9-29-25 - 7am - Department of Justice and Little vs. Hecox

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, I'm interested in trying to start concealed carrying.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
But you know, if I'm just wearing castle pants.

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Or a bowl of shirt or a like a Hawaiian
fringe shirt, you know, am I wearing a polster.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
On my hip or a strap on?

Speaker 3 (00:13):
And I just give me some suggestions of what's best
or easiest.

Speaker 4 (00:22):
I'm sorry, I just chuckle.

Speaker 5 (00:24):
If the term strap on, yep, you got distracted. Yep,
as did every other guy out there.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
Every everybody out there. You got distracted with that word.
Go talk to an expert. I'm not an expert, and
I don't know what you're saying.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
I don't.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
I do only think about your body build. I don't
you know? You know Hawaiian shirt? Okay, well you know
they're they're options there. There are a lot of options.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
You can always just carry a backpack around.

Speaker 4 (00:49):
Yeah, always have a backpack with you. So you got
next to you there, Michael, Oh, I got a backpack. Year,
I got a backpack next to yeah, yeah, backpack right there.
I got pocket unzipped, pocket unzipped. I'm not unzipped. I
always I'm always zipped. Where's the last time you found
yourself walking around and realized, oh, my pants are unzipped.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Actually just Saturday night.

Speaker 4 (01:14):
Saturday night, yeah, out in the public.

Speaker 5 (01:16):
We went to Anderson Farms, did a whole day there
and did the terror in the corn Haunted house, and
went to one of the porta pottis, did my business,
came out twenty minutes. Didn't even realize that, missus redburd goes.
It's like, oh, eh, thank.

Speaker 4 (01:32):
You tell me you were wearing underwear please?

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Oh yeah, yeah, okay, all right, yeah, I'm not one
of those weirdos.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
Oh that's weird.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
This means you gotta watch those pants twice.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
In with the strap on call Chuck Schumer, Ladies and gentlemen.

Speaker 6 (01:52):
We hope that they sit down and have a serious
negotiation with us. That's how it's I would remind a
Leader Soon. That's how we all did it in the past.
By part is in negotiation. That's why the government didn't
shut down while I was leader.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
I have to turn to the other big news.

Speaker 7 (02:07):
We have been tracking the indictment of former FBI Director
James Comy.

Speaker 3 (02:12):
He's accused of.

Speaker 7 (02:12):
Lying to the Senate back in twenty twenty. You heard
my conversation with Leader Soon. He notes the fact that
he was indicted by a federal grand jury. He also
says he wants to let the process play out.

Speaker 3 (02:24):
Do you trust do you have faith in the judicial system?

Speaker 6 (02:29):
I have no faith in Donald Trump's judicial system. He
has turned this judicial system to be his own political.

Speaker 4 (02:38):
Before we go on, this is what's your name from?
Meet the press? Christen somebody. I don't get it. I
don't care judicial system, our Department of Justice. I think
they mean the Department of Justice, but they keep calling

(02:59):
the judicial system. Well, if we want to talk about
the judicial system, I've got a story we're gonna do
later on about this. How the Supreme Court has once
again had to tell a district judge, you don't have
the authority to do that, so stop it.

Speaker 6 (03:15):
Of the political fighter do what he wants politically, so
that he tells them to go after people he doesn't like.
He tells them to exonerate people that he likes. So
many people are getting pardoned in this and.

Speaker 4 (03:28):
That what many How many pardons did Biden do? And
wasn't that there was some relative his name he was
a hunter or something that got a pardon from his dad.

Speaker 6 (03:42):
He has turned this justice department into his own political watchdog.
It's horrible. No president has done this. This is what
autocrats do. This is when Trump says he wants to
be king to do it, and so when he says
he doesn't like Komey, Look what happened there. Kristen, the
prosecutor who he appointed, said there's not enough evidence to

(04:04):
indict Comy. So he fired this prosecutor and put in
someone who do whatever he wanted.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
This is one of.

