Legal AF by MeidasTouch - A Historic Week of Trump Legal Defeat

Episode Date: February 20, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting, thought-provoking look in “real time” at this week’s developments. On this episode, Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. A very bad week for all things Trump: A. Loses motion to dismiss Jan6 civil conspiracy claim. B. Trump, Jr. and Ivanka ordered to testify in New York Attorney General civil investigation into financial fraud. C. Trump Organization added to inauguration fraud case and Former CFO ordered to testify. D. Long-time accounting firm bails out and declares all Trump Organization financial statements “unreliable” 2. The Special Prosecutor’s recent filing concerning Trump and Russia, and whether it alleges that Hillary intercepted Trump’s communications. 3. The decision by the judge in the Sara Palin libel trial against the NY Times to take the issue out of the jury’s hands and finds that no “actual malice” proven as a matter of law. 4. Stuart Rhodes’ request to be released from pretrial detention and spend his time at his family’s house instead. 5. Remington entering into the first ever settlement by a gun manufacturer and victims in the Sandy Hook massacre. 6. Brian Flores amending his suit against the NFL and several teams alleging retaliation when he didn’t get a head coaching job he interviewed for, and the NFL’s choice of counsel to defend it in the suit. 7. President Biden’s decision-making process for picking his first SCOTUS justice to replace Breyer. And much more. Support the Show! AG1 by Athletic Greens -- Athletic Greens is going to give you an immune supporting FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 free travel packs with your first purchase if you visit https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf today. X-Chair -- Go to https://XChairLEGALAF.com now, for $100 off your order! X-Chair has a thirty-day guarantee of complete comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month. Masterworks -- Join an exclusive community investing in blue-chip art at https://www.masterworks.art/legalaf today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Midas Touch Legal AF podcast. If it's Saturday, it is Legal AF live. If it's Sunday, it is Legal AF basically. Every day of the week now, it is Legal AF. If you are looking for a top notch litigator who gives legal advice from some alley that he's in for those listening. Popok is in a undisclosed bunker location recording outside in an alley. Popok, where are you and what are you doing right now? That sounds terrible. My remote location is the side of my Miami office in a patio area because I'm trying

to get a combination of stable Wi-Fi and a quiet place for you, me, and all of our listeners. But yes, if you're looking for a litigator in an alley or a phone booth, I'm your man. Oh, Pock, a lot to discuss this week. A pretty, if your Donald Trump, you pretty much went over five this week when we're talking about badly. All the fame, all the fame stats been. It's probably even worse than that over five record, but we've got news coming out that the documents that Trump did take to Mara Lago, the National Archive that said those indeed are classified documents. So there will be some deeper implications.

We've talked about this in prior legal AEPs, but it has been confirmed. They are classified documents. The Presidential inauguration committee, the PIC, a civil action brought by the attorney general of Washington, DC, that is now set for trial in September of this year. So Trump is staring down that trial. As CFO Weiselberg has been ordered to appear for a deposition there, but that is not good news for Donald Trump and the Trump organization. Donald Trump has been compelled to testify at deposition in the civil action brought by attorney general, Tish James, as has Don Jr. and Ivanka and others.

We talked about this in prior legal AFs. The Trumps making all of these red herring and just baseless legal arguments why they shouldn't have to be deposed. The judge swiftly rejected that. We will talk more about that on the episode of legal AF Trump's accounting firm, Mazeers in a court filing. They said that their financials can no longer be relied on. And that was presented in a legal document, causing all of Trump's inner circle to freak out now. And that's big news right there. And then I meet Mata, federal judge in Washington, D.C.

Denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the claims that he was complicit in the conspiracy relating to the January 6th insurrection in a 112 page opinion. I mean, Meta says, Hey, I'm not taking this lightly, but there are clear facts from what's being pled in the complaint that can assert claims against Donald Trump, the claims against Rudy Giuliani, Trump, Jr. Those were dismissed, but the case against Donald Trump will go forward, meaning Trump, Jr. and Giuliani are going to be deposed in that action. So that's a good overall summary of the Trump legal news.

We'll get to each of those on the podcast today. But let's just talk about some other news for those loyal legal aifers. We talked about the civil action arising out of the sandy hook massacre. And it was announced this week, Pope, that Remington arms agreed to reach a settlement with the families of the loved ones who were murdered as a result of the mass shooter. It's a $73 million settlement. This comes two years plus after the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the case can proceed based on a claim of misleading marketing relating to the gun as a way that the lawyers in that case got

around a 2005 federal law named the protection of lawful commerce and arms act, which gives gun manufacturers almost carte blanche immunity to be sued in a case like this. Now, Popoq, I want to get your take on it. My own view of it is this is an incredible settlement in a very tragic situation. I believe if this case would have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, my own view is the 2005 federal law would have actually been held to preempt the marketing state law claims in the theory that was used. But nonetheless, I'm glad that there was a resolution here,

and it's fairly unprecedented. Yeah, it's the first time in the history of gun manufacturing, the United States, that a gun manufacturer has been found liable and has paid money to the victims of gun violence. And we're talking about Sandy Hook. We're talking about over 20 victims, including two-thirds of them, small children under the age of six, all who died at the hands of an AR-15 that was shot by Adam Lanza, the Remington AR-15. And Remington has been trying to do the same strategy that all the gun manufacturers have done over the last 30 years,

which is to stretch out the plaintiffs to lay, bombard them with the materials, many of them, not relevant, just do a data dump on them, and try to use all sorts of methods as you've described in the law process, legal process to avoid liability. Here, they even tried as a business decision as immoral as it's going to sound. They tried to settle the case for less than half this amount. They tried to settle it for $33 million. And God loved the victims' families. They rejected it and said, we'll see you in court. It's not enough to compensate

the nine families or so that Sue Remington on these theories and finally Remington saw the day or saw the light and decided to settle and to pay and to set now a precedent. And we no longer will have to say you and me on legal AF that no gun manufacturer has ever been found liable. One has, they've paid a substantial amount and I'll never bring those children and teachers and administrators back. But I do agree with you that at this case proceeded

with the current composition of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure that liability angle would have helped. I agree with you, Popox, switching gears. A settlement has been reached in the lawsuit filed against Prince Andrews. Prince Andrew had filed a motion to dismiss. He made procedural arguments that the victim that he is accused of raping that she was living in Australia. She was no longer an American citizen. It was one of his arguments. He tried to also make an argument that the victims settlement with Jeffrey Epstein, which purported to dismiss all potential defendants that somehow Pritz Andrew was included in that dismissal. Outside of those legal

arguments, Pritz Andrew made some factual arguments, which are odd and they're not to be considered on motions to dismiss where you look at the four corners of the pleading, but he had said that he was with his daughter at a British equivalent of like a Chuckie cheese. And he also stated that her description of the sexual assault could not be accurate because she described him as sweating. And he stated he was incapable of sweating. That was actually what his defense was.

I think the settlement demonstrates that he is capable of sweating because he settled rather than take this thing to trial after the queen allegedly leaned on him to settle up this really disgusting matter. Now the interesting thing about the settlement, well two things, press is reporting even though it's not public. Apparently the press has determined that it's about a 12 or a $13 million settlement. Poor Prince Andrew, he had a sell his ski shell A in order to pay for the settlement.

