Court Cases, Cover-Ups, and Corruption
Will There Ever Be Justice?
September 9, 2025
Host: Dr. Jamie Mitchell
Guest: Jeff Childers
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 9/09/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Jamie Mitchell:
Hello friends and welcome to America’s Daily, one Hour of Information, insights, inspiration, and the infusion of courage to stand up and speak for truth. I’m talking about Stand in the Gap today and I’m your host Jamie Mitchell, and we’re so fortunate today to have one of our favorite Stand in the Gap guests, Jeff Childers. Jeff is a lawyer, defender of truth. I’m not sure if I coined the phrase Jeff, a cultural analyzer, but he is someone who helps start my day each day thinking and laughing with his 5-year-old Coffee and COVID newsletter. Jeff, it’s hard to believe it’s been five years since you started CNC and you’ve been a guest with us numerous times. Welcome back to Stand In the Gap.
Jeff Childers:
Thanks Jamie. It’s such a pleasure to be here.
Jamie Mitchell:
Jeff. I’ve entitled today’s program court Cases, cover ups and corruption. Will there ever be Justice? As I speak to a lot of people about what’s happening in our country, one of the strong sentiments is the idea that people, especially those who are in government, famous people who commit crimes, they never go to jail, they never see the inside of a courtroom, and if they are found guilty or even if they are ever convicted, they cut deals and they’re out on the streets in minutes. Not to mention the ones that never stand in front of a judge. Our trust in the legal system is an all time low, and I know that grieves your heart as a lawyer. There is deep cynicism in regards to all authorities and there’s bubbling up this resentment out there. In general, we want justice to be served and I know you feel strongly about that You attempt to do something about it each day in your newsletter and there’s a myriad of things that we can address today.
But as I mentioned to you before, interesting enough that you and I were going to sit down a numbers of weeks before and the Lord has worked it out that we’re sitting down today, which really is interesting in light of what we’re going to talk about and even more things that have come out. But I want to start out with something personal to you, Jeff, and to what you are involved in regards to a court case in Coffee and COVID back in May 21st, you shared about a lawsuit that you had filed regarding the Prep Act. I want you to explain that lawsuit, what is happening, where things stand, and then we can talk about the significance of why bring a lawsuit against the government.
Jeff Childers:
That is a great question and obviously one that is dear to my heart. Since I filed this lawsuit last year and I’ve been litigating it almost, I think it’s over a year now, and we sued the federal government on behalf of a group of COVID injured people or their surviving relatives over this law. It’s a 2005 law called the Prep Act, and most people never heard of it, but they sure know about it because that’s the law that gives Pfizer and Moderna liability immunity for vaccine injuries and what the government did in 2005 in response to the anthrax attacks, which some of us remember in the middle of a dense legislative session in a Defense Appropriations Act, they slipped in this little statute that was intended for pandemics and it set up this scheme where if there was a terrible national emergency, it was supposed to give anybody who helped provide solutions with security from being sued if they were contributing to the solution in the middle of the fog of pandemic war.
So it’s really a very short statute and it tries to, it creates a little miniature version of the 1986 Vaccine Act, which people have also heard about that provides liability immunity for childhood vaccines. But the Prep Act is actually nothing like that Vaccine Act. It makes the Vaccine Act look like the smartest law that the government ever passed, which is saying a lot. And so we basically sued over this Prep Act arguing that it does two things. First of all, it takes away people’s common law causes of action so that you have a constitutional right to have your legal claims heard by a court under Article three of the Constitution, but the Prep Act purports to delete that, right? And it also gives you no due process and it provides a very obscure process for you to submit a claim for reimbursement for your injuries, and it’s a horrible process. There’s no transparency. They don’t even tell you what to send in. There’s no guideline or form to use to get a claim, and every one of my clients has a doctor or medical opinion that their injury was caused by the vaccines and they still can’t get a claim approved.
There’s something like as of earlier this year, out of something like 15,000 claims that were filed years and years ago, the Prep Act has paid out about 34 with an average payout of about $3,000.
Jamie Mitchell:
Wow,
Jeff Childers:
Jeff, it’s horrible. Yeah, but that’s what the lawsuit’s about.