Speaker 6 (04:10):
The Trunk's done so many bad things to undermine our democracy,
to undermine our norms.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
This is one of the very worst.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
You're talking about it, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (04:19):
Right, ver r right, rare. Some I forget what year
it was, but it's been at least ten years ago.
Sidney Powell, the lawyer, She wrote a book, the title
of which was called Licensed to Lie, Exposing corruption in
the Department of Justice. That book is probably I remember

(04:45):
I got the book at the time. I didn't I
honestly I didn't read it word for word. I see
him through it. It was pretty good, but I would
say that it is probably the first credible, fully documented
case study of systemic Department of Justice corruption. And you
wonder why the Biden DOJ went after her well, you

(05:09):
write a book that exposes corruption within the Department of Justice,
then you know what, Yeah, you might want to go
after her. She was a seasoned federal prosecutor turned whistleblower.
Did not settle for highlighting isolated errors. Instead, she exposed
a recurring pattern of misconduct discovery abuses, Brady violations. That's

(05:35):
where you fail to give the defendant exculpatory evidence, evidence
in their favor politically motivated prosecutions. This stretched from the
Inron Task Force to the wrongful conviction of Alaska Senator
Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens got totally railroad railroaded by the

(05:57):
Department of Justice. Now, none of these were random. It
was part of the culture within the Department of Justice
where winning was more important than truth, where concealment, intimidation
replaced any concept of fairness. Sidney Powell demonstrated that these

(06:17):
abuses had serious political consequences, that it even altered the
balance of power in the Senate because Stevens was forced
from office. Now, for conservatives at the time that she
wrote the book, it really crystallized our uneasy suspicion that
the Department of Justice had ceased to be a neutral

(06:39):
arbiter of Justice licensed toly really made that suspicion a
documented reality. I remember first hearing about, in fact, hearing
about the book. I remember first hearing about Sidney Powell
in the book through Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh praised the book

(07:02):
and he urged his listeners to grasp the depth of
the corruption that Sidney Powell had revealed in the book.
And Limbaugh's endorsement is probably what gave her instant credibility
across the right, which is exactly why the left hand
made her a target because from that moment forward, from
the moment that Rush Limbaugh said, Hey, look at this book.

(07:26):
This exposes the corruption in the Department of Justice. You
need to go read this book. From that moment on,
Sidney Powell faced attack after attack after attack. She faced
bar sanctions, smear campaigns, everything trying to silence her. So
what was the real crime will In the eyes of

(07:47):
her opponent, he was telling the inconvenient truth to side
another stupid movie about the Department of Justice. Russia's platform
amplified her warning, and that's what made Sidney Powell a
household name among conservatives, and that that visibility meant the
Democrats and their allies in the legal establishment had to

(08:10):
do something to discredit her by any means necessary. Now,
what makes the book so important today is not just
a vivid recounting of past abuses, but it provides a
roadmap into an insight into how the Department of Justice

(08:31):
has been operating. Because what she does is she carefully
documented how prosecutors like Andrew Weisman and all of his
cronies hid evidence, would destroy livelihoods, manipulate cases for political ends,
and Sidney Powell laid bare those methods and the mentality
of corrupt Department of Justice officials. She named names, she

(08:55):
explained in detail, the tactics. She identified, at least for me,
probably the most important thing, and that was the structural
flaws within the Department of Justice itself. So it became
it really is a it's a field manual. If you
want to reform DOJ this is a field manual to
do that. Well, fast forward to today, ten to fifteen

(09:19):
years later. I forget when the book Pam Bondi, the
ag Cash Betel, the FBI director, Dan bond Jenil, the
deputy director, Ed Martin, the assistant and I think he's
the Deputy Attorney General They're all leading Trump's second term

(09:41):
effort to to try to dismantle this deep state rot
that exists within the Department of Justice. And they're not
starting from scratch. What they're doing is actually following the
trail that Powell blazed, armed with her case studies and
her detailed dissection of the department culture of concealment. Licensed