How much money was the settlement they reported again, Popeyes? 12 to $13 million, of which a fair portion of it will go to victims and charities related to victim and survivors of sexual abuse, the rest, the lawyers for geography and geography yourself. Now, the interesting thing, and I want to get your take on this,

because there's been no more public victim of sexual abuse than Virginia's offering. And at the end, she did get a substantial amount of money, and money devoted to, as I said, victims, charitable foundations related to victims and their families. But she did not get out of Prince Andrew and admission of guilt. What, and you could tell, this was a negotiated sentence

that they put in the public filing. Then I want to get your take on it. The negotiated sentence, Ben, was that the prints will acknowledge that she is a confirmed victim of sexual abuse, and basically apologize if there was any suggestions otherwise, without taking blame for him being her abuser. Now, and she's settled. What do you think about all that? You know, I think that I never second guess in this situation the victims

right to make that decision, right? At the end of the day, it is up for geography and her counsel to make the decision that's best for them. You know, the trauma that I could never even fathom, that she experienced, what it will take for her to get that closure in her life is something that is kind of a uniquely her decision that, you know, I never second guess. You know, at the end of the day, litigation can only accomplish so much.

And as we've seen from people who listen to legal AF, litigation itself, even if you're right, on all of the facts, the process of litigation could just be so incredibly slow. And with all of the appeals that someone like a Prince Andrews has, you know, for this to last five to 10 years for her to be re-traumatized by all of this, I think at the end of the day where I cite on this is that we all know what the settlement means, the public knows what the settlement means, whether or not he's willing to take personal accountability for it in an official statement, the resolution and the purported settlement number speaks volumes and speaks. Just this pop-up moving on to another update.

We talked about the Brian Flores lawsuit on a prior legal AF, some new updates to report there. Brian Flores and his legal team amended the lawsuit. For those out there, what's an amendment? You can update your lawsuit if there are new facts or you could amend your lawsuit if additional facts are discovered. The variety of reasons why you can amend it. But oftentimes you'll see when complaints are filed, they'll be the complaint and then there could be a first amended complaint, second

amended complaint. One of the weird things when you're a litigator that you learn, if you're in the litigation process, which you experience, is sometimes even if a judge dismisses the case, unless there's absolutely no possible way that an amendment could be filed that could cure any of the defects in the original complaint. Oftentimes a judge will allow a party to have another opportunity to file the complaint with additional enhanced facts called leave to amend or the judge can grant leave to amend or sometimes the party's on their own can ask leave to amend or just file an amendment.

And there's different rules about the timing of it, whether you have to ask the judge for permission. I won't get fully into the weeds of that here, but for what you need to know here, Brian Flores legal team added a new fact that happened where he applied for the job as the Houston Texans head coach. The Houston Texans gave the job to somebody else. And the claim now, bringing the Houston Texans into the lawsuit when these lawsuits are filed, you'll often see that they'll be filed against. In this case, the NFL, Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, and Dose, one through 10, or Dose, one through 50.

So a DOW defendant, a new defendant here was added to Houston Texans and the allegations are they retaliated against Brian Flores. He would have been the head coach, but for the filing of this lawsuit, the other update to report the NFL's attorney has now appeared in the case, or at least publicly appeared, former Obama attorney general, Loretta Lynch, from the Paul Weiss law firm will be representing the NFL, which I also find interesting, because in my experience litigating with the NFL, Eric Holder, another Obama attorney general who was working at Covington, the law firm, that Covington law firm represented the NFL in my cappernick litigation.

And so the NFL seems to have a strategy here, though, of hiring former attorney generals who then go into private practice. I'm going to be more, I'm going to be more suspect. They have a habit of hiring black former attorney generals when they've got an issue of racism being charged against them. So, Loretta Lynn, she was a former judge in the Eastern District of New York and the attorney general, the United States is a very fine lawyer. She's also a black woman and they feel they've got a major problem and maybe they would have hired her if she was white. But I think you just proved the point by telling me the last two people that they've hired against your client who is a high profile black athlete and now the Flores charges. The other interesting thing about the claim and the

amendment, because you and I talked about when we talked about Flores and just to remind everybody, because we sort of jumped into the middle of the movie and some people haven't seen or listened to prior podcasts. You've got Flores who's a well-established coach, head coach of the Miami Dolphins, leaves the team under sort of strange circumstances, sports people, and we're sort of scratching their head because he had a good season and why is he leaving? And there are very few minority, there were two at the time, maybe one at the time,

was him and Tomlinson, there were head coaches. And then it came out two things. He filed a suit saying two things went really, really wrong in my career. One, the owner of the Miami Dolphins wanted me to throw games in order to approve their draft status, That's really bad. And the NFL said, we're going to look into that one.

But the second one he said is, I've been racially discriminated against because I'm not getting the proper consideration for head coaching jobs under the Rooney rule, which is 20 years old. And the proof of the pudding is in the tasting because there's two now now one at the time when he filed head coaches that happened to be black. And so that's that's the civil rights case that he's brought NFL, as you said, brought in Loretta Lynch now this week to defend them and and disclaimed any knowledge of racism in the NFL, which is sort of an impossible position. But the interesting thing about the added claim that you just talked about that I found is that the Texans did hire a head coach even though Flores was in the running, therefore retaliated against in his view because he didn't get the job, but they hired a black coach.

They hired Lovey Smith. So it's a very interesting claim. It's, if they hired another white guy, I think it bolsters the claim. The Texans obviously knowing that Flores was in the mix when they finally decided who they wanted, they went with a black coach. It just wasn't Flores. What do you think about that? You know, where I worry here, I think there's a lot of great, first off, I think Flores as lawyers are great lawyers. I think the lawsuit has accomplished a great deal already in shifting the conversation and

putting these issues front and center about why there is this disparity of black coaches in the NFL. I worry that there's a lot of procedural issues in this case. One that we didn't talk about on the prior legal left that I should have. We don't have enough time to cover all of these issues though, is that these coaches often have an arbitration provision, an arbitration provision that would compel these cases into arbitration. We did talk about, on the last legal AF, that in terms of establishing a class requires there to be numerosity, typicality. You have to have a lot of people.

And I've yet to see all the people kind of come forward. I know that there are hypothetical people. I know that there should be lots of people, but who's gonna be coming forward for this to be established as a class action? And then I worry as you bring in more and more teams into this, are you turning this into a very complex, multi-front war against numerous billion dollar entities that each have significant procedural defenses that in the long run is going to potentially undercut the strength

of what these claims are. Popoq, I mean, I somewhat dodged your question because I really don't know is the answer. I don't know the inner workings of the team and their decision to hire one black coach versus another black coach and whether there was a retaliatory reason for it and what would the team have done but for Flora's filing the lawsuit. I don't feel there. I have the expertise to comment on the hypothetical nature of it, but I do flag on the legal side the increasing complexity as I see it from a litigator around the case. And, and, go ahead. No, I mean to cut you off. Go ahead. No, I was going to say, and

to add to your point, you now have five defendants. You have five major law firms all pointing their heavy artillery at this one case. As you said, some points they'll join together to attack Flores' case, sometimes they'll do it separately, but why open so many fronts? But I'm not here to criticize another law firm, especially one that's doing sort of God's work, because I do believe in the lawsuit. And already, to your point, already, the lawsuit, let's be frank, let's call it, let's call it what it is. There are now 400% more head coaches that are minority, black, or brown, and there were

when Flores filed a case a month ago. The recent hiring spate and all the firings and irings, there are four people of color. They're just not one of them is not Flores, they name Flores. But so there has been a positive impact, much like your client, Colin Kaepernick, you know, sometimes in the beginning, that plaintiff who sits on the bus, who sits on the bus, who kneels,

who puts up his arm in protest, isn't immediately rewarded himself. That's often not the reason they bring the case in the first place, but they are leading the way, they clear the brush for those behind them to have success. You know, I always think to, you know, people like Brian Flores, the assumption being that he has to sacrifice so that others can succeed. And I always wonder, well, why, why can't, though, we just take a look at it.

