Adam Klasfeld on Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund, Abrego Garcia, and the SPLC

What happens when the justice system becomes one of the central battlegrounds of American politics?

In this episode of Faithful Politics, Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram speak with Adam Klasfeld, veteran legal journalist and editor in chief of All Rise News, about several major legal fights unfolding in the Trump era. Adam has spent years covering high-profile court cases from inside the courtroom, including Trump’s criminal and civil cases, the E. Jean Carroll litigation, the Epstein prosecution, impeachment proceedings, and major cases involving civil rights and due process.

The conversation begins with Trump’s proposed $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. Adam explains where the fund came from, why its structure is raising alarms, and how taxpayer money could potentially be distributed with little public oversight. He also walks through why Capitol Police officers Harry Dunn and Dan Hodges are challenging the fund, and what the fight says about January 6, political loyalty, and accountability.

The episode then turns to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was sent to El Salvador despite a court order blocking his removal. Adam explains why this case has become such an important due process fight, why judges across the political spectrum have raised concerns, and why the case matters even to people who may not follow immigration law closely.

Finally, Adam breaks down the Trump Justice Department’s case involving the Southern Poverty Law Center. He explains the government’s claims about SPLC’s former informant program, the connection to Charlottesville and Unite the Right, and why the case raises larger questions about civil rights organizations, extremism, and the rewriting of recent history.

Relevant links for Adam Klasfeld:

All Rise News
https://www.allrisenews.com/
https://substack.com/@klasfeldreports
https://x.com/KlasfeldReports
https://www.instagram.com/adamklasfeld/

Guest Bio

Adam Klasfeld provides some of the “best legal writing inside the courtroom” (MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell) and insights that are “always so smart and on the money” (MSNBC’s Katie Phang). For more than a decade, he’s covered the top stories and court cases from state, federal and military courts across the United States.

A senior journalism fellow at Just Security, an online forum affiliated with NYU School of Law, Adam has served as a legal contributor for MSNBC's The Last Word. Previously, Adam served as the senior legal correspondent for The Messenger, the managing editor for Law&Crime, and a reporter for Courthouse News. He has appeared as a guest on the Dan Abrams Show on NewsNation, the Lawrence O'Donnell Show on MSNBC, CBS's Inside Edition, the BBC, and NBC on a variety of topics. He hosted the podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld" and was prominently featured in the documentary "Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell?" — which premiered on the Starz Network and the UK's Channel 4. International television appearances include Sky News, CBC, and CTV, discussing Jeffrey Epstein’s thwarted prosecution. Radio appearances: National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” “Here and Now,” and “Trump, Inc.”; BBC (World, Scotland and Wales); Radio New Zealand; SXM Canada Talks; Sirius FM and more. He cut his teeth at the legal news beat for a decade at Courthouse News, and his bylines also have appeared on NBC, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and other outlets. Most major news outlets have cited his scoops and reporting, including the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Newsweek, Reuters, U.S. News and World Report and the Associated Press.

Support Sarah Stankorb’s work and preorder Damned If She Does: Why Women Quit Church and What It Means for the Future of Religion, Releases September 15, 2026.  Bookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9798889837091

Website: https://www.sarahstankorb.com/

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:00

It is $1.776 billion that is designed to go to whoever Trump wants this $1.776 billion to go to. And let me unpack what I mean by that. The fund itself, according to the documents that the legal documents that lay out how the whole thing operates, that there is a panel of five people, all selected by Todd Blanche, who decide without any public scrutiny, according to the document itself, who the money goes to. There are no the the panel itself doesn't need to disclose any criteria publicly about what goes into those decisions. They do not have to say who the recipients of this fund are. They don't have to say how much money that they are getting from taxpayers under the aegis of this fund.

SPEAKER_01 0:52

Hey, welcome back, Faithful Politics listeners and watchers. I'm your political host, Will Wright, and I'm joined by your faithful host, Pastor Josh Bertram. How's it going, Josh? What's up, Will? What's up, Will?

SPEAKER_00 1:04

It's going sorry, I don't know why that was hello. Welcome, Will. What's up, Will?

SPEAKER_01 1:10

And today we have joining back with us Adam Classfeld, who is a veteran legal journalist and editor-in-chief of All Rise News, where he covers courts, civil rights, and the major legal battle shaping the Trump era. He has reported from inside the courtrooms on Trump's criminal and civil cases, impeachment proceedings, and a whole list of other really, really high-profile cases. And we are so glad to have him back on Faithful Politics. Welcome back. Thank you so much. Happy to be here again. Yeah. And I'm going to just start at the top with a point of personal privilege and just say what an honor it is to just be able to have you back on. For listeners that may not know who you are or have seen you, especially when I said welcome back, is you're probably one of our first journalists that we ever interviewed for the episode. We didn't tell you that because we didn't want to minimize our chance of getting you on. But you you you were, and you were, I think you were working at Courthouse News at the time. And yeah, I was just, I was really, really following your reporting. You were one of the only reporters that was writing on, I think Gene Carroll case at the time. And I just learned so much. So just really appreciate just everything that you do.

SPEAKER_03 2:19

Thank you so much. Well, I remember your original outreach to me at the time. I liked the way that you did things that you seem to, you know, I I was saying a little bit before we started this recording, we could all stand to elevate the discourse uh in in the day when it is sinking ever so much.

