Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Desperate Trump Facing SANCTIONS and Looming INDICTMENTS is even more PATHETIC

Episode Date: February 2, 2023

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo analyze and discuss: the Manhattan DA’s new special grand jury moving to indict Donald Trump for crimes related to the Stormy Daniels hush money payments during the 2016 campaign; the NY Attorney General filing a motion for sanctions related to Trump’s 300 page answer to her Civil Fraud suit signed by Trump himself, for lying about facts in his filing, and the DOJ investigates whether civil rights and hate crime violations have occurred as a result of Memphis law enforcement and others murder of Tyre Nichols and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Highland Titles: https://www.highlandtitles.com/ Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF, where with my co-anchor Karen Friedman Eknifalo we're going to discuss the most consequential matters at the intersection of law and politics at the midweek. We're going to lead off with the New York Attorney General, is not taken any crap from Donald Trump or his lawyers. They filed their answer, Donald Trump or his lawyers, they filed their answer, 300 page answer to her $250 million plus civil fraud case, finally. And let's issue James as it had her. People didn't like the responses in there, many of which were inconsistent with prior positions taken by Donald Trump himself and by others in the organization and other sworn pleadings

and other sworn deposition organization and other sworn pleadings and other sworn deposition testimony and other cases. She's moving for sanctions with judge and gore on. That's how you pronounce it, judge and gore on this week. And we're going to see this judge is already threatened. Alina Haba and her partner, Mr. Mediah, with sanctions for their frivolous motion to dismiss in early January. What's he going to do now when faced with obvious flip-flopping is putting it mildly, lying under oath because this document, this answer, this verified pleading was signed by Donald

Trump himself. Then we'll move on to someplace near and dear to Karen Friedman, Nifolose Hart, where she plied her trade for, I don't know, I said 20 years, she said 30 years, whatever it is, she was there a long time, she was the number two under sighed vance. And now we can finally report just a couple of weeks after we had Alvin Bragg on the show being interviewed by Karen Friedman, Nifalo by KFA.

We have and everybody knows it, a new special grand jury, 23 members, six month and length, investigating the possible indictment of Donald Trump for the hush money cover up related to Stormy Daniels back in 2016. All roads lead back to Michael Cohen, our fellow podcaster on the Midas media network. And his recent meeting with Alvin Bragan's team just before the impaneling of this special grand jury. We will report you'll hear it from a defense attorney, another defense attorney, but one that actually worked in the office, Karen Friedman, Knifelo, and then we need to continue to talk

about the Tyree Nichols, brutal murder assassination at the hands of Memphis law enforcement. And we're just now less than a week from when the video has been released to the public, the announcement that the Shelby County State prosecutor, somebody that the might as touch brothers, the might as brothers actually interviewed back when he was running for office, a progressive Democrat, has announced the indictment for second degree murder, at least, of the five officers and probably looking at a few more and looking at EMS and all the things they did that contributed to the murder and death of Tyree Nichols. And we'll talk about it. And maybe with a differing opinion about the velocity at which this prosecution

has moved with my co-anchor Karen Friedman, Agnifalo. Here she is. Karen, I'm all hopped up today. I don't know why. How are you? You look great, as always. Thank you. Thank you. I'm good. I'm good. I was just out west visiting my father who will be watching this podcast. He watches it every week. So that was so nice. That's nice. We you know, you we know you know the basics of who watches and follows us But we you know individuals that reach out to us through Twitter and social media and direct messages You know, we appreciate it. We appreciate putting names to faces and we have family members Sometimes my sister joins the chat, my niece joins the chat.

And we like that kind of stuff. And who knows, there's other people that are in the news that might be following our legal AF and find us interesting and fascinating for different reasons. But let's kick it off on this show with the New York Attorney General, the Tisha James. She's going to trial really, really soon in the spring against Donald Trump, the Trump children, we don't have to call them the adult children. I don't think anybody thinks we're going after Baron,

but it's the other kids. And the Trump organization for a civil fraud under her, probably the most powerful set of laws that any Attorney General in the United States has is the ones possessed by the New York attorney general in this case, Latisha James, which is under executive law 63-12, the 63-12 powers. It doesn't sound that exciting, but it gives her, if she wins and is successful, and we've already seen it.

And getting injunctions and financial monitors in place, she got tremendous ability to do those things that even the prosecutor's side can't do it. Prosecutors are jealous, I would think, of her 63-12 powers, including, discouraging ill-gotten gains, meaning ripping and clawing back money that the organization is not entitled to

because of their fraud, like the $250 million she seeks, death penalty for the organization is not entitled to because of their fraud, like the $250 million she seeks, death penalty for the organization. I know people got excited when I said death penalty. Death penalty for the organization can't operate any longer in the state of New York. That could happen. Barring and banning the individuals like Donald Trump and Ivanka and Don Jr. and Eric from ever serving or for at least a long period of time, in a role in a public company or a New York corporation as an officer or director, these are all the things

that she can do, among other things. And she's not brooking any guff by the Trump lawyers. So let me frame it. January, the Trump lawyers, because they're always up to their old tricks, despite being sanctioned around the country for various things and being called frivolous, meritless promoters of fraud and political scam by federal judges, such as Judge Middlebrook's in Florida, and having even judge Angkor on in New York be really upset with their conduct and their behavior, including if they're client Donald Trump. They were at again in January filing a motion to dismiss and the judge called them out and said, not only is this motion to dismiss, I'm going to deny it.

It's without merit. It is without good faith. It is in bad faith. I have denied all of these things. You're raising issues. Again, I've already denied over the course of this case. And he held back just for a moment in really sanctioning them, which is the ball that the Tisha James is now picking up because she's gotten a good look at the verified answer. A fancy way of saying signed under oath like a deposition,

sworn testimony, by a person, in this case, Donald Trump. It's a verified answer because under practice, New York, if most states and federal require if the, if the initial pleading, the complaint is verified, the answer has to be verified. And you know, nobody's stepping up to sign these things. So Donald Trump finally had to do it. And so under oath, he said things in his answer, 300 pages. And his children, like Don Jr., too, that are undeniably false because he's taken opposite positions on the same issue

in other court filings under oath or in deposition under oath in other cases. For example, he said that he's not the president of the Trump organization, he's an inactive president. Well, he's taken an opposite position in another case, an insured testimony. He said that he didn't have a relationship with for not oh group, the real estate trust over a piece of property. And in another case,

he said that he did and and so on and so on and so on. And so, I'll lean a let's issue James is looking at the judge, filing a motion for sanctions and to strike these things, requiring new answers, but wants sanctions. What do you think, Karen? Are you going to get these sanctions? I think that she will get these sanctions. I mean, you know, it's, it's, if you're going to file something under oath and answer questions, file something substantive under oath and answer questions, you should probably

look back at other filings that you have submitted. And I don't know if it's just incompetence that they didn't do it, or if it's just bold face lies, or a business calculation saying, okay, go ahead and sanction me, like I keep getting sanctioned, and I'll just, you know, get, I'll just, uh, you know, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. But I do think in this particular instance, given how blatant it is and how the answers were so contradictory. I think if there's any area that's gray and vague,

then I don't think, like if he said in one document that was filed, yes yes and in another document he filed no that's pretty clear but if in one document he said yes and in another document he said well I don't recall that's a little less clear so just depending on whether there's any substance here but if it's as blatant and contradictory as the attorney general suggests, I do think the judge will sanction them because this isn't, as you point out, the first time they've been admonished or sanctioned, or certainly even the first court where this has happened. And I think judges read the news and judges talk to each other.

