Transcription
Hey all, Glen Kersner here. So friends, it looks like Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon is again rearing her judicial head. There's some new reporting about a pretty twisted legal development that represents yet another abuse of the rule of law by Donald Trump's dirty DOJ leadership. And this one takes us back down to southern Florida and Judge Aileen Cannon.
So, I wanted to sit down with my friend Dave Aronberg. Dave was the Palm Beach County State Attorney for a dozen years. He knows that part of the country and that jurisdiction well. Um, in his jurisdiction when he was state attorney in Palm Beach County, there's this little joint known as Mar-a-Lago. So, I wanted to sit down with Dave and talk about this new twisted legal development. Let me try to set it up.
Um, we all know that Donald Trump is forever wanting to abuse the rule of law to go after people he believes are his enemies, his political foes, his opponents, people who did him wrong. You know, he has weaponized and abused the rule of law to go after James Comey and he failed. He weaponized the rule of law to try to go after Letitia James and he failed. And here he goes again trying to abuse the rule of law to go after former CIA Director John Brennan. Why? Because Director Brennan had the temerity to investigate what looked like Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He investigated it. Indeed, there was, you know, ample evidence to conclude that Russia did try to intervene, interfere in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. And that was the finding of that investigation. Of course, it's a finding that has been affirmed and confirmed several times over, including by Special Counsel John Durham, who looked into potential Russian interference into the election and looked into the investigators who ran the earlier investigation on that subject. And of course, John Durham was appointed by who? Trump appointee Bill Barr, former attorney general. And basically, there was no evidence undercutting those conclusions that, of course, Russia tried to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That finding and conclusion was affirmed again by the bipartisan Senate Intel Committee co-chaired by who? Marco Rubio. So John Brennan clearly did nothing wrong. He did everything right. And yet Donald Trump, you know, wants him pursued, wants him investigated, wants him prosecuted, notwithstanding the fact that he committed no crime. There's no evidence suggesting he committed a crime.
So what has Donald Trump's DOJ done? So John Brennan's investigation back in, you know, 2017 or so was a DC-centric investigation, right? That's where Trump was. That's where others who were potentially being investigated were. This all happened in and around DC. But Donald Trump doesn't want John Brennan investigated federally in DC. So, he's tried to steer the investigation down to Southern Florida, the uh the Southern Florida US Attorney's Office. And specifically, he's trying to get it into Judge Cannon's courthouse, the Fort Pierce courthouse, where she is the only judge. You know, this is what we call forum shopping. You know, you don't get to pick the judge. You You have to go to where the crime allegedly occurred, DC, and that's where you investigate it. But listen, Donald Trump's dirty DOJ leadership will do anything dear leader tells them to do.
So what we just saw break in recent days is John Brennan, together with his lawyer Ken Weinstein, sent a letter to the chief judge who has supervisory authority over the federal judiciary in Florida, including Aileen Cannon. And it's Judge Altanaga of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they wrote a letter setting out why Judge uh Altanaga, in her supervisory capacity over that jurisdiction, cannot let this go on. Remember, it was Judge Altanaga who originally told Judge Aileen Cannon, according to New York Times reporting, when the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case um was indicted. The chief judge told Aileen Cannon, "Don't accept that case because there will be an appearance of partiality." And Judge Aileen Cannon didn't care. She took it anyway. And look at where that ended up.
So, I wanted to sit down with Dave Aronberg to talk about this, you know, somewhat contorted issue. Um, and I wanted to use the letter that was just sent, 16, 17-page letter that was just sent to the chief judge urging that the Department of Justice not be allowed to abuse the rule of law to forum shop, not to mention, you know, launch a bogus investigation in the first instance, which this appears to be. So Dave and I just covered all of that in this video. And um we also at the end of the video talked about why there is reason for optimism as we move into 2026. I know it doesn't always feel that way, but there are points of light and we discuss that toward the end of this video. So I hope you enjoy this extended conversation with my friend Dave Aronberg.
[Music]
All right, welcome everybody. We have our friend Dave Aronberg back with us, former um Palm Beach County State Attorney, current and forever justice warrior. Uh blowing up now on Substack. I hope you will click over and uh subscribe to him. Is it the Florida Lawman on Substack, Dave?
>> Well, I call myself the Florida Lawman, but it's Dave Aronberg. I'm just not as creative. Just my name, Dave Aronberg.
