Transcript

LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 21 min · 13,089 words · 98 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 22, 2026 (1 h 21 min, about 13,089 words). It mentions 8 people, works and ideas, including Department of Justice, Andrea Campbell, Raul, Ice King, SNAP.

What this episode is about

The Midas Touch attorneys General Town Hall features a discussion with the attorneys general from California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, who reflect on their collaborative efforts to combat the authoritarian tactics of the Trump administration, particularly regarding immigration policies and law enforcement practices. They emphasize the importance of unity among Democratic states in fighting for justice and protecting the rights of all residents, regardless of political affiliation, while sharing insights on their successes in recent legal challenges.

Key takeaways

  • When you fight for all, you forge a united front—23 AGs showing strength against tyranny.
  • Winning 80% of their court battles proves legal resilience trumps Trump’s unlawful ambitions.
  • California's AG protects $168 billion—a reminder that funding means more than just dollars; it’s about lives.
  • Rights aren’t partisan; they’re universal. Birthright citizenship and voting should be indisputable, not up for debate.
  • A 'legal fortress' isn’t just a metaphor; it’s the frontline against an escalating partisan assault on democracy.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Raul, Andrea Campbell, Ice King, Brett Kavanaugh
  2. – 20:00: Andrea Campbell, Department of Justice, Ice King, SNAP
  3. – 30:00: Department of Justice
  4. – 40:00: Department of Justice
  5. – 1:00:00: Department of Justice, Victim Assistance
  6. – 1:10:00: Victim Assistance, Cancer
  7. – 1:20:00: Andrea Campbell, SNAP

Notable quotes from "LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!"

  • Including teargassing law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers. We've had some of our Chicago police officers suffer from being targeted with tear gas. having our courouses, our school houses, daycare centers and other sensitive.
    about Ice King · at
  • We were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and we were successful at the Supreme Court. I think it's a very important decision. and one of the things that many people have.
    about Raul · at
  • Unlawfully detained. And where we can hold ICE officials accountable, we will do so. But let's be clear, it's very difficult for state AGs to hold federal employees accountable…
    about Andrea Campbell · at
  • I mean I think it two things. One, as you've both stated, the DOJ, the Department of Justice, main justice has lost its it its esteem, its people perceive it. which is which is consequential, to.
    about Department of Justice · at
  • Didn't even realize I did that. So let me start with you on this next question AG Raul which is victim's rights very important issue and people should note that in your offices…
    about Victim Assistance · at
  • Having a mother who was not yet naturalized at the time of my birth. our case with NIH grants that deal with medical research for things like Alzheimer's and cancer. making…
    about Cancer · at
  • Birthright citizenship, I reflect on SNAP benefits and us coming together on SNAP. I grew up poor in the city of Boston. I was on SNAP benefits. I would not be here without the…
    about SNAP · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Andrea Campbell — Person · Main guest / panelist (Massachusetts Attorney General) · 4 mentions · first at
    Discusses Massachusetts-led/participating litigation (dozens of lawsuits) to protect state funding and residents; addresses accountability for federal officials and describes victim-support systems and public safety impacts.
  • Raul — Person · Main guest / panelist (Illinois Attorney General) · 2 mentions · first at
    Represents Illinois’ legal challenges to immigration enforcement practices and National Guard deployment; highlights Supreme Court win and notes DOJ dysfunction and impacts on law-enforcement collaboration.
  • Brett Kavanaugh — Person · Referenced jurist (U.S. Supreme Court) · 1 mention · first at
    Cited by AG Raul as having shifted position on race-based immigration stops in a footnote related to the National Guard case, used to argue the Supreme Court is not uniformly pro-Trump.
    Place based on race or what people look like. And he did an about face on that hidden in a footnote in the National Guard case. So we look at that success as an important one…

Companies & orgs

  • Department of Justice — Company · Case study · 12 mentions · first at
    Discussed extensively for its current state under the Trump administration, including its perceived lack of integrity and competence.

Concepts & topics

  • Ice King — Concept · Core topic · 2 mentions · first at
    Central to discussions about immigration enforcement and alleged unlawful actions under the Trump administration.
  • SNAP — Concept · Case study · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of protecting benefits for vulnerable populations against Trump administration cuts.
  • Victim Assistance — Concept · Strategy · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a critical service provided by AG offices, contrasting with the DOJ's current approach.
  • Cancer — Concept · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned alongside Alzheimer's in the context of protecting medical research funding.

Full transcript with timestamps

Welcome everybody to the Midas Touch attorneys General Town Hall. We have attorneys general from three states and we will be asking them the questions that you wanted answered. From California, we have attorney general Rob Bont. From Illinois, we have Attorney General Raul. And from Massachusetts, we have Attorney General Andrea Cample. All three attorneys general have faced the Trump uh invasion with Trump's ICE and Trump's border patrol. They've had to fight back against uh the various authoritarian tactics from the Trump regime. They've been fighting uh together as a team as well on a lot of these cases and they've been succeeding in a lot of these court cases. So, as we now move into 2026, what are the reflections? What are the learnings? How are the attorneys, generals from these Democratic states fighting back and fighting for the people? Because within these states, whether you're a

Republican, whether you're a Democrat, whether you're an independent, what Trump is doing is causing pain and suffering that is avoidable, that is unnecessary, and is not what governing is all about. Let's begin this town hall by doing an opening statement from each of the attorneys generals here about the issues confronting their state and their overall refle reflections about fighting back. Let's start in California because that's my home state with Attorney General Rob Bont. Attorney General Bont, your opening statement in the town hall.

Thanks, Ben. I'm honored to be here. super grateful to be here with my amazing colleagues. And um you know the takeaway for me for this past year and as we look forward to the next year is when we fight uh we win. When we fight together, we win even more. And proud to work side by side with a total of 23 Democratic attorneys general uh pushing back against the lawlessness, the blatant, the brazen, the consistent, the frequent lawlessness coming out of the Trump administration and delivering time and time again. And in California, what does it look like? It's it looked like defending and protecting $168 billion dollar worth of funding that Trump improperly, unlawfully, illegally tried to take away from us. We protected it.

We've secured that funding. It's looked like protecting rights and freedoms like the right to birthright citizenship. If you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Or like the the right to vote. It's looked like pushing the National Guard uh that was unlawfully federalized and deployed in California out of our state and back under the control of their appropriate commander-in-chief um Governor Gavin Newsome. And it took six months of fighting tooth and nail. Uh but we won that one uh with a US Supreme Court decision coming out of uh Illinois, which I know my my colleague Ag Ra will talk about uh as as well. It's looked like protecting families and uh small businesses and workers who are suffering from the high costs uh created by unlawful tariffs. And I believe we're on the verge of a US Supreme Court decision in our favor striking down those tariffs having been in the courtroom for that

argument and hearing the questions and uh the positions that were indicated from uh the dis and the bench there. So, uh, it's been a year of of fighting. And, you know, just to step back, I I I wish we didn't have this fight that we didn't have a president of the United States who breaks the law, who tramples over the Constitution, who tramples over rights and freedoms. But if that is his decision, we will meet him at the bounds of his authority every time. He cannot do unlawful things. Period. Full stop. He has a lot of power, perhaps the most powerful uh elected official in the world. And if he uses his authority appropriately, um, uh, he won an election and he may, but he may never advance his agenda unlawfully. And we have built together the, uh, 23 Democratic attorneys general, a legal fortress around the rights and freedoms of Americans, protecting and defending them, uh, a wall of protection that we