And I think they're just frustrated with the way the the Trumps and the Alina Hobbes of the world just basically do and say whatever they want and have absolutely no regard for the truth or respect for the truth and the only power the court has to try to ensure the integrity of the process are things like sanctions and I so I do think in this particular instance that things like sanctions. And so I do think in this particular instance that that will happen if it's the case. And I think I think that the Attorney General is correct to do this. And it just also shows how how incredibly prepared the Attorney General is that that she's not just looking at the four corners of her case, she's also looking at unrelated filings across the country in other cases and comparing those answers to these answers.

So I think it's, it's shows that they're doing a brilliant job. And my opinion is that, is that the judge will engor on. I didn't know you pronounce it that way. Well, sanctioned just like, just like the judge in Florida recently did, I think it was a million dollars, right? As sanctions for frivolous and baseless claims in that lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. So I hope this judge will do something like this.

What other thing I wanted to just... Well, let me comment before you do the one other thing. Did you catch Alina Habba? And we'll see if our producer salty confined it on a YouTube podcast recently she actually had the temerity get on the podcast and Say out loud which I've never seen a lawyer who's practicing in front of judges do and say yeah We're really winning. We it's just not reported by the liberal media From the legal perspective and somebody who is related and intimately involved in his legal cases. I would just like to say that, you know, when people bring cases against

and which worries a lot of people, when you have those, but they're not within merit, there are systems in place, even when you have crooked judges, a pellet division, et cetera. And we've been winning. They're not publicized. They're not going to be. But I invite, you know, one time, I'll invite people to ask me questions directly next time I'm on with you, but I am happy to, because I know that's something people worry about, but I have to tell you everything is going to be fine. He is incredibly bright.

He always has been and he's always been by the books. So I will see you all in 2024, but I'm really proud to be working for somebody like President Trump and I hope I'm in it for the long haul. It would be an honor. Okay, I don't know where she's winning. We report every case that is that she's involved with. We do it in real time. we do it twice a week, and we've done it for the last year, and we haven't missed one. It's not like there's a couple of places where they want it. We decided, oh, it doesn't fit our narrative, so we're not going to mention it.

We've reported on everything she's been involved with, and she's either lost and or been sanctioned in all of those cases. That was one. Second, she came out and attacked the judge, including by vague reference judge Angora and the appellate division, which is the appellate court that sits just above him. She said, and I'm paraphrasing, we'll run the clip. She said that, you know, yeah, we also have to deal, we were winning, but we also have to deal with corrupt judges, corrupt, like hacks, corrupt appellate divisions and so on. I mean, I mean, this is like balls out.

I mean, for a, it's one thing to be a TV commentator, which apparently she's constantly trying out to be. It's one thing to take an opinion there and say these kind of things. It's another thing to be a practicing lawyer where she's got five or six cases going on around the country on behalf of her client and go and attack judges and call them

because she doesn't like their politics or she doesn't, not that that's exhibiting, it being, been exhibited by Angoran or doesn't or just thinks it plays well to the news max and bat and crowd. It's just, it's just crazy. But what was your point? You want to say there was one more point you wanted to talk about. Oh, so I wanted to just remind people that the suit we're talking about in front of Judge

and Goron that the Attorney General is bringing has to do with the valuation of assets of his properties, of Trump's properties in New York. So he would say, for example, this property is worth less than it actually is worth so that he can pay less taxes on it. But in other instances, if he wanted to say borrow money off of the property, he would inflate the value and say it's worth more and therefore I should be able to take more money out. And so that was the crux of the civil case that has these enormous powers you were talking about based on Executive Law 6312.

So that is what the substance of the case is. And the reason I wanted to remind people of that is because don't forget the criminal investigation into that exact same thing, the parallel criminal investigation that was going on at the Manhattan DA's office under side vans. That's the one that when the new district attorney Alvin Bragg, when he became the District Attorney, he stopped that from going in the grand jury. And that's when the two prosecutors carried on in Mark Pomerance, left very publicly, and Mark Pomerance

is now writing a book about, it's called People vs. Donald Trump, about that experience. But it's very interesting because there's been a lot of back and forth about whether Mark Pomerance can reveal information about both an ongoing investigation, criminal investigation, because Alvin Bragg has said it's ongoing, continues to be ongoing, and whether he's going to be revealing secret grand jury material, because anything that was obtained

from grand jury subpoena is secret and he can't do that. But what I wanted to say is this particular case that that Tish James is doing obviously has a lot of information that was not obtained by the grand jury and is public. And so I think that she and Mark Pomerance, I think that could be where he's getting some of his or his ability to reveal some of the information. And so there so I think that book is going to say a lot about what the underlying facts are of this particular matter. Yeah, I think that that's a very interesting point.

We'll have to follow it closely that he was mining, Tish James' investigation to have more updated information because his had become stale having left the office after a year and also a way to get around the ethics problems of revealing what he learned when he was a prosecutor. My favorite part of the, and then we'll move on to two-year-old office, the Manhattan DA's office, about new developments there. My favorite part of the denials in Trump's verified signed under oath penalty of perjury verification and the answer that he just felt was when he denied that there is a thing called the Trump organization. He denied that there was a Trump organization. Now look, I get that there is a doing business, what we call a DBA, doing business as,

that some companies use as a brand to bring under it all these legal entities that are actually corporations or LLCs or partnerships, and they got a branded with Trump organization. That's why when they went after the Manhattan D.A.'s office in their 17 count felony conviction for tax evasion, the companies that they really sued were the actual legal entities, a payroll company, and Trump, Inc. or Trump Co.

whatever it was called. And they didn't sue Trump org. We get the Trump org is probably a DBA, a doing business as it's a brand, it's not an entity that you can legally sue, but to call it like it that it does exist. And so they paid back Alina Habba by quoting from her own appearances,

including in November in court, where she identified herself as Alina Haba-Yurana, counsel for the Trump Organization, Donald Trump, et cetera. Right, because there is a Trump organization, it's sort of the umbrella name or entity for all the nefarious business organized crime operations of Donald Trump, which is shorthanded as Trump organization.

