The Andrew Branca Show

Attorney Andrew F. Branca

MISSION: political analysis that is exuberantly pro-America as envisioned by our Founders, pro-Constitutional order, pro-western civilization, pro-meritocracy, pro-family, and adamantly opposed to everyone and everything that undermines those values. If those are your values, as well, hit that SUBSCRIBE button and join the Law of Self Defense community as we defend our great nation against the many forces that wish to tear it to rubble. 

  1. More Jan. 6 Convictions on the Brink of Collapse!

    May 27

    More Jan. 6 Convictions on the Brink of Collapse!

    All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2k JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kf FOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nz TODAY’s MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “Mailbox Vandalism: Poor Choices, Poor Outcomes!” YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/2w6fawtx Locals: https://tinyurl.com/muhhns4z The Trump Department of Justice has moved to vacate with prejudice the convictions of various Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, including members Sachary Rehl and Roberto Minuta of each of those organizations respectively, as well as others of both groups, who were given lengthy prison sentences for purported January 6-related misconduct. Because the Trump DOJ is in favor of the dismissals, as obviously are the men convicted, the request to vacate is unopposed.  This lack of opposition gives a sad face to Progressive Fascist Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, who has rushed in with an estrogenically hysterical and largely fantastical amicus brief asking the D.C. Circuit to appoint adversarial counsel to fight the dismissal. In response, Proud Boy defendant Zachary Rehl has filed his own counter argument, pro se, and my buddy Bill Shipley has filed his own counter argument in defense of his client Oath Keeper Robert Minuta. Rehl’s argument comes across as personally compelling, while Shipley brings the technical legal expertise one would expect of a career DOJ prosecutor who went on to defend more than 90 January 6 defendants. We’ll break down both of those in today’s show! Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET! Episode #1303.

    1h 19m
  2. CA's “No Vigilante Act” DESTROYED by 9th Circuit!

    May 27

    CA's “No Vigilante Act” DESTROYED by 9th Circuit!

    All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2k JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kf FOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nz TODAY’s MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “Trump Fears SCOTUS Will NOT Close Invasion Loophole!” YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/7erdjy37 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/2npwy8jy California thought it could seize authority over federal law enforcement — but the 9th Circuit just reminded Sacramento who actually runs the country. In a unanimous 3-0 decision in US v. California, a federal appeals court has enjoined California's "No Vigilantes Act," the state law designed to force ICE agents to wear visible identification during enforcement operations. The court didn't hedge or split hairs: when state law directly regulates the federal government's performance of its functions, the Supremacy Clause voids it — full stop. This is a stinging rebuke of Governor Gavin Newsom's deliberate strategy to obstruct federal immigration enforcement through legislation. The panel, authored by Trump-appointee Judge Mark Bennett, rejected California's public safety fig leaf outright, ruling that constitutional supremacy isn't subject to a balancing test. "The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation." Done. This is the second blow to California's anti-ICE legal campaign in two months — and another courtroom victory for the Trump administration. The Constitution is not a menu from which ambitious governors get to order selectively. Today, the 9th Circuit made sure Newsom knows it. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down! Episode #1301.

    54 min
  3. SCOTUS Allows Reasonable Police Stop: Ketanji Stomps Feet

    May 27

    SCOTUS Allows Reasonable Police Stop: Ketanji Stomps Feet

    All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2k JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kf FOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nz TODAY’s MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “SPLC Was PAYING the KKK — DOJ Drops Bombshell Indictment” YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/Xzya7MLiwdU Locals: XXX The Supreme Court just handed down DC v. R.W., reversing a DC Court of Appeals ruling that said a police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop a driver who was slowly backing out of a parking lot at 2 AM — after two of his companions bolted on foot when a cop arrived. The Court ruled 7-2 that the officer's "totality of the circumstances" analysis was textbook Fourth Amendment law. The decision is straightforward, well-reasoned, and consistent with decades of precedent. What's not straightforward is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's solo dissent — a performance so disconnected from the legal mainstream that even Justice Sotomayor refused to join it. Jackson accused her colleagues of "wordsmithing" the lower court, and argued that two people fleeing a parked car at 2 AM raise no suspicion whatsoever. I'll break down exactly what the Court held, why it's correct, and why Jackson's dissent reads like just another petulant diatribe. This is SCOTUS doing its job well — and one justice doing hers poorly. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down! Episode #1299.

    47 min
  4. Kash Patel Sues The Atlantic for $250M — But Can He WIN?

    May 19

    Kash Patel Sues The Atlantic for $250M — But Can He WIN?

    BE HARD TO CONVICT if you’re ever compelled to use force in defense of yourself, your family, or your property! FREE WEBINAR! Saturday, April 25! FREE but you MUST REGISTER NOW: hardtoconvict.com For complete Medicare guidance, dial (617) 644-0093 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter. All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2k JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kf FOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nz TODAY’s MEMBERS-ONLY SHOW: “DOJ Insider Exposes 16 Years of Political Takeover” YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/sd6n4bwj Locals: https://tinyurl.com/mrx49dbr FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic over a hit piece packed with explosive claims — excessive drinking, missed meetings, a security team unable to wake him — and sourced almost entirely by anonymous officials hiding behind the reporter's promise of confidentiality. The article cites "more than two dozen" people, grants all of them anonymity, and names exactly zero of them. Not one person willing to put their name behind what they told the journalist. If the story is true and Patel is the disaster they're describing, you'd think at least one of those two dozen people would stand up and say so publicly. Instead, we get a wall of shadows. That's not journalism. That's a drive-by. Now, I want to be straight with you about what Patel is actually up against, because this lawsuit — however satisfying it may feel — faces a serious legal obstacle. Patel is a public official, which means he can't win a defamation case just by proving the story is false. Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, he has to prove actual malice — that The Atlantic either knew the claims were false when they published them, or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. That is a brutally high bar, and it's the bar that has killed more defamation suits against media organizations than almost anything else. So here's the question we're going to dig into today: does the complete absence of named, accountable sources — combined with the FBI's on-record denials before publication — give Patel enough to argue reckless disregard? We'll walk through the lawsuit, the legal standard, and what it's actually going to take for Patel to win this thing. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down! Episode #1297.

    1h 22m
4.4
out of 5
295 Ratings

About

MISSION: political analysis that is exuberantly pro-America as envisioned by our Founders, pro-Constitutional order, pro-western civilization, pro-meritocracy, pro-family, and adamantly opposed to everyone and everything that undermines those values. If those are your values, as well, hit that SUBSCRIBE button and join the Law of Self Defense community as we defend our great nation against the many forces that wish to tear it to rubble. 

You Might Also Like