Like, I love talking about lawsuits, Popeye. I love talking about the inner workings of litigation, but sometimes, though, I do wish that there could really be a broader focus on mediation, not as a strategic litigation device, but truly people just coming together and picking up the phone and You know, Brian Flores should be a head coach somewhere, you know, they should recognize his accomplishments It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion that he's never gonna get a job for the rest of his life

I just wish sometimes like human beings would just do the right thing But unfortunately we have a litigation legal system because that oftentimes isn't the case unless people are compelled. I wanna talk Popok about this fake bombshell, this John Durham nothing burger filing that relates to whether or not the Latham and Watkins firms should have to sign a conflict waiver

and the filing basically saying, there is no issue if Latham and Watkins firms should have to sign a conflict waiver and the filing basically saying, there is no issue if Latham and Watkins signs a conflict waiver. But somehow this was, became the biggest story in the right wing echo chamber, not somehow, because Trump was losing all of his cases and the right wing echo chamber knows where it's going. So they picked up on some random lines. What do we have. What do we have? What do we have to distract everybody? Oh, we got this one. And I mean, it's literally

made up fake news. I mean, that's why the right wing talks about fake news because they're the purveyors of it. But before going into that, I want to talk about our sponsor, our partner, Athletic Greens. This podcast is brought to you by athletic greens. Athletic greens has been a game changer in my life for those who listen and watch know this. I say the proof is in the pudding, the proof is in the zoom tape, the proof is in the interview. You've seen what I looked like 60 days ago and I started taking athletic greens. I am far more active, far more energetic, and it's really done what I was looking for before, where I was trying to pick and match different types of gummy vitamins and pill vitamins

that I thought suited my needs, but they were not doing the trick. Athletic greens is a category leading superfood product that brings together comprehensive and convenient daily nutrition for everybody. Keeping up with the research, knowing what to do, and taking a bunch of pills and capitals as hard to stomach and hard to keep up with, to help each other out and to do what's best. Athletic Green simplifies this process. One tasty scoop of AG1 contains 75 vitamins, minerals,

whole food source ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic, green superfluid blend, and more in one convenient daily serving. The special blend of high-quality bio-available ingredients in a scoop of AG1 work together to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet, to support your energy and your focus in aid with gut health and digestion and support a healthy immune system effectively replacing those multiple pills and other products with one healthy, delicious drink. And as the research changes, AG1 keeps up with it.

While most nutritional products that come to the market never evolve, athletic greens continues to obsessively improve AG1 based on the latest research. They've done over 53 improvements for this last decade, and they invest in the most absorbable and natural source for each ingredient and go above and beyond any competitor. This is lifestyle. For only whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy, free or gluten free, it contains less than one gram of sugar. There are no GMOs, no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it tasting. Good.

So join that movement of athletes, life leaps, moms, dads, rookies. Most importantly, I would say our legal a efforts like me and popok who have taken ownership of their daily health and focus on nutritional products that you and we and I need in the simplest manner possible. That is essential nutrition. Now, to make it easy, athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. If you visit athletic greens dot com slash legal a f today again, simply visit athletic greens dot com legal a f to take control of

your health and give age you want to try for those listening. I'm putting up my age you one cup right now and you can see it's empty. I literally drink age you one every day. Seriously, get athletic greens athletic greens, dot com slash legal AF. So pop up, I gave a nice tease of what's going on in this John Durham filing. And I guess for those who need some kind of reminder of John Durham and what's been going on here. So Michael Sussman was a very well respected lawyer at Perkins, he's still as a respected lawyer. I mean, I think he's getting an unfair shake right here. And Michael Sussman had some attorney-client relationship with the Clinton campaign.

When Michael Sussman argues now, though, is that the relevant period the Clinton campaign in 2016 really didn't even exist anymore by the time he approached the FBI. But he approached the FBI with information. What was the information? That Trump was conspiring with the Russians so that he could be elected. And that Trump was basically putting his people in connection with Russia, with a foreign

entity to support Russian operatives in interfering with the United States election. So Michael Sussman, a patriotic American trying to help the United States of America. But as part of the Trump, I've been spied on. There is a witch hunt taking place. Bill Barr appointed as a special prosecutor, John Durham. And John Durham's mandate was basically go and try to prove that Obama or Clinton was spying on the Trump administration. Basically, attack the truth tellers, attack the people who were trying to expose that Russia

was interfering and that Trump was colluding with a foreign power. So this is about attacking the truth tellers. And what they alleged Michael Sussman did is that when he talked to the FBI after Trump had won, he didn't mention that he was retained by the Clinton administration. It's really a trumped up pun intended bullshit allegation, you know, really politically motivated against Michael Sussman, that his omission, or his saying that he wasn't there in capacity to represent any particular party that that was false. And Sussman says, I really wasn't representing them at the time. I didn't lie to you, but

also the Clinton campaign didn't even exist really at the time. And I'm trying to tell the FBI that Trump is conspiring with the Russians to interfere with the election. You're coming after me for that. And just so you know, that's what that's how the Republicans use the DOJ. It could truly be called the Trump DOJ because that's what he had Bill Bardu attack his political enemy. So this John Durham case against Michael Sussman is moving towards a trial. There's a lot of pre-trial motions that are taking place.

And one of the issues that's raised by John Durham is that Michael Sussman's lawyers at Latham Watkins may have a conflict of interest. And what Durham's doing is something that prosecutors though do a lot before the trial, they don't want susment or any defendant for that matter, basically to argue that they had ineffective assistance of counsel because their lawyers were conflicted, because ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case is a way that you could actually overturn

a verdict if you're found guilty. So all this filing was basically asking was, Hey, Michael Sussman's lawyers, Latham and Watkins, you may have a conflict of interest because you may represent also other corporations that Sussman may work for. We don't know if there's a conflict, but hey, Nathan Milottkins, can you and Michael Susman just put on the record that there's a conflict waiver and that there is no issue here? Is really what Durham's saying.

Now, in Durham's filing, he does then go and basically mention that there was a tech executive, number one, who provided data to Michael Susman. Now, what this data basically apparently is in the worst case scenario is like data about like just the not what was actually searched, but merely the existence of potential communications through like the whatever it is, what's a called popo, not a VPN, but just the existence of like, when someone searches a website and leaves like just a trail,

and there was, there's nothing about spying on the Trump. There's no going into Trump data. It simply was there communications that was going on from Russia in the 1600 Pennsylvania area that's basically taking place. No, not even that. Not even that. No, you're now you're buying in.