will, uh, stand on and guard and never let the, uh, unlawful president um, uh, cross. and and so uh uh the the president has shown not only no signs of slowing down with his unlawfulness, but also a willingness to escalate. Um whether it be what we're seeing in Minneapolis, uh with the with the murder of an American citizen, um his ongoing attacks, which are purely partisan, he goes after blue states and blue cities, and he doesn't even hide it anymore. He says the quiet part out loud. Um it's only getting worse, which means that our role uh is absolutely critical. We've won uh 80% of the time approximately in of our lawsuits. Uh when we win and a court issues an order, the court order is followed. So I I want uh you all to know that it makes a difference uh what we're doing in court. Um the orders we're securing, the blocking and and tackling the the stopping of the unlawful action is is is delivering

results. So, um, again, not a lot to ask to have a president of the United States who follows the law, complies with the Constitution, but if he decides not to, uh, we're going to push back and we're going to win, uh, in court as we have over the last year. So, we look forward to continuing, uh, to defend you, your rights, your freedoms, uh, our democracy, separation of powers, checks and balances, and make sure that, uh, our unlawful president doesn't hurt you.

Thank you, Ag Vanta for your opening statement. Ag Raul from the great state of Illinois, your opening statement. Well, thank you, Ben. Thank you for having me. Thank you for including me with um my esteemed colleagues, Ag Bont and AG Campbell, with whom I've had the pleasure of um working together with for for years and and and developing friendships and um collaboration on other issues uh not all uh focused on uh fighting federal government overreach. And that collaboration um has been important to the work that we've done over the course of uh uh the last year. And of course uh [snorts] we connected way before uh the inauguration of uh President Trump in his second term realizing that we needed to be prepared and that preparation has really paid off. As AG Pond has said, we are challenging uh the these actions of overreach in court and we are being successful in doing so. [snorts] Uh for

us here in Illinois, uh Chicago is uh frequently uh targeted uh by the Trump administration. Um, President Trump loves to say disparaging things about our our city, our state, and and our our uh city and state leaders and uh uh carrying out actions that target us based on politics, not on uh good policy approaches. um one that we're dealing with right now and we just filed a lawsuit just days ago on Monday uh is is the the the way civil immigration enforcement is being carried out. I want to be clear. Um, we don't uh challenge the notion of um civil immigration enforcement taking place, but we wanted to take place the way that uh Congress has set the parameters for it to take place. um not having um um untrained uh Border Patrol agents uh acting to um act on um acting to exercise uh practices that are unconstitutional that are offensive that to both uh citizens and non-citizens, including teargassing uh law-abiding

citizens and uh uh law enforcement officers. We've had some of our Chicago police officers um uh suffer from being targeted with tear tear gas. Um having our courouses, our school houses, uh daycare centers and other sensitive areas uh raided by uh CBP agents and ICE agents. Um we believe that the the targeted um immigration enforcement by ERRO um a agents is appropriate way to do it. We are not on a border um and so it's inappropriate for CBP to to be in our presence. We were successful um in um fighting the deployment of the National Guard into our our city and our state.

um we were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and we were successful at the Supreme Court. I think it's a very important decision. Uh and one of the things that uh uh many people have missed in that decision is that Justice Kavanaaugh uh did an about face on a policy that he had um um embraced with regards to um uh target allowing for uh immigration stops to be able to take place based on race or what people look like. And he did an about face on that um hidden in in a footnote in the National Guard case. So we look at that success as an important one because I think a lot of people uh had lost hope and had uh drawn to the conclusion that notwithstanding what we were doing in our lawsuits at the district court level or at the court of appeals level that the Supreme Court would come in in all cases and weigh in on behalf of the president. Um we've proven that not to be uh the case. And so uh our our our

fight is not futile. Thank you, AG Raul, the great state of Illinois. Let's turn to AG Campell from Massachusetts. Ag Cample, your opening statement. Then we're going to go and get the questions from our viewers who asked you questions and we're going to be going into the town hall style next. And we'll do it in reverse order also. So after your opening statement, AG Campbell, we'll then start with you to answer the first question in the town hall. So your opening statement, AG Campbell. Thank you, Ben, and thank you to your team for having us. Um, I'm honored to be on, not just with my colleagues, but dear friends, AG Bont, AG Raul from California and Illinois. Um, we do this work in collaboration every day uh along with um our incredible Democratic AG colleagues all across the country. And sadly, as we stand up to hold the president accountable and to do it in such a way um not only upholding the

rule of law and the constitution, but to protect our residents and our state economies, not one Republican AG has joined our efforts. Um and we will keep fighting with joy, with integrity, and a sense of exceptionalism. Um I will just say as we do this work, the Massachusetts impacts have been enormous. Um, we've filed now close to 47 lawsuits. Um, and those lawsuits have tried to protect billions of dollars in Massachusetts investments. And what does that mean? The Trump administration has tried to come after 3.27 billion dollars in Massachusetts investments and our 45 plus lawsuits have protected 3.11 billion dollars of Massachusetts investments. So all of us as we do this work, we are truly winning as A. Bona said and folks should recognize that they should have a sense of hope um and joy even in the midst of this darkness and to know that their Democratic AGs have their backs as we do

this Trump work of holding this administration accountable. Let's be clear, these are real people we're talking about. We're protecting folks SNAP benefits. We're protecting infrastructure projects and transportation projects. We're protecting jobs. We're protecting workers. We're protecting mental health services, services for opioid addiction. We're protecting our children, our public schools, and public education, our libraries, our museums, our cultural institutions. The list is long in terms of everything we're doing in our power to push back. But while we do this work to hold the Trump administration accountable, let's be clear, affordability and the cost of living is still the number one issue here in Massachusetts and across this country.

And I'm really proud to be working with Democratic AGs that while we're holding ICE accountable, while we're holding the Trump administration accountable, we are still focusing on the issues that our constituents care about the most. We're holding corporate landlords accountable for jacking up rents. We're holding utility companies accountable. We're holding companies accountable for harming and stealing and defrauding our consumers and our elders. We're making sure that affordability is still front of mind. So, we're running a parallel track in many ways to protect our people and their rights, to hold up the constitution and the rule of law to ensure the economy continues to operate and most importantly address the issue of affordability. And I'm proud to be doing that with my colleagues because we do not have a federal partner at all when it comes to the issue of affordability and the cost of living

crisis that folks are experiencing every single day. And so we'll keep doing the sense the work with joy, integrity, and most importantly serving folks regardless of what letters by their name. We don't care if you're a Democrat, independent, or Republican. We see the humanity in everyone. Um, and we frankly want our states to continue to thrive and to prosper. and we know we can't do that by just focusing on what's happening in our individual states. It truly will take a collective effort to push back in these unprecedented times.

So, thank you for having me and honored to be on here with my colleagues. Thank you so much everybody for that opening statement right there. So, we then opened it up to our approximately 1 million uh followers on Substack to ask us the questions that they wanted us to ask you. and we tried to aggregate them so that the questions that were most asked are put forward during this town hall. Now this question comes from Cindy R and AG Campbell will ask you this question uh first and we're going to play the video so you can see uh the question. people submitted videos of themselves. And a common question that we were being asked though is that there are a lot of crimes or apparent crimes being committed by this Trump administration or regime in states.

