Today on The BradCast: The President of the Unites States’ war on the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law continues, even as he keeps losing battle after battle in courts of law, at ballot boxes and in the court of public opinion. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
Among our coverage today….
- At the beginning of last week, we reported the news of the Canada‘s Liberal Party overcoming an enormous deficit against the Conservative Party last December to triumph in national elections on Monday, when the Conservative Party’s Trumpy Leader even lost his own seat in Parliament. By week’s end, we saw damned near the exact same story in Australia, where the Labor Party Prime Minister on Friday retained his post (the first time that a ruling PM was elected twice in a row over the past 20+ years) and the conservative opposition lost in a landslide that saw its Trumpy party leader also lose his seat in Parliament as well, for the first time in Australian history. If nothing else, Trump’s obnoxious behavior toward our longtime allies seems to be working wonders for center-left political parties in those countries.
- Trump announced over the weekend that he will place a 100% tariff on movies “produced in foreign lands”. Apparently, that would include American-made films shot in other countries, though he didn’t explain — and nobody in the Administration seems to yet know — how such a “tariff” would actually be levied. Many fear it could also devastate the U.S. film industry. The new tariffs are necessary, Trump lied, because foreign film production is somehow a “National Security threat”, according to his social media announcement. (It isn’t a national security threat, of course. But I explain on today’s show why Trump needs to pretend as much.)
- As Trump revealed on NBC’s Meet the Press over the weekend, he’s not entirely sure if Constitutional Due Process, as cited by the 5th and 14th Amendments, is actually mandatory. That despite the Supreme Court making clear that it very much is, and despite his sworn oath earlier this year upon taking office for a second time to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
- Clearly, the Rule of Law and Constitution don’t mean all that much to Donald Trump, as again illustrated by his four Executive Orders, so far, targeting four different law firms that dare to represent people he regards as political enemies. His clearly unconstitutional orders bar attorneys at those firms from entering federal buildings, interacting with federal officials or taking federal jobs, etc. The largest and first of those targeted firms to challenge an Order is Perkins Coie. They won a resounding victory on Friday when a U.S. District Court Judge in D.C. found [PDF] the entire Order targeting them to be a clear cut case of “unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.” She nullified the entire Order in the bargain.
Meanwhile, out here in Los Angeles, three prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys office for the Central District of California tendered their resignations over the weekend, after Trump-appointed acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli appears to have struck a deal with former L.A. County sheriff’s deputy Trevor Kirk, after his felony conviction by a jury in February.
Kirk was found by a jury to have injured a 58-year old black woman during what police body cam footage revealed as to be an “unjustifiably violent” arrest. The woman apparently had nothing to do with the robbery that the cops were called to respond to at a grocery store in Lancaster, an hour or so north of L.A., in 2023. But she claimed to be live-streaming the arrest of her male companion, who apparently wasn’t involved in the reported robbery either. Kirk threw the woman to the ground, threatened to “punch” her “in the face”, hand-cuffed and pepper-sprayed her twice.
The unusual deal between Essayli and Kirk was struck after the jury verdict, but prior to sentencing, which could have resulted in as many as nine years in prison for the now-former cop. The new agreement would change his felony conviction to a misdemeanor with prosecutors seeking probation for Kirk instead of jail time, and no bar on him serving as a cop in the future. None of the attorneys who obtained Kirk’s conviction signed on to the new agreement struck on behalf of Trump’s acting U.S. Attorney. It must still be approved by a judge.
We’re joined today by independent L.A. based legal affairs reporter MEGHANN CUNIFF who was the first to break the story of the agreement before the ensuing resignations of the career prosecutors in the L.A. U.S. Attorney’s office in what appears to be a response to the deal their new boss struck, undermining their case. Cuniff, who acknowledges how unusual it is for a deal to be struck after conviction and before sentencing, argues that it’s possible the prosecutors might be resigning for other reasons in addition to the unusual post-verdict deal.
After making clear that she is not reporting a direct line between D.C. and the Trump-appointed loyalist Essayli and his deal to drastically reduce Kirk’s sentencing, she concedes: “I’ve never seen it before. It’s totally unheard of. You might see it if there’s an issue of misconduct during the trial or somebody is cooperating afterward. But the prosecutors are definitely outraged after this.”
Cuniff is also not at all certain that the U.S. District Court Judge who oversaw the case will agree to the terms of the deal struck by Trump’s prosecutors. At the same time, L.A. County has struck a settlement in a $3 million civil lawsuit filed by the two victims in response to their wrongful arrests.
In addition to the Kirk case, the same U.S. Attorney’s office is now reviewing the conviction of Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials in 2020 about Hunter Biden having corrupt business dealings with a Ukrainian oil company, “in what prosecutors described as a Russian-influenced operation,” says Cuniff.
“As soon as Trump took over, all of a sudden, they are trying to get this guy — who took a plea deal and was sentenced in January — out of prison, pending appeal, saying they are going to support his appeal,” she explains. “The trial judge wouldn’t do it, but they’re going to the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals]. The assistant U.S. Attorney who argued for this is the same one who went to court to argue for Trevor Kirk for a sentencing delay” to allow Trump’s attorneys to strike a deal with the dirty cop…
(Comments are now closed.)