Advisory Opinions - Episode: "Naw Dawg to the DOJ"

Hosts: Sarah Isgur & David French
Released by: The Dispatch
Date: February 12, 2026

Overview

This episode of Advisory Opinions centers on a series of legal and political flashpoints involving the Department of Justice (DOJ), grand jury indictments, the erosion of trust in federal institutions, and the intersection of law and politics in both legal practice and upcoming elections. The hosts analyze several timely legal stories, notably the rejected DOJ indictment of six congressional Democrats, a judicial misconduct complaint, listener questions, and a deep dive into the Texas Senate primary through the "Grifter Sarah" lens.

Key Discussion Points

1. DOJ Indictments Rejected by Grand Jury

• Topic Introduction: Sarah and David discuss a recent grand jury decision rejecting DOJ indictments against six congressional Democrats who released a video telling military personnel to refuse illegal orders ([00:24]).
• Relevant Law: DOJ cited 18 USC 2387, criminalizing incitement to insubordination among military members.
• Significance:
  • Historically, DOJ indictments almost always succeed ("In fiscal year 2013, federal grand juries rejected indictments just five times out of...165,000 cases." - Sarah [04:06]).
  • Recent trend: More grand juries are rejecting DOJ cases, representing a decline in the presumption that DOJ prosecutions are inherently solid.

Quotes & Insights

• "The DOJ’s presumption of regularity, irregular like bowel syndromes."
  — Sarah Isgur, [00:03]

• "You cannot, in fact, indict a ham sandwich. There is still some life left in this grand jury system, and that is encouraging to see."
  — David French, [07:55]

• "The idea that that video was illegal is frivolous to the point of malicious... It's pretty darn shocking."
  — David French, [08:53]

Context and Implications

• Courts and grand juries no longer automatically trust DOJ representations.
• Growing distrust a result of DOJ’s aggressive legal strategies and failure to properly vet evidence before advancing cases.
• Erosion of institutional trust within judiciary and prosecution processes.

2. Presumption of Regularity and Institutional Trust

• Topic: The decline of the “presumption of regularity”—the idea that courts should trust government representations unless shown otherwise.

Notable Quotes

• "The presumption of regularity that has previously extended to the United States government... no longer holds. That's the thunderclap."
  — Sarah Isgur, quoting a judge, [12:29]

• "There’s a giant difference... when you move from it’s the exception, not the rule, to now it’s looking much more like the rule... that what’s being said is just completely fundamentally not trustworthy."
  — David French, [14:36]

Repairability?

• Sarah’s Perspective: You can't just restore trust—it might never be exactly as it was, but institutions can seek a "new normal."
• David’s Perspective: "Trust can be destroyed quickly. It is only restored slowly. It’s going to take a bipartisan generation long commitment to ethics and integrity to restore anything remotely like this presumption of regularity." ([15:07])

3. The Boasberg Judicial Misconduct Complaint

• Background: DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg, alleging inappropriate comments about the administration’s willingness to obey federal court rulings.
• Chief Judge Sutton’s Memo: Dismissed the complaint largely due to lack of evidence—DOJ failed to submit their key supporting attachment even after being reminded ([25:35]-[30:58]).

Memorable Moments

• "Either they have no source for the underlying allegation, they made it up, or they were just too lazy to include the attachment because this wasn't actually important to them... This was a press release against Judge Boasberg to gin up anger and outrage at the judiciary."
  — Sarah Isgur, [30:41]

• "What's beyond massive? Like black hole level incompetence would be, then you’re contacted to provide the evidence and you don't do it."
  — David French, [31:04]

Consequences

• These spurious complaints foster intimidation and threats against judges—part of a broader trend undermining rule of law.

4. Listener Questions Segment

Election “Shenanigans” (TX Senate & National Races)

• Topic: Manipulating races by boosting third parties and extremists (e.g., funding candidates with similar names or promoting MAGA candidates in GOP primaries).
• Hosts' Take:
  • It’s dirty, but not illegal.
  • "The only reason this stuff works, Sarah, ...is you’re dealing with giant amounts of civic ignorance amongst your voters."
    — David French, [37:19]

Pronouns, Teacher Speech, and Free Speech Doctrine

• Question: Can schools mandate the use of pronouns, and where's the line with teacher free speech?
• David: Urges that the Supreme Court stick to the Pickering standard—teachers do not have unfettered free speech, but balancing tests should apply ([39:31]).
• Sarah: There's a circuit split—this will likely land at the Supreme Court.

Value of Concurring & Dissenting Opinions

• Question: Why write concurring/dissenting opinions if they’re not binding?
• David: They’re invaluable for advocacy, give insight into a judge’s thinking, and influence legal evolution ([42:01]).
• Sarah: Different types of concurrences serve different purposes—some clarify reservations, others flag future issues; dissents can reshape precedent over time.

5. Grifter Sarah Segment: Texas Senate Primary Preview

Breakdown of the Race ([51:04]–[58:04])

• Republican Field: Ken Paxton (38%), John Cornyn (31%), Wesley Hunt (17%).
• Democratic Field: Jasmine Crockett (47%), James Talarico (39%).

Strategy & Prognosis

• Runoff Likely: Runoffs predicted for the GOP if no candidate reaches 50%.
• Grifter Sarah’s Analysis: The Trump administration would be "insane not to offer Ken Paxton nearly whatever job he wants to get him out of the Senate race," as Paxton’s baggage could jeopardize the seat for Republicans.
• David’s Take: Crockett could potentially beat Paxton in a general election, but not Cornyn; Talarico would struggle vs. Cornyn, but could beat Paxton.

Larger Point

• Both parties struggle to produce moderate, broadly appealing candidates, as party bases push for ideological extremes.
• The general electorate’s desires aren’t reflected by activist primary voters, fueling political instability and erratic swings in governance ([58:04]).

Memorable Exchange

• "What do you do when the moderates are dead and the people pretending to be moderates are lying?"
  — Sarah Isgur, [61:03]

Timestamps for Notable Segments

• DOJ Grand Jury Rejection Discussion: [00:24] – [10:40]
• Presumption of Regularity & Institutional Trust: [10:42] – [16:29]
• Boasberg Complaint & Chief Judge Sutton’s Memo: [25:35] – [33:27]
• Listener Q&A: [33:27] – [47:59]
• Grifter Sarah on the Texas Senate Primary: [49:48] – [58:04]

Tone, Style, & Noteworthy Quotes

• The hosts' tone is sharp, irreverent, and often plays with sarcasm and dry humor ("you cannot, in fact, indict a ham sandwich" – David).
• Accessible legal explanations, alongside inside-baseball references familiar to regular listeners or those with legal backgrounds.
• Clear frustration with the ongoing institutional and political decay, but also a pragmatic undertone about how to move forward.

Summary in Brief

This episode dissects the DOJ’s recent failures with grand juries and escalating institutional mistrust, highlights legal and procedural missteps (notably with judicial misconduct complaints), scrutinizes the impact of dirty-but-legal election tactics, provides actionable advice for law students, and turns to “Grifter Sarah” for an incisive political forecast in the Texas Senate primary. The hosts combine rigorous legal analysis with frank commentary, insightful listener engagement, and a touch of gallows humor about the challenges facing today’s legal and political institutions.

For More:

• Visit the Advisory Opinions page at The Dispatch for bonus episodes, transcripts, and newsletters.