Unfortunately, you bought into the Fox News spin. It's not even that. So look, there are four things that the Fox organization said and they were wrong on all for about the Durham investigation and the filing that they were wrong on all for about the Durham investigation and the filing that they just made on Tuesday about the lathe and Watkins issue, which is a relatively straightforward issue. Why Durham decided that he had to put so much detail into an unsealed document in order to lay out part of his case for a relatively garden variety issue of disqualification and waiver.

I mean, I'll let the viewers and followers try to figure out why Durham did that, but having done that, the issue is even better. Like you said, it was a, I think you used to phrase nothing, Berger. Here's what the Harris's how Fox reported it. Fox said that the Clinton campaign paid a consultant to infiltrate the servers of Trump at Trump's house and at the White House concerning the Russian investigation. You know how many of those four things are wrong? All four. All four. First of all, there is no link and Durham that not make a link in his filing between Hillary Clinton or the Clinton campaign and the hiring of this particular executive.

At most, they said the executive was trying to curry favor with people. He was doing it on his own. In other words, he was an independent contractor. He wasn't hired by Hillary. So there's no Hillary fingerprints on any of that. That's one. Secondly, he did not infiltrate servers. As you were just trying to describe,

there is a way to figure out the traffic. I think it's public data was all I was trying to say. It's public data. Yeah, it's pinging servers. And all you can establish is not what is being transmitted. He's not reading or peering into correspondence or communications. All he's doing is saying this server at this location

is communicating or has traffic with this server at this location. And it's just a data point. It's not getting into the service. They infiltrate the service. That's the second thing that was wrong about the reporting. The third thing that was wrong

is it was not a Trump's home, nor was it at the White House. As has been pointed out in a subsequent filing, it happened before Trump was president. So it was not at the White House. So Jim Jordan jumping up and down and saying, this is the greatest thing since the, since the White House since Watergate, this is a sitting president who was being surveilled wrong. This is before he was president. And it's not at his house. That's because people don't know where Trump lives.

I live in New York. I know what's Trump Tower, which is on Fifth Avenue, where he has that apartment that's ever shrinking because he claimed it was like triple the size than it really is. 30,000 square feet, then 8,000 square feet. Yeah, he just missed just missed it by 25,000 square feet. And Trump International, which is a building that sits on Columbus Circle and Central Park West, which he does not live in. And that is where the drive by happened related to the servers.

So they didn't surveil his house, they surveilled another building. They didn't get information out of it by penetrating the servers. They only saw a data flow and it happened before he was president. So over four Fox, great job. Now, having said that, it is a slightly troubling that there was a tech, a tech person and he's now been outed by the media. It's, it's nothing. His name is Roddy Joffrey that he, to Curry favor with the campaign, decided that he was going to, you know, take a look at traffic that may or may not have been private, but that it does not link back to Hillary Clinton. So if he's got a problem from a criminal standpoint, what does it have

to do with Durham's investigation? And why did he put it in a public filing in order to both embarrass Hillary or make some sort of allow the Fox News media, right wing media to make a connection and also for late them. I get late them didn't want to do it. I guess that's why they had a file. They couldn't resolve it privately, so they had a file publicly. But why, why file this to allow people to lead to conclusions and spin it in their direction? What do you think, Ben? Well, I think that's exactly what he wanted to do, John Durham. I think he wanted to file it to allow people to do exactly what they did. That's why Bill Barr appointed him and specifically to try to get that out there this week.

We know that Fox News coordinates with the Trump administration. Not only coordinates, they basically give orders to Donald Trump about what he should do and what, you know, he's, he's, Fox News became Trump's main advisor in all of this criminality. And a lot of the criminality. And so all of this is actually coordinated, you know, it's always projection with the right wing, you know, when they accuse might as touch and people of coordinating when we didn't even have anything to do with like the videos that they're talking about, the right wing really does coordinate like Fox News coordinates with Trump and they put these things out there

to intentionally get these stories in a week where they know Trump is getting crushed legally to help him out and to give him cover. And then Trump jumps in with his statement, basically, you know, declaring that there should in some years be a death penalty for this conduct. I mean, this was all coordinated. And as lawyer and as lawyer then used that this person we've talked about who has this small firm of that Mr. New Jersey, basically she works out of the clubhouse at Trump, at Trump golf course. She jumps up and down during the hearing and we'll talk about it a little bit later tonight

in the segment in which the judge ultimately ordered the Trump and his children have to testify in the civil case, brought civil investigative case brought by the New York Attorney General. She jumps up completely apropos of nothing other than to draw attention to her and away from her client and says, it says in her cross, her discussion turns to the, the New York Attorney General, Alicia Jameson says, what are you going to do about Hillary Clinton surveilling and penetrating and infiltrating my client's servers? What are you going to do about that?

What does that have to do with the hearing? And it's other than being an incorrect fox talking point, why is it being brought up in the courtroom? It just shows you the depths to which they go. Now, I want to just round this segment out with one thing because I've seen it on the Twitter feeds to you and me. The special prosecutor can be fired. People are like somebody fired Durham. There's one person that can fire Durham and his name is Merrick Garland. And people know my position on Merrick Garland. I want to ask your opinion. Do you think Merrick Garland who has the power to do it?

Ultimately. Do you think Merrick Garland should discharge the special prosecutor? Absolutely not. Agreed. Absolutely not. Agreed. Absolutely not. And he shouldn't do it because the special prosecutor right now was hired for political reasons. There legitimately is nothing that he has. The big, the big case he has is against this Michael Susman, which is a very weak case in and of itself for not telling the FBI that at least at one time

he was representing the Clinton campaign. It's a very winnable criminal case. He's got great lawyers and lengthen Minwantkins and why give Durham and all this kind of radical right-winning, extremists more attention than they deserve. That's all that firing Durham would do. And again, it is a manufactured, fabricated, nothing burger of an investigation. And look, Durham, while he's appointed for political purposes, though, is still at least somewhat

guided by ethical responsibilities practicing in federal court. And so there is also limits to where he's what he's going to do. Well, listen, and to your point, short of chloroforming Durham and taking him out. Garland does have under Department of Justice Policy. He does have the ability to call him in on a regular meeting to talk about, all right, you've been at this for a year. You've spent X amount of dollars and you've used this amount of resources and you're down to a one count lying to Congress against one lawyer in all of this time. Where are you going with this

and how much longer? He can't call them on the carpet privately, not going to be public, it's not going to be a press conference about it, especially in the in the Garland Department of Justice. But he can't, by the way, he might have already done that. I'm sure he's just not letting John Durham just do his own thing and he never checks in with Merrick Garland. I'm sure he's getting regular reports about progress. And if the proc, and if he finds that the one area that the attorney general can discipline the special, the special counsel, the special prosecutor is if he violates the Department of Justice Guidelines and principles, then he can be sanctioned or he can be removed. But I don't, short of that, I agree. Let him play

in the small little play box that he's created for himself. And don't draw attention to him. Popeye, you talked about Trump's lawyer making that absurd argument. Well, what about Hillary Clinton spying on Donald Trump in connection with the hearing about whether Trump, Don Jr. and Ivanka need to testify under oath in the New York Probe, while the New York State court ruled that Tish James has a quote, clear right to do so in conducting these depositions. And the judge noted that the judge Arthur Engoran had reviewed thousands of documents and even commented that seems like a words to

this effect seems like she's got the goods on the Trump administration and seems that this is a very meritorious prosecution and all of these bogus red herring arguments being made by Trump, Don Jr., and Ivanka about somehow that they shouldn't testify here. They need to be compelled to testify under the grand jury proceeding in the criminal case going on in the Manhattan DA's office, in which case the Manhattan DA would have to grant them immunity. The judge rejected that and said, look, this is the attorney general of New York. She's engaged in a civil investigation into misconduct against the state and she has

every right to conduct this investigation and her investigation has showed me the judge a lot of facts that shows that she's heading in the right direction. So it's not even simply pop-up for me that they were compelled to be deposed. Now under the current rules, the deposition would take place in 21 days and they'd have to turn over documents in 14 days now. We all anticipate them to appeal, because that's just what the Trumps do. And they're gonna use probably the RNC money,

which is basically their piggy bank to support their own litigation against them. You know, he has $150 million in the bank from all of his fundraising at his disposal. Trump. So he's not going anywhere anytime soon. And every time he looks, it drops, you know, the gas tank drops a little bit. He just has another fundraiser where he makes, he's shameless. He, he tells them it's not going to a political action committee.