These ICE officers seem to be being engaged in crimes and lots of other crimes are taking place in the state by Trump officials. And what people want to know is since the DOJ is obviously not going to do anything about it, you know, can AGs do anything about this to hold people accountable if crimes are being committed and what that looks like and when. So let's play Cindy R's question. So hypothetically, if Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, and Christine are not impeached or kicked out of office before the end of the administrative term, could charges still be brought against them after they're out, and would there be jail time for them?

um not judging but they should be kicked out of office before but you know hypothetically would it be possible and uh this question is for any one of you thank you

let's just go around to general AG Campbell you can go first and AG Raul then Ag Bont

thank you Cindy for the question um obviously nothing's off the table and looking at holding officials accountable when they leave office and I do hope they are replaced by folks who will put forth put forward policies that are humane and not cruel um as they're doing every single day. So nothing's off the table in terms of accountability right now. I am focused on how we hold folks accountable in this moment and it's not easy to do as we look at folks in Massachusetts in particular and of course in Minnesota, Illinois, California and other states and we're seeing the surge of ICE officials coming into our communities and at times rounding up citizens, rounding up unlawfully people who are here lawfully uh detaining folks and kidnapping kidnapping folks off the street who have no public rec public safety record or criminal record whatsoever. It is disheartening. It is disappointing. It is upsetting to say the least. And so,

we're doing what we can in rapid response to ensure that folks one, know what their rights are, to ensure folks have access to lawyers if they're unlawfully detained. And where we can hold ICE officials accountable, we will do so. But let's be clear, it's very difficult for state AGs to hold federal federal employees accountable because of qualified immunity, because of other protections that they have. It really should be the US attorney's office or the Department of Justice holding them accountable. We know they're not doing that. So, I'm really proud and to have seen AG Raul, for example, A.G. Ellison in Minnesota given the egregious and horrific murder of a constituent there in Minnesota to hold ICE accountable.

Those are challenging cases, but I'm proud to stand with them and to support them as they hold ICE officials accountable with the long-term goal of always thinking about how we hold these folks accountable in the long term. But in the immediate, we're doing everything in our power to hold folks accountable as they bring about really egregious behavior and conduct within our respective states.

AG Raul, same question to you by Cindy R. Can there be steps that AGS do in terms of prosecuting crimes that are happening inside the state that may be committed by federal employees or agents who are engaged in tactics, excessive force or the like?

Well, I'll I'll tackle the same question um with the same answer. Uh we are um right now in this moment we're we're focused on the uh tools that we can effectively use in this moment to fight against some of these unlawful actions. That doesn't mean that we remove um possibilities uh for uh criminal uh prosecution or investigatory responses um in in the future or even right now. I know uh the circumstances in Minnesota for for example um should uh involve a uh an investigation both at the federal and state level with collaboration.

Unfortunately, uh the federal government is uh blocking uh Minnesota uh law enforcement uh authorities from collaborating as we uh routinely do with our federal law enforcement uh partners. And uh one of the unfortunate um outgrowths of um the federal overreach and the the the audaciousness of uh this administration and and its uh violation of the law and historic uh policies and practices and that it undermines the collaboration of local, state, and federal uh law enforcement. Um, one of the things that we can't ignore is that um, this president has um, misused the power of pardon. Um so with regards to the notion of any future federal um administration investigating some of the criminal acts uh potential criminal acts um of of of [snorts] whether it's a agents or or members of the administration.

um those can be undermined by um the notion of the president pardoning those individuals. Such pardons do not apply to uh state cases though and so um notwithstanding that as AG Campbell pointed out um the the the prosecution of federal authorities who enjoy certain immunities are are are challenging. Um but nothing is removed from the table.

Agont, finally we go to you and then we'll start with you for the next round of question. We got just so everybody knows this was the main this was the question that like you know you win 80% of the time in the courts. We got 80% of our questions on this issue because people are saying if we have a justice system ag bant how could we see the people committing the crimes but they're not doing the time it doesn't make sense 100%. And and and that that you know that's an appropriate concern and worry. I'll first say absolutely 100% uh attorneys general uh who have criminal prosecution authority that includes uh me um have the opportunity and the ability the power and the authority to prosecute state crimes within our state.

Uh period full stop. Um, just to back up a little, generally federal prosecutors prosecute federal crimes and state prosecutors prosecute state crimes. At the federal level, that means um the United States Department of Justice, the US attorneys, if they see federal actors involved in crime without fear or favor, fair and objectively uh based on the facts and the law, they should be prosecuting uh lawb breakakers. Uh unfortunately we don't expect that with big dose of re realism here um based on the way that this um federal government has acted. I don't see them spending a lot of time having a lot of focus or interest in holding accountable uh federal criminal actors. In fact we've seen the opposite. We've seen the weaponization of the US DOJ. Um we've seen uh them engaged in political persecution instead of criminal prosecution uh with respect to the prosecution and indictment of our own

colleague uh um AG Tish James and and James Comey which they fell flat uh you know with Lindseay Halligan um the US attorney um being used to do the bidding of of Donald Trump. So that's the federal side. um when state crimes are committed in uh California or other states um state criminal prosecutors can prosecute including AGs and this is despite what Vice President JD Vance has wrongly said about uh his proposition that uh ICE agents and those uh federal officials engaged in their official duties have absolute immunity.

Absolutely not true that they have absolute immunity. they do have qualified immunity. Um but they they can be prosecuted for crime and if um the standard is met uh if they're doing something that is not reasonably necessary to their uh official role, if it's not necessary and proper to their official duties, if they murder somebody, if they um batter somebody, if they rob somebody, if they assault somebody, they can be held accountable. There's no such thing as a having a pass, uh having cart blanch, having um license to commit crime uh just because you have your ICE um uniform on. Not true. Uh and so I I know there's a lot of uh bluster and bullying and intimidation and uh statements about uh uh purported absolute immunity, but they don't have it. They can be prosecuted.

They will be prosecuted under the right circumstances. And I I think our own colleague um in in um Minneapolis is uh working on reviewing uh at least the the the shooting of of Miss Good, Miss Renee Good um to see if there's criminal liability there. So the short answer is yes. Uh we can hold uh federal officials accountable for committing crime if they commit crimes that violate state criminal laws in our states. Now, to all the attorneys general, a common question that we've been getting, and someone by the name of Dan M asked this question is just your general view about what the DOJ has become. Now, the DOJ was once the gold standard. I mean, when I went to law school, the top students would try their best to get a job at the DOJ, and it was, you know, really, you know, maybe you clerk at a judge, work at the DOJ, and you may disagree with prosecutorial decisions that were made in past DOJ's, but you never also

doubted their competence that they weren't going to turn over the discovery uh on the deadline or they weren't going to just miss basic things in their briefings. And so there's kind of a corruption piece of this, but also an incompetence piece to it. And then layer on top of that, the fact that you have a lot of United States, United States attorneys who are actually not appropriately appointed and confirmed, who are running these departments, and the judges are saying, "You haven't been confirmed. You're not an appropriate interim. Get out." And they're not getting out. Like imagine if one of you were just pretending to be the attorney general of your state and you weren't really the attorney general of the state. So people just want your overall perspective of what do you make of just this de you litigate against them every day. So what do you what's your perspective of what the Department of

