We're old enough here on BradCast to remember when the Republican Party and their scofflaw cult leader used to pretend, at least, to believe in the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution and even the Judiciary system. That was then. This is the Trump Era. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]

You may need to buckle up for today's show --- or stay away from sharp objects --- for your own safety. Among the insane amount of stuff --- breaking and otherwise --- that we do our best to cover today...

• First, some listener mail following yesterday's program on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which makes it pretty clear that Donald Trump is Constitutionally barred from running or holding any federal office after having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. Government on January 6, 2021. That same "Insurrection Disqualification Clause" will come up again later on today's show, so pay attention!

• Oh, look! It's not only tens of thousands of documents that Trump stole upon leaving the White House, Haaretz is reporting that he appears to have stolen priceless Israeli artifacts as well! "Antiquities belonging to Israel have been kept for the past several months at former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, and senior Israeli figures have unsuccessfully tried to have them returned to Israel. ... Among the antiquities are ancient ceramic candles which are part of Israel’s national treasures collection. They were sent to the U.S. in 2019 with the approval of then-Director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, Israel Hasson, on the condition that they be returned within weeks, yet almost four years later, they have yet to be returned." Yup, we're also old enough here to remember when Trump pretended to love Israel too.

• Wrapping up just prior to airtime, the first federal court hearing before the unrecused, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 38-count criminal indictment against Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta, in the stolen documents case. The DoJ seeks a speedy trial to begin in December. Team Trump wants an indefinite delay until some point after the 2024 election. Reports from those in the courtroom suggest the Judge was "disinclined" to grant the DoJ's requested December trial, "but also seemed skeptical" of a delay until after 2024. Her decision is supposedly coming "soon".

• In Georgia, where Trump and a broad array of co-conspirators are likely to be charged next month (if not sooner) as part of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' criminal investigation of his attempt to steal the 2020 election in the Peach State, the state's Supreme Court, on Monday, unanimously rejected Team Trump's ill-considered preemptive motion to block any indictment and to remove Willis from the case.

• The biggest news of the day, arguably, is Trump's long, rambling social media revelation on Tuesday morning that he received a letter from the Justice Dept. on Sunday, notifying him that he is the target of Jack Smith's broad investigation surrounding the January 6 insurrection and other efforts to steal the 2020 election (and otherwise profit off of false claims that it was stolen from him). Even though the source of the targeting claim is Trump, there are still a number of tea leaves to be read here, including who may now be cooperating with Smith's probe on yet another imminent indictment against the disgraced former President.

• BREAKING just moments before airtime today, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she had filed criminal charges against 16 fake Republican electors in the state, including the co-chair of the MI GOP and the state's Republican National Committeewoman. Each of the "false electors" signed paperwork claiming to be MI's "duly elected and qualified electors" after the 2020 election, Nessel notes, even though Joe Biden won the state. Each have now been charged with eight felony counts, including forgery.

• A number Republican candidates for the 2024 Presidential nomination --- a contest in which Trump is currently the far and away front-runner, despite being indicted on (so far) 71 criminal felony charges at both the state and federal level, with more coming soon --- were asked to respond to his claim about being targeted and likely soon indicted by Jack Smith in his January 6 probe. Only one of them (so far), was smart enough to point out that any charges related to the insurrection will further disqualify him from both office and the ballot under the U.S. Constitution's "Insurrection Disqualification Clause" (Section 3 of the 14th Amendment). Will any of his other supposed opponents have the moral courage to point that out?

• Voting rights advocates were stunned last month when Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court's three liberal justices in a majority to uphold the Voting Rights Act and its ban on racial gerrymanders. The case came out of Alabama and the opinion, written for the majority by Roberts, held that the state's U.S. House District maps violated the VRA by including just one Black majority District out of seven. (Black voters comprise nearly 30% of the state's population.) Roberts' SCOTUS opinion [PDF] ordered a new map in the state that "will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it." On Monday, following a special session of the GOP-controlled state legislature, the newly drawn map was revealed to include...just one majority Black district. Again. Apparently, while Republicans no longer give a damn about the rule of law, they also have no problem defying the U.S. Supreme Court either.

• Finally, Desi Doyen joins us for our latest Green News Report, as the Summer of Record Extremes gets even worse by the day...

CLICK TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD SHOW!...

MONTHLY BRAD BLOG SUBSCRIPTION	ONE-TIME DONATION
Choose monthly amount... $10 : $10.00 USD - monthly$20 : $20.00 USD - monthly$50 : $50.00 USD - monthly$100 : $100.00 USD - monthly	(Snail mail support to "Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028" always welcome too!)

It's a good day on The BradCast. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. [Audio link to full program follows below this summary.]

After a full year of five-alarm warnings on this program about the the Moore v. Harper case at the U.S. Supreme Court, and the havoc its so-called Independent State Legislature theory would wreak on American elections and hundreds of years of American election law if approved by a Court majority, I'm very happy to say, the grave threat is over. For now.