It's going directly to my bank account. And then he just uses it to fool these absurd things. He's going to have a, he's not going to a political action committee. It's going directly to my bank account. And then he just uses it to fool these absurd things. He's going to have a, he's not going to win. Let me just make a popokian prediction. He is not going to win at the first department appeal, which is where it goes first in Manhattan. And he's not going to win it at the court of appeals, the highest court of the land in New York. Here he knows that he's already been dropping press releases about, I can't get a fair shake in New York. The judges are all against me. Patricia James ran on a platform to bring me down. That's all she's doing. But he's having terrible, terrible days in court as a prelude. And we're going to get to it eventually. To what I think, and I've talked about it on legal AF Wednesday, is the spark

that'll burn down the paper house of the Trump Empire financially because of the domino effect from having his 11 year auditors and accountants not only just walk away, it's one thing to say, we're not doing your returns this year. We're not doing your financial statements this year because you're not being cooperative with us on some issues we've asked you about, which is what they've said. But for them, I've been doing this for 32 years. I deal with auditors and accountants all the time,

including when I work for a public company. I've never seen an auditor walk away and walk away and leave and detonate a hand grenade in the face of the client on the way out, which was everything that's in all of the financial reporting, banks, lenders, investors, anybody else that was relying on these financial statements, completely unreliable. Don't rely on them, which only supports the 160 pages that that says James filed a month ago, outlining all of the financial fraud and inflated asset values and inflated financial statements that that Trump and his family have been basing.

You know, this has been the the paperhouse, the the sand castle upon which the entire Trump financial empire is based. I'll read the measure's statement quote, we have come to this conclusion, the conclusion that their financial statement should no longer be relied on and they're resigning. We have come to this conclusion based in part upon the filings made by the New York Attorney General on January 18, 2022, our own investigation and information received from internal and external sources, while we have not concluded that the various financial statements as a whole contain material discrepancies based upon the totality of circumstances, we believe our advice to you no longer,

our advice to you no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate. Again, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate. We, again, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate. Now, the one thing I want to focus on here is we talked about this on the Midas Touch podcast, but there's just, you know, a lawyer wrote that statement for them to send to the general organization. Literally. But here's, I think, the important part.

Well, we have not concluded that the various financial statements, quote, as a whole, quote, contain material discrepancies, based upon the totality of circumstances, we believe our advice to you no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate. So to me, what they are saying there is, as a whole, we know what we're doing at Mazers. Like we're putting together financials as we see them. There's some accurate stuff that we put together, but we know how to do math. We're doing our job as a whole.

But they didn't say that there's no areas that contain material discrepancies. What's obvious in the statement reading between the lines is what they're saying is you, Trump, provided us with the material discrepancies. That's what we no longer can rely on because it's obvious the input data that we were given by you is false and fraudulent. Now they don't say that specifically, but am I lawyerized? That's how I read the statement. Oh yeah.

The measure's result is interesting for two reasons. One, while they were not the auditor, they did provide certified financial statements to banks and lenders on behalf of Trump. So for Trump to issue a press release, which every time he issues a press release, it's like another gift for the prosecutors and the civil investigators against him. Because he said a couple of things.

He said, why would anybody rely on my financial statements? They always understated my finances and my assets because I have a brand that's worth $3 billion where to get that from his own mind. And therefore, the financial statements were never completely reliable. Thanks, Trump. Secondly, he has a requirement in every loathe he's ever taken out. And just to be clear, he is not a billionaire. I want to make this clear one more time. He is not a billionaire.

He owes a billion, almost. If that's what your definition of a billionaire is, that you owe a billion, then he's a billionaire. But he was never a billionaire. It was always an inflated value based on up and down real estate for which he primarily did not own the real estate. He primarily licensed his name for the real estate and the development. So that entire hot air balloon of the Trump organization now may be torched because this issue with mazers puts him potentially in default on every loan up to $550 million because he can't satisfy the financial condition

requirement within the loan. I think that's a great point, Jaree's there, Popak, and to put more light on just one thing that you spoke about. Trump essentially confessed in that statement that he put out two false financials and understating and overstating his financial records. I mean, immediately thereafter, Tish James filed what he said in court and her filing said, you know, it's highly unusual but it's basically unprecedented for

a day after his lawyer goes in and makes the claim that Trump has no knowledge about these financial conditions for him to put a statement and basically do what he's being accused of doing, misrepresenting his financials. And so the short of it is, mazers is out, Trump now is swirling the drain and not able to satisfy his financial condition, clauses and covenants in his loans. And him, his daughter, his son are all subject to the deposition.

The judge said, of course, you need to be deposed. So that is those are those facts there. I want to talk about the Sarah Palin trial because the headline seems to be a great one. The Sarah Palin case was dismissed by Judge Ray Cough out of the Southern District of New York. I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin, I would say, whatever is furthest from being a fan of someone that put me in that category when it comes to Sarah Palin. But I got to tell you, and I have a great deal of respect for Judge Raycoff in the Southern

District of New York, but I got to tell you, this was a mistake. This was a bad ruling that was made by Judge Raycoff in dismissing Sarah Palin's lawsuit is Ben myself is taking Sarah Palin's side. Is it going to be good? It's going to be point counterpoint because I don't agree with you. So go ahead. Popoks not going to agree with me. But before going point counterpoint, I want to talk about our sponsor, master works.

Everybody needs to get master works. I want to take a break from talking about the debate that Popok and I are about to have for a second because believe it or not, it's all, it's not all about been debating Popok point for point on legal issues. In fact, here's some news though that you may have missed when you're just delving into me and PopoX legal news all the time. Get this. Fine art is doing so well. Picasso painting sold for over $100 million in an auction last year, marking a 1,400% increase from its original price.

That's a 1,400% increase, which is shocking. But when you learn that blue chip art price appreciation has outpaced the S&P 500 for over two decades, and that the Wall Street Journal deem that the art market was one of the hottest on earth, you can see why it doesn't take a computer scientist or a legal A-F-R to see that blue chip artwork might be one of the smartest investments you

can make in 2022. And thanks to Masterworks, now you can invest in Blue Chip artwork without having that Beizo-sized bank account. They're a FinTech unicorn democratizing the art market, enabling you to add fine art to your portfolio without being a millionaire. I'm talking about paintings by Banksy or Picasso. Don't get nipped in the bud by Bitcoin when you could be investing in works by iconic artists like these. Our listeners can get priority access to some of these new offerings. Get started at masterworks.art. Not.com. Art. So you go to masterworks.art slash legal AF.