SPEAKER_01 2:40

Yeah, yeah. So so I wanted to bring you on because you're covering uh a few stories that I I'm interested in, and I wanted to just kind of get your your inside understanding of it. So the first story that I want to talk about is the Trump, the Trump anti-weaponization fund. The Trump Anti-Weonization Fund. So so number one, help help us understand what it what is it, and you know, kind of like how do we get to this point where now there is a $1.77 billion fund to go to folks that that he wants.

SPEAKER_03 3:16

And so I think the answer to your question is embedded to your question. It is $1.776 billion that is designed to go to whoever Trump wants this $1.776 billion to go to. And let me unpack what I mean by that. The fund itself, according to the documents that the legal documents that lay out how the whole thing operates, that there is a panel of five people, all selected by Todd Blanche, who decide without any public scrutiny, according to the document itself, who the money goes to. There are no the the panel itself doesn't need to disclose any criteria publicly about what goes into those decisions. They do not have to say who the recipients of this fund are. They don't have to say how much money that they are getting from taxpayers under the aegis of this fund. It it is an instrument that is a legal instrument created by Trump pursuant to a purported settlement to enrich whatever people or entities that Trump wants to enrich. And to make that even clearer, the legal documentation of this settlement says claimants can be entities, meaning that a Trump link corporation can apply to this five-person panel. Any member of that five-person panel that displeases Trump in any way can be ousted for any reason or no reason at all and replaced by Todd Blanche. And so essentially, not only can a member of the Proud Boys, to give an example, Enrique Tario said that he is going to put in a claim for tens of millions of dollars to this fund. But not only can he collect that fund, Proud Boys International LLC can put in a claim itself and take any sort of uh money that was granted to them by this five-person panel without any public disclosure. And the Proud Boys can institutionally use that money to stand back and stand by. That is the sweeping scope of this agreement. And I'll go into its origins now if you'd like.

SPEAKER_00 5:47

Yeah, I really would love to hear that. Yeah, the origins. How much like some of this stuff was brought up that you were concerned with, but then some of it wasn't? And like how much of this is actually like I guess what's the core problem that this fund is creating? Have there been other funds like this? Do they have compensation funds? What do they require? What's going on? Like, what what's going on with this particular fund that makes it different than, say, a fund Obama or Biden or or you know Clinton or George Bush would have set up?

SPEAKER_03 6:34

So the I would say that the just based on their own documents, this fund is entirely unprecedented. And here's why I say that. But that fund had judicial oversight. It was operated through a court. This fund has nothing like that. As a matter of fact, the Trump DOJ did everything they could to devote to avoid any court oversight. And that goes to the origins of it. So the way it starts is Trump earlier this year sued the IRS, which is under his control, to for $10 billion. This is a purported $1.776 billion settlement that would resolve that lawsuit and that he can distribute that money through that panel to members, to anyone who claims to be victims of government weaponization. Now, here's the kind of fine print to that. The fact of the matter is that in uh the what uh inspired Trump's lawsuit was a leak of his tax records in 2019. The 2019 leak had nothing whatsoever to do with government weaponization. It was an IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn who leaked Trump's and about hundred more than 400,000 other people's tax records to news outlets to show how little billionaires were actually paying in taxes by tax avoidance schemes like borrowing against the the value of their business. And so through this leak, we found real real fast.

SPEAKER_01 8:32

So so I think that's a part that I I I was unaware of. So like it wasn't this the person that went to jail for this, it wasn't some sort of deep state, I'm gonna get Trump because you know he hasn't released his tax returns. It was he was a victim of a much larger like tax release scheme.

SPEAKER_03 8:52

So he was, you know, depending on your point of view, he was either a large-scale leaker or a large-scale whistleblower. You know, his objective and what he tried to do was disseminate hundreds of thousands of tax returns to news organizations to disclose how the rich were paying their taxes. And this happened in 2019 during Trump's first term. So, insofar as this has anything to do with government weaponization, it's Trump's government. He is prosecuted under the Biden administration, gets a pretty stiff sentence of five years in prison. And after the statute of limitations on this leak expires, because remember, the tax records were disclosed in 2019. Trump sues the IRS. He's on both sides of the proverbial V, Trump versus IRS. And he reaches before a judge can adjudicate whether there's a case or controversy. And let me kind of spell that out a little bit more. The judge was going to decide, because of the fact that you have Trump on one end of the V and the IRS under his control on the other end of the V, whether this is actually a legitimate lawsuit. But before the judge could reach that question, Trump drops a suit and enters into this so-called settlement with the number that I do keep repeating because the number is precisely important, uh, 1776. In the view of many people who I have spoken to, it is a number that, on top of being, it's our 250th anniversary as a nation, but it was also a number of great significance to the January 6th rioters. There's footage you can hear of chanting of 1776. These were folks who believed that they were on board with a second American revolution. And you had the Proud Boys in their criminal trial for seditious conspiracy. One of the documents used against them was a document called 1776 Returns that went into the plan to occupy federal buildings. It was part of what was used to convict the Proud Boys of seditious conspiracy. So, in the view of some experts who I've been speaking to, this is a dog whistle to the January 6th rioters that here is your reward. But the origin of this, the device that this goes through, this entire engine, is this Trump v. IRS lawsuit, which is Trump suing government agency under his control for $10 billion in damages, unexplained as to how he was damaged to the tune of $10 billion for the disclosure of tax records that every other US president released voluntarily, after the statute of limitations would have expired on a leak, you know, if this were an arm's length lawsuit and the government faces a claim on something that is time barred, where the way things usually happen in a lawsuit like this, the government defends against the lawsuit by saying, hey, you know, even if you have a valid claim, even if you were wronged by government misconduct in this case, this lawsuit is unacceptable. We aren't going to spend taxpayer money, or or rather, the plaintiff is not entitled to taxpayer money because they sat on their rights. None of that happened here. What happened is you had two parties that were essentially on the same side of a litigation, started out seeking $10 billion, landed on $1.776 billion that can go to entities potentially controlled by Trump or any ally of Trump. It could be members of Congress who whose phone records were viewed by Jack Smith. Uh, that has been one proposal by Todd Blanche and pitching Congress members to support it. They said, well, you can collect from this fund as well. So they're the closer you look at what sparked this fund and how it operates, the uglier it gets.

