In late August, CBS News Miami obtained a copy of a grand jury report. That’s not supposed to happen, but it did. Here’s what that grand jury report found:

Several persons within and around the executive branch of Florida’s government conspired to misappropriate $10 million in taxpayer money, funnel that money through a charity founded by the governor’s wife, give it to Political Action Committees operated by the future state attorney general, and spend it to rig an election.

The grand jury declined to indict any of the conspirators simply because the web was so tangled that the jurors couldn’t figure out who knew, and did, what. It’s unclear whether governor Ron DeSantis, then attorney (now US Senator) Ashley Moody, or others actually gave the orders that resulted in the embezzlement/laundering of the funds.

Because no indictments issued, DeSantis claimed that “the only crime that was apparent was whoever leaked the grand jury report” (and yes, leaking the report was illegal).

On October 8, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals expunged the grand jury report, on the grounds that a grand jury can’t declare conduct unlawful without indicting those it identifies as having participated in that conduct.

DeSantis did a little public dance to celebrate his victory over “self-interested cabals in the state legislature,” a “very hostile liberal grand jury,” and the media.

But neither the expungement nor the victory dance change the factual assertions in the report, or the evidence underlying those assertions.

The assertions, again:

Several persons within and around the executive branch of Florida’s government conspired to misappropriate $10 million in taxpayer money, funnel that money through a charity founded by the governor’s wife, give it to Political Action Committees operated by the future state attorney general, and spend it to rig an election.

The election in question was a statewide referendum on legalizing recreational marijuana. It required a 60% vote to pass, but only got 55.9%.

Whether the $10 million election-rigging attempt made that 4.1% difference, we’ll probably never know. But we know it happened, we know who some of the conspirators were, and we have a pretty good idea of some others.

We may see some semblance of justice if the federal government decides to launch a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization probe of the charity (Hope Florida), the PACs (Keep Florida Clean and Florida Freedom Fund), and their principals (Florida first lady Casey DeSantis and Florida attorney general James Uthmeier). Maybe someone will go to prison. Probably not, but maybe.

A certain measure of justice, fortunately, is inherent in the exposure itself.

Casey DeSantis was clearly gearing up for a run to succeed her husband as governor. That project fell apart when the misappropriation  came to light.

Ron DeSantis still seems to entertain 2028 presidential ambitions, but between running against Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican primaries and getting caught in, or at least near, this scandal, it seems reasonably certain that his politic career ends with his time as governor.

Courts can expunge reports, but once the truth is out, it stays out.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

One might expect a White House Press Secretary’s first week on the job to receive media coverage mainly for the content and quality of her briefings — those being, you know, the job.

And, for a brief moment, that’s how it went for Katie Zacharia, who took the post on October 9 and delivered her first briefing on October 13 to largely negative reviews. She stumbled through a script for eight minutes, bumbled her way through three questions from friendly media outlets, then fled the podium.

OK, small sample size and new to the job, right? Give her time and see how it goes.

But no. Instead of just letting Zacharia try to (and expecting her to) improve her way to rock star status (the gold standard is the fictional CJ Cregg of The West Wing), and instead of covering the real stories she’s supposed to inform them on, the mainstream media wants to make her the story.

The question: Is (or was) Katie Zacharia an “attorney,” as US president Donald Trump called her?

The irrefutable, factually correct, answer is “who cares? In her current role, she doesn’t practice law.”

But fine, let’s dig into the matter a little further, since it’s apparently now a matter of controversy. Manufactured controversy that matters not a whit, but controversy nonetheless.

Zacharia attended, and graduated from, Pepperdine University’s Rick J. Caruso School of Law with a Juris Doctor degree.

She worked for a law firm in China for two years, and at one point her LinkedIn profile described her as “general counsel” for a California non-profit.

So yes, she does seem to have “practiced law” as a “lawyer” or “attorney,” despite having failed the California bar exam and having never received an Extra Special, Very Important Permission Slip  — a government license in the form of “admission to the bar” — to do so.

Question: While tooling down the freeway one day, you’re pulled over by a cop and it comes to light that you don’t possess a government-issued “driver’s license.” Does that mean you aren’t a “driver?”

“Admission to the bar” and other occupational licensing schemes don’t exist to distinguish “real” lawyers, doctors,  and even (in some states) hair braiders and interior decorators from “fake” ones.

Nor do they exist to “protect the public” from less qualified practitioners.

They exist to raise the incomes of people who procure those Extra Special, Very Important Permission Slips and to make it more expensive and difficult to competitively join those anointed elites.

Which is why the strongest lobbying for implementing and enforcing such schemes always comes from the existing practitioners.

If you “practice law,” you’re a “lawyer” or “attorney,” whether you have government credentials saying so or not. And to the best of my knowledge, Katie Zacharia has never falsely claimed to have such credentials.

I hope Zacharia’s clients got good work for their money, as that’s the only thing that should matter.

And I hope we can get better work from the press in deciding what’s worth “reporting” on.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On October 9, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth announced — during a podcast appearance rather that from a Pentagon podium — that the killing of mass shooter Nidal Hasan by military firing squad, scheduled for December 3, will be livestreamed. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public — because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

By “these types of things,” Hegseth presumably means Hasan’s murder of 13 people (including a pregnant woman) and wounding of 32 in 2009.

I’m on record as opposing capital punishment because it’s evil, cowardly, stupid, not an effective deterrent to criminal behavior, and the opposite of “limited government” (a government empowered to kill disarmed and helpless prisoners is a government beyond anything plausibly defined as limited).

In Hasan’s case, my “unlimited government” objection doesn’t apply.

As a US Army officer, Hasan “freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” agreed to make himself subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Article 118 of the UCMJ mandates the death penalty (or imprisonment for life) for premeditated murder. Therefore, the US regime will be acting within the limits of its contract with Hasan.

I still oppose killing Hasan on the other grounds I mention, but I consider livestreaming that killing — which will happen whether I like it or not — potentially useful as a demonstration of character.

With a public execution, the US regime will join an exclusive club currently comprised of Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and the Islamic State’s notional “caliphate.”

Those aren’t the only regimes with unlimited government. They’re just the only regimes that publicly flaunt their unlimited nature by killing disarmed, helpless prisoners in full view of the serfs they rule.

I’m big on government transparency. Not on “good government” grounds, but because transparency makes it easier for people to figure out that there’s no such thing as “good” political government.

Note the modifier “political.”

Political government is the opposite of self-government. It’s a claimed monopoly on the use of force by an organization that, absent public acceptance of a bunch of weasel wording, would otherwise be seen as (and actually is) an organized crime syndicate.

The US government killing Hasan is no different in principle than the Gambino crime family’s killing of Thomas DeSimone, sentenced to death for killing  “made man” William Bentvena (both killings are portrayed, using other names, in the film Goodfellas).

Like DeSimone, Hasan’s offense wasn’t that he gunned down a bunch of people. It was that he gunned down the “wrong” people. If he’d killed a bunch of Iraqis or Afghans, he’d more likely have received a medal than a death sentence.

If the US regime is going to kill Hasan (and it almost certainly will), I favor making a public spectacle of it. “The people” who supposedly consent to be governed, and who buy the bullets and pay the salaries of the firing squad, should be shown what they’re getting for their money and what club “their” government belongs to.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY