'BradCast' 4/29/2026 (Corrupt SCOTUS Guts Voting Rights Act, with Dan Vicuña of Common Cause)

What you're suggesting is that people of one race of blacks in Louisiana will have to be 51% of the population before they'll be able to elect another black candidate. Because what you're saying is partisanship is non-negotiable. You're going to have six districts out of seven always white because that's our partisanship. That means blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is, until they reach more than 51%. Yep. That's exactly what they're saying. From Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast. As heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in LA, and elsewhere in California in Red Bluff and Reading on KFOI, Round Mountains, KKRN, up in Oregon on the central coast on KYAQ, Cottage Groves, Koso, and Eugene's KEPW. Out in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on WNW News, Maui, Hawaii's, K-A-K-U, in Columbus, Ohio on WGRN, Palinville, New York's, WLP, Rochester, New York's, WRFZ, down in New Orleans on WHIV, out in Gallup, Mexico, on KN-I-Z. Concord, New Hampshire's, WNHN, Fayetteville, Arkansas, K-P-SQ, in Seattle on KODX, Richmond, Virginia's, WR, W-W-K, Fairmont, West Virginia's, W-E-FR, Jamesville, Wisconsin's WADR, Minneapolis, St. Paul's, AM-950, K-TNF. We also stream coast to coast and around the globe. Every day on the Internet, on the Progressive Voices channel, Netroots Radio, Radio for Humans, Nicole Sandler.com, Radio Free Brooklyn, No Lies, Radio, Detour, Talk, Del Marva, FM, and most of your favorite podcast sites, Blanketing Planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman, your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker. And all around, swell fellow says me from bradblog.com, though I must admit I'm not feeling all that swell today for some odd reason, does he doyen? No, but I have a feeling we're going to get to that. Yes, we are. Right now, we have been covering the unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering wars kicked off last year with Donald Trump's orders to Republican state legislatures to redraw their U.S. House districts for... partisan advantage in the 2026 midterms. It has been a war in which Democrats, to the surprise many, have pushed back vigorously, allowing voters to decide on mid-decade redistricting in states like California and Virginia that otherwise previously had voted to leave redistricting to independent bipartisan commissions.

The result of all of that over the past almost full year has been largely a wash for both parties. At least until Florida's Republican-dominated state legislature convened a special session this week to re-jerrymander their already gerrymandered U.S. House map in hopes of flipping four currently blue house districts to red ones. A vote that has now been approved by both chambers of the Florida legislature as we go to air this afternoon to be signed shortly by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. But even as we cover... all of the battles in all of the various states over the past several months, we have warned each time pretty much that a pending decision at the corrupted U.S. Supreme Court in Louisiana versus Calais was likely to come in soon and could upend the entire redistricting war and depending on when it came in could mean that all bets could be off before the 2026 election as an adverse ruling depending on the timing could allow GOP controlled states to redistrict as many as a dozen more Currently, majority, minority, U.S. House districts to partisan advantage of the Republicans. Well, as the AP describes it this afternoon, the Supreme Court on Wednesday weakened a landmark civil rights era law that has, at least until now, increased minority representation in Congress and elsewhere, striking down a majority black congressional district in Louisiana. and thus opening the door for more redistricting across the country that will likely aid partisan Republican efforts to control the House. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the court's corrupted Republican majority found that a Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race and not apparently enough on purely partisan politics, which the court has previously determined is entirely okay. That partisan politicians are perfectly allowed to draw congressional and state districts to protect themselves and their party. But apparently as of today, drawing districts, as per the Voting Rights Act's constitutional mandate to ensure equal justice and equal representation for minority voters is somehow discriminatory and unconstitutional in and of itself, if I am understanding. the court's ruling correctly, and that in the case of Louisiana and elsewhere, efforts to ensure appropriate minority representation is in itself discriminatory, presumably against white people.