>> There you go. And uh thank you for being willing to jump on. I know this is kind of your backyard down there in southern Florida. You were state state attorney in Palm Beach County. There's that little resort, Mar-a-Lago, that was in your jurisdiction. And you were what, 10 years, 12 years the state attorney down there?
>> 12 years. Yes, sir. 12 years.
So, um I'm going to ask you to kind of bring our viewers up to speed on what this sort of strange, contorted issue is all about that has just sort of broken in the news courtesy of a letter written to the chief judge of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. A letter written by a gentleman named Ken Weinstein. Full disclosure, Ken used to be my US attorney and I was I was his chief of homicide at the DC US attorney's office. He is representing former CIA former CIA Director John Brennan. As we all know, Donald Trump has, you know, uh made John Brennan one of his sworn enemies because Brennan had the temerity to actually investigate potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. And uh, you know, he issued a report, a report that has been proven to be true and accurate many times over, but that doesn't matter to Donald Trump. Donald Trump has announced to anybody who will listen that John Brennan needs to get got. And that kind of brings us to where we are. So can you kind of lay it out in layman-friendly terms for us what in the world is going on in South Florida?
Well, it is great to be back with you, Glenn. And yes, I have my own Substack page now, but you're the king. So, thanks for the plug, man. So, here's what's happening. You have a US attorney in the Southern District of Florida, appointed by President Trump, who is a loyalist. His name is uh John Reading Kenyonz, and he is doing a grand jury probe of the whole Russia hoax. I'm using that in air quotes. You know, the Russia hoax. If that sounds familiar, we've seen it before with Bill Barr and the John Durham probe, which just blew up in their faces. It was an embarrassment. John Durham looked into all of it. The wor the most he could do, he got someone, a low-level official at the FBI, to admit that he lied on a form. It was minor that plead guilty. Then he put two people on trial and they were both quickly acquitted, and that was the end of it.
So now they're going after John Brennan, thinking that John Brennan, when he was CIA director, he was involved with the this hoax because of that report that's been discredited about uh that was initiated by the Republicans, adopted by Hillary Clinton. And it was the former um what do you call MP? The M3 agent over in uh England who did the report about Donald Trump. And so they're thinking that, you know what, John Brennan, you started this by putting out false information. You created this whole Russia hoax. It's garbage. It's going nowhere in the real world. But because it's garbage, the US attorney, upon direction of the White House, is trying to get this grand jury probe to Fort Pierce out of Miami. He wants it in the Fort Pierce courthouse, which is within the Southern District of Florida. And why does he want it in Fort Pierce? Because that's where Judge Aileen Cannon is.
>> The only judge in the Fort Pierce jurisdiction, the Fort Pierce courthouse. Is that right?
>> The only one, the only sitting trial judge there. And so they are what's called forum shopping. They are trying to get it in front of her, in front of her. They want her to oversee it. They know that if she's the judge there, in their mind, they would get something, a very favorable judge who has their interest at heart. That's their belief. Now, the reason why they're thinking that is because they remember she's the one who got in some trouble when it came to the Mar-a-Lago documents case. She intervened and said, "Let's put a kibosh on the investigation before any charges are filed. Let's get a special master to review the documents," which is unheard of, uncalled for. And the conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals repudiated her for that and said, "You can't do this. They're not even there's not even an indictment. You can't get involved and stop this investigation and invoke a special master." So they removed her from the case, and then charges were filed. There was an indictment, and then randomly guess who got the case? It was Judge Aileen Cannon, and she slow-rolled the case and then eventually she dismissed the charges altogether because of an untested legal theory that said that Jack Smith was improperly appointed. So you can see why MAGA is like, "That's the judge we want." Whether there's something to it or not, just leave it out there.
So now you have John Brennan, who as a former CIA head, is like, "I'm not letting grass grow under my feet. I'm going to go and proactively remove any chance that Judge Cannon would be the judge in this case." So what he did, his lawyer, you mentioned his name, the lawyer wrote to the chief judge in Miami said, "Judge, Judge Altanaga, said, 'Please, we will you can do a grand jury anywhere with any judge, just not in Fort Pierce. We we believe that Judge Cannon, according to the lawyer, is biased and we cannot let her run this show.'" And you remember, here's one thing. Normally, the chief judge would be like, "Come on, I can't get involved in this. This is you're this you have to file a motion to recuse. This is not the right thing to do." But there was a report that when Judge Cannon got this case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, when she got the original case randomly, that the chief judge asked her, said, "Hey, you may want to step aside. It's not a good look. You may not want to have this case." And Judge Cannon rejected her. So the thinking is by John Brennan is that Chief Judge Altanaga knows that there's an issue there and would step in and say, "We're not letting this turn into a circus and send it to another court with another judge." That's it.
And all right, so let's back it up because there's so much to unpack and none of this is intuitive. I mean, even for career prosecutors, we don't often see attacks on, for example, where prosecutors decide to bring a grand jury investigation. And that is for a couple of reasons. Defendants don't typically have a dog in the fight. They typically don't have the ability to intervene and saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If you're investigating me," and let's set aside for a moment, Dave, though, I want to circle back to it. It doesn't seem like this is a righteous investigation that has what we call adequate predication, enough evidence to even launch a criminal probe. But setting that aside, usually defendants don't get to say, "Oh, okay. You're going to investigate me for suspected crimes. I want to be uh investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney's Office, not by, you know, the Southern District of Florida US Attorney's Office." You don't get to say that. You don't have standing. You haven't been charged with anything. So, but as you say, you know, John Brennan is not letting the grass grow under his feet because there are so many data points that make for a very strong argument that games are being played, rules are being either ignored or manipulated, and rights are potentially being violated.
But let's go all the way back to the beginning because first of all, when John Brennan was involved in investigating whether Russia had attempted to interfere in and influence the 2016 presidential elections, they reached a conclusion. This is back in, you know, 2017 or 2018. They reached a conclusion that yes, Russia did try to interfere to the advantage of Donald Trump and the disadvantage of Hillary Clinton. So then what becomes, I think, important corroborating evidence that that was an appropriate, indeed probably the only reasonable conclusion to draw, is you had John Durham, special counsel that was appointed by the Trump administration by Bill Barr to try to undermine that investigation, and he couldn't. Right. Basically affirming, yeah, Russia tried to interfere and hurt Hillary and help Trump. And then you have a Senate Intel Committee issuing a five-volume report headed up by or co-chaired by whom? Marco Rubio, again affirming all of this.
So, first of all, Dave, to this old prosecutor, it looks like there is no criminal conduct to investigate with a grand jury or otherwise, which tells me this looks a heck of a lot like the trumped-up investigations and attempted indictments of James Comey and Letitia James. And this is Donald Trump going after his perceived enemies again. And, you know, I I think that's an important point for us not to gloss over because it is another indication of the abuse of the rule of law by Donald Trump's Department of Justice as headed up by Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch. Um, and then if we kind of move forward to the next, the next curiosity. Okay, John Brennan is running this investigation um into potential Russian interference, influence in a 2016 presidential election. And where is the center of gravity of that investigation? Well, it's Trump and Trump-affiliated people um who are potentially being investigated to see if they had any involvement with this. This is a DC-centric thing. This is a DC-centric investigation. How in the heck, let me ask you as the sort of playing devil's advocate, how in the heck do they have what's called venue? Do they have like proper jurisdiction to run all the way down to southern Florida to start investigating what John Brennan did back in 2017 in Washington DC?
>> It's a great question because this is conduct that occurred in Washington DC, not South Florida. But here's the rub, my friend. So, there's a statute of limitations issue >> because we're talking about the Steele dossier and we're talking about the origins of the Russia probe. We're talking about what, 2016, 2015? Uh statute of limitations has long expired. And the only way that they're trying to get this filed is they're saying that somehow the search at Mar-a-Lago was a continuation somehow of the Russia hoax. I don't ask me why. Don't ask me how. But they're saying that's what allows for venue in the Southern District of Florida and that's what allows this case, if a criminal case, to be brought even though it's clearly beyond the statute of limitations, which would be five years. So they're saying that it was the Mar-a-Lago search somehow that's a continuation of the whole Russia hoax. And I know my head's spinning as well, but this is why this whole thing is going nowhere unless they could get a judge who is very sympathetic to allow this case to get to a jury, which a jury would clearly reject it. But a judge has a lot of influence as to whether a case gets dismissed in advance. We saw this in the Eastern District of Virginia who dismissed the vindictive charges against uh James Comey and Letitia James. But if you've got a judge who MAGA thinks is on their side, it could be a game changer.