Justice has become under Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch and we'll start with AG Bont on that one. It it's been a sad and unfortunate demise of the United States Department of of Justice in terms of uh their their reputation, the trust uh that they have lost with the people of of this nation. It's been a precipitous drop. Um and it's earned, you know, you you you earn trust. You're not just given it. It's based on your actions, uh your values, the principles that you uphold. Um how you deliver justice. is is it is it blind and fair and evenhanded? Uh is it without fear or favor? And it's been the opposite. It's been completely manipulated. You know, Trump is is is putting US attorneys in place that aren't can't even get confirmed and then trying to keep them there and judges are telling them to get out as you mentioned. Um and some are staying and calling themselves, you know, FA, first assistant and acting as

the US attorney when they're not the US attorney. We're seeing Trump's own US attorneys who don't do his bidding replaced by another US attorney with no criminal experience um Lindsey Halligan so that they will uh go down his enemies list and prosecute the people he has demanded to be prosecuted. Uh although the facts and the law don't support it and so yeah you lose trust when you do that. Uh people don't like that. They don't think it's right. They don't think that is how a US Department of Justice should act. So, and you know, and and just look at people who are voting with their feet. Uh, the the morale is at an all-time low. People are fleeing and leaving. Uh, I I I I I find it very sad and wrong for because I love this country and it's our US DOJ should be at the highest level, but uh we are also benefiting here at the California Attorney General's office um because those people are coming to my office uh

and other offices around the country bringing their their talents to those AG offices because we are delivering justice the way it should be. And so, um, the reputation has dropped precipitously. It's been earned by their own behavior, their own action, their own, um, uh, pulling away from the timehonored traditions and principles that have led the US DOJ in the past, uh, but sadly not now to to have a reputation of the highest order.

Yeah. And now turning to AG Raul. I mean, we know they're doing bad things and we could talk about that, but also the the competence like, you know, I when I after I graduated from law school, presenting yourself in a prepared way, you know, just before the judge, just doing the day-to-day blocking and tackling and respecting court orders. I mean, you saw the Lindseay Hallan briefing before Judge Novak, a Trump appointed judge, where she attacks Judge Novak, and basically says, "How dare you tell me not to put my name as the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia?

I'm going to do what I'm going to do." And I'm reading this thing and I'm like, "Good gosh, he's speaking to a judge that way. What am I What are you doing? What do you make of that all?" This was a common question we were asked as well.

Yeah. Um I think Rob hit it on the nail. I mean I think it um two things. One, as as you've both stated, uh the the DOJ, the Department of Justice, main justice has has has lost its it its esteem, its its people perceive it. Uh which which is which is consequential, you know, to to how people perceive the justice system at large. uh if you can't um trust uh that uh main justice is going to operate uh with integrity uh how can you have trust in our system at at large and it's reflected in what we've seen certainly here in the state of Illinois but in other jurisdictions with regards to prosecutions that have been initiated that have ended in in in no bills before uh uh grand juries Um we have had an unprecedented number of of um no bills delivered by grand juries, meaning that the grand juries have have declined to indict individuals that uh um justice uh law enforcement agents have brought uh to them. Um

there's an old saying about indicting uh how easy it is it would be to indict a ham sandwich. It is unprecedented to have this many um indictments rejected by by by the people uh who who fill in on grand juries. With regards to on the local level at uh various districts, US attorney's offices, there's been an attrition. Um some of it has been driven by um uh self- evvaluation of whether esteemed attorneys uh feel comfortable u being part of this department of justice being part of the the the various US attorney offices being asked to u do things that uh are inappropriate that don't follow historic policies and uh we we've seen that recently in in Minnesota. We've seen it in other um US attorney's office uh on the east coast. Um and uh similar to Rob's situation in in California, we've been the beneficiary of of that.

And there's been uh very uh uh there there have been a few um folks that we have picked up very uh talented attorneys who have left uh the US attorney's office and we should be concerned about that. One of the things to be clear is I I came in um halfway through Trump's first tenure as president and um on the local level we had uh uh we have had great collaboration with the US attorney's office as well as the FBI, the DEA, ATF, Homeland Security Investigation, Secret Service and other agencies on fighting crime, real crime. Um and uh those efforts have been undermined by the the loss of um prosecutors, the loss of of uh FBI agents who have been targeted because they may have been assigned to a January 6 in in investigation. Uh the redeployment of FBI, DEA, ATF agents to doing civil immigration work instead of work focused on fighting crime. Um all of these things uh uh put together undermine um the ability of um of us

collectively uh able being able to effectively fight crime. Appreciate the response. And AG Campell, same question just about your interactions with the Department of Justice litigated lots of cases against them. um you see how their their teams are comprised, their preparation or lack thereof before judges. Um what has been your experience? Just to pick up on what EG Raul said, which I think is extremely important. this dysfunction that we're seeing from the Department of Justice, the lack of integrity, the lack of exceptionalism in doing our work, the lack of just trust between that agency and the public not only undermines our entire system of justice which is built on trust and transparency and of course accountability. we truly say no one is above the law, then no one should be deemed above the law. And instead, what we're seeing is a president who thinks he is above the law and an

administration that thinks they are above the law undermining and dismantling an agency that is critical to maintaining this sense of justice in this country. Everyone should be concerned about that. If you are an average person that goes out on the street and harms someone, we hold you accountable. You're not treated any different. So why should a president or someone with power be treated any differently? And the Department of Justice is doing just that. Um and so there is power in the people and saying we don't want that anymore. This is where civic engagement and voting comes in to say we're going to replace those folks because they should not be given free license to do whatever they want particularly by the Department of Justice. And on the other real impacts here, it's not only a lack of accountability for folks who are not holding everyone accountable and to the same standard when it comes to justice.

We in my office, similar to California, Illinois, not every attorney general and not every Democratic AG has criminal jurisdiction. Here in Massachusetts, we do. We have the ability to prosecute crimes and we do that every day. We are looking to take guns off the street because gun trafficking is still real. We are looking to take drugs off the street to keep our communities safe. I have a [snorts] state police unit within my office that works hard every single day with a sense of integrity, transparency. They're unmasked as they do this work in real accountability. The same is true in other states. When we have a federal partner that helps us with this work, that allows us to take more guns off the street, that allows us to take more drugs off the street, that allows us to redirect our law enforcement efforts to ways in which to really keep folks safe. So, it's not just about affordability that people

care about. They want their children to be safe. They want their grandparents to be safe. They themselves want to be safe. And so we're having to fill the void on some of these public safety concerns because we don't have a Department of Justice that we can collaborate with. We don't have a US attorney's office that we can collaborate with as we did with predecessors. Um so we'll keep doing the work, but this is something again as every issue that we're tackling as Democratic AGs that every constituent, every resident in this country should care about.

Let's even though this wasn't a question, I want to home in on what you just said there about collaboration. You know, normally you have like joint task forces. You work together. That's that's part of the way you stop crime. You stop the trafficking and the drugs and all of the horrible stuff. You have joint task forces. So, let's let's get that question A.G. Campell to you first. Like, do those not exist anymore? Do they exist? How do you deal with people when you're supposed to work in these joint task forces to stop all the bad stuff and they don't even interact?