(10:03):
de lay is the blueprint. You know, politicians, lawyers put
together these blueprints. The blueprint we had in Colorado for
how to turn Colorado blue. This is the blueprint for
how to kind of fumigate the Department of Justice. Now
think for a minute about how this book reframe the

(10:27):
DOJ scandals. A decade ago, when she wrote this book,
the in Roun prosecutions, which were once held as huge victories,
really collapse under closer inspection. Pull showed how the prosecutors
pushed a case that destroyed Arthur Anderson the accounting firm,

(10:48):
wiped out eighty five thousand jobs. You probably don't remember,
but it was reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously. Unanimously.
She showed how Ted Stevens, a city in United States senator,
was convicted after prosecutors had suppressed, concealed, whatever word you

(11:14):
want to use. The exculpatory evidence a violation so egregious.
The conviction was overturned and thrown out. Of course, then
he died. Those are not minor missteps. That's a deliberate
manipulation of justice that had devastating human and political costs.

(11:37):
I often think, you know, I knew Ted Stevens when
I was the undersecretary, and while I didn't agree with
everything that Ted Stevens did as the senior senator from Alaska,
he was all in all a fairly decent good guy.
And I think that the absolutely I mean he lived
and breathed the US Senate, and I think that this

(11:58):
conviction absolutely devastated him so badly that that's what brought
on his early death. Well, anyway, Sidney Powell maps out
the entire process so that conservatives could later recognize and
use the same playbook when it was used against General
Flynn or against Trump himself in Trump one point zero.

(12:21):
The book also gives conservatives the intellectual competence so they
can push back with precision. So instead of vague claims
of bias, Sidney Powell provided case law, judicial opinions, hard evidence.
Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, a federal judge appointed by Reagan,
he wrote the forward. He urged in the forward that

(12:43):
Palell's work be the start of a serious national conversation
about prosecutorial misconduct. Brendan Sullivan. I know most people don't
know who that name is. He's probably one of the
top defense lawyers in the country. A hero. It wasn't

(13:03):
partisan fluff. It was professional validation from the top ranks
of the DC legal world. Conservatives at the time seized
on those facts to argue that their skepticism of the
Department of Justice was not paranoia, it was rooted in
documented corruption. And the other thing that kind of strikes

(13:25):
me about the book, I think I've since given the
book away, probably down to the Douglas County Library or somewhere.
What struck me as I read through the book is
her even handedness pointing out misconduct under both Republican and
Democrat administrations, which only furthered her credibility. So that book,

(13:49):
a decade ago, reshaped conservative media and politics. Fox News
highlighted her findings, National Review gave her a platform, and
Rush Limbaugh made sure that she reached millions of people.
So when Trump's critics like stupid Chuck Schumer insists that
the Department of Justice and FBI officials are beyond reproach,

(14:14):
conservatives went back and looked at the book again. They
could put point to specific cases, specific prosecutors, specific abuses.
This was not theory, it was evidence. Now, by the
time Trump declared that the Department of Justice would be
was being weaponized well the base we knew that we

(14:39):
had already read Powell's field Guide for lack of a
better term, a true roadmap. So fast forward to today,
when the Trump anti corruption team takes on entrenched interest
within the Department of Justice. That means the importance of
Sidney Powell's book has only grown Licensary to lie remains

(15:01):
the most detailed map of how corruption spreads in our
top law enforcement agency. It explains not just what happened
in the past, but how we can recognize the same
tackas when they occur now. I hope you recognize that
the Sydney pal I'm talking about is the Sydney Pale

(15:23):
whose courage came at an incredible personal cost. I think
she I don't whether she's got her law license back
or not. She lost her law license for a while.
She got all wrapped up in the J six crap,
just like Rudy Giuliani did. Remember the famous interview press
conference held between her, she and Juliani. Poor old Giuliani