SPEAKER_01 13:22

How like how or where does this money come from? Like, does the DO does DOJ have like a non-discretionary like fund that they can kind of pull from, or is this money have to be allocated by Congress somehow?

SPEAKER_03 13:36

So it I want to start with the first before getting to the specifics of your question, get to the kind of fundamental faction point that this comes from taxpayers. There is when anyone files a lawsuit against the government, there is a fund that is pre-allocated that that this would come from that pot of money. But I don't think we should ever lose sight of the fact that this is taxpayer money that would be allocated for this fund.

SPEAKER_00 14:07

So Todd Blanche, when he was in that congressional hearing, if I remember correctly, I mean just correct me if I'm wrong, he basically said that it would be open to anyone, right? Not Republican, not just Democrat, not just Republican, or not just anyone from January 6th. And then, you know, he he made some I I don't know, he made it seems like he made some excuses, but that's my bias coming out about all sorts of stuff. But I would love to hear kind of like he's making these claims there uh that anyone can apply to it, but what you're saying is that is that true or is that not true, or is it basically they're gonna be processed out, essentially.

SPEAKER_03 14:53

Let me read from his own agreement, the agreement that he signed about how this operates. The this section, uh, in section C of the recitals, the conduct alleged in the case and in the pending agency claim is representative of the sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat-elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, andor ideological reasons. So, right in the agreement itself, you know, he he I did hear him telling Congress that there's nothing preventing people of any partisan identity to apply for and receive funds. But if you go straight to the agreement, there's only one mention of partisan affiliation in there. And it is in defining weaponization and lawfare as something created by quote-unquote Democrat elected officials. It's politically charged language baked in the pie.

SPEAKER_00 16:00

So so a Republican, so someone couldn't apply because a Republican had weaponized the government against them.

SPEAKER_03 16:08

I think that there's a real question. Or can't question there's a real question based in the agreement. Well, you know, let's anyone can apply, right? Anyone can apply to anything. But you have an agreement that is uh in just baked in the cake here is defining the representative conduct in the case as democrat weaponization, their words. And then you look at the way it operates. And, you know, it's it goes to the expression sell someone a bridge, right? That the way that this whole thing operates is Todd Blanche has exclusive control over the five-person panel. And ultimately, Trump has exclusive control over the five-person power because panel, because he can oust any person at will. There's one of the five members can has a consulting with Congress, whatever that means, but that person can be ousted. Any three of them make claims. The public can't oversee that claims. I saw there's this uh one pager that Todd Blanch was disseminating to senators and other people who are skeptical about this fund. And on that one pager, he says something to the effect of, oh, there can be third party oversight. One of the things that he doesn't say on that one pager is that he has entire control, exclusive control, over whether a third party can review the whole thing. So it's in the words of one legal expert who I spoke to, a Star Chamber, referring to the 15th to 17th century secret courts that the British monarchy operated when they wanted something done and they wanted to cover the footprints, and that it's, you know, you found out how the Star Chamber operated by the outcome. Maybe we'll see at the end of the rainbow here a member of the January 6th uh criminal defense docket boasting about a big payday. But we the public, we the taxpayer, wouldn't know that a January 6th rioter who was convicted of a serious assault, who used a taser or bear spray or brass knuckles on police officers is getting a million-dollar payday unless they went out and bragged about it.

SPEAKER_01 18:40

I'm curious about some of these countersuits about this this slush fun. I've I've seen, read, heard some different commentaries about, you know, who would probably stand a better chance than others. You know, one one one commentary I saw, and I I don't think there's been any reporting on is like James Comey would have like a really good case because of like the way he's been attacked by by Trump, a brigo Garcia, which which we'll we'll eventually get to, could have a good case. But but I know currently there are a couple of Capitol Police officers that are that are, I think, counter, I don't really know what the right term is. Um Harry Dunn, and I forgot the name of the other gentleman, but I remember Harry Dunn because he's been in our shows, great guy. Right, right. So so uh I'm curious, like what are your thoughts about these counter suits? Like, are they gonna is are the suits sort of designed to stop what's happening or or yeah, just love to get your thoughts.

