investigation. that in and of itself is historic. i don t know if you had the privilege to represent anyone receiving a federal target letter before but what must that have been like for president trump s legal team? let s unpack what a target letter is. it is a notification from the justice department that your client is that the justice department has substantial evidence linking your client to a crime. that they are the primary focus of an investigation. that s far beyond well, you got pulled into an investigation we ve been working on and we might have evidence linking you. it s quite significant and very pointed. so it s also a sign that the justice department is also thinking about charges and look, wink wink, odds are that charges are coming. so any attorney ought to be concerned if they receive such a letter from prosecutors. we ve been looking at both florida and washington d.c. if we can get those shots so people can see what it looks
state overreach, and then effort to take away our democratic principle. it goes against when our republican foundational principle that state that they don t believe in the overreach of government. and they don t believe in big government. when it comes to democratic cities like jackson, mississippi, we see continuous effort, people are most aware of the effort of taking over our traditional system, not only our police department. her judges all of this as an arsenal a larger effort donnelly attack democratic leadership but it s an attack on black leaders. let s unpack. that let s talk about. this by republican, state legislatures? and disproportionately it s happening to mayors of color, a black mayors to be specific? yes, this was about public safety. they would pass common sense
people that are able-bodied between 18 and 25. are you willing to drop that work requirement? hell,. no. not a chance. the white house is adamant releasing a statement, quote, house republicans are threatening to trigger an unprecedented recession and cause the american people over 8 million jobs, unless they can take food out of the mouths of hungry americans. now, if you are at a cookout or a soccer game this weekend, and you started asking folks if they support work requirements for receiving checks that are funded by the taxpayers, it might sound reasonable on surface, right? they might say. but my friends, things are not always as they seem. so, let s unpack this together. last month, the house nearly passed a bill that increases the debt limit but only if it includes crippling spending cuts. this is a bill that is not getting to become law. the congressional budget office estimates that this particular proposal would save 4.8 trillion dollars over the next two years. but
moment they could do it tonight, they could do it tomorrow but as you mention the clock is ticking on this so it s a little bit surprising given the time crunch they re in, the level of urgency you might expect to see obviously the attorney general came out today with a strong statement about it, but that was hours ago. so we re still check on that brief and it s not in it yet but the moment it is in the supreme court you could see action pretty quickly. let s assume for the moment the justice department puts it in tomorrow, you could see a supreme court ruling probably just an administrative say which would essentially put everything on pause for a minute, like a cooling-off period to wipe away this saturday deadline, if you will you might see that stay as soon as tomorrow. okay, what is your i mean, let s unpack the ruling in the fifth circuit right because the anti-choice moving is claiming this as a victory. i think some people would say mifepristone is still available, isn t t