So yes, and by the way, one other thing you mentioned, which is so true, it shows you how bogus this is when you correctly pointed out that it was the Marco Rubio-led Senate Intelligence Committee that said that there was Russian meddling in the election. In fact, uh do you know that the committee report found what's called, this is a quote, "irrefutable evidence of Russian Russian meddling in the 2016 election" and that Russia engaged in a, I'm reading from the report, "aggressive multi-faceted effort to influence the outcome of the presidential election." So, good luck saying it's a hoax. Uh but hey, there's an old saying in law enforcement, Glenn, you know about this. You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. And that's what Trump is trying to do. He's trying to give his enemies the ride to the police station even though they're eventually gonna go free.
>> Yeah. No, that's a great point. Um and there are some other data points. Um let me let me first go back and and say that, you know, ironically, in the very unlikely event John Brennan is actually indicted for phantom crimes because he was part of an investigation into Russian interference in US elections, if he was ever indicted, he could, you know, have a witness list, a defense witness list that included Bill Barr, John Durham, special counsel, Marco Rubio for the defense. These people would all come in and blow Donald Trump's prosecutorial claim out of the water. Which is why I think your point is so well taken, Dave. It's about the investigation. It's not about the prosecution. Right. What did he say to President Zelensky? I mean, Donald Trump has prior in this regard. He said, "Look, I just need you to announce an investigation into my political opponent, Joe Biden." Right? "I need a favor, though, if I'm going to provide you with this congressionally appropriated money so you can defend the lives of your people in Ukraine against unlawful Russian aggression. I know you want that, but I need a favor, though. I need you to announce an investigation." You're right. It's always about the ride, and uh he's showing his hand yet again.
Here are some other important data points from this 16-page, 17-page letter that John Brennan and his lawyer provided to the chief judge down in the 11th Circuit. And I want to ask you in a minute, why would they be writing the chief judge of the 11th Circuit when this has to do with the uh the the uh court, the what's the name of the courthouse in which Judge Cannon sits? Fort Pierce. Pierce for a potential Fort Pierce special grand jury. But here are some other important data points because in this letter they talk about how other US attorney's offices basically wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole, this bogus investigation, like the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they tried to gin up, according to this letter, an investigation into John Brennan, and that office was like, uh, no. Uh, and they dropped it like a hot potato. Then they tried to do it in in another office. Was it EDVA? Um, but but the point is, you're not only forum shopping by trying to find a friendly judge and a friendly courthouse, you are also having to hop from US attorney to US attorney to US attorney until somebody will actually say, "Okay, I will take on dear leader's vanity prosecution." And, you know, that's the kind of stuff that I think is building a strong case for the chief judge to, you know, take some supervisory responsibility for what they're trying to pull down there.
Now, why are they going to Judge Chief Judge Altanaga of the 11th Circuit? Well, they they're going to the chief judge. She's the chief judge of the Southern District of Florida. She's based in Miami, and she's the one who reached out to Judge Aileen Cannon initially and said, "You know, maybe you want to back off this case. It's not a good look, perhaps, if you uh take this case. You're a rookie judge. You got in trouble with the the special master issue, so maybe you should take a step back." And Judge Aileen Cannon essentially said, "Thank you for the advice. I'm rejecting it and I'm taking the case." And and so Judge Altanaga is the one who John Brennan thinks can, because she's in charge of the Southern District of Florida, can say, "Okay, if there's a grand jury investigation down here, which the US attorney has every right to do, then it should be done in Miami. It should not be forum shopping where you pick the one judge that you want over in Fort Pierce, especially because there's no connection to Fort Pierce to this case other than the Mar-a-Lago search, which again, can't be the legal basis for the current Brennan investigation." Um, so I guess that's why I'm, I'm the venue issue is a huge hurdle for the government. Um, and also on the statute of limitations um issue, Glenn, to get back to that, because the Mar-a-Lago search is has nothing to do with the whole Russia hoax or Russia probe. Then the only other thing they could say to get around the statute of limitations argument is that this is a continuing conspiracy, that when John Brennan, every time he testifies before Congress, and he did testify just a couple years ago, that that's part of his continuing conspiracy. It's a continued lie. That's a reach. But at least it's a a better argument than the Mar-a-Lago documents case had something to do with the so-called Russia hoax.