SPEAKER_03 19:31

Yeah, so officers Harry Dunn and Dan Hodges, he's the second plaintiff on that suit. He's the one who was crushed between the doors of the Capitol on the agonizing footage we all saw with the January 6th committee. They are suing, in part under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which also one of the clauses of that amendment provides that people who aided in insurrection aren't entitled to public money. So part of the challenge in any of the lawsuits that are filed against the against this fund will be standing. And I'll get to the details of that later. But the theory of standing or the legal right to sue that Harry Dunn and Dan Hodges offer is that since this will give a massive reward to January 6 rioters, since Proud Boys International LLC could even claim money from this to stand back and stand by, they are still facing death threats, these officers, to this day, and that the rearming of January 6 rioters puts them in fear of personal danger. And that's why they have the right, according to their lawsuit, to challenge this fund, because the fund, in a very real sense, puts them in danger. Now, there's something very poetic about that that they were the first ones out the gate. And because, yes, the people who attacked Congress on January 6th are people who stand to gain from this. And so they are very much personally impacted. I think the jury is out as to whether that constitutes legal standing. We'll see what a federal judge has to say about it. Typically speaking, legal standing comes from someone who would apply to the fund, but not, you know, that it's really the recipients of the fund itself. It's usually much more direct. I expect the government will argue that it's speculative. We'll see if the judge agrees with the theory of the case here, though, because I think that Harry Dunn and Dan Hodges are absolutely right that the hand Handing out millions of dollars to the people who assaulted them puts them in danger. We'll see whether a federal judge agrees with that theory of standing.

SPEAKER_00 22:11

So when I was watching again this congressional meeting, which really ruined my date night, by the way, it was a really bad idea to watch this on a date night. So I'm sorry, babe, that we did that. We watched the congressional hearing with Todd Blanche and all these people asking him these questions, and then certain people, the guy from Kentucky or Louisiana, who's like just giving him softballs and all this stuff. You're like, come on, man, are you serious? I was like, you're really anyway, but all I had to say, but he said he he seemed to imply that people who had assaulted police officers on January 6th would not get funds. But but of course, and then they asked him, Is it does is he aware that he he can be you know held liable if he's lying under oath? And so did he say that, or did he kind of get in a way like he kind of slipped? Like how how did he get out of that, I guess?

SPEAKER_03 23:07

You know, I've always seen Blanche try to dance around the question of whether violent rioters get money, because I think he realizes it's very politically unpopular to acknowledge that. Usually he says something to the effect of, well, it's gonna go before a panel that will assess the claims, and they'll assess the claims based on the conduct alleged. And you know, it's the that's usually the answer that I've heard from Todd Blanche. But there's a just boilerplate kind of just boilerplate, but I think to here's here's a very direct way that someone could really clarify it in a follow-up question. The agreement that I read from a little bit earlier gives Blanche the unilateral power to change it. So if he does not want violent January 6th rioters to get money, write that in the agreement. You know, it exists, you know, you don't need to trust any analysis from any pundit. Look at this nine-page document. It's a public document. Todd Blanche has the exclusive power to amend it. And he could make absolutely clear that people who assaulted police, people who used weapons on police officers, giving one officer a heart attack after that officer was shocked with a pager, the people who crushed Dan Hodges in a door, he could Blanche can make absolutely clear anytime that he wants that none of the money would go to those people. He can do it with a stroke of a pen. He hasn't. And that matters much more to me than the evasive testimony that I heard from him to Congress and that one-page document that he handed out to the senators that carries no legal weight.

SPEAKER_01 25:01

Are there any limitations to an acting attorney general? I mean, because he's still in an acting role, and I'm I'm not, you know, I'm not confused. I don't necessarily think there's probably a lot of will to uh enforce the like vacancy reform act or whatever. But but but I'm just curious, like like is is he limited at all in what he can do, especially kind of in the context of this of this fund?

SPEAKER_03 25:24

I don't think the fact that he's an acting attorney general imposes a limitation on it. I think what will impose limitation is the Congress. You know, there's already a bill to end this fund. There's also a number of lawsuits challenging the fund. I think the fact of the matter is that this fund is absolutely unprecedented. We've never had anything in American history where there's a pool of money in the billions of dollars that has no court oversight that an attorney general acting or confirmed can appoint five people who have sole authority to dole out without any oversight or accountability. That sort of thing never happened. The fact that he is doing that without confirmation from Congress is the icing on the cake. But that is something, you know, it's a question even now that under federal law, considering the fact that he was confirmed as deputy attorney general and is replacing Pam Bondi, the time limitations that applied to, for example, Lindsay Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia, when she charged two cases against James Comey and Letitia James that fell apart. That sort of appointments clause challenge might not so easily apply to Blanche. So it's, I think it's another reason that makes this fund so outrageous, but I I'm not convinced that it carries any legal weight based on what I've, my the conversations that I've had.

SPEAKER_00 27:13

What what what's the what's the Republican response been to this? Because you know, I saw, I think you alluded to it earlier, some of the bills that were going that kind of are not now not uh now sorry, now not going through, or they've been kind of stalled. So, so what has been the Republican response to this, or I guess approval of budgetary issues, but what's been the Republican response to this? And how do you interpret that, you know, in the context of where we're at with MAGA and Republican Party and, you know, you know, the whole picture there?