What's that level of communication like? We're doing our best and I think AG Bont and AGL would say the same thing to continue that collaboration. I was just on the radio yesterday. I said President Trump could call me personally along with the US attorney to really talk about ways to collaborate on affordability and public safety, but they're not doing that and that's the sad part. Um there is no desire to collaborate. So these task force still exist to be able to take guns and drugs off the street and we are continuing to do that. uh very well through at least my office. But at the staff and team level, it's much more difficult when you have members of these task force from the federal side that are federal employees that are being redirected to immigration enforcement instead of human trafficking, instead of gun trafficking, instead of drug trafficking. So you're seeing a lot of federal employees either

leave because they said, "We didn't sign up for this." You're seeing morale decline. you're seeing a desire, frankly, um, not to participate in certain types of immigration efforts. Um, because, as one local law enforcement person said recently to one of my people, why would I want to go into a restaurant and go into a kitchen and pull out a man who's working hard, who has no criminal record, all to try to reach some numbers of immigration enforcement by this president. Um and and to add one point on this public safety piece, the beautiful bill, $75 billion was given for immigration enforcement. That is larger than the entire Massachusetts state budget, which is a little over $60 billion. And so that's what we're up against as we're trying to do public safety the right way. You have an administration that is investing in hiring officers that are less skilled, not really trained to do immigration enforcement and not help us

with drug trafficking, gun trafficking, human trafficking, the real crime that needs to be stopped in our respective states.

Ag Bont, same question for you. We hear Governor Nuome talk about this as well. You and all the governors of your various states, but I I' I've spoken to Governor Nuome about this at length. you know, the joint task forces, the way you actually stopped crime and now the DOJ's moved its resources, the FBI moved its resources away from that. What are you seeing in California?

Yeah, we're seeing a lot of the same things. And the joint task forces are have been traditionally, historically very very effective in tackling crime, combating crime, um being by the side of our uh Californians as as uh we keep them safe and keep communities and neighborhoods safe. And um a lot of folks as mentioned are being redeployed to do immigration enforcement instead of fighting crime. And we want to fight crime. Uh uh we have task forces that that have been in place for years that tackle fentinel trafficking, gun trafficking, human trafficking. And though depleted uh on the federal side and uh morale low, those that remain I think want to just do a job. They just wanna get the bad guys and fight crime.

Uh federal side, um state side as well. You know, I've always said we will fight Trump every time he breaks the law. It hurts our state. Uh but if there's places and spaces where we can work together for the benefit of Californians, Americans, let's do it. One of them should be fighting crime. Uh but Trump has, you know, pulled the rug out from underneath his federal teams by redeploying them. Um, and so the morale is low, but those who remain, I think, just want to do a job. And so we've we've still been able to work in some joint task forces, but they are um they've been uh weakened and disempowered. My team's still strong.

Uh, but on the federal side, because of Trump's actions, um, they've gotten weaker and and I think the the federal contributions have um not been what they have been historically. AG bantto a lot of questions and to all the AGs a lot of questions about people feeling betrayed by the United States Supreme Court and how they use their shadow docket and while they purport not to be making rulings on the merit what they do by preserving the status quo under Trump's violation of the law versus the status quo that it existed before Trump does something It serves to allow until the case gets back to the Supreme Court, which can take many, many, many years, if it ever gets back, for Trump's policies to stay in place. And it seems that the Supreme Court tries to clean its hands from doing this by saying, "We're just doing a procedural thing. We're just staying the district court's order." I know you

also spoke about still winning 80% of the cases, and not all of these cases even reach the Supreme Court level. So, how do you address people who are just concerned that all right, Ben, you're covering this case, but it's just going to go to the Supreme Court and they're going to shadow docket us and just say that Trump can continue on um and preserve Trump status quo. So, what's the point? What's the point of all of this? It's kind of a question that I get. If you're just going to lose in the Supreme Court, what do you what do you say to that?

Yeah, first I say most cases don't get to the US Supreme Court. So, we're securing victories in in federal trial courts all across the country. Um and if they get appealed to the intermediate appellet court, we're we're uh winning at at at uh with a higher propensity there and most cases never get to the US Supreme Court. And al also uh the Trump administration often times uh more frequently more recently throws in the towel, waves the white flag and uh cries uncle and says we lose, we give up. Uh we will do the thing you said we should have always have done. Uh we will end the illegal action. we'll give the funding or we'll stop the unlawful action and it's over. And once they decide to do that, we memorialize that in front of a court with a a stipulated agreement. And there's no appeal. It cannot go to the US Supreme Court. It will not go to the US Supreme Court. So, we're locking in the win uh when uh

Trump uh waves the white flag and throws in the towel. Um but yes, the emergency docket, the shadow docket has been very problematic. It's been used more frequently recently. um you don't have a full line in of sight into what's happening. You don't have full merits briefing. You don't have a full uh argument like you do on on a case that comes to the US Supreme Court on the merits. You don't even have a sense unless you you know try to figure it out with the math if there's a disscent or a concurrence who's in the majority and you don't know even have always a a fully reasoned opinion to guide uh the lower courts and and how to comply with whatever the US support is US Supreme Court has decided. So, it's very problematic. And interestingly, uh, in the most recent, uh, US Supreme, uh, court shadow docket decision on the National Guard issue coming out of Illinois, there were a number of US

Supreme Court justices who were decrying the the use of the shadow docket on important issues and and criticizing it. And I decry it, too. I agree on that. Um but we you know we got a really good decision from the US Supreme Court on the National Guard issue that ended uh effectively any further use of 10 USC 12406 to deploy National Guard. Uh I think on the tariffs issue that the Supreme Court based on the argument uh will strike down the tariffs as um with as not having appropriate authority under AIPA. Um, so sometimes the Supreme Court um, uh, you know, follows the law and and the facts to get to a good decision and we've seen that sometimes, but the shadow docket has been absolutely problematic.

AG Raul, your overall perspective on how the Supreme Court has dealt with cases that you've been leading or you've joined with the other AGs on. Yeah, I as I'm going to echo a lot of what Rob said. You know, most cases don't get there, right? And um and we've had successes uh that have resolved themselves after we get an injunction um with with the um with the federal government um agreeing to restore funding or or otherwise yield on the the demands that we've made in our in in in our pleadings. Um I think interestingly again I I'm don't want to be a broken record on this and in an national guard case in a previous uh case uh Justice Kavanaaugh had made the decision with regards what uh became to be known as a Kavanaaugh stops out of these hasty sort of uh uh um shadow docket uh decisions and one that I I suppose that over time he's reflected upon and use utilized because the the issue was not um uh really

raised as as much as as a pertinent issue in with regards to the National Guard deployment, but he used the National Guard case uh to go back on what uh he had um intimated in in in in a previous uh uh uh case. And I think that's that's kind of important because it reflects um the importance of the public's you know outrage you know the the the notion that people started talking about uh what referring to these as Kavanaaugh stops that the the notion that people can be stopped based on their race on on on their language or or what they look like uh is is not consistent with our with our constitution.

um and and and with the the the general philosophy. I just want to take a just one quick moment because I didn't get a chance to respond to the nor the question with regards to the existence of task force and collaboration and so forth. Um that continues to exist. Um it is it is has been undermined. I I I do believe in our case, I I've spent a lot of time since the outset of my tenure um building relationships with our federal law enforcement partners and they've sustained even through this difficult time um where some of their um forces have been uh redeployed to civil immigration uh work. The president has uh used Chicago has crime as an excuse for his immigration enforcement surges, notwithstanding the fact that uh most people who have been um uh detained or taken into custody uh have no criminal background. Um, and notwithstanding the fact that we have existing uh great collaboration with with I'll

use ATF for example. You know, the president often refers to the Venezuelan gangs. Well, my office has 15 um prosecutions on underway with members of Treniagua out of collaboration with the with the ATF and we are uh prosecuting those cases, not the US attorney's uh office and and there are other cases that I can uh point to that these collaborations have led to prosecutions of both non-citizens as well as citizens who are uh vi violating the law. So, uh they continue to exist, but the fact that uh these agencies um have been um have had their funding uh impacted have had their uh capacity impacted by by redeployment of their agents. Um makes it more difficult.