We'll ask our guests momentarily. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the 6th Congressional District in question in Louisiana as a, quote, snake that stretches more than 200 miles to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, and Baton Rouge, which is true. It did so to ensure minority representation or at least that minorities were able at all to elect representatives of their own choosing. There are many snakes drawn as congressional districts around the country that were not struck down that have been found perfectly constitutional by this same court so long as they are drawn for purely... cynical partisan reasons. That apparently is just fine. But the landmark law created by Congress 60 years ago in 1965... and reupped several times since to finally codify. The 15th Amendment is ratified nearly 100 years earlier in 1870 allows for, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court's six Republicans in the case of the Louisiana District, a quote, unconstitutional gerrymander. Friendly reminder that the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. adopted in the wake of the Civil War bars the denial or abridging of the right to vote, quote, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and explicitly states in its second of only two sentences, quote, the Congress, not the Supreme Court, but the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. And when the... Appropriate legislation, the Voting Rights Act was adopted in 1965, the Act explicitly declared that it was passed, quote, to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But after the right-wing high court effectively gutted Section 5 of the Act back in 2013, which had required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in elections to demonstrate before new election laws were enacted that they did not discriminate, And now, after Wednesday's gutting of Section 2, which remained standing to at least allow challenges to racially discriminatory voting laws after they were adopted, well, is there anything left at all in the Voting Rights Act? The majority today placated themselves by saying that the law still stands, though I'm not sure how.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent for the three liberal justices, warned, quote, The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today's decision renders Section 2, all but a dead letter, she said. For the moment, in regard to redistricting, some are arguing that the effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year's congressional races have already passed. Louisiana, though, may have to change its redistricting plan to comply with the decision. Other states may try to change their districts as well in time for their 2026 primaries. The voting rights law, at least until today, had succeeded in opening the ballot box to black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and other racial minorities by reducing persistent discrimination in voting. Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2. For now, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated. But Samuel Alito wrote that, quote, allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context. He said Section 2 is effectively limited to instances of intentional discrimination, which is, I guess, unless someone says out loud that, hey, we're redrawing these districts to disenfranchise black people. Well, That's a very high standard to prove. Elena Kagan said the upshot of the decision is that states, quote, can without legal consequence systematically now dilute minority citizen voting power. Quote this is a complete and total victory. For American voters, said the Trump White House, adding, we commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights. Whose civil rights? Well, we'll discuss. The chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congresswoman Susan Delbeni of Washington State, meanwhile, called the decision appalling, decrying it to be, quote, against... the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote, but she remained defiant in asserting that Democrats were poised nonetheless to regain the House majority in November, quote, despite this corrupt and targeted assault on the voting rights of black and brown Americans from the Supreme Court. Election law expert Rick Hassan was perhaps even more blunt in his opinion about the ruling describing it as, quote, the worst ruling in a century. which is saying quite a lot, given this corrupted courts series of horrendous rulings in recent years. He went on to charge that the decision would, quote, bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures and local bodies like city councils by ending the protections of Section 2 of the Act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary, fair representation.

Joining us now is Dan Vakuna, National Director of Redistricting and Representation at the Good Government Nonprofit Common Cause. We have spoken to Dan for years now on this program, even as the Supreme Court has peace-by-piece dismantled voting rights. Common Cause, of course, was the challenger in the landmark 2019 redistricting case, Rucho v. Common Cause. in which the corrupted court ruled at the time that federal courts may not hear challenges to partisan gerrymanders, that it was a matter to be left to the states, even as racial gerrymandering remained barred under the Federal Voting Rights Act. Well, that was then... This may be something else entirely. Dan Vekunia, welcome back to the broadcast, sir. Thank you for joining us on what I know is a very busy and pretty grim day for voting rights advocates. Yeah, I appreciate you have me. I wish it was under better circumstances. Me too. Talk out what's going on. Yeah, well, that's what we have to do. Let's begin with, well, your top reaction here to this ruling from the court on Wednesday, and then we'll spend some time digging down into some of the specifics of what it practically means moving forward, but just your top line reactions here today. Well, this is just another one of the significant attacks that the Supreme Court has launched against the Voting Rights Act, against the landmark protections that really revolutionized our democracy. And this John Roberts Court has been whittling away at them. And this really strikes a big blow against fairness interdistering, against the opportunity of people to have a voice in their government, particularly people of color. Weren't we told by Chief Justice John Roberts back in 2013 in the Shelby County case that when they gutted Section 5, that there was no need to worry because racial discrimination in elections was still totally barred under the law, specifically under Section 2, the very section that was for all intents and purposes, it seems to me, gutted today, at least when it comes to racial gerrymanders, along with his vote, by the way. Yeah, I mean, the court has done an incredible job narrowing, basically eliminating the most effective protections we have or that we could have against an autocracy, you know, against sort of the authoritarian approach to government that Donald Trump and his allies seek. I mean, starting with. You mentioned the Section 5 decision, the Shelby County decision, eliminating kind of the ability of the federal government to oversee voting changes that might be discriminatory. In the Rucho case, you mentioned, where litigators tried to...