Jamie Mitchell:
Now because of the nature of our program today, in the last two minutes of this segment, why do you feel this is important to pursue? Why is it important to shine a light on something? Most industries, most businesses and the government shouldn’t have immunity for something like this, but in the long run, why is this important? You have about a minute left.
Jeff Childers:
When I went to law school and took my very first torts class in first year, they pounded us with the justifications for product liability, which is, it makes products safer because it gives manufacturers the incentive to avoid lawsuits and it compensates injured people so that we can have a productive economy where manufacturers can make products, people can trust and use them, and then they get compensated if they get hurt. And so it’s supposed to be a win-win even though there are the occasional hot coffee in the lap at McDonald’s case that people get upset about, that system is broken by the Prep Act, it’s shattered. The Prep Act deletes the incentives. It leaves people uncompensated. Nothing about it works. Even the justification that they were supposed to help relieve the pandemic failed because the shots didn’t stop transmission. So we’ve got to have this discussion. We’ve got to stop pretending like it never happened.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, friends, we are just getting started today. We’re talking about corruption, we’re talking about court cases, coverup. You don’t want to leave us. We’re going to look at a myriad of coverups in the news and why is it important to shed light on these things? Stay with us here at Stand of the Gap Debate. Well, welcome back to what we are calling court cases cover up and corruption. Will we ever have Justice? And we’re asking our friend Jeff Childers of Coffee and COVID to weigh in on some of these hot topics in the news and to answer some of these questions because he on a daily basis weighs in and gives us updates and the unique insights on a lot of what’s happening in the news. And the question is always this, Jeff, will anyone ever go to jail? Let’s talk about coverups. And the one that many people are talking about are the so-called Epstein files. And Jeffrey Epstein is going on with this issue. We know that Epstein was an evil person who was known and did evil things to minors and women and seems like even blackmailed people. What is the latest and why is this whole criminal operation not being exposed like it should?
Jeff Childers:
That is a terrific setup question, Jamie, and I’m going to turn it on its head. I’m going to say that the conventional wisdom, which you just accurately described in your question is a hundred percent backwards. So last year, many of us, myself included, yourself included, were pounding the table about Epstein and why the government wasn’t doing anything about it. And while these co-conspirators and obviously there must have been conspirators if nothing else, why were they all walking and not getting any judicial attention? A year later? We sit here and despite the media narrative, which is the media narrative, is Trump’s trying to bury this because he’s somehow connected to it, which is media nonsense. If you think about it, just step back and take a look at where we’re at. There is more attention being paid to the Epstein matter both as an official government function and in the media than there ever has been every single day.
There’s new Epstein stories this morning, the New York Times wrote, listen to this, a 20,000 page article, sorry, not 20,000 pages. That would be a lot. 20,000 word article. It’s the size of a small book on JP Morgan’s connections to the Epstein case. We never saw that over the last four years. The DOJ just took Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition in prison and immediately published the transcript. We’ve never had that kind of transparency. The house is subpoenaing Epstein records by the Banker’s box and they’re publishing that stuff. 33,000 pages is about to come out that they just received. So I know the media is portraying this as some kind of coverup operation, but if you think about it, it’s the exact opposite. We’re getting more Epstein transparency than we ever have. So the question is how much there is really there. And we’ve connected a lot of dots in the absence of having any of this data. Now we’re getting the data and people can start connecting real dots and we’ll see. There must be other Epstein and that’s going to come out. I see it.
Jamie Mitchell:
And the amazing thing is that, again, we don’t know, but again, Jeff, as someone who just really watches the news like you do and tried to analysis it, there seems to be that there is this desire to keep this information from really getting fully exposed or they’re just waiting for the opportune time. They’re either the resistance to letting it out or getting all their ducks in a row so that when they do drop it all, it will have the greater effect. I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but which one do you think that is? Or do you have another theory?
