legal necessity.
“… was a towering figure. He had been a prosecutor for many years in U.S. attorney's offices around the country. He ran the criminal division at the Justice Department. And then he was sworn in to lead the FBI just a week before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. And that really required him to turn the FBI into something of an intelligence gathering agency. His mandate from President George W. Bush was to make sure nothing like that ever happened again and to try to get the FBI to gather intelligence, connect the dots to prevent those kinds of terror plots from taking hold in the U.S. …”
“… Mueller. He died at the age of 81. And Kerry, I think it's easy to focus just on Mueller's time as special counsel. We'll get to that in just a bit. But I want to start with his much longer career in law enforcement. Tell us about that. Yeah, he really was a towering figure. He had been a prosecutor for many years in U.S. attorney's offices around the country. He ran the criminal division at the Justice Department. And then he was sworn in to lead the FBI just a week before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. And that really required him to turn the FBI into something of an intelligence gathering agency. His mandate from President George W. Bush was to make sure nothing like that ever happened again and to try to get the FBI to gather intelligence, connect the dots to prevent those kinds of terror plots from taking hold in the U.S. And he actually was the longest serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover. He stayed through the rest of the W. Bush term. And then when President Obama arrived, he asked Mueller to stay on another two years. That required Congress to act. The Senate unanimously confirmed him 100 to nothing for two more years in that job. And then he thought he …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Robert Mueller's legacy extends beyond the Russia investigation, highlighting his transformative role in reshaping the FBI post-9/11.
“… The rapid sequence of events on Monday in the courtroom of Judge Saeed Qawrashi. This was the latest indication of growing tensions between the Justice Department and the federal judiciary in New Jersey specifically, but also on the whole. It came during the scheduled sentencing of a man who last year agreed to plead guilty to possession of child pornography. So this is a sentencing hearing on a guilty plea. That's right. That's right. And the hearing did not go as prosecutors had planned. Judge Qureshi grew frustrated with the office's head of appeals, a gentleman named Mark Coyne, who had …”
“… judge threw a top prosecutor from the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office out of his courtroom during a sentencing hearing this week and demanded that the office's leadership testify about who had authority over their actions, according to court documents. The rapid sequence of events on Monday in the courtroom of Judge Saeed Qawrashi. This was the latest indication of growing tensions between the Justice Department and the federal judiciary in New Jersey specifically, but also on the whole. It came during the scheduled sentencing of a man who last year agreed to plead guilty to possession of child pornography. So this is a sentencing hearing on a guilty plea. That's right. That's right. And the hearing did not go as prosecutors had planned. Judge Qureshi grew frustrated with the office's head of appeals, a gentleman named Mark Coyne, who had not formally disclosed that he would appear. And the judge fiercely interrogated a more junior prosecutor about whether the former interim U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, still had some role in operating the office. And Judge Qureshi then eventually threw Mr. Coyne out of the courtroom. The judge then ordered the three leaders of the New Jersey office, …”
View more
Ridealong summary
In a dramatic courtroom showdown, Judge Saeed Qureshi expelled a top prosecutor from the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office during a sentencing hearing. This incident highlights escalating tensions between the Justice Department and federal judges, raising concerns about the legality of the office's leadership and the integrity of ongoing criminal cases.
“… has asked the USAID to open an investigation, to see if this grant actually occurred, and then if it did, to make a referral to the FBI and the Justice Department. This is real-time information recorded, names, details, name of grant. They've got everything in the classified setting. I got a declassified version of the intercept, but this is a big deal. Keep an eye on Tulsi Gabbard's social media. I think she's going to make a statement today or tomorrow, but this is going to start rumbling down the hill. This is, have we ever gotten an audit on the Ukraine funding? I mean, didn't we ask for …”
“… his own mental facilities in the open border are dragging him down. He's having a hard time raising money, even though he's the incumbent president. And this plot is intercepted by the NSA. The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has asked the USAID to open an investigation, to see if this grant actually occurred, and then if it did, to make a referral to the FBI and the Justice Department. This is real-time information recorded, names, details, name of grant. They've got everything in the classified setting. I got a declassified version of the intercept, but this is a big deal. Keep an eye on Tulsi Gabbard's social media. I think she's going to make a statement today or tomorrow, but this is going to start rumbling down the hill. This is, have we ever gotten an audit on the Ukraine funding? I mean, didn't we ask for this forever? And this is one of the reasons. So for this audience, the hardcore of the hardcore, both on taking down the deep state and the weaponization of the government against MAGA, against President Trump, against Republicans and conservatives, are we now, because everybody's sitting there going, you know, what is happening? I can tell you in …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Evidence suggests the Democratic Party may have collaborated with foreign entities to influence U.S. elections. Recent revelations point to China providing access to voter databases and USAID potentially laundering taxpayer money into Biden's campaign. These developments raise serious questions about election integrity and government accountability.