And AG Ro I apologize for not calling you on that one. I'll start with I didn't even realize I did that. So let me start with you on this next question AG Raul which is um victim's rights very important issue and people should note that in your offices you have entire offices devoted to working with victims and particularly victims of sex crimes or trafficking. to the most delicate area too because people can be ret-raumatized in the filings and I just want our audience to understand because I used to litigate caces cases like this on the civil side that had criminal dimensions the AG's offices and previously the DOJ would spend extraordinary amounts of time with the victims offer counseling and just be there with the victims as an ally and shouldertosh shoulder er and so you contrast that and if people wanted to get your perspective on Trump's cover up of the Epstein files not turning over

the documents and all of that but I I want to extend it more broadly though to the arena of just how offices are supposed to interact with victims or survivors and also I think the lack of credibility on a case like the Epstein one where the DOJ was saying we only have a few hundred thousand documents and when I litigated cases I would always talk about terabytes and you could fill up three four stories three to four buildings 80 stories high with documents and I'm thinking to myself I'm like if you're saying that which which we know now that Epstein had a 1.1 $1.1 billion money laundering scheme alongside the trafficking that he was doing just the financial records alone alone are probably tens of millions of documents yet alone all the other stuff and I know when your offices handle this I know it's a very long wind up right here but I want to I want to get these points in you know you have auditors go through

each line on a day-to-day basis month-to-month basis seeing if there are transactions and like when the DOJ talks about this stuff to me they're speaking in a foreign language that isn't what I've ever been used to as the litigator when I talk about electronically stored information document productions and I just I'm like what do you even mean 100,000 pages like what are you talking about? So I I just want to start with your overall just perspective um AG Raul on to me their lack of empathy or help for victims rushing to Gilain Maxwell to do to take her moving her to a what's your overall view of all that?

Yeah, the whole um um um special meeting um with a high level DOJ official with Gain Maxwell is astounding. Um it it's it's it's an astounding step backwards to all the work that has been done uh to improve upon how we interact with uh victims who have been traumatized and experienced the the the worst experiences of of their lives. I've spent a lot of my time um you investing in and trying to advance as a state legislator before I became attorney general on on uh making certain that uh law enforcement approaches uh victims in a trauma-informed manner. We have trauma uh recovery centers and we learned a lot from what um um had occurred in in in California in Rob state with uh with advancing a a traumainformed approach to dealing with victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, gun violence and and and as I mentioned gun violence, we enhanced kind of moving gun violence into the same same space and same level

of importance because there's that there had been sort of a bias against uh victims of uh gun violence cuz um um [clears throat] let's let's just say because in some instances uh the victims may have been individuals who were previously um criminally in in involved. Um, but a victim is a victim. and to have a circumstance right now where not only are we sending messages in in terms how of how the Department of Justice have has dealt with the Epstein um files and so forth. uh but attempts to disinvest in um the ability to offer these services to victims um on on the local level uh whether it's VOCA funding or other funding for for uh victims. And then finally um undermining uh how we treat um victims who may be undocumented immigrants. Uh it's important to note that if if you have border patrol and ICE agents uh reporting to court making it uh such that uh victims who may be undocumented

immigrants or witnesses who may be undocumented immigrants are afraid to show up to court. Well, so what does that do to our public safety? It it makes it such that prosecutors can't make their cases and perpetrators of murder and other crimes uh are are are set free. And so it's it it is the opposite of what it it reaches the opposite end of what is uh being um claimed as to why these surges are taking place. If you recall at the prior to these immigration enforcement surges, the reason being given by the president has been to deal with crime to deal with crime. And it's it's it's doing the opposite. It's undermining our ability to to to to deal with crime in part because um we are mistreating these victims.

Yeah. Ag Cample, let's go to you next. I just remember when I would litigate these cases and the civil forum that often had these uh criminal aspects of them as well. I would meet with people like you and you would have huge teams and counselors and resources and there would be constant check-ins. How's your client doing? Anything that we can do at all? when we would show up at a court appear, we would be met right away in the lobby by somebody. I that's how it should be and and we've worked hard as a society to get there and I don't want people to forget about it. And so I thought that's why this was a good question to ask in this town hall. So what's your response to everything you've seen, not just with the cover up of the Epstein files, but how they have dealt with the survivors?

It's atrocious to say the least. Obviously not in the weeds on Epstein, but obviously like everybody else have been following the cover up, the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, and listening to the heart-wrenching stories of the families, of the victims. Um, and let's be clear, it takes tremendous courage to come forward to report any type of crime, including crimes where you have been physically mentally spiritually violated. And to come forth, especially knowing that the person who has perpetuated that crime on you has power, has resources, uh, has access to folks who will try to not hold that person accountable. And that's what we're seeing. And it's in stark contrast, as AG Raul said, of what we do every single day as state AGs. We come across folks all the time that are victims of crime. And we support those those victims regardless of their status. It does not matter what your

demographic is. If you are a victim of crime here in Massachusetts, you deserve to be treated with respect, with dignity, with compassion, empathy, and care. and to know that you have someone on your side. If you've exercised that courage to come forward, the least we can do is exercise courage in holding people accountable and doing it in such a way that honors our justice system and the rights of everyone involved. That's what we do. And as Massachusetts AG, I have a very unique role in that I not only have victim witness advocates in my office, constantly meeting with victims in going through the process with these not just victims, but survivors to bring about accountability. They are in constant communication, working with our crim bureau, working with our law enforcement and state police officers, working with our prosecutors. It's a full team. In addition to that, I chair the board of MOO, which is the

Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance that receives millions of dollars to help victims of all types of crimes. And sadly, as we continue to help victims, we have a federal administration working against us. has they have tried to take away billions of dollars in victim supports and victim resources in our ability to fund victim advocates and our ability to provide the programming and culturally competent program that victims need. And it's not always just about their individual crime. When folks come forward, they're doing it to protect other possible victims in the future. They're doing it to protect their family in our communities as a whole. So, we're standing up as AGs to protect the system that has been created. Um, and it has taken time and years of work of so many advocates before me to build this system that centers victims in their stories and of course allows survivors to be a

part of the process and holding folks accountable. Um, in addition to protecting them and that system itself of service delivery, we're also will continue to push back on this administration that is not helping us with public safety, that is not helping us help victims and certainly not helping victims become survivors where then they become the very leaders themselves that help us do this work going forward. So those who are often voiceless, invisible and don't get the attention they deserve.