Jeff Childers:
Again, I reject the media narrative that there’s a coverup. It’s the opposite. There’s a fire hose of Epstein information coming at us. I can’t remember in my lifetime any other criminal case where we got this much transparency where the DOJ was so responsive and so many, usually what you hear from law enforcement state or federal is that it’s a criminal investigation. So they can’t comment, well, they’re talking a blue streak and they’re giving us, like I said, bankers boxes of documents and everybody wants to see some kind of a smoking gun. And I suspect that the truth is that if there was a smoking gun, somebody would’ve used it in some way. There are valid questions we’ve been told. We don’t know this for sure, but we’ve been told, and it’s credible that Epstein’s properties were wired for video and sound as was this plane. Where’s the video? Who’s on the video? That’s an open question. We haven’t seen or heard that yet. People want to know, but we can look at the documents that we’re getting to see if it confirms or rebuts the theory that he had everything videotaped.
Jamie Mitchell:
Alright, well here’s another one. And it’s interesting in light of when we were going to do this program and now coming to some fuller understanding Joe Biden’s health and his capability of being the president and doing his duties, former Biden administration staff are being interviewed by Congress, books are being written. There are all kinds of questions, especially now about the auto pen. I think President Trump talks about the auto pen almost every other day. What is the deal with this and what do we need to know? And Jeff can undo anything that Joe Biden has done.
Jeff Childers:
So this one’s a lot easier. There’s only one question that matters. The use of the Autopen by itself is less problematic than I think a lot of people believe. We live in a time when there’s a million ways to sign things. So if you’ve ever gotten a Dropbox document with the e-sign and you click the thing and it scribbles your little signature in there, well that counts. And when you sign up for Netflix and it says click the box to accept the terms and conditions that counts as your signature. So the courts have allowed a very expansive redefinition of what signing means. So standing alone, the fact of a presidential use of the Autopen might not be a great idea, but I don’t think that’s the main question. The main question is did Biden know what they were signing? And that is the legal question.
Somebody else, no matter whether you use Check the Box or e-sign or anything else, it has to be you and you have to agree to whatever those terms are. The same thing is true for the president. Biden had to know what the Autopen was signing and he had to have approved it. They almost certainly should be required to have some paper trail of him approving it one way or another. And I think what Trump is referring to is the fact that when they go back and they look, the paper trail not only doesn’t show that Biden necessarily knew, there’s no place, for example, where somebody sends somebody an email saying, I briefed the president and he approved it. That’s almost necessary. Instead, what we’re seeing is evidence going the other way that suggests that the staff was just running things through the autopen like it was a photocopy machine. If that’s true, if we can prove that, then it is strong evidence and highly likely that any of those actions could be set aside including the pardons.
Jamie Mitchell:
Jeff, as you look back to the history, the four years of Joe Biden’s administration, one of the things that keeps coming up left and right is his limited access to staff, his limited number of cabinet meetings. It was almost like he was never really meeting with anybody, which tells us, or at least gives us an indication that how could he have even been briefed on some of these things and given the okay to do these things if he was never meeting with people,
Jeff Childers:
Right? That’s part of the evidence that’s tumbling out and it’s tumbling out not just in disclosed emails, but even Democrat journalists are writing books about this stuff and they’re talking about that remarkable fact that you just put your finger on, which is that Joe Biden was probably the least involved president we’ve ever had.
Jamie Mitchell:
And it does say something about this whole process. I mean, we’re in a new day with digital things and like you’ve mentioned, being able to click on things and account, if anything comes out of this, having verification that people in government are giving their approval on this is going to be an important part of the fix. So we have some confidence going forth, Jeff, I know we say it all the time. Will anybody ever go to jail for these things? We’re going to talk more about that later on, but it is the frustration of the American people right now. There is a frustration as we rehearse these stories that we get no answers and we need to watch and listen and pray and pray for God’s righteousness to dispel the darkness. Now next up, we want to look at this immigration controversy that’s ripping our nation, but also the litigation that’s around it.
Do people who are not citizens of the United States have due process? Stay with us here at Stand of the Gap today. Thank you for staying with us and taking an interest in today’s news and some of the frustrating stories that we keep having to endure that don’t get resolved, and we feel frustrated that no one’s being held accountable. Jeff Childers is helping explain some of these news stories and what we could see occur. Jeff, I want to tap your legal expertise. We are watching the Trump administration execute a major deportation operation. We see them now mounting up some efforts to go into American cities. They’re trying to remove millions of illegal aliens who invaded our country during the Biden years. And one of the things that I keep hearing is this idea that everyone deserves due process, that legal term due process, even non-citizens and those who have entered our nation illegally. I mean they had to break a law to get into our country. Can you explain this legal idea of due process and should it be afforded to people who illegally came into our country?