(15:46):
had his makeup running down the side of his face
in the heat of the lamps, the lights. The indictment
of Comy would have been unthinkable, I think, but for
Powell's book, which forced those issues into the open and
for conservatives, Licensed to Lie is not a relic from

(16:08):
you know, a decade or more ago. It's actually the
foundation of a decade long reckoning. It is the field
manual that's guiding the Trump second term war on DOJ misconduct.
So when Chuck Schumer comes out and talks about how
Donald Trump is corrupting the Department of Justice, this is
what I meant last week and over the weekend when

(16:30):
I said that what the left is now doing is
they're screaming and blaming us for the very things that
they and that matter, other Republicans have done for decades.
And so as we clean it up, these trapped animals
are fighting back. So when I heard when I heard

(16:54):
Chuck Schumer yesterday and meet the press. I thought, you're
so full.

Speaker 8 (16:56):
Of crap, Michael. During junior high I used to get
up at three in the morning, I'd set the alarm
so I could watch the three Stooges. Now that I'm older,
I get up and listen to the two Stooges. It's
amazing how things stay the same even though they've changed.

Speaker 4 (17:26):
We didn't which one had the curly? Was that curly?

Speaker 2 (17:30):
He's the bald one.

Speaker 4 (17:31):
The bald one. Yeah, so am I mow?

Speaker 2 (17:34):
You must be Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (17:40):
That's pretty good. Two Stooges. Back in July, the Supreme
Court granted a petition for CIRT, meaning they granted the
petition for the case to be heard by them in
a case called Little versus Heacocks heciccks. I'm not sure
you pronounce it. That case was determine whether a state's

(18:06):
ban on natal men and women's scholastic athletes is unconstitutional
under the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. But what can
only be described as dirty pool The ACLU, the American
Civil Liberties Union, has filed a motion to dismiss its

(18:26):
challenge in the case. This case promises to be one
of Supreme Court's Marquee disputes of this October's term. The
move by the ACLU, though, really seems to be a
move of bad faith. You see, the ACLU represents transgender

(18:47):
athlete Lindsay Heacox, a senior at Boise State University, a
biological male, and he's challenging Idaho's fairness in women's sports Act.
Idaho and twenty six I think a total of twenty six,
maybe twenty seven states like Idaho enacted a law mandating

(19:08):
that participation in women's scholastic athletes, meaning college athletics, has
to be limited to biological females. When they passed those laws,
that eliminated the participation of so called transgender athletes who
are biologically male. Now, as it was for all the

(19:30):
other states, the laws enactment was a legislative necessity because
of the Biden administration's manipulation of the federal civil rights
laws and the substitution of gender identity for biological sex
in all federally funded programs. Now. In the litigation in
the trial court, the lower courts, the District Court enjoined

(19:55):
Idaho's law for violating the equal protection laws and then
appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held the lower
court that Idaho's definition of sex was discriminatory, asserting that
a person's perceived internal gender identity, that that's what determines sex.

(20:20):
These trial courts and the Ninth Circuit are crazy. The
court went further and they dismissed any concern about fairness
in athletic competition, noting that, well, you know, it's rare
to have a transgender athlete in a transgender woman in

(20:41):
women's sports. And then they went on distress, Well, you know,
we have testosterone suppression and that commute the athletic advantage
of a natal man. So then it must be okay,
so you still have a penis, you want to go
play in women's sports. We've got testosterone suppression drugs, so

(21:02):
that mutes everything else that goes on. So we think
these laws are these laws are unfair. So the which
means that the ACLU won at the trial court and
the appellate court, and now that it's going to the
US Supreme Court, the ACLU is back and out and going,

(21:23):
I think we want to go home. So we want
to withdraw. We want to withdraw from representing this guy.
In a short filing this month this guy's lawyers explained
that he had been dealing with illness, his father's passing,
and all the negative public scrutiny from certain quarters because

(21:43):
of this lawsuit, and therefore I'm no longer going to
play women's sports in Idaho. Now among some of the authorities,
the ACLU cites the Supreme Court's nineteen fifty opinion US
versus Munsingwear, in which the Supreme Court determined that the
established practice of the court in dealing with the civil