So we had that. Yeah, we're doing the Karen and I doing a little interaction here. We have our own little private chat going. Yeah, there's a recently released video. I mean, things are coming out now from the civil trial and are being unsealed. And we've seen things in the E. Jean Carroll case, like deposition testimony. And now we've got an a look at the 400 times that Donald Trump fought back in his deposition. And not I think the 400 times you took the Fifth Amendment in response to questions from from Latisha James's

office was interesting. I thought it was more interesting. The places where he decided to fight and fight back and put in affirmative testimony, which is inconsistent with not testifying under the fifth amendment. You can't do both. You can't say, I'm gonna take the fifth, but while I got you,

let me get a few licks in there, a few punches in there. What did you make? What was your kind of boil down takeaway of the release of the deposition? The video transcript or the video performance of Donald Trump assuring the fifth amendment 400 times in response to his question.

And reminding him, which we've always reminded people and taught people here on legal AF, is can be used against him in a civil matter. There is a instruction that will ultimately go to the jury by the judge that says, you are, you are allowed. You should make an adverse inference whenever you hear somebody take the Fifth Amendment in a civil context, can't be used against them in a criminal context, but in a civil context.

If you said to somebody, did you murder, you know, to OJ, did you murder Nicole Brown Simpson? I assert my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. They can basically interpret that as yes, he killed her, because they can take a negative inference or an adverse inference. What'd you make of it, Karen? Yeah, so that's, I think an excellent point that is a gift that civil attorneys have,

that criminal attorneys do not have, because in a criminal case, you can't use someone's right to remain silent against them. So it's really, I think, makes the case much stronger. But, you know, what he did was it was a several, I think it was a four-hour deposition where he, that occurred in August, and it was right after, I think two days after, the search of Mar-a-Lago. And he took the, he invoked the fifth, 400 over 400 times. But what I thought was interesting was before he did that, he gave a statement. And it was a seven- minute long, you know,

he answered a few questions, like, do you know the rules of depositions? What's your name? That kind of stuff. He answered a few just basic questions. And then the questioner and Attorney General James was there as well during the deposition. And that's unusual.

So that shows how important this is. And a different attorney, a male attorney, actually did the deposition and asked the questions. And he gave Trump an opportunity to make a statement, which Trump was prepared for. And he gave a seven-minute rambling statement, but he didn't really lose control the way he can sometimes, but it was a rambling statement.

And he said, this is the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country. And he called it a disgrace and that this was a political platform that that Tish James is using to make a career of going after my business is maliciously. And he said that anyone in my position given how political and what a witch hunt this is would obviously, would obviously would take the fifth to, and that's why I'm doing it. And so then every question after that, when they took the fifth, he said, for all the reasons

I provided in my seven minute statement, which I am incorporating here in in its entirety, I declined to answer the question and take my Fifth Amendment privilege. He said that like two or three times and then the questioner said, you could just say same answer. You don't have to repeat that speech. But what I thought was interesting is really what he's going to say is, okay, it's great. You're going to use it against me. You're going to give this instruction. But there's no admission of guilt here. I didn't do it because I had something to hide. I did it because I questioned the integrity

of the whole process. I questioned this persecution in the first place. That this is a political persecution, and this is, Tish James coming after me, and so I don't trust it, and therefore, that's why I'm not saying it. And what concerns me about that is, you know, there are, it's a jury, right? This is a jury trial and all you need are people who agree with that.

And so, so that's the kind of thing that I think they're going to say. I think that there's so much evidence here that there will be, that Tish James will be a, that Tish James will be successful. But that's what I think he's going to argue. And, and I do think that, you know, you have to be very careful and pick the right jury because you have to make sure that argument doesn't resonate with anybody. Two, two comments on that. One, the length of that seven minute dietribe, rambling, opening statement thing. I mean, we got to look a little closer at the research

and I'm sure that Tischam's office is doing that too. I was always taught and believed that if you're going to walk down Fifth Avenue, which is the white collar way of saying, the white collar defense lawyer's way of saying that your client's taken the Fifth Avenue, which is the white collar way of saying the white collar defense lawyers way of saying that your clients take in the Fifth Amendment. You got to do it on a straight narrow and you can't use it as a shield and a sword. You can't pick and choose what you want to use it for and I'm wondering if I'm just throwing just positing it. I'm positing whether he has opened the door I'm just positing it. I'm positing whether he has opened the door to the waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege

because he's tacked on this hokey seven minutes, which you either take the fifth and you don't testify or you testify. I mean, it's subject by subject question by question, but you don't get to do both. You don't get to give a speech. So, I mean, look, she might not think she needs it because she likes the Fifth Amendment in the civil context for all the reasons we outlined earlier Which is she gets this really powerful

tool of the last word to the jury the last word to the jury is not going to be his rambling seven minutes That's going to be an opening by delivered by Alina Haba or somebody else or and in the closing delivered by whomever But the very last word on the issue is not an opening statement or a closing argument Which the judge instructs the jury is to basically disregard. It's just the lawyers talking You know, it's just it's not evidence But they're going to get an instruction It's not evidence, but they're going to get an instruction from the judge. One of only maybe one or two in the entire case besides the jury instructions going to the elements, but like an actual instruction about a piece of evidence or evidential issue

in the case. There's only going to be a couple of them. One of them is going to be you are two, you know, you can make or adverse inference. Here's what adverse inference means. So I think the weight of it, the weight of the scale tips substantially in the prosecution's favor because they get literally the last word and it's in the form of an instruction while everything that guy or that lady just said, that's not evidence. And that's an instruction given to the jury. So, you know, I'm going to play this out for us though. Sure. So, if, let's say, you're right,

and he waved it by making the statement, what happens next? Then he wouldn't be able to take the fifth, they'd go to the, if he did wavet, and it's a hypothetical positive. And I'm assuming that the NYAG, the New York Attorney General, has looked into it as decided, she'd rather,

I think she's probably decided. It's a very interesting academic issue, but I'd rather have the negative inference, the adverse inference instruction, then go play this game with Judge Angoran and Goran. But if I was right and this was a waiver, then they would argue that he is waived as right to assert the Fifth Amendment and he has to answer the F in questions. I mean, I'm putting it more poetically, but that's what would happen. But I think she's made a calculated decision that either I'm wrong and that it happens. It's not enough to be a waiver under the case law and I haven't had a chance to really dive into

it for this podcast. It's just sort of my working hypothesis. But I think it's really, you know, you know, we were all watching sort of football and play off football these days. You know, do you take the penalty or do you take the 30 yard gain with the pass? Take the 30 yard gain with the pass, decline the penalty. So we'll decline the fifth amendment part.