get a ruling out of the Supreme Court that partisan gerrymandering, you know, the manipulation of our voting districts for political partisan purposes should be unconstitutional. The court said, nope, we're going to walk away, not our problem. Yeah, but like you said, there's still protections under Section 2. And just three years ago, the court said very clearly, in Milligan, a case out of Alabama with the same justices, looked at the protections of Section 2. to stop racial discrimination and gerrymandering and to ensure representation in the halls of power of people of color and said that this was the right approach. This is the law of the land. And again, consistent with their years-long campaign to whittle away and destroy the protections that were won in the blood, sweat, and tears of civil rights marchers on civil war battlefields to eliminate those. And they did so again today. So you're seeing an incredible narrowing of the tools that Americans can use to stop racial discrimination in this country and our democracy. And one of the things I pointed out in my intro, because it kind of drives me nuts. And this has been going back to... Scalia talking about this, you know, claiming to be a constitutional conservative, a textualist, worried about what the Constitution actually says. I underscored the point that, you know, the 15th Amendment is two sentences long. The second sentence is the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Did the fact come up that that was, you know, specifically granted to Congress, that Congress has actually been doing their job. It took them 100 years. But as of 1965, they were actually doing their job here, that this was not a matter seemingly to be left to the Supreme Court. I mean, it seems to counter what the amendment actually says here as far as, you know, who shall have the power to enforce this article. Right, and it's worked incredibly well. And, you know, even so you have the broader context of what, you know, the framers of the 15th Amendment wanted to do, which was end racial discrimination and voting. And, but even more specifically, you know, so Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, it's worked fabulously. But even more specifically in the redistricting context, the Supreme Court in this case called Bolden from, I think it was the early 80s, they tried to make it much harder then for plaintiffs to go to court. and by stating that the plaintiffs would have to prove intentional discrimination, you know, basically, you know, somebody that doesn't happen anymore, right? You're kind of smoking gun of somebody saying we want to discriminate on the grounds of race. And Congress, in direct response to the Supreme Court, went back to the drawing board and said, no, this, to effectively enforce protections against racial discrimination and voting, we want an effects test. What is the actual effect of? of a voting change, in particular a map on the populace. Does the effect reduce the voting strength of people of color? And so when a case came up again, after Congress made it clear its intent to ensure that this was really an effect thing and not make plaintiffs go search for some racially discriminatory intent or smoking gun, then the court interpreted and said, okay, here's what we're going to do. We're going to make sure that.