“… the Midas Touch and legal AF channels. I don't know if that's true or not, but you all who also doesn't know if that's true or not? The FBI, the Department of Justice, because they refuse to conduct any investigations. How is it there are 1,200 victims, including one of my clients, Lisa Phillips? How is there 1,200 victims, acknowledged victims, of a child sex trafficking crime ring that has brought down 40 to 50 people worldwide, including a member of the royal family? And there's not one known investigation or prosecution of anybody in the United States by the Department of Justice. Not one. What does that …”
“… think that ties back to somebody who's at the time 13 years old that claimed that Donald Trump tried to force her to commit oral sex on him. She bit him and then he assaulted her. Now, I've always said the following, and I think this is consistent with the Midas Touch and legal AF channels. I don't know if that's true or not, but you all who also doesn't know if that's true or not? The FBI, the Department of Justice, because they refuse to conduct any investigations. How is it there are 1,200 victims, including one of my clients, Lisa Phillips? How is there 1,200 victims, acknowledged victims, of a child sex trafficking crime ring that has brought down 40 to 50 people worldwide, including a member of the royal family? And there's not one known investigation or prosecution of anybody in the United States by the Department of Justice. Not one. What does that tell you about the corruption of the Department of Justice? It's captured by Donald Trump. It's complete lack of independence. Why isn't there a special counsel that's been appointed? to go over the 3 million or 8 million or whatever pages there are of the Epstein files to bring the predators to justice. Why? Because we have a predator in chief …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Department of Justice's inaction on child sex trafficking raises serious questions about corruption linked to Donald Trump. With 1,200 acknowledged victims and no investigations, the claim is that Trump controls the DOJ, hindering justice for victims. This shocking situation highlights the potential cover-up involving high-profile figures, including a member of the royal family.
“… one of the most prolific sex traffickers in the world, you were Secretary of State. How did you miss it? Well, that would have been a matter of the Justice Department, not the State Department. But in your opening statement, in your statements earlier, in your opening statement you stated that Secretary Rubio should be called to testify. You said that he has, and the administration has, quote, abandoned survivors using the same logic. You were Secretary of State during a time period after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of being a pedophile and soliciting children for sex. Why then did you quote …”
“How did you miss it? If he's, I believe, one of the most prolific sex traffickers in the world, you were Secretary of State. How did you miss it? Well, that would have been a matter of the Justice Department, not the State Department. But in your opening statement, in your statements earlier, in your opening statement you stated that Secretary Rubio should be called to testify. You said that he has, and the administration has, quote, abandoned survivors using the same logic. You were Secretary of State during a time period after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of being a pedophile and soliciting children for sex. Why then did you quote using your own logic abandon survivors What is the question please I followed her comment First of all we focused on whether there were laws that made sex trafficking sexual slavery, domestic violence, other abuses of women on the books in countries. And then we tried to evaluate, were those laws being implemented? and were judges appropriately …”
View more
Ridealong summary
During a congressional hearing, Hillary Clinton deftly navigates questioning about the government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, highlighting the failure of the Justice Department while she was Secretary of State. She critiques the decimation of the office tasked with combating sex trafficking, arguing that the lack of resources hampers efforts to hold perpetrators accountable. This exchange reveals Clinton's sharp understanding of the complexities of governmental roles in addressing these serious issues.
“… They brought me back in the courtroom and the judge read my sentence. He said, Damon Joseph West, you are hereby sentenced to 65 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. How old are you at this point? I'm 33 years old. So that's a life sentence. It's a life sentence. And 65 years is life. And in Texas, they stop calculating time at 60. They don't tell juries about this. But when you get to prison, you realize that you get a timesheet every month tells you how much time you've done in your sentence. The max is 60 because 60 is the average lifespan of a human being who was 17 that went to …”
“… had all these opportunities that maybe some of them don't even have in life. And the jury deliberated for 10 minutes. 10 minutes, man. Like, I don't know how much Law and Order you watch. But if a jury's gone for 10 minutes, it means they smoked you. They brought me back in the courtroom and the judge read my sentence. He said, Damon Joseph West, you are hereby sentenced to 65 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. How old are you at this point? I'm 33 years old. So that's a life sentence. It's a life sentence. And 65 years is life. And in Texas, they stop calculating time at 60. They don't tell juries about this. But when you get to prison, you realize that you get a timesheet every month tells you how much time you've done in your sentence. The max is 60 because 60 is the average lifespan of a human being who was 17 that went to prison in the first place because it's an adult. Right. So. 65 is life. The jury gave me life. First felony conviction ever. Probation was on the table, Mike. Probation was on the table, but I knew I wasn't getting probation because I'm guilty of everything. I thought I was going to get like 20 years, but I got 65. And man, it took my breath away. …”
View more
Ridealong summary
On July 30, 2008, Damon West's life took a dramatic turn when he was arrested during a police raid, marking the end of his life as a crime boss. Despite his previous opportunities, he was sentenced to 65 years in prison, a shocking reality that forced him to confront his choices. This moment became his rock bottom, igniting the realization that he needed to change, though he had no idea how to start.
