Buckle up for yet another busy day on The BradCast. It’s gonna be this way for a long while, I suspect. At least we’ve got some apparently good news today in the bargain. [Audio link to full show follows below this summary.]
FIRST UP: An apparent breakthrough in the months-long negotiations for a six-week, and perhaps longer, ceasefire and return of hostages to begin ending the horrific, long war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was announced today. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s office has yet to confirm the deal, said to begin Sunday, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog called on them to do so, and President Joe Biden touted the deal on Wednesday. The months-long negotiations were also said to have been joined by the incoming President’s team in recent weeks, who had (much to my surprise) lauded the Biden negotiators in recent days. The White House today said both Administration teams had been “speaking as one” in the latest talks.
THEN: Thanks to the (hopefully) good breaking news mentioned above, we’ve got a truncated version of coverage of today’s six different U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for key posts in the new Trump Administration, with our focus today on Trump loyalist, apologist, Impeachment defense attorney and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, his pick for U.S. Attorney General, dodging largely all advice and consent questions she faced from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even the easy ones. (Video here.) She repeatedly refused to say, for example, whether Joe Biden fairly won the 2020 election; whether she was aware of any evidence of “massive fraud” during that election; whether she’d advise the incoming President against pardoning violent January 6th insurrectionists who attacked police at the Capitol; whether she would target Trump’s perceived enemies for prosecution; or whether she would even insist that he obey the law and Constitution. We share excerpts today from Bondi’s questioning from Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).
FINALLY: Just before Thanksgiving — just over a week after Donald Trump was announced the winner of he 2024 election — we were joined on this program by RANDALL D. ELIASON, longtime D.C. federal prosecutor, now law professor at George Washington University, author of the SidebarsBlog newsletter and contributor to a number of media outlets.
Back then, he was calling for the sentencing of Trump in New York — for his 34 felony convictions related to hush-money payment to a porn star to help him cheat to win the 2016 — to happen before this month’s inauguration, even as the three other criminal felony indictments (two at the federal level and one in Georgia) Trump faced would most likely be abandoned due to the outcome of the election.
On Friday, after several desperate and failed emergency appeals to the high court in New York and to his pals on the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump was, indeed sentenced for those felonies by NY’s Justice Juan Merchan. The sentence, unfortunately, was for an “unconditional discharge”, with the judge explaining that he felt it was his only option given the results of the election. That means Trump will face no jail time or even financial penalty for his 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide the 2016 payout. He will, however, take the oath of office next week as the first felon to become President of the United States.
Eliason returns to the program today, to explain if that’s what he had been hoping for, or, at least, if that satisfies his pre-Thanksgiving advocacy. Over the weekend, in an article at Sidebars on the sentencing, he lauded Merchan and described the sentencing as “a small victory (yes, really) for the rule of law.”
But is it? Apparently Trump thinks it is, Eliason argues. We drill down on that question (he calls Merchan’s sentence “the least-bad option” even if it “feels like another example of [Trump] being above the law.”); what Merchan might have done differently while attempting “to avoid even the perception” that the court was trying to influence the 2024 election; what the terse 5 to 4 SCOTUS rejection [PDF] of Trump’s emergency appeal to block his NY sentencing augers for a second Trump Presidency (“not a good sign”); whether the case could still be tossed on appeal; and much more, including both Eliason’s insight on whether the full Jack Smith Special Counsel report on Trump’s now-abandoned federal indictments will ever be released, and his concerns about the DoJ under Trump during the next Administration.
On that last point, Eliason warns today, in the wake of Trump’s A.G. pick Bondi appearing ready to roll over for whatever Trump wants: “The bigger picture concern is the threats that Trump has made to use the Justice Department to go after political opponents and those who criticize him. Like the people who ran the House January 6th investigation. That is obviously wrong — a violation of everything the Justice Department stands for. And if those kinds of things do start to happen, that’s going to be a major, major deal.”
“That’s one of my biggest concerns,” he explains. “Trump says a lot of stuff that he never follows through on. But if his Justice Department — which is going to have some of his personal trial attorneys, apparently, in top positions — if they do start using the justice system to go after his political opponents and those who criticize him, then that’s going to be a huge, huge problem.”
Stand by for huge, huge problems…
(Comments are now closed.)