If a community of color is kind of compact enough, you can put them in a normal-shaped district, and they vote the same, and the white majority usually votes against them, and we kind of look at some other recent history of discrimination, that you've got to draw a district to empower that community. And Congress spoke very clearly. The court gave guidelines on that, and now the courts decided they're going to write the law. They just keep moving the goalpost. The Republican majority on the court asserts that the opinion was a limited ruling. Dan, that it preserves the central tenant of the Voting Rights Act, while the court's non-Republican dissenters argue the court has taken the final step here to dismantle the landmark civil rights law, to which I must ask, what central tenant are the right wingers preserving at this point, at least as they see it? Is there any truth to their claim? No, I mean, you know, Justice Lido is telling you to, you know, where are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? Like the words are there in terms of how this fundamentally reshapes and eliminates protections for people of color. And the dissent is absolutely dripping with frustration and contempt because they... you know, it would be, they were at least hoping the majority to be honest and say this is a fundamental dismantling of the voting rights and protections against racism in redistricting and in voting. But no, this is a huge revolutionary change that thoroughly narrows the pathways for people seeking to stop racial discrimination in the drawing of our districts. Is there Any other, and I'm trying to be fair, and I'm probably too fair, but is there any other legitimate reason to roll back these voting protections beyond sheer Republican partisanship? Is there any hint that in the opinion that there really is some sort of legitimate discrimination going on that has nothing to do with partisan politics by the court? Like discrimination against white people. or something. I mean, what are they holding on to here in this ruling? To me, the most generous interpretation is a logical fallacy to say, you know, as if, like, I think the Voting Rights Act has been a victim of its own success, right? That it's been a revolutionary change in terms of black, Latino, native, Asian American, you know, representation in Congress and state legislatures and city councils. It's given people of color a voice. And now the court is saying it's working so we don't need it. You know, when the Shelby County decision came down. You know, in her dissent, you know, Justice Ginsburg, you know, use the analogy of, you know, there's a rainstorm and the umbrella is preventing you from getting wet, so you throw it away, which makes you no sense. So that's the most generous interpretation outside of kind of partisan intent. I don't know. So what then is the practical immediate effect of this ruling? First for the...

Critical 2026 midterm elections, of course. We've been covering, as I noted, the gerrymandering wars over the past, I don't know, eight months or so. For a start, I presume there'll be one less majority minority district in Louisiana. One third of that state is black, and there would have been... Two majority-minority House districts in a state with six members of Congress. That kind of sounds fair to me. But what is the practical immediate effect right now? I think in a lot of places around the country, you know, the voting. process is really far along, right? You kind of mentioned this in the intro about how you've got people have filed to run. They, you know, they know which districts are going to be in, you know, and some of your primaries are starting or you have happened or kind of in the midst, you know, the vote election administrators are getting ready for that. So I don't know that there are that many places that can kind of. turn the wheel and start their discriminating immediately. But I think you will see an acceleration of this after the elections in time for the 2028 elections. And it just have huge implications at every level of government starting them. And I want to ask you about that. But, you know, we've got Senator Marsha Blackburn today, a Republican from Tennessee. She's running for governor there. She called on, and by the way, just until I think it was 2010, 2013, it was a very evenly divided state in the state legislature there. Democrats still had the majority, as I recall. Well, now she's running in Tennessee for governor. She called on state lawmakers after the Calais ruling came down on Wednesday to that they should now draw a completely Republican map. She said as much, you know, and the state was already gerrymandered in 2022 to have, I think, seven Republicans and just one Democratic Congress member left at this point. But that's not enough. She thinks it should be a completely Republican map. Is that pretty much where we are headed at this point? Yeah, I mean, the decision basically gives a green light. It specifically cites Rucho and, you know, the court's own green light to states to use partisan gerrymandering to engage in that. And so, yeah, I think that you will see states that have some one or two districts that are majority black, majority Latino. or whatever the case may be, those will be dismantled. They'll be like pizza slices possibly. They'll carve up those districts and extend them out to wider, more Republican, maybe rural areas, depending on the geography of the state, and ensure that that community that's, you know, compact and under the previous law would have been put together so they could have a voice in Congress and the state legislature everywhere will be sliced up. And, you know, you'll see 10.