By a 6 to 3 majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joining all three liberals on the Court, the fringe ISL theory was soundly rejected (PDF). That theory, pushed by Rightwingers --- especially by Trumpers after the 2020 election --- holds that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, allowing State Legislatures to determine "times, places and manner" of federal elections in their state, also give those Legislatures plenary power to make all laws pertaining to federal elections without the possibility of any sort of judicial review.

Had the Supreme Court majority gone the other way in this case, as many feared, State Legislatures would have had the only power to make such laws and rules. No Gubernatorial veto or state Supreme Court or state constitution --- or even state ballot initiative adopted by voters --- could have blocked them. They could have instituted partisan gerrymanders, even if their state's constitution barred them. They could have chosen which Presidential electors to send to the Electoral College, even if state voters had selected a different candidate. (It is under the ISL theory that Trump and his legal stooges like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman tried to convince State Legislatures in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., that they had the power to choose Trump electors, even though voters in all of those states had voted for Biden.)

Voting rights advocates are breathing a huge sigh of relief today. Had the Court gone the other way, as many feared, more than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places could have been affected or simply overturned, according to Brennan Center for Justice.

Tuesday's news follows several other, surprisingly not insane rulings by the Court in recent weeks, where enough rightwingers peeled off to join the Court's Liberals to avoid worst case scenarios. As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern concludes in his article today on the Moore v. Harper decision, headlined "John Roberts Has Wrested Back Control of the Supreme Court": "So far this term, [Roberts] is once again in the driver’s seat—and the court is acting a lot more like a court than this time last year. It’s too early for grand conclusions. But it sure looks like a majority of the justices want us to know that they are backing away from the brink."

There are a few more major rulings to come --- on Affirmative Action in college admissions; on Biden's student loan forgiveness program; and on another dumb anti-LGBTQ "religious rights" case --- before this year's term wraps up at week's end. Decisions are likely to come on Thursday. But, even adverse rulings on those issues, as expected, are unlikely to have the democracy-rattling effect of what the case over the ISL theory would have wreaked, or had the Supremes gutted what is left of the Voting Rights Act (which was also feared but, also surprisingly, the Court did the right thing instead by following both precedent at the Constitution.) Perhaps a few members of SCOTUS' far-rightwing have learned a thing or two since their disastrous Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade this time last year.

On the other hand, having not learned a think since this time last year is our twice-criminally indicted former President. On Monday night, CNN released the actual audio recording of a meeting cited in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 37-count felony indictment [PDF] against Trump on charges related to violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice. It's a tape of the July 2021 meeting at his Bedminster, New Jersey resort, as described on pages 15 & 16 of the indictment, wherein Trump claims to be showing classified documents on military plans for an attack on Iran to a group of people writing a book.

Trump is heard in the audio telling his cackling audience that the documents he is showing them are "highly confidential," "done by the military [and] given to me," and that he no longer had the power to declassify them, now that he was out of office.

His recent explanation about the incident to Bret Baier of Fox "News", when asked about the description in the indictment prior to the release of the actual tape on Monday night, appears to be in pretty stark contradiction with what is heard on the audio tape. We play both recordings in full today so you can decide.

We're joined again today by former Republican attorney and U.S. Army Captain turned Daily Kos blogger KEITH BARBER to discuss the Trump tape; how it compares to its description in the Mar-a-Lago indictment; who might have leaked it and why; what the same behavior would have earned him as a member of the military; and what it is likely to mean for Trump's stolen documents case as it plays out in Florida under a wildly inexperienced and arguably corrupt Trump-appointed federal judge.

Finally, Desi Doyen joins us for our latest 'Green News Report' with rough news on the climate changed-fueled extreme weather pounding much of the nation this week (especially Texas), but with some far better news for EV charging standards and the solar industry as it overtakes fossil fuels...

CLICK TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD SHOW!...

MONTHLY BRAD BLOG SUBSCRIPTION	ONE-TIME DONATION
Choose monthly amount... $10 : $10.00 USD - monthly$20 : $20.00 USD - monthly$50 : $50.00 USD - monthly$100 : $100.00 USD - monthly	(Snail mail support to "Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028" always welcome too!)

Constitutional legal scholar Laurence Tribe is charging that federal statute mandates that Donald Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon recuse herself from presiding over United States v. Donald J. Trump.

28 U.S. Code §455(a) provides that...

The criminal case against the former President is a 37-count indictment related to his alleged unlawful retention of national defense documents, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Tribe argued that Judge Cannon, in the earlier civil case filed by the former President last year, had not merely been overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal but also rebuked for what amounted to a lawless effort to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Her unwarranted intervention was such that, in Tribe's view, "no person could say" that the 455(a) standard mandating recusal "had not been met."

The Harvard law professor is but one of many legal experts calling for Cannon's recusal, as caselaw would appear to support their arguments...