(22:06):
case from a court in the federal system which has
become moot while on its way here to the Supreme Court,
or while pending our decision on the merits, is to
reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with the
direction to dismiss. So the a ACLU lawyers that despite

(22:29):
our request withdraw the petition, state has suffered no prejudice,
meaning that hey, we no harm, no foul here, just
dismiss this and let's move on. In other words, they
got to the Supreme Court, they got nervous that, uh oh,
I think we're going to get overturned. And the Supreme

(22:50):
Court has an option here as the opportunity now to
finally say yes it is discrimination and a violation of
equal protection and a violation of the non discrimination laws
to allow transgender people to compete in that same You know,
a transman competing in See you're trans you're transitioning to

(23:14):
a male, which means you're a woman. So you want
to go compete in women's sports. You got that or
got that backwards?

Speaker 5 (23:23):
Or if you're transitioning to be a man, you should
be participating in the man's sports.

Speaker 4 (23:29):
Yeah, that's what they want to do. Yeah, but they
shouldn't be doing it. Seems to me that taxpayers, the
state legislators and all these twenty six twenty seven states,
and even the officials in Idaho who passed the law
might differ with the ACLU's position. The ACLU argues because

(23:59):
Miz he Cocks doesn't even start me on making jokes
about the name and about the miz. Because Miss Heacock
stated in the notice that her dismissal in the District
Court was with prejudice, meaning that we can't bring it again,
there is no possibility that the controversy might re emerge.

(24:21):
Miss Heacox respectfully submits that this case is moot because
she has no live claim against the petitioners the state.
Because Miss Heacock's voluntary decision to dismiss her claim mooted
the case, the Court of Appeals decision in her favor
should be vacated. The Court should therefore vacate the Court
of Appeals judgment and reman with instructions to dismiss the appeal.

(24:46):
Is this a real loss for this transgender female? Unlikely.
This challenge began almost five years ago, back in twenty twenty,
and the Idaho law I was enjoyed by the District
Court shortly thereafter. After Idaho appealed to the ninth sarch.
The judgment of the court was entered a full four

(25:07):
years later, which gave this plaintiff, Miss Hea Cocks, more
than enough time to try out, for, compete in, and
actually win in some women's sporting events. So his I
refused to call her a her his suggestion of mootoness
in voluntary withdrawal from women's sports that kind of strikes

(25:29):
me as being intentional, prejudice, gamesmanship, trying to use the
court to his advantage, and cowardice. Now, the Solicitor General,
the person that represents the state of Idaho before before
the Supreme Court has informed the ACLU and the Supreme
Court that they're going to oppose the ACLU's request to

(25:52):
moot the case, and I think rightly. So it's like, oh,
suddenly you're going to get challenged, and now you want
to back out. What a bunch of Let me just
take a while guess here, because the outcome in Little
versus Heacock's is nearly certain to favor the state of
Idaho banning trans people from competing in that same sex group,

(26:15):
which would make the muntingwear vacation the overruling request nothing
more than a convenient that Field conceived dodge. All you
do is look at recent US Supreme Court history, and
there's enough history to show that in many cases, the
Court would probably go forward and uphold the Idaho state law.

(26:41):
The Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting gender related medical
interventions for miners did that didn't violate the equal Protection
clause and therefore did not require this satisfaction of heightened
scrutiny judicial review. The Court wrote, neither category neither categorizes

(27:03):
by sex or transgender status, but rather by age and
medical diagnosis. Therefore, it was determined that Tennessee not only
needed to satisfy a rational basis review and demonstrate the
law as irrational means of pursuing its legitimate governmental interest
in protecting minors from experimental treatments, regret, and bodily harm.