“Okay, okay. A top deputy to U.S. Attorney Janine Pirro acknowledged in a closed-door hearing this month that the Justice Department did not have evidence of wrongdoing in its criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve over the cost of its building renovations, according to a transcript of the court proceedings. The prosecutor's admission, which has not been previously reported, undercuts President Donald Trump's claim that, quote, there is criminality in the $2.5 billion overhaul of the Fed's headquarters overlooking the National Mall. it's so fun like we know …”
“Okay, okay. A top deputy to U.S. Attorney Janine Pirro acknowledged in a closed-door hearing this month that the Justice Department did not have evidence of wrongdoing in its criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve over the cost of its building renovations, according to a transcript of the court proceedings. The prosecutor's admission, which has not been previously reported, undercuts President Donald Trump's claim that, quote, there is criminality in the $2.5 billion overhaul of the Fed's headquarters overlooking the National Mall. it's so fun like we know bozberg tossed these subpoenas and we know the trump white house was like it's bs and the doj was like that's this is the wrong i think janine perro was like it's an activist judge uh because we should be able to subpoena people our subpoenas were real but if you go in and tell the judge that there's no actual crime that you can point to he's not …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The breach of FBI Director Kash Patel's emails highlights significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the ongoing threat posed by Iran-linked hacker groups.
“… Republicans? They are. And part of what is so striking is that you have the prospect that both the federal government and I think at least three justices, three Republican appointees, if not more, are more anti-voting rights than the state of Mississippi. That is the state of our union. So there was some dissensus between the conservative justices What was the kind of arguments you were hearing from say Alito and Thomas versus what you were hearing from say Kavanaugh and Barrett So Alito Thomas and Gorsuch seemed to be totally magapilled, like their brains had just been marinating in Fox News …”
“Now, are the officials in Mississippi defending this case not also Republicans? They are. And part of what is so striking is that you have the prospect that both the federal government and I think at least three justices, three Republican appointees, if not more, are more anti-voting rights than the state of Mississippi. That is the state of our union. So there was some dissensus between the conservative justices What was the kind of arguments you were hearing from say Alito and Thomas versus what you were hearing from say Kavanaugh and Barrett So Alito Thomas and Gorsuch seemed to be totally magapilled, like their brains had just been marinating in Fox News and were regurgitating anti-absentee ballot talking points. So Justice Alito referred to the confidence you can have once you turn your ballot over to the Postal Service and whatnot. Honestly, Justice Kavanaugh sounded like he was more in that camp than in the middle. So he was throwing out concerns about if the apparent winner the morning after the …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court may soon decide on a case that could disenfranchise nearly a million voters in the upcoming 2024 election. Interestingly, some Republican-appointed justices appear more anti-voting rights than Mississippi officials themselves. This raises alarming questions about the integrity of voting laws and the potential for voter suppression just months before the midterms.
Top Podcasts About Department of Justice
Legal AF by MeidasTouch
7 episodes
Bannon`s War Room
5 episodes
The Jesse Kelly Show
4 episodes
The Bulwark Podcast
3 episodes
The NPR Politics Podcast
3 episodes
UnJustified
3 episodes
Behind the Bastards
2 episodes
Verdict with Ted Cruz
2 episodes
Stories Mentioning Department of Justice
Top Podcasts on Pam Bondi's Dismissal
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been fired as part of a series of staff changes within the Trump administration. This turnover highlights ongoing shifts in the administration's personnel, which could impact its policy direction and stability.
Pam Bondi
Top Podcasts on Iran-Linked FBI Email Breach
Hackers associated with Iran have reportedly accessed the emails of FBI Director Kash Patel. This breach raises concerns about cybersecurity vulnerabilities within high-level government communications and the potential implications for national security.
Kash Patel
Top Podcasts on Robert Mueller's Legacy & Trump
Robert Mueller, the former special counsel known for leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, has died at the age of 81. Former President Donald Trump sparked controversy with a comment expressing gladness over Mueller's death, leading to widespread criticism. This incident highlights ongoing tensions and the lasting impact of Mueller's work on American politics.
Top Podcasts on Epstein Scandal Revelations
New information has come to light in the ongoing investigations into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. These revelations could have significant implications for those involved and may impact future legal proceedings. The tech industry is closely watching due to potential connections with high-profile figures.
Jeffrey Epstein
Top Podcasts on Joe Kent's FBI Investigation
Joe Kent, former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, is reportedly under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information related to the Iran War to media figures like Tucker Carlson. Podcasts are discussing the implications of these alleged leaks, the administration's narrative surrounding the war, and the broader political fallout.