particular SCOTUS from simply cutting out the legs from new legislation as they did with the Voting Rights Act if, you know, there was some crazy thing that happened that they actually could pass some sort of new protections in this Congress. Yeah, I mean, look, obviously the hopes for this Congress are not very high in terms of action. But I do think that, you know, in a pro voter Congress, there is a ban on partisan gerrymandering. It would be. by is is very clearly within the authority of of this of the congress constitution grants them that authority to regulate congressional elections and there wasn't that the case wasn't that the case for the voting rights act as well yeah i know but it runs up against some you know the some other very unfortunate uh sort of views on race that the court has but look i mean we got to use the weapons at our disposal. And I think we got to make them say that we've got to pass it first and then make the court say that's a problem. But I think that would be a good. And because primarily, you know, as this case, the decision indicated, you know, partisan gerrymandering is being given as an out to allow racial discrimination. So we got to cut off that avenue for them. We've got just a couple of minutes here, Dan Bacuna, but I want to real quickly hit. This is not just, well, obviously you already mentioned it's not just 2026. We're going to see an effect in 2028. But I want to also underscore it's not just U.S. House Maps that we're talking about, right? What does this mean for state and local governments and so forth moving ahead? All bets off there as well? Yeah, I mean, at every level of government. The Voting Rights Act's former demand to ensure representation for people of color has been in effect. So you have majority minority districts that were drawn with the VRA in mind at city councils and state legislature and county government. And those are certainly all at risk. You know, they may not have the same kind of partisan desire to dismantle them immediately like some of the state legislatures do. But they are certainly at risk now. And that, you know, people call it great strides because of the law. And those strides could be stopped in their tracks. Isn't Supreme Court reform at this point the only real solution, Dan, and won't they now be even more emboldened to gut even more longstanding precedents? I mean, they're really going down the to do-list, it seems, at this point. Yeah, I mean, look, this court is incredibly hostile to voting rights, despite all evidence that... that they've worked and they've worked incredibly well and really change the way our democracy is functioned for the better. And so I think they're, look, there will be calls for significant change because of how damning these decisions are to their judgment, their character. So, yeah, I mean, I think that'll certainly be part of discussion, sort of big, big time reform.

Last thought, maybe a ray of hope to end here with Dan. In the past, when protections like this have been gutted, whether it's voter ID laws, whether it was when they gutted Section 5, it feels like voters. We're very unhappy about that, that they pushed back minority and non-minority voters alike, that they actually worked harder to assure that they would not be disenfranchised by these people who seem to be working so hard to disenfranchise them. Should we expect to see a similar response to Calais or am I being too Rosie about what we're looking forward to here? No, I mean, you're right. You're not making it up. People get, when people's voting rights are under attack, they realize what a precious, you know, how precious they are, and they get angry. And so we hope that this will fire people up to put pressure on Congress to act. You know, we would love to see state voting rights acts, which weren't touched by this decision, passed in all 50 states to strengthen the protections at that level. So, no, I think I think this could be a catalyst for change, for sure. We could use some of that. Dan Vekunia, National Director of Redistricting and Representation at Common Cause. You can find them, of course, on the social medias at Common Cause. Dan Vukunya is, are you over on Blue Sky, Dan? I have your Twitter address, but not Blue Sky. You know what? I'm not really on anything anymore. So I would find common cause. Good for you. Good for smart, smart move, my friend. You can also go to common cause.org slash redistricting, I believe. Dan really appreciates joining us here, even on this grim day. We will talk as all of this moves forward. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. You bet. Okay dokey. Well, that was fun. Well, fun, no, not necessarily. But I am encouraged. I will say that I am encouraged that Dan says that common cause is going to keep fighting on the state level. They're going to take the fight to Florida, he says. And also the idea that states themselves can pass their own voting rights acts, which means, you know, hey, get organized and make sure that you vote for your state legislature if that's something that you think is important to do. Right. I was going to say you have to do it and somehow get measures on the ballot if you are in these Republican states because Lord knows they're not going to put them on there. And, of course, they have made it successfully more difficult to put ballot items onto the ballot in those sorts of states for exactly this reason. Yes. But it also underscores how important it is to vote for your state and local representatives and make sure that other people. understand the importance of your state legislature. I mean, the question now becomes, what are you going to do about it? So do something. Yeah. And remember, Republicans at least used to pretend they gave a damn about voting rights. Remember this from Ronald Reagan? The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished.