Yeah. I I think you need to be a lawyer to misconstrue the separation between a 2016 investigation into Russian interference in a presidential election and Donald Trump leaving the White House unlawfully, taking with him and retaining down in Florida at Mar-a-Lago classified documents, national defense information, which gave gave rise to espionage charges, creating a conspiracy with his two former co-defendants down there who are hiding boxes when the FBI is trying to come get them. These are criminal apples and oranges. And as you point out, to say, "Well, well, the reason we're down in Florida investigating what John Brennan did in 2017 in Washington DC is because Donald Trump was indicted for separate crimes when he took documents." Wait a minute. That doesn't really work. Those two things are dramatically different events, aren't they?
Again, there's so many reasons to shoot this down. And going back to Judge Altanaga, um, you know, Judge Cannon has prior. Don't take it from me. Take it from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals when it said things like this, and now I'm quoting from the letter. Um, and this is when, as you mentioned, Dave, during the um classified documents investigation, when the FBI executed search warrants and lo and behold, found all of this classified information, national defense information that Donald Trump was allegedly unlawfully retaining. Um, she tried to put a stop to the investigation. She tried to intervene and tell the prosecutors, "No, no, no, no. You can't look at the evidence that was seized pursuant to a a lawful search warrant of Mar-a- at Mar-a-Lago." And the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals smacked her down and they said the following: A panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that, quote, "The district court," meaning Judge Cannon, "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in appointing a special master and in essence trying to put a stop to the DOJ's investigation of the evidence that had just been lawfully seized." That's an abuse of judicial discretion writ large. Um, and they said by doing that, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said by what? By what Judge Cannon did, quote, "would defy our nation's foundational principle that our law applies to all without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank because she carved out a special rule for a former president." I mean, you don't often get um courts of appeals using that kind of direct, blunt, indeed scathing language about the the um poor judgment, unsupportable rulings of a trial court judge.
So, with Judge Altanaga previously saying, as you've indicated, "Look, uh, now it looks like you're going to catch the classified documents cases, the presiding judge, the wiser course, Judge Cannon, would be for you to recuse yourself. Do not accept that assignment." And and I I think the reason that was such good advice from the chief judge is because the federal law um is pretty lenient when it comes to a judge being required to remove themselves from the case. The language of the statute on conflicts is, "If a judge's impartiality might be questioned, the judge shall disqualify themselves." Why? Because you want the public to have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judge presiding over a criminal case. So think about that standard. If a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, how many times have people reasonably questioned reasonably questioned her impartiality, but she would not take that good advice from Chief Judge Altanaga? So here she is potentially in hot water again.
And let me ask you this now. Projecting forward, Dave, what does the chief judge do with this request?
Well, I think the chief judge Altanaga here, I think she is going to act. I actually I know it's unusual. We started off by saying it's very rare the defendant in these cases, they don't get to choose the judge. They don't get to choose the venue. But this is not like any other case. I think based on Chief Judge Altanaga's previous comments, you can see how she feels about this, and she does not want a circus. She does not want what's going what was going on in the Eastern District of Virginia where you had a clear vindictive prosecution and that it was thrown out and it just made a mockery of the system where the US attorney had to resign because he wouldn't take part in this. So, I think she is not going to want this to happen in the Southern District of Florida. And she's going to say, "If you want a grand jury, you're entitled to it. It's got to be in Miami or any other courthouse. It can be in West Palm Beach. It could be in Fort Lauderdale, but you can't do forum shopping. You can't choose the judge you want in Fort Pierce." And I think she's actually going to intervene. Um, one other reason why I think she'll do it. You remember when Judge Cannon was repudiated, it was by the conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. You remember the three judges who unanimously uh ruled in that case? They were, it was Judge Britt Grant, Judge Andrew Brasher, and Chief Judge William Pryor. Well, what's interesting about that is that Chief Judge William Pryor was appointed by George W. Bush. The other two judges, both appointed by Donald Trump. So, and that is why I continue to say, and I'm glad I can continue to say that the federal judiciary is holding strong against Donald Trump's attempted lawlessness and unconstitutionality. Everybody says, "But the Supreme Court, I'm with you, but the Supreme Court." But you know what? Those 800 or so trial court and courts of appeals judges are holding strong, and those are points of light.