Again, that's masterworks.art slash legal AF. Sign up and see what everybody's excited about. Me and Popock are excited about you. Know where big art fans own some pieces of art today or pieces of pieces of art today. See important disclaimers at masterworks.io slash disclaimer. So Popeye here is going to disagree with me. Let me set the stage.

The Sarah parent, the Salah parent, Sarah Palin, third times a charm, the Sarah Palin stays in the pot. The Sarah Palin trial in Southern District, New York is a lawsuit chief filed against the New York Times alleging that this editorial that was written in 2017 by the New York Times defamed her. It talked about the 2011-2012 shooting of representative Gabby Giffords, how Sarah Palin's pack had this cross hairs, picture, and that that somehow according to this editorial and implied that that somehow inspired the shooter and that Sarah Palin was there for to blame is what the editorial suggested, Sarah Palin said that is defamatory. This has been proven to be false. And she sued the New York Times judge Ray Coffs, the district court judge out of the Southern district of New York.

He initially dismissed the case, the second court of appeals, which is the court of appeals that oversees New York district courts overturned Ray coughs ruling. The case goes to trial. The case gets delayed in trial. Cassarra Palin who brags about being unvaccinated gets COVID. She goes out to all the swanky spots in New York, and apparently wanting to trying to or wanting to or just recklessly disregarding people and spreading COVID all over New York, because she had COVID.

Case goes to trial. There's a trial that lasts a week plus. the case goes in front of a jury. The jury is deliberating. The key issue here because Sarah Palin is a public figure is not whether the New York Times made a mistake in saying these things about her because the Times editorial individual said he did make a mistake. The question is, did he act with actual malice, which is the standard under the case, New York Times v Sullivan, when it comes to a public figure to prove defamation, you have to show actual malice when it comes to a public figure. And so the defense from the defendant in this case, New York Times and its editor was former editor was,

I made a mistake. I didn't intend to defame her. There was no actual malice here. We're sorry, which is an interesting defense. Usually you see defense is saying, we can do it. Here I think I messed up, but there's no actual malice. Now, while the jury is deliberating, judge Raycoff grants a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In essence, he's finding himself as the 13th juror, or in this case, the extra juror, and saying, I heard all of the evidence, I don't believe there are any facts under which a reasonable juror could find in favor of Sarah Palin. So I'm not even going to allow the jury's decision to hold. Now, he did something interesting and said, we'll let the jury make its decision,

but no matter what the jury decides, I'm the judge, I'm deciding as a JNOV or a judgment as a matter of law, which also known as a judgment, not what's standing the verdict, that I'm going to set aside what the jury does. Now, here's why I don't like a book, I don't want to hear books.

I've had lots of cases I've been involved with where I've been on the plaintiff's side. I wouldn't say lots of cases. There's been a handful of cases that my firm has been involved in big cases, big jury verdicts, where a judge after the fact, after a jury has awarded massive damages, you go through a three month trial. We have a jury system, a jury's ruled in favor of my client.

And a judge goes, yeah, I know the jury said that, but I think differently as the judge, there's nothing more frustrating than when you go through this trial. Now, one of the things we learned in the Sarah Palin jury, though, is that through push notifications, you know, those annoying notifications, sometimes you get out of your phone. Well, the jury, while they were deliberating, although the jury's instructed not to look at the news, jurors who had push notifications got the message that the judge dismissed the case as they were deliberating.

Shortly thereafter, the jury sides in favor of the New York Times. They do not reach in favor of Sarah Palin. The jury has since said that the push notifications didn't disway them at all. They would have found no actual malice in general. But I think the problem here's Popeye because why not just let the jury decide at that point? Why do that? Now there's going to be some area on appeal for Sarah Palin. So I'm not, I don't think Sarah Palin is right here. I think she should have lost the case. I think the jury did the right thing by agreeing that she does not win this case, inciting

with the defendants. I just think at this point, if it's a jury trial, let a jury decide at the end of the day, not the judge. That's where I come up, but I do not agree with that. I don't agree with it. This is why you and I get paid the medium bucks. It's for this type of disagreement, respectful disagreement, which is how we started our career in our friendship, with a respectful disagreement. I'm fine. I don't see the judge under rule 50,

the federal rules of civil procedure, a judgment as a matter of law, which is what this is. And it's not a judgment, not standing the verdict, because there wasn't a verdict. If there was a verdict, then it would have been a JNOV. But the judge is not the 13th juror in that scenario. I beg to differ. The judge is the law giver. And the judge is the last gatekeeper for cases before they go to the jury. There's a couple of places in a case where the judge is the goalie, the judge is the gatekeeper before the jury, motion to dismiss, which as you've talked

about, and I've talked about in the past, Judge Raykov said, oh, motion to dismiss, yeah, there's no actual malice here. Thank you, and good night. And the second circuit said, no, don't dismiss the case for Sarah Pail and yet. Let go through discovery and take it up another time. The second time, and I don't know what really happened here. Maybe you do Ben, you can tell me later. But usually there's a summary judgment motion. These facts were sort of undisputed. These things happened. This editorial was published, this admission was made, this error was confessed. And as a result, there either is evidence of actual malice at that point after depositions, because this is a civil case. So there were tons of depositions, everybody was supposed,

or there isn't. Now, I don't know what happened with the summary judgment process here. I'm actually surprised that this case got even past summary judgment. But that's second place that a judge as law giver can decide to dismiss a case or to rule as a judgment as a matter of law in favor of one or the other. There's one last place that a judge as a matter of law, even after the deliberation, even after all the evidence been presented, even after the jury's been seated, even after they deliberate. There's actually two more places. He can do it before what's called

either a directed verdict or a judgment as a matter of law, which says, we don't even go to 12 lay jurors. The judge applying the law to the facts can find there's no disputed factual record and applying the law to the facts. It doesn't even law to the facts. It doesn't even go to a jury.

You don't get your jury decision. You don't get your day in court because I have not heard any evidence. This is what Judge Raycoff said of actual malice. I heard evidence of an error. I heard evidence of an attempt to correct an error. And I heard evidence of, I'm not even sure he heard evidence of any damage to Sarah Pan on reputation, but he certainly did not hear evidence of actual malice. So to let it go to a jury system at that point, I think would be malfeasance by the judge.

Now, why did he allow, and then he's got one more shot at that. He can let the jury deliberate. He can say, I'm going to hold the directed verdict in reserve. Okay. I'm going to hold it sub Judas, what we call it. I'm going to reserve judgment. I want to see what the jury's going to do, but then I'm going to rule at the end. And then I've seen judges will let the jury do their thing. And I know you'd hate this based on your position.

And the judge says, no, no, I'm going to grant the motion for directed verdict because I got to do my job. And my job is applying the law to the facts and the pendant of the jury process, which is the fact finder. And then they apply the law. Now, why did he why? And I talked about this with Karen on the Wednesday edition. Why did the judge, why did Raycoff make the decision, announced the decision, but let

the jury continue to deliberate in the dark about the decision. And I think that was really a judge-break-off thing. He had already got synched the first time around by having his decision reversed. I think he wanted to see what the jury was going to do. But do you have any doubt that if the jury had come back and found actual malice, that he would not, he'd already granted the rule 50 motion? Well, that's what he made it as usual.