I'll take the instruction that I really, really want, I've always wanted that. She knew he was never going to answer these questions. She knew, and that's why, when I know that in a civil context, I load up my Q&A, my outline for my examination, my deposition, I loaded up with things that I know they're gonna, they're gonna want to answer,

and they're gonna want to tell me a story, but they're gonna have to take the Fifth Amendment. And I'm like, great, because I know at the end, the thinking ahead into the courtroom, because lawyers like you and I, that are practicing trial lawyers that have tried cases. We're always thinking, I have a little mini courtroom scene running in my head like all day long,

where I project the case that I'm working on for that moment Into the courtroom about how a piece of evidence or a witness or an issue is gonna play out in front of live people Not just all this you know sort of make believe practice stuff I have opponents as lawyers who who get off on you know things that are really unimportant But they think they're getting wins before the actual trial with like the trial judge or the magistrate. And that's the practice. Okay, the game is the trial. That's game day. So all this stuff that you won and I'm not saying you can't get adverse rulings that can't hurt your case. Certainly we've seen it with a lead of hobba time and time again. But you know, some of this is just BS victories in them. But the real, the real is, you know, when you and I are in a courtroom with a live jury,

a real judge, a four person, a clerk, you know, the bailiff, that's it, man. And I'm always, and I'm sure you are too, thinking about my case, even now, a case that I'm not gonna try for a year from now, about how certain issues gonna play out in the courtroom. And we know, let's issue James is doing the exact same thing. Let's stay in the courthouse going to play out in the courtroom. And we know, let's just say James is doing the exact same thing. Let's stay in the courthouse.

Let's stay in the courtroom. Let's move to grand juries. We did a whole, Karen did a great job last week with a whole tutorial about the special purpose grand jury in Fulton County. And then you got to get a regular grand jury and a hearsay exceptions. And that's great. Good news. And she and another podcast,

she did a great job at reminding me because I've forgotten that there are also special grand juries but they're different in New York. The good news is the ones in New York can indict. And that's not why they're called special. And we're gonna hear more about that. We have a special grand jury announced on Monday. Surprise a lot of people,

we do something was coming because Michael Cohen very publicly announced on the podcast on this network that he had just gone down to Alvin Bragg's office and gave another interview. So we do something was cooking, which didn't know exactly what it was. Carrie might have known, but, but, but the average person didn't know. They have empaneled. They pick 23 Manhattan residents to sit for six months up to six months to listen to evidence. Now I got a couple of questions for you right off the bat. The press reporting is it's about the stormy Daniels cover up hush money paid by Michael Cohen $130,000. Reimbursed by the Trump organization through Alan Weisselberg and others. Michael Cohen has already testified gone to prison that Donald Trump knew about it, authorized it, everything that happened in that place that dealt with money. Trump knew and authorized Weisselberg did too.

That's his testimony. So that's the reporting. First question. A, how do we know that? Is that something that's been publicly announced? And B, is that the only thing the grand jury could look at? Or is this an opportunity for Alvin Bragg to bring back a couple of other, what I know is referred to in your office

as been reported, zombie cases, cases that are like we're wandering around sort of lifelessly like walking dead or the, you know, the, the last of us and have, have, have regained life. They've been reanimated with new evidence and new facts and new vigor by Alvin Bragg and his new team of prosecutors. So first question, it, how do we know it's, it's stormy Daniels?

I mean, I'm glad it is, but how do we know? And two, or B, is that the only thing the special grand jury could look at during the time that it's impaneled? To all answer your second question first. The second question is, is that the only thing they can look at in that? That, to me, is that it depends? And it depends on what the, when you apply for a special grand jury, sometimes you put parameters in there. Normally, you leave it vague so that as the evidence leads to other things, you can do other things. But I would guess that they allowed themselves the ability to have the evidence go where it

leads, and so that it could be any of these charges if they wanted to. But to answer your first question, how do we know that it's the Stormy Daniels case? I think there's a few reasons why we know. First of all, because the statute of limitations on that case is coming up soon. And so that is, you know, they have to indict this case, I think around May of 2023. So just timing wise, it makes sense that that is the case. Also the reason I think it's the case is because Michael Cohen is central to this particular matter and he's not necessarily essential or central to the other case, the one regarding the inflation and devaluation of assets.

So that's another reason. And the third reason is the New York Times reported that they saw David Pecker, who is the former publisher of the National Enquire, who is the one who helped broker the deal with Stormy Daniels. They saw him going into the grand jury this week. So that's another indication of why it is. And finally, because of the prosecutor who's working on this case, I think, you know, is working on this particular case, not the other case.

So there's a few reasons that lead me to believe that this is really what they're focusing on at the moment, which doesn't mean they're not doing other things, but that that's the case that's going into the grand jury right now. First, one thing that I thought was a little bit ironic was that as we have said many times the Sivance case that we just talked about that Alvin Bragg said he's going to, that he says he's not ready to go into the grand jury on which is the parallel tissue chains civil case. You know, it's funny that Sivance also looked at the Stormy Daniels case.

And Syvance didn't think there was enough to go in on that case, but did feel there was enough to go in on the Tish James parallel case. Alvin Bragg says, no, no, there's not enough in the Tish James case, but yes, on the Stormy Daniels case. I thought that was just sort of interesting that each of them kind of picked a different case to go forward on. The reason Syvance had an issue with this case, the Starmidannial's case, and the reason Alvin Bragg is going to have a potential legal concern is the law is unclear here. The theory of the Stormy Daniels case

isn't really about whether it was improper for Donald Trump to pay Stormy Daniels or for, that's not really the crime. The crime is, it's a really narrow question, which is at the time of the 2016 election, okay, the theory is that when this money was paid, how was it entered into the business ledger, like the accounting ledger?

And that's the question, was it identified as legal fees which it's not in order to try and hide this so that the voters wouldn't learn about this? Is it that or is it something else? And so if that looks say that it is falsely recorded in the business ledgers in some sense, what happens next is you analyze whether this is falsifying a business record, which is a crime in New York state, and falsifying a business record, which

is a crime that prosecutors bring all the time in New York. There is a misdemeanor and a felony, and I think Sivance had determined there was a misdemeanor potentially there. That's the stronger charge. But the question is really, is there a felony and what would make it a felony? And it's still a low level felony. But what bumps it up to a felony is that you either that you either were covering up a different crime or in some way using it to help commit a different crime. And so the question that Alvin is going to have to prove is what is that crime that when they falsified this ledger entry that was committed, that they were covering up. And what people are saying is it was New York State election law violations. But what about if it's a federal election violation? Now, can New York State have, does that count if it's a federal crime?

Because it's clear he violated a federal crime because he was running for federal office. So, but can you use a federal crime as the predicate for the felony bump up for falsifying business records? And there is no law on that. Or if so, if there is law, it's not favorable. And so the question is, what about, is it a New York state election law violation? And that's trickier because it was a federal election. And so because it's such a question about whether the law even applies here,

I think that's why Syvance thought decline to go forward on that. And instead thought the stronger case was the one that Tish James brought in her 250 count whatever it was or page civil complaint. That sort of details what all the issues were and Sy Vance thought that was a stronger case. So Alvin Bragg assures us that both cases are still viable and pending, but I think he's going to go forward on the Stormy Daniel ones first given the statute of limitations.