Oh, I think it's important for us as we end the year to give people some hope that yes, the guardrails have been tested, our democracy has has uh has been tried. But I do think that even though the legislative branch has for the first time in history given up its power to the executive branch, we've never seen this before. They have emasculated themselves. The judiciary has held. Yes, the Supreme Court has done some awful rulings. The immunity ruling, I think, was still the worst. But we've seen the end of nationwide injunctions. We've seen giving the president power that he's never had before to fire executive branch appointments even though the legislative branch had said we are creating this special category to insulate it from political pressure. Nope. Nope. The Supreme Court has just given the president uh unique and unprecedented powers. But the judges, the federal judges and the appellate judges, regardless who appoints them, they have held strong. And I think that it is a sign of hope going into next year because all this stuff I think ends in November when the Democrats gain control of the House. And now you'll see after that happens the kind of pushback, the kind of balance of power, the kind of checks and balances that the framers had intended. So I think that uh we're going to get there. We just need uh what is that, 11 more months?
And it's so great to end on a positive note as we move into 2026, which will be a pivotal year for both the rule of law and American democracy. That is not hyperbole, although it it in other times it might sound hyperbolic. But I I want to pick up your your point and we'll finish here because we need to find the points of light as we move forward. Not Pollyanna, but true points of light amidst the Trump-induced darkness. Um, I couldn't agree with you more that the case of Trump versus United States, that's the caption of the presidential immunity case. And boy, does that sum up where we are. Trump versus the United States. That's what I feel every day. It's our leader against the people. Um, it is such a horrific opinion, but let's never forget that we were in the process, the system was in the process. Judge um Tanya Chutkin was in the process of litigating which of the J6 crimes for which Donald Trump was indicted can go to trial even notwithstanding the presidential immunity ruling. She was litigating that. And remember, even though we just use as shorthand presidential immunity, absolute immunity, the reality of that opinion, as horrific as it is, is there are three categories. One is core constitutional functions like directing the military. Um, you probably can't pierce uh presidential immunity for core constitutional functions. But uh category number two, official governmental acts by a president have presumptive immunity, but the presumption can be overcome by evidence. And that is what was being litigated. I believe to my core, Judge Chutkin would have ruled he does not have immunity for trying to overturn the results of a presidential election. He lost. And frankly, Dave, I don't even think that's in the middle category. I think that's more private conduct because he was acting as a candidate. But one way or another, >> listen, this fight to hold Donald Trump accountable for at least some of his crimes is far from over. Yes, that case, the J6 case, was dismissed in November. Why? Because the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, you know, the deep thinkers and naval gazers say, "We don't think it's a good idea to be able to prosecute a sitting criminal president." Well, that's a recipe for dictatorship. But still, you know that it can be revived. And as long as the rule of law comes back into the light of day and we have what my friend Harry Dunn has has characterized as ruthless patriots enforcing the rule of law without fear or favor, we're still going to get there. I have to believe and I have to hold fast to that as we move into 2026.
>> You know, Glenn, it's a good way to end it because Donald Trump agrees with you. He was so upset with the judges that he has appointed that he has decided to take on the group that gave him that list of judges, the Federalist Society. He has bashed them. He has said he is not going to use their list anymore. He is that upset by the independence of the federal judges that he is only appointing loyalists like his number three at the DOJ, Emil Bo, who he appointed to the third district court of appeals. Third or fourth? I forgot. Third one. Third. Good. I had it right the first time. And so you see it's a different type of judge now. But because of that, the Senate isn't as quick to confirm it. The first term, Trump appointed judges at a rapid pace. He had Mitch McConnell on his side. It was the fastest we've seen. And now in this term, it's at a snail's pace because he is not appointing those conservative just judges anymore. He wants loyalists, and he can't find loyalists who have passed the bar and who are qualified to be judges. So there is reason for hope here. Uh Trump himself understands it that those judges he appointed he thought would be loyal to him have gone the other way many times.
>> Dave, great conversation. Thank you for uh uh bringing the optimism at the end because even beyond hope, I think we have reason to be optimistic as we head into 2026. So um again, where can people find you? Substack and anywhere else they should look for you?
Yeah, please uh subscribe to my Substack. It's free. Dave Aronberg. And also I'm on Blue Sky at Dave Aronberg. Uh and, you know, I just want to wish you and your many, many viewers a happy new year. Also, I have a book out. It's about fraud and abuse in the drug treatment industry and how we were able to solve that problem here in Palm Beach County. It's called Fighting the Florida Shuffle. So, I appreciate your the chance to plug my book and my Substack and Blue Sky. And Glenn, keep leading the way, brother. You are a ray of light in this dark world.
>> Thanks, Dave. And I'll talk to you again soon. I'm sure we're going to have plenty more to talk about.
>> Thanks, my friend.
[Music]