AG Bont, same question to you. I also note that in the DOJ's filings to federal judges and their other public statements, they've claimed that they have 125 lawyers from SDNY working on the document production alone. 125 lawyers. Boy, I wish when I was a lawyer, I had a team of 125 people working on a doc production. when I handled a notable case in California uh for a receiver of the SEC, this guy by the name of Thomas Seaman in the MedCap Ponzi scheme cases which were which were very prevalent. It was a f it was a fi prevalent in California. People know about that there was a 5 to6 terabyte case. Um so we dealt with 3540 million uh documents. I had about five associates with me on my team and it took us about 45 to 60 days. We may have asked for one extension, but we coded.

We had everything. We did, you know, 15, 18 hour days as you ought do when you're an associate working at it. But when you tell just when they give these numbers, I I'm like 125 people. I could have done that in 5 days with that. So, it's it's the BS and it is the harm to the victims as as well. And because our audience isn't necessarily doing these document productions the way we all probably have at some point, I don't think they they realize just what BS it is that the DOJ is saying about everything. It's like what what are you even talking about?

uh the the BS unfortunately is is is on brand for this administration and uh important for us to call it out and and and to be truth seekers and truth tellers. Um when it comes to the Epstein files and and the treatment of the victims, um the Trump administration has been a complete embarrassment. It's been disgusting. um turning their back on on, you know, on victims, lying, uh gaslighting politicizing um under uh devaluing and undermining and disrespecting victims along the way. Um uh silencing them uh instead of treating them uh the way victims and survivors should be treated. And I'm couldn't be more proud of my own team at the California AG's office. Uh what you were describing, Ben, is is what we do.

We have a victim services unit that is um delivers trauma uh informed uh support and victim-entered services to victims of crime uh from the very beginning when they need a safe place. We help find housing, clothing, food, uh we make sure that they get the the healing uh that they need uh on their journey towards healing, whether it be um mental health support or other services or programs to support them and their families. We make sure they have a a person, a human being that uh gives them respect and and and dignity that provides compassion, empathy, uh love to them, someone that that they can talk to when they have a question as they go through a legal process that's confusing intimidating scary sometimes. Uh we make sure they know what their rights are to uh have their voice in the courtroom when they need to make a victim statement or even testify if that's what they want. and that make

sure they have the support, the emotional support uh of our team as they do that, as they show uh breathtaking courage uh and in very intimidating situations. So, that's how it should be done. Uh every one of these victims uh should have someone uh who supports them and who's guiding them along the way and getting them what they need just as you described. I'm proud that my team uh does that to the best of our ability, but uh the Trump administration has completely uh fallen down uh on the job there and in fact unfortunately is is anti- victim has turned the victims.

I want to thank everybody for submitting those questions. Let's just do a closing statement now from each of the uh AGs and again to extend my apologies for missing AG Raul on that question. I'm going to start with you because I'm sorry I missed you on on that on that last question, but I I I I want you to try to direct this message to your state in particular and also to the American people. And you know, of course, top of mind right now is what ICE and Border Patrol are doing, but you each have handled hundreds thousands tens of thousands of other cases that touch upon everything from SNAP to education to health care to museums in your states and cities.

uh you name it. Uh universities uh under attack from all aspects and we could probably spend 8 to 12 hours just going through universities healthcare. Snap. We're not going to do that though. So, in the closing remarks though, um perhaps you can highlight something as well that maybe attention also as some of these other things that we've discussed, but that also you're particularly proud about doing for your state that you think was um something that shows this is this is why I became an AG and this is a result that now has led to X. So, why don't we start with you AG Ro?

Yeah. Well, thank you and um thank you for the opportunity um to be here to have this discussion and um have my wonderful colleagues uh with me. Um you know a lot of this work is has been personal for me uh when we started out with the uh first case being led by u Massachusetts and and and Washington on birthright citizenship. It's personal to me as a child of uh Haitian immigrants and having a mother who was not yet naturalized at the time of my birth. Um our case with um uh NIH grants that deal with medical research for things like Alzheimer's and cancer. uh uh making sure that um the funding would flow as Congress set out and they partnered with uh Ag Campbell on on on leading that.

That's personal to me as a cancer survivor of the cancer that uh killed my father and both of my grandfathers. And this most most recent case with with regards to the uh border patrol is an important one because what that involved that involved weeks of weeks and months of work on the uh uh on the part of lawyers within my office of gathering information that comes from the people at large. Uh so we we didn't have staff out um at the ICE center in Broadview, Illinois collecting information. That information has come in uh from the people who were on the ground uh either protesting or observing. Um and it's important because it gives the people at large a role in the fighting that we are we are doing. this last uh case that we filed uh we wouldn't be able to have the information that we have to base our claims on without the participation of the public at at large. So there is a role for the public at large uh uh uh to

play in the work that uh that we do. Uh the other thing I frequently re uh refer to is that Justice Roberts um spoke to uh students, law students at Georgetown last May and um he said then that the rule of law was under threat. He kind of took a step backwards a few weeks ago and and and said the rule of the rule of law is in uh great a great state great condition. It was a little bit inconsistent with what he had said uh five or six months earlier. Um but what I took from his uh uh first statement with regards to the state of the rule of law being under threat is that it's important for people not to be um numbed by uh the wide variety of actions, audacious actions that are being taken by this federal administration. numbed into thinking that I'm tired of hearing about all this because your rights are on the line. It's important that we go back to understanding civics as we were taught in Schoolhouse Rock, the

separation of powers. That is consistent theme through many if not all of our uh uh cases that not only that we understand it as lawyers who are presenting this case but that the public at large not become constitutional scholars but understand just the fundamentals that we learned um are are are are being attacked. It's it's it's in our National Guard case. the district court judge went all the way back to federalist 29 to to explain that f uh that Alexander Hamilton thought when other delegates were arguing that it's preposterous that when the other de delegates were arguing that state militias of one state would be potentially sent into another state that Alexander Hamilton said that's preposterous that would never happen well we've arrived to that moment uh that moment that is inconsistent with what our f founding fathers envisioned for this country. And so the public uh vigilant and not get numbed by all of

these actions. Ag Campbell, same question to you and and so much to focus on. Um, but perhaps focus on some of the things that haven't necessarily We've talked a lot about what's been in the major headlines recently, but your office is doing so much to fight for Massachusetts behind the scenes. So, c can you talk just talk to that and anything else you want to say in your closing statement?

First of all, thank you for having us and I'm delighted of course to be on with AG Bont and AG Raul. And what I love about our Democratic AGs, because sadly not one Republican AG has joined us, and not for lack of trying to get them to be a part of this federal accountability work, is all of us do this work because it's not just the moral and right thing to do and our professional responsibility to protect our residents and our state economies. It's also personal for us. So when fighting as a collective on birthright citizenship, I kept reflecting on the fact that as the first black AG of Massachusetts and the first woman of color to win statewide office here in Massachusetts and be elected, I can't do that. I can't vote without the 14th amendment. I can't run for office without the 14th Amendment established 150 years ago that dealt with the question of what do we do with those black folks who are formerly enslaved?