Yeah, and I think the witnesses here are very, very interesting. So you got David, I don't know if it's Picard or Pecker, but we're going to call him Pecker, who's the national inquire head. Oh, it has to be Pecker. Well, I don't, I don't, you somebody corrected me on my, I did a hot take on this. And they said, I think it's Picard and I wrote back, I don't have to be pecker. Well, I don't, I don't, somebody corrected me on my, did a hot tick on this. And they said, I think it's Picard and I wrote back, I don't care. I know it.

So I'm saying it's a pecker. He's so sleazy. He doesn't deserve to have his name or else properly. Or he's served to have his name pronounced pecker. Yeah, he's been covering up for Donald Trump and cleaning up behind that elephant for years. He did it exactly the same thing involving a playboy playmate who also

accused Donald Trump shock of doing something sexually inappropriate with her. He paid her and what was then referred to as a catch and kill program, not what you think, although they maybe it is what you think, where the national inquirer ran interference for Donald Trump, went out and tried to find negative stories against him, paid the people for their stories, ostensibly to run them in the national inquirer, okay magazine or any of these other rag sheets that he ran, and then killed the story. So paid force to the catch and the kill. So he found out about this Playboy playmate, I think your last name is Donnie U, something like that, or McDonald.

I'll get it right, I'll put it up on the chat. And paid her $150,000. Sounds a lot like Stormy Daniels, $130,000. And they paid the National En inquiry to David Piccar, Pecker paid a fine to the FEC for a election violation for helping Donald Trump in this way and in kind help by paying off to stop this, this person from going public with her story. Stormy Daniels, same thing. Michael Cohen paid the 130 got reimbursed as a legal expense on the books and records of the Trump organization through Alan Weiselberg. And now the reporting is that the New York Attorney General, sorry, the Manhattan DA is looking at a few more

people to talk to, one at the campaign, one or two at the Trump campaign, because as remember, this hush money aided his efforts to become president, so aided his campaign. What was the coordination like with the campaign people? And two people who know also where all the bodies are buried, which is the controller of the company, who were the auditor of the company, who was very shaky in his testimony, presumably in favor of the Trump organization during the felony conviction trial for the tax evasion. So he's a week, a week link that they're going to go pound to try to get him to turn more on Donald Trump.

And Donald Trump's long time executive assistant, who I said on a hot take recently, having worked on Wall Street and in New York, No one knows more about the operations of a family office than the executive assistant of the chairperson And so she heart testimony is gonna be really really really relevant here She could you know turn on him like Nixon's secretary about the missing the missing 18 or 18 minutes or whatever it was on the water gate tips And then I was little known oh go tapes. And then last. Little known. Oh, go ahead. No, no, go ahead. I was just going to say a little known fact is that the New York Times actually and other

other news organizations, but the New York Times in particular, when they know that something like this is going on, they actually park reporters outside the Manhattan DA's office and they'll see the witnesses going in and they will report on that. So I predict we're going to see Michael Cohen going in very soon. Oh, yeah. I think it's already been reported that he is going back for a second round and will likely go in, certainly go into the grand jury. We won't bore everybody with the details about the pros and cons of Michael Cohen.

Having served his debt to society and been very, very honest and forthright about what he did, what he did wrong, and what Trump did wrong incrementally about him as a witness. He carries a little bit of water with him when he goes into a, into a, in any case, because of obvious bias that will be argued against him, having served time and, and trying to retaliate against Trump. I mean, this will be the arguments that will be raised against him. But, look, these are interesting legal facts about your old office that we're gonna follow. We're not yet here to, you know,

throw a ticker tape parade down Fifth Avenue, the real Fifth Avenue for Alvin Bragg. That's not what we're doing. We're just reporting the facts and giving you our opinion about what these developments mean in real context. Another interesting, you want to say something, Karen? I was going to say Lord Popocht, do you have anything to tell us? Well, it is interesting.

Salty probably has something ready to put up on the screen. There's another interesting legal fact that comes all the way from Scotland time to talk about one of our favorite novelty sponsors, Highland titles. Scotland has legally defined souvenir emphasis souvenir plots of land. These gift size plots are so small that they are recognized as a novelty. In other words, you can't build a castle on them. They're like one inch by one inch or one foot by one foot or whatever you buy. Unlike regular plots of land, souvenir plots can be purchased for less than 50 bucks without the need for evolving lawyers.

Highland titles has been selling souvenir plots of land as a gift since 2006, and they have more than 400,000 customers, including Lord Michael Popuck. I, as a novelty, not because I thought I was actually buying property at Scotland, but I am helping to helping a multi-acre preserve in Scotland. It does, of course, exist in a supported by Highland Tows.

I bought as a joke, as a goof, a title for myself. And I think if our producers, salty, is around, we're going to be able to show you what it looks like. And I did exactly what you're going to be able to do, which is to go on to the website when I give you the code and with a discount from League of Legends. And you could buy one for you, your family, your friends, your niece, and nephews,

anybody that's important to you in your life or that anybody that you wanna make laugh when they open the box or open the digital box. This is a gift for you. The really cool part about becoming a landowner in Scotland is the tradition of affording Scottish landowners, a courtesy title. You can buy one square foot of land. See, there it is, one square foot of land

in the beautiful Scottish islands for less than 50 bucks and become a layered Lord or lady. Cara, what's a layered? Is that like a junior Lord? No, I think it's just, I looked it up last time when I know that's why I asked you to do somebody yeah it's it's it's more of a hybrid you know you can it's it's got it it's like a hybrid title it does not exactly a lord or a lady okay you know I'm buying it because I want to be a lady not so

much a landowner you are a lady even without a certificate you be a lady, not so much a landowner, but I want to have. You are a lady, even without a certificate, you're a lady, wouldn't you? I know, but I want an official, you know, I love all that kind of royal, you know, damn good. So I think it'd be fun to be a lady. And it will be. And customers receive a luxury personalized gift pack. I got mine and a uniquely identified plot of land. I got that too, which forms part of the Highland titles,