Those were the days, huh? I think Republicans used to care about Reagan. Let's take a quick break, and we'll come back with a few somewhat brighter stories. Maybe cheer us up a little bit after today's... latest body blow from the corrupt far-right activist jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court majority, some brighter legal news of sorts, and some remarkably terrible new poll numbers for Donald Trump, if we have time for it. And I thought that the ones we shared with you yesterday were awful. Apparently, they are getting worse. Go figure that and more. Straight ahead on today's Bradcast. I'm Brad Friedman. Hi, this is Desi Doyen from the Green News Report and the Bradcast. What the public hears on the public airwaves matters. At the broadcast, we do our best to bring you accurate news and analysis on the issues that actually matter, and we do it all independently without corporate or political influence. But we can't do it without you, now more than ever. Please help us stay on your public airwaves by going to bradblog.com slash donate to help keep us going. That's bradblog.com. donate and thanks

Welcome back. It's Bradcast, Brad Freedman from Bradblog.com. As we mentioned on yesterday's show, just before airtime, the corrupt puppies over at the Trump DOJ filed another indictment against Trump's former FBI director, who he is mad at. Because years ago, James Comey did the right thing in choosing a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate allegations that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election because it turns out that they did. But Trump, he's still big mad about it, so he is still trying to punish James Comey. For having done his job, by putting him in jail somehow, apparently. His first attempt to do so did not work when James Comey was indicted on an absurd charge that he had lied to Congress and obstructed Congress. That case was tossed after a judge found that it was unlawfully brought against James Comey by a U.S. attorney that Trump had specifically put into the role to bring the indictment. And because it's Donald Trump, he did it unlawfully when he named his personal insurance lawyer to the job, and she was subsequently removed as U.S. attorney. And the case against James Comey and the similar attempted revenge indictment against New York Attorney General, Letitia James, both of those cases were tossed along with that U.S. attorney. In James' case, Trump was mad at her. because she successfully won a civil fraud lawsuit in New York against Donald Trump, his company, its top executives, including his two eldest sons, finding they had defrauded banks and insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars by lying about Trump's net worth in order to get favorable rates on insurance and bank loans and so forth. But the new case against James Comey, if you can believe it, is even dumber than the first one. That he was threatening the life of Donald Trump about a year ago when he posted a photo on Instagram of seashells on the seashore. that he had come across in North Carolina on the beach spelling out 8647, which the White House at the direction of Fox News naturally pretended to be furious about, pretended that it was a threat on Donald Trump's life somehow. That 86, which in restaurant speak, means to throw something away. And that 47 referred to Trump as the 47th president. But in this case, I guess it meant to kill Donald Trump. Except in restaurants, if you 86 in order, you don't kill the food.

So this is exactly like the tweet, by the way, that was from, well, it's not exactly. This was a photo that James Comey took that he says he found this on the beach. Unlike the actual tweet from Trump's Maga Pal, Mike Sernovich, during President Biden's presidency, where Sernovich actually typed out the letters 8646. But. For which Sernovich, for some reason, has not been charged with any crimes. I don't understand it. It's almost like there are two different systems of justice here. Anyway, despite deleting his post a few hours later, after learning that some were pretending that it was a secret code to kill Donald Trump, and after the new ridiculous charge against James Comey a year later, well, James Comey took to a substack page on Tuesday to respond yet again. to the latest ridiculous indictment with a short video. Well, they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith. Keep the faith. He's going to keep fighting and yeah, maybe someday we will restore whatever values we actually had or at least pretended to have. And listen, if he can do it, if he can keep his spirits up, an FBI director facing the potential of 10 years in jail for this ridiculous witch hunt, witch hunt of a charge. This non-case, this non-crime, this revenge indictment, these harassment charges. This weaponization of the DOJ, all of which will soon be tossed out like the previous charges were. Well, I would argue that we all can try to keep up our spirits as well. Former FBI director James Comey made his first court appearance on Wednesday in the criminal case against him. That legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the...