That's why I disagree with you, Pope, I can why it somewhat falls in between a judgment, not what's standing the verdict. I'm with you because there was no verdict. I mean, it was the motion, you know, that at the end of the party's putting on there, both of their cases, he dismissed it as a matter of law. But as a matter of law, why would you, if it's a matter of law on the judge, clearly sees there's no actual malice, why would you want that case to go to a jury? I don't know. That's why it's very, that's why it's very odd.

I mean, you know, but there would be a cynic in me that would say that it would likely the jury would become aware, even if you said that the jury wouldn't be aware that whether it's a push notification or whether someone's going to leave the courtroom, it's a high profile trial, whether they read it in a newspaper, they hear about it on the taxi going home. It's not a sequestered jury. You know, there's a cynic that basically says, you know, hypothetically was a judge putting his thumbs on the scale of justice there.

And that's, but I know you don't think so, but why even raise the specter? Why even allow that? And this is precisely what happened, though. Now, because of what he did, the jury saw it in a push notification. Palin's going to have an appeal to the second circuit. And I, you know, what I have? What's the grounds for appeal? The judge already, let me make this clear. The judge didn't say, I want to make this clear. The judge did not say, I am going to grant a conditional judgment on, as a matter of law at the conclusion of evidence while they're deliberating, because I don't see actual malice, but it's contingent on whether the jury comes back thumbs up or thumbs down. He didn't say that. He said, I'm

granting it. It's granted. I'm going to let them deliberate to make a record because I have a feeling he was reasonably confident that the jury, you know, he's watching the jury every day. He's watching the instructions when they were given the instructions and whatever questions came out. He probably thought, let me just, let me just lay it all on here. I'm going to rule. And I think the jury's going to go in my favor too. Now, where he screwed up is he should have taken their phones from them. When you and I go to a concert and see a comedy show, they're like, put your phones in

a bag. Why they continue to have their phones while they were deliberating. I have no idea. But he was the other thing that was not not that wasn't contingent on the jury. What if this changes your mind that there was a summary judgment filed? And he denied the summary judgment. Now, how do you were, were palens, lawyers, that bad, that they had the facts that were sufficient for purposes of overcoming a summary judgment,

that they literally couldn't put those same tribal issues of fact, essentially in their case in chief where he then dismissed it when it was in. Here's what he did. Raycoff, the reason why Raycoff was overturned originally by the second circuit in this case is he held a mini trial from the outset and he hated the case. He thought the case was totally dumb and stupid. So he said, get this case is he held a mini trial from the outset and he hated the case. He thought the case was totally dumb and stupid. So he said, get this case out. And the second circuit said, right, if you may believe this case is dumb and stupid, but you have to go through

what's the code of civil procedure. Reikov's like, but why this is a dumb, you know, he can say like this. He's like, but this is a really, this is a really dumb case. Why are we wasting each other's time when I as a judge know this is a dumb case and Raycoff's right. He is a dumb case. He's right to dismiss the case. The way he did. But also just the way it went down, I just would have said, let it go to the jury at that

point, let the jury decide that Pellan loses the case. Let them decide. And then Pellan doesn't have any other arguments. I hear your point, Pope, I get, I get your position. And I get what you're saying is that, whether the jury got the push notifications, doesn't make any difference whatsoever because that, you can say that their decision

became irrelevant at that point. And I guess what my point was is, why even issue a judgment as a matter of law while they're deliberating, just to let them deliberate, let them find in favor of the New York Times, and let's not have this process of now judge, you've taken this away from palin,

which she's gonna claim to the second circuit. And this could drag on longer, that's all, that's my point. Popeyes agrees, I won the debate apparently. I'm losing my lighting here, so I'm shutting up for now. Other additional just quick updates to talk about in the Matt Gaetz investigation,

we know that prosecutors in Florida, federal prosecutors are investigating his rape of a 17-year-old girl. I hate when people call him wingman. That gates his wingman. I mean, when it comes to rape. I might have done it one or two twice,

I agree with you though, it's inappropriate. Yeah, you know, Joe Greenberg, who formally served as the Seminole County Tax Collector and pled guilty to multiple counts of sex trafficking. He's turned on gates. His sentencing has been pushed back multiple times. Popak, what does that mean? Yeah, I think that it's bad news. It's bad news for gates. And, you know, he's been relatively quiet lately. You know, he's not doing the Marjorie Taylor green gates tour

of America, Van tour of America. you know, because he's not Donald Trump and he doesn't have the money or the status or the love of the Republican party the way Trump does. And he's in deep shit. It's not just Greenberg who is going to, is the reason his sentence is being extended is because he's continuing to cooperate with the prosecutors. And all of that cooperation, all of it, 100% of it, is pointed at Matt Gaetz. He's got now, they've got the ex-girlfriend who's testified to the grand jury and she recorded statements made by the victims. That's not good for Gaetz.

Greenberg has got every incentive in the world to roll over on him and just give every phone, text message, uh, travel, itinerary, photograph, video, the, and the like that he has. And I, I'm gonna go on, I'm gonna, I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I'd be shocked if Gates is not successfully prosecuted for sex trafficking. It's, it's imminent. I mean I mean, I think, especially now that this sentencing has been pushed back again, I suspect before the next sentencing that something's going to happen with gates. I would expect that, you know, and literally that could be any day at this point. We could wake up next Wednesday or next Friday or in

three weeks and Gates knows that he wakes up every day knowing that that will be the day that he that he gets perplex. He may not, he, you see, he wakes up, he may not be sleeping at all. And there's a no doubt about that. On other updates, Biden Supreme Court shortlist narrows to the three names who we told you on legal a F, we're going to be on the short list, Katanji Brown Jackson, Leandra Kruger. And now Jay Michelle Childs, Katanji Brown, Jackson sits on the DC circuit, court of appeals. She was already approved with bipartisan support

into that position in the past year. So, you know, that's why that's a safe pick as well. Leandra Krueger, who's on the California Supreme Court, incredible record, incredible prosecutor. I think a bit of a riskier pick though simply because she hasn't gone through the process already. And we don't know if she has bipartisan support or how that's going to go down. Although at this point, Democrats have the vote. So it's not like we need bipartisan support here. And then Jay Michelle Childs district court judge from South Carolina. We know Congressman Clyde Born, who was instrumental in helping Biden get elected. He's from South

Carolina. South Carolina was a pivotal state for Biden and Clyburn saying, you got to pick child's position on that, right? Because I'm going to flip here. I was I was on the J Michelle child's bandwagon a couple of weeks ago. We did a whole episode on legal AF Wednesday on it. I'm starting to get the feeling the Clyburn is hitting this too hard that he is making himself a pain in the always of the West Wing. And that siding with Lindsey Graham is not going to satisfy the progressive wing of the party.

And I'm not sure Jay Michelle Childs is the briar replacement, the person who can bring the disparate wings of the Supreme Court together the way briar could. If you're looking for the most brilliant person, the most brilliant person who's probably the closest to briar in terms of temperament and ability to bring people together, it's probably Leandra Kruger from your home state. She's also the youngest. She'd be on the Supreme Court for like 40 plus years. She's not even 40 yet. And I think Katanjee Brown Jackson, I'm gonna now switch. I think it's either Katanjee or Leandra.