Nature Reserve, Go online, look it up. It's a beautiful reserve and they use part of the proceeds from this souvenir title sale to support that reserve. This is one of the most popular nature reserves in all of Scotland. You could also buy two plots of land. I think I did this. Side by side, which would make a terrific gift

for Valentine's Day, I know I did this. Well, you're so romantic, Paupac. I have no idea. Yes, and she's a lady and I'm a lord. We have a joining plots. No, that's a powerful. Especially since the Scottish Highlands are renowned for their beauty and

wildly regarded as one of the most romantic locations on the planet visit. W, W, W dot Highland titles, dot com. That's H I G H L A N D T I T L E S dot com for more information on the everlasting gift of Scottish Land. You can use the discount code you could use. You should use, I did, legal AF, L-E-G-A-L-A-F to receive 20% off your order. Highland titles, a fun sponsor to have on the show. Now there's no way to segue into that, from that or any sponsor, into another segment

in our show, but it is important for us to continue to say the name of Tyree Nichols and to talk about his murder at the hands of law enforcement and the role of the federal government, the Department of Justice, who's now taken up the cause. And the difference between state prosecutions and Karen, you can of course comment on this, having been a state prosecutor, not a federal prosecutor. In prosecuting individual crime versus policy moves and policy changes that can be affected at the federal level

through the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and main justice. And we'll talk a little bit about the differences for that. Just to update everybody, I did do a hot take on this last week, right off of the release of the videos, and then of course the subsequent indictment of the five original police officers and now others that also violated their oath and their duty to protect them to serve and

to protect the life, liberty and property. And they killed, as we can see from the tape, there's not going to be a tremendous amount of defense here, although I'm sure somebody will put one up because even somebody like Derek Chauvin who crushed George Floyd to death under his weight put up a defense for a while. So I'm sure they'll be an attempt at that by the defense lawyers. And that's fine. That's the world that we live in. I'm all about people being represented in a court of law.

Tyree Nichols, an innocent, a pure innocent, moved from Sacramento to Memphis during COVID, because he was sort of between jobs. I want to get closer to his family, moved in with his mother, which is one of the most sad, there's so many sad details. I don't want to rank them. But one of the sad details is he lost his life and was beaten to death. I mean, he died three days later, but he was effectively beaten to death in the streets a hundred yards from his mother's house crying out her name, crying out for his mother. What was he doing before that? He was taking photographs of sunsets of the sunset at a

park nearby before heading home. And there is a couple of things I want to talk about. I first I want to talk about what's the DOJ going to do about this and how they work parallel. And maybe from your past experience, Karen, you work parallel with federal prosecutors on the same or similar sets of facts. And so we've got the DOJ having made their appearance along with a progressive Democrat that also runs the Shelby County Prosecutors Office, the, you know, the DA there. And we have a progressive Democrat abide in appointee who is the US attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. Mr. Ritz, who's a Memphis resident long, long time born and raised the Memphis and is taking this very, very seriously. And Ben Crump, who's the very well-redowned civil rights lawyer who's taken up the case on behalf of the family, in his press conference along with the family, one part of it praised how quickly the prosecutors in Memphis and Shelby County have indicted, you know, three weeks

after the incident and on the eve of the, right after the release of the videos, conjunction with that. And there was a lot of sort of chatter about and speculation that the reason that Memphis went so quickly here and would not have, the implication is, they would not have gone or moved this quickly into prosecution mode if the officers were white and

But they did do it with great velocity because they were black I have a different opinion about that and I want to talk to Karen about it But let's leave that for the second half of the segment Let's start with the role of the Department of Justice Karen and the difference between what a federal prosecutor and a DOJ can do versus what a local prosecutor is looking at for the crime that he or she is being asked to prosecute. Yeah, so the local prosecutor is looking at criminal charges for the murder of Tyree Nichols. And that's a criminal prosecution. He's charged with second degree murder.

Their charge was second degree murder. And in that particular case, it's interesting to me that they brought that so quickly because police officers are afforded the ability to use force. And that others cannot use. And so police involved fatalities usually take a very long time for prosecutors to analyze,

because every single punch kick, beat, gunshot, whatever it is, every single one has to be analyzed one by one and was that justified and justified as another word for self-defense. And police officers and the law is different in every state and and I'm not familiar with Tennessee law, but I do know that for example police officers can use deadly force if they're trying to arrest for a felony in certain states, and including New York, or if the person is fighting, fighting them or they're in fear for their safety, police officers can fight back.

And normally, the analysis is you analyze all the video, you interview all the witnesses, and it usually takes longer than three weeks, and sometimes it takes too long. And a lot of the investigations into prior police involved fatalities, a lot of them have been criticized for taking too long. However, that's how painstaking it is. I've investigated numerous police involved fatalities, and there's no way getting around the amount of time it takes.

Just, they're just isn't. If you're going to do a thorough investigation because of these complicated justification slash self-defense laws, they move very, very, very, very quickly here, which could be for several reasons. It could be because it's so clear that it's a violation of a law that there's no fact

that they could present that would make it justified. And that's one possibility. Another possibility of why they move so quickly is that I think I actually think it's a few reasons. I don't think there's any one reason. I will answer the what is DOJ role as well. The reasons I do think they moved so fast was one was because I do think they're going to take the position that there's not a single fact that could come to light that would make this justified.

This was on video, but many cases are on video, but whatever. And so therefore we knew there was going to be a charge, but I also thought, think that they thought that there was going to be civil unrest, because they were going to release the video. And so they felt they had to do something affirmative to try and quell any rioting in the street. And by all accounts, the by all accounts,

there weren't that many arrests across the country and it was mostly peaceful. So I do think those were two of the reasons that they moved so quickly. And I wanna discuss with you the question you raised about whether or not the race of the officers have anything to do with it. But to answer the question is, what is the DOJ doing?

Well, the Department of Justice has, unlike a state prosecutor, has both criminal and civil authority, and they have the criminal division where they prosecute criminal cases, but they also have a civil rights division in the Department of Justice, which was created in the 50s under the Civil Rights Act of 1957. And what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice does is they investigate and bring a civil charges whenever there is, where civil or constitutional rights violated mostly of the most, what they call vulnerable members of society. So they enforce statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, et cetera,

and gender identity, sexual orientation, disabilities, religion, national origin, all that kind of stuff. So, you know, so they look at the case under that lens, and on whether Tyree Nichols' civil rights were violated, and whether he was discriminated against on the basis of race. And so, I think what that will focus on is whether or not he was doing anything wrong and whether or not this was racially, they'd be a person of color. And there's a whole history of police departments that use full people over and use force against people

of color much more than white people. It's even, they even call it, what was he guilty of driving while black? And as you put it, what was he doing? It was taking pictures of sunsets and going to see his mother. But they're going to, but for whatever reason, they pulled, even though they were black, they pulled him over. And they beat the living daylights out of him and it was vicious, it was horrible. And it was torture, frankly, what they did to him.

There's been some chatter that maybe there was personal animus, which someone thinks that he was dating, that Mr. Nichols was dating one of the police officers' wives or girlfriends or something like that, which, and then that's why they did it. There's also been the police also, in the beginning, part of what was in the video, was that they were already covering up, because knowing that they were being taped,

they were already saying things to each other on tape, while on the scene. You know, he was reaching for my gun. He was fighting back. Boy, it was he's strong. Maybe he was on drugs. And then a hour later, they have to write a report about what happened. The officers go and they write a lengthy report about it. And it completely contradicts what is seen on the video. So they lied about it, and that is obviously consciousness of guilt. And the fact that they lied, I think, will also go into the determination or went into the determination about whether or not to bring charges so quickly as these officers were not forthcoming.