SPEAKER_03 27:48

You know, I think we're at a point where we were perhaps last year with with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, where Congress is all of a sudden standing up and that Trump overplayed his hand. We'll see what happens. There is still, you know, and the proof will be in the pudding. The Congress will act or it won't act. But right now, it the we're recording this conversation after Memorial Day. If they had the votes to support this fund, they would have put those votes in before the Memorial Day weekend. There are more and more Republicans who are speaking out against this. There is a Republican-sponsored bill currently being considered to block this. And I think that what has been happening is that Trump has demanded loyalty from the party in a way that is hurting Republicans' electoral prospects with the midterm elections coming up. All of his loyalists are winning the primaries, and the long-standing Republicans who have nothing left to lose are coming out and opposing this. And even folks who have something to lose say, well, you know what we have to lose? The House and the Senate if we push forward this very, very unpopular agenda. So we will see what happens. But the fact that they haven't given this a rubber stamp yet is very concerning to Trump, and it bodes very poorly for this slush fund.

SPEAKER_01 29:28

Sounds like you're saying spending $30 million on Thomas Massey replacement was poorly spent. Which I would probably agree. But I I I I wanna I wanna switch gears here because I know that you you've also been covering the Obrego Garcia case. And and for for those that may not remember who Obrego Garcia is, because it's you know, news travels at whatever the speed of Trump today. So who was Obrego Garcia and then kind of walk us through where we're at today?

SPEAKER_03 29:58

Uh he's an immigrant from El Salvador, living with his family in Maryland. And in March of 2025, he was spirited out of the country to El Salvador, despite the fact that there was a court order specifically blocking his return there for fear of persecution back in his home country. And he spent some time there in Seacot prison, described by one federal judge as one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western hemisphere. And since that time, he has won a series of uninterrupted legal victories. His attorneys filed a habeas corpus case. And in every court, up to the Supreme Court, won his return from the Seacot prison, the Supreme Court 9-0 ordered the government to facilitate his return back to the United States. But instead of returning him to his family, they charged him with human smuggling in the District of Tennessee, alleging that he's a member of MS-13. The moment that those but the those allegations of the supposed gang affiliations didn't really have anything to do with the indictment against him that was just dismissed. He was accused essentially of driving immigrants across state lines. Recently, he won the dismissal of that lawsuit for vindictive prosecution with a federal judge finding that the case was essentially a retaliation against the fact that he stood up for his rights when he was spirited out of the country to El Salvador. And part of the reason that the federal judge found that is that Todd Blanch went on Fox and said that the investigation stemmed from the fact that a judge questioned their decision to take him out of the country. So it comes full circle. One of the things that got me very interested in Abrego's case was we live in the United States of America. If someone takes you out of the country, and forget about dumping you in a foreign prison, which adds another layer of dystopian to it. If you deprive someone of their freedom in the United States, there is some sort of due process. You report to if there is an accusation of a crime against you, as there was Abrego before his indictment was dismissed. You have the right to a jury of your peers to find you guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. And then there was something that in every court disturbed judges appointed by presidents across the political aisle of how everything went down. Iconic conservative jurists saying perhaps the government's allegations against Abrego are true, perhaps not. But and speaking passionately about what happens in a free society, that you have you test the claims against the person who you are trying to either deport or or prosecute. And in this case, you saw so many attempts of escalating you know, I I kind of reach for language, surrealism, to try to end run that. First, they tried to send him to Uganda, then Eswatini, which I learned from this litigation is the last absolute monarchy in the African continent. Then they tried to send him to Ghana and finally Liberia. All of those attempts were shot down by a federal judge, again, because there was no final order of deportation that was valid. In every step, you see the Trump Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security trying to evade avoid the embarrassment of losing to an undocumented immigrant, someone who is powerless, and someone who defeated them in court. And it seemed, and a federal judge ultimately found, that the motive, that the impetus behind this prosecution was payback. It was retaliation, it was a vindictive prosecution because someone stood up for his rights.

SPEAKER_00 35:09

I mean, that's just all very uh disheartening to hear. You know, among many other things. But I think so, if I'm thinking about this correctly, and and I just would love to hear your insight on the idea of due process when it comes to someone who is not a U.S. citizen, right? So I even was in a conversation with my brother, you know, Memorial Day, and we get, you know, to talk about fun family stuff, immigration, due process, you know, and you know, what happens, what the you know, the kinds of constitutional concerns I have right now that, you know, there are constitutional norms being violated. This being one of them, right? But but even I I just would love to get a little bit more granular in the sense that like what is the problem exactly in the sense that like it what does it say about a court order, right? Because he had a court order, court order that he was supposed to stay, correct? And then they and then they deported him, and then they basically say, well, he's out of the country, can't do anything. So what but then they have to remedy this. So but I just in in as you described, but I would love for you to go into more like depth so we can understand like why do we care about a court order for someone that was violated? Why does that matter for the listener to understand this is something extremely concerning?