DOJ to actually win. Prosecutors pursuing the case face their own challenge of proving that James Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat. To be frank, I didn't even know what it meant when I first saw it. It took me a while to even figure it out, but I guess those among the secret James Comey kill the president crowd were able to decipher this immediately. The indictment accuses the veteran Republican FBI director of acting, quote, knowingly and willfully, unquote, but its sparse language offers no support. for that assertion. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, that would be Trump's former and current criminal defense attorney, has declined to elaborate on what evidence of intent that the government actually has. But broad First Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent, and James Comey's public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden. For the government. The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where James Comey said he had found the shells. He made an appearance on Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the state where he lives. He didn't speak or enter a plea during the appearance, but his legal team teed up at least one argument expected to be invoked with defense lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald, saying that attorneys would argue that the prosecution is vindictive and selective and would ask prosecutors to save communications relevant for that motion. In other words, the conversation... Among prosecutors themselves, perhaps sent to those prosecutors from the White House or anything else, those all have to be saved. The U.S. magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick also rejected the government's request. To set conditions on James Comey's release, calling it unnecessary. What? You could put an ankle bracelet on him or something like that. Make him stay in prison until the case comes to court. I mean, good Lord. The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the First Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a, quote, true threat. But that requires prosecutors to prove at a minimum that a defendant. recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. You know, like march to the U.S. Capitol and fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore. You know, that's sort of a reckless statement. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the, quote, defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.

Court also found previously that hyperbolic political speech is protected speech. But since the current Supreme Court doesn't care about precedent or the rule of law and there's no current mechanism for holding them accountable other than impeachment, there is nothing to stop them from simply, you know, changing the rules for their pal Donald if they want to in order to go after James Comey. Back in a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that, quote, if they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ. Referring to President Lyndon Johnson at the time, the court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made that statement, among other things, showed that it wasn't a serious threat of violence, but seashells on the seashore spelling out 8647, well, that just runs chills down my spine. Just saying it. Am I right? Gosh, I hope the president's okay after that. For the record, Miriam Webster, the dictionary, says that 86 is slang, meaning to throw out, to get rid of, or to refuse service to. So, yeah, if you were unclear, this is part of Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department and his witch hunt against his perceived enemies. End of story. Or at least it should be, but his weaponization and witch hunts will continue because he is a sick and twisted person. Jonathan Turley, Fox News's favorite law professor, wrote an opinion piece published on Tuesday about all of this, saying that, quote, despite being one of James Comey's longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not James Comey, that drives the analysis, and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. That's from the Fox News lawyer. If it did, added Turley, it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States. Which potentially could be their goal. Of course it is. In some brighter news, Trump-related court news here, a federal appeals court said its full bench of judges would not rehear Trump's appeal of the $83 million jury award for defaming magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. The decision paves the way for Trump to ask his corrupted U.S. Supreme Court now to hear his argument involving presidential immunity.

Following the high court's landmark ridiculous made up from whole cloth 2024 decision, pretty much allowing presidents to do anything they damn well please without being held criminally accountable for them. And the argument here that, well, he was president at the time that he lied about allegations that were proven in court that he had sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll back in the 90s. Because he was president, he should somehow be allowed to defame her. And the $83 million verdict that was awarded to her by the jury should be tossed. That's his apparent argument anyway. By the way, he has criminal immunity. I don't believe he has any sort of immunity from civil law. But who knows? His corrupt tools on SCOTUS might just play along. But for now, good news, a lower federal appeals court has said, nope, we're not entertaining your nonsense again. Mr. Trump, get lost. You need to pay up. But given, you know, the last story that I covered about James Comey, you may find the statement from a Trump spokesperson today to be somewhat amusing. He said, quote, the American people stand with President Trump in demanding an immediate end to the unlawful, radical weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all the witch hunts, including the illegal Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll hoaxes. The defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carol based her false claims on the president's official acts. They're arguing it was an official presidential act to defame. E. Jean Carroll. That's actually what they are arguing here. Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carol, also issued her own statement saying, quote, E. Jean Carroll is eager for this case originally filed in 2019 to be over so that she can finally obtain justice. I think we are all eager for that at this point. We are all eager for all of this nonsense to be over. But it is not. Not yet. And it's still going to be a while, I'm afraid. But one more uplifting story to help me, at least, out of the doldrums here before we go, following the SCOTUS ruling on Wednesday morning, undermining democracy and the U.S. Constitution itself, literally.