Jeff Childers:
So due process is really an ancient idea going back to something called the writ of habeas corpus. But in terms of our constitution, it’s enshrined in the Fifth Amendment and succinctly put, it guarantees every citizen the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. There are also protections against the seizure of your property without just compensation and things like that. But let’s just focus on that first one, notice and an opportunity to be heard. So that means you have the right to, number one, be informed of any charges against you or any legal action that the government intends to take against you, and you have the right to your day in court. That all seems self-evident and reasonable. It’s the law. That’s our constitutional right question is in the context of mass deportations, is it feasible for the government to give 20 million illegals a court hearing and a lawyer and a court case and all that stuff? I mean, how is that even supposed to work?
So the question of what do process non-citizens who have entered illegally are entitled to has been determined by the Supreme Court as limited and have limited due process? And so I like to use the example of kids. Kids have limited constitutional rights. So for example, you have a First Amendment right to say whatever you want on your radio show as long as you’re not calling for violence or something that’s explicitly wrong or criminal like that or defaming someone, but kids in a classroom, obviously the teacher has to maintain order. So you can’t have kids exercising their first amendment right all throughout the class. You would just have chaos. So kids’ constitutional rights are limited in certain contexts. Well, illegal aliens have even more limited rights. And what the Supreme Court’s held is they just have the rights that Congress gives them. So you have to go to the immigration statutes to find that out. The immigration statutes are complicated, dense, and hardly anybody really understands them. There’s so many they’re overlaid. Every administration tweaks them, it’s a mess. But so far nobody has argued that the Trump administration has violated those laws. And in rare cases when somebody does allege that, as you know, there’s court cases about it and those have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court and by and large Trump’s been winning them.
Jamie Mitchell:
Now, part of this dilemma is that some of these suits against the government, against the Trump administration and the immigration people, they come before they shop around and they bring it before a liberal judge. And these liberal judges, they throw up these roadblocks in the so-called name of justice and we have to go up the judicial ladder, as you even mentioned, all the way to the Supreme Court to get a final judgment on these things. But Jeff, I want to ask about these judges. How do you hold judges accountable? I mean, once they get approved by the Senate, some of these people have lifetime appointments. Is there any way to hold them accountable?
Jeff Childers:
So you are touching on a really controversial part of our judicial system. Judges are human beings and they have opinions and biases and everything that every other human being has. They’re supposed to be neutral. But as you well know, I’m sure you have some liberal relatives and you try to argue with them about common sense things. And pretty soon you realize that they just see things differently and there’s no reasonable way to argue them around. Well, judges are the same way, and our legal system is not perfect. It’s just the best system anybody’s come up with. So far in the sixties, seventies and eighties, there was a big trend because the liberals had control of the judiciary and the trend was that the constitution should be interpreted as a living document. I’m sure you’ve heard that saying, well, justice Antonin Scalia rest in peace single handedly turned that around.
And there’s been a long conservative revolution in the judiciary back from the living document theory to what’s called an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. And the originalists now are in the majority in the judiciary. So that’s the good news. But there’s still living document liberals scattered all through the judiciary, and that’s why judicial appointments are so important and why the Senate fights so hard about them and why we should pay attention to them. Federal judges and federal judicial appointments are critical. Most federal judges, especially federal appellate judges are the most powerful judges in the country. And I say that they’re more powerful than the Supreme Court judges because the Supreme Court can only hear so many cases a year. So most cases end at the federal appellate level. That’s why it’s really important to have good judges appointed there and why people should pay attention to those battles in Congress.