SPEAKER_03 36:37

So I think one of the easiest ways to explain it, beyond just noting that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process under our constitution, but is to put it this way, and this was pointed out, I believe, by Justice Sotomayor in this very matter, that by simply declaring someone not a US citizen, by alleging that they're not a US citizen, that you to if if non-citizens didn't have rights, the way that you can just avoid anyone having any to the way to excuse me, let me just try say that a little differently. The way to avoid any court scrutiny, the moment that the government decides to take a person and spirit them out of the country, all the government would have to do is allege that they're not a U.S. citizen. And it's not the way that it works in a free society. When you go traveling in a foreign country, if you know, there are perhaps corners of the world where you have very few rights. But in most advanced democracies, in free societies, you would have the right to expect the ability and the right to respond to any allegations against you. It's the cornerstone of a free society. It's why we are lucky to live in the United States, and it's why we have fended off in successfully, in my mind, many attacks against the rule of law in this country. The rule of law has held because people have stood up for that very proposition that it's not a privileged few who are entitled to rights in our society. If you are accused of a crime, you are entitled to due process of law. If you are about to be deprived of your freedom or your residency in the country, there is a process by which, a lawful process by which that happens. And all of that was avoided in this case. And that's what I think has caused international attention to Abrego's story because it was such an extreme case that not only someone being whisked out of the country without any process in violation of a court order, but sent to a foreign prison before he was ever accused of a crime. And that's not just an ordinary prison, though, right? No. It has been discussed.

SPEAKER_00 39:17

Could you describe that just a little bit? Because I think that's important context. To imagine ourselves being taken, right? What that actually happened, because he actually had to be taken and physically made to be moved to this place. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 39:31

So I've used the word spirited a number of times. Another accurate term, I believe, would be abducted. An inaccurate term, I believe, would be deported. Deportation signals a legal process. Here there was none. Here the legal process was avoided. And he was taken from the United States by force, shuffled onto a plane to a foreign prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. El Salvador is run by Naeeb Bukele, a man who has described himself as the world's coolest dictator. And the Seacot prison is has been described by one federal judge as the most dangerous prison in the Western Hemisphere. And the reason for that is they intentionally mix rival gangs in this prison. So when the government accused Abrego of being MS-13, they put him in a prison that, or through the El Salvador government, put him in a prison that mixed him intentionally with members of a rival gang without ever proving that Abrego had any affiliation with the gang. And I should mention at this point, a number of federal judges have looked at the evidence of MS-13 affiliation and found it wanting. I was there in federal court in uh Nashville when that was happening, when there was a pretrial release hearing, and two federal judges found the evidence unconvincing. But based on the allegation alone, they put him in this prison that is notorious for torture. Obrego himself said that he experienced torture in this prison, as have a number of other people who we, the United States and the United States taxpayer, sent to this prison in March 2025.

SPEAKER_01 41:31

So is this um is this the end for Obrego? Like can the government do anything else? And is Obrego still in the country?

SPEAKER_03 41:39

So he is now reunited with his family in Maryland. Whether this is the end, I don't think it is by a long shot. I think that the government is going to appeal the criminal ruling, which they can because there hasn't been a trial, Double Jeopardy hasn't attached. So I expect they will appeal the decision, but there's a very strong record. I'll put this into perspective. I've been covering the courts for nearly two decades. I've never seen a successful vindictive prosecution ruling. That is a testament to the breadth of the evidence here. And it's partly evidence that Todd Blanche willingly provided on national television to, you know, usually the government doesn't openly state they're prosecuting you because a judge questioned their decision to violate your rights in a different manner. So that will go up on appeal. And at the same time, there's still parallel proceedings with the government trying to send Abrego to Liberia. So they are still trying to deport him. I and I expect they will appeal the dismissal of his criminal case. But I think that it speaks to the durability of the rule of law in the United States, even if it also speaks to the grievous attack on the rule of law in the United States, that more than a year later we have seen so many judges insisting on due process, insisting on usual procedures being followed in a free society. So I do not expect, just given the way the federal government has behaved in this case through the Trump Justice Department, I don't think they're going to give up until there has been a final adjudication on both of those tracks. But it says something that a relatively very powerless individual has prevailed in an almost unbroken streak of victories in criminal court, in civil court, based on the principle that the law protects due process, due process of law. Protects the rights of someone, even against the full weight and force and vindictive force of the federal government.

SPEAKER_01 44:07

Yeah, it's one of those things where it's a good news, bad news story in the sense of, yeah, that really sucks that our government did this to a person. But it's also good news that for at least now, it seems like in this one case that our our systems are working the way they're supposed to. And I I want to switch kind of to our to our last topic about the Southern Poverty Law Center. So this came on the radar for me, I don't know, whenever it was, a couple weeks or months up time's a flat circle. Whenever it came on, I read about it. And then it alleged something about them paying like clans members. So I'd love for you, just help us unpack what the heck is going on. Why is this, you know, group that is known for criticizing extremist groups now under the radar of the federal government?