At least we can take some comfort in the fact that none of this crap is going over well with the American people. None of it. And it's going to get just far worse for him before any of this gets better, in my opinion, especially today with Brent crude futures soaring to record highs on the markets today with Trump's endless idiotic war on Iran. Brent crude futures just before airtime are up more than 7% today. Nearly $112 a barrel. Wow. Think your gas prices are high now, just you wait. But Americans are, in fact, noticing. New polling out today from Reuters finds Trump's approval ratings sank to the lowest level of his current term as Americans increasingly soured on his handling of the cost of living and the unpopular war with Iran. That according to a new Reuters Ipsos poll this week, just 34% of Americans now approve of Trump's performance in the White House. 34%. That's down from 36% in a prior Reuters survey just over a week ago, so it has fallen two points since the beginning of April. But here's the part that jumped out at me that I wanted to share. Only 22% of poll respondents now approve of Trump's performance on the cost of living. 22%. And this was one of the biggest things that he ran on just over a year ago. I will bring down your prices instantly. I will lower the cost of gas. I will lower the cost of energy by 50% he vowed. That has all gone up since he has come into office. And has gone up dramatically. Dramatically. And it's like he's not even trying. Not only he's not even trying to make it better. He's actively trying to make it worse, as we talked about on yesterday's show, paying using your tax dollars to pay energy companies billions of dollars to not produce wind energy. increasing your costs, your electricity costs. So he's actively trying to make it worse. Well, the American people do not like it. They do not like it at all what he is doing when it comes to the cost of living. Well, I shouldn't say the American people don't. 22% of them do.

22% of them, I guess, think he's doing a fantastic job. Well, I'm sure 22% includes the CEOs of Big Oil who are making out like bandits. Yes. 41% of the Republican respondents in this poll say that they disapprove of his handling of the cost of living. 41% of Republicans. Trump won the 2024 presidential election. Reports Reuters on promises to bring down prices after several years of high inflation had vexed his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden. Well, now Trump's approval rating on the economy overall, not just on the cost of living, but the economy overall. That approval rating is now 27%. The great businessman. has his approval rating at 27% for the American people well below any reading that he had during his first term in office. And by the way, also lower than Joe Biden's weakest numbers on the economy. That's right. You're losing to Sleepy Joe, Donny Boy. Americans liked his economy much better than yours. Americans, really? Think you suck. For the record, just 34% of Americans now approve of the U.S. conflict with Iran. That's down from 36% in mid-April. So that is ticking down by about two points a week. It was 38% back in mid-March, according to the Reuters poll. So that, too, is heading over the same cliff. Just in time for November, at least we can hope, at least if we are able to vote and vote in droves like... We've never voted before. Like our lives depend on it. Because they kind of do. At this rate, yep, they do. All right, we've got to get out. My thanks to our guest today, Dan Vickunya, of Common Cause. Very nice for him to jump in with us on a very busy day at the very last moment. Did not know that. ruling was coming down today. I knew it was coming down at some point soon. Did not know it was going to come out today. So, Glenn, we were able to take sort of a left turn or right turn, whatever we want to call it and cover that. Thanks to you, Desi Doyen, for making it all happen. And thanks to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. If you missed any portion of today's program, please stop by bradblog.com, the newly redesigned bradblog.com. I've been working very hard on it. Yes, you have. Let me know what you think about it. It will be easier than ever to either download or just listen to online and our nifty new player. Fact check. True. It is. Today's Bradcast or any other, or any green news report for that matter. Yes. Easier than ever at brandblog.com while you are there. Also easier than ever, you can hit one of the donate buttons to help support our work here.

either a one-time donation or monthly support, which is greatly appreciated all of that easier than ever to do at bradblog.com or bradblog.com slash donate. Drop me email. If you like, I am Bradcast at Bradblog.com. And yes, I am still on the social medias where you will find me, especially at Blue Sky at the Bradblog. We'll see you there. Until we see you here next time, hopefully tomorrow with Drift Glass and Digby. Yes. Always looking forward to that. That's tomorrow on the broadcast. I'm Brad Friedman. Good luck world. You're listening to the Bradcast. We are 100% listener-supported thanks to listeners like you who drop by bradblog.com slash donate.