And I think it's really fitting, Popok, that we're having this discussion right now on Wednesday, because as we speak, they are holding his funeral. And so I'm glad that we are honoring him and talking about him right now while he is being honored and talked about in his funeral. Yeah, Reverend Al Sharpton is giving one of the eulogies today at the funeral. I think it's good. I'll just leave it on the DOJ part. There are things the local prosecutors can do to prosecute the individual crime, but there are broader policy concerns that are only really handled at a federal level, on

a national level, by a department of justice headed by somebody of integrity like Merrick Garland, and a civil rights division, and Lisa Monaco and all the people that are involved, who are now going to find out if the two main two main types of charges that can be raised, one is deprivation of civil rights under color of law. You have the color of law because they're wearing badges and you have the deprivation of civil rights

because he's dead and they killed him. And so that's the claims that were brought against Derek Shovon. People will recall that he got convicted twice or he pled guilty to one. Once by a jury and once by pleading, related to the same act, one on a state set of crimes and one set of federal crimes that were brought, including this one, that led to his being sentenced to the federal crimes. On the other side, there's also a potential,

depending upon what they said. And I don't want to trade in magical thinking and speculation about relationships at this moment. A lot of that came out in the trial of George Floyd, I don't want to trade in magical thinking and speculation about relationships at this moment. A lot of that came out in the trial of George Floyd as well about maybe Shovan, New Floyd, when they both worked as bouncers in a bar. I don't want to go there at that moment because there's not enough corroborated evidence that's in the public record for us to talk about it.

But just because this was, at least five of them were black officers. There were several EMS and sheriff's deputies that were not and are also likely to be prosecuted as well. But race crimes and hate crimes based on race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or what they thought about any of those things. Person doesn't actually have to be gay. The person thought you were gay, and that's the reason that motivated the animus

and led to your death. That's a hate crime. That is a hate crime. That is a one that will be now investigated to see if any of this chatter where they're trying to get their story straight also indicates that they were targeting him and part of at least an ounce of the reason

that they beat him senseless. I don't know if you saw the reporting the New York Times. They pieced together the eye in the sky camera, which is a police camera, and all the other cameras and body cams that were involved. They figured out that they gave him, they gave Tyree Nichols 73 instructions and commands, 73 in a really short period of time, most of which were contradictory, most of which he could not comply with because one of the other five officers was doing something to inhibit his ability to comply with that officer's command. You can't put show somebody your hands, which was commanded 15 or 20 times,

when two other officers are simultaneously pinning his hands behind him. If you're already on the ground, right, you, you, you, you shouldn't be beaten for not complying to be on the ground. What they really meant is they wanted to lie flat on a stomach, but that wasn't the command because, you know, blood is pumping and rushing and adrenaline is flowing during their attack. You know, this is like mob, mob attack.

And so they're not thinking clearly either and they're giving, you know, misguided and contradictory instructions to poor Tyree Nichols who can't follow any of them, A, because he's got a heightened, he's got a heightened heart pumping and, you know, wishing in his brain and he's not thinking clearly and he's already been beaten. So, he's, you know, he's not able to make coherent thoughts.

I mean, it was painful and heart wrenching to watch him obviously knowing that he was that he could die at the hands of these crazed cops. He could see it in their eyes. He could smell it on their breath because only he was caught in that web, right? He's the fly caught in the web of the scorpion group. And when he breaks free for a moment, running for his life because he realizes he's in the clutches of some crazed, maniacal, you know, brutal cops, and they catch him and pay him back and beat his ass as one of the, uh, or stop his ass as one of the cops said under his breath. I mean, it's just, and you know, for those, I think you gave a very coherent and cogent reason as to why they prosecuted so quickly having picked through the facts and picked through the law and realized

that the best thing to do for the community, for the country as a whole, was to bring the charges quickly. I do not think to answer a question that was asked in my hot take, that it was because they were black. I think it's too much. I have a solid belief. Well, let me finish my thought, then you can give me your thought.

Memphis stands on the shoulders of other communities. Unfortunately, this is not the first Tyree Nichols. There is a whole say, say their name movement that is based on others like Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Falato, Falito Castile, Briona Taylor, Stephen Clark, and the rest, George Floyd.

I would throw Armad Aubrey into that. And give credit to Memphis led by two progressive democratic elected prosecutors and appointed by Biden prosecutors who understand the national ramifications of what has happened and have stand on the shoulders of having watched other cities not do this properly. I don't think it was colored by the color of the skin of the people that were the police that beat him.

That's my opinion. It sounds like you have a different opinion. Look, I don't think that, as I said, it was done for any one reason, or I think it was for multiple reasons. That being said, there's a long tradition and a long history of people of color getting beaten by police.

And that's because policing, unfortunately, has been the training of policing is very much one of using force and policing by force. And policing has to change. Policing has to become more of a community policing model. And some places are moving towards that. And I think that's excellent. But the culture of policing still remains the same.

And the culture of policing is very much, you know, unfortunately it's violence and it's fear and it's violence against people of color. And as a result, law enforcement, they have a script. And it's something that they use whenever somebody dies at the hands of law enforcement, which is, like, it's not rushed for judgment. Like, see, like, wait until all the facts come in. Like, wait until there's an investigation.

And then sometimes charges are brought. But no one said that here. No one even said that really here in the beginning. If anything, it was the opposite. It's fire them right away and bring charges. And I would just, I hope you're right, but I would like to see, you know, when I saw that, I was so surprised because that really is lightening speed. I've never seen something like this before. And then when they put up the pictures of the five officers and they were all black, my first reaction was, of course they did. I'd like to see them do it when it's white police officers. And the reason I say

that is because the police department, I agree with you that the police chief and the DA, they're all very progressive. But the people on the ground who have the evidence, who will give testimony, who have the body cam video, et cetera, et cetera, those are other police officers and other prosecutors. And nobody circled the wagons around these five. Nobody. They were just sold out by everybody. There was no kind of blue, you know, Pritzlick's protect our fellow officers and convinced the DA's office to just you know take your time and and looks way to see all the facts. So I don't think it was the only reason for sure and I don't I do

think it was all of the things we just discussed but I would like to see police departments to act this way not rushed to judgment certainly but when it says clear cut as this, I do think it's important to act swiftly. And so I applaud them for doing it. I don't think everything is race. I don't think you should say everything is about race or racially motivated. I do have to say though, in this particular case, the speed with which they moved and the fact that they didn't circle the wagons, it just made a lot of people myself included, raise an eyebrow, applaud them, and also hope that this is what you're saying, and will be more to come.