SPEAKER_03 44:57

So what the indictment alleges, it relates to the SPLC's informants program. And to take a step back even further from there, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a storied civil rights group that helped break the back of the Ku Klux Klan with civil litigation that bankrupted the United Klans of America in the early 1980s. For a time, a period of decades, and it is now a shuttered program. They also paid informants to go into these groups, provide information, sometimes information that prevented crimes or attacks. They provided an example of a terrorist attack that was stopped in part based on a tip that an informant provided about someone who wanted to blow up a synagogue in Las Vegas and attack a LGBTQ bar in Las Vegas. So that's what the informants program did. Through the prism of the Trump Justice Department, they allege that the informant program was manufacturing the racism that the SPLC claimed to fight. That is to say, they are alleging that these informants weren't there to infiltrate and essentially dismantle the groups that they were embedded with, that they were there to justify, in the words of Todd Blanche, justify the SPLC's existence by creating racism, by manufacturing it. And that the Trump Justice Department alleges is wire fraud because donors expected them to fight racism. They were creating racism under the theory of this case, and that it's also money laundering because the SPLC paid these informants not with large checks from your friendly anti-hate watchdog. They did it through companies that would disguise the facts that, hey, your extremist neo-Nazi colleagues don't need to know that you're getting your checks from the SPLC. That led to charges of money laundering. Now, one of the things that so many people, including me, found just so jaw-dropping about this case is the very proposition that they were manufacturing racism. Appalling you had in the early days of this indictment being filed against the SPLC, and it's a criminal case, they had alleged that the SPLC in manufacturing racism was pulling the strings essentially of the Charlottesville hate rally. And that is, I'm gonna then this is both an editorial and a factual statement, a monstrous lie. The Charlottesville hate rally in 2017, and just and don't take my word from it for it. This is the allegations in the indictment. This is what they say a informant did. The informant is F-37. This is a person who is embedded with the Unite the Right organizers with that rally. And here's what they allege that he did. F-37 was a member of an online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2013, excuse me, 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000. So that's all the indictment says about the SPLC's informant. I'm gonna go through that one at a time. So all they're alleging is this informant was in a chat group. Did he participate in a chat group? Did he attend, did he plan the event in any way? Prosecutors don't say anything to that effect. Did what did he do in order to organize the Unite the Right rally? He coordinated transportation for several attendees. There were, by a low estimate, 500 attendees of the Charlottesville hate rally who were marching around the statue of Robert E. Lee and chanting, Jews will not replace us, the same event that led to the murder of Heather Heyer, at least 500 people on the low end, a thousand people on the high end. This man is accused of having helped coordinate transportation, whatever that means, maybe renting a van for several people. That's what the government alleges. And between eight years, he made roughly $30,000 a year. That's the government's allegations. And you have through the funhouse mirror of this case, you have people like Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, calling Charlottesville a hoax. You have Todd Blanche saying they were manufacturing racism. Now, the SPLC has already responded to these allegations, and they revealed what this informant was doing for them. The informant provided that through that informant's information, the FBI received a large dossier of all the organizers of this rally. They were aware of who was going to attend, what were their names, what were their photos, what were the weapons that they were known to carry? So he provided actionable information. I mean, who knows? One story that hasn't been written yet is what would have happened at the Charlottesville rally, as as shocking, as hateful, and as deadly as it ultimately became, if not for information provided through this informants program. And so when, you know, I always try to go deep into the weeds of these cases because one question if if I ask anyone to have trust in my reporting, you know, I have to give something more than my opinion. And what I'm reading right now, what I read right now is everything the government alleged about the Charlottesville hate rally in 2017. That Caroline Levitt, based on that paragraph, said it was a hoax, that that rally that was one of the most shocking events of Trump's first term. And, you know, it it you really goes to show how much that they are still trying to rewrite the history of it because of what a watershed moment that was. And that entire proposition that it was alleged supposedly a hoax hangs on the fact that an informant got paid roughly $30,000 a year to provide information, did provide information, and may have given a ride to seven people while providing information on a deadly rally that drew hundreds.

SPEAKER_00 52:49

So taking a step back and bringing this even to like a place for yeah, like for like me, I'm I'm I'm living in the suburbs and I'm I think about ice and you know, imagining I I was imagining when you're talking like I mean they could get come like I mean what what would they what would I do if they just came and grab me and then ship me off to like a prison in like El Salvador? I mean it's like what would I even do? I mean it's like I it's like I don't know, I mean you could definitely answer that. I mean that wasn't my question, but you can you can definitely speak to that.

SPEAKER_03 53:30

Yeah, well I think one of the shocking embedded questions that it's embedded in your question is Is this really happening here? Right? That that in the United States of America are we whisking people from their Maryland homes to a foreign prison and claiming that we have the legal right to wash our hands of it in the United States of America. Uh and to put this back into the SPLC context, the SPLC before last autumn, before Kash Patel, FBI director, put an end to it last autumn, worked with federal law enforcement. That is why that terrorist attack in Las Vegas that I spoke about earlier was disrupted. Because at the time, the SPLC used the information provided by its informants, shared it with federal law enforcement, who intervened. There was another case where they found out that a white supremacist wanted to get a job in the Philadelphia Navy Yard and was seeking a security clearance, stopped the person from getting the security clearance under false pretenses that person was prosecuted. That dossier that was given to the FBI. Can a longstanding, decades-long cooperative relationship between a private civil rights group and law enforcement descend so quickly to the point where the civil rights group is now facing a criminal indictment just based on the fact that they're being prosecuted, they are losing a tremendous amount of donations because donor-advised funds, the giant funds, are no longer working with them. There's saying in the law that you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. And right now, the SPLC is experiencing a bit of the ride because they have been accused of a serious crime of wire fraud and money laundering. They are losing donors. They're having to go to court. Same is true of James Comey. Same was true of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and I dare say he that ride hasn't ended for him yet either. And so I think embedded in your question is how is this happening here? The what would you do question is uh kind of perhaps a more optimistic one, is we are also seeing the power of fighting back, that the levers of power in our system are more resilient than I think the average person believes it would be. I mean, we do live in a time of a ton of cynicism and fatalism about our institutions and systems. And I don't think that the institutions as an abstraction save us. I think it's so many people who are standing up for things that are our long-standing values and principles. That's what's been holding the line. It's been people who have been deciding to fight back, to go to court, to it's civil society. It's the uh law firms that decided, you know what, I'm not gonna settle this bogus attack to on the firm just because it's a little bit more convenient to reach this settlement and do some pro bono work to satisfy a vindictive government. I'm going to fight them in court and win. It's the folks who are showing up on the streets by the millions in historic numbers. That has, I think, the what would you do part of the question, we're seeing what's happening and we're seeing how shockingly effective that is, even at a time when very for the most part, Congress has been, you know, it's remains under Trump's control. It's Trump's Congress. But even on very significant questions when it comes to the Epstein files and maybe next with the fund, it is fighting back. But I think that also has to do with the fact that folks know where the wind is blowing. In the Epstein context, it there was a sea change between the beginning. I think folks all remember the time when no one thought the Epstein Files Transparency Act would pass. Then the survivors got together, they demonstrated outside Congress, they got the people behind them, and it became something that had too much political support for anyone to try to push back. And then at the very end, Trump tried to support it. I think that it was the had to pretend to support it, I should say. Same thing is happening with the fund, that we're getting close to a midterm. This is very, very unpopular. And some of the people who have been exiled from the party and have lost their primaries realize they have nothing left to lose. That things change when people stand up and assert their rights and assert their values and assert who we are.