You asked me about accountability. Well, this is one of my more unpopular recommendations in copying COVID, but I have recommended that people exercise some patience because bad judicial decisions happen all the time, but they get sorted out in the appeals process. And if not there at the Supreme Court, president Trump has an advantage that we don’t have, which is the Supreme Court will always hear a case from the President. So he doesn’t have to worry about the Supreme Court not taking his case. The Supreme Court will always take one of the president’s cases of whatever party. It’s not just a Trump thing. So he has access to that final level of review. So bad decisions from living document judges are going to happen, but they will make their way up through the chain and they will get corrected. So it’s not a fatal issue. We don’t need to lose our minds over it.
It’s annoying and it slows things down. But so far the Supreme Court has been really good at quickly turning these cases around and sending them back down to the point that you’re now seeing stories in the New York Times complaining that liberal judges are whining about the Supreme Court knocking all their decisions down. I suspect that their real plan was to create so much legal mumbo jumbo that the Supreme Court would have to wade through that. It would take four years to reverse all their cases, and they’re mad that the Supreme Court’s doing it in the short one or two page emergency orders. And so the system is correcting itself. We need to be patient and let it play out, and we need to make sure that good judges get appointed to the federal bench. That’s the real solution.
Jamie Mitchell:
And part of that, Jeff, is Senate approval. Now, I got to tell you one thing I’m really frustrated at, and again, I look at this and I just shake my head, I don’t understand. We have A-G-O-P-A Republican controlled Senate that should move through the approval process and the confirmation process not only of judges, but of the president’s nominees. What is going on on that side of Congress? Why are they dragging their feet on this stuff?
Jeff Childers:
The Senate has a rule that requires 60 votes to approve a vote for confirmation of a presidential appointee, not to approve the appointee, but just to allow it to get to a vote. And so that has been the rule, by the way, it’s called the filibuster, and it’s been the rule for a long time about, I don’t know now, gosh, 10 or 20 years ago, the Democrats used what they called at the time the nuclear option, which is they changed the rule so that the filibuster no longer applied to judicial appointees. That’s what you’re referring to is that the judicial votes go through pretty quickly. Now because they’ve suspended the filibuster, I think they need to do the same thing for cabinet appointments. That’s what’s holding up Trump’s appointments, especially ones that are farther down the chain. And there’s a lot of ’em that we never hear about because they’re not high profile ones like HHS secretary or Secretary of State or something. But it’s really slowing down the operation of government and Trump’s ability to get his policies in place. So I would favor changing the rules, nuking the filibuster as the Democrats called it with regard to cabinet appointees. But Republicans are conservative and they don’t like changing the rules if they don’t have to.
Jamie Mitchell:
While our nation is supposed to be anchored in the rule of law, but when people misuse our system, take advantage of it, we need to figure out how to bring back common sense. Don’t go anywhere. We have one last segment with our friend Jeff Childers. What a blessing to have our friend Jeff Childers with us again, his insights and breath of understanding is so helpful and encouraging, and you can tap into Jeff’s daily email newsletter, coffee and COVID. Jeff, how can our listeners start receiving c and c and is there anything new coming in the future that you may want to break to us today?
Jeff Childers:
Great setup again. Thank you. So it’s super easy. People just log to www.coffeeandcovid-alloneword-.com, and they can sign up for the newsletter. There is a free option. It’s not my fault, the way Substack works, it’s at the end of the list, so they have to look down at the bottom and you’ll see there’s a free one on there. Although support is always welcome. We’re about to, Jamie enter into a really remarkable time in history. I think from what I can tell, and as you said, I watched this stuff very, very closely. The Trump administration has not been engaged in a revenge spree like the media describes it, or a series of chaotic random actions they’ve been putting into place a plan, and I think that the plan is about to start operating. So they’ve been putting all the pieces on the chess board, and I think we’re about to see them start the game, and it’s going to be a really exciting time. I plan to cover this from both the big picture perspective and in detail. And as you know, we focus on mainly all the good news and we reject the doom scrolling and the black pilling and the media narrative, and we look at what’s really going on, and it’s just been an astonishing and miraculous time.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, we appreciate each day reading it. I have to admit I’m about two days behind. I’ll catch up and hopefully be ready for today’s edition. Jeff, I want to talk about why it’s important as Christ followers not to get weary in this battle that we’re really facing, but I want to quickly just have you address the issue of lawlessness and these Democrat run cities and Trump’s desire to potentially to take the National Guard into some of these cities and the fear of martial law and all of this. We understand we have a crime problem here in America, and it’s in these big cities. He has released a National Guard and he has taken control of Washington DC and for whatever we can say about it, the reports are, crime is down, murders are stopping, things are getting cleaned up, the graffiti is getting washed away, and he wants to do this in other cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore. Does he have justification to do that? How far can he go and where is this headed, do you think? Jeff?