I don't think all police officers should be prosecuted, and I don't think, in fact, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement and police officers. But when you see beatings like this that are so outrageous and so clearly murder, frankly, I'm very glad they moved quickly on this one and on this case. And I hope that's what they do in other cases if there are other cases like this. Well, Benjamin Crump, I think, said at the best when he was at his podium with the family. He said, this is the new template. This is the new standard by which all other communities will be judged in applauding Memphis moving so quickly that it is the new paradigm that has to now be followed, especially when you have multi-camera video evidence that's

unassailable. There's no context that's these to be placed in, which shows as you said, the heinous crime and really without a defense or without an immunity privilege defense. But we will see. I applaud Ben. I follow his practice and his career. He's always on the right side of the angels. He's always doing what's appropriate for families like this one. I would hope we'd never have to have a podcast or segment about people like Tyree Nichols that lose their life at the hands of police brutality.

But I know I don't trade in magical thinking and I know I'm gonna talk about unfortunately, sadly, more people like Tyree Nichols over the course of my podcast career. And it's just, and the Republicans do nothing about it, just to leave it on a political note, since we talk about the intersection of law and politics. The Republicans love crime. They love to pin crime on to progressive Democrats, and on cities in America, urban cities in America that are predominantly on the East Coast and

West Coast and in the middle of America that are predominantly on the East Coast and West Coast and in the middle of America that are democratically run, democratic, democratic elected officials. They don't want to stop bad cops because they like crime as a political talking point in their campaign. Because if they didn't do that, if that wasn't important to them, just the way that guns are important to them and gun ownership is important to them. At the ballot box, they would be in favor as we all should be of sensible gun control in this country, and they would be in favor and be out there in a bipartisan way with all these crazy committees that McCarthy has had to create as he was politically

castrated by, you know, gates and others to get elected. One of the committees would be police brutality in America and how to use federal resources and the federal hooks that the federal government has because every police department loves federal funds. They use it for all sorts of things. The SWAT team, the shiny truck outside training, sometimes overtime. There's ways to get local law enforcement to pay attention to new policy set at the federal level, but we don't have

the political will to do that. And look, we were in charge of the House for a long time, and I read a list of people in that that equally lost their life as to at the hands of police brutality. And the Democrats didn't, frankly, didn't do anything about it either. So I'm not here to throw the Republicans completely out of the bus. I want states people to step forward for America and do the right thing from a policy standpoint,

regardless of political favor or what will happen to them at the ballot box. And I grew up with those kind of elected officials, Republican and Democrat who worked together on really hard things, whether it was the great society or it was the reformation of welfare, social net for people, or different things. We don't have that anymore.

All we had is, no you didn didn't. Yes, you did. And that just goes on for whole two-year term. And Biden should be given, as he should be, as he has been, a lot of credit for having probably one other than Lyndon Johnson. In the last 100 years, probably having the greatest term of domestic policy and legislation passed in his first two years, like almost ever, you have to go back to Johnson and the great society. in his first two years, like almost ever. You have to go back to Johnson and the Great Society. But that's it. It has to come from political, national leaders

at the federal level to address this problem because the local community is incapable because of the very nature that they're in that fishbowl. They don't have the resources. It can't be a patchwork of Memphis today in Detroit tomorrow and Chicago next week in Louisville. And some town we haven't even thought of yet coming forward

because now we're gonna be talking about Burbank, California or one of the Bakers field or wherever it is. I don't wanna talk about these places for those reasons. Okay, I wanna do like CPS Sunday morning. I wanna talk about it for really nice reasons, and really good, but I know that's not going to be the case. And so that has to be at the Department of Justice federal level led by a president of the United States, like somebody like Joe Biden. Otherwise, it's never, never going to get done. And I hope it's so easy. It's so easy for us to have a podcast and make comments and then move on. Press conferences are

really important. The family being able being able to say what they said. It's heartbreaking, heart-wrenching. Hopefully, moves the national conversation ahead. But it can't just move on in the news cycle. And we forget about it until the next Tyree Nichols. That's my fear. Well, I hope that what comes of this to your point is legislation. And the legislation that really needs to be passed,

and I think they're getting closer and closer to passing it has to do with the qualified immunity that police departments and individual police officers are afforded. So essentially what it means is you can't really prosecute a police officer, and I'm sorry, not prosecute. prosecute a police officer, an individual, I'm sorry, not prosecute. You can't bring civil as an individual. The family has a hard time bringing civil charges against the police department and the police officer because of qualified immunity.

Now here I think they will be able to because I think what they did is so egregious, it will fall within the exception. But most people cannot, cannot sue. And as a result, there's no incentive for the police departments to retrain and police their own police officers. And I think the only thing that will cause this nationwide, every police department to require their police officers to stop policing this way will be if it hits their bottom line and if they can get sued individually and as a person in their job and as the department. And so I think that it's been an issue that's been bubbling around for a long time and I think hopefully this will be the impetus to finally get that legislation passed. Because that to me is the thing that will require or will finally nudge or force police departments

to retrain and stop this from happening anymore. We've reached the end of another midweek edition of LegalAF with Michael Popok and his co-anchor Karen Friedman Agnifalo. We do this every Wednesday. I do it again on the weekend with Ben Mycelis of the Midas Touch. And the ways to support us, it's easy. Support our sponsors. That's important. You're going to watch this if you're watching, but you can listen to it too on podcasts of all the platforms that you get your podcasts from, like Spotify and Apple and Google and all of that. And that helps us because that helps with the algorithms. Doing both helps. Watch it. Go on and follow and subscribe. It's all free. YouTube free and podcast free, but it helps us. And it's a

way for you to kind of quietly silently and effortlessly support the show. If you think the show is really great, leave us a five star review. If you don't think the show is really great, we listen to those comments too. We're always looking to improve the quality of our show and the delivery of what we're providing here.

You can go on the merchandise store for MidasTouch Merch and our producer will put a link up for that. There's a really cool legal AF logo things for people that are watching and pointing to the logo right here. We got it on coffee mugs and long sleeve t-shirts and regular t-shirts as well. And you know these are the ways that you can help. We read the chats. We're in the chats so that people know that we can answer, we can see you, we can hear you in that way.

And we take it to heart. We not agree with everything that's in the chat. I've been known to push back a few times if I don't agree with something, but we do find it valuable to get a collective feedback find it valuable to get a collective feedback from our audience because it helps us bring you each week stories that are important at the intersection of law and politics. It may not be exactly the story. There's always people like, oh, jump up and down. I wish you'd covered this story or that story, but you know, we got to curate the show in a way

that we think makes sense to our audience and that we can bring our best research and opinions to on this show. So we look forward to seeing you and hearing you and reading you on the Legal AF podcast Karen Lastword. Lord Popock, it's great to spend Wednesday with you as always. You too. It's the highlight of my week for sure. And shout out to the Midas Mighty.