SPEAKER_01 59:06

I love that. Gosh, thank you so much for coming back on the show, Adam. This has been super educational. I can't even like begin to describe how much I learned. But I want to learn more just about All Rise News. So tell us a little bit more about All Rise News, what you guys are doing over there, how's it going, and how can people sign up?

SPEAKER_03 59:25

And thank you so much for that question. Uh yeah, so I went independent a little bit more than a year ago. All Rise News just turned one. I moved to Substack. The goal is to grow and to actually have a staff. We're not there yet, but I'm heading there. But I will say the idea, the founding idea of All Rise News is to recognize that we're in a time of an emergency for the rule of law, to respond to the instinctive cynicism that many folks feel about institutions by showing the way the system operates, by having uh opposing the sense of cynicism and disengagement by showing the power of civic engagement, by really illustrating how the institutions work. And that's why I spoke passionately just a second ago about how we have seen the major changes unfold. It wasn't faded, it wasn't something that was destined to happen. People stood up. And folks can visit it by going to www.allrise news.com. It's on Substack. So if you're on Substack, visit All Rise News. It operates in the form of a newsletter. And we just turned uh one years old. So thank you for for giving me the moment to talk a little bit more about that. Uh one of the other things that I will just to add, I I thought it was very important to let folks know what they're supporting, when they support, when they subscribe to All Rise News. I feel lucky that the major cases that I've covered over the last year, whether it was Abrego Garcia or James Comey or Letitia James, I've been on the ground where it's happening, whether it's Tennessee or in Albany or Maryland or Georgia, and it's the subscribers that have sent me there. And we have big plans for the second year and in our growth to a larger news organization.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:35

That's awesome. Can can uh can people like donate their uh frequent flyer miles to you?

SPEAKER_02 1:01:40

Um I haven't set up a way to do that yet, but uh it's not a bad idea, not a bad idea.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:47

Yeah, yeah. There was a time when I used to travel close to about two to three hundred thousand miles a year. This is a different part of my life. And you know, almost almost made it to the million. There was a time when I think United had like a million mile flyer thing where you can get your name on the side of an airplane, and I was like 800,000. And I was like, Oh wow, so close. So I say that just because I know that a lot of people travel all over the world and they they're not doing anything with their point. So, you know, just that that's a freebie from faithful politics. Thank you.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:18

I'll definitely I'll think that one over. Thanks. Yeah, no, it's well, you know, one of the things that I've always found gratifying about being a journalist is that you get to watch history unfold. You said at the beginning of our conversation, I covered Trump's criminal trials and his civil trials. I also covered Epstein's prosecution and Ghilaine Maxwell's. I covered Kilmar Obrego Garcia's prosecution and his civil cases. And it's living history. And there's one thing, you know, one thing that you don't see when you're reading a headline about Kilmargo-Garcia's case is that every time he has been in court, there have been faith leaders, unions, and large groups of activists, uh often by the hundreds in rain or sh or sunshine, outside the court advocating for him. And you see how it's witnessing history. It's witnessing folks who do stand up when someone who is powerless is being targeted by the federal government. And there's it's part of the power of showing up rather than reading the dry, cold record. And you you see the the judges' reactions to the propositions that are being laid out to them. So in an age where we see a lot of media consolidation, where we're seeing the hollowing out of newsrooms, one of the things that was very important to me from the beginning when starting off is going to provide raw information where it happens, that the case against the SPLC, that's in Montgomery, Alabama. And it's important that national news media is on the ground as that case goes forward. Same thing with James Comey, that's going to come to a head later this year in Newburn, North Carolina. Very often, when a major case isn't in a major metropolitan area, or specifically Washington, D.C. or New York City, it doesn't get the national media attention that it deserves. And that's one of um that that's one of the reasons I found it important to be on the ground to witness a history when it happens.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:50

That's so awesome. Well, thanks again, Adam, for everything. And uh yeah, thank you to our audience. And as always, make sure to keep your conversations not right or left, but up. And we'll see you next time. Take care. Bye.