And I think Clyburn is actually doing a disservice to Michelle Childs to continue to her rang Biden and all the people around him to pick her. That is a very controversial position. Yeah, I know. That's why I'm here. That's why I get paid the median bucks. Po-Pot getting paid the median bucks.

Kruger was born in 76, so she isn't her 40s, so just she was 38. Oh, she was 38 when she was appointed to the California Supreme Court. That's right. That's why I get paid the median bucks. Po-Pot. As well, this podcast is brought to you by X Chair. From the first moment I sat in my X Chair, you know what my body said, Popeyes?

It's like, ah, this is what a real office chair is supposed to feel like. I never actually looked forward to sitting in my office until I got my X Chair. Can your current office chair give you a massage while you're working? My X-Chair can. Can your current office chair heat up or cool down? My X-Chair can.

It's all in the LMX massage and temperature regulation, exclusively designed and made for X-Chair. And once you feel the customized support of X-Chairs patented dynamic variable Lumbar DVL your back will never be happy in any other chair again High performance quality engineering extreme comfort those are all the reasons I love my X-Chair Now I can't wait to be at work and sometimes even if I'm not working I sit in my X-Chair just to get those feels so Take my advice try X-Chair. It's sit in my X-chair just to get those feels. So take my advice, try X-chairs, like the letter X-chair. For yourself, risk-free for 30 days. Once you realize how much better your chair should be, you'll never go back.

I promise. Go to x-chairlegalaf.com now. That's x-chairlegalaf.com or A F dot com or call 1844 for X chair for $100 off your order. X chair has a 30 day guarantee of complete comfort. And you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month. Go to X, chair, xchair legal AF dot com. I want to say this. I love my x chair. Make sure you get your x chair. Of course, Popok, we saved the best for last and it was Friday's 112 page ruling by judge. I'm eat mate. We should maybe rewind a bit just to tell you.

I mean, mate, earlier in the week, there were arguments from, oh, what's the name of that oath keeper, Stuart Rhodes, who was trying to get out on, he was trying to get out on bail. And the prosecutors, just so we know, he was remanded into custody, and kept into custody by the magistrate in Texas.

But then as we told people, he was going to be tried in DC. So he gets moved to DC, the motions for his release then get filed in DC. And I don't think Judge Mehta was not having that oath keeper before him. But it is just goes to show you too that these federal judges, it's interesting. The state court judges, often there's different criminal judges and civil judges, but in federal, I mean, Mata and the same week is hearing a bail motion that Stuart Rhodes and his lawyers followed, that filed that he should be released. And you're also hearing and ruling on the civil case brought by members of Congress and others against

Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Oath Keepers, Don Jr. and others in a civil case. And so Popok, what do you make of Amit Maita's first, the issues regarding steward roads? It would be great to have him on the Supreme. But for right now, he's doing God's work with all of these capital insurrectionists. He made the right decision on Rhodes. I don't know why Rhodes keeps bringing up getting out on bail. He's never getting out on bail. If there was anybody that was made under the federal rules to stay in pretrial detention,

it's got to be the armed insurrectionist and conspirator and leader of a pack of 20 oatkeepers who were bent, hell bent on storming the capital, armed and dangerous. He belongs in jail. I'm sorry, without bail until he gets his day in court. And if he wins, which he won't, he'll get credit for time served. Or I mean, if he loses, which he will, credit for time serves. If he wins, then he just spent a year in a federal detention center. And now we'll talk about Amit Maita's ruling on Friday, denying Trump's motion to dismiss the claims brought by members of Congress and others against Trump, Don Jr., Giuliani, by members of Congress and others against Trump, Don Jr., Giuliani, oath keepers for their role in inspiring, aiding and abetting, supporting the insurrection.

And 112 page ruling judge made the states, quote, to deny a president immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision, but the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity. He goes on, quote, after all, the president's actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the executive branch." They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation of powers, concerns that justify the president's broad immunity are

not present here. And the civil lawsuits here were brought against Trump under the 1871 Ku Klux Klanak, a civil rights law that prohibits conspiracies against the federal government or to deprive people of their rights. And the same ruling should be mentioned. Mata did dismiss the case against Rudy Giuliani, dismiss the case against Don Jr. And some other individuals as well.

And Eric Swalwell's case got dismissed, and then released some of his claims. Some of the parts of it did, yeah. But the big headline here and the big takeaway is Donald Trump himself will be subject to potential civil liability. This goes to the next step, meaning there will be discovery. Trump will have to be deposed. And these were very strong words by Amit Maita in this 112 page, order Trump.

As you legal aeifers will recall from prior legal a F he argued on the president at the time, I get immunity for everything. This was in my official acts. I enjoy executive immunity, presidential immunity. And Amit Maita rejected those arguments. I like to make this. Yeah, I like Maita's, I like the poetry of some of the language he used in that

hundred and twenty one pages. He he said it you can't you can't blame corn. See or end corn producers for causing starvation at a rally and then point the starving people at the home of the corn producer and not be liable when they go when they go in their storm the castle and kill everybody inside. And that's the analogy of the metaphor he used with Trump and what Trump did on the ellipse that day in fomenting the mob, in winding them up, and pointing them like a missile at the

capital. And what was he to expect about that? So now we've got the first ruling in the history of America, where a former president is being charged, is being, has a civil case against them for conspiracy to violate the civil rights of other US Americans. First time over 230 years of this republic. And judge made a felt the heavy burden in writing that decision. And I give him credit for having the brass to do the right thing here and make that ruling, which will now go to the, the, the appellate division above him at the DC. And then it goes to everybody, the Supreme Court of the United States. A historic week of Trump legal defeat, historic. I like it.

I'm Trump legal defeat. That is the title for the podcast. Popok. It's, it looks like it's getting dangerous wherever you are right now. I don't, I want you to be safe, protect Pope, and all costs. This is, this is this is Pope, after dark. I don't know what's actually going on where you are, Pope, so that does it for the legal AF today. I mean, we covered like 20 things. So we will be back on Wednesday when Popok and KFA break down the legal issues and the mail bag feature where you take questions from the legal AFers is an incredible thing.

If you have questions for Popok and Karen Friedman AgniFelow, reach out to Popok, reach out to Karen, DM'em or send them tweets with your questions or even email them. And they will get back to you, special thanks to all of our sponsors on today's podcast, special thanks to Athletic Greens, special thanks to X-Chair and special thanks to Masterworks. Popock always a pleasure. I sincerely mean it.

Like go be safe wherever you are right now. I'm for a drink. It's five o'clock somewhere and it's five o'clock after this show. I got one request. Sometimes you ask me final, final words, Popoq. We are tantalizingly close to 1,000 reviews on all platforms for our podcast. I mean, we're really close. I would, it would really warm the cockles of my heart if we got to an even thousand.

But it's up to our listeners and followers to do it for us. The cockles of Popock's heart. Wow, those are, you, you Popock likes poetry. For me, Popock, at the end of the day, if I meet Maita, just said denied, that would be poetic justice, but we could talk about Popocking Cockles on the next Midas Touch Legal. I have special shout out to all the Midas Mighty. See you next time on Midas Touch Legal. All the Midas mighty, see you next time on Midas Touch. Legal, pay.