Jeff Childers:
So this is a really good example of something I point out all the time in Coffee and COVID, which is that there’s a huge difference between what President Trump says and what he does. And I think he’s got a very deliberate strategy of confusing his enemies. He does not tell us the plan in advance, and he shouldn’t tell us the plan. If he were to tell us the plan, then his political enemies would find a way to thwart the plan. So instead, what President Trump does is he drops breadcrumbs leading in a thousand different directions so that they don’t know what’s coming before it hits them. This is, I think, a perfect example of that. What listeners need to understand is that in Washington dc, Trump has special powers. DC is a federal jurisdiction, and so the federal government essentially runs the city. Now, a couple of decades back, they got some home rule powers.
So they have their own mayor and their own little city government, but it’s accountable to the feds. So no other city in the US is positioned the same way as dc, and Trump just can’t roll in every federal agency and the National Guard the same way he can in dc. So a lot of the talk, for example, about going into Chicago or more recently Boston is I hyperventilating. But Trump can, for example, crack down. He can send ice in. He has statutory authority to do that. If there’s a riot like there was in la, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to say he can deploy the National Guard. If these cities in response to the threat from truth social that Trump might go in, if they start rioting, then that will give Trump the predicate to go in. So I think we need to be patient and keep our power dry and watch and see what happens. But here’s the miraculous part. Trump has exposed these blue city problems in a way that has never happened before. He’s got the media talking about it. He’s got the media interviewing Chicago citizens about the crime problems in their neighborhood. I mean, just imagine it. We never saw that kind of coverage a year ago. It’s breathtaking in scope.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, it’s interesting because two things are now happening that I see is number one, that these governors and these mayors are coming out and they’re saying, oh, no, no, no, we don’t need our help. Our streets are safe. And the people know that’s just not true. They know it. They’re living it. They’re a part of it. And so they’re turning their own constituents against themselves. And the second thing I just read this weekend, there are some red state governors, some Republican governors who are now coming out and saying, well, look, we have cities not as bad as Chicago, not as bad as Baltimore or Boston, but we have cities and they have Democrat mayors, but we’re the governor. We have control of our National Guard, and we will cooperate with the federal government if it means cities in our state can be safer. And I think, Jeff, I think that’s a win-win if either of those things to happen. The Democrat, blue liberal governors and mayors are exposed, and then some of these Republican governors are being cooperative. Last question, and it just kind of pulls this whole thing together. Today we’re talking about being diligent and being vigilant and not growing weary while we see all this stuff happening, a word of encouragement to us as Christians. I mean, Jeff as a believer, you read this stuff, you write about every day, it must get wearing to you. What’s a word of encouragement of how not to be worn down in our last minute here?
Jeff Childers:
Actually, I’ve never felt that way. My trust in God is stronger now than it ever has been. I constantly, every day I see more evidence that God works all things for good. There’s so many post pandemic miracles. I mean, would we even have a Trump administration without the trials of the pandemic? Would we have the CDC being shredded and all those failed employees being fired if it weren’t for the pain and difficulties that we endured during that dark time? So watching the turnaround is just seeing in astonishment how good God is and how powerful he is, and how his plan is so much bigger than we could possibly imagine. So I’m not worn down at all. Every day I’m more encouraged and more enthusiastic, and I think that Christians, we should be counting these blessings that are being heaped upon us that we don’t deserve and not focusing on the specs in our eyes.
Jamie Mitchell:
Amen. Jeff, what a good way to end a program that could have been depressing and defeating. Thank you again for what you’re doing, friends for us, the battle for truth, righteousness, light over darkness of bringing accountability. Well, it continues. Remain steadfast. Hold steady, fight the good fight, and remember, live and lead with courage. Until tomorrow, have a great day.
Recent Comments