Do we make them citizens and give them the right and privileges rights and privileges of this country? And we resolved that question. And now we have an administration that's un trying to unravel that. And the fact that's where they started speaks to the vitrial and the animosity I would say that exists within this administration to divide us to ensure that certain folks in this country are devalued that their humanity is devalued. And so I'm proud to continue to stand up with AGS to fight back to protect the interest of Massachusetts. But it's bigger than Massachusetts because in addition to birthright citizenship, I reflect on SNAP benefits and us coming together on SNAP. I grew up poor in the city of Boston. I was on SNAP benefits. I would not be here without the privilege and also without government working to help my family. So we're fighting back against administration and a government

that is looking to harm families, not help folks. So all of this work for us is personal and this is why we are fighting even with targets on our back to protect the democratic values of this country to protect the rights and privileges of all of us and most importantly to do this work for future generations. I'm not just an AG. I'm a mom of two beautiful boys and for me this work is about leaving this country and this state better for them not worse off. And one of the lawsuits I'm most proud of is the lawsuit we filed to protect public education. As a product of public schools, my two boys in public schools, our public schools in Massachusetts probably would not have opened on time if these Democratic AGs did not file a lawsuit to protect the billions of dollars that should be go that should have been going to public schools because the Trump administration said, "We don't want to fund them." and

we filed that lawsuit and they decided to change course and to fund our public schools and they opened on time and here in Massachusetts we protected over $200 million for our public schools. I'm proud of that because what we're doing is building not just a legacy for ourselves and the work that we do, but most importantly protecting the country that we love so much and doing the work regardless of what letters by someone's name because we truly are committed to not only our constitutional obligation and responsibility, but also doing the work of true public service. Um, so I'm proud to be with my colleagues doing this work every single day. Okay. And for those folks who are feeling despair and hopelessness, especially following what's happening in Minnesota right now, know that you have an AG that has your side, a Democratic one. And if you don't have a Democratic one in your state, well, you should evaluate getting a new

one that has your back because everything we're doing is to defend your rights, to address the cost of living and affordability issues that you're dealing with, and at the end of the day, protect the future of your children. and if you don't have children to pro protect the future of this country and to ensure our standing in the world continues to be number one. So I'm just delighted to continue to do this work every single day with my colleagues.

Ag Bont your closing remarks and also if you can focus on some of the other cases that may not be in the news as much but that perhaps should be and that you're very proud of.

Thank you Ben. I just want to echo the thanks uh for having us. Thanks to my incredible colleagues, A Ru and Campbell. Uh, honored and proud to work with you. You know, my mom is an immigrant from the Philippines. And I was born in the Philippines. Right after I was born, my parents brought me to California because a dictator was rising to power. Martial law was around the corner. Democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law, due process, all at stake. And it was all gone within a year of my birth. And so, there's more than a little bit of irony in the fact that now as California's attorney general, I'm fighting for the rule of law. I'm fighting for rights and freedoms for our people. I'm fighting for democracy and I take that responsibility very seriously. It's looked like 54 lawsuits in less than a year, winning approximately 80% of the time. Together, we've protected $3 trillion of funding for states that

Trump unlawfully tried to withhold. We protected rights and freedoms he's tried to undermine. And uh he is escalating and and there's more to come. Uh, of course the uh we were the first state in the nation where uh Trump federalized the National Guard and deployed them to our that's been in the news. Uh, but I am proud that after six months of fighting tooth and nail, we were able to end the unlawful federalized deployment of the National Guard and the Marines were here as well and returned them uh to the command of Governor Nuomo. But one thing that doesn't get the news as much is all of the support that we have protected for the most vulnerable um in our in our communities. the voiceless who rely on housing, on food, on health care, on education, on victims um of crime funding and support. All of which Trump tried to illegally take away uh from uh Californians and from other states across the country. And I've

always believed that society should be judged based on how we treat our most vulnerable, our seniors and our children, our sick and our poor. and Trump gets an F. Um, but the AGS have been fighting uh to secure that support for those who need it, who for those who are um need that safety net services and and without it uh would fall below um uh that safety net and and and be directly in harm's way. So, I'm proud of that. that doesn't always make the news and we'll continue to fight for all Americans uh regardless of of zip code or income uh race or ethnic partisanship uh you know uh political party we'll fight for everybody uh because we we believe in America Americans and all the people that we fight for. I also want to say this. I know this is a time of anxiety uh fear worry um I want to say don't feel hopeless because you're not helpless. You have the most powerful and most potent um uh power that there is in

a democracy which is people power. All um stay engaged, stay enraged about the abuses of power this administration. It can never be normalized. We can never accept it. We can never be desensitized to it or immune to it. It's wrong and it's wrong every time. Um fighting um when we fight we'll win. And please remember the three C's. Courts, crowds, and courage. Courts is where we can seek justice and hold an unlawful president accountable. Crowds is when we turn out and uh demand what we deserve and uh decry what is unacceptable and make sure that the people's voice is heard. And courage uh you all have it because you're engaged, but courage is contagious. So keep showing it uh as often uh and as much as you can.

standing up to the bullying, the intimidation, a administration that wants you to be silent, that wants you to take it, to accept it. Um, and uh, we will never accept it. Um, it is never acceptable. So, we'll continue to push back. And please know that I and my fellow Democratic attorneys general, uh, we have a full tank of gas. We're full of energy. Uh, we're ready for whatever comes next. and we will continue to be your defenders, your protectors, defend you, protect you, your rights, your freedoms, our democracy, our um uh democratic institutions, law. Uh there's a lot on the line here. We know that. Um and we're ready for anything that comes next and we will always fight for you.

Uh you're what give us the heart, the drive, the inspiration, and the motivation to do what we do and we'll keep fighting for you. Want to thank everybody for watching our attorneys general forum here on the Midas Touch network. We should make this an annual or maybe we even do this twice a year to check in and uh connect with the people about the great work that all the attorneys general here and the other great attorneys general in the Democratic side who are the ones really fighting for people's rights uh at this point in time in our history. So, thank you everybody to all of the attorneys general, Andrea Campbell. We appreciate you for joining us,qame Raul, attorney general from Illinois, and Rob Vont, attorney general from uh California. We appreciate all three attorneys generals for joining us, spending a significant time with us today going through all of these questions that our audience here

wanted answered. And everybody, just stay in the fight. Keep the hope. They want to make you feel hopeless. They want to make you feel worn down. and just throw in the towel and say enough. I give up. It's just too much. That's fascism. It's over and over again. They try this, it doesn't work. They try that. They try this, they try that. We just have to stand together. People power is going to win the day. And I hate to be corny, but I think love and empathy also will win the day as well. Let's not lose that. Let's just try to be our best selves every day. So, thank you to the attorney generals. Thank you everybody for watching. and make sure you hit subscribe and help us get to 6 million subscribers here. And that is our attorney general forum everyone.

Thank you so much. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Phipcowski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!"?

Ben Meiselas (Host), Rob Bont (Guest), Raul (Guest), Andrea Campbell (Guest).

What is "LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!" about?

The Midas Touch attorneys General Town Hall features a discussion with the attorneys general from California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, who reflect on their collaborative efforts to combat the authoritarian tactics of the Trump administration, particularly regarding immigration policies and law enforcement practices. They emphasize the importance of unity among Democratic states in fighting…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

8 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Department of Justice, Andrea Campbell, Raul, Ice King, SNAP, Brett Kavanaugh. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: Meiselas AND DEM AGs on MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!"?

The episode runs 1 h 21 min; the transcript is about 13,089 words in 98 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.