(27:24):
The Court held that Tennessee had easily met this relatively
relaxed standard. Now, remember they've also after they granted review
in Little versus Heacox. There's another case BPJ versus West
Virginia that involves a question about whether a similar women's
sports law violates both Equal Protection Clause and Title nine

(27:48):
of the Education Amendments in nineteen seventy two. So the
ACLU is playing switcheroo here. Uh oh, we think we're
going to lose this and so withdraw. I don't think
the Supreme Court should.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
Love Michael Chuck.

Speaker 8 (28:05):
Schumer likes to refer to our democracy a lot uses
that phrase a lot.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
I think what he's talking about is his democracy.

Speaker 5 (28:15):
Well, I'm sorry, I don't know if I could say is,
because I'm not a biologist.

Speaker 4 (28:22):
Chuck out a new pair of glasses on in that
little SoundBite too. Didn't have his little half frames on.
When I saw this headline, I thought I was reading
the Babylon B. I had to do a double take. Now,
this is prior to Next Star deciding to and Sinclair
both deciding to start reairing the Jimmy Kimmel Show. But

(28:46):
before they made that decision, here was the story. Senator
Bernie Sanders demands Next Star air Jimmy Kimmel while denouncing
political pressure on TV stations.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
Parody.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
You can't use parody anymore to keep pace with reality
when it comes to these dumbasses. The story from Fox
News last week before they made the decision was this
Next to Our Media Group announced Wednesday it would continue
to preempt late night host Jimmy Kimmel from its ABC
affiliate stations after Disney lifted his suspension following his controversial

(29:26):
comments about the Charlie Kirk assassination. Now characteristic of the
unrepenting Kimmel, the controversial comments consisted of the vile wise
that Charlie Kirk was killed by a fellow conservative, and
that Donald Trump did not grieve in over his death.
But brace yourself for gi get for the best example

(29:48):
of cognitive dissonance that I've seen in ages. Decisions about
what Americans watch should not be dictated by political pressure,
So do what the US senator tells you to do,

(30:10):
and not what you want to do. Bernie wrote on
X decisions about what Americans watch should not be dictated
by political pressure. Next Star must therefore immediately restore Jimmy Kimmelton.
Viewers in Vermont and across the US broadcasters should not
cave in to an authoritarian type president who can accept criticism,

(30:33):
and instead, I want you to I want you to
cave in too, this is me talking now. Instead, I
want you to cave into a doddling, old eighty seven
year old US socialist senator from Vermont who demands that
you're putting back on well, talk about cognitive dissonance. So
then he holds a rally and the rally is he

(30:55):
wants to, you know, go after Trump, and he wants
to demand that Next Star puts Jimmy Kimbell back on air.
The rally doesn't go too well because, well, the supporters
of Bernie Sanders don't want to listen to Bernie Sanders.

Speaker 9 (31:11):
All right, So we are trying to be reasonable.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
We are trying to be reasonable.

Speaker 4 (31:16):
We are trying to be reasonable.

Speaker 7 (31:19):
We are kind.

Speaker 9 (31:21):
Where can I give you? Where gonna let you on
the mic. We are gonna give you the mike.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
See, we will after Senator Sanders, after Senator Sanders, after
Senator Sanders, for Senator Sanders, Halfter Senator Sanders.

Speaker 4 (31:38):
These are children. These are spoiled, rotten toddlers who are
in the grocery store throwing a fit because well, Senator
Sanders is waiting to speak. This is the guy who's
about to introduce Senator Sanders. And these two black women
and some black guid that's facing him. Add on, the
MC of the host are just screaming and yelling and

(31:58):
jumping in his face. We demand, we demand.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Tell at after Senator Sumner. Okay, all right, all.

Speaker 9 (32:11):
Right, we're shutting it down. You are are shutting it down.
You are disrupting this event. You are disrupting this event.

Speaker 4 (32:20):
And they shut it down. Even Bernie steps in, and
Bernie can't get them to shut up. Think about that.
Bernie Sanders demands Heir, Jimmy Cammell, don't give into political
pressure while I politically pressure YouTube put back on. Jimmy
Kemmel